More Backwards Race Dynamics in the raping (er, "remake") of Romero's DEAD series?

[Giant Baba]

We have a white Ben in the ill-advised 3-D "remake,," and now we have Ving Rhames as Rhodes in the even more ill-advised DAY "remake."

I suppose one could argue that a person needs to look byeond race in film, and I'm totally in supoprt of that argument. However, these are Romero's films, where race played a heavy part in them, and in very positive ways; ones that were pretty organic, but none the less revolutionary and part of the overall endearing landscape he painted.

Something about a menacing, militant (literally) black male protagonist going against a white female antagonist (Mena Suvari as Sarah) seems very backwards to me.

What's next, have the philosophical copter pilot be a GOOD WILL HUNTING, New England, blue blood type spouting new age rhetoric?

I knew this remake was in trouble when there was a Fango interview with the rapist, er, "Screenwriter" who talked about how this would remain true to the spirit of the "R-rated original."

DAY went out UNRATED, after being branded with an "X" by the MPAA.

Man, this just feels like another disaster in the making.


I guess I should just hope they don't make it as miserably bad as CONTAGIUM.

[El Thain]

What ever happened to sarah polley? Is she being replaced?

[Boogen]

I don't have a problem with them remaking Day. i think the remake of Dawn, while not nearly as good as the original, was a pretty solid film. i enjoyed it quite a bit. and Day, wasn't all that good. I think there is a lot of room for improvement on that one. So if the people behind Dawn (who ever is involved) can do reasonably well with Day, i say let 'em at it.

and i don't think anyone can really complain about destroying Romero's films anymore since Land of the Dead. he made it, and it was one of the worst zombie movies i have ever seen. i'd happily sit through Resident Evil again before that crap. hell, i think i could sit through House Of The Dead again.

so, since Romero has pretty much shown he no longer should run the zombie genre, I'm all for letting some talented newbies have a crack at it.

[Charlie Brigden]

DAY is one of the most underrated movies around. DAWN 04 was a fun remake, but empty compared to what Romero has tried to do.

and i don't think anyone can really complain about destroying Romero's films anymore since Land of the Dead. he made it, and it was one of the worst zombie movies i have ever seen. i'd happily sit through Resident Evil again before that crap.

You're insane.

[Justin Clark]

Except for Bub and Rhodes, Day sucked, and is rightfully remembered as being such.

The Dawn remake, while thematically hollow, is a blast.

And as someone who actually LIKED Resident Evil, anyone who thinks it's anywhere but on the bottom of the zombie movie totem pole is shrooming something fierce.

[Charlie Brigden]

I wouldn't say it was a blast. Some of it was terrible.

I still don't get the DAY hate at all. I rewatched it again recently and it's a brilliant movie.

[tommy five-tone]

I agree. DAY has its problems but it's remarkably successful for the most part.

I loved the DAWN remake, but this new DAY sounds like a bust from the get-go. For one thing, Miner's a painfully pedestrian director.

And the casting so far leaves a lot to be desired - good to see Ving's back (is he actually playing his DAWN character or someone else?) but the increasingly bug-eyed Mena Suvari? Nick Cannon? Shit, at least DAWN's crew of Sarah Polley, Jake Weber and Mekhi Phifer gave some indication that that movie was aiming for something a bit more classy.

[ChunkyLover53]

90+ minutes of listening to people scream at each other isn't what zombie movies are about.

[Charlie Brigden]

Well if you would be kind enough to explain how DAY has 90 minutes of people shouting at each other while letting us know just what zombie movies are about, we'd be very grateful.

[fabfunk]

Wait, what's this about Ving Rhames as the Rhodes character?

And "Day of the Dead" still works like gangbusters today. Sure, the acting is a bit hammy, and the music doesn't touch "Dawn"s Goblin score, but it's Romero's bleakest, most misanthropic vision- there's such an overwhelming amount of loathing towards everyone in that film that there's really no one to root for, which turns off most of the people who decry it.

The fact that the studio went for Steve Miner shows how much confidence they have in this project, though.

EDIT: On topic, most films these days have backwards race dynamics, anyway. Most bad films.

[Giant Baba]

and i don't think anyone can really complain about destroying Romero's films anymore since Land of the Dead. he made it, and it was one of the worst zombie movies i have ever seen. i'd happily sit through Resident Evil again before that crap. hell, i think i could sit through House Of The Dead again.

so, since Romero has pretty much shown he no longer should run the zombie genre, I'm all for letting some talented newbies have a crack at it.

Steve Miner, a "newbie?"

LAND OF THE DEAD was the weakest Romero entry, by far, but nowhere near the mediocrity of DAWN 2004.

Runing "zombies" suck.

The dog scenario: fucking stupid.

Sara Polley (sic?): annoying.

Yeah, I want some asshole who clearly didn't give a fuck about the DEAD films and has no clue what went into them (the "R rated" remark is a dead giveaway, pun intended) raping them.

DAY was the strongest of the series. I think the people who didn't get it, are the ones prone to liking crap such as RESIDENT EVIL, and consider the rage-infested, non-living-dead maniacs in28 DAYS LATER, "Zombies," and probably thought RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD PART II was a "good movie."


I'd like to add that the fact that the producers of this (the Dudlesons) are the same ones that raped the shit out of the DAY name for CONTAGIUM.

Sorry, the original DAY was a masterpeice and the last great Romero film, and sadly, the last great, bold, boundary-pushign ZOMBIE films made. Sigh. 21 years and not much since has equalled it.

[Giant Baba]

Except for Bub and Rhodes, Day sucked, and is rightfully remembered as being such.
21 years ago, when I was like the only person singing DAY's praises amongst those who had a chance to see it at the local cinema (which weren't many) - people wouldn't listen to me.

In my opinion, it was the complete antithesis of the pro-Reagan James Cameron ALIENS (amde a year later) and both films really capture the spirit of the eighties (the bleak nature of it and the weird, neo-con, jingoistic, Nero attitude about it all)


However, today: more and more people who were like 12 when they saw it, and unable to digest the subtext of the film, ahve started changign their minds.

For those of us old enough to have been old enough to drive and work and have young adult lives - there was a LOT more going on in DAY. It had the intimacy of NIGHt but the polemic of DAWN.

I think time continues ot be kind to DAY, and more and more people ahve warmed up to it. The ones who rag against it, now seem to be in the minority. It took 21 years, but I take what I can get.

The Dawn remake, while thematically hollow, is a blast.
It was crap. Mindless crap. Zombie babies (though meant to be serious in tone), black gangsta stereotypes, the fucking chase for the dog...

The only things ROMERO about it were shooting the things in the head, and the humor in the exchanges between Kenenth & Andy. The rest was one big polished Hollywood turd that lacked substance and any real fear. There was no point to it all, as well.


It was more akin to a serious version of RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and little more than a cosmetic nod to Romero; and overall: emotionally vacuous.

And as someone who actually LIKED Resident Evil, anyone who thinks it's anywhere but on the bottom of the zombie movie totem pole is shrooming something fierce.
RE is definitely at the bottom. Hell, NIGHT OF THE ZOMBIES and ZOMBI HOLOCAUST were better than that film - and those babies are definitely at the bottom of the totem pole! I'm talking about grass level.

