Dawn of The Dead Remake [Archive] - Film Threat Back Talk

bizzlejig

01-15-2004, 06:15 PM

REMAKES AREN’T ALWAYS BAD:

I know why all of you get so angry about remakes, and I understand and, for the most part, empathize. But here’s something to keep in mind about them:

The reason that you are all so mad about the recent wave of remakes is because the originals were made in your lifetime, and you have probably grown up watching the originals numerous times throughout your life. It’s not like the movies from the ‘40s or ‘50s being remade (like Carpenter’s take on THE THING) where you didn’t grow up watching the original. The only version of THE THING that I have ever seen is Carpenter’s version. I don’t really have much desire to go back and watch the original.

These remakes are probably intended more for today’s kids than for those of us who grew up on the originals because today’s kids aren’t going to be savvy enough to go to a video store and check out a horror movie made in the ‘60s or ‘70s. Just like watching old black-and-white movies from the ’40s doesn’t really interest me, grainy mono movies from the ‘60s and ‘70s may not appeal to them.

But the problem arises when the movie isn’t WORTHY of a remake. Most remakes are done because the story was strong enough to re-do it for a modern audience. I believe someone here brought up the social aspects of both versions of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (albeit maybe on a different thread). That movie evolved and meant something different to each audience that saw them. The ‘50s version was about the paranoia of not knowing people you thought you knew, but the ‘70s version was about how there’s so many people in the city that you wouldn’t even know if you were standing next to an alien or not.

THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, on the other hand, did not necessarily need to be remade. I’m not saying that I hated the remake, though. I actually kind of enjoyed it for the sheer fact that I haven’t seen a mainstream Hollywood film that was as gruesome and ruthless as this one since the heyday of the ‘70s. And it actually had a lot more gore than the original. But there were many aspects about the story itself that I didn’t like. Since it was a typical marketing ploy for the studio, they felt the need to make the Jessica Biel character just like Ripley from ALIEN. That pretty much took me out of the whole “this feels like I’m really there and this really happened” sort of feel that I got from the original.

And then there are films like THE IN-LAWS, FATHER OF THE BRIDE, YOU’VE GOT MAIL (based on THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER), etc., etc., that just did not need to be re-made at all. Sure the original IN-LAWS was a classic from the ‘70s, but even then it was just made as a piece of sheer entertainment. There was no great story there or commentary or anything like that. Same with the other two that I mentioned.

Which brings me to SUSPIRIA. I love SUSPIRIA. To me, it is a classic in the horror genre. Scarier than THE EXORCIST and most other American horror films. However, what makes it so good is the direction, the production design, the music, etc. What DOESN’T make it a good movie is the STORY. Argento has never been well-known for writing very good (or even, sometimes, coherent) stories. So why do they feel the need to remake this film?

I will give all remakes (just as I do all films) a chance to stand on its own. I judge each film on its own merits (or lack thereof, in some cases). So I will see the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD and make my judgment about then and only then. I haven’t even seen the trailer for it yet, but I’m not going to bash the movie before I see it. If it sucks, then I’ll bash away.

Carl

01-15-2004, 07:32 PM

The last post touches on a VERY good point: If, by catering to a younger audience, some new horror flicks get made . . . Great! The horror genre needs all the support it can get. If it takes a remake of an alleged classic . . . so be it. Hollywood does not give a sh*t about my age demographic (born before 1969). Look at the interest in LOTR . . . not my thing but it's got the film business putting money into projects it would not have touched 7 years ago. I'm a REAL horror fan: I see everything that comes out! Sure, I have my favs. Some are old some, are new. The point is: there is strength in numbers. Ever wonder why there is no HorrorChannel on television?

bizzlejig

01-15-2004, 07:44 PM

Actually there are two horror channels. One, I believe is on the VOOM Satellite system and the other is launching this fall. I don't know if it's going to be on regular cable or digital or satellite or what. Here's the website for The Horror Channel.

http://www.horrorchannel.com/hc1/http://www.horrorchannel.com/hc1/

Carl

01-15-2004, 08:00 PM

This has been in the works forever . . . it has a projected launch of 10/04 but I'll be shocked if it gets the financial backing.

Furious D

01-15-2004, 09:36 PM

You make a good point about some remakes.

I'd also like to add that there actually was a reason to Carpenter's version of THE THING. He wanted to go back to the original John W. Campbell short story "Who Goes There?" The 50's version, an enjoyable film in its own right, only really shared its location with the original story, changing the nature of the alien from the gooey shapeshifter and mimic to James Arness in a carrot suit and completely dumping the paranoia.

By going back to the source Carpenter discovered new facets that sadly most remakes aren't interested in. All they seem to want today is to rehash old plots with new special effects.

PS: There's an all horror channel here in Canada called SCREAM TV. I don't get it because it's only available to digital satellite subscribers, but it does seem to be up and running.

Seedy Edgewick

01-16-2004, 01:05 PM

Was that pregnant lady in the trailer Morena Baccarin, a.k.a. Inara from Firefly?

Remember, kids, the studios put all the best stuff in the trailers. Don't be too misled.

I have a problem with the zombies. On film, there are generally two types of walking dead: "fast" and "slow." "Fast" zombies appear in the Return of the Living Dead movies. They move quickly, think, and talk just like living humans. "Slow" zombies are the Romero/Fulci variety, wherein their threat lies in their numbers. It looks like the DotD remakers have opted to split the difference -- "fast" zombies that don't speak or think. That's kind of like cheating. If a zombie doesn't have the power of reason, it's brain shouldn't be able to control its body like an olympic athlete. And vice versa.

Oh, well. I guess I'll just count the days to the "Sleepless in Seattle" remake. [For those who don't get the implication, SiS was a remake of an older film; a remake of SiS would be a remake of a remake, the logical extension of Hollywood's current trend.]

KaosDevice

01-16-2004, 05:31 PM

I'm kind of looking forward to it, mostly because I have a thing for zombie movies. Watching this trailer just made me want to see Shaun of the Dead even more.

http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/film73/73image5_1_movie.swf

Graham Rae

01-19-2004, 07:01 AM

When there's no more room in hell...the remakes will walk the earth.

Seedy Edgewick

01-19-2004, 11:28 AM

So, how long is it gonna be before we see a remake of "Night of the Living Bread?"

Now with multi-grain!

Furious D

01-19-2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Seedy Edgewick
So, how long is it gonna be before we see a remake of "Night of the Living Bread?"

Now with multi-grain!

Universal Pictures was going to do it, but with that whole Atkins diet craze such a film would have just too many carbs.:p

Dr Creep

01-21-2004, 10:18 AM

What about Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things? I don't think the movie is held in high regard today, but it scared the hell out of me when they showed it on channel 9 in New Jersey way back when. I literally had to watch it from the next room. Anyway, the main reason to remake this movie is just to use the cool name. I definitely think that is one of the best movie titles.

King Crat

01-21-2004, 03:20 PM

Actually I AM looking forward to the DOTD remake coz the original is in my top all time movies (Alongside Empire Strikes Back, Videodrome and Magnum Force)

If someone can deliver a retelling of the elements that I love (and that quite honestly Ive grown sick of cause Ive watched each of my favourite movies over 100 times each) then thats fine by me. I welcome it. If they make a crap film then thats fine too, because what they havent gone and done (and will never do) is ....

gone and re-edited the original,
or dubbed the original actors voices with giggling Thai schoolgirls,
or spliced in footage of Bugs Bunny at the end hanging on to the chopper as it flies away,
or played 'YMCA' by the Village People over the opening credits

Romeros original is untouchable. With all the uproar you'ld think whats happening is its getting replaced.

Im excited cause any new zombie movie gets me excited. I LOVE zombie movies.

What does bother me however is the 'Flight Of The Living Dead'. Zombies dont run. I think we have Gunn to thank for that. Look at what he did to Scooby Doo (I wont ruin that pile of besh for anyone who hasnt seen it but basically this guy enjoys throwing iron-set rules into the wind)

gamerscircle

02-04-2004, 10:55 AM

I for one am looking forward to this remake. I thought that they did a real good god at the remake if Night of the Living Dead.

Along the lines of zombies. I was curious if anyone new about this new zombie comic book called, The Walking Dead?

It is currently on issue #4, started off a little like 28 days later, but is starting to get a real story going on. If anyone is interested, I do have a couple issues for sale at the GamersCircle Store. Walking Dead Comic (http://www.gamerscircle.net/catalog/index.php?cPath=22_36)

Additionally, I just found out about a new illustrated movie adaptation of the old DOTD movie called, GEORGE A. ROMERO'S DAWN OF THE DEAD #1 (http://www.gamerscircle.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=129) that I am currently taking pre-orders for.

Last night, I notices that my Tivo was offering a trailer for the remake. It was the same that is already out there, but I was able to step by step through it and saw a little more detail here and there. Looks good...

Chris Gore

02-04-2004, 09:02 PM

The new "Dawn of the Dead" trailer miraculously showed up on my Tivo and I have to say, it looks damn good. Sarah Polley has proven herself an accomplished actress in a lot of indies, and she looks perfectly cast here. She will add a lot of dramatic weight to her part. I read an interview where she complimented Sigourney Weaver on her difficult performances in the Alien films. How Weaver had to convey various levels of fear and how she makes it look so easy. The cast looks rock solid which will only elevate the material. I mean, let's face it, the acting in Romero's original is... well... uneven at best. Some good actors mixed in with some really bad ones. Anyway, I for one am really looking forward to this update. In no way does it demean the original. In fact, there are so many versions of the original, from the foreign cut, to the assembly that is longer, it's kind of odd that some fans are annoyed this film is being remade.

I just can't wait to see zombies munch on human flesh. It's been way too long since I've seen that at a movie theater.

gamerscircle

02-04-2004, 09:36 PM

It would appear that the zombies over the years have been to the gym or something. They can run now, and not slowly either.

I did see a couple shots of zombies coming out of the shrubs that were just ambering around.

judex

02-04-2004, 09:56 PM

I'm gonna see it. But I am keeping my expectations low. Remakes almost always suck. The Thing was one exception, but I remember NOTLD, Psycho, King Kong, Village of the Damned, Godzilla, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, et al. The list just goes on and on.

However, the idea of a Videodrome remake kind of intrigues me. No studio would ever do that.

The Baron

02-04-2004, 10:19 PM

As a veteran of the zombie trenches, (yep... I worked on the original Dawn of the Dead for three months...) I am looking forward to the remake. Having seen the trailers, I have the highest hopes that the script, cast and director will do the concept justice.

There's nothing wrong with remakes, as long as the filmmakers have something new to say, or something fitting to add to the mythology.

Using The Thing from Another World as an example:

Campbell's Who Goes There? was a pastiche inspired by H. P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness. The filmmakers of the original Thing did not have the technology to translate the Lovecraftian shoggoth of Campbell's original story to the screen, so they did the best they could. By the time Carpenter started reworking the story, they had the technology, and the budget, to do justice to Campbell's shapeshifter.

Now, along comes the DotD remake... Bigger budget, newer technology. Let's see what they can do.

When I was on set with Laurel Group back in '77, the "word" was that the film was budgeted at $1.5 Mil. Even 26-27 years ago, that was not a lot of money to shoot a feature-length film. Regardless, the movie made motion picture history. It was, to my memory, the first film to be widely released in theatres without an MPAA rating, since Jack "Boom Boom" Valenti started telling people how to make their movies. We were all proud of George and Richard (Rubinstein) for shooting down the X rating the film originally received.

Well... I ramble. But little trips down memory lane will do that to you. I will say that George Romero is not only an actor's dream to work with, but one of the nicest people I've ever known.

Like I've said, I really want to see this remake, and really want it to be good. That being said, here's one last thought:

Please, God! Don't let them remake Knightriders. I love that movie just like it is, and couldn't bear to see someone else playing my role!

Jeremy Knox

02-04-2004, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by The Baron
Please, God! Don't let them remake Knightriders. I love that movie just like it is, and couldn't bear to see someone else playing my role!

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! You're gonna give them ideas!!!!!!!!!

JK13

Graham Rae

02-05-2004, 04:51 AM

...we must stop the remakes, or we lose the war."

Can't believe Gore said that he was surprised some fans were surprised Dawn was being remade. How would he feel about a remake of Repo Man or Pink Flamingoes or one of his fave flickershows? Dawn is a classic and the people behind such rubbish as Scooby Doo should never have been allowed within a mile of it.

And running zombies is just a zombie myth-riff ripped off from Return of The Living Dead.

Seedy Edgewick

02-05-2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by The Baron
Please, God! Don't let them remake Knightriders. I love that movie just like it is, and couldn't bear to see someone else playing my role!

Please tell me you weren't that "Merlin" guy with the butterfly on his face.

Personally, I'd like to see Knightriders remade, but without all the hippie-throwback influences. The idea of these motorcycle guys trying to resurrect old concepts of chivalry and honor is a pretty fertile one; the addition of the pseudo-mystical spirituality just dragged the whole thing down, IMHO.

This is one of these films that Brad Laidman would want to remake -- it wasn't THAT good initially, but there were some ideas with serious potential. If I were doing this today, I would make the Knightriders a motorcycle gang whose code of ethics is at odds with the rest of the gangs in their area. The story could revolve around how this one group tries to make something of themselves without selling drugs, running guns, or killing each other. Get some biker-movie staples like Danny Trejo and Sam Elliot to star. And inject a little more of the motorcycle mystique into it -- that could serve as your spirituality. Instead of a quasi-Merlin droning on about some allegorical fable, you could have philosophical discussions that revolve around mechanics and engines. A "King Arthur and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance" kinda thing.

Anyone who REALLY loves this flick: no offense. I have my opinions about this movie, but I have no wish to step on anyone else's feelings. I see Knightriders as a good-but-flawed effort which could bear remaking.

The Baron

02-05-2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Seedy Edgewick
Please tell me you weren't that "Merlin" guy with the butterfly on his face.

No... He's dead. I was a bad guy biker.

Bayouradio

02-09-2004, 02:30 PM

My basic feeling about remakes is that there are plenty of crappy (or even just less-than-good) movies that could easily be remade. I've never understood why someone would watch PSYCHO or THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and think, "Hmm. Yeah. I really need to fix what they got wrong." There are some movies that just got it perfectly right the first time, even with some flaws. But there are so many movies that could have been good that could really use a second chance. For instance, I think the impulse to remake THE AMITYVILLE HORROR is a good one. The original just blows and blows and blows. So might the remake, but I'm willing to give them a chance.

That being said, I don't despise remakes for being remakes. I only hate them if they suck, the same as any other movie I watch. Which is why I hate the TCM remake.

As for DAWN, I'm looking forward to it. The trailer excited me and I'd watch anything that teamed up Ving Rhames and Mekhi Phifer. (And I am a died-in-wool lover and defender of the original, which will not disappear because it was remade.)

mondoshane

02-09-2004, 03:56 PM

The only buzz DotD remake is getting is what a crappy idea it was to remake it to begin with. I hate universal studios for releasing it plus the way they handled "1000 Corpses". It's such lazy film making, why can't Gunn write a original script for once...

Furious D

02-09-2004, 07:01 PM

ALL FILMS MUST BE REMADE!!!

I've decided to give up. Why fight the system? That's why my next project is going to be a remake of CITIZEN KANE. It's going to done as a musical and star Ashton Kutcher as Kane.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

shit...

I gotta recalibrate my meds... I'm starting to think like a studio boss...;)

The Baron

02-09-2004, 07:59 PM

:D Now's the time for my
REMAKE OF PULP FICTION, WITH AN ALL-MIDGET CAST!!!!

Only this time, it will be edited in a linear fashion, and my midget Travolta will be dead at the end of it!

(Oh, Baron, you are a genius!):D

Furious D

02-09-2004, 09:27 PM

Since you poached my idea for an All Midget Pulp Fiction, I'm moving onto a new project.

LORD OF THE RINGS: THE HIP HOPERA

Yes I'm talking an all rapper version of the Tolkien classic, and it will all be done to the music of Dr. Dre.

The Cast:
Ice Cube as Frodo
LL Cool J as Bilbo
Snoop Dogg as Aragorn
Beyonce as Arwen
Eminem as Gimli
50 Cent as Legolas
Grandmaster Flash as Gandalf the Cool
Vanilla Ice as Saruman the Very White
& Featuring: The Wu Tang Clan as the RingWraiths

Featuring the hit songs:
Pop a Cap in Da Balrog's Ass
Motherfucka's of Mordor
P.I.M.P. of Gondor
Lick My Orthanc
Bad Ass of Bara-Dur
Pop Da Orc's Cork

I smell a smash, and I can also hear Tolkien spinning in his grave.;) :p

judex

02-09-2004, 10:04 PM

Also add a remake of Dude, Where's My Car. This time around they could add humor.

saccharine

02-10-2004, 12:35 PM

The way i see it, is that this is the ONLY chance to see something that could possibly be remotely creepy in the theatres for quite awhile.

Horror just sucks nowadays, Cabin Fever placed firmly at the top of the modern horror "classics" that suck a significant amount of ass. Honestly i think the last film that truly creeped my shit out was Session 9. I really enjoyed 28 days Later but im not sure i'd call it a horror movie.

Anyhow I'm sending out optimism here, and hoping this is going to be a good one. I'm hoping for the same reaction I had with 28 days later. That was good, it was fun, I wasnt revolutionized, but I was at least entertained by good performances, and a good story, and shit man they shot the fucker on DV and that makes me happy. Have we seen it before? Yeah we have but who cares, get used to it thats a trend I dont see dying down anytime soon. Until you have a gagillion dollars in your backpocket to fund the second coming of film its the way its gonna be.

fortunesfool

02-10-2004, 05:29 PM

Heres an idea. Instead of remaking good films again why not remake films that were crap but should have been good. Who wouldnt want to see a great version of Phantom Menace say or maybe a serious Independence Day. A cool Lost in Space movie or a new Batman sequel that isnt offensive to anyone over the age of 2(fingers crossed for Chris Nolan).

Carl

02-11-2004, 09:46 AM

Most remakes suck and blow but, with Peter Jackson taking a stab at King Kong, I may have to a little crow. I'm not a fan of his and, if he does it as a period (1930's) piece, it probably won't win me over. I'm sure it will be very well crafted all the same.

- insert movie quote here

mondoshane

03-01-2004, 04:56 PM

I like how there was no contact info on the DotD remake website. I guess they are sick of hearing how much fans hate them.

MacReady_Mix

03-01-2004, 06:22 PM

We've seen slow zombies and fast zombies, how about medium speed zombies. You know, zombies that move at a medium pace. Not too fast, not too slow, just right zombies. That would be nice. And maybe they could sing a little bit or just hum quietly. Or, and maybe this is just too far out of the box, but maybe they could play banjos. And then the bad zombie and the good zombie could duel their banjos, if you get my drift.

:p

tomreedtoon

03-02-2004, 05:19 AM

As someone who hates horror, who thinks horror fans deserve to be forced to work in rape clinics, who would love to take a cheese grater to that violence-enabler Anne Rice...

...I think you horror fans deserve all the crappy remakes they can turn out. Because I know, whether they suck or not, you'll pay your hard-earned cash to see them, if only to see whether they suck or not. As someone famous said, it is immoral to allow suckers to keep their money.

The Baron

03-02-2004, 06:02 AM

As someone who hates prissy cunts who think they're oh-so-fucking-superior, I'd just like to say, piss off.

You don't like horror? Fine. Good for you.

I do. And I don't need to work in a rape clinic. I know all about the real horrors of this world, the horrors that have nothing to do with a particular genre of films.

The greatest horrors in this world are those endorsed and/or performed by judgemental pricks. They cause wars, torture, and support intolerance on a global level.

The horror film, like the fairy tale, is a moral story. And yes, there are lousy horror films, too... Films that should probably never be made... But just because you don't like something, you feel the need to express a desire for REAL violence and other hurtful things on people in the real world? I can play that game too, and I'll just say it flat out...

Two words for ya: Kill yourself.

No. Really. I mean it.

Die.

jmoronic

03-02-2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by tomreedtoon
As someone who hates horror, who thinks horror fans deserve to be forced to work in rape clinics, who would love to take a cheese grater to that violence-enabler Anne Rice...

:mad: A bit harsh don't you think. I don't like romantic comedies, but I don't wish romance fans any harm. Just don't hang around me, that's all.

