# Dawn of the Dead (2004)



## WayneLigon (Mar 20, 2004)

Very good film, all told. I've been wracking my brains.. and I cannot remember, at all, the ending to the original. I'll just say that for this one, don't spring up when the credits start. Stay put.

The only thing I _think_ that was a major change was 



Spoiler



that it took the actual bite of a zombie to make you a zombie. I thought in the general 'mythology' of the series, any dead person returned. I might be wrong.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 20, 2004)

I think you are right about that.  I'd say the biggest change, and this is no spoiler, is the Zombies are fast.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Mar 20, 2004)

In the original's end, Fran and Peter escape the mall in the helicopter after Flyboy's zombie leads the rest of the mall horde back to their secret area (after the bikers crash the mall and flee). In the original script, Peter stayed behind and blew his brains out rather than give up his "good thing" (the mall), but they apparently did not film this ending and went for the ending you see in the film. The original Dawn's end is hopeful (at least for the two survivors), but still bleak. We never know if they really survive or not, as the sequel, Day of the Dead (1985) starts us off months (years?) later with an all-new band of survivors.

There will be an "ultimate" Dawn of the Dead (1978) multi-disk DVD set released by Anchor Bay in September 2004, so I would wait on buying the new Divimax Edition.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 20, 2004)

It held my interest, but the best parts were definitely in the opening 20 minutes.  The Andy character was great, and the ending was kind of a nice rush (even if it was an almost scene by scene Aliens rip-off), but it certainly isn't devoid of "Stupid Character in a Horror Movie" syndrome.  The film all but jumped the shark when the girl made that stupid move to go get the dog.  Ugh.

Elements of the closing credits were just *horribly* executed, but all in all I wasn't disappointed I saw the movie.  The Texas Chainsaw remake was much better, much more intense and relentless but as far as zombie movies go the new Dawn of the Dead is one of the best (for whatever that's worth.)  Not that I've seen that many.

Would make for an awesome role-playing adventure though.   

EDIT: Even though its the type of scene you'd kind of expect in a movie like this, I found the "chainsaw accident" to be incredibly brutal and unsettling.  When I think about the film my thoughts inevitably come back to that and it takes away from the "thrills as entertainment" aspect and just makes the whole experience kind of a downer.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Mar 21, 2004)

No spoiler tags at first, as there are only pseudo-spoilers.

This movie was one of the few horror films that actually managed to unsettle me just a bit.  Somehow, I found the opening credits, with the zombie footage intermixed with Johnny Cash (was that who that was?) playing in the background to be a case of where the music really complemented/contrasted the scenes.  We got a real kick out of the piano/lounge version of Disturbed.  Also how "Don't Worry Be Happy" was playing when they entered the mall.

When we saw it, there was a guy sitting in the front of the theater who would yell "Uh-oh" everytime a horror movie cliche scene came on.  Especially the guy sleeping in the ambulance as she came out of the hospital.



Spoiler



But I WOULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES have let in Weird Green Bloated Lady.  No sir.





			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'll just say that for this one, don't spring up when the credits start.



You guessed it, I got up and missed this bit.  What scenes were intercut in the credits?  We caught a few, but that's it.  



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The Andy character was great



"Jay Leno.  Burt Reynolds.  Rosie O'Donnell - nah, too easy."


----------



## nHammer (Mar 21, 2004)

I saw it Friday night. At best I would say the movie was OK. It was what it was, people shooting dead things...and lots of blood.  Been there, seen that. It just didn't have the quality writing the original had. It also didn't have a graphic zombie feast scene.The makers should have just made there own zombie movie instead of leeching off of the popularity of the original DotD.

Today (Saturday) I got the original version on DVD. I definatly enjoyed it more than the remake.

There is a strong possiblity that Romero will be doing a fourth Dead movie. _*crossing my fingers*_


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 21, 2004)

Andrew D. Gable said:
			
		

> You guessed it, I got up and missed this bit. What scenes were intercut in the credits? We caught a few, but that's it.



This is what happens.



Spoiler



You may have seen all of it, then. They get on the boat. Michael comits suicide, and credits roll as the boat heads towards the island. Quick cuts after this. Cut to one of them finding Steven's video camera and deciding to tape things. They cut up. They have fun. They find a drifting boat. They look in it. Zombie is there, as well. They run out of fuel, but manage to sail to the island. They get on the island. Dog runs into the woods, barking. Howling horde of undead spill out of the jungle. Camera drops. Screams, blood hits the dock, gunshots, more screams, sounds of eating. Then just pictures of the zombies clawing at the screen.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Mar 21, 2004)

The incidental music to the 1978 DAWN OF THE DEAD version is available here:
http://www.moviegrooves.com/shop/dawnofthedeadtrunk.htm

Now you can thrill to mall muzak favorites like "The Gonk" and the pie fight theme, plus drink along to that redneck zombie-shootin' anthem, "I'm A Man", and other electronic weirdness. This is all the music in the movie that was NOT written and performed by the Italian progressive rock band GOBLIN (that is a separate soundtrack which last I heard, you had to import from Italy).


----------



## mearls (Mar 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The film all but jumped the shark when the girl made that stupid move to go get the dog.  Ugh.




Nah. That was onbe of the best parts. Her actions were a logical extension of her character.



Spoiler



After all, she had lost everything she had cared about - her mother, her parents, and her father. It made perfect sense.

As far as the ending goes, I don't think it's definite that they were eaten. It's vague enough that they have wiggle room to make a sequel. After all, they dropped the camera on the dock, and while we hear gun shots we don't have any definite proof that they were overwhelmed. There's no shouts or cries of pain or anything.

The only sort of nonsensical thing was their decision to leave the mall, but they didn't have much choice in the end.

I particularly liked how they showed the zombies spreading. The news footage was well done, and I liked how it made sense for Sarah Polley's character to be unaware of what was happening until it was too late.

And what the heck was up with that zombie head in the cooler? I have a feeling that the sequel will touch on that. From what I've read (which could be inaccurate) Romero's original vision for DAY OF THE DEAD, the action was set on an island where this sort of strange, post-zombie society had arisen. It had some elements of the filmed version of DAY, like the scientists experimenting on the zombies, but much of the plot was different.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 21, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> Nah. That was onbe of the best parts. Her actions were a logical extension of her character.



No, her actions were a logical extension of a stupid horror movie character.

"Going for the dog" is a ridiculous cliche that should have been retired on film decades ago.  Making her character that stupid just takes you out of the movie and is an incredibly lazy technique to cause the resulting plot contrivance.

It wasn't a logical extension of her character.  



