Dawn of the Dead(2004) Release date?????

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Crow T Robot, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. Crow T Robot

    Crow T Robot Guest

    Any word on the release date for Dawn of the Dead(2004) on DVD?
    Crow T Robot, Jun 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Crow T Robot

    Otter Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:41:48 GMT, "Crow T Robot"
    <> wrote:

    >Any word on the release date for Dawn of the Dead(2004) on DVD?


    I understand it's been pushed to October. Originally was a late July
    date.
    Otter, Jun 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Crow T Robot

    GMAN Guest

    In article <0Gvxc.6832$>, "Crow T Robot" <> wrote:
    >Any word on the release date for Dawn of the Dead(2004) on DVD?
    >
    >

    What a terrible waste of celluloid.
    GMAN, Jun 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Crow T Robot

    M.B. Guest

    GMAN wrote:

    > In article <0Gvxc.6832$>, "Crow T Robot" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Any word on the release date for Dawn of the Dead(2004) on DVD?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > What a terrible waste of celluloid.


    So says you...I saw it and I've seen the original. Both stand on their
    own just fine. Would it have made you puritans happier if they had
    called the movie something else???
    M.B., Jun 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Crow T Robot

    GMAN Guest

    In article <XrQxc.21936$>, "M.B." <> wrote:
    >GMAN wrote:
    >
    >> In article <0Gvxc.6832$>, "Crow T Robot"

    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Any word on the release date for Dawn of the Dead(2004) on DVD?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> What a terrible waste of celluloid.

    >
    >So says you...I saw it and I've seen the original. Both stand on their
    >own just fine. Would it have made you puritans happier if they had
    >called the movie something else???

    Why cant Romero decide on a damn plot or course for the franchise and let it
    be.
    GMAN, Jun 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Crow T Robot

    Mike Kohary Guest

    GMAN wrote:
    > In article <0Gvxc.6832$>, "Crow T Robot"
    > <> wrote:
    >> Any word on the release date for Dawn of the Dead(2004) on DVD?
    >>

    > What a terrible waste of celluloid.


    What kind of a release date is that?

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Jun 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Crow T Robot

    Wade365 Guest

    << What a terrible waste of celluloid. >><BR><BR>
    << So says you...I saw it and I've seen the original. Both stand on their
    >own just fine. >><BR><BR>

    << Why cant Romero decide on a damn plot or course for the franchise and let it

    be. >><BR><BR>

    Because no one will give him a budget for it (which may change in light of the
    popularity in his genre again), that's why he's doing this movie about the
    undead rock band in the meantime...

    And as for the new film being a waste of celuloid, I disagree. At one time
    (before I actually saw the film of course) I was as outraged as any of the rest
    of you that someone had the gaul to want to step into Romero's shoes. I thought
    the "Return" films were funny but a total waste of time, and those movies
    actually had minor ties to the original creators of the 'Dead' thing... How the
    Hell can a bunch of hacks pretend they could make a 'Dead' film? Why does this
    need to be done? Didn't anyone learn a lesson from letting Savini do "NotLD"?
    IF even an insider like Tom Savini could (arguably) mess it up, what were a
    bunch of Hollywood types going to do to it? Was Romero finally so crazy that
    he'd let this kind of thing happen? Was his mind finally as hazey as Pittsburgh
    in the 70s?

    I read the interviews with the guys who did the film, I watched from the 'Net
    sidelines as it got made, all-the-while hoping and praying that the production
    would get hit like Terry Gilliam's "LaMancha", washing the entire aberation
    away in one fell swoop.

    Then I sat through it.

    From the Johnny Cash-backed montage in the beginning to the epilogue shots
    during the credits, I was pleased with just about every aspect of the new film.
    It opened with a bang and it just kept the hits coming after that... I think
    the only thing I truly didn't like was the pregnant girl story arch which I
    think was just put in for cringe-ability factor... that and the whole "Love Of
    Dog" bit, but I digress. On the positive side, there are a lot of great homages
    to the original without going over the top to try and tip the hat and there are
    some nice plot inovations to bring the story forward almost twenty-five years
    (I don't believe in spoilers, so I'll leave it without detail).