[ChunkyLover53]

Well if you would be kind enough to explain how DAY has 90 minutes of people shouting at each other while letting us know just what zombie movies are about, we'd be very grateful.

Good zombie movies should have zombie action, suspense, interesting humans, and scares, not a bunch of boring, stereotyped characters screaming at each other for 90 minutes and then a bit of - admittedly good - zombie stuff for the last 10 minutes.

I guess I don't "get" DotD.

[Giant Baba]

I guess I don't "get" DotD.

Clearly.

[fabfunk]

black gangsta stereotypes

...?

[Giant Baba]

...?

http://entimg.msn.com/i/gal/DawnoftheDead/DOTD_D065_300x435.jpg

Refresh your memory now?

[Keith F]

The black gangsta stereotype, yeah. The stereotype that would rather kill than let anything happen to his woman and child. Sure, they were zombified, and he was going mad, but this was clearly trying to break any preconcieved notions you had about that character.

I'm not saying Dawn '04 was full of subversive commentary, no, it was a very enjoyable zombie action picture. No, I wasn't a big fan of the zombie baby nonsense, or the resulting John Woo shootout with the old lady. I am sick and tired of that running zombie argument, though, when Romero devotees should have been pissed that the situation had been changed into a viral disease, thereby stripping it of it's ominous unexplainable overtones. What I'm trying to say is, you can find a cure for a virus. But when there's no more room in hell, and the dead walk the Earth, you're pretty much fucked.

Oh yeah, this thread is about a remake of Day. To echo Fabfunk, is Rhames playing the Rhodes character? What's that about? Steve Miner, well I guess he'll always get a pass in my book because of HOUSE. Not that one, the one with William Katt that was a movie.

The original Day of the Dead was a fine film, and I am ready to fight anyone who prefers Resident Evil over Land of the Dead. The only thing wrong with that movie was the criminally short running time. Seriously, PM me, we'll get together and have some good old fashioned fisticuffs.

[Giant Baba]

The black gangsta stereotype, yeah. The stereotype that would rather kill than let anything happen to his woman and child.
Still a stereotype. In fact, it felt like a saf,e white suburbanite condensation of BOYS N THE HOOD/MENACE II SOCIETY/ETC. where it was "gangsta wants to redeem himself and do right for his child."

Yawn. Been there, done that.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Sure, they were zombified, and he was going mad, but this was clearly trying to break any preconcieved notions you had about that character.
I didn't have any real, preconceived notions of the character going in. It was when the started to give exposition to his background that it was right out of TV movie 101, like msot of the characters. It was tremendously disappointing, since James Gunn clearly knows the original DAWN, and has a decent track record with developing solid characters (TROMEO & JULIET, THE SPECIALS, SLITHER).


I'm not saying Dawn '04 was full of subversive commentary, no, it was a very enjoyable zombie action picture.
See, I didn't find it all that enjoyable. Predictable: yes. Enjoyable: no.

"Zombie action picture." That troubles me.

The base horror of flesh eating zombies are the fact that they are so easy to dispose of, and are so slow - and yet human error almost always brings about the downfall in the end.

By making them runners you eliminate the one thing that resonates true, and as Romero reminded us in the original, superior DAWN: "We're blowing this ourselves."

ALL of Romero's zombie films center around groups of survivors unable to get their shit together and make it through an epidemic that could actually be containable, and almost universally because they sabotage their set up with very real character conflicts.

The DAWN remake simple turned it into a flat, mind numbing Irwin Allen disaster movie where the characters got along and simply were incompetent and got themselves killed, mostly over a fucking dog. End of story.

No, I wasn't a big fan of the zombie baby nonsense, or the resulting John Woo shootout with the old lady.
But you liked the dog rescue?????

I am sick and tired of that running zombie argument, though, when Romero devotees should have been pissed that the situation had been changed into a viral disease, thereby stripping it of it's ominous unexplainable overtones.
And thus making them NOT ZOMBIES, ala 28 DAYS LATER.

Rotting zombies would not have the physical make up to be able to propell themselves to run, based on riggor mortis and the principles of decomposition, atrophy, and basic phisiology.

A fresh walker - I could by them movin' at a faster clip than a walk, hwoever: Carl Lewis sprint "zombies," are about as lame as someone proclaiming Avril Leveigne (sic?) "punk."

Give me slow, lumbering zombies and Dee Dee Ramone, and throw the rest inthe trash, thanks.I've gone on about how a running zombie isn't frightening previous to this. Might as well not make them dead and do it like 28 DAYS LATER, where they weren't zombies and logic (alkc there of) would not be called into question.
What I'm trying to say is, you can find a cure for a virus. But when there's no more room in hell, and the dead walk the Earth, you're pretty much fucked.
You know Macumba? Voodoo? Grandad was a preist for Haliburton. He used to tell us, 'When there's no more room in hell, the dead will run the white house...'"


Sorry. I had to make that joke. Moving on...


Oh yeah, this thread is about a remake of Day. To echo Fabfunk, is Rhames playing the Rhodes character? What's that about? Steve Miner, well I guess he'll always get a pass in my book because of HOUSE. Not that one, the one with William Katt that was a movie.
Yes, the screenrapist, er "screenwriter" confirmed to Fangoria that Rhames is playing Rhodes and Mena Suvari is playing Sarah.

Steve Miner also directed FOREVER YOUNG, or whatever that Mel Gibson popsicle man from WW 2 movie was called, and SOUL MAN.

You forget that the screenwriter's a hack, and the producers made DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM, quite possibly the BOTTOM of the zombie barrell. A film so poorly made and so illogical and so inept that it makes HOUSE OF THE DEAD (a shitfest) come off as brilliant as the original DAWN OFTHE DEAD...

. The only thing wrong with that movie was the criminally short running time.
LAND could have benefitted from a more relaxed bit of pacing. Clearly having the story unspool at a commercially-friendly, fast clip didn't help it at the box office. Then there were the plot holes in the script (at one point even including zombie rats... Lucky for us that got nixed before shooting). Not an abomination, but definitely the weakest entry in Romero's series.

[Dan Whitehead]

...there was a Fango interview with the rapist, er, "Screenwriter" ...

...raping them...

...the same ones that raped the shit out of the DAY name for CONTAGIUM...

...the screenrapist, er "screenwriter"...

Point made.

[Giant Baba]

Point made.

Glad to hear that, thanks!

[Ian]

It's been a while since I've seen it, but as far as I remember DAY had no racial subtext whatsoever. It was a pure 80s product-science/education versus military/reactionism. Casting Rhames in the Rhodes part doesn't change a thing about the character's motivation.

Now, will the remake suck? There's a pretty good chance of that. But let the teenybopper babies have their bottle. A bad rehash doesn't detract from the original's quality-if anything it underscores it.

[Alex Riviello]

Why can't some people get past having running zombies in a film? I still don't understand this. Saying that zombies aren't zombies unless they do the zombie shuffle is probably one of the most ridiculous and fanboyish opinions out there. Besides- Return of the Living Dead should have quelled that argument years ago.

The Dawn remake is not the same as the original, but it works as an action movie. It's not nearly as good as the original but it's still pretty enjoyable. This Day remake scares me, but I've been scared before- it might turn out ok. I wonder how they're going to tie up that ending from Dawn though... I thought they didn't make it?