Spoiler



She puts up with the decision to have her father shot but risks almost certain mutilation on account of a dog she's had for two weeks?  Where was the kicking/screaming/willing to die at all costs to protect her father?  Nowhere, because that isn't a boring horror movie cliche.  She has to instead go for the dog.  Yawn.



Then the fact that 



Spoiler



she _and the dumb dog_ survived made it all the more ridiculous.


----------



## FoxWander (Mar 21, 2004)

I just saw it today, and I really liked it. One of the better zombie movies I've seen. I'm more than half-tempted to base a post-apocolyptic GammaWorld-esque campaign on the concept. 

That being said, I had problems with some plot points.


Spoiler



Ok, obviously these people exist in a reality that doesn't have zombie movies. That can explain alot of the stupid things they do- like not initially shooting for the head. Or, not immediately decapitating the half-dead bloated green women from the truck when she finally "died" (or heck, right when they wheeled her in!!). And, most obviously, just calling all the dead-but-still-walking-around-people ZOMBIES! It's the stupid, gimmicky or just dramatically convenient, things in the plot that kinda bug me.To be fair though, the movie holds up pretty well until they decide to leave the mall. And keep in mind- I do like this movie, but here goes...

Why does Andy's gun store _just happen_ to have a steel plate covered DOGGIE DOOR! Good thing he does though, cause the dog is conveniently pre-trained to run to the sound of a whistle blowing!

Speaking of Andy- once the group made friends with CJ, why didn't he mention there _just happens_ to be a sewer tunnel that leads RIGHT to Andy's FRONT DOOR when he was objecting to the 'drive over and have him jump on the roof' plan to rescue the guy! 

As for that sewer chase, I love the dramatic control the zombies have to pause and look menacing on the stairs when it looks like the heroes are trapped, rather than charging like the ravaging, mindless horde they've been during the whole film. Again, to be fair though, this 'pause' may just be a side effect of the battle scene going Slo-Mo. (Slo-Mo battle scenes being a contractual obligation for every post-Matrix action film.  )

Oh, and some thoughts on that 'horde' as well. At first just a few zombies fall thru the manhole after the heroes. Then it's a whole gang of them at the top of the stairs. By the time our heroes come zipping thru the mall to the zombie-mobile, it's a veritable FLOOD of the critters! How did SO MANY of them make it thru the sewers, up the stairs, thru the back halls of the mall and into the mall after the heroes? Maybe movie zombies are like Black Puddings. If you hit one but don't kill it, it splits in two! So all that random shooting into the horde (Which our heroes should know by now will be completely ineffective!) just made things worse.

Then there's the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics. Since they've wisely sidestepped ANY sort of explanation for the actual _zombies_ themselves, we'll just skip that bit. I'm talking about the 'makes your burning rag in a flask of oil look like a sad party favor' of a molotav cocktail- the flare on the propane tank! So CJ lobs this thing into the zombie mob that's keeping the buses from moving. It gets lost in the horde but (conveniently for CJ) Quarterback Zombie picks it up and, making to lob it back, holds it up high. Shoot the tank... BOOM! Massive (and again, in contractually obligated Slo-Mo!) explosion with cool shockwave effect that mows down the zombies for a hundred feet or more... but leaves the ALUMINUM SIDING shielded bus just 10 feet away completely unscathed!! Oh, and let's not forget the apparently superhuman CJ who manages to duck back into the bus FASTER than the approaching explosion!! And why didn't CJ use his superspeed to get out of the fricking bus a few scenes later rather than opting for the 'brilliant' hold-off-the-zombie-hordes-with-a-PISTOL plan!! A _PISTOL_?!?!

CJ's plan shows another example of the invulnerable nature of aluminum siding though. Of course, when CJ gets knocked back onto the huge propane tank (it's hugeness being explicitly shown during the building-the-zombie-mobile montage which bizarrely had someone measuring the thing and marking it as "36" inches wide! Why were they measuring this??) and road flares get scattered everywhere, it's pretty obvious how CJ is going out. One lit flare and bullet later... SUPER BOOM!! (With, again, high altitude Slo-Mo!) [cue 1950's scientist vioce-over] But thanks to impregnible nature of our friend- Aluminum! Our heroes, just FIFTY FEET AWAY on the dock, are completely unharmed!![/end voice-over] (Screw mithral and adamantine- I"m getting me some ALUMINUM plate mail!!)

But at least nobody survived in the end!   Well maybe they survived the island, depends how hopeful you are for a "good" horror movie ending. "Good" meaning everybody dies- ESPECIALLY when you think they've gotten away. And again, I have to stress, I really liked this movie. Pretty much everything I'm ranting about is completely ignorable in the interest of just enjoying a good horror flick. I especially liked the very NON-cliche fast zombies! (Why would being dead make you so slow when you don't have muscle pains and fatigue toxins to worry about anymore?) The chainsaw channel for dealing with zombie hitch-hikers was the perfect kind of thing a PC in a game like this would come up with! For that matter, so was the 'shoot the celebrity look-alikes' game they played. 

Anyway, nitpicky flaws aside, I'll definitely be adding it to my movie collection when the DVD comes out.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 21, 2004)

FoxWander said:
			
		

> That being said, I had problems with some plot points.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



Because he was contractually obligated to fulfill his role as Hudson/Gorman by cursing the horde of monsters attacking him before taking them all out with him in a giant fireball.


  

And I really wish the first poster had just put "Spoilers" in the subject header so we wouldn't have a page of this semi-annoying blacked out text.


----------



## Warden (Mar 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> EDIT: Even though its the type of scene you'd kind of expect in a movie like this, I found the "chainsaw accident" to be incredibly brutal and unsettling.  When I think about the film my thoughts inevitably come back to that and it takes away from the "thrills as entertainment" aspect and just makes the whole experience kind of a downer.




That's always been the purpose behind a good zombie movie.  Gory effects and stomach pulling horror are a staple as well, but the main purpose is to shock and upset.  If you sit there in the theatre or in your living room and say to yourself: "Man, if that were to really happen, we'd be (insert expletive)!"  I've always felt that way.  It's the reason why excellent zombie flicks feature ordinary people in this situation -- the bad ones are a Predator ripoff.  Zombies taking over the world is perhaps the largest, most biblical curse that you can live through...for a while.

I thoroughly enjoyed it.  While there were some pieces of the original that stand out better (that level of shock and dismay that I spoke of earlier was more prevalent in the 1978 version, I found), it was good to see that this revised version recognized many elements from the original and tried to incorporate those into our 2004 film.  The scenes of carnage in the suburbs was very nicely done (particularly the van crashing into the gas station as part of the background -- very nicely done).

