dawn of the dead 79 or 2004

[the elmo zombie]

which one did you like better? i can allready guess which one will win.

[Punisher]

i have seen the 79 version and thought it was great just hope the remake lives up to a great movie.

[spiderman_2k]

It was '78

[the elmo zombie]

i know but some people say 78 and some say 79 but more say 79 and i said 79 so someone wouldnt say it was 79 but you argued.no way out is there?today is the dawn day!!!

[physin]

I'm goin for the new Dawn because it shines bright to a new future of horror genre.

[spiderman_2k]

Originally posted by the elmo zombie
i know but some people say 78 and some say 79 but more say 79 and i said 79 so someone wouldnt say it was 79 but you argued.no way out is there?today is the dawn day!!!

Your a fool.

No-one says 79, because it was released in 78.

[mentiroso]

Originally posted by spiderman_2k
Your a fool.

No-one says 79, because it was released in 78.

I really hate to back Elmo on this one but ---

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/19/review.dawnofthed.ap/index.html

Review: Don't chew on 'Dawn of Dead' remake
Beyond cast, movie is a letdown
By David Germain
Associated Press
Friday, March 19, 2004 Posted: 9:31 AM EST (1431 GMT)



"Dawn of the Dead" has a good cast -- including Jake Weber, Sarah Polley and Ving Rhames -- but lacks the shock of the original, says AP's David Germain.

(AP) -- "Dawn of the Dead" has seen better days.

The high-octane update of the 1979 zombie fest offers gore galore, some truly creepy images, occasionally wicked humor and impressive performances for a genre where acting usually is secondary.



Taken from CNN.com

So Elmo was right on this one. I figured, since it never happens I would let him have this one victory.
Doesnt matter that they are wrong, some people do say 79 =(

[spiderman_2k]

Well they are as stupid as Elmo then, to mess up the biggest year of Horror ever (Halloween and Dawn Of The Dead) '78 is just....madness...utter, utter madness...

[mentiroso]

I agree.
I just thought it was funny that I just got done reading that article and then I come in here and see this conversation.

[spiderman_2k]

Shouldn't the reviewers know there movie facts though?

[mentiroso]

You would think, but then again most of them dont know their head from their ass (explains alot of those reviews we read) so I guess it doesnt matter to them.

[Switzer]

Its pretty obvious....the 2004 version

[mentiroso]

I had to go 78-79 (dont want anyone pissed so I put both!). I am sure the remake will rock (seeing it tomorrow) but in most cases you can not beat the original and I am sure no one will beat the Romero classic so I went ahead and voted the original.

[EvilDeadNDN]

I just saw the remake today and its F'N SWEETASS. man, I was on the edge of my seat nearly the whole movie.

Its a toughie though but maaaaaaaaaaaaaan it was awesome. def in my top 5.

[FaceOff]

Originally posted by spiderman_2k
Well they are as stupid as Elmo then, to mess up the biggest year of Horror ever (Halloween and Dawn Of The Dead) '78 is just....madness...utter, utter madness...


Yes spidey2k is 100% right. It was 78 so I will back him all the way.

[the elmo zombie]

i thought it was 78 too its just that the press says 79

[FaceOff]

Ya I seen that. But you know alot of people say 79. I was at amazon.com and it says 79. Then I went down the page and amazon had there review and it said 78. If you have the new DOTD dvd look at the cover insert. I believe it says it there. If it's not there than I heard it when I was watching the commentary. I let a friend borrow the dvd so I'm not sure .But I can see how you can say 79. The only thing it might be is that it was made in 78 and released in 79. Maybe thats why people are using different dates. Not sure.

[Buy Bull]

Saw the remake and I prefer it over the original personally. Not QUITE as much gore though...that's the downside.

[Necross]

I haven't seen the new one yet, but I know I will always like the original better, but that doesn't mean this one will be bad.

[rosncranz]

Originally posted by spiderman_2k
Well they are as stupid as Elmo then, to mess up the biggest year of Horror ever (Halloween and Dawn Of The Dead) '78 is just....madness...utter, utter madness...

i think 2004 will be the best year for horror, you have dod, ring 2, the grudge, dark water, etc. these movies are remakes of some of the best horror films ever made, i thought they all could use some improvement, they just might get it. for me this is almost gauranteed to be the best year for horror.

[Quentor]

I just saw the new one it was really good. But the old is a classic ask me again in 25 years

[Instinct]

I loved it. So well made, I'm so glad it didn't end up sucking. Very violent. When that guy chainsawed that girl in half!! Holy ****!!

[KINGKURT553]

Both rule, but I have to give it to the remake because of the ending. One of the better horror movies of our time.

[Buy Bull]

Originally posted by Instinct
I loved it. So well made, I'm so glad it didn't end up sucking. Very violent. When that guy chainsawed that girl in half!! Holy ****!!

NO KIDDING!!! That was VERY violent. I think that was one of the goriest scenes.

[black_dust]

70`s one even tho the 2004 version was kick ass

[spiderman_2k]

Did you see a preview screening?

[the elmo zombie]

i am soo gratful that there were no flopping zombie ding dongs like that reveiw said.that would have sucked!!!

[rayzor09]

eh...

anyway does the remake have the zombie getting killed by the helicopter?

[rayzor09]

or was that even the original Dawn? It could've been another classic zombie movie.

[the elmo zombie]

no it was dawn

[the elmo zombie]

and no its not on the remake

[Wade]

I really enjoyed the new Dawn of the Dead,but because of the realistic nature of the original and the shock effect it had....I'd say the original Dawn of the Dead.