I'm sort of a horror fan, and I don't particularly care if the remake of Dawn of the Dead is shit, at least they are making zombie films again.

And I can live with bad horror films. In fact, I love watching some shitty straight to video horror films where people get knocked off monotonously and everyone acts like shit (and at least some female nudity damn it).

Horror films are just escapism, they're not meant to harm anybody. Not like hateful people like yourself.

Mind you, I don't like Anne Rice's stories either. And the vampires are freaking pansies for crying out loud.

...jmoronic

El Duderino Diablo

03-02-2004, 10:49 AM

Thanks tomreedtoon. Your post was without question the most ignorant thing I've read all year.
Keep up the good work, sport.

Furious D

03-02-2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by tomreedtoon
As someone who hates horror, who would love to take a cheese grater to that violence-enabler Anne Rice...

For someone who hates horror you have a lot of violence in you. Especially for Anne Rice, whose books are less violent than your average Agatha Christie mystery. There's more brooding than blooding in the average Rice tome.

I guess you figure all movies must be soft G Rated comedies about cute animals playing sports and teaching life lessons to children with nothing scary in them. Wouldn't that make the world a very very dull place.

MacReady_Mix

03-02-2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by tomreedtoon
As someone who hates horror, who thinks horror fans deserve to be forced to work in rape clinics, who would love to take a cheese grater to that violence-enabler Anne Rice...

...I think you horror fans deserve all the crappy remakes they can turn out. Because I know, whether they suck or not, you'll pay your hard-earned cash to see them, if only to see whether they suck or not. As someone famous said, it is immoral to allow suckers to keep their money.

No, no, I said zombies that move at a medium speed, get it?

:D

The Baron

03-02-2004, 01:39 PM

As I recall, the Hare Krishna zombie in the original DotD was set on "medium." But then, he kind of hopped, too.

El Duderino Diablo

03-02-2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Furious D
For someone who hates horror you have a lot of violence in you. Especially for Anne Rice, whose books are less violent than your average Agatha Christie mystery. There's more brooding than blooding in the average Rice tome.

Dollars to doughnuts he's never read an Anne Rice novel.

Furious D

03-02-2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by The Dude
Dollars to doughnuts he's never read an Anne Rice novel.

You're probably right. Treat yourself to a Tim Horton's.

He could have mentioned Stephen King, Joe R. Lansdale, Richard Matheson, Robert R. McCammon and Clive Barker when discussing horror authors. All his knowledge of the genre probably comes from the ad for the Anne Rice A&E Biography special that ran around Hallowe'en.

I'm no Anne Rice fan, her prose is too purple, and her characters are too melodramatic. But I don't think she's a violence enabler and I don't think a cheese grater's a good tool for censorship.

Why would a non-horror fan even go on this thread?

MacReady_Mix

03-02-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by The Baron
As I recall, the Hare Krishna zombie in the original DotD was set on "medium." But then, he kind of hopped, too.

You are right, I had forgot about the Krishna. Instead of remaking DotD, they should just do the Krishna's story. Dot of the Dead.

The Baron

03-02-2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by MacReady_Mix
You are right, I had forgot about the Krishna. Instead of remaking DotD, they should just do the Krishna's story. Dot of the Dead.

THAT'S IT! IT'S BRILLIANT!

Coming soon to a theatre near you...

7-11 of the DEAD

Furious D

03-02-2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by The Baron
THAT'S IT! IT'S BRILLIANT!

Coming soon to a theatre near you...

7-11 of the DEAD

I can see the tagline: Try & rob this store, punk!

TOP TEN LIFE LESSONS I'VE LEARNED FROM ZOMBIES
[list=1]
Always aim for the brain.

Just because it ain't fast doesn't mean it ain't dangerous.

The Necronomicon of Abdul Al-Hazred is not a toy.

Children shouldn't play with dead things.

After slaying a Zombie always wash your hands.

Unlike the movies, you can smell them coming a mile away.

After slaying a Zombie always burn the remains. That's a comeback as welcome as the return of Vanilla Ice.

Just because it's down doesn't mean it's completely dead.

When cleaning up after a Zombie attack, vinegar mixed with water should control the smell.

Zombies are lousy conversationalists, but with a little training they can form a pretty good barbershop quartet.
[/list=1]

tomreedtoon

03-03-2004, 12:33 AM

And thank you, all who made the assumption that I am (a) a Christian right-winger, (b) "prissy" - gee, calling me a homosexual, how Limbaugh-like is that? and (c) worth spending forum space doing logrolling for each other. It's really creative for you to sit and agree with one another like junior high girls.

Still...I'm right. Too many of you guys will go see anything with the horror name on it. Even if every perception, every preview, every critic, and even your gut feelings say it will stink. You hand the man your eight bucks and open wide as long as there's "horror" in the title.

As a comparison to other genres, if you were Disney fans, you'd own every DVD, even the direct-to-video chaff. If your interest was musicals, you'd have "One from the Heart" and "At Long Last Love" on your front shelves, not hidden in the basement. No discretion, no selectivity, no sense of proportion. (Of course no proportion. Hell, look at how you ganged up on measely ol' me.)

judex

03-03-2004, 12:56 AM

One reason horror fans go see horror flicks despite what critics say is that critics are notoriously unreliable on horror films. Just look at the critical reaction of the time to Psycho.

Also, doesn't everybody risk their eight bucks no matter what movie they see? There has been many times when the critics fawned over a movie, I was really excited to see it and it sucked.

As to the response to your post, what did you expect? You attack a whole fan base and you think they will say "Gee, maybe we should go to a rape crisis center."

Seedy Edgewick

03-03-2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by tomreedtoon
Still...I'm right. Too many of you guys will go see anything with the horror name on it.

Okay, Mr. Toon, prepare for a reasoned, contrary response. Got your thinking cap on?

I am a horror fan, but I most definitely do not run out and see anything with the "horror" label attached to it. These days, most filmmakers are too scared to call a film a "horror" film; they prefer the term "scary movie." It has to do with the slasher-flick backlash that occurred at the end of the 80's.

I am a horror fan because the darker aspects of humanity appeal to me more than the lighter. I am more entertained by a good zombie flick than a romantic comedy. This probably has to do with my shitty childhood (no abuse or anything like that; it just sucked). I relate more closely to negative emotions and the events that inspire them. This doesn't make me sick or demented, just different than you.

Horror does not equal fear or suspense, although those elements are usually present and serve to amplify the horror when applied properly. True horror lies somewhere between terror and revulsion. Horror also doesn't necessarily mean gore and/or monsters. To me, Deliverance is a horror film because the four characters endure a truly horrifying ordeal. In the end, they survive (for the most part) but are changed forever by it. I enjoy horror films to vicariously experience the same thing. It's a catharsis, to descend into the depths and emerge with a newfound perception of the world.

Yes, a truly good horror film can accomplish this. My favorite example is Night of the Living Dead. If you haven't seen this flick, you should. Shot in 1969, it features a black male as the hero, and a white family man is his antagonist. That alone made it a radical departure from mainstream cinema. It also didn't shy away from portraying the horror of reanimated corpses dining on human flesh. After experiencing all the events George Romero put in the film, the ending is literally an ascent back into daylight. It is, however, NOT a happy ending. Which is one of the reasons it's such a good film. It takes the viewer on the aforementioned cathartic journey WITHOUT copping out, thus maintaining an air of realism that serves to amplify the impact of the preceding fantastic images.

Horror as a genre is allegorical. A truly good horror story, regardless of medium, plays on societal fears and anxieties to achieve the maximum effect. Dracula, for instance, is a symbolic indictment of rampant sexuality. Victorian England was a time of severe sexual repression; young boys were sent to bed with spiked rings around their penises so that, when the child achieved an erection in his sleep, he would wake up and "calm himself" without unduly arousing his "base desires." In this atmosphere, a tale of a man who dines on the fluids of others, mostly women, becomes much more than an old Hungarian myth, especially when that man is characterized as demonic and evil.

Sure, there's crap horror out there. The genre lends itself easily to exploitation. I enjoy watching these flicks as well, but they're my fast food hamburgers to NOTLD's gourmet feast. They're the kind of flick you watch intoxicated with a bunch of friends, yelling at the screen and generally ridiculing the proceedings. Some flicks try to see how demented they can get, and some just try to turn a fast buck. Either way, I, as a fan, an discerning enough to tell the difference between an H. G. Lewis splatterfest and a George Romero classic.

So, it turns out that you're wrong, Mr. Toon. Oh, your opinion is right, simply because it's an opinion. But you're wrong to apply that opinion as a broad generalization to a large group of moviegoers simply because you don't like the genre. It's all a matter of taste. I hate romantic comedies, but I don't lump all those to like them into some neat pigeonhole in order to avoid real thought about people. In all seriousness, you should rethink your reactive response to someone else's profession of taste.

Which is what it all boils down to. It's a matter of taste. Horror isn't yours; that's fine, but don't pass judgement on those of us who enjoy a good fright flick.

Furious D

03-03-2004, 04:22 PM

Yo, Seedy, what's with all the reasoned discussion?

I much prefer it when a debate degenerates into name calling and such witticisms as "You suck!" and so on. ;)

Actually, you make a good point and said it better than I would have.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tomreedtoon:
Calling you 'prissy' doesn't mean you were being called a homosexual. Prissy means uptight, and inflexible with anything that doesn't fit in with the prissy person's narrow and more often puritanical worldview. You know like the uptight parson in an old western or the old ladies in the Temperance League.

Thus endeth the lesson...

Oh, wait, you never did answer my question about why a militant horror-hater like yourself would visit what is obviously a horror thread. Do you like the abuse that would be inevitable after comments like yours?

tomreedtoon

03-03-2004, 05:15 PM

My point is this, Furious D (or should that be Initial D?)...

Horror USED to be a respectable genre. The original "Frankenstein" movies...and yes, even Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead"...said things about the human condition.

What passes for "horror" nowdays is gore. Little would-be Columbine killers counting up the quarts of blood and the number of women stabbed through the groin with big, sharp knives.

The "big message" of today's horror is the same message as big businessmen, Republicans, real-world serial killers and other similar souls: "A man never stands taller than when he steps on the neck of a friend." In the case of horror, all you have to do is amend it to say "severed neck."

And Seedy Edgewick, thanks for a reasoned response (for the most part). You haven't changed my opinion about horror; as a person who was the victim of violence, I've experienced the kind of thing you folks laugh at in the movies, and it will never be "simply a movie" to me.

i'm willing to accept that a few movies that wear the "horror" tag have something humane to say. But the majority of those movies are simple encouragement to the real-world people who want to rape, kill, maim and lynch. i'd love to show you some real-world examples, but the police never found my assailants.

Anyway, to drag this back to the topic under discussion, the basic fact that this is a remake of a film - primarily for the sake of exploiting a title - is an early indication that the film will disappoint. It's wrong to pass final judgment on a film by that alone, but it ought to set people on their guard.

If they had an original, creative story in mind, an original, creative title would be an indication. As it is, they will have to overcome the scent of "ripoff" currently emanating from their TV ads.

This kind of cheat is common in horror, which has always been the easiest genre in which to pull bait-and-switch. It's near-impossible to do in comedy (witness Bill Murray's younger brother in "Moving Violation") and hard in romantic comedy ("Havana Nights," anyone?) But as I've been trying to say, horror fans would buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as it was draped in severed uteruses.

Pete Vonder Haar

03-03-2004, 09:56 PM

What passes for "horror" nowdays is gore. Little would-be Columbine killers counting up the quarts of blood and the number of women stabbed through the groin with big, sharp knives.

You know all this...how, exactly? As someone who - one assumes - doesn't see just "anything with a horror tag on it," where are you getting your assumptions?

Your above description doesn't apply to atmospheric (and recent) horror films like "Dark Water" or "Ringu" or "May." Can it be attached to crap like "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" or "Jeepers Creepers 2?" Possibly, but this horror fan didn't shell out his eight bucks to see them. Which throws a bit of a wrench in your theory.

And if your main complaint about horror is that there's no "message" to it, then you must not watch much of anything released these days. Lack of message isn't exclusive to the horror genre.

(Of course no proportion. Hell, look at how you ganged up on measely ol' me.)

Give me a break. You came to a thread devoted to a remake of a classic, gory zombie horror film, essentially called everyone on it "suckers" with no taste, then cried when the majority of those here disagreed with you. Who's the one acting like a 13-year old? What's it to you what kind of movies we watch?

Your mentioning of the Columbine massacre and serial killers in your railings against the genre makes you sound suspiciously like those Republicans from whom you're so vigorously trying to distance yourself.

Or Joe Lieberman. Same difference.

Gorillaboss

03-04-2004, 07:03 AM

I'm surprised that no one has taken the glaringly-obvious cheap shot at Mr. TomReedToon, which is that here is a guy who's snottily criticizing horror fans, yet he ran a magazine and runs a website devoted to...snicker...to...CARTOONS.

I have almost the full run of Toon magazine, and I can guarantee that Mr. TomReedToon LOVES his cartoons. There were interviews with creators, and cel animation art, and all kinds of mind-numbing minutae. But he didn't spotlight the classics like Disney and Warners, oh no! He featured such titans of the animation artform as Silverhawks and Thundarr the Barbarian.

All of Mr. TomReedToon's efforts might have been admirable if they weren't so pathetic, as every person on the planet knows that cartoons are the nadir of entertainment programming. At best, they're trifling distractions for cretins, and at worst, they're nothing more than 30-minute commercials by the multinational toy conglomerates.

Let me revisit Mr. TomReedToon's comments, putting them in the context of his stunted, near-perverted fetish for juvenile children's shows.

--*--

Tom says: "And now the Democratic Response...I think you horror fans deserve all the crappy remakes they can turn out. Because I know, whether they suck or not, you'll pay your hard-earned cash to see them, if only to see whether they suck or not. As someone famous said, it is immoral to allow suckers to keep their money."

Let's see...if one only goes to www.toonmag.com, you'll see comments and criticisms like this:

"Most Disappointing Direct-to-Vidoe [sic] Animation: Anything by Disney. Watching a once-great animation company producing unappealing sequels to its great films, like Cinderella II: Dreams Come True or Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventures is more than annoying. To people who loved the old Disney, it was the start of anger. That anger is now raising a cry for Michael Eisner's head to be impaled on toe top of Cinderella's Castle."

So, it would seem that Mr. ReedToon himself pays his hard-earned cash to watch any and all cartoons, if only to see whether they suck or not.

Pot, meet kettle.

--*--

Let us continue.

Tom says: "Still...I'm right. Too many of you guys will go see anything with the horror name on it. Even if every perception, every preview, every critic, and even your gut feelings say it will stink. You hand the man your eight bucks and open wide as long as there's "horror" in the title."

Again, from www.toonmag.com, we get: "the show that gets great acclaim for no rational reason... [i]Yu-Gi-Oh!, a show about people playing a card game with arcane, unfanthomable rules - which seem to change for the convenience of the plot - is about as interesting as watching a filmed bridge tournament."

So, not is Tom a sucker who can't keep his money, but he also apparently sees anything with the cartoon name on it. Even if every perception, every preview, every critic, and even his gut feelings say it will stink, he still plops down on his couch and invests his time as long as there's "cartoon" in the title.

He must love that kettle.

--*--

Tom says: "My point is this...Horror USED to be a respectable genre. The original Frankenstein movies...and yes, even Romero's original Night of the Living Dead...said things about the human condition.

What passes for 'horror' nowdays is gore. Little would-be Columbine killers counting up the quarts of blood and the number of women stabbed through the groin with big, sharp knives.

The 'big message' of today's horror is the same message as big businessmen...."

Tom, Cartoons USED to be a respectivle genre. The original Disney movies...and, yes, even Family Guy...said things about the human condition.

What passes for "cartoons" nowdays [sic] is product and banality. Little slackjawed, maladjusted, basement-dwelling adolescents counting up the merchandise they can buy and the number of adorable animal sidekicks that sing.

The "big message" of today's cartoons--hell, all cartoons--is the same message as big businessmen, Republicans, real-world network programming execs, and other similar souls: "Buy my stuffed animals, Happy Meal tie-ins, and breakfast cereals!"

--*--

So, Mr.TomReedToon, despite your lofty-sounding pseudo-intellectual screeds on your various sites, and your oh-so-haughtily-superior webposts, you haven't changed my opinion about cartoons; as a person who was the victim of an ACME-related anvil and Earthquake Pill(tm) disaster, I've experienced the kind of thing you folks laugh at in the cartoons, and it will never be "simply an animated picture" to me.

Also, I bet you jack off to home-drawn nekkid pics of Jessica Rabbit and Josie, of Pussycats fame.

Furious D

03-04-2004, 07:34 AM

Tomreedtoon's evocation of the Columbine killers makes what's a common misconception about movies that have dogged the medium since its creation. Movies don't make people kill people. Being sociopathic little shits make people kill people. And any killer that claims that movies made them do it is a damn liar.

It all goes back to the lost silent film London After Midnight starring Lon Chaney Sr. as a corrupt policeman who tries to drive people mad by impersonating a vampire. Most who saw the film considered it silly with only Chaney's elaborate vampire makeup the only thing worth watching. Well, later that year a London man killed his girlfriend in a jealous rage over some percieved infidelity. At trial he claimed that the movie had 'unhinged his mind' and driven him to kill. The jury didn't believe him and he was hanged. But the press, always looking to use their own horrors to sell papers leaped on the bandwagon, leading to the film being banned and later destroyed.

Now when Columbine first happened the media blamed the movie THE MATRIX. This was based on the evidence that the kids were wearing long black coats during their rampage. Then it was discovered that they had never seen THE MATRIX. So they blamed it on loudmouthed pseudo-shock rocker Marylin Manson.

To this day there is almost no acknowledgement of the fact that those li'l bastards were regularly tormented by their peers, were too thick to conceive of life after High School, and lived in that wonderful vaccuum of morality and human empathy called Modern Suburbia. Their cries for help, which we now see were pretty obvious were ignored under the age old banner of 'boys will be boys.' Their own parents were too wrapped up shopping for the year's next hot SUV that they somehow didn't notice them making pipe-bombs in their garage.

Those kids would have been bombs waiting to go off even if they were raised on nothing but 'Air Bud' movies and the music of Pat Boone.

As for horror once being respectable, well here's a news flash:

IT WAS NEVER RESPECTABLE!

The day you see a horror film win Best Picture will be the day horror becomes respectable. It's always been Hollywood's unwanted bastard child. They'd like to live without the scrawny snot nosed punk, because he dwells on dark things and brings up issues they don't want discussed. But some people liked the li'l bastard, so as long as he lived cheaply Hollywood would tolerate him. But respectable was something he would never be.

Sure 90% of horror is crap. But remember Theodore Sturgeon's Law: 90% of all human creative endeavour is crap. True horror fans look for the diamond in the rough, the flower that somehow blooms among the shit. Sure, it's not as fulfilling as dedicating your life to Disney, but it's a lot more fun.

Seedy Edgewick

03-04-2004, 10:02 AM

Furious, didn't Silence of the Lambs win an Academy Award? I remember its being nominated for Best Picture and Best Director. Didn't Demme win the Director Oscar? I'm sure I'm wrong about something here; I haven't had all my coffee yet, this morning.

Silence is one of those good horror films I mentioned before. While the ending is frightening and suspenseful, the rest of the film goes for the gut-punch horror. Think about the examination of the body where they find the moth coccoon. Or the scene where Clarisse sees the picture of what Lecter did to his nurse. Or Lecter's escape. Or Jame Gumb's whole basement. These are all horrifying scenes and images -- not meant to frighten, but to shock and horrify. THAT's what I was talking about before.

And, Mr. Toon, people still make horror films with a social subtext. Look at Cabin Fever. There's the obvious theme of disease, which invokes AIDS, SARS, West Nile, etc. But, there's a deeper thread: the enemy in our midst. While the film begins with all the characters being friends, those alliances are eroded by the mounting threat, and friends begin to turn on each other. This could be seen as allegorical terrorism. The terrorist masquerades as a friendly, until the right moment when his true intentions are revealed with deadly consequences. While no one in CF had ulterior motives initially, the transformation of friend into enemy evokes (for me) the unseen threat of the terrorist cell.

I'm sure the filmmakers weren't intending this; it's the sign of real talent that such subtext can evolve naturally and unintentionally.