I've tried to convince the rest of my gaming group to watch it as there may be a scene in which they have to enter a zombie-infested section of town sometime soon...


----------



## d4 (Mar 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> EDIT: Even though its the type of scene you'd kind of expect in a movie like this, I found the "chainsaw accident" to be incredibly brutal and unsettling.



i saw the movie with my group and afterwards we said, "great idea! give the old man with the 8 Dexterity on an unstable platform the chainsaw!"

and as far as the girl running for the dog being unreasonable, we all agreed we've got a player in our group who's character(s) would do _exactly_ the same thing...


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 21, 2004)

About the decision to leave the mall. They pretty much have to. We don't really get a sense of exactly how much time passes, though I think it has to be less than a couple weeks because of when Luda gives birth; at least I think so. Given that she looks massively pregnant when they join with her, I'm assuming she could give birth any time. But she was kinda slender; they maybe could have been there as long as a month.

From what happened around the coffee stand, I'm assuming they were running out of food, esp when they realized they had to give some to Dave. So, they were going to have to leave at some point. The situation wouldn't have been any different, though.

Re: Getting food to Dave. Damn if I wouldn't have found a way to built a catapult


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 21, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Re: Getting food to Dave. Damn if I wouldn't have found a way to built a catapult



I think you mean "Andy".  And I wonder if your average mall has those big waterballoon slingshots that take three people to fire, two to hold each end and one to pull it back.  That would have done the trick....


----------



## Villano (Mar 21, 2004)

With the creative bankrupcy in Hollywood in which every other film is a remake, an adaption of a tv series, or a sequel, I think this film (along with Walking Tall) are a sign of the End Times!    

Seriously, I think this is the first Hollywood film that's a remake of a sequel.  That's just so sad.  And Walking Tall is a remake of a film that was based on a true story.  

Why couldn't they just have made an original zombie film set some time within the Living Dead trilogy?  Or let Romero do his planned 4th film?

Anyway, I'm waiting until it comes out on dvd.  The running zomibes turn me off.  I don't mind a fast shuffle, but a full on, arm pumping run looks kind of stupid.  To quote George Romero, "We don't need ninja zombies."  :\


----------



## Iron_Chef (Mar 21, 2004)

There is a dual-statted AFMBE/GURPS adventure/map pack, MALL OF THE DEAD (from Steve Jackson Games) which presents survivor and zombie counters and a detailed shopping mall adventure location (dual sided, hex and square gridded maps). Retails for $14.95.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 21, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> There is a dual-statted AFMBE/GURPS adventure/map pack, MALL OF THE DEAD (from Steve Jackson Games) which presents survivor and zombie counters and a detailed shopping mall adventure location (dual sided, hex and square gridded maps). Retails for $14.95.



And a wonderful, lovely thing it is, too.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Mar 22, 2004)

Just came back from seeing the new Dawn. Lotta fun, but not as good as the original, which was an epic and one of my all-time favorite movies. The new fast zombies didn't bother me. What bothered me was I didn't care about any of the characters the way I cared about the four in the 1978 original Dawn. The script was definitely not as clever as George Romero's (who got the shortest screen time for his credit in the film, another irksome moment for me as a Romero fan). Still, the new Dawn's lotsa fun, but I wanted to see more of the happenings in the world at large through the newscasts, hear more on the radio, etc. I recommend seeing the film, and find it compares favorably with 28 Days Later, which didn't have enough zombie action in it (technically they weren't zombies, yeah, I know, but you know what I mean), but was a bit more cerebral. Five minutes of gore and five minutes of character development were cut (gore by MPAA to get an "R" rating , the rest probably for pacing or run time). I'm sure these will end up on a special unrated edition in six months or so. The movie was still gory as hell, though, and it takes a lot of grue to satisfy an old gore hound like me. Intestine-ripping/eating was missing (I hear this was a cut scene for the rating).


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 22, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Five minutes of gore and five minutes of character development were cut (gore by MPAA to get an "R" rating ,



Five _minutes_ of gore?  Damn...that's going to be one nasty ass movie on DVD, and considering the original was unrated its pretty much a guarantee the DVD release for this one will be as well.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Mar 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The real question is...would revealing it make it any less "semi-annoying"?

I have yet to see any commentary on this flick that doesn't compare it to the original, or take issue with the actions of the characters. If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.

I liked this film; I thought it was creepy, and the front-to-back adrenalin rush is just plain harrowing. Images of that island are still in my head.

If the film had any social commentary at all to make, I think it had to do with apathy. The fact that some people just don't have any sympathy for those affected by horrible violence, even when its happening in front of them.  I'll tell you...those zombified news reports don't look much different from what's on the news channels every day. Violence on a massive scale, with a collective "whatever" from the TV-fed American public.

If the film is actually about apathy and numbness, then it's also neat that it is the #1 film this weekend. It has gone meta. The only film relentlessly violent enough to be more popular than "Passion" in America. A film about the destruction of that last thread binding us together earns comments like, "There's no way that dude would've gone all Hicks with the propane tank."

The sequel should be about a bunch of gamers trapped in their FLGS.  Maybe then everyone would make the "correct" decisions.

But as a film, it would suck.


----------



## Villano (Mar 22, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I have yet to see any commentary on this flick that doesn't compare it to the original,




Well, it's a remake, what do you want?  Criticizisms that it isn't as good as the original are valid.  If filmmakers want their films to be judged as original works, they should do something original. 



> or take issue with the actions of the characters. If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.




Return of the Living Dead.  Nearly everyone did the correct thing, but things only got worse.  



Spoiler



Destroy the zombies' brains?  No effect.  Burn the bodies?  Only spreads the chemicals.  Call the cops?  Zombies eat the cops.  Call the army?  They nuke the place.  Army nukes the place?  Spreads the chemicals further.



Characters who are morons in movies are only that way due to bad writing.


----------



## Jim Hague (Mar 22, 2004)

I own all three original _Dead_ movies, inlcuding the '91 remake of NotLD on DVD.  I've watched 'em about a billion times.  I've shaken George's hand personally and talked about zombies for hours on end.  Y'know what?

The original and the remake are apples and oranges, like _Alien_ and _Aliens_.

I enjoyed the remake, enough so that I've seen it twice.  The characters were believeable, and despite their sketchiness, the primaries actually did have enough meat that you cared about them.  And Matt Frewer's character ("Don't you take your eyes off me...not for...one...second...").  And Andy, the gun shop owner across the street (Sign: Hungry).  I gave a damn when something happened one way or the other.  If there's a fault with the characters in the film, its that the ones who're meant to be zombie chow are clearly marked as such.  Bit of character bloat, IMO, but I can live with it.

