Talk:Dawn of the Dead (2004 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

"The makeup effects were well done, and the soundtrack songs were well selected to fit the film's mood," Sounds like a review of the film, which it shouldn't be. Steve-O 13:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please... there is such a thing as unsuited music, and bad makeup. Deltro 13:37, 12 December 2005 (CST)

There is. But it's not up to us to say that. Reference your sources if, say, a critic or film historian has said it Steve-O 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to pull the NPOV mark in a couple of days unless I missed something. Let me know! Richfife 19:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Music VS Muzak

A user changed muzak to music, I'm reverting this, I think the background music in the mall can be called Muzak in this context. (clem 18:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC))


[edit] Original vs. Remake

An anon user changed this section indicate that in the original (as in the remake), only infected persons return as zombies. If you check out the speech at mark 17 of the original film's screenplay here: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/d/dawn-of-the-dead-script-screenplay.html you'll see that's not the case. Thanks! -- Richfife 06:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough if anyone comes back in dawn- I thought that was just living. But are you sure that in the remake only ones killed by zombies come back? --Josquius 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the movie makes that point explicitly when they're standing over the two characters that die in a shootout with each other. The survivors discuss whether they should shoot them in the head and decide it's not necessary -- Richfife 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virus

I don't recall a reference in the film to a virus creating the zombies - there seemed to be no reason given for what was happening. -- Anon poster 81.174.255.70

From the article: "No mention of a cause for the living dead is actually mentioned in the film. However, the DVD box confirms that it is indeed a virus." -- Richfife 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning of the film, (possibly from the CDC?) there is an actor portraiting a representative official answering press questions. Reference is made that "We do not know" when asked by the press if it is a virus. 5by5 00:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spreads like a virus, but only seems to be directly borne by skin-to-skin contact (the first time I ever saw the movie, I was certain that Ving having an open wound in the fountain filled with zombie blood would turn him by the end of the film). After the virus gets the victim, it's all supernatural from there on.Thanos777 04:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time before victims come back?

People keep editing in that it can take up to hour for victims to return in the movie. I don't remember that ever happening, but... the edits keep happening. I only remember immediate returns. Am I forgetting something? -- Richfife 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what it is is that the movie makes reference to someone turning an hour or two after being bitten, and someone gets confused about that. Every time we see someone 'turn' during the movie, it's within moments of dying.--MythicFox 11:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

MythicFox is right. There is some time before someone turns if they are bitten or exposed to the virus (if that's what it truly is). But once they die, then they turn in a matter of seconds or minutes. 5by5 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Vandalism as a source

I wonder if I should add links to vandalisms to this page as a source for the "fans resented the remake" section? Nah. -- Richfife 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to take a chainsaw to the trivia section?

It seems like it's getting pretty bloated. Any thoughts? - Richfife 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning the article

I've removed the following to cut back on the size of the article. My criteria was pretty arbitrary, so if you disagree, feel free to move stuff back in (just make sure to take something out when you do):

(Notes)

  • One possible reference from Dawn of the Dead (2004), features Sarah Polley, playing the character of Ana, running her car into a tree in the beginning. Similar to George A. Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" the character of Barbra also runs her car into a tree in the beginning of the movie.
  • A reference to 1968's "Night of the Living Dead" can be found near the beginning when a truck crashes into a gas station, an event mentioned by the character Ben in the 1968 film.

(Trivia)

