Dawn of the Dead 1978 vs Dawn of the Dead 2004

[Lordfrieza]

Alright... I'm certain that everyone has either heard of or watched one of not both of these movies. While both movies have certain aspects that are similar (Survivors trapped in a mall) there are several things that are just better in one film or the other. So... Lets start with the classic George Romero 1978 film.

In the classic film we start with Francine waking up in the television studio to realize that the studio is still going twenty - four seven. She leaves with Stephen and they wait for their friend Roger. Roger however is currently downtown. He, along with the other members of the police, are attempting to clear out a building because they are harboring the dead. Once inside a member of the police squad goes completely batshit crazy and starts killing people left and right. He's put down by Peter. Peter and Roger meet in the basement and together kill an entire room full of the living dead. After they leave the apartment they head toward the dock where they find Stephen and Francine waiting. A few moments later they head off across the country.

Along the way they commit on how the rednecks are most likely enjoying the end of the world. Finally after more or less a day and a half of flying they land the helicopter they 'borrowed' on the roof of a mall. They find a way down into a store room and they all begin to dine on a dinner of Spam. "Hmmm, Spam." Francine. "Did you bring a can opener?" Roger "No I guess I forgot it." Francine (sounding a little bitchy) "Then don't knock it. It has it's own key." Roger.

We watch as Peter and Roger explore the mall and find things they might need. Stephen joins them later and soon they set up a residence in the store room. Later the mall is invaded by bikers and a war between man and man erupts. The zombies are dangerous, but humans are worse.

After the battle Stephen is dead (roger had been bitten by a zombie when attempting to block the doors much, much earlier.) and the zombies are following Zombie Stephen up into the store room. Both Peter and Francine leave the mall with a limited amount of fuel in the helicopter.


All in all the movie is fun, it keeps you interested and to be honest it really plays with the idea of isolationism that the remake doesn't really play into. That said....

The 2004 version is far, far more action packed. not saying that the first one didn't have action, but it's obvious that the second movie was done for action and not social commentary. The characters in the second are a little more two dimensional than they where on the first movie, but I will say that Ana and Michael seem to have the most character growth. CJ surprisingly has tremendous character growth toward the end of the film. The other characters (including Keith) are basically background characters. They are sort of there to give you a feel of not being alone, but in essence they didn't really get the time they needed to expand.

I think that quite a bit more could have been done, and should have been done with this film, but that's me.

[Grendle1853]

I had seen the original, but I was so young and it was so long ago I don't remember it (not a good sign). While one of my favorite zombie movies of all time is Night of the Living Dead, and I love Romero I own and do enjoy the remake, though I have to wonder if there is a guns and ammo store with I would figure a life time worth of ammunition for every weapon in the store...why don't they just kill off all the zombies? I get that it is supposed to be a huge amount there, but its not like the whole city of zombies would be right there, and you have all the ammo you would ever need, so why not just spend a few solid days sniping zombies from the roof top, eventually they would all die.

[Lordfrieza]

Yeah, but if you watched the extras Andy said something about for every one of those things he killed there was another hundred or thousand to take its place.

[Darkknightsvengence]

i found the running Zombie the more logical one as every living thing can walk/run and if something take's over the living's body something would of have to have happened to the legs of the host before infection to be walking

[Grendle1853]

i found the running Zombie the more logical one as every living thing can walk/run and if something take's over the living's body something would of have to have happened to the legs of the host before infection to be walking

Um...I think that something was supposed to be rigger mortise.

[Darkknightsvengence]

i found the running Zombie the more logical one as every living thing can walk/run and if something take's over the living's body something would of have to have happened to the legs of the host before infection to be walking

Um...I think that something was supposed to be rigger mortise.

including a person who has just recently been bitten and turns?

[Lordfrieza]

The explanation that the Father of modern Living Dead movies gave us this. The moment someone dies in this world they are working at far less than perfect abilities. They are slow moving because they can't sense balance. It would seem that all but Hearing, speech (to some degree), sight, and in some instances smell, have left them.

(The explanation is something that Mr. Romero was going to throw into Dr. Logan's aka Frankenstein's general report to Sarah. He reduced it some, but it supposedly explains why they are so slow (in his world))