Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvablePsycho
Well for one thing the characters were completely different. In the original movie you had two SWAT guys, a female reporter (at least I think she was a reporter), and her boyfriend. The remake had a nurse, a cop, a black guy and his pregnant Russian girlfriend, a TV salesman, three mall security guards, a trucker couple, an asshole playboy and his slutty girlfriend, a gay church organ player, and a young redheaded girl.
But unlike the characters in Romero's original movie who were interesting, I thought that most of the characters in the remake were annoying and completely unlikable. The one I hated the most was Glen because he was pretty much a negative gay stereotype. This movie was also a tad on the racist and sexist side like how the cop played by Ving Rhames just assumed that the black guy was a criminal (nevermind the fact that he was a black guy too) and how all of the female characters other than the nurse were portrayed as useless and weak. George Romero's zombie movies were all known for their strong female characters with the exception of the original Night of the Living Dead (but I think that is forgivable because it was a very old movie made in the 1960's).
I guess I feel like Romero always focused a lot on his characters, but in the remake of Dawn of the Dead we basically had a bunch of cliches and stereotypes thrown at us. Does that make any sense?
|
I understand what your saying.
The characters in the 2004 version were very forgetable... but I didn't find the characters in the original all that interesting either. I remember them, but wouldn't say they were particulary likable... but I could relate to them and feel their situation through them, so that was their strong point. Still, I don't know that either film was primarily about the characters.
Many talk about the original as social commentary and allegory. Did you think of it like that?