  • The epilogue was filmed at Universal Studios in Hollywood, with the final scenes at the dock filmed at one of the locations on the Universal Studios Tour. Another scene was shot off the coast of Los Angeles, which creates a geographical continuity error (noted on the DVD commentary) as there are no mountainous islands in Lake Michigan.
  • Included in the DVD release of the movie is a segment -- which utilizes the false document technique -- entitled "We interrupt this program," styled to look like an authentic TV news broadcast reporting on the zombie outbreak. It features the last onscreen performance of Richard Biggs (who plays the news anchor). Biggs' Babylon 5 costar, Bruce Boxleitner, is heard as the voice of the President of the United States. Neither character appears in the film, although the President is mentioned. Some of the news footage, however, can be seen in the film (particularly the segment with Tom Savini as the sheriff).
  • Also produced for the DVD was a series of video diary recordings made by the character of Andy the gun shop owner, giving viewers an insight into what was happening to him during the scenes at the mall. Andy's transmissions over the walkie-talkie at the end are identical to those heard in the film.
  • The Subaru commercial playing on the television while Ana and Lewis are in the shower was directed by Zack Snyder.
  • An early draft of the script had the film ending with everyone dying (the scene played during the closing credits leaves this ambiguous). Another draft ended with only Ana, Nicole, and Terry surviving after being rescued by an army convoy.
  • The song playing in the mall when the survivors first arrive is a muzak version of Bobby McFerrin's Don't Worry Be Happy.
  • Ving Rhames' arm prosthetic was accidentally stitched to his arm for the scene where Ana sutures Kenneth's wound. An actual nurse was performing the procedure, and in her nervousness, stitched the prosthetic to his arm. Mr. Rhames did not mention this until after the shot was complete.
  • Both the original and remake feature a pregnant woman.
  • Denise Cronenberg, sister of director David Cronenberg, was the costume designer for this film, while Heather Langenkamp, star of A Nightmare On Elm Street, is credited as being part of the production crew.
  • In the commentary, the director comments about a naked woman appearing early in the film "See there, that's a naked chick. I don't know why she's naked." Also during the credits he comments "See there? That's two girls kissing. Just for you."

(Sequel)

  • There were reports that Universal Pictures is very interested in making a sequel and has approached Zack Snyder to make it.
  • Dawn remake writer James Gunn has said in an interview that he will not return but director Zack Snyder will.
  • There were reports on moviehole.net that Universal is trying to get the Four survivors that were at the end of the movie to return.
  • At horrorchannel.co.uk/news.php there is a post about the sequel that it has been announced and there a possible plot that details are sketchy and the plot details that it is possibly about a closely guarded secret.


- Richfife 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why most of this should be removed. Article length certainly doesn't sound like a legitimate reason. Particularly from the Trivia section -- if it's trivia related to the film, it should remain. 69.194.35.109 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In theory, there's an almost infinite amount of trivia about any film. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. On a movie like this, the reader should be able go to an article, read through it in a couple of minutes and find out all the basic information that they need to know about the subject. Page after page of random just makes the articles bloated and intimidating. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be comprehensive. If they want every little detail, they can use Google. Note that another editor agrees and has marked the main article as such. I'm going to prune again now - Richfife 04:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following:

(Trivia)

  • Starbucks Coffee, along with many other corporations, did not wish to be featured in the film, so the fictional "Hallowed Grounds" shop was created, along with all the other names of stores in the mall.
  • Director Zack Snyder appears in the opening credit sequence as one of the National Guardsmen who opens fire in front of the United States Capitol.
  • A bonus mini-film, We Interrupt This Program, is included on the DVD release as a realistic-looking TV news program reporting on the carnage. The reporter is played by Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Stephen Franklin on the TV series Babylon 5. Biggs' B5 costar, Bruce Boxleitner, is heard as the voice of the President of the United States.
  • In the pre-credit hospital scene it is heard in the background that a man has arrived with a bite wound from a bar fight and it is just after 6:00. The next morning Ana wakes up just after 6:30 and is attacked by the little girl, implying that the infection might have originated from the bar fight.
  • The character Kenneth is an obvious reference to Ken Foree, an actor who played a similar role in the original Dawn of the Dead.


