|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 31, 2008 22:12:52 GMT -5
never said I was unhappy. I just said I wish they'd chosen a different name, because I honestly see almost zero correlation to the original DAWN. I mean, why the fuck call it Dawn of the Dead when it's an entirely different movie in damn near every way? It's fucking stupid. ;D Lets face it man maybe in the 70s it was shocking but, now its more of action film. Tell me unless you were alive back in '78, a 10 year old or younger, or real pansy would this film scare you? Hell the trailers are scarier than the film itself. There were no giant explosions, Please I bet if old George had enough budget there would have been a ton of explosions. Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me? ;D
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Jul 31, 2008 22:15:34 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree. For one, if the remake had followed at least ONE plot device from the original (other than a mall setting), people wouldn't be screaming rip-off. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Let me give you an example.... Say I make my own horror movie, and it's set in a farmhouse. It has not a single other thing in common with Night of the Living Dead, but I name the thing Night of the Living Dead and proclaim it as a remake. It makes no fucking sense! Just because a film is set in the same place as another doesn't mean it deserves to be classified as a remake of the original. And I still don't think the original DAWN is an action film. Tell me, in what specific ways is it? By your criteria, almost ANY film could probably be considered action. If anything, the original DAWN is more of a drama than anything else. Oh, and I highly doubt there would have been any bomb-like explosions if George had the budget. Let's not forget the scene where the rednecks shoot the gas tank in the car... there was an explosion, but it wasn't some massive unrealistic blast. So obviously George had the means to create explosions, and he didn't. Blowing up a derelect car in the middle of a field is one thing. Blowing some shit up in a Mall is another. If he'd had the dough, I have no doubt that he would've done it. Especially given the fact that the bikers are thowing grenades around like they're at the Battle of Khe Sahn. As for the rest... ;D
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Aug 1, 2008 4:17:10 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong there were some things I disliked about the remake. I would have loved more backstory of the various characters and how they got to the mall. Some more media shots would have been great too. As far as running zombies go, I always figured that the zombies ran now, because were a faster paced society. We want something that moves at least as fast as we do in our day to day activities. Thats one of the reasons I think that Day of the Dead, LOTD, and Diary tanked. People have no use for anything slow moving . Were too mobile and too connected and if something strange happens we all know immediately. Thats why Diary was so laughable since its emphasis was the media and the internet - it still had slow zombies. If it had fast ones it have been in every theater in the country.
And Tanners right - George would have blown up a lot of shit if he had the money.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 1, 2008 9:16:35 GMT -5
Point #1--the Rigor Mortis Issue According to the most beloved Ernie Kaltenbruener of the Resurrection Funeral Home (21702 East Central, Louisville, Kentucky): “Rigor mortis starts in the brain. And it spreads down through the internal organs and finally settles in the muscles. It loosens up after a while, but it can be broken out…'manually' as they say, by flexing the muscles.” Bodily movement is achieved by the contraction and relaxation of different muscle groups, working together. If a fresh corpse is reanimated not too long after it initially expires, rigor mortis wouldn’t have the time to effectively cause the stiffness that most fans associate with zombies. And, even if the corpse was in an advanced state of rigor mortis when it revived, it would work itself out of that stiffness in a relatively short time as it moves around on its own accord. The thing is, if a living person has a degree of damage to their brain or nervous system, they can experience paralysis. So who's to say that a reanimated body that is suffering from obvious brain damage would have the same level of control over their body as an NFL running back? These are bodies that were obviously brain dead at one time, meaning parts of their brain would be rendered useless despite the reanimation and you'd have to figure that the level of reanimation would be very basic. Isn't this explained by Doctor Logan in "Day Of The Dead"? In my mind a large part of the shambling and stiffness of zombies is based on the idea that the reanimated brain is not functioning up to par. The brain is operating at a reduced functional level. Muscle control is affected similarly to a stroke victim or some forms of retardation. Personality is affected. Decision making is reduced to the most rudimentary. So where runners get confusing is that they've retained the brain's ability to control the body to such a fine degree but have lost the reasoning and personality aspects. That kind of transformation makes more sense with a virus that could reasonably attack areas of the brain. Death and reanimation doesn't seem like it could be so calculated. Sorry man just bored. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 1, 2008 17:19:15 GMT -5
I liked it. It was pretty entertaining. A fun popcorn flick with some great action. Does not hold a candle to the original though.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 1, 2008 23:09:17 GMT -5
The thing is, if a living person has a degree of damage to their brain or nervous system, they can experience paralysis. So who's to say that a reanimated body that is suffering from obvious brain damage would have the same level of control over their body as an NFL running back? These are bodies that were obviously brain dead at one time, meaning parts of their brain would be rendered useless despite the reanimation and you'd have to figure that the level of reanimation would be very basic. Isn't this explained by Doctor Logan in "Day Of The Dead"? In my mind a large part of the shambling and stiffness of zombies is based on the idea that the reanimated brain is not functioning up to par. The brain is operating at a reduced functional level. Muscle control is affected similarly to a stroke victim or some forms of retardation. Personality is affected. Decision making is reduced to the most rudimentary. So where runners get confusing is that they've retained the brain's ability to control the body to such a fine degree but have lost the reasoning and personality aspects. That kind of transformation makes more sense with a virus that could reasonably attack areas of the brain. Death and reanimation doesn't seem like it could be so calculated. Sorry man just bored. ;D Good points, and well thought out. THAT'S the type of serious, horror discussion/debate that I've been after for fucking years! BUT...I don't think I'm talking about control, here. I'm talking more about the subconscious mind, if anything. Instinct. The type of shit Dr Logan was talking about. But, one more thing about Dr Logan--he was a nut-job. Sure, he had all of these great theories 'n shit, but he was also talking to his mother and sexually molesting ghouls when no one else was around. So, why should his theories on anything be gold?