    The dialogue was good with a solid base in real people's reactions given the
    same circumstances (no one's exactly what you'd call "Stand-Up"), the make-up
    effects were excellent, and the action was right-on... what more do you want
    from a horror picture, besides pure originality, which we all pray for, of
    course? It was certainly better than most of the horror films I've seen
    lately... really, not since "1000 Corpses" have I enjoyed a horror film more.
    "Texas Chainsaw", now THAT was a waste of celuloid. Yes it was dark and gritty
    and certainly violent, but in the end it wasn't... and I say this with a but of
    sarcasm... It wasn't "fun". The remake of 'Dawn', however, had a lot of motion,
    humor, it was FUN. I wanted to believe that the makers of "TCM" had the
    concept... Hell, back in '98 I wanted to believe Emmerich & Devlin before they
    messed with my hero Godzilla to shameful extent... but they didn't.

    I don't believe that to be true with "Dawn of the Dead". I think that James
    Gunn did a fine job with he screenplay and I think Romero is probably alright
    with what has been done with his brainchild, if only to rekindle the studio
    interest so that he CAN finally get that fourth film made!

    This kind of thing (rehash) is going to happen and has been happening, so get
    used to it - at least grow a thick carapice to protect yourself. As you get
    older they'll rape all that has become sacred to you. The key is to TRY and
    keep an open mind and not allow yourself to fall into knee-jerk reactions, so
    that when something that's not a complete pile of pony-loaf comes along you can
    still see it.

    Just my opinion... if you hated the movie you hated it... but what exactly
    didn't you like? You call it a waste but you don't substantiate your
    position... that, I think, would help.
    Wade365, Jun 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Crow T Robot

    Mirror Spock Guest

    On 10 Jun 2004 16:25:38 GMT, (Wade365) went upon the
    mount and spoke thus:

    [Snippage]

    >Just my opinion... if you hated the movie you hated it... but what exactly
    >didn't you like? You call it a waste but you don't substantiate your
    >position... that, I think, would help.


    There are three things I didn't like about the remake:

    - Zombies shouldn't run. I think 28 Days Later influenced that aspect
    of it. Every zombie movie up to this point (not including 28 Days as
    I think those folks weren't zombies) depict zombies as mindless,
    shambling hordes who nail you on sheer numbers alone. To me, that's a
    tad more scary.

    - The zombie baby b-plot. What was the point of all that? It was
    stupid. I mean, what's menacing about a zombie baby? What's it gonna
    do, gum you to death? The guy knew his wife was a goner, he had to
    have heard about what happened to Max Headroom, so why didn't he kill
    her when she turned? Did he really expect his baby to be unscathed by
    this?

    - I know several folks liked the epilog clips at the end of the movie,
    but I didn't. If I had walked out before the credits rolled, I
    probably would have been happier. I guess having all the folks go
    through hell and high water only to buy it just when they thought they
    were safe annoyed me.

    My humble opinion,
    * Robinson
    Mirror Spock, Jun 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Crow T Robot

    Tarkus Guest

    On 6/11/2004 6:12:54 AM, Mirror Spock wrote:

    > - Zombies shouldn't run. I think 28 Days Later influenced that aspect
    > of it. Every zombie movie up to this point (not including 28 Days as
    > I think those folks weren't zombies) depict zombies as mindless,
    > shambling hordes who nail you on sheer numbers alone. To me, that's a
    > tad more scary.


    I doubt if the remake was conceived after 28DL, so it's doubtful that
    played an influence. More likely, they were just trying to modernize the
    zombies.

    > - The zombie baby b-plot. What was the point of all that? It was
    > stupid. I mean, what's menacing about a zombie baby? What's it gonna
    > do, gum you to death? The guy knew his wife was a goner, he had to
    > have heard about what happened to Max Headroom, so why didn't he kill
    > her when she turned? Did he really expect his baby to be unscathed by
    > this?


    The woman and the baby were his entire life, so I think it was perfectly
    understandable that he would react the way he did.

    > - I know several folks liked the epilog clips at the end of the movie,
    > but I didn't. If I had walked out before the credits rolled, I
    > probably would have been happier. I guess having all the folks go
    > through hell and high water only to buy it just when they thought they
    > were safe annoyed me.