"In the pre-credit hospital scene it is heard in the background that a man has arrived with a bite wound from a bar fight and it is just after 6:00. The next morning Ana wakes up just after 6:30 and is attacked by the little girl, implying that the infection might have originated from the bar fight." -- Is this correct? According to the maps in the DVD cuts, the outbreak seemed to start from about three different coastlines that are on the opposite sides of the US. o-[O_o]-o --<Knigel> 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize Wikipedia's not intended to be an all-inclusive source, so I have to wonder why there's a trivia section at all. Surely Wikipedia could point users to superior secondary sources that contain that sort of thing, or leave them to make the connections themselves. 69.194.35.109 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I pulled the line "* Quite possibly the best movie ever." from trivia. User:BenWoodruff 03:54, 18 September 2006

  • I pulled "*The ending credits montage feature 2 girls kissing." from trivia. Too random. - Richfife 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original not a 'Plague'

In the 'Premise Changes from the Original' section, it says: "In the original, the plague spread slowly over a period of weeks and months."

But in the original, it wasn't a 'plague', or any sort of virus, the dead [of any cause, as is stated in the article] come back to life; so there is no plague to spread in the original film.

I can see what the contrast is in "In the original, the plague spread slowly over a period of weeks and months. In the remake, it springs up worldwide overnight.", showing the speed of the epidemic, but it should be worded differently, as this is just incorrect.

I kind of see your point, but the word "plague" doesn't necessarily mean a disease. It can just mean a large number of undesirable events. A plague of car crashes, for instance. "A plague of locusts" is a common term. - Richfife 15:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Plot Synopsis

Anyone have any strong opinion about how detailed the plot synopsis should be? I think what we've got now is overkill, but since someone put in all the effort to write it, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks before changing it back. And does Wikipedia have any official guidelines about this sort of thing? --Geoduck 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it Encyclopedic? No. Is it Wikipedic? I personally think so, but I'll abide by the will of the majority - Richfife 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The consensus over at the WikiFilms project is that 500 to a 1000 words is a good target, so I've pruned the synopsis way back. (Still about 2000 words.)--Geoduck 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I made a lot of changes to the plot, I cut it down a little bit and fixed a lot of the grammar and spelling problems. I can do some more edits if necessary. Greg Birdsall 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification, it stands at 1,031 words now. Greg Birdsall 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote it and pruned it down to ~850. I'm sure it'll start creeping up again, but I enjoy editing stuff like this, so what the heck...--Geoduck 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can start a game of plot synopsis bingo. Every time someone re-adds a particular thing, you cover a square until you get a complete line across your card. - Richfife 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombies able to tell between living and dead?

I always wonder how the zombies are able to tell the living and the (un)dead apart? They are supposeably mindless. And why don't they attack each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choir geek (talk • contribs)

Neither movie discusses this outright (except in the commentary track of the latter), but if you pay close attention, you'll notice that in both the "Dawn of the Dead" remake and "28 Days Later", the zombies do not attack until their target has spoken. Notice the scene where Ana's husband reanimates. He just kind of stands there metaphorically going "Duh?" until Ana says his name, then he attacks. It depends on the writer, also. In the book "World War Z", it is explicitly mentioned that the zombies just know, much to misfortune of the "quisling" characters that go nuts and start acting like zombies even though they're alive. Why do they not attack eachother? Well, as The Tick would say, because of "Drama Power". If the zombies all ate eachother, the survivors in the mall would only have to deal with one grotesquely overweight bad guy waddling across the parking lot trying to catch its breath instead of thousands of lean meaning chomping machines. - Richfife 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The homage/parody zombie flick Shaun of the Dead includes a scene were the surviving characters pretend to be zombies to sneak through a mob of the undead, which actually works until one of the group's cell-phone rings.--Geoduck 02:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, when some of the mall survivors went to save Nicole in Andy's store, none of them spoke. The only sound that was made was the manhole cover shutting. So whats up with that? When a victim spoke obviously that would get the attention of a zombie, but still.
On the news, it was said the zombies have a need to feed on warm flesh. Perhaps they have a way of recognizing this, and are drawn to it like some starving person seeing a cheeseburger... That way, they'd tell the living and the undead apart, as I'm assuming the undead's flesh is cold (like, when Ana was talking about the obese woman's skin, she said it was abnormally cold).


C'mon folks, they're re-animated dead, right?? What more explanation do you need except that they're supernatural in nature and would supernatrally see the humans?? You simply can't explain undead zombies with Real World physics...not even in "Resident Evil."