As far as subversive social and political commentary...think about it.  It's there.  James Gunn, the scriptwriter, was tricky...he didn't pin down the commentary to a single timeframe, but managed to get in shots at the intervening time from the end of the original to the 21st century.  Steve looks like an extra from _Wall Street_, f'r chrissakes.  

The nastiest message, though (available only to folks who sit through the credits) is that the universe is written by Locke: life is nasty, brutish and short.  Or as I like to put it: Nothin' means nothin'.  Stripped of identity, the whole world descends into chaos and ultimately self-destructs.  A nasty metaphor for how America is feeling right now.  Are we the brave frontiersmen (Michael)?  The caring souls (Ana)?  Are we righteously kicking ass (Ken)?  Are we just trying to make a better world (Andre)?  Maybe we're breaking away from what doesn't work to something that does, abandoning the old predjudices (CJ).  But ultimately, what the world wants is for you to just conform, don't ask questions, it's us versus them (cue zombies).

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 22, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I have yet to see any commentary on this flick that doesn't compare it to the original, or take issue with the actions of the characters. If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.



Hmmm, I didn't, and didn't.  Well, I compared the method of spreading, which is important as a meta-plot kinda thing. In the original NotLD, it just said 'the recently dead are returning to life'. After that point, I forget if we see anyone die of some other means than being bitten by a zombie, but still return to life. Anyone know?

As far as their actions? I have tremendous wiggle-room on this within many horror films, depending on the character. In most horror films, you have people under terrible, terrible unrelenting stress. That alone cause people to do stupid things. Even you. And you there in the back, you too. Not even combat-trained people make the correct decisions all the time under stress, especially stress they have not been trained for. And no one is trained to deal with flesh-eating dead things rising up and coming after the living, or any other supernatural horror.

I think it was certainly within character for the kid to go after the dog; she's a kid, she's had her entire family killed which means she's probably just a shade away from screaming insanity at the drop of a hat, and she's a 'civilian', meaning most likely the most stressful thing she's ever had to do is drive in downtown traffic. It would have been possibly out of character for Ving's character to do such a thing. 

Given the mental problems such massive amounts of life-altering stress would induce in amost anyone, it's probably a mercy they were eaten at the end (I can't see any way out of that situation).

Theme. 

Hmm, I'm not sure 'apathy' would be correct. The first one (and here is where I do make a comparison  ) is almost famous for being seen as a commentary on modern consumerism. The zombies come to the mall not solely in search of food, but because something deep in their brains tells them 'this is an important place'. The nurses actions near the start might be construed as some form of apathy but I think not. If I heard the word 'epidemic' while switching stations, I might stop at that station.. or I might not. And who's to say she did hear it. She was just tuning out everything to get to some relaxing music after a tough day at work.

I think at the end of the day the theme, if there is one as such,  is like it is in many horror films: it doesn't matter who you are or what you've acheived. In the end, you're just food that walks.


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 22, 2004)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> The nastiest message, though (available only to folks who sit through the credits) is that the universe is written by Locke: life is nasty, brutish and short.



Thomas Hobbes, in _Leviathan_: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."


----------



## Crothian (Mar 23, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.




No they wouldn't.  They would flow better and seem intelligent.  It might actually get horror to a new level besides how many ways can we gut a human.  I think the horror genre needs to evolve some.  We basically haven't seen anything new except for Scream and even that was not different enough.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 23, 2004)

The horror genre doesn't need to evolve. It doesn't need new ideas.

It just needs talented artists who take it seriously. It needs George Romero. Stephen King will do in a pinch. As does Wes Craven from time to time. John Carpenter gave us hope once, but no more.

Horror is simple. Brutally simple. People suffer and then die horribly. It's not rocket science, which is why you get so many horror movies made by people who neither know what they're doing nor care to learn -- as long as they can make some cash with a minimal investment. The whole trick to horror is to create characters the audience cares about, develop that concern and then slaughter the whole lot in front of their eyes and spare them as little of the agony and terror as possible.

It is, in one sense, a rather nasty thing to want to do in the first place.

To complain because a horror movie is a remake of a sequel of a rehash of an adaptation of a copy of a... There's only ONE horror story. We keep going to see it because when everyone dies screaming and you think at last the monsters have gotten you, too, the lights come up and you realise you've survived. This time.

The artists who understand this and take what they're doing seriously can deliver a wallop like no other storytellers can. But they don't need good ideas. They just need to be really, really good.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 23, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> If everyone did everything logically in horror flicks, they'd be boring as hell.



*chuckles*  Right because Dawn of the Dead would have been _mind-numbingly_ boring if they didn't have the scenes with the guy wandering off by himself to "secure the mall" or the girl doing the assinine doggy rescue.  Those two utterly stupid "oh yeah these are poorly written characters who cares if they die" scenes were absolutely *pivotal* to it not being a boring flick.



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> A film about the destruction of that last thread binding us together earns comments like, "There's no way that dude would've gone all Hicks with the propane tank."



I think its great that you gleen valuable social commentary from a zombie movie scripted by the writer of Scooby-Doo. Whatever speaks to you man.    



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> The sequel should be about a bunch of gamers trapped in their FLGS.  Maybe then everyone would make the "correct" decisions.
> 
> But as a film, it would suck.



Totally, because Dawn of the Dead without the few stupid parts would literally be the equivalent of a bunch of gamers trapped in a store.     God forbid they actually think up a plausible reason to have a girl try to "rescue" something like in Aliens or the Texas Chainsaw remake.


----------



## Jim Hague (Mar 23, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> *chuckles*  Right because Dawn of the Dead would have been _mind-numbingly_ boring if they didn't have the scenes with the guy wandering off by himself to "secure the mall" or the girl doing the assinine doggy rescue.  Those two utterly stupid "oh yeah these are poorly written characters who cares if they die" scenes were absolutely *pivotal* to it not being a boring flick.
> 
> 
> I think its great that you gleen valuable social commentary from a zombie movie scripted by the writer of Scooby-Doo. Whatever speaks to you man.
> ...




Like, I don't know, the fact that a human being stripped of everything she held dear _might_  become attached to something like a pet, and when that pet is in danger, do something irrational?  Naw, people never rush back into burning houses to save heirlooms or beloved pets.  

Kai, why don't you just say you didn't like the movie then leave the thread?  You've done nothing but bash since you hopped on, and your points really don't hold water once they move past personal preference.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 23, 2004)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Like, I don't know, the fact that a human being stripped of everything she held dear _might_  become attached to something like a pet, and when that pet is in danger, do something irrational?



