|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 23, 2008 16:52:54 GMT -5
Actually, you're wrong on that. I'm not the troll you think I am. I'm not here to pick you apart, bit by bit. Not you or anybody else. I'm here for fun, and for a little serious discussion on horror. Here's my take on the Dawn social commentary thing... I could go either way. At first, I never believed a word of that "Social Commentary" shit. To me, it was...like I said--basically a Wild West Show with zombies. See, my problem with the fanboys in those days is that when asked to back up their ideas on social commentary, they wouldn't. Or couldn't. I'd get the standard, phoned in response of "It's set in a Mall, and it's an attack on Consumerism." When asked to tell my how they came to that conclusion, I'd be ingored outright or simply flamed. Or, at best...they'd evade the question by simply saying, "It's art--it's all subjective." Bullshit. Giving it a chance, I looked at it from an angle of social commentary...and, if you take into account bits of footage that never made it into the finished flick, alternate scenes, and some new interpretations of existing scenes, you could effectively argue that there is social commentary there, but it's not an attack on consumerism, per se. It's an attack on the selfishness of the 70s Me Decade, and that consumerism is a symptom of that selfishness. The main character of Dawn, in that respect, is Steven. Not Peter. He's the one who ties the group together, and it's through his character that the social commentary is presented. He's a selfish prick in this movie, from start to finish. He never really thinks about anyone but himself. That's pretty much all he exhibits, and it's through him that GAR is saying that this inherant selfishness in American culture is what's going to destroy us in the end. That's it, in a nutshell. If you're going to be lazy, then I'm not going to bother backing it up with points from the flick like I should.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 23, 2008 17:10:50 GMT -5
You know I always believed neither Night or Dawn ever had social commentary. I could swear I once read a interview that Romero himself said that the social commentary on Night and Dawn were unintentional or atleast Night defiantly. Now GARs all "Yes I meant it even back then!" I really doubt when GAR was making Dawn he was thinking "I know I'll make a film that attacks on American consumerism!" It was most likely....."Sh*t I know! I'll make a sequel to Night of the living Dead!"
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 23, 2008 17:18:28 GMT -5
The characters in the original were probably more memorable because there were fewer of them. I see that you remember Blades by name--you learned that later, probably online. I don't believe that his name is ever mentioned in the flick itself. I pretty sure the name is in the ending credits no? Meh I'll check later. Plus, the original has been around for 30 years, and there's alot more material out there about it. Yep pretty much. Hey theres a novel no? Is it worth getting it? Nothing new on it? and by that I mean scenes.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 23, 2008 17:18:38 GMT -5
You know I always believed neither Night or Dawn ever had social commentary. I could swear I once read a interview that Romero himself said that the social commentary on Night and Dawn were unintentional or atleast Night defiantly. Now GARs all "Yes I meant it even back then!" I really doubt when GAR was making Dawn he was thinking "I know I'll make a film that attacks on American consumerism!" It was most likely....."Sh*t I know! I'll make a sequel to Night of the living Dead!" Good observations...alot if it is shit I've been saying for years. For all the fanboys' talk about GAR not being a sell-out, they fail to recognize that he's been a sell-out from the beginning. And, all the GAR alumni have changed their stories, here and there, depending on who they're getting along with at the time. In "The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh", GAR comes right out and says that there is no intentional social commentary in NOTLD. And, he mocks the people who had read so much into what he did--a simple horror flick, made for pretzels and canned cheese, aimed at the Drive In crowd in an effort to make money. He DOES say that there's an anger in the film that's based in the time, but that they weren't trying to have a message. In the chapter about Dawn, it touches on the social commentary aspect a little, but for the most part it's like what you said--if you read what's there, and don't idealize the man, basically what he was out to do was make a sequel to NOTLD. And, a shit load of that flick was improv by their own admission--so I'm a little skeptical as to the authenticity of alot of the Dawn scripts I've seen online. Be careful that you don't step in the bullshit, rogue!
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 23, 2008 17:26:19 GMT -5
Nope. All the bikers are just lumped together. You probably heard it online, like I did--it's probably from the novelization.
There is a novel, but it wasn't written by GAR. I believe it was written by some broad. I'm not sure--I don't have it. From what I understand, though, the novel rectifies GAR's atrocious screenwriting by adding alot of character development for the Fab Four that the movie, and the original script, didn't have.
|
|
|
Post by rogueslayer on Aug 23, 2008 17:28:07 GMT -5
2. You're blasting it for "lack of character development". Do you feel that the characters from the original were highly developed? You know I always though I knew what it was but, now I think I don't have a clue what "character development" really is.........I think I need a lesson!
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 23, 2008 17:32:46 GMT -5
There are alot of interpretations of what "character development" might mean, but as a writer myself, this is how it breaks down...
"Character Development" is the little bits and pieces that we learn about a character over the course of a film or book that help flesh the character out--to help us understand and learn to know the character as something more than just a two-dimensional creation and more like an actual person. These things are (usually) inessential to the plot. Stuff like a character's interests, their backstories, anecdotes about their pasts, last names, relatives, etc.
It can also mean how a character changes over the course of a story. This is also known as a "character arc'. This change is usually fairly dramatic, and is linked to the plot in some way.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Aug 23, 2008 17:35:54 GMT -5
Romero still states to this day that NIGHT had no intentional commentary. I heard him say it not more than 2 months ago. Now whether or not he's changed his story on the issue, I have no idea. All I ever heard or read about growing up was the social commentary in DAWN, and that's it. It wasn't until I was knee-deep in the internet age that I began seeing things online about how NIGHT was a social commentary on racism and even the Cold War.