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 2, 2008 12:54:15 GMT -5
sexually molesting ghouls when no one else was around. When did that happen? Are you talking about the tape recorder scene where Logan's says take that off! And that off!.......?
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 2, 2008 22:42:57 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 2, 2008 22:50:35 GMT -5
Yeah I always got the idea he was striping them.
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Aug 3, 2008 0:49:37 GMT -5
After that post I am convinced that maybe Rhodes while a flake, was correct all along.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Aug 3, 2008 6:49:47 GMT -5
I never got the vibe that Logan was molesting zombies but gathered that he was a super nutcase(the tape recorder deal). I'll have to go through that scene again one of these days.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Aug 3, 2008 17:56:11 GMT -5
I never said I was unhappy. I just said I wish they'd chosen a different name, because I honestly see almost zero correlation to the original DAWN. I mean, why the fuck call it Dawn of the Dead when it's an entirely different movie in damn near every way? It's fucking stupid. And I hear you about your whole take on running zombies, but I still hate them and think they're stupid. I also don't think the original is more action than horror... not even close. There were no giant explosions, countless chase sequences, a hard rock soundtrack... you get my point. And as I've said several times, I don't think the slow zombies OR the fast zombies are scary. To me, it's not an issue of how scary the zombie is. I think you're ignoring the fact that I LIKE the DAWN remake. I've said it a couple of times now. I just don't think it remotely holds a candle to the original. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it! You never said that you were unhappy? As for the rest...whatever. Although, from what you're writing, it appears that you haven't seen the original too closely. Or the original NOTLD, for that matter. The original Night and Dawn had a couple of explosions, and Dawn had Goblin. Hey man... no need to get so defensive and rude. Don't sit there and say I haven't seen the original too closely or NOTLD... that's just insulting. I would be willing to wager that I've seen DAWN at least twice as much as you. It's my favorite movie of all time. I mean come on... I fucking created this forum because I love these films so much! Do you honestly think I'd do such a thing for something I didn't honestly love? Just because I don't go on forums dedicated to Romero's DEAD films and bash them as often as possible doesn't mean what I have to say and my personal opinion deserves to be attacked over and over. I get it. We disagree here. Just move on, brother. Oh, and about the whole "never said unhappy" thing, I meant I never said I was unhappy with the film. Yes, I am unhappy that they branded it with the DAWN name. Clear enough for you?
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Aug 3, 2008 22:34:58 GMT -5
Bah, I never was one to stay angry.
Listen man, this is stupid to have a dispute over. I don't want to argue with you.
So yeah, this is me apologizing for our disagreement. No hard feelings.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 3, 2008 22:39:36 GMT -5
Every time I type here, I'm smiling. I KNOW how die-hard fans like you think. Hell, I was just like you up until about five years ago. When I first moved to Florida, I cashed in my pension and took a year off. I went surfing online for the very first time, and fell in love with the stories behind my favorite movies. The shit I learned about the GAR Dead flicks soured me, a little. Trust me--GAR is just as big a sell-out as anybody else in that business. But, alot of what I type comes off as harsh. I accept your apology, although it really wasn't necessary. I know where you're coming from, and allow for it. I'd like you to take a pull off this virtual bong, in friendship.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=305vRNoofr8 ;D
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Aug 4, 2008 2:20:04 GMT -5
You gotta do it Goph/Tony - its Afroman. Tanner means business lol
|
|