Furious D

03-04-2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Seedy Edgewick
Furious, didn't Silence of the Lambs win an Academy Award? I remember its being nominated for Best Picture and Best Director. Didn't Demme win the Director Oscar? I'm sure I'm wrong about something here; I haven't had all my coffee yet, this morning.

I always viewed Silence of the Lambs more like a police procedural with horror elements than a traditional horror movie. Demme took an almost clinical approach to the horror elements that I think made it more palatable to the Academy. Some view as a horror film, and some view it as a psychological drama about two emotionally damaged people (Clarisse & Lecter) who find each other.

But that's all semantics when you get right down to it. I mean people in forums argue for pages and pages about the definition of what makes horror and what doesn't. Let's not fall into that trap, we're here to take on Tomreedtoon, not each other.

Maybe I would have been clearer if I said that horror would be respectable the day George Romero receives a lifetime achievement Oscar.:D

Jeremy Knox

03-04-2004, 07:57 PM

It's funny that people brought up Silence of The Lambs in the horror/not horror debate.

To me the answer is simple. It IS a horror movie, albeit one with little gore and one that takes itself seriously. It's always annoyed me that "horror" movies are perceived as cheesy, badly made, gorefests by most people, even horror fans.

To me I ask one thing of a movie. "Does it horrify me?" Not scare and not disgust. But do I crawl back into my seat and dread the dark for just a little while after seeing it?

Silence did that. So... yes... it is a horror movie in it's purest sense.

JK13

Carl

03-04-2004, 08:14 PM

I have to disagree. Thomas Harris wrote it as a crime thiller and the film structure supports that. I am a horror fan (fuck you ToonPriss) and would welcome this movie into the horror fold but, frankly, it's too well crafted.

Carl

03-04-2004, 08:19 PM

Your post about Cabin Fever made me remember something that really keeps bothering me . . . what was the deal with the box?

Kuato

03-04-2004, 11:05 PM

remakes are shit - true. just look at texas chainsaw. why?!?
but the dawn of the dead remake looks fucking great - and the illustrations for the posters are amazing..

and king kong - peter jackson has never made a bad movie- trust in the fat man - he knows

Peter_Lowry

03-05-2004, 12:47 AM

Ricky Retardo

03-05-2004, 04:58 AM

According to the posters, George Romero got a "based on a screenplay by..." credit. So hopefully he got a couple of $$$.

MacReady_Mix

03-05-2004, 09:15 AM

Well, well, this old thread just keeps going and going. Let me try and catch up a little.

Baron- 7-11 of the Dead, nice - (our man picks up the Super Giant Big Gulp and says, “The only person who couldn’t finish this is the sucker with enough bread to buy it”.

The toon fella- yeah, I got to say, what’s the big surprise about the reaction your ill-thought out comments received? I figure you either did it on purpose, just to stir the pot or that self-righteous blather is your way of honestly trying to “discuss” an issue. Doesn’t matter really, because the result was the same, it triggered an interesting discussion, so although you didn’t intend it, your drama helped this thread grow some legs. Now, talk to the hand.

On horror and what it means as a genre, etc. I like horror films because basically they retell the story of triumphing over evil and generally the ride goes something like this; boogey man jumps out and makes life bad for people; some people die/get hurt; somebody smokes the boogey man’s ass and then everything is alright again. It’s called drama and the higher the risk/danger the better it feels when everything is all better again. I love a good horror-monster-scary movie, unfortunately, like sci-fi, it is a bit of a ghetto genre, so the percentage of crap may be a little bit higher then average compared to other genre’s. So in regards to horror fans mindlessly lining up to see anything with some gore and tits in it, I would say the proof is in the pudding, just look at the box office track record for horror and it speaks for itself. I think Jaws is the only thing close to a horror film near the top (and I know a few folks here would not classify this as a horror film, but so it goes), so if we were all plunking down our eight bucks to see every horror film that came out, there would be a lot more horror movies made because there’d be money in it. House of the Dead would have been huge if we all herded in blindly just ‘cause it was zombies and babes, but it wasn’t, probably will never break even. They didn’t get my coin.

And finally back to the original topic DotD remake. I may go see it, because the trailer doesn’t look completely lame and Ving R. is in it, but I would much rather see a new story set in the original scenario, then a retread that tries too hard to put a new twist on things (our zombies are purple instead of green/blue and they run really fast, great, thank’s for sharing). Maybe pickup a piece from DotD like the biker gang and tell their story up to finding the mall. Imagine that a biker/zombie film (sidebar-- has there ever been such a thing?). Or what about the guy with the eye patch on the TV, what’s his story? They don’t need to reinvent everything, just plant a new seed in that already fertile ground, maybe turn it into a franchise of sorts. Would it be big B.O.? Hell I don’t know, but the money men don’t know either and that’s why we get shit like Hollow Man and Battlefield Earth, so throw ten million bucks at somebody (O.K. twenty) and let’em do something with some teeth.

The bottom line for me with all of this, horror movies, non-horror flicks, this remake or any of it is:

Tell me a good story.

Please don’t market some product at me, or try and trick me into the theater with a flashy preview for a film that is basically an extended fx demo reel. I will not waste two hours of my life anymore for such crap.

I will, however be glad to give you my time, attention, and money, if you can just tell me a good story. It is just that simple.

Gentlemen, Ladies, I appreciate your time and attention.

:D

Seedy Edgewick

03-05-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Carl
Your post about Cabin Fever made me remember something that really keeps bothering me . . . what was the deal with the box?

What box?

Seedy Edgewick

03-05-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by MacReady_Mix
Imagine that a biker/zombie film (sidebar-- has there ever been such a thing?).

Chopper Chicks in Zombietown

You asked.

Oh, and thank you very much for the request for a good story. There's a film called The Baby that I always think about when discussing storytelling in horror. This flick is rated PG -- no gore, no nudity, very little bad language (nothing TV-illegal). However, the STORY is creepy to the Nth degree. It's the events depicted and the people involved in them that make the film truly horrifying.

Has anyone else seen this flick? It's about a creepy family consisting of a mother, two grown daughters, and a grown son who acts like an infant. The story goes that the mother forced the son to never grow up, because all men are bad and she didn't want her little boy to become a man. A social worker newly assigned to the family's case decides to take it upon herself to liberate this young man from his psychological prison. The ensuing battle of wills between her and the mother, along with the creepy half-insane antics of the two daughters, make the movie. I was very impressed by the way the characters drive the story and the story is the focus of the flick. Way disturbing. Check it out, MacReady, if you're looking for a change of pace.

Jeremy Knox

03-05-2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Carl
I have to disagree. Thomas Harris wrote it as a crime thiller and the film structure supports that. I am a horror fan (fuck you ToonPriss) and would welcome this movie into the horror fold but, frankly, it's too well crafted.

*SNAP*

Again, there's this mentality. Why must it be a borderline POS if it's a horror movie? There ARE good horror movies.

Dead of Night (1945)
Night of The Demon (1958)
Psycho (1960)
The Birds (1962)
The Exorcist (1973)
Dawn of The Dead (1978)
The Shining (1980)
Videodrome (1982)
The Thing (1982)
Hellraiser (1987)

You can't say that these films aren't well crafted.

There's like 8 genres of film: Horror, Adventure, Science-Fiction, Comedy, Suspense, Biopic, Musical and Drama. THAT'S IT!

This whole mixing and matching of genres is just snobbery. Horror is too low-brow so it MUST be a thriller. NO!!!!!! Everything from Silence's deliberately gory scenes to Hopkin's overacting just oozes a "this is a horror movie" vibe. Just because it's good doesn't mean it isn't horror. Horror is like any other genre, there's good horror and there's really bad horror and the bad outpaces the good by a 20 to 1 margin. How many crappy "Based on a true story" movies are made for every good ones like "Raging Bull"?

You can't judge a whole genre just by the superficial aspects of it. bad acting, cheap effects, gooey monsters preying on college coeds and slashers making bad puns are hardly candidates for a good movie award no matter genre of film you put them in. It's that simple.

Okay... I'm all better now :D

JK13

The Baron

03-05-2004, 05:40 PM

Rouben Mamoullian's Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, starring Frederic March, won best picture back in the 30s.

In a way, I have a kind of "outlaw" perspective on the horror genre. Like tattoos, I'm not sure I want horror films to become 100% respectable. There's a rush that comes from being outre, from exploiting basic human fears in the name of entertainment... If horror becomes sanitary, it loses it's visceral quality.

Here's an interesting theory: the "slasher" film can be horror, but it's usually just dependent upon the splatter quotient and one or more maniacs. Slasher genre tends to be very phallic. Bodies are often penetrated in a displaced eroticism. Like rape, the criminal cannot have normal sexual relations, so instead uses a crime of violence to release his repressed needs. The fear is very conscious in these films. (How many "movies maniacs" are momma's boys, symbollically trying to fuck/kill their mothers? Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers... )

The "true" horror film tends towards the cthonic. The victim is absorbed... drawn into a very fluid milleu, as opposed to being penetrated. Here, the fear wells up from the unconscious to overwhelm, to consume. The source of the "evil" is usually unknown to and/or unseen by the protagonist(s) until the climax of the story.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. But as someone who has acted in both types of film, that's always been my take on it.

Furious D

03-05-2004, 07:47 PM

Well, I guess I shouldn't have used the Oscar as a gauge of horror's respectability.:o Oh, well, I was tired when I wrote that little piece anyway and my memory wasn't all that great.

I still view Silence of the Lambs as more of a procedural mystery with elements of horror, like CSI when it's extra gooey. But that's my opinion, and since I'm always right, it's the correct one.;)

I agree with the Baron in the way that I don't really like horror to be too respectable. Some of the best work is done outside the mainstream. Sadly, when those outre flicks click with the general audience they then spawn a stream of cheap pale imitations, more that a few ground out by the big studios, that tend to bring the whole genre down.

As for the 'splatter' genre, I'm not exactly a fan. When gore is done right, it increases the horror factor, it's not supposed to be the entire horror factor. Often lazy filmmakers just toss around some buckets of blood to please the gorehounds and to hide the fact that they ignored such trivia as story, characters, and dialogue.

But I tend to ramble.:D

MacReady_Mix

03-07-2004, 12:27 PM

I'll have to check out The Baby and Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town.

While looking up CCZT on IMDB I found another zombie biker flick, Biker Zombies (2001) (V) -- This one actually has the zombies riding, so there's a twist for you. One very bad review of the film, but as a horror fan, you know, like I'm willing to see anything remotely horror, 'cause I can't help myself.

:D

The Baron

03-07-2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by MacReady_Mix
While looking up CCZT on IMDB I found another zombie biker flick, Biker Zombies (2001) (V) -- This one actually has the zombies riding, so there's a twist for you. One very bad review of the film, but as a horror fan, you know, like I'm willing to see anything remotely horror, 'cause I can't help myself.

Thanks for the tip, Mac! I'm gonna run out right now and mug an old lady for her Social Security check so I can buy a copy of Biker Zombies, because like all scumbag horror fans, I'll do ANYTHING for my fix. ;)

I gots to have it!

MacReady_Mix

03-07-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by The Baron
Thanks for the tip, Mac! I'm gonna run out right now and mug an old lady for her Social Security check so I can buy a copy of Biker Zombies, because like all scumbag horror fans, I'll do ANYTHING for my fix. ;)

I gots to have it!

That's a great idea, and to think I was going to have to make another trip to the plamsa center to fuel my insatiable appetite for horror. No, thank you Baron, for that mugging thing. You have planted a seed.

;)

Furious D

03-07-2004, 04:25 PM

Why mug?

You can always deal narcotics to support your addiction to horror movies.

Not many people know this, but the Medellin Cartel originally started out as a George Romero fan club. Then they started sampling Lucio Fulci, Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Tobe Hooper and Mario Bava, which led them on the path of sin. ;)

MacReady_Mix

03-07-2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Furious D
Why mug?

You can always deal narcotics to support your addiction to horror movies.

Not many people know this, but the Medellin Cartel originally started out as a George Romero fan club. Then they started sampling Lucio Fulci, Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Tobe Hooper and Mario Bava, which led them on the path of sin. ;)

Ah yes, the path of sin. For me it began so long ago, with a tiny b&w TV showing Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Remember the zombie (tenious reference to original topic) episode of that show? Kolchak had to fill-up the sleeping zombie's mouth with salt and sew it up? Good stuff.

Deal drugs for horror? Thank's Mr. D. You guys are the best.

;)

Furious D

03-07-2004, 09:32 PM

Don't forget, there's also the big wide world of prostitution.

Lord knows how many poor souls turn tricks on America's mean streets and seediest backalleys, all in the vain hope of getting enough money for the DVD box set of the Friday the 13th movies.;)

Graham Rae

03-08-2004, 10:03 AM

That cartoon-quoting guy mocking horror fans is quite deluded and sad. Seems to equate some people who perpetrated real-life violence on him with horror fans. Wonder who his scapegoat would have been back in the days when he was a Christian getting thrown to the lions.

Violence is as old as the human race. Will always be with us. Just because I have been physically attacked a couple of times in real life (once kicked unconscious in the street by three young drunk thugs simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong times) doesn't mean that I blame all kids for being violent scumbags. The human race just isn't a particularly peaceful one, that's all. And anybody who can't accept this fundamental fact should be indoors watching...cartoons or something.

That said. I read the first coverage of the Dawn remake in Cinefantastique magazine today. And, much to my Elitist Disgusted Fanboy Reaction To The Dawn Remake shame, I must peform a volte face and say...I am actually starting to get quite excited about it now. And this is coming from somebody who, when I was 20, in 1989, made a pilgrimage with a friend to Monroeville Mall (still got the photos) on my first visit to the US just because they shot one of my all-time fave films there.

The makers of the remake don't come across as people who don't know anything about - or indeed don't respect - the original, and they've done some way cool stuff like naming fake shops Gaylen Ross (ie the real name of the woman who played 'Fran' in the original Dawn) and 'Wooly' (the guy at the start of Dawn who goes off on a racist killing spree before being gunned down by Ken Foree - "Blow all their asses off, all their lowlife little Puerto Rican and nigger asses right off."), they have a cameo by Ken Foree as a preacher, and they talk a good game. I am still cynical, in that it's easy to make a film sound great in fluff-guff-puff pre-pic PR stuff, but it still sounds like it might be cool.

Consider my reservations put in reserve until I see the end product itself. Fingers crossed it's a good 'un.

"The bodies of the dead will be delivered over to specially equipped squads of the National Guard for organized disposition..." As will the filmmakers if they fuck this up.

saccharine

03-08-2004, 10:12 AM

i just have to say im not worthy of kissing the barons feet. haha. shit thanks for jump starting my typically blah monday morning.

Originally posted by The Baron
As someone who hates prissy cunts who think they're oh-so-fucking-superior, I'd just like to say, piss off.

You don't like horror? Fine. Good for you.

I do. And I don't need to work in a rape clinic. I know all about the real horrors of this world, the horrors that have nothing to do with a particular genre of films.

The greatest horrors in this world are those endorsed and/or performed by judgemental pricks. They cause wars, torture, and support intolerance on a global level.

The horror film, like the fairy tale, is a moral story. And yes, there are lousy horror films, too... Films that should probably never be made... But just because you don't like something, you feel the need to express a desire for REAL violence and other hurtful things on people in the real world? I can play that game too, and I'll just say it flat out...

Two words for ya: Kill yourself.

No. Really. I mean it.

Die.

tomreedtoon

03-08-2004, 03:16 PM

One of the curious facts about the Internet is that it allows people like the Baron to say things that he would never, ever dare to say to me in person.

I mean, if he and I could meet in some public place to debate the issue in front of people, he'd be stopped cold. Not that he'd ever do it. Like every other such person, he cowers, backpedals and goes all passive-aggressive when someone calls on him to put up or shut up.

On previous occasions in other online venues, I've offered to pay admission to appropriate locations for this sort of discussion - the public panels of science fiction cons. Not air fare or hotel rooms, just the admission to the con, since I'm not rich. But if the gents involved were truly interested in defending their honor, and a public apology from me, one would think they'd take me up on the offer.

Instead, they retreat, leaving skid marks. And not just in their underwear. "I won't talk in front of a bunch of nerds!" say these nerds. "I won't go to Atlanta, it's hot and sweaty!" says the guy whose Northern city tops 80 degrees in summer with no breezes.

So, you guys who sit back and mock, here's the chance to prove you're not cowards. Don't "talk to the hand." Talk to MY FACE. In the flesh, in person. Or admit that you're only cowards.

I await the smell of burning bicycle tires in reverse.

MacReady_Mix

03-08-2004, 03:35 PM

Don't "talk to the hand." Talk to MY FACE. In the flesh, in person. Or admit that you're only cowards.
[/B]

Thank's for reading the post.

Two things.

You were talking to my hand, not the other way around.

And take a fucking pill.

:p

Carl

03-08-2004, 03:44 PM

Is that f*cking puritan still at it?

Isn't there a barn raising or quilting bee he should be attending?

This guy would piss himself if he had to sit next to me on the bus let alone have a face to face discussion about horror flix.

If cartoons are his twist, great. Go watch some.

Furious D

03-08-2004, 04:02 PM

For this you have to picture me as Strother Martin palying a sleazy southern sheriff:

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

Okay, so Tomreedtoon doesn't like horror movies.

That's fine. But I fail to see the logic in coming on a thread discussing a horror film and the genre, then call everybody on that thread a pack of tasteless psycho ignorant degenerates and then not expect to flamed royally.

Try actually reading the posts. Nobody's challenging your manhood when the called you prissy. If you read my earlier post I give a very clear definition of 'prissy' and homosexuality has nothing to do with it. It has to do with being uptight and inflexible.

Like on the other thread. You assumed that we were calling Jerry Bruckheimer gay, when in fact we were talking about someone else who is gay and using that to make fun of The Baron.

You should have just jumped in and made fun of the Baron as well. If you were clever and creative, it probably would have made him think more highly of you.

But no.

Instead you start hurling insults at everyone, and from what I gather you want to challenge the Baron to some kind of schoolyard confrontation. Fisticuffs by the swing set or something like that.

Furious says RELAX.:cool:

It's just a silly forum. People come here to have fun and talk movies & other stuff. Nobody here attacks another without expecting them to respond with equal or greater verbal force. It's all part of the game. If you're clever and quick people will like and respect you, even if they don't agree with you.

If you just crassly insult and belittle people over trivia and then expect your targets to bow down before your shining greatness, then you're going to be sadly disappointed.

Graham Rae

03-08-2004, 04:07 PM

"We're not fantastic motherfuckers but we play them on TV" - Marilyn Manson.

Swap the word 'fantastic' for 'insane' and 'TV' for 'net' and you have the situation here.

Tom, any grown man who signs themselves 'toon' on the net needs to take a few steps backwards and examine things from a different angle, if at all possible. After all, I've never seen anything more violent than Legend of The Overfiend - or indeed Tom & Jerry, both fine examples of the cel-dweller's art.

You are a very offensive, close-minded person, Tom. Your attitude doesn't fly well in the real world. I have to say, you come across as somebody who is not very worldly. Of course the net is full of muppets, morons and motherfuckers - that's its very function. Just because I have been slagged off here elsewhere by people, doesn't mean that I can't 'talk' to them in another thread. I don't take this stuff too seriously, as you seem to do.

Your categorization of the 'correct' place to address net-dwellers in public, ie 'the public panels of science fiction cons' - shows the limits of your own world and worldview. You obviously are a sci-fi/toon hermetically sealed scene dweller, and fine, cos I like some toons and sci-fi writers, but coming on like Harlan Ellison (a writer I rate, incidentally) on his period won't cut you much slack in this particular public forum. We ain't sci-fi virgins or toon lovers, or at least not all of us are.

Saying that a horror fan would love something just because it came draped in bloody vulvas (or whatever your exact words were) is incredibly offensive. Wonder why the fuck people get on your case? Look at your attitude and how people outside your enclave might receive it, if you are capable. Just because I like horror films, does not mean I am some sort of unreasoning sociopath who hates women - I have female friends whom I have helped through rapes, abortions, miscarriages, and any number of different horrible life-rifting experiences. But you know, I shouldn't have to justify myself to somebody like you. What does a self-righteous man who challenges people to debates at sci-fi conventions know about women or human relations in general? Nothing whatsoever, I'll wager, so I would keep your ill-informed, deformed views to yourself, at least here. Get a girlfriend and come back and talk to me about having a good attitude to women.