(Note: It isn't heat vision, either. They never saw or even acknowledged the dog. Nor is it noise; the one-armed Asian Zombie turned and saw them without them saying a word. Neither did Hero-Guy make a noise when Max Headroom/Frank returned from the dead; Max simply saw him and tried to attack.)Thanos777 04:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the Zombies could smell whether a human is infected or not and had a greed for uninfected flesh (of course, it´s difficult to smell uninfected flesh with (or without!) a rotten nose.
That brings me to another question: How long did the zombies munch on their victims? Since they´ll get also infected by getting eaten, there must be a turning point when the victims flesh is infected and isn´t any more tasty to the attacking zombie. Thinking about it I recognize, that most of the zombies weren´t severed that much. So is it possible, that they just bite and chew once or twice and then leave the victim in search for other victims?
And this brings me to the final question: Is it possible that zombies do not bite to satisfy their hunger but for just following an instinct, forced by the genetic code of the virus?84.138.28.117 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)(Kleinalrik)

I always figured that the virus either eliminated or created a "vibe" or "scent" of sorts, meaning that the disease either overpowers the natural "vibes" and "scents" a living human makes with that of a infected zombie. It's possible that the zombies are just no aware of each other, as if the virus blinds them to infected personnel. They don't seem to be attracted to things based entirely on movement, because they don't attack the dog.Southern guy 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombies can run! Freakin' Scary!!!

I love the fact that in this movie the zombies can run! I seriously find this scary! It makes the movie more entertaining and frightening! Just the thought of a flesh eating zombie "running" towards you just freaks one out!

Agreed. I don't care how much of a cinematic genius they keep trying to convince me that George Romero is: shambling zombies that move at 2 M.P.H. simply are the epitome of suck, and ANYONE in a Romero Film who isn't trapped in a dead end and gets eaten by one of his zombies, DESERVES it..

Hooray running zombies!! Thanos777 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Special features music

Does anyone know the names of the music that appears during the DVD feature entitled "Attack of the Living Dead? I would really like to know, thank you - RVDDP2501 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any other movie w/ a newborn baby zomby | zombie? Who thinks that that qualifies as notable?

There are a variety of stores in the shopping mall {chopping maul}; one restaurant is named "Hallowed Ground". I wonder whether that qualifies as notable trivia.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 03:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Dead Alive has a baby zombie. In that case, the baby was conceived and carried to term entirely post-mortem. - Richfife 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of inclusion of religious extremism allegory?

A banned user: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive162#Community_ban_for_CltFn has put in some comments supposing that parts of the film are commentary on religious extremism and "zombie like" behavior on the part of Muslims. I don't see it, and I haven't seen any reliably sourced commentary on the topic either. Time for that to go? - Richfife 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes; it's a totally subjective comment, and the only reason it's still there is that CltFn kept putting it back after I and several other people removed it.--Geoduck 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I pulled it out. Romero and many others have said many times that this film is about mindless consumerism, not religious extremism. - Richfife 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though I obviously agree with the decision, I just gotta nitpick. :-) Romero had nothing to do with this version, so whatever vision is being put forth is mostly Zach Snyder's. And since Snyder made a much more literal and straight-forward blood-and-guts horror movie (which is of course neither automatically good nor bad) it's even more likely that he wasn't intending any deep significance in the scenes. Still, it'd be interesting to ask Snyder about it; it's even possible that CltFn managed to be right..

