Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, we have to let them try. If they do not try to make movies(remakes or not) then there will be nothing but Romero and as much as I like his movies I also like some varity from time to time.

Dawn of the dead is the one in the mall right? Because I saw that on movie channel, it was an ok movie for a one time watch.

And yes, it was the one in the mall.
Had I not seen the original and had it not been my favorite of Romero's, then I might have appreciated it more.

Wait.. no.
Running zombies = failure.
:/

I have seen every one of Romero's movies and all the remakes. Honestly Romero has come up with great ideas and very original ones, but he can't make a good movie. His movies drag and his characters are one sided. You have to have good characters with realistic emotions to make the movie real and interesting, otherwise you might as well just look at picture after picture of gore.

The remake of Dawn of the Dead is honestly the best zombie movie out there, I know at least 5 people who have concurred with me on that in the past day. I just watched that yesterday. Yes there is unneccessary nudity, but honestly don't we all like seeing some naked people from time to time.

Yes running zombies doesn't really work, but for a while if they were able to do it while alive they would be able to do it as zombies. Althought their bodies would decompose so fast that after a couple of weeks they shouldn't even be able to shamble around, so honestly we should just be nice and understanding when it comes to how fast they're moving. It also adds a lot of pressure to situations if they can run.

The remakes are honestly so much better, just because you can watch them without thinking about shooting out your brains halfway through. I have watched every single one of the originals straight through, but I would never do it again, unless I got something for it or was doing something else during.

And that's all I have to say about that for now, so that I don't hurt someone.

ok here i am going to play the devils advocate in order to debate this issue. please dont flame me. >< im just trying to start a debate and discussion.
It was too mainstream horror and less zombie classic. .I dont see what you are getting at here. your saying that you only like the old movies and the old ideas of zombies? are you saying that anything that is not close to the origional zombie stuff is not great? if so, then i would have to disagree. this isnt your grand parents kind of day. in this violent and gorry media today rotting corpes doesnt go as far as it use too. you cant expect for zombies to remain the same forever.
For instance, in it the zombies RUN. .yes i see your point. i think this was used to start more fear. and doesnt it make sense? i mean its a body, cant it run? does it have to be limp and clumsy? no i think giveing the zombies the ability to run was used to even the playing field for the zombies. i mean in other movies the only way a zombie could catch you was to have you literally surround you and then you may escape still. so giveing the zombies the ability to run makes the idea of zombies more frightnening.
The zombies SNARL LIKE TIGERS; no longer moaning and groaning. .i think this was used to make it appear as if the zombies were hunting the humans. combined with the ability to run, and the snarl, the zombies seem alot more ready to actually hunt humans. if you think that the zombies hunt humans then it is alot more frightining than an undead corpse that moans and limps. this was probably used to appeal to the new horror movie viewers.
The movie followed much differently from the first and, truely, only good DotD. .no opinion
The characters were weak and far too contrasting. .weak? excuse me? there was odviously great strength there. for instance, the black police guy (i cant remember his name), that one white guy who was ******** that girl (i cant remember his name) and everyone else showed great strength. i mean picture it, your surrounded by zombies trapped in a mall with little to no chance of being rescued. what would you do? everything you know is gone. even all of your family-just gone! think of it that way and the bravery they showed and tell me they were weak. now for the far -too cantrasting part. i didnt think they contrasted too far but thats just my opinion.
Very little thought appeared to have been put into their casting or scripts. .no comment

There was all of this unneccesary nudity. .personally i didnt think that it was entirely too unnecisarry. i agree that it could have been cut out but there was a reason for it beingg there. in every movie (well most) there has to be a male hero and a female hero (well sometimes...) so i was wondering are those two going to bang and...repopulate. maybe im just perverted and thought of this but i was wondering if there was something going on between them. that scene right there confirmed my suspicions.
There was an excess of personal emotions (irrelevant to this genre). .personally i think that all the emotion was good to develope the characters. it may have been irrelevant but it did help me understand the characters, thier feelings, and what was happening to them.
Bad acting and retardation abounded. .no comment.
Worst of all, the best parts of the original were completely LEFT OUT .no comment
.THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY VIEW POINTS THAT I HOLD FOR THIS MOVIE!! THIS IS FOR NOTHING MORE THAN TO START A DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OF THIS MOVIE AND NOTHING MORE!! DO NOT FLAME ME!!

I dont know how you could EVER say a remake is better than the original....man you guys just dont feel george's movies at all.....REMAKES SUCK!


*Please only one punctuation mark is need per sentence. -Jack

I like the remakes better then the originals. It's not because I didn't like Romero's work, I think the remakes are a good thing because they brought the classic movies we love and made them more modern. Now more people can relate to it because it's set in modern day, which has spawned new zombie movie lovers.

That's my opinion.