Funny, but I would almost like to hope that your views were a crank, a wind-up just to piss people off. That would be cool. But, when you have your own toon website, I have to think they are not and you truly do believe your own hype and bullshit. The urge to truly insult you is in me, but I can't be bothered. I don't think you are a bad person, maybe just naive or deluded. Just cos I wanna see Lionel in Braindead smash up zombies with a lawnmower or GG Allin beat the shit out of his crowd, don't mean I hate all the human race. Just most of 'em.

The latter: sarcasm. Look it up. And give it up, toonboy. Yer on a losing wicket here, dahlink. Life has not equipped you for this debate, and you will never, ever win.

Accept it.

And you wanna know the ironically funny thing here? Dawn of The Dead, the original, is a cartoon-like Grand Guignol slapstick-splatstick epic of the kind you might might actually find amusing and very pertinent on a socially critical level if you were to watch it. Very few horror films reach this level: this film exists in the rarified strata of bona-fide lo-fi hi-octane classics. Horror fans know what is good, bad and ugly in the genre, just like toon or sci-fi fans know what is crap in their universe. And the shortcomings of pieces of work are debated accordingly. Very few are less forgiving than hardcore horror fans of cheapshit splatter garbage without redeeming value of any kind.

Yer Transatlantic well-meaning pseudo-sociopathic bro (raising a beer to ya and yer not-bad-to-express humanitarian sentiment),
G.

El Duderino Diablo

03-08-2004, 04:14 PM

Furious D is correct Tom. You're the one who's been coming into threads making misinformed , self-righteous and, ultimately, insulting observations about other posters. Then, when called on it, you've been the one to backpeddle playing the role of the victim and making challenges that you know full well no one in their right mind would waste time or money taking you up on.
My suggestion to you is chill out, think about what you're going to post before you post it and stop taking the moral high ground. From what you wrote in your last post it seems you have a history of problems with people on other boards. Maybe it's time to consider that it's not always others who are in the wrong with their online behaviour. Just a thought.

The Baron

03-08-2004, 04:17 PM

Oh, yeah, Furious... Always the voice of fucking reason! ;)

I try to be nice... I really do. *sniff* But some fahker always has to come along and... Well, you know...

PISS ME OFF!!!

Okay, for the sake of all my fellow forum members who are cool, and actually have something worthwhile to contribute to our fun and knowledge-base, I'll ignore the toontwat - er, I mean tomreedtoon.

I will no longer engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man... Only because, well... I love you guys.

There! I said it! Are you happy now?

Graham Rae

03-08-2004, 04:35 PM

Fuck that Tom Reed character, ur we gonnae tawk aboot if the Dawn remake is gonnae fuckin quality or no? It sounds awright, likes.

"I don't wanna be walkin' around like...that ."

G.

Carl

03-08-2004, 04:43 PM

This f*cking quaker is EXACTLY the type of person I like to get up close and personal with.

If he wants to judge people based on his narrow life-views, I'll make it very easy for him. I'm the physical embodiment of everything he hates.

That being said, the thing I find most alarming is not how strongly he feels about horror movies but the underlying prejudice he has for people he's never even met. He is cursed to a life of alienating people. This forum would have been the perfect place to change all that but, he took the low road.

A lot of people who have responded to Tom's posts have exercised some very mature tact and decorum . . . I will not be one of them.

Whoever damaged him should have finished the job.

The Baron

03-08-2004, 04:47 PM

Graham, you're my fuckin' hero, mate! I don't know what you just said, but, YEAH! I AGREE!

You actually went to Monroeville Mall! JEEZUS! I remember going there, three months after we wrapped shooting on DotD, and still seeing blood-splatter on the white marble. The cleaning crew had missed the very tops of some of the decorative pillars.

The more I see the trailers for the remake, the more I'm thinking that I have to go see it. I doubt that they had nearly as much fun making it as we did the original, but I want to compare things. I'm really curious now.

Needless-to-say, I've got some pretty wild "Tales from the Set" from 1977. Like the time I got knocked out rehearsing a fight scene...

Graham Rae

03-08-2004, 04:55 PM

leave wee Tom alone. He's an innocent abroad. He's had his head filled with too many bad articles and columns from the papers and the net. Why pick on the mentally challenged? Boy's awright, like, leave him alone. If you want to demonstrate a mentally superior outlook to Tom, don't tell him you want to kill him or he's a freak: that just reinforces his prejudices. Tell him...aw, I dunno, anything...but he's just a person trying to make sense of the world, like all of us. None of us truly know anything. Let him get on with it. His goose has now been well and truly cooked here. Let him get on with it. He's dead in the water amongst us cynical sonofagunsabitches and, if he doesn't know or recognize it, let him regard himself as lucky and move on. Why should we waste hand grenades on an amoeba?

Onwards.

G.

Graham Rae

03-08-2004, 05:05 PM

please tell us here any tales you have of making Dawn. Cos Dawn is the fucking shit and I still love it so fucking much. I probably missed something here when you said something about being in the film, but please tell me more mad Dawn tales. I love no film more than this one, and will listen rapt with attention to whatever you say. And you better believe I am holding what little consciousness I have here together for this plea. George A Romero is the fucking man. Martin ya cunt...quality fuckin mayhem...

Damn. Start to veer off into incomprehensibility again...the usual chaos. Please relate all Dawn-making tales. Cos that's all that's required. Me and my pal Justin, when we were 20, went to Monroeville Mall, with a tape of the chintzy hogwash gauche muzak from the end of the film, when you see the zombies wandering across the ice. We got told to turn the muzak off on our ghetto blaster by some fucking security guard, but that was alright. Cos we were fucking in the place where they shot Dawn of The Fucking Dead and you can never get much better than that. How we got there is another tale or two, but ya know, that's the essence of it.

"Shoot it man...shot it in da head!"

I am one of the biggest Dawn fans on the planet. The end.

Bet on it.

G.

Furious D

03-08-2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by The Baron
Oh, yeah, Furious... Always the voice of fucking reason! ;)

It's a sad world we live in when I'm the voice of reason.;)

Now, you promised Tales From The Set and we want to hear them. Now dish. :D

judex

03-08-2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Furious D
If you just crassly insult and belittle people over trivia and then expect your targets to bow down before your shining greatness, then you're going to be sadly disappointed.

Rats D, you just destroyed my whole M.O.

The Baron

03-08-2004, 11:05 PM

Let me take you all back to the year 1977... Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania... (At that time,) a place where motion pictures just aren't made.

Your humble narrator was a sophomore at Point Park College, in the Theatre Arts Department. (I can just hear Graham screaming "Gey on weth et!")

John Amplas, star of George Romero's Martin, was a friend of several of us, and a PPC alumnus. Well, Johnny was working on casting extras on a new movie, and rumor had it, it was the sequel to Night of the Living Dead! When you're an actor in Pittsburgh, Night is legendary. A Pittsburgh movie! Needless to say, as a young actor who was obssessed with horror movies (the very reason I wanted to act was to be in horror films,) I jumped at the chance.

The first night, a chilly midnight in late October, a group of us drove out to the location, the Glen Hazel Projects, a particularly nasty ghetto. What the hell were they doing shooting there? We pulled in, and the place was swarming with SWAT team members, grip trucks, lights, and something you didn't see in Pittsburgh, EVER: Puerto Ricans!

One of the Puerto Ricans walked up to us, and it was John in costume and make-up. Well Gawd-damn! This was a real movie!

John took us into the hot set, and introduced us to the Man, the Legend, George A. Romero. George was under the weather that night, like many of his crew members, down with a flu. But he still took a few minutes to explain what the story was about, and what they were shooting that night.

For those of you who have never had the pleasure of meeting George, he is one of the nicest people I've ever known, and an actor's dream to work with. He has an infectious laugh, and always has a smile for you, even when under pressure. He's also very loyal to his actors, and thanks to him, I became a Screen Actors Guild member.

From there, we were introduced to a guy named Tom Savini. (Since DotD, I've done three other films with Tom.) Savini can be a hard guy to warm up to, because he has a very powerful personality. But once you get to know him, he's really a great guy. (And talk about a ladies man! Jesus! This guy had more tail hanging off of him than China's got rice.)

Tom was busy applying a prosthetic to a young lady's shoulder for a scene to be shot an hour later. You may remember it: A zombie, played by my old friend Tommy Lafitte, takes a bite out of his wife's trapezius. What made that gag so effective, was the laying in of corned beef brisket under the foam and latex. It was real meaty muscle tissue being torn!

I'm not sure whether it was the flu, or the kick ass effect from Tom's skilled hands, but several crew members made a dive for the outside as soon as they heard "Cut." Some of them didn't make it, and the smell of vomit under the hot lights caused a "chain reaction" of serious hurling. :eek:

From there, the shooting moved outside, figuratively and literally. Gunshots from automatic rifles, shotgun blasts, and plenty of stage blood, as the "SWAT Team" assaulted the ghetto. And damn, those guys were into it!

I wandered over to crafty for a cup of coffee, and saw a tall, powerfully built black man standing there in a SWAT uniform. I introduced myself, and said, "You look really familiar." He said his name was Ken, and asked me if I had ever seen Bingo Long's and mentioned a few other films, and I knew where I had seen his work. Ken Foree rocks! He's a great guy, and a real pro. I've seen him a few times over the years since, on set and off, and he's never forgotten a single scene we've done together. (And let me tell you, remembering something you did with another actor over 20 years ago ain't all that common!)

Monroeville Mall

Call time at the Monroeville Mall, in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, was 8:00 pm. The mall closed at 9:00, and for an hour, I was assigned to recruit extras from the mall patrons. Now here I was, a six-foot-tall body builder in a black leather jacket, asking people if they wanted to be in a movie. More than once, I had my face slapped by a young lady who thought I was coming on to her. Maybe I just wasn't pretty enough...

Fortunately, after a while, word had gotten out that a legitimate movie was being shot, and we had lines of people signing up. The hardest part was convincing them to come back on consecutive nights, and making sure they wore the same clothing. You may notice some zombie continuity errors when you watch the film. There's your explanation.

By 9:00, the zombie make-up team was working like mad to get all the extras ready. Gray base, brown shadows for eye sockets and cheek hollows... And don't forget those hands! Tom and his assistant, Taso Stravakis, were applying the more elaborate appliances and gore, while four of us were handling the extras.

You may remember two particular zombies in the mall. One was a VERY attractive young lady in a tennis outfit, the other was a morbidly obese guy in bathing trunks. Here's a prime example of why it pays to be the one in charge: Every night, Tom did the body make-up on the girl in the tennis outfit. Wanna guess who had to make up the fat guy? That's right, your humble narrator. And CRIPES! Did that guy ever have a case of b.o.!

Then one night, it happened... We ran out of gray pancake. How do we make zombies without gray pancake?!? Oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck!!! Not to panic... We'll improvise. I ran out to my car and got a bottle of Stein's liquid white base, we started breaking up white pancake and grinding it together with small amounts of black... "Are the zombies ready? We need them on set!" Oh shit oh piss oh fuck! "Almost..." Look for the streaky zombies. They were from that night's shoot.

Ladies and gentlemen, a word of advice with regard to sexual health: Never trust your life or family planning to cheap latex.

We were using Trojan brand condoms by the gross in order to make blood squibs for bullet wounds. As we filled the condoms each night with stage blood, about 1/3 of them had pin-holes!

The Baron, in pain: One night, Taso and Marty, who were playing motorcycle raiders, were scheduled to do a scene fighting their way through a few zombies. In the sequence, Taso bashes me in the head with a 20-pound sledge hammer. Of course, we're talking about a sledge with a foam rubber head. No problem, right? WRONG! We carefully choreographed the fight... first strike to the chest, second to the side of the head. We rehearsed it over and over in slow motion until we were good, then we decided to take it at full speed. Chest shot, good; head shot... CRACK!!! He missed, and caught me at full swing with the solid wood handle on the right side of my head. It hurt. Real bad. When I came to, I was on the floor, with Taso kneeling over me, "Oh God! Man, are you okay? Say you're alright! I didn't mean to." I look up, and standing behind him is a worried-looking George, saying "Greg, do you need to go to the hospital?" THEY HEARD THE CRACK AT THE OTHER END OF THE MALL, AND STOPPED SHOOTING TO SEE WHAT HAD HAPPENED! Well, I've got a hard Russian head, so there was no damage done, and we went on to shoot the scene. It's in the film.

The Baron in pain, part deux: Another night, and a costume and make-up change, and Savini and I are doing a fight scene. In this sequence, Tom leaps off a motorcycle, (inside the mall,) grabs a sabre off of the handlebars, hits me in the midsection, then uppercuts me in the face, sending me into a back-flip and down to the floor. Everything's good, right? WRONG! There wasn't a stunt pad, and that floor is marble... And I landed badly. They should have shot footage of my hip, because about 10 minutes later, it was some fucked up colors, and... It hurt. Real bad. Wanna know what hurt even worse? The back-flip got edited out.

Savini in pain: I wasn't the only one who had his share of "ouchies" on the set. The biker who rides his machine through the store window? That was Tom. After carefully carrying the epoxy breakaway window out to the set, and dressing it, the sequence was shot. Bear in mind, this was a one-trick-pony... No time or budget to pour another window. Tom does the gag, beautifully, I might add. But even breakaway glass can cut, and it laid open his knee. To his credit, Tom didn't say word one or react until George yelled "Cut."

Savini in pain, part deux: Remember the scene where Tom's biker character dies in a fall from the second story of the mall interior? Well, Tom's got some stones... That was a real two-story fall. No platforms, no CGI. The man did the high fall. He hit the stunt pads, but his heels missed, and hit the marble floor. Can you say, "OW!" Fortunately, he healed up, (no pun intended,) and all was well; but my respect for Tom Savini grew in leaps and bounds after watching him work.

Snow? What snow?... It's about 5:00 am, and a few of us are on some down time, riding golf carts around the mall. When we arrived the night before, it was a cool, clear December night. Not a cloud in the sky. That morning, when we pulled up in front of the big glass entry door on the first floor, we almost screamed. There was a snow drift, approximately up to my chin, against the door.

"How are we gonna get out of here?"

"Hell if I know."

"Should we tell them?"

"I'm not saying shit. If you want to tell them, wait until we wrap."

We had to wait for the plows to come in before we could even get out of the mall. It took another three hours to get home after that. (And we were back again the following night.)

Picture this: Every morning, we had to be finished and have the mall cleaned up by 7:00 am. Then we'd all have breakfast in the restaurant in the mall. Imagine how long it took for the people working in the restaurant to get used to us, many of us in make-up and covered in stage blood. Remember... There were no showers in the mall.

Well, kids... 26 years later, that's what I recall most vividly. I went on to work with George again in Knightriders in 1980. But Grandpa Baron is getting weary, so enough story time for tonight. If I remember anything else, I'll be sure to post it.

judex

03-08-2004, 11:23 PM

Great stories from the set, Baron. As a fellow refugee from film sets, I know that the actors can be put through a lot. Being on the other side of the camera, most of us crew guys spend a lot of time standing around when not running around like mad men. However, the most danger we generally experience is getting a hernia when lifting a 10 K onto a stand, a dolly onto tracks or burned fingers when removing scrims. Actors are the ones that really suffer for their art, although my arms can get really tired when I am on the stick.

I am kind of curious, did Dario Argento visit the set? I have never seen Zombi (his cut of the film) but have heard it is quite different.

P.S. I always liked both Martin and Knightriders. I think they are two of Romero's best and have never gotten their due.

Graham Rae

03-08-2004, 11:36 PM

thank you so, so much for posting those memories here. Excellent stuff indeed, and really made me smile and get excited. Yeah, fanboy forever for this film, so what. I can't describe how cool it is to hear stories from somebody who actually worked on Dawn, and I think I remember you getting hit in the head with a sledgehammer, cos that's around the bit where Taso Stavrakis, who has a speaking role in Day of The Dead, goes around hitting people with the hammer, including a guy wearing a hat in the chest, right? Just before the teepee gets knocked over and the guys grab the jewellery from the snarling black zombie woman, missing the point that jewellery no longer has any value in a post-zombie society.

I think I'll write a piece for this very site about Dawn and my experience of it and what it has meant to me over the years. I think the time is right. Hell yeah.

Thanks once again, Baron, for your way cool posts here. Sooperb ya bass.

And yeah, Martin is total quality mayhem. John Amplas is great in it - and in Day of The Dead. "I thought Cooper was an asshole, but he was a sweetheart compared to Rhodes."
G.

The Baron

03-09-2004, 12:01 AM

You'll appreciate this, Graham...

I still have a couple of spent shells from blanks used on the DotD shoot. Just a wee bit of memorabilia from my first motion picture experience.

Judex, Dario Argento was on the set a couple of times. I only saw him once, at a distance, when they were shooting the scene with the zombie being dragged by the car. I really had no idea who he was at the time, except that he was one of the executive producers.

There were a lot of really talented people on that set. I'm really proud to have been a part of such an important motion picture. In the overall history of film, Dawn of the Dead not only stands the test of time as a classic, but it also stood up to and bested the MPAA. (Jack Valenti and company wanted to give it an X rating for violence.) Romero and producer Richard Rubinstein let them know what they could do with their X rating!

Almost three decades after the film was made, it still has fans, and can still scare the bejesus out of people.

MacReady_Mix

03-09-2004, 03:04 PM

Baron-- what a treat to read about your experiences working on the original DotD. Made me want to see it again, been too long, so a quick viddie of it before the remake comes out would be just thing. Cool to hear that Ken F. has a cameo in the new one. Any word on Mr. Savini making an appearance? Last thing I saw him in was From Dusk til Dawn.

Jeremy Knox

03-09-2004, 04:18 PM

Thanks Baron. DotD is one of my absolute favorite films of all time and arguably one of the first modern action flicks ala "Aliens". Must have been kickass to make it. Everytime I'm in a mall and hear that damn mall music I think of that film. I even own the (now getting a pain in the ass to find) original Thorn/EMI version on VHS.

It's the kind of movie that's so damn good that it wants to make you write a zombie movie of your own. Which is what I'm going to do with my 4th book or so :D. Just need to work out the story some more so I don't thread over George's ground (or anyone else's for that matter) plotwise.

So which is your fave version of Dawn? Theatrical? Directors? Argento? 16mm with the alternate end (if it even exists)?

Come now, spill it ;)

JK13

The Baron

03-09-2004, 08:11 PM

If I had to pick a favorite cut, it would have to be the one that was only seen by about 300 people, at a special cast & crew screening at the Chatham Cinema in Pittsburgh, 1978.

This pre-release edit ran about 30 minutes longer than the director's cut, and most of that footage was action in the mall. I've never seen the alternative ending, so I couldn't even comment on that.

(Your date kind of looks at you funny, when she sees you on screen, disemboweling someone.)

Pete Vonder Haar

03-09-2004, 08:27 PM

Thanks for that, Baron. Just reminded me I'm overdue to watch it again myself.

Furious D

03-09-2004, 08:31 PM

Rory L. Aronsky

03-09-2004, 09:40 PM

I saw something on the ticker of one of those silly entertainment shows that said that DAWN OF THE DEAD is coming out on DVD in time to capitalize on the coming remake. I'd like to find out more about that.

Indeed it is. It was just released today (March 9) and is the Dawn of the Dead: Divimax Edition from Anchor Bay Entertainment. It has an audio commentary by George Romero and Tom Savini, 4 page collector's booklet with all-new liner notes, preview of the upcoming Dawn of the Dead comic book from IDW Publishing, and theatrical trailers, TV & radio spots, and poster galleries.

From the dvdangle.com review of this DVD, in regards to the preview of the comic book:

"It simply shows a still image of the new tie-in Dawn of the Dead comic book and provides information on where to pick up a copy. This feature could have easily been interesting if it had included at least a few still images from inside the actual book."

The above information as to the extra features comes from amazon.com by the way. The dvdangle.com review mentions a great transfer and terrific sound. If you're curious about the review:

Dawn of the Dead: Divimax Edition (http://www.dvdangle.com/reviews/review.php?Id=3437)

Ricky Retardo

03-09-2004, 10:34 PM

I just nabbed a double handfull of "DotD" (remake) badges from work. Little two inch buttons that feature the poster artwork. Because I love these forums so much, I'll be happy to mail free of charge one (1) each to the first ten (10) folks who PM me and say "please". NO TRICKS! Just PM me the word "please" and I'll respond to the top ten and ask for a snailmail addy. If ya don't hear back, ya got beat out. Again, no tricks and it's free!