[Charlie Brigden]

I don't see how it needs to be tied up. Ving is playing Rhodes, and there doesn't seem to be any of the same characters.

I think the thing with running zombies kind of goes against the whole deal with the rotting flesh and lack of any brainpower except instincts and basic motor functions. That's what makes it kind of dumb for me. You have these guys who are essentially dead, and running on the bare minimum, and who physically aren't usually in good shape, so it makes sense for them not to whip by at thirty miles an hour.

[Andrew Clarke]

The horror of the zombies, especially in the first film, comes from that slow but unstoppable tide of zombies, and makes a contrast between the fast moving alive-people with their increasingly frantic planning and acting and the inevitability of death.
Having the zombies run gives them a sense of purpose - of deliberate and individual action - whereas the point of them is that the dead have no purpose and individuality anymore. that's what makes death so scary.

Having them run certainly ups the danger of a zombie attack, but it replaces the horror with extreme action. It can be fun, but I can see why people get annoyed and feel it misses the whole point.

[Alex Riviello]

Having the same actor appear in the sequel to a movie playing a different character seems very weird to me, though.

Look, about the zombies- I personally find the shambling ones a lot creepier, no doubt, but I don't understand why it's the worst thing to happen to geekdom if they run in a movie. I don't see how it's any dumber than the fact that the dead are coming back to life.

[Hewlett]

I think the thing with running zombies kind of goes against the whole deal with the rotting flesh and lack of any brainpower except instincts and basic motor functions. That's what makes it kind of dumb for me. You have these guys who are essentially dead, and running on the bare minimum, and who physically aren't usually in good shape, so it makes sense for them not to whip by at thirty miles an hour.

I always thought it'd be interesting to see a movie where the zombies are quicker and more functional if they've just recently died and come back, and then as they rot and age they become the shambling zombies we're used to.

[Uth Vaspetad]

I don't have a problem with "fresh" zombies being able to run, but when there's been enough time for rigor mortis to set in -that's when the whole running ability does bother me a great deal.

[Giant Baba]

It's been a while since I've seen it, but as far as I remember DAY had no racial subtext whatsoever. It was a pure 80s product-science/education versus military/reactionism. Casting Rhames in the Rhodes part doesn't change a thing about the character's motivation.

You forget a few things:

Rickles & Steel constantly taunting Sarah and the fact her boyfriend is Hispanic. There's more than a few times they single that fact out with ephitets.

and

The whole Romero zombieverse has intentionally played the card of having a black hero figure. I woudln't put it past some assclown hack to intentionally go against that just because they're desperate to tweak things as if it immediately gives them credentials for havign brought "something different to the tale," when all they've done is water down the important subtext the original had, and replaced it with a whole lot of nothing.



Now, will the remake suck? There's a pretty good chance of that. But let the teenybopper babies have their bottle. A bad rehash doesn't detract from the original's quality-if anything it underscores it.

Not really. In fact, it's hard to bring up DAWN OF THE DEAD without mother fuckers immediately gushing about Ving Rhames. I immediately stop them and say, "I ain't talkin' about Ving Rhames, I'm talking about the one with Ken-mother-fuckin' Foree, baby. The ORIGINAL. the one that had a point to its existence."

Romero's zombie flicks are pretty special to me, so I'm touchy about the subject and when people go in and fuck around with things all half-assed and shit.

Thsi is why you won't catch me doggin' Savini's remake. He went in and didn't try to add his two cents about how the "original can be updated." It was much more organic. He also didn't go around defending the thing before it was made, which is what these hacks have done with their Romero remakes - and so far, the track record of shitty remakes of his zombie films holds, in my book.

[Giant Baba]

I don't see how it's any dumber than the fact that the dead are coming back to life.


You ask the audience to suspend disbelief in a major way, then go the extra yard to ask them to suspend disbelief about basica phisiology.

I'm an athiest, but you know, some people believe in supernatural shit being possible, so it's not that much of leap to simply state, for some unknown reason, the dead are returning to life and attacking the living.

However, asking them to accept that the dead, who are decaying and have gone through riggor mortis - can all of the sudden keep on sprinting like Bruce Jenner, though it's kind of impossible, since everythign internally does decay - and they go so far as to show it in the faces of the dead - then, yeah, you're asking the audience not only to suspend belief, but to suspend intelligence, as well.

[Hewlett]

You forget a few things:

Rickles & Steel constantly taunting Sarah and the fact her boyfriend is Hispanic. There's more than a few tiems they single that fact out with ephitets.

But that stuff isn't likely to be in the remake. And who's to say that Rhodes will be portrayed the same way? I'll be surprised if the movie paints the military in such an unflattering light as the original. Maybe one of the secondary characters will, but my guess is that Rhame's Rhodes will be just another protagonist working together with Suvari's Sarah - not some menacing antagonist.

[Giant Baba]

Why can't some people get past having running zombies in a film? I still don't understand this. Saying that zombies aren't zombies unless they do the zombie shuffle is probably one of the most ridiculous and fanboyish opinions out there.
No, that would be justifying runnign zombies, which has become the trend by fanboys who can't fathom that the major tragedies that come from a fictitious zombie holocaust - or any disaster natural or manmade - come not from the situation byt the aftermath. Romero's films are always about the undead humans fucking up. By throwing in whack ass, running zombies yo uremove the entire dynamic of why tthe films existed (beyond an exploitation standpoint) and then get into that fanboy bullshit of justifying stupidity by erasing away all lack of subtext and logic with, "it's just fantasy."

The fantastic does not need to be stupid and illogical.


Besides- Return of the Living Dead should have quelled that argument years ago.
A.) It was a comedy

B.) There was no 900 yard dash (literally) where rotting zombies came in and nearly kept pace with armored vehicles going about 60 mph. Furthermore, most of the "running" zombies were FRESHLY DEAD in that film.


The Dawn remake is not the same as the original, but it works as an action movie.
Not really. The action only makes up about 15% of the film, and is poorly orchestrated, simplistic, and is not the impetus for the character relationships and situation.

It's not an action film. It's not a good horror film. It's not a "horror action film." It's simply a tepid remake of a masterpiece. the original DAWn actually had more action.


It's not nearly as good as the original but it's still pretty enjoyable. This Day remake scares me, but I've been scared before- it might turn out ok. I wonder how they're going to tie up that ending from Dawn though... I thought they didn't make it?

One more time, since it's worth repeating: there is no TIE IN FROM DAWN '04 outside of the casting of RHAMES as a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER.

Legally, they can't bring back any of Universal's characters. This isn't a Universal film, from what I understand. Additionally, the hack, er screenwriter has said that Rhames will play Rhodes. It doesn't get much more authoritative, definitive and written-in-stone before the film's in the can - than that.

[Alex Riviello]

You ask the audience to suspend disbelief in a major way, then go the extra yard to ask them to suspend disbelief about basica phisiology.

I'm an athiest, but you know, some people believe in supernatural shit being possible, so it's not that much of leap to simply state, for some unknown reason, the dead are returning to life and attacking the living.