    I thought the ending was awesome, personally.
    --
    "Good...bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

    Now playing: the radio
    Tarkus, Jun 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Crow T Robot

    Wade365 Guest

    << There are three things I didn't like about the remake:

    - Zombies shouldn't run. >><BR><BR>

    I didn't mind it all that much, but I can see your pure standpoint.

    << - The zombie baby b-plot. >><BR><BR>

    As I said, I didn't really appreciate that part of it either... but it was
    really about his trip-out, not about what the baby might do as a destructive
    force to be reckoned with. It was about the father's desperation and resulting
    freak-out (presaged by the conversation he has with Ving Raimes' character
    earlier in the film).

    But I see your point.

    << - I know several folks liked the epilog clips at the end of the movie,
    but I didn't. If I had walked out before the credits rolled, I
    probably would have been happier. >><BR><BR>

    Now see... I thought it was nice that everyone dies. I was similarly paid off
    by "League/Gentleman" and "Van Helsing" in the downer ending department, and
    I'm glad. Not every character has to wind up with the girl at the end of the
    film, all ready to live off the fat of the land and grunt out babies. Much as I
    love her, I'm glad Kate Beckinsale's character buys the farm instead of winding
    up in Jackman's arms all happy-dappy.

    Well, thanks for going a bit more indepth at my request. You have several good
    points for not liking the movie... I just get a bit flustered by "It Sucks" as
    a reason, y'know?

    Peas.
    Wade365, Jun 11, 2004
    #10
  11. On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:12:54 -0400, Mirror Spock wrote:

    > On 10 Jun 2004 16:25:38 GMT, (Wade365) went upon the
    > mount and spoke thus:
    >
    > [Snippage]
    >
    > >Just my opinion... if you hated the movie you hated it... but what exactly
    > >didn't you like? You call it a waste but you don't substantiate your
    > >position... that, I think, would help.

    >
    > There are three things I didn't like about the remake:
    >
    > - Zombies shouldn't run. I think 28 Days Later influenced that aspect
    > of it. Every zombie movie up to this point (not including 28 Days as
    > I think those folks weren't zombies) depict zombies as mindless,
    > shambling hordes who nail you on sheer numbers alone.


    A frequent misconception. The first zombie movie I'm aware of where
    the undead ran was ``Return of the Living Dead'' back in 1985 (!).
    Apparently people who attribute this to ``28 Days Later'' know far
    less about zombie flicks than they think they do.

    > - The zombie baby b-plot. What was the point of all that? It was
    > stupid.


    Maybe, but people do stupid things in horror movies all the time.
    The original Dawn was no exception (``we're just gonna check out whether
    there are any zombies in this mall and leave the woman behind, alone and
    without a weapon'' -- and many more where that came from). I thought the
    baby bit was quite effective and didn't overstay its welcome. And
    although the baby as such was hardly a threat, you couldn't be sure the
    mother wouldn't be released somehow.

    > - I know several folks liked the epilog clips at the end of the movie,
    > but I didn't. If I had walked out before the credits rolled, I
    > probably would have been happier. I guess having all the folks go
    > through hell and high water only to buy it just when they thought they
    > were safe annoyed me.


    I like movies which have the balls _not_ to have a happy ending, so
    I was quite pleased with this ending. It added nicely to the apocalyptic
    aspect.

    All in all I agree with the previous poster: I thought it was going to
    suck _bad_ when I first heard about it, but was _very_ pleasantly
    surprised when I saw it. People should give it a chance and not
    condemn it just because it wasn't done by Romero or because the zombies
    run -- or because it isn't really a remake but an entirely new movie
    which just shares the mall element with Romero's Dawn. I'd actually
    go so far as to call it one of the finest horror movies in the past 20
    years, how shocking is that? ;-)



    Andreas
    --
    Dr. Andreas Dehmel Ceterum censeo
    FLIPME(ed.enilno-t@nouqraz) Microsoft esse delendam
    http://home.t-online.de/~zarquon (Cato the Much Younger)
    Andreas Dehmel, Jun 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Crow T Robot