Continental U.S. only!

Chris Gore

03-10-2004, 01:47 PM

FILM THREAT invites you and a guest to a special late night screening of DAWN OF THE DEAD in Los Angeles on Thursday, March 18 at 11:00 PM.

To attend this screening, pick up passes at CAMPUS CIRCLE
4201 Wilshire BLvd., Suite 507, Los Angeles. Tell them Chris Gore from Film Threat sent you.

LIMITED QUANTITIES SO HURRY!
[Hours: 9AM to 5PM. CC is located at CRENSHAW/WILSHIRE Blvd. They do not validate. No phone calls please]

Furious D

03-10-2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Rory L. Aronsky
Indeed it is. It was just released today (March 9) and is the Dawn of the Dead: Divimax Edition from Anchor Bay Entertainment.

I've been very happy so far with the quality of Anchor Bay videos and DVDs & I'm glad they're handling the DVD release of DOTD.

Back before I got my DVD player I got the VHS edition of DEEP RED from Anchor Bay, probably the best colour and picture I've ever seen with that film.

It's good to see that somebody's taking the time to really give classic films that are outside the mainstream the full bore treatment. Some major studios can learn a thing or two from them on how to make a decent DVD. :D

judex

03-10-2004, 05:30 PM

I've also heard that Anchor Bay is putting out a special DVD boxed set that includes the theatrical cut, directors cut, and the European Zombi version.

Furious D

03-10-2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by judex
I've also heard that Anchor Bay is putting out a special DVD boxed set that includes the theatrical cut, directors cut, and the European Zombi version.

I heard there was a 2 Disc special edition scheduled for the summer, but I didn't know they were going to go whole hog like that.

Goody. My sociopathic li'l horror-luvin heart is dancing.:D

judex

03-10-2004, 09:39 PM

Hey D,

Before you take my word like gospel, you should check it out. I just remember reading about it. I could be wrong.

Pete Vonder Haar

03-10-2004, 11:25 PM

Could somebody please hurry up and figure all this out? My VHS copy is starting to make funny noises.

Rory L. Aronsky

03-10-2004, 11:29 PM

Pete, if you're absitively posolutely desperate for a DVD copy of Dawn of the Dead right now, your best bet is to purchase the "Divimax Edition" they have out right now. As for the other news, I can't find anything on it yet (and I do visit as many DVD websites as possible on a daily basis), but I'll keep looking.

Pete Vonder Haar

03-10-2004, 11:43 PM

Thanks, Rory. The time constraint is chiefly due to the fact I want to see a decent digital transfer a few times before my infant daughter understands what she's watching.

Rory L. Aronsky

03-10-2004, 11:48 PM

Assuming she can't talk yet (well, obviously not...being an infant and all), I understand the speed at which you wish to accomplish this zombie task because you certainly wouldn't want her first word to be "braaaainnnns".

Pete Vonder Haar

03-10-2004, 11:56 PM

Actually, that would be kind of cool.

The Baron

03-11-2004, 12:43 AM

Your daughter's first word might be "Braaaaaiiinssss" if you were watching Return of the Living Dead. In Dawn of the Dead, the zombies were essentally mute. You'd get the occasional grunt or throaty gutteral, but no discernable words.

But I agree, "Brains" would be a cool "baby's first word."

Rory L. Aronsky

03-11-2004, 12:48 AM

I apologize, Baron. Though I hate to admit it in a thread such as this one, I am rusty on my zombie movie knowledge as I have not approached that area for a good many years. Looks like it's time to get back to undead basics.

El Duderino Diablo

03-11-2004, 12:37 PM

Anybody see Day of the Dead when it first came out on vhs? I did and I've always been of the opinion that (here in Canadaland) the version I'd rented (from two different hip little independant vid shops) had been hacked to bits, edited for home video. Needless to say, I hated it. I never did see it in theaters so I don't know what the theatrical version was like in Canada or the US.
Anyhow, I finally saw the Anchor Bay double disc set this week and while I still found it to be the weakest entry in the series I did find this version to be more or less complete on the gore front, at least it didn't look to be haphazardly edited at the insistance of outside forces.
I suspect my fellow Canuck, Furious D, will go on a rant about how hopelessly conservative our ratings boards are but I've found over the years that it usually comes down to who's running the local provincial film classification board. I've always been under the impression that film classifiers/censors have, for the most part, been more lenient out here on the wet coast than the rest of Canada and I've suspected them of occasionally being somewhat more lenient than our southern neighbours.
Any thoughts?

The Baron

03-11-2004, 02:04 PM

I tend to agree that Day is probably the weakest of the three, but I believe it appears that much weaker by comparison to the other two films in the series.

Night shocked audiences in 1968, because it was the first time anyone had done anything that brutally graphic. The black and white added to the feel of the movie, because at that time, more people had black & white televisions than color; that, combined with the grainy look of the movie, and the "news coverage" footage, left you with the feeling that you were watching events unfold on your television... even in the cinema. Kind of like Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast.

Dawn was unrelenting. If audiences were shocked by Night of the Living Dead, they were made shell-shocked by Dawn of the Dead. From the opening of the film, the pace was already break-neck, and Romero's direction and editing didn't give the audience a minute to catch their collective breath until they're about an hour into it. Explosions, copious amounts of blood, make-up and gore FX literally created and used for the first time in a film, made audience members faint (I actually witnessed that happen,) and leave the theatres in a traumatized state. Dawn of the Dead took audiences out a whole new door. (If you've never seen Dawn on a big screen, and if the opportunity should arise, DO IT! You haven't seen Dawn of the Dead until you've seen it on the screen at a cinema, with stereo sound!)

By comparison to the first two films of the trilogy, Day of the Dead has nothing new to show us. The story continues, and Romero makes use of his skills to make social commentary on the military/industrial complex, but we're beyond being shocked. We're jaded, and no amount of gore is really going to change that. We know the "zombie mythos," so there's nothing new to teach us, and the pacing on Day can be suffocatingly slow. And even though, in my opinion, it's the weakest of the three, it's still a pretty damn good movie. (Beats the crap out of anything Fulci did in terms of Romero rip-offs!)

Furious D

03-11-2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by The Dude
I suspect my fellow Canuck, Furious D, will go on a rant about how hopelessly conservative our ratings boards are

Actually, I live in Nova Scotia, and they've been pretty lax lately. Sort of a laissez faire attitude. Ontario's the one with the rod up its collective butt.

That's all I have to rant about it.

Pete Vonder Haar

03-11-2004, 09:55 PM

Your daughter's first word might be "Braaaaaiiinssss" if you were watching Return of the Living Dead. In Dawn of the Dead, the zombies were essentally mute. You'd get the occasional grunt or throaty gutteral, but no discernable words.

Yeah, I knew the difference (honest, go to http://www.filmthreat.com/Features.asp?Id=535 if you don't believe me). I just liked the idea.

The Baron

03-11-2004, 10:25 PM

Oh, I never doubted you, Pete. It's just that I'm such a zombie geek.

A little "Living Dead" trivia: The original script for Return of the Living Dead, written by Jack Russo, Russ ("They're coming to get you, Barbara!") Streiner and Rudy Ricci was intended as the sequel to Night of the Living Dead. Dan O'Bannon's screenplay bears very little resemblence to the original script. (When they sold the story to O'Bannon, I was ass-out on a starring role. DAMN!)

For those of you who loved the RotLD soundtrack, and especially the 45 Grave hit, Party Time, Grave's lead vocalist, Dinah Cancer, has a new band: The Grave Robbers. (Due to some legal bullshit with her ex-husband, guitarist Paul Cuttler, she can't use the name 45 Grave.) She's doing all the old 45 Grave songs, and has shows presently booked in the L. A. area. Ya might want to check out Dinah's site:

http://www.geocities.com/dinahcancerpft/

Tell her "Rat Bastard" sent ya! :cool:

judex

03-11-2004, 10:37 PM

I actually picked up a copy of the paperback "Return of the Living Dead" in a used book store many years ago. It was by Russo. And Baron, you are right, it was totally different from the movie. All I really remember is people going around driving stakes in the heads of the recently dead. It had a cool cover, too.

Good Ole Flopp

03-12-2004, 05:35 PM

:)
"night of the living dead" really blew me away when i first saw it, i recognized it as a classic even as a young child.
i saw the sequels as just humorous sequels, i never gave them the same respect i gave and still give "night".

:)
will i see this remake?
welp, if i wouldn't've read this thread i'd've said NO.
*cough* texas *cough* *cough* chainsaw massacre anyone?
but you guys certainly have put a nice spin on it, especially that trailer, good stuff!

:)
as for horror movies in general, i grew up with fun horror movies, so i always liked it as a genre.
vincent price in "theatre of blood" and "the disgusting dr. phibes" or whatever it was called, good clean horror movie fun, "the tingler" lol the first horror movie i ever laughed through.
"dr. terror's house of horrors" with peter cushing and christopher lee was one of my all time favs as a kid, the voodoo jazz scene was the best soundtrack for a horror movie scene.
during the summer my gradeschool used to have movie days where they'd show old monster and horror movies, i'd go every time, great fun.

:)
i gotta say i am sick of the "hellraiser" type horror movies these days where the squealing teenage girl visits a dimension of pain that kills and tortures everyone and everything but her.
i find myself saying "kill the bitch already ffs, jeez!" as she slips through the demon's fingers over and over.
but oh well like y'all said, there's good ones and bad ones, and heck "hellraiser" is a pretty awesome movie, just that aspect of it made me sick (lol).

;D
and i must give a hearty LOL to the guy that dug up that one guy's website to thwart his own arguements.
he was obviously racist against horror movies, hate stemming from ignorance.

;)
anyway, dotd trailer looked nice and scary, it'd be nice to be scared by a living dead movie again.

mondoshane

03-15-2004, 02:44 AM

zombies

Gorillaboss

03-15-2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by judex
I actually picked up a copy of the paperback "Return of the Living Dead" in a used book store many years ago. It was by Russo. And Baron, you are right, it was totally different from the movie. All I really remember is people going around driving stakes in the heads of the recently dead. It had a cool cover, too.

Since Herr Baron graced us with a behind-the-scenes tale about Dawn, I thought I'd share some personal zombie memories. Let me weave you a story, regarding the novel Return of the Living Dead...

The year was 1981, when I was 8 years old and in the 3rd grade. A classmate of mine brought Return to school, and I was instantly drawn to the lurid cover...not only did it say the words "Living Dead" (I was quite the youthful monster/horror buff), but there was a haunting image--a large headshot of a glowing-greenish zombie looming over a woman running towards the viewer, with her shirt half-ripped off (showing some bra and bosom) by a hand that's clutching at her shoulder. I was drawn to that book like a moth to a flame...monsters + scantily-clad women = a goldmine! (Yes, I fancied the ladies even in my elementary school years.)

So, I immediately begged and pleaded to borrow the book, but my friend was VERY reluctant--not only had he not even read past page 5, but he had stolen it from his surly ex-con uncle on the sly, so he was not so willing to part with it. However, I persevered, and, after much groveling and the promise of a several days worth of sack lunch desserts, I got my prize!

Throughout the rest of the school day, I sneaked peeks at the pages, and I began to read it in earnest on the bus after school. I couldn't put it down, and I read it late into the night, finishing it with the cliched fanboy image of the little boy hiding under a blanket with a flashlight. I finished it at about 2:00am in the morning.

And I didn't sleep for the 3 days, because if I did, the zombies would get me.

I returned the book to my friend, and the next days were a blur, because of the lack of sleep. Even after exhaustion eventually claimed me and I finally slept, I had nightmares of such intensity that I ended up obsessing about zombies during my waking hours. After finishing Return, every conscious thought was consumed with the undead apocalypse that was certainly awaiting humanity. Every place I went, I planned my escape strategies from the hungry hordes. If I was at school, I would climb the cabinets and get into the ceiling tiles. If I was at the grocery store, I'd climb onto the lowest shelf and sandwich myself behind cereal boxes. If I was at the mall, I'd try to climb inside the ceiling above the dressing rooms. I repeated the mantra instilled by the book to save me if ever the zombies ever got me: the only way to stop them was with a blow to the head, or fire.

I would love to say that this zombie obsession lasted only a short time, that I grew out of it quickly. And if you define "short time" and "quickly" to mean "YEARS," you'd be right.

I ate, breathed, and slept zombies (and other monsters, but I kinda already did that anyway), but I had a secret shame (I mean, one more embarrassing than this one): I had never seen Night of the Living Dead, or any other Romero-verse work, and I was petrified to do so.

It wasn't until I was in high school (only about 6-7 years in real time, but in Childhood Kid Time, that's an eternity) that I worked up the nerve to actually watch Night of the Living Dead--the back of the book had indicated that this was the foundation for my Return-derived trauma, and I was mortified of actually SEEING the zombies on tv. Finally, when I was in 9th grade, I steeled myself to watch Night, and it was an unfortunate experience on 2 levels--1) it was the Turner colorized premier, and 2) I only lasted until about the 30 minute mark before I got too wigged. (The part where the zombie in the house sneaks up on Barbara is what sent me away in terror.)

It was over a year before I again worked up the nerve to try to watch a zombie movie, and it was a Saturday night during my sophomore year. During the commercial breaks of a Fred Dryer Hunter rerun, I quickly flipped the channels to the USA network to catch furtive glimpses of Day of the Dead. Of course, since God is into irony, the scenes that I caught happened to be the climactic "abattoir in the entryway" involving Captain Rhodes and his internal organs. Needless to say, I ran proverbially shrieking for the hills.

I think that I would have been over my zombie phobia if I could have only found a copy of that book and re-read it again...but, do you remember how hard it used to be, in pre-Amazon days, to find one used book when you didn't know the author's name, or it's publication date, or ISBN, or anything? Needle, meet haystack.

So, how did I manage to lick my zombie fear, you ask? It only took about 12 years or so, and it was only by pure chance. In 93/94, I went to a Famous Monsters of Filmland horror/monster convention, and while I was browsing, I happened upon a dealer who not only specialized in zombie-related merchandize, but he also had copies--plural!--of Return prominently displayed on his tables! I pounced on the book like a raving madman, and I took it to the man behind the counter and threw money at him...I didn't even look at the price on the book, I just knew that I had to have it to heal my psyche. When he was getting my change, I stared mesmerized at the cover, and there I saw the name of the man who had terrorized my slumber for over a decade...JOHN RUSSO. That was the accursed fiend who stole my innocence, my childhood, my VERY LIFE! Damn his infernal hide!

It was then that I noticed the nametag sticker of the man giving me my change...it read, "Hi, My Name Is: John Russo."

A lightbulb went off, and I was stunned into shocked silence. I stood there like an idiot for so long that Mr. Russo turned to my date and asked, "Hey, is he ok?"

After a punch in the ribs by my ladyfriend, I came to, and I started to gush to Mr. Russo about how he had ruined my dreams for over a decade and shaped me into the horror freak that I was (and am today). At that comment, he smiled and said one word: "GOOD!"

I went away like a giddy schoolgirl.

That night, I made a ritual of re-reading Return of the Living Dead--I mean, this was a monumentous occasion, to revisit and purge my childhood demons after having over 10 years to build them up in my mind. My ladyfriend and I stayed up together in our room, and I read it aloud to her until finishing the next morning.

And what was the verdict, you ask, on this life-altering tome of mystic evil?

The book was total crap.

Not only did it rip off complete PAGES--WORD FOR WORD--of the Night of the Living Dead novelization (yeah, I had read that, but it didn't have much impact) but it was full of spelling/grammatical/editing errors, rampant sexism, and stupid characters. The zombies were not only smarter, but they were also more sympathetic than the antagonists--I'd insert a pithy comment about "theme" here, but that would be giving Russo waaaaaayyyy too much credit.

Yes, I felt like a complete buffoon, but I haven't had a zombie nightmare since. AND I've made sure to see every dang zombie flick I can get my hands on, too.

So, NYAH NYAH NYAH, Mr. Russo! I win!

The Baron

03-15-2004, 01:00 PM

Gorillaboss, thank you for sharing your story. You started my day with a good laugh. (My childhood bogey was the dead old woman who comes back for her ring in Black Sabbath.) But the point is, we all had our "adversary", and we all indulged it even though it scared the crap out of us. You succeeded in taking me back to childhood for a moment. That was really great.

I've worked with Jack Russo, and if you think his novels are bad, you should see his screenplays... But, he is a nice guy.

MacReady_Mix

03-15-2004, 05:48 PM

Just read this in a review on Ain't it Cool.

"In a forced attempt to appease the legion of fans unsure about this remake, the filmmakers threw in cameos by Tom Savini, Scott Reiniger and Ken Foree…but to me they felt like they were there just to get the fans into the theater. "

So, another carrot or three to lure us into to see this film.

Man, I can't wait until they remake Day.
;)

Furious D

03-15-2004, 08:23 PM

Tomreedtool was wrong!

It's not just blood & gore that'll make us shell out our ill gotten filthy lucre. It's cameos by minor celebrities, coupled with blood & gore that make us slaves to the horror industry.:D

mondoshane

03-15-2004, 08:47 PM

"The Toolbox Murder's" remake forever!!!!

ace38

03-15-2004, 09:45 PM

Can I be worried now? Just watched the first 10 minutes on USA network, and its precisely what I expected it to be. A brain-dead gorefest made for those with attention spans incapable of handling anything longer than an MTV video. No time to even blink before it starts.

The Baron

03-15-2004, 10:54 PM

That bad, huh? Oooo, this does not bode well. Thanks for the warning, Ace.

El Duderino Diablo

03-16-2004, 01:13 AM

First ten minutes of what?

The Baron

03-16-2004, 01:21 AM

Dude, look at the name of the thread. Do you think Ace38 might be refering to the first ten minutes of the Dawn of the Dead remake? (I don't even have cable, and I knew USA was going to be showing the first ten minutes of the film tonight.) :p

El Duderino Diablo

03-16-2004, 02:24 AM

I'm in Canada, watching Canadian cable (and some American stuff that doesn't include USA network), you see? I had no idea anybody was showing the first ten minutes of the remake on the tube tonight. Honestly, I thought he was talkng about the original which would make his critique sound rather tomreedtoonish or the previously mentioned Toolbox Murders which I know nothing about.
So there you go. No USA network. USA network means absolutely nothing here. No knowledge of what's showing on USA network. CBC on the other hand... ;)

Graham Rae

03-16-2004, 05:55 AM

I saw a poster for the remake of Dawn today, first one I have seen. Previews on the 19th and 20th in Scotland and opens fully on the 26th. I inadvertently went "Yes!" to myself, though probably more in memory of the pleasure the original has brought me over the years than anything to do with the remake. Poster, with a zombie wee lassie, was actually pretty crap.

Ace 38's review makes me want to see it even more. Hahahaha...who gives a damn. The original remains a work of genius forever. Friend of mine who interviewed James Gunn, the writer on the remake, told me the other day that Gunn and the filmmakers even had death threats over remaking Dawn. I mean, I understand annoyance, but death threats? Gimme a break. A joke's a joke, but to hell with nonsense. Keep repeating "It's only a movie...only a movie...only a movie."

I watched the original Dawn again on Sunday morning and it stands up as well as ever. And always will.

"Cannibalism in the true sense of the world implies an intra-species activity. These creatures prey on humans, they do not prey on each other, that's the difference. They cannot be considered human."

Onwards...

G.

MacReady_Mix

03-16-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Furious D
Tomreedtool was wrong!

It's not just blood & gore that'll make us shell out our ill gotten filthy lucre. It's cameos by minor celebrities, coupled with blood & gore that make us slaves to the horror industry.:D

But that's not all, oh no. They're also gonna hand out free DotD pins to the first 1,000 people on opening day. ;)

Actually, I remember going to see Mission to Mars and they handed out some large, stupid "collectors" pin and when the lights came up at the end of the film, everyone had left them behind.

Graham Rae

03-16-2004, 01:30 PM

Well kiddies, it only gets better. I phoned up BBC Radio Scotland today (appeared on there a coupla times before) and demanded (well, half-demanded, half-pleaded) to be allowed to review the Dawn remake on a show of theirs. The producer laughed at my embarrassingly feverish enthusiasm and agreed, so I'll be on in a week or so doing it.