However, asking them to accept that the dead, who are decaying and have gone through riggor mortis - can all of the sudden keep on sprinting like Bruce Jenner, though it's kind of impossible, since everythign internally does decay - and they go so far as to show it in the faces of the dead - then, yeah, you're asking the audience not only to suspend belief, but to suspend intelligence, as well.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

[Giant Baba]

Maybe one of the secondary characters will, but my guess is that Rhame's Rhodes will be just another protagonist working together with Suvari's Sarah - not some menacing antagonist.
And that's where the rape of the Romero original begins, and totally goes off focus.

DAY was a reflection of the pro-military, racist, xenophobic, jingoistic Reagan era. An era that sucked, but was a cakewalk compared to this era. In fact, by turning Rhodes hero instead of creating a new character altogether - you pretty much are saying, "fuck you, fuck the original, and fuck your intelligence." That would be disasterous. The sad thing is that I suspect you're right in your prediction.

[Giant Baba]

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

Coming from a guy who liked DAWN 2004: I'm not surprised.

[Doug]

Having the same actor appear in the sequel to a movie playing a different character seems very weird to me, though.

.
Ironically enough, Joe Pilato (Rhodes) was in Dawn as a different character.
"You guys got any cigarettes?"
And they totally had cigarettes! No wonder he was so pissed later on.

[fabfunk]

Still a stereotype. In fact, it felt like a saf,e white suburbanite condensation of BOYS N THE HOOD/MENACE II SOCIETY/ETC. where it was "gangsta wants to redeem himself and do right for his child."

Yawn. Been there, done that.



Oh. Racist.

Okay.

[Alex Riviello]

Ironically enough, Joe Pilato (Rhodes) was in Dawn as a different character.
"You guys got any cigarettes?"
And they totally had cigarettes! No wonder he was so pissed later on.

You know- I completely forgot about that.

Heh.... a decade without cigarettes.... guess that could be the reason.

Giant Baba- you are the definition of a fanboy. If the original Night had running zombies you'd be here today bitching about all these zombies who can't even fucking walk. You fear change, don't ya?

[Giant Baba]

Oh. Racist.

Okay.

No. I'd consider you a racist for even implying that.

The point is this: a white, subrurbanized condensation of the geneeric Hollywood gangsta-wants-to-make-good stereotype (it is defintiely a stereotype) that really offers no actual depth to it - doesn't cut it for me, Mr. Grand Wizard Funk.

In fact, I find it racist and patronizing that the character was of that cookie-cutter mold. Why wasn't he the shoe salesman average joe finally making a difference in what was left of the world? Why did the only other black man in the flick have to be a 'hood stereotype?

So, prejudiced one, answer me that.

[Giant Baba]

Giant Baba- you are the definition of a fanboy. If the original Night had running zombies you'd be here today bitching about all these zombies who can't even fucking walk. You fear change, don't ya?

that's the biggest "fanboy" tripe I've read so far in this debate.

No, Mr. Rivello: fabricating excuses for people ripping apart someone else's characters, universe, its rules, and creations for profit to justify the fact they couldn't create their own zombiverse from, scratch is not a "fear of change."

By implying that the cirtic of such cultural rape and creative bankruptcy is somehow adverse to "change" is about as "fanboy" as you can get. Such an argument is what I would expect from AICN's "talkback," but not from CHUD.

Guess I was wrong.

Furthermore, "Change" comes from invention. Remakes are not inventions. They are fabrications and concoctions and reproductions, but they are not "change," nor, "creation."

Peter Jackson's BRAIN DEAD was change in the zombieverse. Remaking DAWN or DAY OF THE DEAD and throwing in running zombies just to be "different" isn't change. It is, hwoever, stupid, assenine, and destructive and a fraud perpetuated against the universe that was laid out for them by the source materials they tackle.

[Giant Baba]

Ironically enough, Joe Pilato (Rhodes) was in Dawn as a different character.
"You guys got any cigarettes?"
And they totally had cigarettes! No wonder he was so pissed later on.
In recent memory: Tom Savini reprising his biker from DAWN in LAND, this time in zombie form. He had to wait 26 or 27 years for that.

[Richard Dickson]

We have the dead mysteriously and inexplicably rising from the grave and for no good reason hungering for human flesh, but God forbid they don't adhere to the laws of physics.

[fabfunk]

No. I'd consider you a racist for even implying that.



So, um, again, remind me- how was he a "gangsta"? Because he owned a gun?

[Giant Baba]

So, um, again, remind me- how was he a "gangsta"? Because he owned a gun?

Monologue. Bathroom. He and Kenneth.

Man, did you even see the film?

[Giant Baba]

We have the dead mysteriously and inexplicably rising from the grave and for no good reason hungering for human flesh,

What's the good reason for returning to life and eating the flesh of the living?

[fabfunk]

Monologue. Bathroom. He and Kenneth.

Man, did you even see the film?

Pretend I didn't. I'd like to hear this.

[Giant Baba]

Pretend I didn't. I'd like to hear this.

Well, grand Wizard, reach inside your white cloak's pocket, grab your wallet and waltz down to your video store adn watch it again. Take notes. Then read them aloud, to yourself.

End of argument.

[fabfunk]

End of argument.

That hard to prove it wasn't a racist remark?

I mean, maybe I do remember the movie wrong. Maybe you should correct me.

[Keith F]

We have the dead mysteriously and inexplicably rising from the grave and for no good reason hungering for human flesh, but God forbid they don't adhere to the laws of physics.


Exactly. Zombie apocalypse = Perfectly believable.
Zombie in running shoes = Bullshit!

Regarding the Rhames as Rhodes, they could say he is the brother of Rhames in Dawn, the presumed dead brother at Fort whatever. A really easy way to get around that.

[Patrick Ripoll]

The horror of the zombies, especially in the first film, comes from that slow but unstoppable tide of zombies, and makes a contrast between the fast moving alive-people with their increasingly frantic planning and acting and the inevitability of death.
Having the zombies run gives them a sense of purpose - of deliberate and individual action - whereas the point of them is that the dead have no purpose and individuality anymore. that's what makes death so scary.

Having them run certainly ups the danger of a zombie attack, but it replaces the horror with extreme action. It can be fun, but I can see why people get annoyed and feel it misses the whole point.

I agree with this statement the most.

[Alex Riviello]

Regarding the Rhames as Rhodes, they could say he is the brother of Rhames in Dawn, the presumed dead brother at Fort whatever. A really easy way to get around that.

You know... I was thinking that. That could have him make a mention of his twin brother, who's a cop. Sorta like A Better Tomorrow 2. Gah. That's such a bad idea.

[Alex Riviello]

It is, hwoever, stupid, assenine, and destructive and a fraud perpetuated against the universe that was laid out for them by the source materials they tackle.

You're adorable.

[Giant Baba]

You're adorable.

Thanks!

[Keith F]

You know... I was thinking that. That could have him make a mention of his twin brother, who's a cop. Sorta like A Better Tomorrow 2. Gah. That's such a bad idea.


Hey, I just said it was easy, not good. Shit, just give him a full on bushy beard or something, ouila, brother.

[Subotai]

I'd be more interested in a scenario where Rhames and Polley find a government installation on the island where the zombie outbreak began, as opposed to having Rhames chew the scenery as Rhodes.