[goldmember]

The 2004 version!

[Snaga]

I enjoyed the 2004 version more than the original.

[TyRoss]

(innocent look)

[rayzor09]

Originally posted by the elmo zombie
and no its not on the remake

okay thanks... damn that seen cracked me up... that zombie was so stupid...

[spiderman_2k]

Well..they are stupid, thats the point.

[sniktawt]

True, Spidey.

[EvilDeadNDN]

I think the only thing that made 2k4 verion better than the original was it was MUCH more fast paced.

other than that Id say theyre equal.

[carnage4u]

i vote for the option. Dont compare the two as they are both too different, but since thats not in the poll.

[EvilDeadNDN]

I was thinking about this in the shower just now.

Is everyone basing the "gore factor" of the 2k4 version to the original on the basis that one guy had his internal organs ripped out and eaten in front of him?

Is that the only reason that people say the original is more gorier than the remake? I think the remake was WAY much more gorier than the original. Sorry heh, I just thought this up a second ago.

If thats the only reason you guys are saying its gorier than that is pretty damn lame.

[Islanders22]

i dont think the original is comparable, forget the shock feature. The Zombies were a big joke in the original. how people just run by and smack them in the face they dont run. the new ones are flat out monsters and it was absolutely an insane movie. (dont get me wrong, i liked the original a lot but in a different way.) the 2 were really absolutley different.

[l)arKnight.]

The 04 remake is way better, and everyone in my theater was screaming out loud so much you could probally hear it from the other room. Even though the movie was bit funny it doesn't mean it still isn't an horrific movie. I just love the whole damn thing. And whoever said 28 days later was way better, damn you have an crappy way of comparing to this flick. This is the best movie that gor ro me in a scary way. And I can't belive some ppl were giving this movie an F on the yahoo reviews. They can't exp. a movie well enough to even base your thought on that if your not a horror fan.

I only seen one of the movies back in the 80's that was one of the orginal, and that was Day of the Dead, I havent seen the other but I will soon, but I like how they did the remake with diffrent days, didn't it in the orignal it was base during thouse certain hours of the day, in the Rm all that happan in like 4 day right? I don't if that was a good thing or bad to base on the orignal but I like it.

?Damn did I wright to much¿ Well I am so sorry for making you reading this, well I'm not forcing you, your doing this with your free will. So it's not my fault, it's yours..heh... w/e I'll stop now. I promise I really do. .........So how was your day today.....goodnight.........8 hours later good morning.......6 hours later WTF are you still doing here???? Whats that in your hand? ..Don't get any closer I will not "dish" the dish! I love the dish.. I not going back to cable!! NOO don't disconnect my lovly dish.... Damn I was going to rent Mona Lisa Smile.... Damn You Timewarner Cable, Damn You!!!

[the elmo zombie]

im confused.there are 3 dawn catagorys.vote on the 78 one ok?

[sniktawt]

How come there is 3 options up there ?
There was No Dawn Of The Dead in 1979.:confused:

[FaceOff]

Originally posted by Islanders22
i dont think the original is comparable, forget the shock feature. The Zombies were a big joke in the original. how people just run by and smack them in the face they dont run. the new ones are flat out monsters and it was absolutely an insane movie. (dont get me wrong, i liked the original a lot but in a different way.) the 2 were really absolutley different.

Well I now what you mean about the zombies in the original one. But look at this way. It's a different look. The whole idea with the slow zombies is that you don't take them seriously. Like Roger did. Then he got bit. At first I was into the fast zombies alot more than the slow ones. But the slow ones are just as dangerous.

[spiderman_2k]

Originally posted by sniktawt
How come there is 3 options up there ?
There was No Dawn Of The Dead in 1979.:confused:

Well...Elmo put the '79 version of DOTD in his poll...There was no 79 version, so Ty added a 78 version option too..:funny:

[black_dust]

Originally posted by spiderman_2k
Did you see a preview screening?

Yup! and im seeing it with my mate for his birthday on Sat.

Hey almost finished T2 future war :) Problem is the 3rd book seems to be abit rushed could just be me tho :) But all 3 kick major ass

[spiderman_2k]

Woah...I suggested you read read them ages ago now...

Good to hear you liked them.

[black_dust]

Originally posted by spiderman_2k
Woah...I suggested you read read them ages ago now...

Good to hear you liked them.

Im a slow reader :( haha i just dont have time, read abit each night before i go sleep.

Anyway

DoD 2004 i didn`t feel for the people in this was as i did in the 78 one this is why i like the 78 one better, even tho the gore and fx`s are cool as hell in the 2004 one.

[Denis Lalumiere]

The Original was 'scary' but the Remake is more stressfull plus the blood looks like blood....on the audio commentary of the original,even Tom Savini says that the color aint right.I personnaly think it looks like 'Pepto Bismol'
Gotta say...went 2 times already seeing the 2004 edition.

[Denis Lalumiere]

By the way , if you'd look on the DVD,you would read 1978................thank U!

[spiderman_2k]

Yeah, we know this already.

[sniktawt]

Originally posted by Denis Lalumiere
By the way , if you'd look on the DVD,you would read 1978................thank U!

Dear lord...;)

[LegolasIsntSexy]

i really liked the 78(9?) version, but i enjoyed the 2004 version more.

[astrocytoma75]

The 2004 version all the way. Exellent!!! work on the remake.

[Cartagia]

'04

'78 just didn't really do it for me as much as the new one did. I much prefer the non-satirical take (in horror at least).