Letting a Dawn fanboy review a remake which might suck (gonna see it on Friday night)...this could turn ugly. But who better to talk about the thing? And getting paid to talk about Dawn of The Dead...doesn't get any better than that. If the remake sucks all Scotland's ears will ring to the sound of my fury at the Hollywood bastardization of a grand guignol pop art cult classic.

Well, maybe not all Scotland's ears. Just those of those who listen to the show. Obviously.

I'll letcha know how it goes...

G.

MacReady_Mix

03-16-2004, 01:35 PM

Give'em hell Graham.

Does the radio station stream it's stuff over the net, so we can all hear your review?

Graham Rae

03-16-2004, 01:41 PM

That I don't know. I could find out. Or I could just transcribe what I say here after I'm on the show. Wouldn't take all that long; only be a few minutes long tops. I have a feeling it'll be funny. But if I do not like the film...they'll know all about it.

MacReady_Mix

03-16-2004, 02:01 PM

look forward to your review.

:)

Pete Vonder Haar

03-16-2004, 07:55 PM

I don't know if I agree about the "brain dead gore" assessment. I enjoyed the fact that we got five minutes of intro before the shit hits the fan. The way Sarah Polley's character keeps missing the news bulletins is amusing, too.

As always, I'm withholding judgement until I see it. As far as cinematic depictions of the plunge into zombie chaos, I liked what I saw last night. We'll see this weekend.

Jeremy Knox

03-17-2004, 10:10 AM

Return of Dawn of The Dead - Onion Infographic (http://www.theonion.com/infograph/)

Leave it to the guys of The Onion to be fans of the original :D

JK13

Good Ole Flopp

03-18-2004, 02:05 AM

:)
here ya go, the first eight minutes of dotd

http://www.pipebomb.net/sa-stuff/dotd8kbps384.wmv

:D
i think the value is in the wide panoramic outdoor shots, it won't be the same on a tv.

;)
overacting, laughable action, good clean horror movie fun

Chris Gore

03-18-2004, 09:46 AM

Should be fun. An 11 PM screening on an IMAX screen -- the best way to view gore. Can't wait!

Chris Gore

03-19-2004, 08:47 AM

I saw the new "Dawn of the Dead" last night at the Howard Hughes Center at 11 PM after downing a few drinks with a fairly rowdy and pumped up crowd. This is exactly how one should experience this remake. The result? It was fun, but not great. When someone would scream at the screen, people laughed and yelling back at the screen was encouraged, it was that kind of screening.

Anyway, it starts off fast without really establishing too much and Sarah Polley's character is thrust into this adventure, of course, they all end up at the mall in the first ten minutes and things don't seem to go much of anywhere. I guess what is lacking, and this sounds kind of sad, it the existential journey that the original DOTD did so well. And any sort of subtext that might have existed is so far beneath the surface, it was really never made apparent. I kept waiting for any kind of character moment that would make me care a little more for some of them.

It also feels very choppy as if it was retooled in editing and this did not benefit the film. In particular, there is the "birth" scene we have all seen in the trailers and the woman is tied up to the bed, with no explanation. Among other choppy things as if some producer was telling them to cut all the character moments and get right to the action, but without at least some of those moments, it's hard to CARE about any of the action.

Also, what annoyed me is that they seemed to have ripped off "28 Days Later" with making the cause of the "zombie outbreak" into a plague. Anyone who just dies does not turn into a zombie.

The gore factor is there, there are some truly gruesome moments, but none which surpass the original in terms of pure shock value. Mmmm... except maybe for one. It involves a chainsaw. I won't spoil it.

Look, if you lower your expectations, you'll have a good time. I'm just happy to see zombie films make a comeback at all. But this one had so much potential and the idea of a remake never bothered me. This is just not a very good one. If you forced me to rate this, out of five stars, I'd give it two.

For a really cool zombie movie, check out this trailer for Shaun of the Dead:
http://uip.co.uk/romzom/

If you're looking for a fun zombie movie, Shaun of the Dead looks really promising. Any comments?

Ellen M.

03-19-2004, 11:50 AM

I just like that Chris Gore is talking about the "gore factor"!

Ellen ;)

Mark Bell

03-19-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Chris Gore
It was fun, but not great. When someone would scream at the screen, people laughed and yelling back at the screen was encouraged, it was that kind of screening.
But it wasn't one of those "Don't Go In There!!!" type of verbal displays, more of a very loud and enthusiastic response to everything that happened. Except when that DJ guy was trying to give stuff away prior to the film. That got an enthusiastic non-response.

As Chris said, it was fun. I don't think the film exists for any other reason then to just mindlessly entertain with blood and gore (and a very sardonic sense of humor). No social commentary, no real connection with any of the characters (save, for me personally, when Sarah Polley finally has a moment to herself as she raids the security office for a first-aid kit), and you can't allow yourself to dwell on the plot holes because it could ruin things... well, thankfully the viewing experience allowed me to get so caught up in the laughing and cheering that I didn't really start picking apart the whole plot until much, much later.
It also feels very choppy as if it was retooled in editing and this did not benefit the film.
I read somewhere that there is quite a bit more footage that was shot lurking around so expect an extra scenes-heavy DVD or the oh, so popular extended director's cut.
Among other choppy things as if some producer was telling them to cut all the character moments and get right to the action, but without at least some of those moments, it's hard to CARE about any of the action.
The movie as it exists on screens is pretty by the numbers, and what I mean by that is the whole "action beat every 5 pages, 2 pages, now" thing and it breaks down REAL easy into the 20-25 minute act structure (save for really no impetus behind the third act EXCEPT that it would make for some cool action sequences). I will admit to the lack of caring Chris has expressed above, because by the third act you want every character who continues to make a bonehead move to just up and die already, and I wasn't really that curious as to who was going to bite it in the final sequence as much as curious about how it'll end in general. Make sure you stick around during the credits for that.
Also, what annoyed me is that they seemed to have ripped off "28 Days Later" with making the cause of the "zombie outbreak" into a plague.
I feel that 28 Days Later is the best homage/"re-make" of the Dead trilogy we've got, as it really kind of weaves all of the films into one. And 28 Days Later, whether you dig what it has to say under the top-layer or not, at least tries to say SOMETHING. This is popcorn fun, nothing more, nothing less.
The gore factor is there, there are some truly gruesome moments, but none which surpass the original in terms of pure shock value. Mmmm... except maybe for one. It involves a chainsaw. I won't spoil it.
There are also plenty of sweet bits involving large vehicles. And there's a scene on the roof that's just hilarious.
Look, if you lower your expectations, you'll have a good time. I'm just happy to see zombie films make a comeback at all.
Got to second Chris on this one. Don't go into this movie with your checklist of things that you loved in the original to compare with, and don't go in expecting some zombie magnum opus. The movie just doesn't shine as a re-make or as an attempt at originality. However, if you just have fun, get into it for what it is, the movie is an absolute blast. This thing is going to have a huge box office.
If you're looking for a fun zombie movie, Shaun of the Dead looks really promising. Any comments?
Shaun of the Dead looks like it is going to be incredibly funny. I hear we'll be getting it in the States sometime in the Fall?

Furious D

03-19-2004, 07:22 PM

I was poking around the Anchor Bay site, and in their Coming Soon section they mentioned a planned September release of the original DotD in a multi-disc box set to make fans kick themselves for buying the single disc divimax edition out now.

They're a little vague on the details for now, but say that they'll include both the theatrical cut and at least one alternate version as well as new audio commentaries and special features.

I think Tomreedtool will want one for his stocking stuffer come Christmas.;)

Mark Bell

03-19-2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Furious D
They're a little vague on the details for now, but say that they'll include both the theatrical cut and at least one alternate version as well as new audio commentaries and special features.
Yeah, it's supposed to be a 3-disc set. But, I don't really see how this is any different then releasing a leaner version of Return of the King only to follow it up a few months later with the Super Mega Happy Version, so if I bought the current special edition, I wouldn't be kicking myself for it come the Fall. Of course, real Dead aficionados are going to want to own every version anyway, so I doubt this is too much of a hinderance to them either. And doesn't Anchor Bay do this constantly (they're behind the 60 or so versions of the Evil Dead movies, right)?

ace38

03-19-2004, 08:44 PM

Yeah..Anchor Bay and Elite are to blame for the numerous "Evil Dead" discs out there.

I bought the new Divimax "Dawn", mainly because of the Sept. release of the SE "Star Wars" set....I can get the "Dawn" box for Christmas or my birthday in January and not feel like I've missed out.

Didn't have it on DVD, now I do...but stuff like this, there's always going to be a "super new updated version" every couple years...

The Baron

03-19-2004, 10:49 PM

(I decided to not invite the wrath of the mods, and moved this post from another thread of the same name to this one.)

**************************

Wow! I've never seen fans so loyal to a motion picture in my life. It's really kind of amazing, and at the same time, quite touching.

Those of you who've worked on movies know, that when you're in the process of making a picture, you're never really sure what the end product will be. That's especially true of how the audience will receive it. When we were working on the original, (or in deference to the fans, the real) Dawn of the Dead, almost 27 years ago, none us had any idea that it would become the phenomena it is today.

When I read what some of the loyal fans have had to say, like Mondoshane and Graham, I kind of get a sense of pride to have been one of the many, many artists and craftsmen who put the time, effort, and LOVE into making what many people at the time thought was going to be just a sequel.

From what I've seen of the new film, it appears to lack many of the qualities that made DotD great. Even the good reviews are saying that it's just another zombie movie.

Well, I'm gonna go with the fans on this one! Why? Because only true fans know what's really good, damn it! If 99% of everybody I hear from is saying that this new film is just a pale imitation of the original, then there must be some credence to that.

I will, of course, go see this new zombie film. I need to ultimately make up my own mind on it. But I will go knowing that it ain't no Dawn of the Dead!

mondoshane

03-20-2004, 08:48 AM

Wow two super ass kissing reviews on film threat. I can't believe anyone liked this movie or thought it was original. Disapointment... I don't see how the reviewer can say "1000 Corpses" had no balls when Universal didn't have the the balls to release it. "1000 Corpses" was studio funded and so extreme it was dropped by the studio. I think I am going remake this website and call it "www.filmthreat.com" and it will only have bad reviews of DOTD remake on it.

Things that were stupid and wrong about DOTD Remake:

1. Blond says "I don't want to die in this mall" and 18 pointless charecters reply "Ah...yep". Who wouldn't want to live at the mall and have everything our society can provide? How is living on some island better then having everything?

2. How could dieing ever make a person stronger and faster? It doesn't even make sense. If you took a crowd of fat American cheese eating Wisconsin's they could never run or jump like that.

3. Why does a zombie epidemic make everyone drive stupid? There was like 5 car crashes and 12 near misses in the first 20 minutes of this film and I could see no reason for this.

4. The whole dog thing was stupid. In one scene they find a dog. In the next scene the teenage girl was playing with it. In the next scene the teenage girl is so upset the dog left the mall she leaves the mall and recklessly drives a moving truck through a crowd of 50 super human zombies and survives. Give me a break man that was so retarded! I have never driven a truck like that and don't know if I even could let alone a girl who looks likes she's 16.

5. Why didn't the guy in the gun shop just kill all the zombies in front of the mall? He probably had the ammo.

6. "If I turn into one of them feel free to shoot me in the head" "Oh don't worry I will" and then she does. Corny and stupid.

7. At the begining the daughter's(?) face was all rotten. How did this happen over night?

8. It was sorta bad taste to use a Johnny Cash song seeing as he is fresh dead himself and 2 different versions of "Sickness" by Disturbed was horrible.

9. If it was as gory as everyone says the baby would have ripped thru the stomach rather then been wrapped in a blanket.

10. The head security guard ignited fuel to kill zombies 3 times. Is this lazy writing or what?

11. The teenage love birds and the blond are the surviviors. How standard is this?

12. This movie should have went to Romero and been the 4th in the series "Dead Reckoning". Then at least we would have seen something new rather then a rehash.

Mark Bell

03-20-2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by The Baron
Well, I'm gonna go with the fans on this one! Why? Because only true fans know what's really good, damn it! If 99% of everybody I hear from is saying that this new film is just a pale imitation of the original, then there must be some credence to that.
The young kids, the ones who know more about the plot to the video game for House of the Dead then the original Dead trilogy are going to run this film up a pole and salute it. Seriously, it was too much fun. More discerning fans are going to talk about what we've been talking about (lack of character depth, social commentary, etc) in comparison, but the kids aren't going to have any of it. Believe me, I've already gotten into debates about why the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was better than the re-make and the kids just aren't hearing it. 28 Days Later was the homage, but now it's becoming a reference point.
I will, of course, go see this new zombie film. I need to ultimately make up my own mind on it. But I will go knowing that it ain't no Dawn of the Dead!
The new Dawn of the Dead, if you ignore it as a re-make (which is surprisingly easy to do) and just take it as a fun ride to be seen in a theater with a loud and rowdy crowd, doesn't suck. Really, it does not suck and I'd like to hear criticism of the film that are beyond comparisons to the original (you know, "I didn't like this because of this" as opposed to "I didn't like it because this was nothing like this in the original"). At this point, the comparisons are too easy and I think it is safe to say, for anyone that has seen the two, that they are two different films with a few small similarities and they should be judged as seperate.

Of course, I read Grove's idea of someone going to a video store in five years and renting the new Dawn of the Dead over the original, and the possibility that the new would supplant the old. To that I can only say, won't happen for me. I don't know about the rest of society, and I don't want to know about the rest of society. The original Dawn of the Dead has been going strong for 25 years, right? I don't think a majority of the films I've seen in the passed 10 years are going to have such a life, and I don't see the re-make having any longer a run then any popular horror movie nowadays, so the original, by being quality, will come out on top eventually. But really, I like them both. I'd watch them both again.

As for the issues with the reviews, mondoshane, even the positive reviews on the site had this to say:

David Grove: "Is this film as good as the original? No, of course not, but such comparison is moot. I don’t think these are similar films - or they’re different enough that any hardcore “Dead” fan could watch both films, back to back, and not be bored."

Jim Agnew: "Some might argue that the only true "Dawn Of The Dead" is and will always be George Romero’s zombie Opus. In the long run, this "Dawn Of The Dead" may not be a horror/zombie classic, but what it is for the time being is a fun, scary and slick popcorn movie that should please even hardcore horror fans and scare the crap out of everyone else. "
and
"The 2004 "Dawn of The Dead" has a lot more in common with 28 Days Later than it does with the original film."

In the end I just don't see this new Dawn of the Dead as an affront to hardcore fans of the original the way Gus Van Sant's version of Psycho was an affront to Hitchcock fans (I personally wanted to beat the shit out of Van Sant for that one, but then I realized that NO ONE rents that film, and everyone knows better, so I felt better... if a re-make is released on video and no one watches it, does it really exist?) There is a love for the zombie genre that exists in this new film, and a wicked sense of fun, and I don't think anyone should take away from the experience of seeing this film just because they're still wounded over the idea of such a great film as the original being re-made. Because... they're just two very different movies...

Jeremy Knox

03-20-2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by mondoshane
11. The teenage love birds and the blond are the surviviors. How standard is this?

Thanks for telling me how it ends. :(

JK13

mondoshane

03-20-2004, 10:34 AM

That's not how it ends...

Graham Rae

03-20-2004, 10:38 AM

OK. So. I saw the 'remake' last night. And I have to say...

...I thoroughly enjoyed it, plot holes aside. Shoot me if you want.

Now. This film is Dawn of The Dead in name and zombies-at-a-shopping-mall basic theme only. It's a completely different film altogether, using practically none of Romero's original material (maybe a coupla lines here and there - good to see Ken Foree get to say his old "no more room in hell" line again), which makes it easier to take, to be perfectly honest. About ten minutes in I stopped looking at it as (snortsnarlsnap) A Remake Of One Of The Best Films Ever Made and just looked upon it as a dark, realistic-toned, gory, fun zombie movie.

The handheld camera work added a base visceral immediacy to the exciting zombie attacks outside the mall, and the cameo by Burt Reynolds (say no more) was truly hilarious. It actually kinda reminded me of Cameron's Aliens in places, especially with the buses outside the mall (and I would mention more about it, but to do so would ruin one of the best bits in the film, a brilliant scene straight out of a Heironymous Bosch painting), and it was fun. That's all there is to it. I'm going to see it tonight again with my cousin. I haven't seen a good, fun zombie movie on the big screen in far too long, and when they were blowing fuck out of the zombies outside the mall my pulse was pounding and I remembered why I fucking love undead movies so fucking much.

This is not Dawn of The Dead. Don't even look at it that way. Don't look for sociopolitical subtext or satire and you won't be disappointed. And the ending was really well done too. Funny to see how they had recruited leads who looked like the leads from the original film, though.

Now. If only Romero can make Dead Reckoning...then we'd be in business. Cos nobody has ever done - will ever do - zombies like the tartan-scarf-wearing bearded avuncular man from Pittsburgh.

The end.

G.

PS: Spoiler alert: you wanna know the most disturbing bit of the film? Using the fucking Stereophonics on the soundtrack, in an 'ironic' way with that aural wallpaper 'song' Have A Nice Day. My friend turned to me and said merely "Oh dear." I nearly screamed at the screen and walked out two minutes in. So be warned. This moment could seriously damage your enjoyment.

Mark Bell

03-20-2004, 10:52 AM

First thing first: SPOILERS CONTAINED WITHIN! DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE FILM OR DON'T CARE!
Originally posted by mondoshane
Things that were stupid and wrong about DOTD Remake:

1. Blond says "I don't want to die in this mall" and 18 pointless charecters reply "Ah...yep". Who wouldn't want to live at the mall and have everything our society can provide? How is living on some island better then having everything?
Yeah, I really felt they should've stayed at the mall much, much longer before coming to the conclusion that they need to break out, if they had to come to that conclusion at all (like I said, the impetus behind it was to make the last 20 minutes exciting). I mean, if they were so gung-ho to get out of there, why is Ving Rhames telling the army guy that they're going to leave in 5 days? Why not just do it then? I mean, they did after the half-assed "rescue" attempt anyway, and we know 5 days hadn't passed (and really, if you jump into a pile of zombies to chase after a dog who WILL NOT BE HURT, you deserve to be left behind).
3. Why does a zombie epidemic make everyone drive stupid? There was like 5 car crashes and 12 near misses in the first 20 minutes of this film and I could see no reason for this.
Do you live in California? Folks around here don't even need a zombie epidemic, just a little rain.
4. The whole dog thing was stupid.
Agreed. Seriously, the dog was going to be okay, you know, in ZombieWorld or whatever.
5. Why didn't the guy in the gun shop just kill all the zombies in front of the mall? He probably had the ammo.
Why didn't he try to get to the mall with everyone else before the mass of zombies got too big? Apparently there was a route through the sewer he could've taken. I never said the film wasn't full of plot holes, but I didn't look for them until after I got home.
6. "If I turn into one of them feel free to shoot me in the head" "Oh don't worry I will" and then she does. Corny and stupid.
Criticizing stupid dialogue in a horror film is too easy, they've all got their moments.
7. At the begining the daughter's(?) face was all rotten. How did this happen over night?
I thought that's where she was bitten?
8. It was sorta bad taste to use a Johnny Cash song seeing as he is fresh dead himself and 2 different versions of "Sickness" by Disturbed was horrible.
I loved the lounge singer version of "Sickness".
9. If it was as gory as everyone says the baby would have ripped thru the stomach rather then been wrapped in a blanket.
I was expecting that to happen, and that definitely would've been up there with Udo Kier being birthed in The Kingdom as one of the most disturbing pregnancy scenes ever. My thing with the pregnancy: you mean to tell me that NO ONE had checked on her at all?
10. The head security guard ignited fuel to kill zombies 3 times. Is this lazy writing or what?
Well, if it works. I mean, I don't think it would be right to criticize every gunshot to the head as lazy writing so having one character constantly burning or blowing zombies up as his "thing" doesn't seem all that bad to me. If I have propane tanks and the opportunity to explode them amongst a crowd of zombies, I do it. And I do it whenever I can.
11. The teenage love birds and the blond are the surviviors. How standard is this?
You forgot Ving. He made it too. But I don't think "survivor" is the right term for any of them after the credits.
12. This movie should have went to Romero and been the 4th in the series "Dead Reckoning". Then at least we would have seen something new rather then a rehash.
If the re-make goes house with the box office, you really think Romero won't have the opportunity to make Dead Reckoning? I'm telling you, if we want a 4th Romero film, we should be cheering on this film and showing up to the theater in droves, because then the studios will see that there's a huge audience for the zombie genre, and maybe things'll be a little easier on George.

mondoshane

03-20-2004, 11:48 AM

I thought that's where she was bitten?