[Ian]

Monologue. Bathroom. He and Kenneth.

Man, did you even see the film?

He says he's done a lot of "bad shit", IIRC. There's no intimation that he's a gangster. A black guy who owns a gun can lots of bad stuff without him being a gangster. Shit, maybe he knocked off a bank to help fund he and his girlfriend's new life, and they ended up on the run. Who knows?

And really, get over the "Rape of Romero's work". If he doesn't a give a shit then I don't see why you should. It's VERY fanboyesque.

[Charlie Brigden]

We have the dead mysteriously and inexplicably rising from the grave and for no good reason hungering for human flesh, but God forbid they don't adhere to the laws of physics.

Read Andrew's post.

[Giant Baba]

And really, get over the "Rape of Romero's work". If he doesn't a give a shit then I don't see why you should. It's VERY fanboyesque.


Pay what he profits from these remakes and I too would find it easy to pass it off.

[Ian]

Exactly. They gotta pay for the right to use these names. It's not like they're desecrating a holy ground. And getting yourself all riled up over something shares name-only similarities with one of your favourite movies is pointless.

[Giant Baba]

Exactly. They gotta pay for the right to use these names. It's not like they're desecrating a holy ground.
I beg to differ.

I'm not totally clear on what the situation is, but I don't think Romero has total control over his creations from the Rubenstein/Laurel era. I think he gets checks and royalties, but has no say whatsoever in waht is done with the properties (since he split from Laurel over a decade ago).

Given that situation there isn't anything he can do, anyway, but take the checks. At the back end of sixty, he's not in a position to argue much, anyway.

Regardless, that does not make the creative raping of the properties any less painful to hear about. The track record isn't so good, and if you're gonna talk the talk you should be able to walk the walk. So far, one proejct treid and isntead of walkin' they sprinted and still sucked. Another seems hell bent on rendering DAY from medicine into chewable vitamins for the mall crowd (zombies!).


And getting yourself all riled up over something shares name-only similarities with one of your favourite movies is pointless.
I disagree. If people generally chose to remain silent, as a species we'd still be living in caves. Big or small, voicing cocnern is the only thing anyone can do, while hoping for the best and hoping to set things right.

I don't care if they remake the films. I care about them remaking them with a shred of intelligence and integrity that the originals had.

[Andrew Clarke]

If people generally chose to remain silent, as a species we'd still be living in caves.

It's true you don't see monkeys bitching about continuity errors.

[Ian]

I think comparing crying over a dumb remake to the evolution of the human race is a little much. Nothing's gonna stop studios using these projects as cashgrabs. There's an audience out there, and it's different to the one that watches and values Romero's original works. Let them have their zombie movies, and we'll have ours. Spewing bile at people you don't even know makes you sound Kevin Smithish. Yeah, it'll likely be a stupid movie, but could you BE any more whiny?

[Dan Whitehead]

Romero gets nothing for remakes of Night of the Living Dead as it's public domain. I imagine he gets something for Dawn and Day, purely for creating the characters and story, but he doesn't own the rights to either movie so its not like he's cashing millions of dollars in licensing pay-offs.

[Dan Whitehead]

Enough with the raping, Baba. We get the idea.

[Giant Baba]

Romero gets nothing for remakes of Night of the Living Dead as it's public domain.

Hense the first remake.

I imagine he gets something for Dawn and Day, purely for creating the characters and story, but he doesn't own the rights to either movie so its not like he's cashing millions of dollars in licensing pay-offs.

Richard Rubenstein rpetty much summed that up on the AB DVD commentary for the extended edition of DAWN. He didn't specify a sum, but the implication was that George was able to support himself with the residuals/royalties.

[Xagarath Ankor]

I'd like to mention that, as far as I'm concerned, Dawn of the Dead 2004 was not in fact a remake.
The only similarity between it and the original, after all, was the scenario of people besieged in a shopping mall by zombies. Other than that, the two are, in terms of style, plot and ultimate point, completely different films that happen to share the same name.
Hence, judging the 2004 film independently, I wasn't that impressed by it. I have no problem with running zombies in principle, except that I would be inclined to call them something other than zombies (standard fanasy would call them ghouls), I just didn't think it was a terribly good horror film. It had one or two decent scenes and a lot of pretty empty and lacklustre stuff, making it slightly inferior to 28 Days Later, which I wasn't terribly taken with either.
Savini's NotLD, by contrast, was a remake: essentially the same film with modern effects and a stronger female lead. I found it competent and enjoyable enough.

So... the two questions about this proposed Day film therefore are: a) is it actually going to bear enough resemblance to the original (which, btw, I greatly like) to even be called a remake and b) as a film, will it in fact be any good?
I have to admit I greatly doubt both.

[Patrick Ripoll]

double post

[Patrick Ripoll]

I hated the Dawn of the Dead remake. You know why? Cuz it was a shit movie, and generally, I hate shit movies.

I LOVE the original Dawn of the Dead. I must have watched it 25 times by now, and for me, for a movie that long, thats a lot. I first saw it before I even heard of a remake. Guess what effect watching it after the remake has?

ABSOLUTELY NONE. I don't let one interfere with the other. The only thing that is slightly annoying about having a remake is having to clarify which one I'm talking about whenever I mention it.

But that's just me. I must be some kind of emotionless, superhuman film goer to not let it affect me.

I'd like to mention that, as far as I'm concerned, Dawn of the Dead 2004 was not in fact a remake.


It's a remake. Lawnmower Man shares similarity in name only. Dawn of the Dead is a remake.

[Beautiful Nightmare]

Ya know, if Romero spent half as much time bitching about remakes of his movies, he'd never make another movie.....but ya know, come to think of it, after the atrocity that was Land of the Dead, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Richard Dickson]

Read Andrew's post.
I did. That's his interpretation of scary. To me, a motivated, running zombie provides a lot more to be afraid of than a lumbering mindless husk.

I don't have a problem with people having a preference for one concept or the other, but to say that one conception is wrong is ridiculous. It's not wrong, just different.

[Ian]

Ya know, if Romero spent half as much time bitching about remakes of his movies, he'd never make another movie.....but ya know, come to think of it, after the atrocity that was Land of the Dead, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

I'd love these people ragging on LAND to explain their position some instead of making really, really dumb one-line statements.

[Charlie Brigden]

It's an opinion. I don't think it's wrong, I just think it doesn't work, mainly because they're dead. It doesn't work, I don't care how many times you give a smarmy answer.

Running zombies are an excuse for filmmakers who don't understand why slow zombies can be scary, i.e. they have no idea about horror coming from actual socio-political history/contemporary and just think "Oh wow, that'd be cool, and we won't have to come up with anything particularly creative because they run so fast."

That is, assuming you like some meat on your zombie.

[Keith F]

I don't think the Dawn '04 crew brought in fast zombies out of a lack of knowledge of horror, but to separate it from the first film. The remake is like the original Dawn of the Dead as told by the way a meth addled twelve year old would tell you the story, completely missing the point and harping on the action elements. I hate to do this, but it was Dawn of the Dead for Dummies. But I must be a dummy, because I did enjoy it for what it was. I think we can all agree that it would have been just super if they would have called it anything but Dawn of the Dead, and in fact, it wasn't scary in the least, save for the brilliant opening ten minutes, which were quite effective.

