Dawn of the Dead (1978) - OUT OF PRINT

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I realize I'm in the minority, but I'm sticking to my guns. I've been a dedicated
Carpenter fan since ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 opened in 1976, and I know he's
made better films than THE THING. It's excellent, but all Carpenter films are.
Whenever a new Carpenter film opened I'd see it many, many times in a theater.
I've really missed his work on the big screen.

Likewise I'm sticking to my guns on Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD. It's not just
one of the great horror films, in the top 10 if not the top 5, it's a great film for any
genre. It's also one of the great independent films, made with non-professional
actors, that surpasses anything Hollywood was capable of at the time. It has
the intellect to underpin the horror, and the horror is in its intellect.

What I agree with is that Dawn of the Dead is a classic. It's honestly one of my favorite films of all time and truly goes into the human condition.

What I disagree with is that Carpenter made a better film than the Thing. While I think his most iconic is Halloween, I think the film with the best atmosphere, acting, and writing is the Thing. As a fellow Carpenter fan, I can appreciate your comments, but again I don't think he made a better film. Plenty that I enjoy, but in the end of the day after we all leave this mortal coil I'm sure Halloween and the Thing are his two movies that will still be talked about.

[agenda]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) are NOT classic.

[Gacivory]

The Thing is a classic. With this lack of taste popping up in the thread. People better get tested. I hear no taste is a symptom of a virus going around.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

The Fly 1986 and John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) are NOT classics.
Excellent films, but NOT classics.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) and DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978) are
classics and take their place with the other films you mentioned. They are

also important films for reasons.

The Thing and The Fly from the 80s are classics. even i consider Elm Street and Creepshow as classics.

To me the 60s to the mid 90s was the true golden age of movies.

Originally Posted by postmodel

My 2 cents, calling something a "classic" in the sense that it is one of the greatest films ever made, or greatest with a cultural impact, is more of an opinion. It just so happens that a lot of films are deemed classic by the masses, so to speak, thus making it appear as fact. Art is subjective after all.

Carpenter's The Thing and Cronenberg's The Fly are classics, to me and to many. Beyond being fantastic films, so many people can see imagery from them and might be able to name where they originate from without even being familiar with the films themselves. Saying Brundlefly might turn some heads, but showing them Brundlefly might get the "oh yeah! I've seen that before!" reaction. Even if they just mean seeing the image before and not the film itself.

Anyway...thanks for listening to my TED talk. Night is a classic in the classic definition of the term...Dawn is as well but more regarded within the world of horror and Day I feel is more of a classic within the world of horror enthusiasts, but when you name drop either 3 films people will always know what you are referring to.

But yeah...opinions are as opinions do...or something.

Would you consider Jaws or Predator or Alien as classics?

[hanshotfirst1138]

“A ‘classic’ is something everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read.”
Mark Twain

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

“A ‘classic’ is something everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read.”
Mark Twain

Yup i consider King Kong 1933, Dawn of the Dead, Exorcist, Jaws, Alien, Aliens, Predator, Wall Street, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, Planet of the Apes, Haunting 1964, Creature from Black Lagoon, Creepshow, Elm Street, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Blade Runner, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Elephant Man, Rocky, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Phantom of the Opera 1925,Halloween, Metropolis by Fritz Lang, Suspiria, Black Christmas 1974, The Fly 1986, and some others classics to me.

I don't consider Citizen Kane a classic to me, nor gone with the wind

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

What I agree with is that Dawn of the Dead is a classic. It's honestly one of my favorite films of all time and truly goes into the human condition.

What I disagree with is that Carpenter made a better film than the Thing. While I think his most iconic is Halloween, I think the film with the best atmosphere, acting, and writing is the Thing. As a fellow Carpenter fan, I can appreciate your comments, but again I don't think he made a better film. Plenty that I enjoy, but in the end of the day after we all leave this mortal coil I'm sure Halloween and the Thing are his two movies that will still be talked about.

The transformation scenes were too ugly for me to enjoy. Instead of being
enthralled or scared or just plain entertained, the transformation scenes
disgusted me and took me out of the film. I well remember the word of
mouth in 1982. A lot of people were sickened by the thing's transformations
and thought Carpenter had gone too far. This was the reason the film failed
at the box-office when it should have been a blockbuster. I realize this is
precisely what fans like most about the film today especially in chat rooms
like this, so, as previously stated, I'm aware that I'm in the minority here.
Since you asked, I've explained. Every other aspect of the film is excellent,
but again, all Carpenter films are.

This is a DAWN OF THE DEAD thread and I hope we can return to discussing that.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

“A ‘classic’ is something everyone wants to have read and no one wants to read.”
Mark Twain

That's actually very fitting to both Dawn of the Dead and The Thing for me. Both are films held in high regards that a person feels compelled to watch due to the chatter about them, however neither film is something I ever really have any strong desire to revisit.

