Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 17, 2003 From Yahoo Movies Dawn of the Dead (2004) Release Date: TBA 2004 (wide) MPAA Rating Note: (3/14/03) There hasn't been any indication yet about whether this will be a full-on blood-guts-and-gore R movie (hopefully with an "unrated" version on the inevitable DVD), or a watered-down, nearly gore-free PG-13 movie. Distributor: Universal Pictures Production Company: Strike Entertainment (Welcome to the Jungle) Cast: None announced yet. Cast Notes: (3/14/03) Back in July, 2002, screenwriter James Gunn told an Australian reporter in an interview (archived at AICN) that he'd like to see Oscar nominee Diane Lane star in this movie (but keep in mind that screenwriters don't really get to make such decisions). Director: Zack Snyder (feature film debut; he's also got Mage in development) Screenwriter: James Gunn (Scooby-Doo, The Specials; cowriter of Tromeo & Juliet; also has Scooby-Doo Too coming soon) Based Upon: This film is a 21st century remake of the 1979 zombie movie, Dawn of the Dead, which was the middle part of George A. Romero's Dead Trilogy which started with Night of the Living Dead in 1968 and continued with Day of the Dead in 1985. There has already been a "modernized" remake of the first film, in 1990 (directed by Tom Savini, who's not involved with this remake). George A. Romero is still hoping to continue the series with a fourth film called Dead Reckoning. Strike Entertainment hasn't yet made any announcements about whether they might also remake Day of the Dead, if this film is a success. "Variety" reported last week (3/7/03) that this is intended to be a "a contemporized fright film that aims to place a greater emphasis on action and a young cast than the original". Premise Note: (3/14/03) In the original film, there were only four survivors (two S.W.A.T. team members, a TV traffic reporter and his girlfriend), but the group will be expanded and changed for this remake. Premise: As the United States is turned upside-down by a strange event in which millions of corpses walk the earth as blood-thirsty zombies (with the recently-deceased that the zombies kill usually returning as zombies themselves, multiplying their number), a small group of survivors of the onslaught try to find shelter and protection within a massive shopping mall in the mid-sized city of Everett, WA. What they don't reckon on is that the zombies still have some sort of residual memory, and *everyone* loves going to the mall, right? Realizing that their time is running out, they decide to make another attempt at flight, to a presumably un-zombie-infested island, but to do so, they'll have to get past thousands of zombies in-between... Filming: Production is scheduled to start in June, 2003 in Toronto. Now, I'm all about zombie movies. I, for one, can't wait to see 28 Days Later when it's released in North America this coming August. But why, oh why, is it that they have to REMAKE a perfectly fine zombie flick like DotD?! What is it with Hollywood these days? The only way any of these hack director's can make a buck is to remake someone else's work? I'm not saying I won't watch this movie. And I'm not saying I won't like it either. And maybe I'm a little jaded or cynical, but what annoys me is the fact that no one can be original for once. Come up with a new story altogether. A new movie altogether. With it's OWN title. Or if you're that hard up for viewer's and you need the "franchise" name of the film, then make a damn sequel. I'm not going to expect much from this - as the quote above says, they're already planning on changing the characters. Ah, whatever... I need coffee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Yes, I already knew about this and I'm still sickened by the concept. Dawn of The Dead and Texas Chainsaw Masssacre being remade, what has this world come to. TCM is being remade by someone who's obviously not familiar with the movie. He said "we're going to take the gore out", which of course there's MAYBE two scenes of gore and neither is that gory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Yes, I already knew about this and I'm still sickened by the concept. Dawn of The Dead and Texas Chainsaw Masssacre being remade, what has this world come to. TCM is being remade by someone who's obviously not familiar with the movie. He said "we're going to take the gore out", which of course there's MAYBE two scenes of gore and neither is that gory. NO! Not TCM as well?! Why... why hast the movie gods forsaken me?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 The remakes just keep on flooding in. I have an idea... ...why not make something original, instead of depending on the f'n past? It seems that the majority of films now a days are sequels, remakes, or just plain bad films. Yes, there are still some great original films, but it isn't anywhere near the amount of these others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 TCM is being remade by someone who's obviously not familiar with the movie. He said "we're going to take the gore out", which of course there's MAYBE two scenes of gore and neither is that gory. Ummm, wtf? There already, as you said, is hardly any gore in the film at all. Just what are they planning on doing with it then? Just somehow 100% just create the illusion of gore, or what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Yes, I already knew about this and I'm still sickened by the concept. Dawn of The Dead and Texas Chainsaw Masssacre being remade, what has this world come to. TCM is being remade by someone who's obviously not familiar with the movie. He said "we're going to take the gore out", which of course there's MAYBE two scenes of gore and neither is that gory. NO! Not TCM as well?! Why... why hast the movie gods forsaken me?! Here's a TCM site with info on the remake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Here's the qoute about what producer Michael Bay said about the gore... "with word from Variety (3/12/02) that Michael Bay wants to keep gore and blood-letting to a minimum because he sits on a committee of directors against violence." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Ugh, this one has that "hip teen" look to it that I despise so much. I grow to hate that look more and more every time I see it in film. It just looks so cheap and artificial to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Here's the qoute about what producer Michael Bay said about the gore... "with word from Variety (3/12/02) that Michael Bay wants to keep gore and blood-letting to a minimum because he sits on a committee of directors against violence." Holy shit. You are telling me that some moron who f'n sits on a COMMITTEE OF DIRECTORS AGAINST VIOLENCE, is doing Texas Chainsaw Massacre of all things!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Here's the qoute about what producer Michael Bay said about the gore... "with word from Variety (3/12/02) that Michael Bay wants to keep gore and blood-letting to a minimum because he sits on a committee of directors against violence." Good lord! Someone who sits on a committee against violence wants to remake TCM?! Is that the biggest conflict of interest ever, or am I just out of the loop?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I was at least semi-excited about this film before I read this thread, and before I just checked out the pictures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Well Bay is no stranger to "violence" as he has done Bad Boys, The Rock, Con-Air and Pearl Harbor amoung other such movies. However, In those the violence was on A-Team levels where no one gets violently killed despite explosions and heavy gunfire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Ugh, this one has that "hip teen" look to it that I despise so much. I grow to hate that look more and more every time I see it in film. It just looks so cheap and artificial to me. It's funny, because it's actually suppose to look more realistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Well Bay is no stranger to "violence" as he has done Bad Boys, The Rock, Con-Air and Pearl Harbor amoung other such movies. However, In those the violence was on A-Team levels where no one gets violently killed despite explosions and heavy gunfire. He had no fucking business doing Pearl Harbor, I'll never forgive anyone involved in that film, for not allowing any blood or allowing the true violence of that battle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Ugh, this one has that "hip teen" look to it that I despise so much. I grow to hate that look more and more every time I see it in film. It just looks so cheap and artificial to me. It's funny, because it's actually suppose to look more realistic. The same as "The Real World" eh? I can't wait untill the entertainment industry starts off in a new dirrection. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I was at least semi-excited about this film before I read this thread, and before I just checked out the pictures. I was also excited about House of 1000 Corpses until I read your early review of it. I'm really not sure I want to see THAT any more either. It seems like all of these movies are just hype and they suck in the end... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I think I've finally learned to NEVER get excited about anymore "teen based" films, they almost always disapoint. I mean, it's almost like Hollywood does not think that teens, and young people like myself (22) can fucking tell the difference between quality film making, and pure rubbish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IDrinkRatsMilk Report post Posted April 17, 2003 The screenwriter for the DotD remake wrote Tromeo and Juliet, that's good. I don't really care too much about these remakes, even though TCM is my favorite movie and DotD is in my top 10... either it will be good, or it won't and it will be like the Psycho remake and just fade away and be forgotten. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Screenwriter: James Gunn (Scooby-Doo, The Specials; cowriter of Tromeo & Juliet; also has Scooby-Doo Too coming soon) Hmmmm..... Tromeo & Juliet, good. Scooby-Doo, bad. The Specials, nobody's seen. that this is intended to be a "a contemporized fright film that aims to place a greater emphasis on action and a young cast than the original". As in the TCM remake I have to ask... did they even SEE the film? There's a LOT of action and madcap mayhem in Dawn of the Dead (and given that the tone is less serious, that's part of the reason why a lot of people like Dawn the best). As for young cast... no comment Premise Note: (3/14/03) In the original film, there were only four survivors (two S.W.A.T. team members, a TV traffic reporter and his girlfriend), but the group will be expanded and changed for this remake. Ferchrissake, if you want to show more people getting killed so bad, kill a bunch of ZOMBIES! That's what they're there for! Wha, connection with characters? But they're a young cast... there's nothing to connect with! I'm not going to watch this, just as I'm not going to watch the TCM remake, just like I haven't even watched Savini's Night of the Living Dead (although at least that remake was done by a make-up FX artist who's respected within the horror community, blah blah blah, I still don't think it was necessary, and have no idea whether it's good or not). In fact... if they want to get Dawn of the Dead back in the theatres so bad, I'm sure there's at least 20 more cuts floating around on PAL DVD somewhere. Sheesh! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I was also excited about House of 1000 Corpses until I read your early review of it. I'm really not sure I want to see THAT any more either. It seems like all of these movies are just hype and they suck in the end... You should never let a review make up your mind about anything. Even Ebert should only be seen as an opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted April 17, 2003 You should never let a review make up your mind about anything. Uhhh... on behalf of all Smartmarks DVD reviewers everywhere, regardless of activity... he's kidding folks... uhhh.... right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 :a mysterious man in a TSM shirt stands behind me: Yes folks...I was just kidding Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I won't see the remake. I'm a mark for the original and years from now when I say "Dawn of the Dead" and someone goes, "Oh the new one?"...I'll punch them in the neck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest evenflowDDT Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Yes folks...I was just kidding Good! I'm just kidding though, I know exactly what you mean, I only really "trust" reviewers where I've read a lot of their reviews and I agree with most of them (like Judge Bill Gibron on DVD Verdict or O.R. Polk). Because other than that, what makes someone a "good" or "bad" reviewer? Theoretically it should be just that they watch a lot of movies and have seen the proverbial all, but that doesn't take into account personal bias, that weird little unexplainable thing called taste, and a host of other features. Personally, I don't even see why Ebert is so well-respected anyway... is it just because he's been around for so long? Sure, he's seen a lot of movies, but I've seen many a review of his where his column barely touches the actual film. That's the problem I have, especially with most "horror DVD reviewers" on the 'net... the guys who get all the screeners are the ones who barely reiterate the plot and say "OMG TEH GOAR WAS KEWL DOOOOOD~!". Personally, I'd like to hope people get more out of my reviews than that because I try and put in more than that (in fact, I try and focus on the plot as little as possible, unless I'm doing a huge dissection like I tried with El Crimen del Padre Amaro). Back on topic, sort of, how does Savini's Night of the Living Dead remake compare to the original? It's in color, right? And since it's Savini, I'm guessing the zombies have a lot better make-up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Back on topic, sort of, how does Savini's Night of the Living Dead remake compare to the original? It's in color, right? And since it's Savini, I'm guessing the zombies have a lot better make-up. It really isn't that bad, but of course it can't touch the original. Of course it was all together pointless, but if it got some kid who said "black and white movies suck" into zombie movies or even black and white classics then good. Eventhough there was little point to doing it, at least the "remake" was made by people involved with the original. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I was also excited about House of 1000 Corpses until I read your early review of it. I'm really not sure I want to see THAT any more either. It seems like all of these movies are just hype and they suck in the end... You should never let a review make up your mind about anything. Even Ebert should only be seen as an opinion. Very true. I'll still see it. But I'm not as inclined to see it on a full price night. Cheapo Tuesday's it is for me. ;p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 17, 2003 I'm just waiting for the Day of The Dead remaking, staring Freddy Prinze Jr and Usher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted April 17, 2003 1. Didn't we already have this argument? haha 2. I'm very interested to see both of these movies. All the word from the TCM set has been very, very positive and the new concept and script they have for Dawn of the Dead sounds very, very good. Sue me. I've thought that the 2 pics I've seen from TCM have looked pretty good. Way more darker and grittier than I expected it to look. The fact that it has the same DP from the first movie will probably help it's look. The only part that worries me is Leatherface. First, how does he look and second, who is playing him. Last I heard they were still keeping it a secret and claiming it's some former action star. I bet that turns out to be crap though and it's just some no name stuntman. From all I've read about what's gonna be in Dawn, I can't wait for it actually. I would prefer that they would't use the Dawn name since it's really not that much of a remake, but I don't have any control over that. 3. If you don't think Pearl Harbor was violent enough, watch the Director's Cut. There were 3 or 4 death scenes in there that I thought were way too much and un-needed gore for gore's sake and I'm apparently a retard for not thinking Hannibal was violent. Bay wanted all that in the original movie, Disney cut it out, not him. 4. I've seen the Specials and it rocked ass. 5. How does Living Dead 90 compare to the original? It's better than the original. Once again, sue me, but I'm not the only one that feels that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Youth N Asia Report post Posted April 17, 2003 5. How does Living Dead 90 compare to the original? It's better than the original. Once again, sue me, but I'm not the only one that feels that way. I'll give you a maybe on that. But as far as compairing that to other movies of it's time it sucks...while the original remains near the top for horror movies of its time. I liked the original better though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mach7 Report post Posted April 17, 2003 Living Dead '90 was just ridiculous. Some of the make up effects were cool, but the rest of the movie was pure... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