To further derail this thread, whatever happened to that proposed Crazies remake at Paramount?

[Richard Dickson]

It's an opinion. I don't think it's wrong, I just think it doesn't work, mainly because they're dead.
I love how people talk about walking corpses with this air of authority. Until I see people crawling up out of graves, you can't convince me there's a "right" or "wrong" way to do it. Just because you think a reanimated dead body should move in a certain way doesn't make that the ONLY way a reanimated dead body can move.

It doesn't work, I don't care how many times you give a smarmy answer.
What's smarmy about "I disagree with the opinion that running zombies aren't scary?"

Running zombies are an excuse for filmmakers who don't understand why slow zombies can be scary, i.e. they have no idea about horror coming from actual socio-political history/contemporary and just think "Oh wow, that'd be cool, and we won't have to come up with anything particularly creative because they run so fast."
So the only way a zombie can be scary is through the horror of the socio-political subtext? Um, okay. There's no horror from the idea that "Hey, that could be someone from my family coming after me?" "That could be me if I die, I don't want to end up like that?" None of which has ANYTHING to do with the speed at which they move.

Again, this is all a matter of personal preference, it's not written in stone. There's no need for slavish devotion to Romero's interpetation -- he didn't invent zombies. All this talk is akin to people slamming any robot story that doesn't adhere to Asimov's Three Laws. Just because one creator did it a certain way doesn't automatically discount anyone else's conception.

[Giant Baba]

I did. That's his interpretation of scary. To me, a motivated, running zombie provides a lot more to be afraid of than a lumbering mindless husk.

If they're motivated & running - they ain't zombies, cheech!

It's not wrong, just different.

It's also just stupid.

[Ian]

If they're motivated & running - they ain't zombies, cheech!

Why? Because you say so? They're reanimated corpses. That makes them zombies.

It's also just stupid.

Good argument. You can do better than this.

[Giant Baba]

I love how people talk about walking corpses with this air of authority.
So do I, because it's science, man. Scientific fact.

Suspension of disbelief only goes os far, and the fact that the rotting dead lumbered around was acceptable, since the suspension of disbeleif was focused on, "how the hell did these fuckers come back, and why?"

Throw in the dumb ass Edwin Moses sprinting by dead people clearly rotting away and you're asking for too much.


Until I see people crawling up out of graves, you can't convince me there's a "right" or "wrong" way to do it. Just because you think a reanimated dead body should move in a certain way doesn't make that the ONLY way a reanimated dead body can move.
Until you show me a rotting corpse whose muscle atrophy allows them to sprint like Jesse Owens at the olympics - there is a wrong.

Romero created a zombiverse where msot of it was ground in reality with one simple exception: the dead walk and eat their victims.

What made that so easy to suspend disbelief to was the fact that they moved like DEAD PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY MOVE IF REVIVED. Simle, scientfic fact.

Sorry, muscle atrophy - even amongst the living, ehre in the real world - prohibts people from functioning at physical capacity.

It's jsut a simple fact.

28 DAYS LATER got around this nonsense by clearly making their hoardes LIVING and INFECTED and JUICED UP .

THAT was credible. THAT made it scary.

Running zombies aren't scary because they're bloody silly.

The bst horror still plays it close to reality, in my opinion, and running zombies are about as goofy as throwing in the Banana Splits as legitimate characters, running around to the "tra la la" song.


So the only way a zombie can be scary is through the horror of the socio-political subtext? Um, okay. There's no horror from the idea that "Hey, that could be someone from my family coming after me?" "That could be me if I die, I don't want to end up like that?" None of which has ANYTHING to do with the speed at which they move.
This isnt' my beef, but the scenario you painted, where it would be the fmaily memebr - well, that's socio, man.

The speed part only comes into play when we - the audience - the "third eye" - KNOW that that person is DEAD, and the fact that once you've hit riggor mortis or your body starts to decay - there aint' know way that it's goign to be able to jump up and run like Carry Skruggs, and breaking down hardwood doors in less than a minute like Mr. T. on PCP.

That's when any reality, any subtext, and any suspension of disbelief and any semblence of fear get washed away to a "Yakety Sax" Benny Hill absurdity being foisted upon us by hack filmmakers. That's great for comedy, but not for anythign that is suppose to be thought provoking, and/or scary.


Again, this is all a matter of personal preference, it's not written in stone. There's no need for slavish devotion to Romero's interpetation -- he didn't invent zombies.
Yeah, but when you have the audacity to use the names, characters, situations and settings he created, and that particular brand of zombie he developed - then you're playing with fire, and when you play fast and loose and sloppy and flippant with 'em: not only deserve to get burnt, but completely fucking immolated, imo.

I reference Peter Jackson for basically ignoring most of Romero's Zombiverse and being able to be above comparisson. Sure, being a parody makes that easy, but had he gone dead serious with it, it still woudl ahve been different.


All this talk is akin to people slamming any robot story that doesn't adhere to Asimov's Three Laws. Just because one creator did it a certain way doesn't automatically discount anyone else's conception.
Robotics has yet to become a concrete science with established physical laws.

Death, decay, muscle atrophy - that's been concrete physical law for more years than I care to fathom at the moment.

Olympic sprinting zombies (which is what we got in DAWN '04) aren't even scary.


It would be a step in the right direction if this DAY remake has 'em shamble.


What I fear is a talking Bub.

Boy, will the "change" bandwagon have a hard time rallying in defence of that one, if it happens.

[Giant Baba]

Why? Because you say so? They're reanimated corpses. That makes them zombies.

Why doesn't it? Because YOU say so?

Murrow, bro - that's a circular argument.



Good argument. You can do better than this.

I already have, but it's tiresome just repeating what I typed a handful of posts previous. Besides, I do think it is stupid, so at least it was an honest comment.

[Andrew Clarke]

What I fear is a talking Bub.


Wouldn't it be cool, though, if it was voiced by Tony Randall?

[Keith F]

Now, that's scary.

[Richard Dickson]

I simply don't understand how zombies can ignore the concept of BEING DEAD, and you have no problem accepting that, but somehow them ignoring the concept of rigor mortis is a deal-breaker.

[Giant Baba]

Wouldn't it be cool, though, if it was voiced by Tony Randall?


I was thinking Rip Taylor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/69/Rip2.jpg/180px-Rip2.jpg

[Giant Baba]

I simply don't understand how zombies can ignore the concept of BEING DEAD, and you have no problem accepting that, but somehow them ignoring the concept of rigor mortis is a deal-breaker.
Again: suspension of DISBELIEF. It only goes so far.

Dead returning to life rather mysteriously, and they simply eat the living - that's a leap. Yet, it worked.

Having the same zombies run around like little Jackie Wright being chased by Benny Hill (both, RIP) without the benefit of Boots Randolph's "Yakety Sax" - and it's supposed to be SERIOUS - that's asking people to not only suspend disbelief, but to allow themselves to be swindled. It's not just a leap - it's a recreation of Evel Kneivel's Snake River Canyon jump - without the benefit of the rocket car or a parachute.

[Richard Dickson]

Oh yeah, right, the zombies in the Dawn remake ran around like a Benny Hill sketch.... That's some ridiculous hyperbole right there.