Right.  She won't act irrationally when she's about to lose her father but she will for a dog that the movie ridiculously establishes the _zombies have no interest in._ 



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Naw, people never rush back into burning houses to save heirlooms or beloved pets.



For heirlooms and pets immune to fire?  I've never heard of that ever happening once.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Kai, why don't you just say you didn't like the movie then leave the thread?  You've done nothing but bash since you hopped on,



Not quite.  My first post gave specific examples of some of the things I both liked and disliked.  Most everything else has been responses to posts like yours.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> and your points really don't hold water once they move past personal preference.



Nice try, but you'll need to to better than that.  Even the people who disagree with my opinion concede that some of the characters in the movie are stupid and poorly written, but that they find clever writing and logical characters in horror films "boring."

I'm glad you enjoyed it when they decided to secure the mall and one guy with a shotgun guards the girls, one guy with a pistol goes one way, and the other guy without a firearm goes off by himself and opens a door after hearing chewing sounds on the other side.  Of course he has to be rewarded for his abject stupidity with survival, as was the girl and her doggie, which is even more annoying.

I loved the first 10 minutes, enjoyed the pacing, thought some of the characters (Ana, Ving Rhames, Andy, Mikhei Pfiffer) were great, and was gleefully on edge by the heart-pounding tone of most of the film.  I don't have a problem with characters "losing it" in traumatic situations, note that I haven't once criticized the scene where 



Spoiler



Pfiffer keeps his pregnant girlfriend alive even though technically that wasn't the "smart" thing to do.  But his girlfriend and baby were everything to him even before the zombie epidemic and he paid for his actions with his life.



The dog thing was just dumb in so many ways.  So bad that instead of being immersed in the story and thinking "wow, this is intense, people are losing it"  I thought "wow, what utterly stupid and lazy writing.  Hope that ridiculous character dies so she won't detract from the rest of the story."  _That_ to me is boring filmmaking.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Mar 23, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> God forbid they actually think up a plausible reason to have a girl try to "rescue" something like in Aliens or the Texas Chainsaw remake.




this is getting a little flame-arific, but I'm just currious. (didn't see the film by the way, not my cuppa) Since you meantion the "going back for a rescue" scene in Aliens, how do you rank the one in Alien, where Ripley goes for the ship's cat? I've seen it characterarized as a dumb horror movie move, and as a good bit of her character that with everything else lost she was willing to take a risk for that one last peice of life. Do you rank it as you do this dog scene, or differently?

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Villano (Mar 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> To complain because a horror movie is a remake of a sequel of a rehash of an adaptation of a copy of a... There's only ONE horror story.




No, it only looks like there's only one story because of all the remakes and sequels.   

At some point, someone came up with the original films that are being remade left and right.  Those were original ideas.  Sure, you can split hairs and argue that there's nothing new under the sun, but common themes are different than digging out a script for a good film and then handing it off to someone to rewrite.  

There are lots of werewolf movies, but The Howling, Silver Bullet, and Teen Wolf aren't all remakes of The Wolfman.

At least, if you want to remake a movie, pick a film that isn't very good to start with.  Pick something that had good idea, but a bad script (and possibly bad acting, directing, etc.).  

True, there are some good remakes (The Fly) and sequels (Aliens, Bride Of Frankenstein), but there are many more bad ones (Planet Of The Apes, Swept Away, Teenage Caveman, and I,Spy).




			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> this is getting a little flame-arific, but I'm just currious. (didn't see the film by the way, not my cuppa) Since you meantion the "going back for a rescue" scene in Aliens, how do you rank the one in Alien, where Ripley goes for the ship's cat? I've seen it characterarized as a dumb horror movie move, and as a good bit of her character that with everything else lost she was willing to take a risk for that one last peice of life. Do you rank it as you do this dog scene, or differently?




I haven't seen it either (Running zombies?  Bah!), but it sounds like the dog in DotD was never in danger from the zombies.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2004)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> this is getting a little flame-arific, but I'm just currious. (didn't see the film by the way, not my cuppa) Since you meantion the "going back for a rescue" scene in Aliens, how do you rank the one in Alien, where Ripley goes for the ship's cat? I've seen it characterarized as a dumb horror movie move, and as a good bit of her character that with everything else lost she was willing to take a risk for that one last peice of life. Do you rank it as you do this dog scene, or differently?



That scene in Alien was pretty cool.  She didn't give a second thought to leaving the cat until it started meowing in the same room she was in.  So she caught it, set off the self destruct, ran down to the shuttle and then bam, there's the Alien.  So she _drops the cat right in front of it_ and races back to the bridge.  When she can't abort the self destruct, she _has_ to go back down the hall to the shuttle, and picks up the cat's cage since its right in front of her.  I don't have a problem with any of that.

Earlier in the movie when Brett wandered off by himself to get the cat was a pretty classic "dumb horror movie character" move, but back in 1979 that wasn't exactly a huge cliche.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Mar 24, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Earlier in the movie when Brett wandered off by himself to get the cat was a pretty classic "dumb horror movie character" move, but back in 1979 that wasn't exactly a huge cliche.




I thought Brett was looking for the alien at that point, which was still thought to be a baby (wasn't everyone looking for it all split up?), and he stumbled on the cat. He tried to get the cat, but then the alien got him... Ripley and her cat never bothered me; it was established very clearly and early on that she cared about him.

The dog and the dumb girl in Dawn I had a problem with. That the zombies wouldn't eat the dog seems silly, unless you consider the plague's source as biblical (which was talked about by the TV preacher [Ken Forre's cameo] early on), and that only people are being punished, not animals, perhaps to cleanse the planet of man's "sins".   The dumb girl's relationship with Chips the dog was not as well established as Ripley and her cat Jonesy in Alien. There was some sloppy writing in the new Dawn, but overall I liked it. Not as much as the original, not as much as the 1990 Night of the Living Dead remake, but still enough to want to watch it again. I'm a hopeless zombie junkie.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2004)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I thought Brett was looking for the alien at that point, which was still thought to be a baby (wasn't everyone looking for it all split up?), and he stumbled on the cat. He tried to get the cat, but then the alien got him... Ripley and her cat never bothered me; it was established very clearly and early on that she cared about him.



Brett, Parker, and Ripley were looking for the alien with their little makeshift motion tracker, but instead found the cat.  The cat hissed and tried to get away so Brett let it go.  Parker and Ripley then chided him since they didn't want the cat setting off the tracker again.  So they sent Brett off alone to find the cat again and right there you just knew it was all over for him.

Even that was nowhere near as bad as the girl going for the dog in DotD, but it didn't ruin DotD, it was just another reason I considered it a "mixed bag" as opposed to an enthusiastic thumbs up.


