Dawn of the Dead vs. Dawn of the Dead

28 comments

7 comments

3816 rankings and this is my first original/remake choice...and it has to be a tough one.

Original by a thousand miles, remake is junk.

The original is a horror classic and the remake is an appalling pile of shit.

While I agree the original is better, what's with the remake hate? I enjoyed it quite a bit...

7392 Rankings, and MY first original vs. remake decision. This is my favorite film Snyder made, but the original is only my second favorite of Romero's film... I think Day of the Dead is his masterpiece. I'll shake things up and say 2004.

The Original all the way! but i do like the remake

You know, the remake wasn't as bad as I feared, but the original still towers over all other zombie films.

I haven't seen the original in over ten years, so for now I'll go with the remake. Plus i like Ving Rhames.

The remake is not bad, and I respect the filmmakers for not just trying to rehash the original, but the original really pushed the envelope of what horror movies can do.

Nin
Nin

If the remake had been a film in it's own right it may have been OK. As a remake of the greatest horror film of all time though, it's an abomination.

I'm a bigger fan of Night of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later, so I don't feel the loyalty to the original enough on this one. Props to Zack Snyder whose success in the remake hasn't been around with his recent Watchmen and ... that awful owl movie.

In my opinion both movies aren't really that great. They're okay, but not really special. The original has better character development and cinematography, while the remake has a higher tempo. I found the lack of character development in the remake a bit annoying, so I gotta give the nod to the original Dawn Of The Dead.

The original. Although the remake is one of the only few remakes that are actually fantastic, it just isn't near as good as the original classic.

I'm going with Dawn of the Dead.

Please. The new one stinks of corporate grease like a car commercial.

First Remake/Original choice. The Remake is good, but compared to the original, it's very weak.

The original definitely, but I like the remake (is it really a remake?). I think it gets a bad rap because its always getting compared to what is considered by alot of people as one of the greatest Zombie movies of all time.

"is it really a remake?" True, it feels closer to a remake of some 90s slasher movie than Dawn. A cast of boring, unlikeable characters gets killed off one by one. I can understand the running zombies, though. It requires some horror finesse to make them seem like a creeping malignancy when they shamble around slowly; plus if everything isn't IMMEDIATE AND EXTREME every five minutes, audiences these days will start playing facebook games on their phones.

Well, the 2004 film is easily the best and most substantial film Snyder's ever done, but it still doesn't measure up to the raw storytelling and social commentary the original presented.

The original takes it.

Romero's Dawn of the Dead is better than Snyder's by a wide margin. Not only is Romero's vision creepier and scarier, but it also has a great sense of humor throughout (whereas Snyder's only has humor essentially as a brief interlude in the middle) and the stuff about the commercialization of shopping puts it over the top. Plus it has one of the most memorable endings of all time (whereas the remake only has a terrific ending, but one that is not as great as Romero's) The 1978 Dawn of the Dead will take this in a landslide (although in fairness, the 2004 version does put up quite a good fight)!

Please let the Evil Dead remake trailer I saw be fake. It's like a compendium of everything wrong with horror movies these days with its stupid dubstep bass (BBBRRrrmmmdooffFFF... do these lower bass registers scare you???), "tortured artist" grungey Johnny Depp looking lead actor, and it's constantly flashing about, the only thing the camera ever settles on are gore effects that are very detailed and graphic but somehow not even the slightest bit disturbing/gross. The genre got its balls chopped off and now it thinks it can prance around like some mysterious androgyne rockstar that celebrates plasticity as some kinda bullshit Andy Warhol statement when really it's just dickless. Fuck hollywood

Serious question with no snark intended: What horror movies have you liked in the last 15-20 years?

^Only those from Japan? I kid, I kid. Didn't the filmmakers say they didn't use CGI? If so,...eh, I don't know.

Old stuff is automatically better than new stuff because new stuff is too commercial and up-tempo and capitalism is evil and gay and also evil and boring. People didn't care about making money in the [checks when Romero's *masterpiece* was made] the late 70s. I hate people that like money and stuff happening in a film is gay and stuff. Progress is gay. Gore is gay. Music that straight people listen to is gay. Using the word gay is gay. Full snark intended. Yeah. On the level though, the whispering in the new Evil Dead trailer is hella annoying, and the film looks way too dramatic. I didn't notice any shaky cam; I think the trailer itself is just chopped and screwed with a gazillion cuts. But, yeah, fuck Andy Warhol.