Again, corpses mysteriously reanimating and for some reason craving human flesh is the big leap. They consume food with no working digestive system, no need to eat, they're fucking DEAD, but oh good god! They can move quickly! I am totally torn out of the narrative!

Them running is nothing compared to a dead organism walking again and eating.

Let's take the Dawn remake out of the equation -- you're telling me that no matter how creative or compelling or scary the story may be, if it's got running zombies, it's no good? You'd rather have people's imaginations confined to one narrow definition because your sainted Romero made it that way and that's that? That's ludicrous.

[Giant Baba]

Oh yeah, right, the zombies in the Dawn remake ran around like a Benny Hill sketch.... That's some ridiculous hyperbole right there.

No, it's not. In fact it's disturbingly accurate.

Zombie neighbor girl (doing a Carry Scruggs), the rotting zombies sprinting like Benny on the run when the dog rescue goes down. One-armed Zombie rampaging like an NFL steroid ragin' freak.

Laughably bad.

Again, corpses mysteriously reanimating and for some reason craving human flesh is the big leap. They consume food with no working digestive system, no need to eat, they're fucking DEAD


You got it!

, but oh good god! They can move quickly! I am totally torn out of the narrative!

DEFINITELY! See, you're smartening up, ese.

Thats' the rpecise point the suspension of disbelief turns into insulting the viewer's inteligence. It's a thin line and easy to cross if you're a hack. Well, DAWN '04: made by hacks. DAWN '78 - made by a flawed genius.


Them running is nothing compared to a dead organism walking again and eating.

Let's take the Dawn remake out of the equation -- you're telling me that no matter how creative or compelling or scary the story may be, if it's got running zombies, it's no good? You'd rather have people's imaginations confined to one narrow definition because your sainted Romero made it that way and that's that? That's ludicrous.


Dude, what part of "If you play in the Roemro universe and can't pull of your shit, don't bother," don't you understand?

Inversely, how hard is it for them to create a new universe with new ruels that isn't pilfering off an already well, defined one?

What you misconstrue as "imaginations confined," I see as "imaginations forced to buy pap form Hollywood taht has no respect for their intelligence."

Here's the simple math: don't remkae a Romero film and while people may hate your whack ass Benny Hill, marathon running zombies - they can't hold the source you're working from against you, since you're making it up as you go along.

If it was called "MALL OF THE DEAD," or BENNY HILL ZOMBIES, I'd have less of an issue with it.

You can piss on a canvas and call it "Starry Night," but it ain't Van Gogh, and you're a fool to imply that you are and deserve the attacaks you receive for perpetrating such a fraud.

Same applies to fakin' the Romero funk within the universe he created.

Running zombies ='s some suit in a board room saying, "Okay, we'll greenlight this remake, but my wife told me her jogging partner Richard thought running zombies would be really scary. Yeah, I know... It makes no sense, but if we get fan friendly in promoting this they'll buy high jumping zombies if we wanted to throw 'em in. Besides, bringing in those has-beens from the original ,that'll put up a nice smoke screen to detract from the stupid fact that running zombies suck, and that the zombie baby is goign to be the most goddamned stupidist thing ever comitted to celluloid since we produced KUFFS. So, I'll greenlight your picture, you get it made, we make some money and I get laid and don't have to hear about my wife's jogging partner Richard anymore. Oh, and you have to shoot it in Canada, where it's cheap and where zombie films go to die....."

[Richard Dickson]

I think what insulted your intelligence was that someone besides Romero made a zombie movie.

[Milkyway]

I'm a big Romero fan.

Giant Baba sounds like a psycho idiot.

I watch the Dawn remake all the time, it's very rewatchable. I have no problem with fast zombies. Zombies aren't realistic in any way at all, so they can do whatever.

Also Romero even said in the beginning he thought of them as ghouls, so they can move fast, think, talk, whatever it doesn't really matter. As long as I like the film I don't care what they do.

Day is my favorite of the Romero zombie films, and I'm looking forward to the remake/reimagining.

Land of the Dead doesn't suck.

[Giant Baba]

I'm a big Romero fan.

Sure, ya'are.

Giant Baba sounds like a psycho idiot.

and you sound like a dumbass cocksucker.

I watch the Dawn remake all the time, it's very rewatchable. I have no problem with fast zombies.

I think that certifies you as a "psycho," hombre loco.

Also Romero even said in the beginning he thought of them as ghouls, so they can move fast, think, talk, whatever it doesn't really matter. As long as I like the film I don't care what they do.

You took the roundabout way to get to the point.

Day is my favorite of the Romero zombie films, and I'm looking forward to the remake/reimagining.

You can't "re-imagine" something when all you're doing is taking the proverbial cookie dough out of a tin, rolling it out and cuting it into a retarded shape, as opposed to the first, successfull recommendation on the package.

There no "imagination" needed for it, as they proved with DAWN '04.

"Re-imagining" would mean creating an entirely new universe from the ground up, using just an outline. DAWN stuck too close to Romero's zombiverse and only offered up: piss poor characters I was glad to see become zombie fodder, no subtext whatsoever beyond Jake Webber's character, running zombies, no real mence form them since they ran like a Benny Hil sketch and there was barely any gnoshin' going on for a fucking FLESH EATING ZOMBIE film, and it even made direct nods to the previous film (WGON chopper, Savini, Reiniger, Foree cameos, etc.) .

To Paraprhase the late, great Claude Bessey dsicussing "new wave" and "punk" nomenclature, "You've got remakes, rip offs, spinoffs, films inspired by another, but 're-imagining' doesn't mean shit. It's the product of some lame cunt's imagination."



Land of the Dead doesn't suck.

I don't recall many here saying that it did. It didn't suck, but it was the only blow off in the series. Nothing was really accomplished with it in furthering the Romero zombiverse. No new revolations, etc. It's just aesthetically tepid when held up against his previous films in the series.

[tommy five-tone]

Replacing rape with Benny Hill hasn't helped your case any, Baba. Even if I agreed with what you were saying, your hectoring tone would have had me siding with the opposition.

So you don't dig the running zombies, and thought DAWN '04 was a load. We get it. Go watch SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW if you want some realistic zombie action.

Re. the running/walking dead argument: Personally, I like the idea of varying degrees of decomposition corresponding with varying degrees of speed (as already mentioned in this forum). The newly deceased still have some pace, but the longer you've been dead the more your body starts failing you.

[Alex Riviello]

I think that of all the fanboy arguments to hit the internet, this has been the silliest.

Now I hope that in the Day remake that the zombies are doing all kinds of crazy shit- high jumps, pole vaulting- rappelling down buildings - just cause it'll drive people like Baba nuts. I'd like to see him having a geek seizure in the middle of the theater- while he wildly flails his arms around and screams about the raping of Romero's universe.

[Patrick Ripoll]

With all this talk about rape, I don't want to be in the same theatre as this guy.

[Giant Baba]

Replacing rape with Benny Hill hasn't helped your case any, Baba. Even if I agreed with what you were saying, your hectoring tone would have had me siding with the opposition.

And you now what, I dont' care. I'm not out to rally troops, and I certainly don't trust people who run in crowds - so I don't care if you're with me or against me. I state an opinion and tick by it.