----------



## Jim Hague (Mar 24, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> For heirlooms and pets immune to fire?  I've never heard of that ever happening once.
> 
> 
> Not quite.  My first post gave specific examples of some of the things I both liked and disliked.  Most everything else has been responses to posts like yours.
> ...





Matt Frewer's daughter acted perfectly irrational and human when her dad was about to be capped - she ran off and hid, trying desperately to deny what was happening.  Maybe you were out getting a drink when that scene came up?

And don't try _ad absurdum_ arguments, please.  I won't disagree that some of the characters were pure fodder...but at the same time, please note the focus of the story wasn't on them.  It was on Ana, Ken, CJ, Michael and the rest.  I'll even go out on a limb and say that some of the dead weight (the blonde hooker, the old man with the 'saw towards the end, the woman who drove the van to the mall) could have been left out.   I've got no problem with it overall, simply because it's genre for there to be fodder characters.  Don't like it?  Go write a script.

As for the dog...I guess you would have been more interested in Stephen's ham sandwich idea, huh?

Guess what?  The movie is full of people making stupid mistakes.  Inevitably, they end up paying for those mistakes in some way.  Even when those mistakes aren't their own.  Just ask Andy.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2004)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Matt Frewer's daughter acted perfectly irrational and human when her dad was about to be capped - she ran off and hid, trying desperately to deny what was happening.  Maybe you were out getting a drink when that scene came up?



I'm not going repeat the difference between irrational behavior that makes sense in the context of a traumatic event (her father dying) and irrational behavior that makes sense only in the context of a bad horror movie scene (the doggy rescue.)



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And don't try _ad absurdum_ arguments, please.  I won't disagree that some of the characters were pure fodder...



Who said anything about having a problem with fodder characters?  I'll see your ad absurdum and raise you a straw man.  And let me sweeten the pot with an ad hominem attack, reference to Nazi's, and a portrait of Bea Arthur.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> As for the dog...I guess you would have been more interested in Stephen's ham sandwich idea, huh?



Or CJ could have just mentioned the sewer tunnel connecting the parking garage to the gun shop in the first place.


----------



## mearls (Mar 24, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I'm not going repeat the difference between irrational behavior that makes sense in the context of a traumatic event (her father dying) and irrational behavior that makes sense only in the context of a bad horror movie scene (the doggy rescue.)




I think anyone's perspective on that scene might have something to do with their experience with dogs. I love animals, and I know people who have pets, and I can completely see that attempted rescue happening. A Google search turned up at least a dozen different news stories of people dying in an attempt to save a dog. For someone who bonds with a dog, it's the same as a friendship with another person.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> I think anyone's perspective on that scene might have something to do with their experience with dogs. I love animals, and I know people who have pets, and I can completely see that attempted rescue happening. A Google search turned up at least a dozen different news stories of people dying in an attempt to save a dog. For someone who bonds with a dog, it's the same as a friendship with another person.



And how many of those news stories featured people dying for dogs they'd owned for no more than a week or two and that weren't even in danger?


----------



## mearls (Mar 24, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And how many of those news stories featured people dying for dogs they'd owned for no more than a week or two and that weren't even in danger?




I found at least one of a man dying to save a stray dog:

http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/8498

Note that the dog survived - it wasn't in much danger.

I'm not saying it's normal, or its wrong to think it's a stretch, but I can see how it makes sense. Like I said, I like dogs, so I can understand why someone would do that.

I've also read a rumor that the dog was supposed to be eaten by zombie dogs, but they didn't film it due to budget issues. I have no idea if it's true or not.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 24, 2004)

mearls said:
			
		

> I found at least one of a man dying to save a stray dog:
> 
> http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/8498
> 
> Note that the dog survived - it wasn't in much danger.



This has to be one of the more random hijacks, but okay, we can go with it.     First off, the dog survived only because the firefighters pulled it out.  According to the quote from the Fire Chief, nothing could have crawled up the slope of the pond without help.  So the dog would have literally died if it hadn't been rescued.  I don't call that not being in much danger.  Plus, two of the drowned man's dogs were also in the pond, so he obviously wasn't doing it just for the stray.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> I've also read a rumor that the dog was supposed to be eaten by zombie dogs, but they didn't film it due to budget issues. I have no idea if it's true or not.



Well I'm glad they didn't go that route.  That would have been incredibly silly.


----------



## Ampolitor (Mar 24, 2004)

*Spoiler Alert!! Dont Read If You Didnt See The Movie!*

Just saw the movie today, way better than the original IMO. The original was GREAT BUT the new one was very on the edge of your seat, at one point I was like good god slow down on the driving already your in the clear (the bus scene)! I was used to the old movies, I was like holy Crap when the things were still running after them! It was more intense. those damned things kept coming. look at the marina.
As for the woman and the dog, well after seeing all those things in the parking lot there would be no way in hell that Id go that route until it was absolutely necessary. as for the girl, Id be like well sucks for her to be that stupid! Good god what was she thinking. She was just lucky that she as in the gun store which would be the ONLY reason Id go there.
As for the food, sorry andy, Id go to Radio shack and fly over a remote control plane or car otherwise I hope you can live off of gunpowder and gun oil!
With those Odds sorry charlie!
If the dog lived up to the point when they found him Im sure he will go on by himself! I like CJ's standpoint, nobody comes in who might be infected and why take risks! Id live in that mall until I was on breadcrumbs.
Id also be putting on leather etc,, so the suckers couldnt bit through!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 26, 2004)

I don't remember the original. I have this vague sensation in the back of my mind that it was well, stupid. I just saw Day of the Dead recently and hell, that movie is pretty bad too. I'll have to rent Dawn of the Dead and see what the fuss is about and hope this vague feeling of a near comedy in the back of my brain is wrong.

I thought this was a good three star movie. Were some of the characters stupid? Of course. Very rarely does a horror movie manage to sneak away without a few stupid characters. 

For me, I saw it with three other gamers. We all dug it and thought that the ending was fantastic. The whole island thing with the camera was great. We thought that the woman with the dog should've pretty much been left for dead, but also thought that they should've been able to shoot over some food some how. The music at the start, good old Johhny Cash and the loungue version of Get Down with the Sickness were great.

I can understand why some people didn't like it but to be honest, I've started to appreciate movies a little more for what they are, simple entertainment, than what I'd like them to be (consistant, intelligent and solid).