If she got bit then didn't she get eaten?

Well, if it works. I mean, I don't think it would be right to criticize every gunshot to the head as lazy writing so having one character constantly burning or blowing zombies up as his "thing" doesn't seem all that bad to me.

Considering Gunn was rewriting a existing screenplay like he always has done I consider the whole thing lazy.

If the re-make goes house with the box office, you really think Romero won't have the opportunity to make Dead Reckoning?

Yeah hopefully he gets the cash for Diamond Dead easy now. After this remake I am not that stoked for another zombie movie, even the one I invested $ in.

I think it's funny how people are saying the remake shouldn't be compared to the original even though they have the same name and plot. The makers wanted to cash in on the name so they should also be ready to be compared to the original. Also funny is how it is being praised for being mindless and helping the viewer to enjoy popcorn. Is this what makes a good film?

Eric Campos

03-20-2004, 12:02 PM

Yes! That's more like it, Graham! Glad you see the light. This film has so little to do with the original that it can't possibly dampen the enjoyment, or whatever the hardcore fans are saying it's going to do, to the the original. In that respect, it is a shame that they didn't just go the extra couple miles and totally make their own zombie movie. That way they would've had the support of horror fans everywhere. Instead, they've kinda shot themselves in the foot by pissing off a bunch of Romero devotees who would rather stay at home and suck their thumb than go and have a good time at the movie theater, which is something we're not granted too often.

Can't wait to see this sucker again!!!

Mark Bell

03-20-2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by mondoshane
If she got bit then didn't she get eaten?
Good point. I have no clue. Add it to the plot hole pile.
I think it's funny how people are saying the remake shouldn't be compared to the original even though they have the same name and plot.
It's not so much that it shouldn't be compared to the original period, it's that, if you want to enjoy the film, it helps if you put aside any notions of it being exactly like the original. Because it isn't. The basic structure is there (zombies, survivors, mall) but everything else is different.
Also funny is how it is being praised for being mindless and helping the viewer to enjoy popcorn. Is this what makes a good film?
No, but nobody said it was a good film so much as a fun film. And come on, you have to have a few films that you enjoy that, on a sheer merit system, aren't actually good, but just fun. We've all got our guilty pleasures. This film is not a quality film by any means, but it was not the worst time I've ever had at a movie-theater.

mondoshane

03-20-2004, 12:26 PM

"Dawn Of The Dead Remake is savagely sucky revision of an American classic. Two thumbs way down!" - Shane Vozar

Pete Vonder Haar

03-21-2004, 01:09 AM

"Dawn Of The Dead Remake is savagely sucky revision of an American classic. Two thumbs way down!" - Shane Vozar

I'm not sure I get the point of quoting the tagline of a review, that you yourself apparently wrote, from an uncited source, in a thread where you've already made it abundantly clear that you don't care for the film.

Kuato

03-21-2004, 02:19 AM

i just saw the film and i loved it - and i'm a zombie nerd... but apparently i was able to pull my head out of my ass for an hour and a half and enjoy one of the first good zombie filcks thats come out in a long time.
pussies.

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by mondoshane Wow two super ass kissing reviews on film threat.

And the trolls come out of the woodwork. You wouldn't be TomReedToon's love child, would you? (I mean, assuming if--and it's a BIG IF--he's not a virgin.)

So what if two people liked the film? It's not like the reviews somehow compromised FilmThreat's integrity for the rest of eternity.

Assuming you learn rudimentary spelling and grammar, you might one day have a review posted, too, and you can slam the film--hell, any film--to your heart's content.

Now to deal with your pathetic nitpicking--oops, I meant "insightful comments and criticisms."

I can't believe anyone liked this movie or thought it was original. Disapointment... I don't see how the reviewer can say "1000 Corpses" had no balls when Universal didn't have the the balls to release it. "1000 Corpses" was studio funded and so extreme it was dropped by the studio.

And I bet that you thought Cabin Fever was the most original, cutting-edge horror film of the last ten years, right? Dude...Corpses had so many problems it's laughable to bring it up in a thread blasting the new Dead remake....

I think I am going remake this website and call it "www.filmthreat.com" and it will only have bad reviews of DOTD remake on it.

Put down your Fangoria and knock yourself out, slugger, since you obviously have no better use for your time. Be sure to post a link.

Things that were stupid and wrong about DOTD Remake

Some friendly advice: in your future career as a film critic, you might not want to wear your biases on your sleeve.

Now, on to the insights!

1. Blond says "I don't want to die in this mall" and 18 pointless charecters reply "Ah...yep". Who wouldn't want to live at the mall and have everything our society can provide? How is living on some island better then having everything?

As much as it pains me, I'll get the unpleasantness out of the way and agree with you here--they left too early, and we never really got the feeling of claustrophobic stir craziness that would make it justifiable (if not outright nonsensical) for them to leave.

However, one can't discount the psychological damage inflicted by flourescent lighting and the constant piping of the musak classic, The Girl from Ipanema.

2. How could dieing ever make a person stronger and faster? It doesn't even make sense. If you took a crowd of fat American cheese eating Wisconsin's they could never run or jump like that.

I think the revivification process is similar to zombie pcp--the super-virus makes their adrenaline go haywire, and having no pain receptors (being dead and all) only adds to their destructive power.

As anyone who's seen COPS knows, a guy hopped up on goofballs can deal a lot of damage.

3. Why does a zombie epidemic make everyone drive stupid? There was like 5 car crashes and 12 near misses in the first 20 minutes of this film and I could see no reason for this.

Think about it...people were getting bitten left and right and then driving for help in a veritable warzone. Do you think a person who dies and/or zombifies while cruising is gonna be able to keep it on the road?

This is called using "context clues" and "inference"--look 'em up.

4. The whole dog thing was stupid. In one scene they find a dog. In the next scene the teenage girl was playing with it. In the next scene the teenage girl is so upset the dog left the mall she leaves the mall and recklessly drives a moving truck through a crowd of 50 super human zombies and survives. Give me a break man that was so retarded! I have never driven a truck like that and don't know if I even could let alone a girl who looks likes she's 16.

You're surprised by her behavior? Gee, Grampa, tell us what teens were really like when you were a lad!

The girl recently lost her father--the last living relative from an obviously BIG family (mom and plenty o' brothers were mentioned); furthermore, her puppy, of which she's developed a bond borne of trauma, might die a none-too-pleasant death.

So, what does she do? She makes a hysterical, ill-conceived, potentially-lethal mistake, and drives poorly and recklessly in the process? If you had added "drunk," she would have been the model for almost every kid I went to high school with.

Retarded, yes; abnormal, no.

(It also could have been worse...we might have gotten the "pack of zombie dogs scene" from the original script.)

5. Why didn't the guy in the gun shop just kill all the zombies in front of the mall? He probably had the ammo.

Grumble, grumble...your frothing rant has created another accidental nugget of sense--curse those infinite monkeys and their typewriters!

Yes, Andy the NRA Poster Boy should not have been playing so much chess and instead been thinning the undead ranks. However, if he was a stereotypical (and by that I mean "movie version") gun nut, he probably thought the guys in the mall were the true idiots, and there was no way he was gonna leave his fortress. He was waiting for them to come to him. He waited too long, though, and the problem got too big to handle.

Hey, Mondo...buck up! The theme of the original Dawn rears its head! Happy now?

6. "If I turn into one of them feel free to shoot me in the head" "Oh don't worry I will" and then she does. Corny and stupid.

Bitch, bitch, bitch. Every line of dialogue isn't gonna be golden.

Let's play a game...guess the movie which featured these Mamet-like lines of dialogue:

"We've got to survive. Somebody's got to survive!"

"Jesus Christ, there's a thousand pigs!"

"Blow ALL their asses off! Low-life bastards! Blow ALL their low-life Puerto Rican and Nigger asses right off!"

(Before The Baron and the rest grab their torches and pitchforks, I'm just making a point....)

7. At the begining the daughter's(?) face was all rotten. How did this happen over night?

No, the neighbor girl's face wasn't rotten...someone went to get a goodnight kiss, and instead got the long kiss goodnight.

Did you even WATCH the movie?

8. It was sorta bad taste to use a Johnny Cash song seeing as he is fresh dead himself and 2 different versions of "Sickness" by Disturbed was horrible.

Jesus fucking Christ. You're just going to gripe about EVERYTHING, aren't you?

It isn't blasphemy to use a Cash song--hell, the guy got a tune in a mainstream release amidst a soundtrack awash in modern alternative/punk/grunge/whatever-the-kids-they-call-it-now. It's just further proof that Cash is getting the respect he deserves.

And about the Sickness bits...it's called "irony," another tool of film auteurs (it should be easy to look that one up, too, since you're already in the dictionary under "I"). We got the lounge version by Richard Cheese and his Lounge Against the Machine during a comedic scene, and the "serious" real version during some jump-cuts out of McG's fevered wet dreams.

Now, if you wanna talk truly horrible, two-and-a-half straight hours of Goblin synth might be the ultimate nightmare.

(BTW, Richard Cheese is a REAL musician, and he and his band rock on the proverbial toast. Their 3rd cd ships in April!)

9. If it was as gory as everyone says the baby would have ripped thru the stomach rather then been wrapped in a blanket.

Quit your navel-gazing and read a damned newspaper--you realize that this film a) was released by a mainstream studio, b) had to garner an R rating to be seen at all, and c) was released in post-Janet's-artificial-teat America, right?

Fulci's disciplies didn't have Troma release this direct-to-dvd in Japan.

And make up your damned mind...first you whined that the zombies were too strong, and now you're griping because a toothless dead newborn isn't mighty enough to rip or gnaw through the stomach lining of its dead mother? Jeezus.

10. The head security guard ignited fuel to kill zombies 3 times. Is this lazy writing or what?

And if the film had shown fire working successfully once and only once, the Spawns of the Comic Book Guy would have bathed message boards across the land with: "Hey, 2L33T4U, get this...the fire obviously worked, but those people trapped in the mall were too stupid to use it again and again. Is that lazy writing or what?" (Just imagine it with poor spelling, and you'd get the gist.)

As another poster already mentioned, what about all the repetitive shootin'-in-the-head? Obviously, competent writers would have given us a wide variety of practical, sensible kills, like letter-openers-to-the-eye and lawndarts-to-the-fontanel.

11. The teenage love birds and the blond are the surviviors. How standard is this?

Well, since the Blonde, the Teenage Lovebirds, and the Token Black Badass all seem to meet the zombified Blair Witch at the end, I'd say you didn't sit through the credits...and that you already forgot that little word "irony" from earlier.

12. This movie should have went to Romero and been the 4th in the series "Dead Reckoning". Then at least we would have seen something new rather then a rehash.

You obviously haven't read the script to Dead Reckoning.

As much as this might get me kicked out of the High Exalted Potentates of the All-Illuminated Romero, I hope that film (as it stands now, anyway) NEVER gets made.

It's about a monster truck named--wait for it--the "Dead Reckoning" that goes around playing Budweiser Sunday Crash-O-Rama over undead hobos. Seriously.

Kuato

03-21-2004, 03:30 AM

all you little pricks need to go make your own perfect movie so you can continuously rub your dick on yourself in satisfactory glee....

why did you like zombie movies to begin with? because of their intesnse compelling stories? or becase theres cool fucking zombies running around killing everyone and people in the theatre laugh and have fun? jesus!

come on - this movie even had a second clip from animal house of the horse! COME ON GOD DAMNIT! COME ON!

the moment you try bringing reality and truth into a MOVIE about ZOMBIES that are NOT REAL then youve successfully become " comic book guy "
and we all know bright he is

- side note - i do think they should have named this movie something different since if was only loosly based on the original. mabye if they did all these whinney bitches would be in the theatre having fun right now. -

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 03:32 AM

Despite being cautious while raking through Mondo's muck, I accidentally got some of it on me. I tell yuh whut...this shit's nas-tay.

I thankfully supressed this issue, using the patented Suspension of Disbelief(tm), while viewing Dawn of the Dead since I wanted to actually, you know, enjoy the film.

Here's the headscratching dilemma which has me a'right flummoxed:

"How'd our initial batch of intrepid survivors manage to get inside the locked mall without leaving it wide open in the process?"

That is all.

Kuato

03-21-2004, 03:36 AM

yeah there was a huge blank spot in the movie there - but hey - hahahahah

mabye they figured no one would notice

i enjoyed the huge fat woman's death... it made up for the plot holes

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 03:54 AM

Original question...

Originally posted by MondoShane
If she got bit then didn't she get eaten?

...then the reply:

Originally posted by Hamster69
Good point. I have no clue. Add it to the plot hole pile.

Mondo is yet again not using what is called "critical thought." I'm afraid his career as a film reviewer is doomed before it begins.

Here's an easy answer: the little girl could have been bitten before hiding and locking herself away until ultimately succumbing to the illness. Like, as they say in the vernacular, "duh."

(Also, she could have been hamburger beneath her gown...thankfully, we never saw her backside or stomach, which could have been the sight of mucho trauma.)

Or, since Mondo is a stickler for the Romero zombiedom, let's use the precedents set forth by the original trilogy.

In the Romero-verse, solo zombies (or small groups) favored the sweet meats and left most of the rest intact. They only took cursory bites out of the extremities, which explains why so many zombies were ambulatory and in pretty danged good shape.

Furthermore, a dead person in the Romero-verse also seems to become a zombie themselves fairly quickly, making the "use by" date on a human corpse fairly limited; dismembering a person before they rise seems pretty unlikely.

Only packs of zombies (a la Day of the Dead) butchered their victims into unrecognizable chunks of meat.

mondoshane

03-21-2004, 04:38 AM

I'm not sure I get the point of quoting the tagline of a review, that you yourself apparently wrote, from an uncited source, in a thread where you've already made it abundantly clear that you don't care for the film.

I remade a line from Roger Ebert's review of DOTD '78. Why did I do it? I don't know! Nothing makes sense in my life post DOTD remake...

It's about a monster truck named--wait for it--the "Dead Reckoning" that goes around playing Budweiser Sunday Crash-O-Rama over undead hobos. Seriously.

Wow that sounds like something new! I don't think I've ever seen anything like that! I like to see new things and new stories! It's almost as if Romero is taking the art of storytelling forwards rather then backwards.

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by mondoshane
I like to see new things and new stories! It's almost as if Romero is taking the art of storytelling forwards rather then backwards.

...you weren't being sarcastic, were you?

mondoshane

03-21-2004, 06:39 AM

It isn't blasphemy to use a Cash song--hell, the guy got a tune in a mainstream release amidst a soundtrack awash in modern alternative/punk/grunge/whatever-the-kids-they-call-it-now. It's just further proof that Cash is getting the respect he deserves.

Johnny Cash was a man of God. I somehow don't see him in the afterlife happy that he really nailed the 18 to 21 age bracket. How much money does Johnny Cash make from this movie seeing how he's dead? DOTD is a story about Satan. And that's why I consider it bad taste to use his song the way this film did. The Cash family should sue the makers of DOTD Remake.

Dude...Corpses had so many problems it's laughable to bring it up in a thread blasting the new Dead remake....

Both DOTD Remake and "1000 Corpses" were funded by Universal. I walked thru Rob Zombie's "American Nightmare" maze on the Universal lot. It was this maze that led Universal to fund Rob Zombie's "House Of A Thousand Corpses". They were to afraid to release the movie. I waited a long time to see "1000 Corpses" and finally Lion's Gate released it and I was not disappointed. So in my view Universal, the studio that was built on horror movies, has completely lost it and should get out of the horror business right now because they really suck at it and "Van Hellsing" looks like total shit.

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 07:26 AM

(I must hang my head in shame...while ragging on Mondo for his posts, I mistakenly referred to him as Hamster69 in some threads.

EEEEEK. Sorry, Ham.

The corrections are have been made!)

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 07:36 AM

Johnny Cash was a man of God. I somehow don't see him in the afterlife happy that he really nailed the 18 to 21 age bracket. How much money does Johnny Cash make from this movie seeing how he's dead? (snip) And that's why I consider it bad taste to use his song the way this film did. The Cash family should sue the makers of DOTD Remake.

So not only are you a film critic, but clairvoyant as well?

You know what films Mr. Cash would find worthy to use his songs, huh?

Lemme see...his work has been such godly fare as Jackass: The Movie, Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, and Grumpier Old Men. Such high-brow films, these are...and Mr. Cash was alive when those films used his tunes, Mondo.

This quote deserves its own special heading:

DOTD is a story about Satan.

If by "Satan" you mean "humanity, and humankind's capacity for cruelty, arrogance, indifference, shallowness, stupidity, and short-sightedness" then you'd be correct.

You SURE you've seen the Romero zombie films?

Both DOTD Remake and "1000 Corpses" were funded by Universal. (snip) They were to afraid to release the movie. I waited a long time to see "1000 Corpses" and finally Lion's Gate released it and I was not disappointed. So in my view Universal, the studio that was built on horror movies, has completely lost it and should get out of the horror business right now because they really suck at it and "Van Hellsing" looks like total shit.

And it looks like Universal learned its lesson from the Corpses debacle, and saw the dollar signs for Freddy vs Jason and 28 Days Later. They tried again.

Granted, while Van Helsing might not be everyone's cup of tea, it's gonna be more of an adventure flick instead of a horror flick, like The Mummy before it. Nothing wrong with that.

(I will concede, though, that The Mummy Returns kinda blew.)

mondoshane

03-21-2004, 08:01 AM

My anger at the Johnny Cash controversy made me make get a little nuts with the whole "Satan" thing. I feel his song was used for effect by having a dead man of God singing while the audience sees images of images of evil conquoring good on Earth. In the DOTD mythos "When there is no more room in hell the dead will walk the earth.". So Johnny Cash's song was used to represent Hell overtaking Earth and I feel that is insulting and showing no respect towards Johnny Cash or his fans and family.

mondoshane

03-21-2004, 08:17 AM

Most of Johnny Cash's fans feel he died to be with his wife in heaven and now the dickhead makers of DOTD Remake used his music in a movie about hell on earth. I don't think they should get away with it!

Gorillaboss

03-21-2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by mondoshane
My anger at the Johnny Cash controversy made me make get a little nuts with the whole "Satan" thing. I feel his song was used for effect by having a dead man of God singing while the audience sees images of images of evil conquoring good on Earth. In the DOTD mythos "When there is no more room in hell the dead will walk the earth.". So Johnny Cash's song was used to represent Hell overtaking Earth and I feel that is insulting and showing no respect towards Johnny Cash or his fans and family.

Sigh...

See 3b, Mondo.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

iro·ny
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirOnia, from eirOn dissembler

2a) the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning

3b) incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

mondoshane

03-21-2004, 08:21 AM

What's the Irony? That Johnny Cash is freshly dead and so are the zombies? That's sick!

Kuato

03-21-2004, 12:57 PM

are you guys serious?
wait...

wait ... hold on....

im confused....

youre concerned with the use of a johnny cash song in a horror movie....
youre concerned with plot holes in a horror movie...
now i'm not saying EVERY horror movie is good... we can look at some of the worst examples on the planet ( House of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw remake) but, this wasnt blasphemous like those. this was great.

i can't beleive horror fans have this much time to squeel and cry about a movie instead of trying to make their own...

"drama overdoses"tkk

Graham Rae

03-21-2004, 01:13 PM

where the white trash blonde got fucked from behind and was taping it. I think there should be hardcore porn zombie movies. "When there's no more room in hell, the dead will fuck the earth." In fact, I think we should get the money together to make one. Anybody with me? Would certainly give a new meaning to the expression 'eat me'.

This is a flashy zombie film exploiting the Dawn name and made for teenagers. It wasn't made for the hardcore fans. And I can accept it as such. I have seen it twice, and probably would never see it again unless it was showing on TV or something, but it doesn't impact on the original in any way for me. I enjoyed it for the throwaway popcorn-munching trash it was.

That's all I have to say on it.

G.

PS: Anybody know what that excellent early 80s-sounding hardcore punk tune was over the end credits, the ones going on about "All the people who died?" I recognize it, but can't place it, and it's driving me mad. Artist and correct title would be a lifesaver. Cheers in advance.