It's funny though, because out of all of the DEAD films, NIGHT is the one that screams a message the most (in my opinion). It's almost in your face... from the fact that a black man is the lead role, that he slaps a white woman and takes control (against the white and stubborn to listen and change his mind Harry), to the fact that he's the sole survivor to get shot in the head by rednecks at the end. I mean I was almost flabbergasted when I discovered that Romero said there was no commentary to NIGHT. I even read somewhere not to long ago that in the closing credits of NIGHT (where it shows photographs of Ben being dragged out and burned in the bonfire) that it was confirmed somehow that one of the torches was wrapped with a KKK sheet. I wish I could find where I saw that, but I can't.
Anyway, I truly do agree with you Tanner on the main character in DAWN. Like I said before, Stephen practically sums it up when the bikers raid the mall and he says to himself, "It's ours... we took it."
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 23, 2008 19:22:54 GMT -5
I'd be down with you on that about NOTLD...except for one thing:
The original character of Ben, as written in the script, was a white guy. A trucker. The part was originally to go to one of the Ricci brothers.
Duane Jones got the part NOT because he was black, but because he was simply a better actor (and, given his performance, I can only imagine just how bad the other guy must've been). All the shit you described as happening to Ben would've happened to him whether he was played by a Negro or not.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Aug 23, 2008 20:33:03 GMT -5
Oh I know, it was supposed to go to a white actor. Pretty sure that dude ended up with a small biker part in DAWN.
Anyway, that's what I mean though. Supposedly there isn't supposed to be any social commentary but I find that so hard to believe. I read that Romero re-wrote the part once they cast Duane Jones as Ben.
Like I said, I know the commentary is supposedly isn't there... but it just jumps out at me more in NIGHT than in any of em.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 23, 2008 21:15:59 GMT -5
It wasn't an extensive rewrite--really more of a case of toning down the hokier dialogue. Stuff like (and this is no bullshit, here): "Just relax, ma'am. I'm gonna get this dead behopper outta here..."
|
|
|
Post by blackknight273 on Aug 24, 2008 3:52:25 GMT -5
I would disagree with all of you. George may not of consciously set out to put messages into either movie, but subconsciously he like other directors did just that.
Think of all the messages that were in NOTLD/Dawn
1) Racism 2) Sexism 3) Fear/mistrust of authority 4) Fear/mistrust of the media 5) Consumerism (btw is it really evil? Maybe in another thread?) 6) Selfishness 7) Fear of death or decay 8) Use of force or violence
To me neither of these movies became favorites of many horror fans by accident. All of these things had to have been rattling around in Georges skull when making the movies.
|
|
|
Post by Demon-Sixx on Aug 24, 2008 10:42:18 GMT -5
Two questions: 1. If it had closely followed the original, would you have blasted it for being unoriginal on its own? 2. You're blasting it for "lack of character development". Do you feel that the characters from the original were highly developed? Answer 1) No i wouldnt have blasted it for being Unoriginal if it had followed the original closely. Thats sort of what i was hoping for..perhaps with a different twist on the story slightly. I certainly wouldnt want it stick so closely that it became the "psycho remake". Answer 2) were the original characters Highly developed? No. but they were developed. A lot more than the characters in the remake. There is more of a story to the original something that i thought was lacking in the remake. Being a Fan of the genre, not a "fanboy" i will say this. my opinions are my own and i stick by them...the remake was a good action film on it's own...but as a Dawn remake it was lack luster and not what i was hoping for. Since seeing this i have viewed subsequent "remakes" without expectations and a more open mind. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Demon-Sixx on Aug 24, 2008 11:27:26 GMT -5
"But...what if it wasn't a shot for shot remake? What I was actually thinking is what if it was a remake like NOTLD 90?"
If it was shot like NOTLD 90 it would have been far superior to what actually hit the theatres. Even Without Romero's input i think it would have better.
|
|
|
Post by tannerboyle on Aug 24, 2008 13:45:10 GMT -5
To me neither of these movies became favorites of many horror fans by accident. All of these things had to have been rattling around in Georges skull when making the movies. Yeah, but see Blackie...I'd lay five to one that literally 99.9999999999999% of all the zombie fans in the world didn't get into these flicks because of their inherant social commentary--whether it actually exists or not. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet also that a good deal of fans didn't get into these movies because of the movies themselves, but because of the ideas behind them. Not the social commentary ideas, mind you...but ideas relating to the subject matter--call it apocalyptic horror, or survivalist horror, or whatever. It's no surprise that Dawn has become a fan favorite, and (for better or worse) the flagship of the genre. Why? Because it's so fucking "smart"? Nope. Because it's a great, fun flick! People see that shit, and when they imagine themselves in a horror flick, they'd LOVE to be zooming around in a zombie-infested mall in a VW, shooting it out with bikers, swinging from the balconies... That's why Dawn became a favorite to most fans...and here's something else to consider--something I'd never considered until I came online. Did you know that this genre also has a huge fan base based in survivalists, and white supremacist-types? Why? Because of the seige thing. People surviving after society breaks down. Reforming the world. Pick your cliche. I've met a whole shitload of fans, non-survivalist types, who have told me that they're into the flicks not because of the flicks themselves, but because of the basic concepts. They ride with the flicks because, up to this point, that's all they've got--no one's taken the genre seriously enough yet to put real effort into a script. Most of the time, they stick to the fan fiction and books they've read (and sometimes wrote themselves). My beef with fanboys is not the fact that they love their movies, but because they seek to justify that love with bullshit. Instead of just saying they like the movies, or the ideas behind them, they throw out canned responses or throw out terms that they don't really mean, or blast somebody else's shit. I'd be alot more comfortable around them if they simply said, "I love Dawn because it's a gory, scary, action-packed flick!", instead of them saying "I admire Dawn because of its character development and inherant social commentary attacking consumerism".
|
|