"Continuation" question regarding Dawn/Land of the Dead remakes....

[JacktheRipper]

Sorry, I read that as "Computation" and had a time warp and a good laugh.

[Mr. Yac]

Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think the Night and Dawn remakes are related. Each I believe is supposed to be viewed as a standalone film even though the originals they were based on were loosely associated with each other.[/QB][/QUOTE]

well theres no argument that the Dawn remake was ment to be it's own movie and really nothing like the originals at all, but i'd say the night remake was pretty true to the rest of the films, i mean what did they really change except how Barbera and Ben made out in the end

[Dajistano]

Holy Shit. Daj is now going to stick his gun in his mouth.

Steve Miner directing?

Ving-fucking-Rhames as Rhodes?

[img]graemlins/grrr.gif[/img]

My God, 2007 is gonna be 2004 all over again.

<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ October 16, 2006 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Dajistano ]</font>

[Gareee]

Wellth original Day of the Dead was the weakest of the original movies, so the remake can't suck as badly.

How are they gonna replace Bubba though?

[Mr. Yac]

i always enjoyed day of the dead, and i agree ving would make a TERRIBLE rhodes and just the fact that Nick Cannon is in it is more then enough to make it suck

[Dajistano]

Day of the Dead is my favorite of the four.

I like how it focused on the aftermath of the zombie apocalypse, not just showing the events during it like the other two.

[Mr. Yac]

yeah, i think it sort of ended things better then Land did (and despite the bashing i really enjoyed land) but the way Day ended was with a really bleak terrible picture of the world and really hammered home that the "good guys" weren't going to win (if you considered the humans to be the good guys that is [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

[Mr. Yac]

i guess i just always saw it as more an updated version of the original then a full on remake to set it in it's own world, to me the Night remake could have easily been followed by the original Dawn and day, but i guess that could just be my view because i saw the remake long before i ever even knew it was a remake [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chairman Kaga]

Originally posted by Mr. Yac:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Chairman Kaga:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think the Night and Dawn remakes are related. Each I believe is supposed to be viewed as a standalone film even though the originals they were based on were loosely associated with each other.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">well theres no argument that the Dawn remake was ment to be it's own movie and really nothing like the originals at all, but i'd say the night remake was pretty true to the rest of the films, i mean what did they really change except how Barbera and Ben made out in the end[/QB][/QUOTE]
Who said they changed or didn't change anything? This thread is about how the films relate in a timeline. Obviously the Night remake is a stand alone film since it has no sequel and itself is not a sequel to the Romero trilogy (Night, Dawn, Day). It really doesn't have anything to do with them changing zombie speeds or anything.