----------



## Psychotic Dreamer (Mar 26, 2004)

Personally I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead (2004) a lot.  Where some of the characters stupid?  Yes.  Would there be stupid people making stupid decisions in reality?  Yes.  So I have no problem with characters in a movie acting stupid.  I loved the music.  It all just felt perfect.  From Don't Worry, Be Happy in muzak when they first get to the mall to the lounge version of Down with the Sickness.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Mar 26, 2004)

And where were cell phones and the internet? Nobody in the movie even owned a cell phone or thought to access the internet for info... Oops! Even if they were down, they should have been shown trying to access them! This is 2004, not 1978!  :\


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Mar 28, 2004)

I was more upset about everyone rushing off through hordes of zombies to save the dog-chasing git. I would have sat back and said, "Well, she's dead."


----------



## Tetsubo (Mar 28, 2004)

I saw the movie yesterday at a matinee. I enjoyed myself. I think it is important that you look at the film with new eyes. Don't go expecting the Romero original. I don't mind the fast zombie gimmick but still find the slow stumbling version much scarier. The aspect that you know They will just never stop is terrifyng.

SPIOLER















The part that really bugged me was the speed of the infection spread. 28 Days Later had the same flaw. A blood born pathogen just doesn't travel that fast. You might lose a few cities but the military would step in and start some serious stomping. Radio waves move faster than mindless humans. Just shoot anyone that doesn't reply to a demand of response. "Say something", is  a great and quick method of separating the Living from the Dead. They should have also armoured up some. They had access to sports equipment and leather clothing. They could have fashioned shields fairly easily as well.

As for the "stupid" moves made by some of the characters... humans under stress do odd things. Even suicidally stupid things.

I also think they could have "floated" a package or two to Andy at the gun store with balloons and a line. Once every few days would have keep him alive until winter. And once winter hit the zombies should start to freeze up. After that it's just a matter of heading North to safety. But I'm not a normal person, I'm a gamer.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 28, 2004)

Tetsubo said:
			
		

> The part that really bugged me was the speed of the infection spread. 28 Days Later had the same flaw. A blood born pathogen just doesn't travel that fast. You might lose a few cities but the military would step in and start some serious stomping.



This was a flaw for 28 Days Later because the film specifically showed the source of the virus: the monkey in the lab.  But Dawn of the Dead nicely left the origin a complete mystery.  The news footage at the beginning suggested that there were simultaneous outbreaks in countries across the world.

This lends itself to all kinds of possibilities.  It could have been a comet that shot past the earth and infected millions simultaneously, or perhaps it was a meteor shower that peppered the earth and spread the contagion.  Or even a bioweapon used in a global terrorist attack.  Its kind of cool to wonder about.


----------



## paulewaug (Mar 28, 2004)

What they Could have done was start the movie out with the "recently infected" being the fast nasty people biters, and then as they became more zombified they could slow down to the classic shuffling dead.

I think the "quick-dead" version makes for some snappier action scenes, but they shuffling relentless dead Are scarier.

I think one thing, and it is a minor point, with going to the gun shop is they Did want more ammo too.
Although I would have grabbed a Lot more guns and Ammo!
Dude had to have some nice auto fire weapons!
Even some good semi auto Ak's and M-16s etc. would have been good to
Up that body count!!


Heh, the wait until winter was a good idea, at least if the food holds out that long.  Since the food court should have enough food to feed a few hundred people a day(?) I would have the idea maybe they could out last the zombies.
Of course things Do go poorly with the whole dog inspired incident and that does change their plans a bit.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 28, 2004)

Wow, Dawn of the Dead is down _61%_ from its opening weekend.  That's "Hulk" bad.  So much for all the glowing reviews, word of mouth is killing this one like a shot to the head.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 28, 2004)

Well, it's not word of mouth from me or any of my amigos who saw it and all recommended our other buddies see it.


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 29, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Wow, Dawn of the Dead is down _61%_ from its opening weekend.  That's "Hulk" bad.  So much for all the glowing reviews, word of mouth is killing this one like a shot to the head.



I went to see it this past weekend after hearing _excellent_ word of mouth -- from two very different demographics (older than me and younger).


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 29, 2004)

paulewaug said:
			
		

> What they Could have done was start the movie out with the "recently infected" being the fast nasty people biters, and then as they became more zombified they could slow down to the classic shuffling dead.



That's how the original screenplay had it; as they decomposed they slowed down.


----------



## mmadsen (Mar 29, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> They get on the island. Dog runs into the woods, barking. Howling horde of undead spill out of the jungle.



_That_ would have been a good time for the girl to chase after the dog.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 29, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Wow, Dawn of the Dead is down _61%_ from its opening weekend.  That's "Hulk" bad.  So much for all the glowing reviews, word of mouth is killing this one like a shot to the head.



 Yeah, but then it's a horror film. Given a 76% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, not sure where you think this "word of mouth" is coming from. _Dawn_ was the film to topple _Passion_ and so you ought to expect that what we saw that weekend was a one-time spike. Couple that with a strong opening from _Scooby-Doo_ (hitting the exact same demographic, most likely) and yeah, a fall-off's inevitable.  Box Office Mojo confirms a minor spike in the total box office last weekend (it was 4% then, versus 1% this weekend).

Compare this with last year's release of _Texas Chainsaw Massacre_, which dropped nearly 50% its second week -- and that's on a weekend where the total box office grew by nearly 16%. Same pattern. All this really tells us is that just about everybody who wants to see a horror movie sees it the weekend it opens. And we already knew that.

Given that _Dawn_ is easily guaranteed of entering profit territory this week, your colourful metaphor has somewhat "misfired".  

It has already been a success. I suspect a sequel is in the works even as we speak.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yeah, but then it's a horror film. Given a 76% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, not sure where you think this "word of mouth" is coming from.



Word of mouth is what gives a film a respectable second weekend.  It obviously isn't really "coming from" anywhere with respect to Dawn of the Dead.  Very few people are seeing it twice, or recommending it to their friends.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _Dawn_ was the film to topple _Passion_



"Dawn" had a big Friday and Saturday, but it couldn't even maintain its momentum the entire first weekend, as "Passion" was back to #1 on Sunday.  Of its fourth week.  Versus "Dawn's" third _day_.  Not much of a "toppling".



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> and so you ought to expect that what we saw that weekend was a one-time spike. Couple that with a strong opening from _Scooby-Doo_ (hitting the exact same demographic, most likely)



Scooby-Doo and Dawn of the Dead don't have remotely similar demographics.




			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> and yeah, a fall-off's inevitable.  Box Office Mojo confirms a minor spike in the total box office last weekend (it was 4% then, versus 1% this weekend).
> 
> Compare this with last year's release of _Texas Chainsaw Massacre_, which dropped nearly 50% its second week -- and that's on a weekend where the total box office grew by nearly 16%. Same pattern. All this really tells us is that just about everybody who wants to see a horror movie sees it the weekend it opens. And we already knew that.