--Geoduck 19:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be rather surprising if Zack (with a "K") Snyder decided to add anti-religious commentary after he went to all the trouble of watering down the satire of the first film, but stranger things have happened. - Richfife 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
First shot in introductory credits of Dawn of the Dead(2004)
First shot in introductory credits of Dawn of the Dead(2004)
Introductory credit shot of a reporter in front of a mosque
Introductory credit shot of a reporter in front of a mosque
Well since the topic has been brought up , yes I did insert those that comment and a couple of images from the intro shots of the film with a description of the mosque scene, then the shot of the reporter in the Islamic country , then the mob charging down a street which I figure is in Bangladesh (according to the film script). If you have the DVD, would you put it in your DVD player and watch the intro shots right after Sarah Polley crashes her car into the tree then explain why this would not be mentioned at the very least in the trivia section?. The intro shots have been commented on in various places such as [here] and here. The way I see it, the religious extremism "allegory" is a major metaphor that underlies the whole movie , particularly if you listen to the script that follows, and it should be part of the article because of it. Also in the director's cut of the film the intro montage has an additional shot which shows an embassy attack in Istanbul featuring a woman in a black chador. The actual film script labels the introductory scene as "footage of mayhem , tragedy and zombies on the move". So are we going to be able to discuss this in the article or not?--CltFn 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My take (and I'm pretty sure most people would agree) is that the opening shots are simply there to establish that the zombies are a worldwide, cross cultural problem that there is no geographic escape from. Your first link is an article that is mostly concerned with the christian allegorical angle, the second poo poos the notion ("they tell us nothing"). The only explicit reference to Islam is on screen for only a couple of seconds. The fact that other scenes are set in Islamic countries is meaningless. Are films set in Italy automatically Catholic?
Also, The Revealers raison d'etre (sp?) is digging up religious threads, real or imagined, wherever it can find them. The fact that they seem to be the only ones seeing this doesn't bode well. Anyway, the image is of people, at their church (mosque, synagogue, etc.) praying. How is it any more zombie like than, say, this? - Richfife 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is how I interpreted the metaphor as presented in those early shots : religious fanaticism = virus => zombie mobs => violence => mayhem and destruction. Of course people might argue until the cows come home as to the meaning of these shots, so what I suggest that we simply mention it in the trivia section in a the most objective way and let the reader make up their own mind. The references I presented above were only a few of many that are out there that can be googled, but these early shots were noticed in a quite a few reviews and viewer comments.--CltFn 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the world is ending and people are gathered at their house of worship praying to their god. I don't see why we're even having this conversation. The fact that people see pictures of Muslims praying in a mosque and assume that there must be some comment about terrorism says more about the observer than the movie, Muslims or anything else. - Richfife 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly , its OK , you interpret this differently and I get it, but those clips are a fact and should be mentioned probably something like this:
  • The opening shots of the film credits begins with a shot of Muslims praying in a mosque followed by street mobs various shots in an Istanbul seemingly making a direct reference to religious fanaticism.
In any case it would be good hear what others who have also watched the intro piece have to say.--CltFn 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, then, who here besides CltFn sees the shots at the beginning of the film as a reference to religious extremism? - Richfife 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We have all seen the movie and those scenes. Of course they exist. But there is absolutely no "should" or "must" when it comes to including every last minor theme and detail from the movie in the article. Just the opposite in fact; we are attempting to write an encyclopedia article here, not a multi-volume disertation, and Islam is an exceedingly minor theme in Dawn of the Dead. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter whether you are right about the movie's intent with those snippets or if we agree with you: unless you can offer a verifiable quote from the director or one of the screenwriters backing up your assertion, you are attempting to insert a subjective analysis of DotD into the article. It doesn't matter how strongly you (or I or anyone) feels about Islam, or how important the issue is elsewhere in human existence. For again, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and does not exist to be a platform for film analysis or for religious debates. (Which is why I posted my previous speculations here in the Talk section, not out in the article.) If you are genuinely in need of such things, and are not simply trolling to provoke responses, I suggest you go seek them out.--Geoduck 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Then the sentence should say :
  • The opening shots of the film credits begins with a shot of Muslims praying in a mosque followed by a reporter speaking from an Islamic country and a street mob in Bangladesh. The official film script labels this section "footage of mayhem , tragedy and zombies on the move". [1]
As you see I have taken out the "subjective interpretation and sourced the interpretation to the screen writers.--CltFn 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There are many things in the opening montage that you show no interest in that are not mentioned in the article that are arguably much more important to the plot of the movie than the location of the riots. The president's speech, for instance. So, before we proceed here, can I get you to state clearly, with no pronouns or references to context, why the fact that the predominant religion of the country chosen to film those scenes is Islam (as opposed to Hindu or Taoist or Buddhist or Christian or Animist or Jainist) is relevant to the article. Thanks! - Richfife 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ironically another part of the ending montage which I had added, the mention of the shots of the kissing girls, seems to have been deleted. As far as why the choice of the religion being depicted is relevant it is simply because it is in the introductory montage and should be mentioned as such. As we have already discussed, the meaning and the interpretation as to the message or lack thereof has been left to the viewer. Perhaps we should create a section on the introductory montage since it is a point of controversy that should be mentioned in the article. What do you think?--CltFn 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing ironic about it. I pulled it because it was way too trivial to merit inclusion. I think the Islamic angle is also too trivial to merit inclusion, and, given your history of anti-Islamic edits like this one: [2] unless someone else not recruited by you for the purpose steps up to support the edit, the issue should be dropped completely. Enough. - Richfife 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually , what we ought to do is let other editors weigh in on the matter , don't you think? And after all we want consensus do we not? Now about that link, with all due respect perhaps you might specify what exactly you mean because there is no such edit there. Perhaps though it might be better if we keep the discussion to the article at hand because I do not see that it would be very productive to digress onto other topics. Please do not misread this , we are simply trying to include into the article an aspect of the film which is there and is factual. Watch the opening montage and read the script. I did not make this up. Surely you are not suggesting that we censor this information?--CltFn 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd hardly consider leaving out an unsubstantiated claim censorship. There are plenty of fan sites where this sort of thing would be better suited and could be debated over or whatever. The fact of the matter is, there isn't enough evidence supporting your theory to warrant inclusion in the article. As previously mentioned, this page is meant to be a 101 course on the movie, not the end all and be all of DotD.
As for the deletion of the end montage "trivia", it's not a conspiracy against you, as you seem to be implying- it really is too minor to be mentioned. Honestly, anyone watching the movie can see the clip and it is unrelated to any of the film's plots.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckieRotten (talk • contribs)