    Wade365 Guest

    << People should give it a chance and not
    condemn it just because it wasn't done by Romero or because the zombies
    run -- or because it isn't really a remake but an entirely new movie
    which just shares the mall element with Romero's Dawn. I'd actually
    go so far as to call it one of the finest horror movies in the past 20
    years, how shocking is that? ;-)

    Andreas >><BR><BR>

    I would definitely agree that they got a ton of it right, as far as setting an
    atmosphere and running with the possibilities to nice effect on the viewer. I
    was actually tensed up through scenes and I found myself wanting to turn away
    at times (not that I would, but you know that special feeling and boy is it
    rare at the cinema these days)... this is a sign of an effective film, IMHO.
    That's what happened to me in 1979 when I saw the original "Dawn" in the
    theater, it happened during "Alien" (the only movie to make me wanna put my
    feet up on the seat), I got that cringing feeling.

    I would say that "House of 1000 Corpses" was another film that I wasn't
    expecting bo-diddley out of and was suprised at the effect it had on me by the
    end of viewing... I blew it off as crap from the buttock of Rob Zombie and now
    I'm sorry that I didn't make the effort to hunt it down in the theater. I'm
    really lookin' forward to that sequel and I won't miss it's theatrical run this
    time, for sure.

    I will agree 100% with the points made by the guy who hated the movie because
    he at least explained it past calling the film a waste of celuloid. If you
    didn't like it there's probably very little I can say to change that fact, but
    in my opinion, it was a gutsy gamble by people who obviously have some vision
    as to how to set tension and then tune it like a guitar string until it
    sings... it could have been "House of the Dead", after all.

    When you have crap like that coming out, most anything looks good 'n' scary,
    right? Or even though I personally like the film, it could have been more like
    "Resident Evil" with the neo-Corman flavoring that Anderson adds as a director.

    But this is not incompetence, this film... it's a strong try both as a
    re-imagining of the concept and as a horror film on it's own. It certainly has
    more going for it than most of the mainstream horror that's being produced, and
    like I posted before, it's increasing the interest and possibilities of our
    beloved King George R. on the part of the studios again.

    We _will_ see "Dusk of the Dead"... or whatever he's going to call it!

    : )

    PS - To the poster who said "whoever said zombies don't run is showing their
    ignorance of the genre", that kind of know-it-all commentary only makes you
    look bad and it cheapens your postion. You'd have done much better to just try
    and educate as apposed to belittling the person. The Internet doesn't always
    have to be about tearing each other down, but unfortunately that's where it has
    ended up a lot of the time.

    Sorry, I'm off the soap box now.

    Peas.
    Wade365, Jun 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Ok, forget about when zombies first began to run. Here's another question:
    Were there any really good zombie movies before George Romero's "Night of
    the Living Dead"?


    Robert
    Robert Kaiser, Jun 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Crow T Robot

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <Gz7zc.12735$>,
    Robert Kaiser <> wrote:

    > Ok, forget about when zombies first began to run. Here's another question:
    > Were there any really good zombie movies before George Romero's "Night of
    > the Living Dead"?
    >

    Depends on your defintion of 'zombie', probably. The 1930's movie
    "White Zombie" is fun, and may be the first movie to use them. Staring
    Bela Lugosi, it's about a white couple (hence the title) who visit Hati
    to get married, and a Voodoo priest played by Lugosi falls for the girl
    and turns her into a zombie. They're not dead who come back to life,
    but people who've been given a drug, buried alive, then dug up to
    become the priest's slaves.

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, Jun 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Invid Fan wrote:

    >>Ok, forget about when zombies first began to run. Here's another question:
    >>Were there any really good zombie movies before George Romero's "Night of
    >>the Living Dead"?

    >
    > Depends on your defintion of 'zombie', probably. The 1930's movie
    > "White Zombie" is fun, and may be the first movie to use them.