Nope, it shows us that DotD is severely underachieving compared to Texas Chainsaw and Freddy vs. Jason.  Is DotD going to make a profit?  Sure, and within only a few more days.  Did they knock this one out of the park like TCM and FvJ?  Not at all.  Which I find surprising, it seemed DotD would have been more commercial than TCM, what with all the guns, explosions, and one-liners, but it looks like audiences just decided to support the better movie.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It has already been a success. I suspect a sequel is in the works even as we speak.



That would be interesting.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 30, 2004)

I'm not arguing that it was a huge success or anything, just objecting to your characterization of it as a failure. It's clearly a successful film, financially. TCM and FvsJ were both surprise hits, that DoD isn't hitting their numbers doesn't make it a crashing failure. I think there's space between "knock this one out of the park" (which TCM's drop of 48% garners from you) and "shot in the head" (which DoD's drop of 61% gets). I'm just pointing out that the numbers between the two releases are not very different, so *shrug*.

"Severely underachieving"? Because it dropped 13% more on a weekend that decreased 12% more, relatively? Okay, use your ambiguous qualifiers how you like.

What's clea is that financially they're cleaning up nicely with this one. Movies have done better, for sure, but the investors are pretty happy with this one, I'm sure.

The question of demographics proves once again you do have a talent for overstatement. I'll stick to one point at a time, though.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that it was a huge success or anything, just objecting to your characterization of it as a failure.



I didn't say it was a failure.  But a 60% drop for any movie reflects poor audience reaction.  Word of mouth (the lack thereof specifically) was "killing" DotD's repeat business, not the fact that its a moderate success.

I was about to cite 28 Days Later as further indication of DotD's underachieving, but I just looked it up and it looks like it made about 45 million domestically, which DotD will hit in another day or so.

Maybe zombie movies are just the red-headed step children next to slasher films as far as horror is concerned, but no matter what time of the year, a 60% drop is definitely on the embarrassing side.  I really thought this one might have a shot at "transcending the genre" but obviously not.

And no, I didn't overstate the demographics.  Scooby Doo and Dawn of the Dead?  Don't be silly.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 30, 2004)

I'm actually not saying that a drop of 60% isn't bad news, I'm saying that it's not out of line for a horror flick. You think a drop of 50% is "knocking it out of the park" and drop of 60% is "shot in the head". Well and good. It's still only a difference of 10%, not including the general box office figures which are likewise different by about 10%. So one might suggest, based on the evidence, that the difference is very small indeed. 

You seem very fond of your terminology, however, and I shan't insist you change it.

I will make an effort to be less silly.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'm actually not saying that a drop of 60% isn't bad news, I'm saying that it's not out of line for a horror flick. You think a drop of 50% is "knocking it out of the park" and drop of 60% is "shot in the head". Well and good. It's still only a difference of 10%, not including the general box office figures which are likewise different by about 10%. So one might suggest, based on the evidence, that the difference is very small indeed.



"Knocking it out of the park" is a 9 million dollar movie grossing 80 million (Texas Chainsaw Massacre).  FvJ cost 20 million and grossed 82, but interestingly enough dropped _64%_ its second weekend, compared to TCM's 49% drop.  So DotD could get close to or even hit 80 million as well.  It appears that TCM was the "home run" anomaly and DotD is pretty much performing on par with the usual course of a successful horror film, as you said.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 30, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> "Knocking it out of the park" is a 9 million dollar movie grossing 80 million (Texas Chainsaw Massacre).



Now THAT I agree with.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 30, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And no, I didn't overstate the demographics. Scooby Doo and Dawn of the Dead? Don't be silly.



I don't think it's all that silly.  I've seen Dawn of the Dead, and I plan on seeing Scooby Doo 2. 

Their demographics overlap, in that they both appeal to nostalgia among the 25-40 year old crowd.


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 30, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I don't think it's all that silly.  I've seen Dawn of the Dead, and I plan on seeing Scooby Doo 2.



That may be, but you hardly represent the millions of small children and their parents that will be making up the lion share of the PG rated Scooby Doo 2 audience, a collective group not remotely close to crowd lining up to see the gore in a hard R zombie bloodbath.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 30, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I don't think it's all that silly. I've seen Dawn of the Dead, and I plan on seeing Scooby Doo 2. Their demographics overlap, in that they both appeal to nostalgia among the 25-40 year old crowd.



Hmm. I went to see Dawn again this weekend and got there early to meet with some friends so we could coordinate dinner plans. Watching the people going into the Scooby Doo theater, very few 25-40 year olds were there without some 8-14 year old in tow.


----------



## Chingerspy (Mar 30, 2004)

I just saw it this evening. Superb! I am so going to break out my Zombies box next time I get a chance to silly game


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Apr 10, 2004)

Just a quick question.

I finally saw this movie, so there weren't that many people in the audience (about 50).

When they first showed the mall, I was the only one who laughed at the store named "Gaylen Ross" (the name of the actress who played Fran in the original).  You see the store name a few times inside the mall, as well.

Those of you who saw this on opening weekend--did the audience get the reference?  Just curious.

Through a horrible accident, I was forced to watch "Scooby Doo 2" so I am eternally grateful that I could cleanse my brain by going to "Dawn of the Dead" later the same day.


----------



## Caliban (Apr 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> That may be, but you hardly represent the millions of small children and their parents that will be making up the lion share of the PG rated Scooby Doo 2 audience, a collective group not remotely close to crowd lining up to see the gore in a hard R zombie bloodbath.



Never said I did.  But I do represent the group of 25-40 year olds that have some nostalgia for the scooby doo cartoons and enjoyed the previous scooby doo movie.


----------



## Cannibal_Kender (Apr 13, 2004)

Anbody else like the part where they just barely escape the zombies onto the elevator, and they are all just standing there trying to catch their breath while the elevator music plays, and CJ goes:

"Oh, I like this song".

THAT was cool.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 14, 2004)

Cannibal_Kender said:
			
		

> Anbody else like the part where they just barely escape the zombies onto the elevator, and they are all just standing there trying to catch their breath while the elevator music plays, and CJ goes:
> 
> "Oh, I like this song".
> 
> THAT was cool.



I so wanted that song to be 'Girl from Ipanema'.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Apr 14, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I so wanted that song to be 'Girl from Ipanema'.




Me too!!!!


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 14, 2004)

Don't tell me there are other _Deep Rising_ fans lurking about.

Kevin J O'Connor is nothing but funny.


----------