I'm too tired to make any sarcastic comments on your "greed is good" ultra-mutant schtick but suffice to say that can get kinda tired too. I yelled at a stool the other day, that's about the height of my articulation right now. Toryk: not sure if you're serious, but look at that piece of shit, is that The Evil Dead or is it Disturbia with the blood settings turned up higher in the option menu? Ugh dude.

Murrrrr, I identified an internet user's tendencies. Fuck off. Coffee time.

??? Well, I don't know that I was promoting an agenda. If anything I was countering an agenda. I like the Gekko stuff, but I was more or less being a foil to what occasionally seems like your crusade against new stuff. I get that you're mainly being facetious and, true enough, a lot of new stuff is unoriginal (which it has to be by default), but the whole "...plus if everything isn't IMMEDIATE AND EXTREME every five minutes, audiences these days will start playing facebook games on their phones... Fuck Hollywood" thing is a bit of a non-criticism. So modern audiences need stimulation. Even I can barely sit through the retro, tension-building, slovenly stuff, so why call-out Hollywood for catering to their audience instead of catering to the six people in the world that still have enough patience to look at trees and wooden flooring for twelve and a half minutes before the first dead body shows up? That doesn't make the the genre less ballsy, it just makes the audience more desensitised and less prone to sitting through uneventful build-up play. I'm glad we killed turtling and made all out attack the new standard form.

I prefer discussing movies to discussing each other's e-personas. That shit pisses me off. Nothing wrong with an eventful movie, but you can't just eat peanut butter from the jar, it's better if you smear a little on some bread. The first Evil Dead scared the shit out of me as a kid exactly because it did build up and let me get into it, as ropey as it is in a lot of ways.

And maybe these WHOA!!! Look over there!!! ADD sensibilities aren't a positive cultural evolution. I don't intend to write a sociological essay on it, so I think it's fair to complain about movies that rush right into things and are LOUD AND FAST at the expense of setting a mood or developing a theme (the Dawn remake).

"I prefer discussing movies to discussing each other's e-personas. That shit pisses me off" If you believe in the inherent subjectivity of movie appreciation, you can't treat the two things as completely independent. Tastes, by definition, have to be informed by the id. Besides, it's all been audience-trope, audience-trope rather than star-signs and ambitions. Whatever our "e-personalities" may be, they're clearly allied to dichotomous parts of the movie zeitgeist. When you flambe newness, it's not necessarily you that matters, but your stance (which is neither *wrong* nor uncommon one a site like this).

"..positive cultural evolution." Please explain?

Errant question mark. Fuck.

Well, not much to explain. You seemed to m

*imply we've evolved past hoary old conventions like setting a mood and working up some momentum, which is a good thing, and I don't agree.

"not sure if you're serious" - Absolutely. I'm curious.

*shrug* Can't remember. I don't care so much about age, just shitty/not shitty. But it's no secret that horror movies of the past 15~ years tend to range from teeny PG-13 stuff to dumb soulless remakes to modern slashers that somehow manage to make gore and torture boring and tame.

I don't even mind a couple of those retarded Paranormal Activity movies, I guess that's an answer to your question. That's how starved I am for something that doesn't look like a Staind music video circa 2003.

Staind. Ha! No, it's true though. For the most part, anyway.

That's a Joke! The original wins!

Remake. Sorry.

Honestly? The remake. Better sense of dread, more conflict, slightly more likeable and interesting characters, better effects, more entertaining, generally better directed. The original was pretty unrewarding, I thought. Not that the remake isn't flawed, it is, but I had much more fun with it. I guess I don't see much of the brilliance of the original. "Dawn of the Dead is brilliant because zombies are like consumers". You don't say! I would've NEVER figured that out. Most obvious symbolism undeservedly hailed "brilliant" I've seen in a while. I've seen plenty of zombie films that do almost exactly what Dawn of the Dead did, but here's the thing: most of these films did it better than Dawn of the Dead.

The classic is a classic, but the winning combo of Zack Snyder and James Gunn carry the Day of the Dead

It's one of the better remakes out there,but snyder's lacks subtlety.

I thought for sure I'd like the original 70s version better. But I didn't. Seemed to hokey. Doesn't hold up well at all.

Remake by quite a bit. The score, script and effects of the original have aged horribly. The remake is a great mix of comedy, horror and action with some great moral complexity built in.

The remake is pretty good, especially given how bad most horror remakes turn out to be. That being said, the original wins this pretty easily for me. Snyder is a bit too style over substance for my tastes, the original has a lot more to offer.

good remake but classic is a classic.