    "I Walked With a Zombie" (1943):
    Never seen it, but Val Lewton & Jacques Tourneur...End of discussion. :)

    Derek Janssen (and Val should be getting the Warner/RKO treatment
    sometime by the end of the year)
    Derek Janssen, Jun 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Crow T Robot

    Wade365 Guest

    << Were there any really good zombie movies before George Romero's "Night of
    >>the Living Dead"? >><BR><BR>


    You're talking about the films which changed the genre and subsequently a lot
    of horror fans' taste, so "really good" is going to be completely subjective.
    Wade365, Jun 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Crow T Robot

    Murder Guest

    Derek Janssen <> wrote in
    news:40cd34a6$0$3027$:

    > Invid Fan wrote:
    >
    >>>Ok, forget about when zombies first began to run. Here's another
    >>>question: Were there any really good zombie movies before George
    >>>Romero's "Night of the Living Dead"?

    >>
    >> Depends on your defintion of 'zombie', probably. The 1930's movie
    >> "White Zombie" is fun, and may be the first movie to use them.

    >
    > "I Walked With a Zombie" (1943):
    > Never seen it, but Val Lewton & Jacques Tourneur...End of discussion.
    > :)



    It may have been eerie and sublime when it came out, but now it's just
    achingly dull, like The Seventh Victim. I love Cat people, but a little
    of the Lewton/Tourneur style goes a long way. Every so often, you have
    to actually SHOW SOMETHING SCARY.


    --
    "There is no more foul or relentless enemy of man in the occult world
    than this dead-alive creature spewed up from the grave..."


    The Castle Monster: http://www.processionofthedamned.com/diablo.htm
    Murder, Jun 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Crow T Robot

    Eric Guest

    (Crow T Robot) wrote:
    > Any word on the release date for Dawn of the
    > Dead(2004) on DVD?


    Sometime in early to mid October. It's coming out in four versions:
    widescreen and full-screen R-rated cuts and widescreen and full-screen
    unrated cut (with 9 minutes of additional footage).

    The R-rated versions will have the unrated scenes as a supplement, while
    the unrated versions will have exclusive featurettes. All versions will
    contain commentary and some other extras.

    Eric
    Eric, Jun 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Crow T Robot

    Murder Guest

    Derek Janssen <> wrote in
    news:40cf49b3$0$3005$:

    > Murder wrote:
    >>
    >>>"I Walked With a Zombie" (1943):
    >>>Never seen it, but Val Lewton & Jacques Tourneur...End of discussion.

    >>
    >> It may have been eerie and sublime when it came out, but now it's
    >> just achingly dull, like The Seventh Victim. I love Cat people, but
    >> a little of the Lewton/Tourneur style goes a long way. Every so
    >> often, you have to actually SHOW SOMETHING SCARY.

    >
    > Well, not with "Curse of the Cat People"...
    >
    > Derek Janssen (it's heartwarming *and* creepy!)
    >
    >
    >



    It sounds interesting, but I haven't seen it. To be fair, it's been some
    time since I saw Walked, and I'd probably receive it differently today.
    It seems some people think it's Tourneur's masterpiece. I'll take Comedy
    Of Terrors over Walked for sure, though.


    --
    "There is no more foul or relentless enemy of man in the occult world
    than this dead-alive creature spewed up from the grave..."


    The Castle Monster: http://www.processionofthedamned.com/diablo.htm
    Murder, Jun 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Murder wrote:
    >
    >>"I Walked With a Zombie" (1943):
    >>Never seen it, but Val Lewton & Jacques Tourneur...End of discussion.

    >
    > It may have been eerie and sublime when it came out, but now it's just
    > achingly dull, like The Seventh Victim. I love Cat people, but a little
    > of the Lewton/Tourneur style goes a long way. Every so often, you have
    > to actually SHOW SOMETHING SCARY.


    Well, not with "Curse of the Cat People"...

    Derek Janssen (it's heartwarming *and* creepy!)
    Derek Janssen, Jun 15, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    635
  2. Crow T Robot

    Dawn of the Dead release?

    Crow T Robot, May 9, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    418
    Otter
    May 9, 2004
  3. Tom Brehony
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    509
    Peter Row
    Aug 27, 2004
  4. Gerry \(The Moth\)

    Appleseed (The Movie) 2004: Release Date?

    Gerry \(The Moth\), Oct 26, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    415
    Gerry \(The Moth\)
    Oct 26, 2004
  5. Jeffman316
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    473
    Jeffman316
    Oct 28, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page