[edit] Section for music?

I'm going to go ahead and ask this even though my vote is no. Do you think there should be a section pointing out the name of the music that plays at particular parts of the film? The use of music in the film seems to attract a fair amount of attention, but not as much as, say, "High Fidelity" does. Things keep popping up in the trivia section. - Richfife 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something about Romero saying it was "better then he anticipated"?

First off, this statement has no source.

Furthermore, I've heard that Romero said he hated it. Can someone please clear this up? I'll do my own research, but please, can other people look for some more sources on this? I don't want people getting the wrong idea about Romero's reaction to the movie that basically tore apart (no pun intended) the original Dawn of the Dead. Stop the War in Uganda! 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hunted around and found an English interview with Romero (http://www.timeout.com/film/news/631.html) where he says: It was better than I expected. I thought it was a good action film. The first 15, 20 minutes were terrific, but it sort of lost its reason for being. It was more of a video game. I'm not terrified of things running at me; it's like Space Invaders. There was nothing going on underneath. I added a link to the interview over on the main page.--Geoduck 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, thank you. I guess I read something wrong. Although he does say that it didn't have filling, basically. Maybe I misinterpreted? Ha... Again, thank you. Stop the War in Uganda! 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn of the Dead (Widescreen Director's Cut) ?

Info on the "Dawn of the Dead (Widescreen Director's Cut)"?--Brown Shoes22 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of the Film

SPOILERS follow:

Since one or persons out there want to argue this point, I went back and watched the end of the film again, and you cannot "see the survivors getting back on the boat". The heroes step off the boat onto the dock at the island, Chips the dog runs off, the zombie swarm appears out of the foliage, the heroes start shooting, the camera falls to the dock, and then the corpses of a couple dispatched zombie splat into view. End of scene. Apart from the infamous "lesbian porn" blip, the rest of the flashes between the credits are close-ups of snarling zombie faces.

end of SPOILERS --Geoduck 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)