So you don't dig the running zombies, and thought DAWN '04 was a load. We get it. Go watch SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW if you want some realistic zombie action.

How about recommending a good movie????


Re. the running/walking dead argument: Personally, I like the idea of varying degrees of decomposition corresponding with varying degrees of speed (as already mentioned in this forum). The newly deceased still have some pace, but the longer you've been dead the more your body starts failing you.

Logic. A marvelous thing. Sadly lacking from DAWN '04 though.

[Giant Baba]

I think that of all the fanboy arguments to hit the internet, this has been the silliest.

Now I hope that in the Day remake that the zombies are doing all kinds of crazy shit- high jumps, pole vaulting- rappelling down buildings - just cause it'll drive people like Baba nuts. I'd like to see him having a geek seizure in the middle of the theater- while he wildly flails his arms around and screams about the raping of Romero's universe.

And I'd love to see the projectionist slap you upside your thick, cromagnon skull with the reels of DAY 2007. You now, and "Accident" and all.


Then again, I'm not surprised at your observation, since you're a guy who ran the news for creature corner and didn't even know about the Rhames/Rhodes situation.

News gathering - if you run like a DAWN '04 zombie, kiddo, you might be able to gather some.

[Ian]

Is it possible you can participate in a thread without being rude/pissing off 75% of the posters in it? Because after running through me and four or five others in quick succession in the WWE thread, and now this debacle, it's looking unlikely.

Seriously man, calm yourself down and work on your communication skills a little. I'm not trying to be a dick here-you're really, really nasty and coondescending for no reason. It is possible that opinions other than yours aren't 100% stupid.

And once again: THERE IS NO LOGIC IN THE DEAD RETURNING TO LIFE. If you want to argue against running zombies, take a page out of Andrew and Charlie's book. They're thematically a far stronger and scarier prospect. It's nothing to do with physiology.

[Dan Whitehead]

Indeed. Baba, drop the attitude or find another message board.

[Hewlett]

Flying zombies. That's what the Day remake needs.

[Giant Baba]

Flying zombies. That's what the Day remake needs.

Breakdancing. I'm sure some of the clowns will rally around it because it's all about "change!"

[Andrew Clarke]

Indeed. Baba, drop the attitude or find another message board.

Baba.

[Giant Baba]

Baba.

Andrew.

[Xagarath Ankor]

Why? Because you say so? They're reanimated corpses. That makes them zombies.
Or, as I posted, Ghouls.
Or, for that matter, Mummies, Skeletons, even Vampires.
More than one kind of reanimated corpse.

[James]

Here we go, I'm one of the few people on this earth who prefers the Dawn remake to the original. Now I'm sure Baba's head is about to explode but I'll explain.

I don't find either one to be an amazing film. I thought the original was well.....boring. I can appreciate what Romero was trying to do, and I think the whole 'Satire!' angle is beefed up by fans more than what the film actually does, but on the whole I found little to get excited about.

As for the remake, yes it makes some misteps, but I thought Jake Weber was fantastic and the action was suitably gory. On the whole it gets a lot more right than it does wrong. More importantly it doesn't wear out its welcome and I was never bored.

As for the fast vs slow zombies, I appreciate the point above that the shuffling inevitability is scarier, but surely running zombies just means that they'll get you faster? Either way they're still going to get you. I don't think that by running they suddenly have a purpose. They still want your flesh, nothing else.

I just think it's such a moot point. They're dead, they don't need to eat your flesh either but they still do and it's accepted. It's above all a dumb arguement considering they're not real. It's not fact, anyone can do with it what they like.

Something that was going to be brought up in the remake and was in the script was that 'fresh' zombies were the fast ones, while the slower zombies were people who had been dead a while, obviously when rigor mortis set in. Why this wasn't included I don't know, but I bet it's because it's hard to point out without seeming clunky.

[General Zod]

I love the 04 Dawn remake. I think it's only problem is that it has the same title as the awesome original. It should have been called something, anything else and maybe the reaction to it would have been a bit more unanimous in the postive. I love the original just because you have to and a world without it is an ugly place, but the remake is not without its moments.

I think it's one of the best zombie movies of all times. The horror stuff works great, especially, that opening montage and the Johnny Cash song. Also the action movie stuff works great too.


I hate remakes for the most part since they are almost always pointless and redundant, (I'm talking to you, Omen redo!) but DOTD works for me the same way as Carp's The Thing.

That said, this fucking bullshit of remaking Romero's movies is getting lame.

Just give him money to make another one. Land is awesome, he can do it again.

[wadew1]

I feel sorry for Ving. There's no way He can recreated this kind of magic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/wadew/pilatopower.gif

[Giant Baba]

I feel sorry for Ving. There's no way He can recreated this kind of magic.




There's something criminal about Joe Pilato not being able to get meatier (pun not intended) roles post-DAY. I think the only film I spotted him in after DAY in the eighties was a blink-and-miss it appearance in a Fred Olen Ray film.

[Chris Wood]

It's true you don't see monkeys bitching about continuity errors.

Haha!! Classic.

I'm not really into this genre, but the zombie debate is highly amusing. Do carry on.

[Ian]

There's something criminal about Joe Pilato not being able to get meatier (pun not intended) roles post-DAY. I think the only film I spotted him in after DAY in the eighties was a blink-and-miss it appearance in a Fred Olen Ray film.

Because he isn't that good? I mean, he's great in a scenery-chewing holy-shit-this-guy's-gonna-explode-if-he-overacts-any-more way in DAY, but if I were looking to cast a serious dramatic role there'd be about 1500 other guys on my wishlist before him.

[Giant Baba]

Because he isn't that good? I mean, he's great in a scenery-chewing holy-shit-this-guy's-gonna-explode-if-he-overacts-any-more way in DAY, but if I were looking to cast a serious dramatic role there'd be about 1500 other guys on my wishlist before him.

And your point is what? You don't think he's good? Okay. I disagree.

What was your basis of judgement? DAY? That's it?

He's not chewing scenery in KNIGHTRIDERS, and certainly not in EFFECTS.

The guy was a solid actor, gave a great performance in DAY, and it's a mystery why he wasn't appearing at least in bit parts on television or elsewhere.

Maybe it's a bad agent.

[Ian]

Judging by EFFECTS and DAY he's "B-movie" good, not "breakout-star" good. Granted, it's surprising he never got more TV roles, even as villain-of-the-week. But I'd hardly call his quiet career a tragedy or anything.

[Giant Baba]

Judging by EFFECTS and DAY he's "B-movie" good, not "breakout-star" good. Granted, it's surprising he never got more TV roles, even as villain-of-the-week. But I'd hardly call his quiet career a tragedy or anything.

I didn't say tragedy, but it's a damn shame, since he's a great character actor. I think the last thing I saw 'em in that was new upon release was PULP FICTION, and even then I didn't realize it was him until the end credits.

[General Zod]

If Ving can star in a dumb cable television remake of Kojack, he'll be movin on up with this.

[Giant Baba]

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movie-gallery/albums/userpics//DayOfTheDead06-Set03.jpg

[BubWilliams]

It's a black Capt. Rhodes, I think I'm gonna shit myself.