#21  
Old 08-16-2018, 09:08 PM
Sculpt's Avatar
Sculpt Sculpt is offline
ventricle


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: USA, IL
Posts: 6,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvablePsycho View Post
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?
__________________
.
.
.
.

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-17-2018, 05:37 AM
LuvablePsycho's Avatar
LuvablePsycho LuvablePsycho is offline
Rotten Stinky Zombie
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: In a dark, dark place.
Posts: 1,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt View Post
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?
Yeah I definitely agree about the social commentary because that's what Romero's zombie movies were always known for.

And yeah his characters were always relatable which is exactly what made them so likable in my opinion. I personally think that the more human a character is the better.

I mean his characters did have their flaws but they were realistic and understandable. Even the villains like Harry Cooper and Captain Rhodes were understandable in the way they behaved during the zombie apocalypse.

Of course I have to admit that the movies he released after the remake of Night of the Living Dead didn't feel the same. Land of the Dead felt like a Mad Max knockoff, and his other movies like Diary of the Dead weren't very impressive. I think Romero was trying too hard to appeal to the younger audience instead of sticking with what he did best.
__________________
We R Going 2 Eat U!

Last edited by LuvablePsycho; 08-19-2018 at 06:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:56 AM.