MacReady_Mix

03-21-2004, 01:55 PM

Graham-- in regards to your P.S.-- even though I haven't seen the film yet (won't be out here in Ireland until Friday-- Hi neighbor!) I'll go out on a limb and guess the tune was Jim Carroll Band from Catholic Boy, tune was "People that Died" and I'd recommend that whole album.

Based on your review and Chris Gore's and many other positive notes, I am looking forward to this flick. Been too long since I had a solid good time at a horror movie and I'm looking forward to that ride.

El Duderino Diablo

03-21-2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Graham Rae
PS: Anybody know what that excellent early 80s-sounding hardcore punk tune was over the end credits, the ones going on about "All the people who died?" I recognize it, but can't place it, and it's driving me mad. Artist and correct title would be a lifesaver. Cheers in advance.

Haven't seen the new DotD yet, haven't heard the song you're describing but that one line does sound reminiscent of a song by The Jim Carroll Band called People Who Died.

Graham Rae

03-21-2004, 02:57 PM

for your help. Off to Kazaa to see if I can find it now...quality mayhem...

saccharine

03-21-2004, 03:34 PM

i feel the holy ghost in the room
preach it motherfucker!

Originally posted by Kuato
all you little pricks need to go make your own perfect movie so you can continuously rub your dick on yourself in satisfactory glee....

why did you like zombie movies to begin with? because of their intesnse compelling stories? or becase theres cool fucking zombies running around killing everyone and people in the theatre laugh and have fun? jesus!

come on - this movie even had a second clip from animal house of the horse! COME ON GOD DAMNIT! COME ON!

the moment you try bringing reality and truth into a MOVIE about ZOMBIES that are NOT REAL then youve successfully become " comic book guy "
and we all know bright he is

- side note - i do think they should have named this movie something different since if was only loosly based on the original. mabye if they did all these whinney bitches would be in the theatre having fun right now. -

mondoshane

03-21-2004, 11:19 PM

So not only are you a film critic, but clairvoyant as well?

That's right and seeing how DOTD Remake didn't break even opening weekend, I predict it's going to be a big box office bomb...

Gorillaboss

03-22-2004, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by mondoshane
That's right and seeing how DOTD Remake didn't break even opening weekend, I predict it's going to be a big box office bomb...

You know, Mondo, spanking you is almost becoming more work than fun. Go one day without some jive-ass comment and give me a much-needed rest, ok? ;)

I think you need to shake that 8-ball again, since it's obviously defective.

According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-03-21-box-office-analysis_x.htm), the movie made $27.3 mil, stating "the haul is $7 million more than analysts predicted."

With a budget of $28 million, this is close enough for government work to say that it "broke even" (in the literal numbers sense, of course, not when lensed through the arcana of Hollywood accounting).

Furthermore, according to Creature-Corner.com (http://www.creature-corner.com), "that puts Dawn in the number three spot on the 'best opening for a horror remake' list behind 1999's abortion, The Haunting ($33 million), and last year's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ($28 million)."

Given that the Chainsaw remake had an opening weekend almost exactly like Dawn's ($28 mil-ish), and it went on to make $80 million (courtesy of the IMDB), I'm lead to to believe that Dawn is gonna go the distance.

Face it, Mondo--whether you like it or not, Dawn hasn't been the fanboy celluloid nightmare that everyone expected it to be.

mondoshane

03-22-2004, 04:17 AM

Furthermore, according to Creature-Corner.com (http://www.creature-corner.com), "that puts Dawn in the number three spot on the 'best opening for a horror remake' list behind 1999's abortion, The Haunting ($33 million), and last year's The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ($28 million)."

That's hilarious crappy, number 3 on that list. I bet DOTD Remake spent more on marketing then any of those.

Ellen M.

03-22-2004, 08:43 AM

How much do I LOVE that "DOD" just knocked "The Passion of the Christ" out of the # 1 spot in the box office horse race!

GO ZOMBIES!

MacReady_Mix

03-22-2004, 09:04 AM

then you'll love this headline from yahoo

"Zombies Push Jesus from Top of North American Box Office "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&e=2&u=/nm/20040321/en_nm/leisure_boxoffice_dc

:D

Ellen M.

03-22-2004, 10:11 AM

EXCELLENT!

Hmmm, I'm smelling a fabulous marketing opportunity for a sequel...

Zombies vs. Jesus in "Dawn of The Resurrected"... In a world where horror meets dogma, the undead fight the reborn, in a classic good against evil struggle for the fate of your very flesh & soul...

Bwa, ha, ha, ha!
Baron, wanna be in this one?...

Ellen ;)

Furious D

03-22-2004, 10:47 AM

I think that whole Jesus vs The Undead has already been done to death. So to speak.;)

The Baron

03-22-2004, 11:05 AM

I've always been amused that Jesus is, theoretically, the only undead guy that no one ran away from while screaming, "Aim for the brain!"

We would need a snappy tag line for the movie... How about:

"In Heaven, there is no beer, so Jesus came back here..." ?

Chris Gore

03-22-2004, 11:18 AM

Let's face it, "Passion of Christ" is a zombie movie and Jesus is a zombie. I mean, he rises after getting killed, right? But, he's like a good zombie since his thirst for human flesh seems to be in check. It's pretty cool to have TWO zombie movies in the top 10 boxoffice in one week holding the number one and two spots.

If you want to check out another cool Jesus flick, pick up this cool Slamdance favorite "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter." It's Jesus as a badass in a chop-socky flick beating up Lesbian Vampires.

Also, a hilarious Jesus film hitting DVD soon is "UltraChrist" about the son of God coming to modern day New York, complete with robe and all, only to be scorned as some insane freak. So Jesus gets a superhero costume and starts fighting crime in NYC like Superman. It's pee-your-pants funny!

(I'm imagining that this is going to offend somebody, somewhere. Deal with it.)

Ellen M.

03-22-2004, 11:43 AM

Don't worry Chris, we pretty much "crucified" the whole Jesus thing in that thread Graham had going awhile back... so, there's nothing you could say at this point that would be offensive. Besides, this is YOUR freakin' site, so you can say what you want!

The Jesus Zombie rules!
Do you think he'll eventually lust for Christian blood if he comes back?...

Ellen

The Baron

03-22-2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Ellen M.
Do you think he'll eventually lust for Christian blood if he comes back?...

No... See, Jesus is really confused on this whole "undead thing." Seems that he wants others to eat HIS flesh and drink HIS blood.

Jesus needs to sit down and watch the entire Dead trilogy. After which, I volunteer to personally shoot him in the head.

Ellen M.

03-22-2004, 12:10 PM

So, he's not gonna go for the whole blood libel thing that the church has against the Jews ('cause he WAS a Jew, ya know)? I thought he's supposed to use the blood of Christians to make the Passover matzoh? Or maybe that's MY job... Bwa, ha, ha!

And jsut for the record... I never drank the man's blood or ate his flesh... then again I AM a daywalker!

Ellen

Eric Campos

03-22-2004, 12:26 PM

Jesus Built My Hot Dog

El Duderino Diablo

03-22-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Chris Gore

If you want to check out another cool Jesus flick, pick up this cool Slamdance favorite "Jesus Versus the Vampire Killers." It's Jesus as a badass in a chop-socky flick beating up Lesbian Vampires.

Do you mean Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311361/) or is this another Jesus versus the vampires movie?

Furious D

03-22-2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Ellen M.
And just for the record... I never drank the man's blood or ate his flesh...
Ellen

Tastes kind of like pork... oops-:eek:

Or so I've heard...:rolleyes:

Oh, wait a minute.

You're talking about that whole transubstantiation debate. Well, that's a can o'worms onto itself.:rolleyes:

The Baron

03-22-2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Eric Campos
Jesus Built My Hot Dog

You eat at Pink's?

Spectaclegrinde

03-22-2004, 01:14 PM

Loyal zombie fans that we are, my girlfriend, myself and a friend of ours go to see the new "dead" flick.

There's a lot to like about it, and yeah, there are problems-- most of which have been detailed in this thread, so I'm not gonna repeat 'em-- but I adjusted my expectations in a downward-kinda direction and had myself a pleasant viewing experience. It's not the classic that Romero's movie is-- and did anyone expect that it would be?-- but it's not a crime against humanity. (Now THERE's something I want to see on a movie poster "Not a Crime Against Humanity!"-- Some guy on the web).

However... my girlfriend is PISSED. She HATED it. Between her frothing at the mouth and ranting, she made some very pointed comments: The original was a broadside attack on America's consumer culture, this one had product placement, this was nothing you wouldn't get from a video game, it was shot to look like a Coke commercial, etc. Like I said, she's angered. Ah, well. I wonder if topics like this come up in couples therapy a lot? We'll see...

Oh, well. I'll probobly never get tired of watching the walking dead take a bullet to the head. It just never gets old for me...

Mr B Natural

03-22-2004, 08:00 PM

SPOILERS AHEAD

Does anyone know anything about the original cut of this film? Was the film hacked to pieces for length or gore? The MPAA usually isn't kind to films this graphic -- for example, Natural Born Killers, Re-Animator, Evil Dead, Robocop, Dead Alive, Romero's Dawn. The only reason that Evil Dead and Re Animator were released uncut is because the former was released with an X with the latter with no rating. Each of the other films is vastly improved in their uncut versions (although the new music in Dawn Uncut really blows), and in many instances (Robocop especially) the extra gore creates a bigger spectrum of emotion and fixes plot holes/character arcs. Not to mention the special editions of the LOTR films -- the trasformation of Faramir from Two Towers Theatrical to Special Edition completely changes how you feel about him. Now Peter Jackson had pretty much a blank check to perfect the special editions, and I doubt that Snyder and friends have the same kind of situation. And I'm not implying that anyone in the new Dawn would undergo such a drastic change as Faramir between the two versions. But I'd say a director's cut of this film is definitely possible, and many of the plot holes could be fixed -- character arcs could be more defined, you could care more about the characters. Many great films with this many people in a violent situation are war films, which often run at least a half hour longer than most theatrical non-war films. You need a lot of time to get to know the characters really well.

But the biggest problem a recut could fix is CJ's character arc. In the current cut, you kind of understand why he changes like he does if you assume a lot about how he and the other characters around him feel. If you like the film, as I did, this is a jump you will happily make to keep your fun apocalyptic zombie world intact. Even so, his character gets so martyr-y towards the end, and you still don't buy it. If you don't like the film, this flaw will sink it for you. A few extra scenes with him would help make his transformation believable. For example, a scene where he can grieve for his friend that gets eaten in the garage -- you see how he feels briefly in the moment, but you need a lot more than that to identify with him. If he were to share this with the group, or key members of the group, he might convince them and us that he's serious about survival and willing to work as a team.

One more comment: there's a strong possibiliy that this film will pass the Texas Chainsaw remake by a lot, simply because the Texas Chainsaw remake blew for a lot of people, and I don't think this remake will for as many. Plus, the Dawn remake is, if nothing else, a hell of a ride, and hell-of-a-ride films often have huge business on DVD (see Aliens). Texas Chainsaw will probably make some more money in DVD, but in time it will fall away due to lack of quality and people will keep on discovering the Dawn remake and liking it, especially once it has a life out from under the original's shadow.

Probably the best movie to compare this to for me is 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers -- feels somewhat similar to the original, but works in its own way and gains a spot as one of the more successful films in the horror genre.

AmaiStina

03-23-2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Buck Satan

Are people so greedy and uninspired that they have to put a "new spin" on (literally) a classic of the genré?

I've got four words about remakes:

Gus Van Sant's Psycho.

Somebody get a fucking imagination.[/FONT][/SIZE]

thats exactly what i thought after being :strongly urged: to watch "the Truth about Charlie" for a film criticism class.

unoriginaluser

03-24-2004, 06:32 AM

Hello All,

This is my first post to the forum, I wanted to wait till after I had seen the Dawn remake/reimaging before reading the thread.

Before getting any further I must complient The Baron on being part of one of the best films of all time. Thank you for the on set stories I thought the sledge hammer looked real, now I know it was OUCH.

!Warning Spoilers!

As to Remake of the Dead, the only problem I have with the movie is that it's a remake. Now before I'm flamed horribly let me clarify, if the film makers had made this movie as a standalone film not riding the coat tails of Dawn of the Dead it would just be a enjoyable zombie movie. What does this movie have in common with the original film, pretty much nothing just people surviving in a mall beset by a form of undead. I think if I could have watched this movie without being told the title I'd have no problem with it at all. It would just be another zombie flick with the bonus of Dawn cameos, I got shivers seeing Ken Foree deliver the "No more room in Hell" line. It stands on it's own, but in no way does it approach the apex of Dawn of the Dead, the mistake was in even trying to do so.

Every zombie film has taken some concept from it's predecessors, without expounding on those ideas nothing innovative would be made. A good example is Fulci's Zombie a sequel to the Argento edit of Dawn which is does stand on it's own while taking more from Dawn that the remake does. Perhaps the makers of "28 Days Later" should be more offended over using their style of zombie (if they are really undead) without credit, than Romero fans over using the Dawn name and mall concept both being credited to George by giving him the original screenplay credit.

Does this movie add to the body of work on the subject yes I think it does. Better Reviewers than I have already pointed out many of it's flaws and good points. I only want to talk about a few things that no one has really touched on. First the Remake of the Dead does an excellent job in portraying the huge scope of the zombie plague. The opening shots of Ana driving in the midst of all the devastation were beautifully done and really show how quickly and completely society has broken down. No other zombie movie has had the budget or effects technology to show this.

The other point which I want to address is total feeling of hopelessness of the movie has. Almost from the beginnig you know the world is doomed and with the full ending so is the cast. What does it matter that the only motivation the survivors have for leaving the Mall is running out of "The Lemon Stuff" and not being able to turn the lights back on, these people are screwed anyway. With the original Dawn of the Dead you cared for the people in the mall and there was always the feeling they could survive as long as they kept their wits or could just out run the horde. Romero zombies were a survivable danger, as opposed to the total annihilation of nuclear war that Dawn represented. There is never a hope of survival in the remake nor do I care about the cardboard cut out survivors. The surviors are as lively and deep as extra lives in a videogame, and will be missed as much. The original Dawn made fun of the zombies to lighten the film where this movie gives you "too stupid to live humans" so you don't feel bad when they end up zombie chow. The darker feel and almost total lack of resemblance to the original lets the remake stand on it's own as a new and different zombie movie.

I will always love Romero's Dawn of the Dead, and I should be able to watch the Remake of the Dead at least a couple more times.

Spectaclegrinde

03-24-2004, 10:48 AM

Upthread, I said I enjoyed this remake, without being totally enamored of it.

I realize that *most* of the positive reviews of the movie have tempered their take on the film with a comment along the lines of "it's not Romero's classic, though," which is both understandable and accurate.

The problem with this movie-- which, let me remind you, I liked-- is that by being named "Dawn of the Dead," with all of the brand-name recognition and built-in fan-base the title comes with, there also comes an obligation.

The Romero original went out un-rated, a complete statement untouched by censors or "moral guardians," accepting the limits in distribution and advertising that not playing nice with the MPAA would bring. The Universal version carries an R rating-- a hard R, but an R nonetheless. Fangoria carried an interview with the director-- whose name I just can't seem to remember-- complaning about having to make cuts. Now, I *do* understand the landscape of Hollywood, beleive me, but that part of me that responds to and respects rebels makes me wish that someone could've done this picture in a way that lives up to the pioneering spirit of the original, and of Romero. If you're makeing "Dawn of the Dead" its not just your job to show zombies and a mall. You've got to be a poineer, you've got to push boundaries, and, yes, piss off Jack Velenti and the MPAA.

"well, there's always the DVD," (I just heard someone say that, I swear). And, you're correct. But... ah, whatever. Long live romero, long live the walking dead. I'm off to Hallowed Grounds for a lemon latte.

Ricky Retardo

03-24-2004, 05:08 PM

To everyone who aked for a DotD pin, it's on the way. Many extra hours at work caused the delay, but when you get your package you should be pleased (plus it's free, so whaddaya want). As for the rest of ya'll who didn't get in on the offer, SCREW YA, YA MISSED IT!

Okay, the remake. Enjoyable but generic. Plus, considering the 21st century technology at hand I was rather disappointed that there was not a single scene as shocking as the head exploder in the original DotD (or even for that matter, the post gasfire chow-down in Night of the Living Dead). There was also very little in the way of entrail yanking, which was a stock-in-trade of the Original series.

mrsecure

03-24-2004, 08:19 PM

Does anyone know the soundtrack/song that was playing while introducing the actors of the movie, "Dawn of the Dead"? I think the song occured when the black man was being interviewed on TV(news) and they asked him, "Are they dead or alive?", and he responded with, "We don't know".

mrsecure

03-24-2004, 08:44 PM

When the Man Come Around by Johnny Cash. Thank You. I was starting to get aggravated that i could'nt find it.

Good Ole Flopp

03-24-2004, 08:55 PM

:)
i saw "the passion" the night before last, and i saw "dawn" last night.

:)
so the passion wasn't half the horror movie i thought it would be, it was boooring!
these guys took themselves much too seriously and made it a boo hoo hoo flick, not horror.
a few embedded whip lashes and a poking with a spear, he didn't suffer half enough!

:)
dawn was all the horror movie i thought it would be, definitely not boring.
i thought the gratuitous "oh my poor baby" teenage girl goes nuts to save dog scene could've been cut, heck her whole character could've been cut wouldn't've changed anything, but oh well, it's just another crazy horror movie.

;)
you guys prolly hate me for saying all that, sorry just my opinion

Kagetoki

03-31-2004, 12:38 AM

I though Dawn of the Dead was a fun movie to watch... People saying that it wasn't logically correct and other bullshit like that... YOU ARE MISSING TH FUCKING POINT OF THIS MOVIE... im sure when the movie director directed this movie said to himself "Damn... i know this movie will reach down into the hearts of little childeren and when academy awards for best picture"
It was a movie to enjoy... GOD... i thought the ending was kinda sad yet still i thought this movie WAS THE BEST DAMN ZOMBIE MOVIE in a while... You wanna pick on zombie movies, pick on resident evil and 28 days later, although i did enjoy 28 days later, the advertisement made it seem like there were going to be more than 10 zombies through out the whole movie...

Zebo

04-17-2004, 11:30 AM

This will probably invalidate my opinion entirely for most folks after this (like my opinion held any weight to begin with) but I thought the remake was every bit as good as the original.

This was not a case of "The Planet of the Apes" with a "name" director pillaging a brilliant work for a special effects cheese fest. Both "Dawns" are excellent adventure tales that concentrate on the human elements as well as providing genuine scares. (Most interestingly, I liked that much of the threats in both movies came from the humans as much or more than the zombies).

As for the original "Dawn's" much-lauded social commentary, Romero makes a mostly subtle slap at rampant consumerism. The commentary is low-key, just at the edge of consciousness (which is good) but is essentially a single-repeated note: Consumerism run amok is bad/Consumerism run amok is bad/Consumerism run amok is bad. Why is consumerism run amok bad? Not a lot of commentary on that -- unless you count that if it does run amok a biker army will storm your mall, tear everything up and carelessly let in thousands of zombies. (A side note -- a total lack of consumerism strikes me as a bad thing as well as a certain level of consumerism keeps me employed which allows me to continue eating, much less pay my cable modem bill so I can post my jackass opinion at FilmThreat.com.) (Another side note -- I loved the repeated trips the characters took past The Brown Derby! Haven't seen one in years!)

If you want to bemoan a truely pointless movie, take a look at "House of the Dead." This "film" rapes Romero's zombie concept (if they bite you, you become them; only way to kill is to shoot them in the head) for a totally useless plot with bad dialogue, pitiful acting, laughable action, substandard camera work and just another anonying soundtrack that will use anything with a heavy beat. (The "Dawn" remake chose very well when it opened with Johnny Cash's "When the Man Comes Around.") And yet, FilmThreat did a four-page interview with the "House of the Dead" makers -- letting them gush about what a great movie it would be for zombie fans -- for a film that thinks it's a good idea to splice in screenshots from the "House of the Dead" video game (although the actual game make for more entertaining watching than the freakin' movie)!

One final thought -- my favorite moment from the original "Dawn":

"Oh, Spam."
"Did you bring a can opener."
"No."
"Then don't knock it. It comes with it's own key."