The Thing is a special effects masterpiece with fantastic horror elements but never really feels like a horror film to me... Dawn of the Dead is a social commentary piece masquerading as a horror film which owes as much (if not all) of its success to Savini's work on the film as it does Romero's own contributions. Both films are over hyped in my opinion with neither coming anywhere close to the true classics of their respective eras. That said they each brought something different to the genre and are held in high regard for what they did provide and so I wouldn't argue with anyone who does consider them classics, however to me these are B-level films which fell short of some of the all time great horror films of the time.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

The transformation scenes were too ugly for me to enjoy. Instead of being
enthralled or scared or just plain entertained, the transformation scenes
disgusted me and took me out of the film. I well remember the word of
mouth in 1982. A lot of people were sickened by the thing's transformations
and thought Carpenter had gone too far. This was the reason the film failed
at the box-office when it should have been a blockbuster. I realize this is
precisely what fans like most about the film today especially in chat rooms
like this, so, as previously stated, I'm aware that I'm in the minority here.
Since you asked, I've explained. Every other aspect of the film is excellent,
but again, all Carpenter films are.

This is a DAWN OF THE DEAD thread and I hope we can return to discussing that.

While the gore may have had a little to do with it, the main reason it failed at the box office was because E.T. was kicking every other film's ass for weeks that summer. Blade Runner was released the same day as The Thing, and suffered the same fate.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

I don’t have that data, my interjection into this conversation was to clarify that “classic” by definition isn’t subjective. If Dawn of the Dead meets the criteria established then it qualifies. The precision of the assessment is of course determined by the metrics, but it cannot be subjective. One doesn’t think a film is “classic” on it’s subjective merits, they think a film is good or bad, and the cumulative subjective response determines its status as classic or not.

If I personally do not enjoy reading Great Expectations, that opinion has no bearing on whether or not the book is a classic.

It absolutely does. That’s fine you go on thinking art labeled as “classic” is objective. You will be the only one in the room defending that hill.
Classic has been and always will be an opinion of art.

[bigshot]

Classic generally means that it stands the test of time and becomes a model for future artists to follow.

[ambient_indie]

I don’t know what the hell happened to this thread lol

Anyways, Dawn of the Dead and The Thing I loved more and more after each viewing. The first time is like, it’s alright, but each viewing tends to pull you in.

What I love about the thing is you “see” the creature. But it’s ever evolving so you really don’t see what it’s actual form is.

And Dawn has a brilliant opening. It’s really the social commentary I love. But I saw these movies on VHS and cable in the late 90s so I can understand if the internet kinda spoiled late adopters. But I love them both.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

Yup i consider King Kong 1933, Dawn of the Dead, Exorcist, Jaws, Alien, Aliens, Predator, Wall Street, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, Planet of the Apes, Haunting 1964, Creature from Black Lagoon, Creepshow, Elm Street, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Blade Runner, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Elephant Man, Rocky, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Phantom of the Opera 1925,Halloween, Metropolis by Fritz Lang, Suspiria, Black Christmas 1974, The Fly 1986, and some others classics to me. I don't consider Citizen Kane a classic to me, nor gone with the wind

You have adolescent tastes I guess. Those are almost all teen movies with special effects. But you probably have a lot of life left to explore other kinds of film.

[heineken]

Originally Posted by bigshot

You have adolescent tastes I guess. Those are almost all teen movies with special effects. But you probably have a lot of life left to explore other kinds of film.

Nothing like film snobs and their "our shit don't stink" elitism stinking up a thread.

[heineken]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

Yup i consider King Kong 1933, Dawn of the Dead, Exorcist, Jaws, Alien, Aliens, Predator, Wall Street, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, Planet of the Apes, Haunting 1964, Creature from Black Lagoon, Creepshow, Elm Street, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Blade Runner, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Elephant Man, Rocky, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Phantom of the Opera 1925,Halloween, Metropolis by Fritz Lang, Suspiria, Black Christmas 1974, The Fly 1986, and some others classics to me.

I don't consider Citizen Kane a classic to me, nor gone with the wind

Ditto!

[BobSimms]

Originally Posted by bigshot

You have adolescent tastes I guess. Those are almost all teen movies with special effects. But you probably have a lot of life left to explore other kinds of film.

I wouldn’t call them teen movies. They’re just really mainstream, popular blockbuster types, most of which also were well received by film critics. Bit odd to exclude Citizen Kane, though.

But back to the main topic—until I started reading about Second Sight’s forthcoming release and noticing how discussion of it dwarfed MARTIN’s forthcoming release on the same label by something like ten to one, I didn’t realize how many people loved it —or held it in higher regard than NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Coming of age in the 80s and 90s, I don’t remember it carrying such status at all.

[Guiltydrummer]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Classic generally means that it stands the test of time and becomes a model for future artists to follow.

True but i think when you see a film at a certain point in your life it leaves an impression, thus the classic title.
I would consider Time Bandits a classic. I would also consider DOTD a classic. Saw them at different points in my life but equally inspiring.

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by rickah88

It absolutely does. That’s fine you go on thinking art labeled as “classic” is objective. You will be the only one in the room defending that hill.
Classic has been and always will be an opinion of art.

No it literally doesn’t by definition, that’s the actual definition of the classification. It cannot be subjective or the term is rendered meaningless. “Classic” is not a critique of merit, it’s a classification of merit. And I’m certainly not the only who recognizes that, it is widely acknowledged distinction that is held by the entire film and art history disciplines.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

What I agree with is that Dawn of the Dead is a classic. It's honestly one of my favorite films of all time and truly goes into the human condition.

What I disagree with is that Carpenter made a better film than the Thing. While I think his most iconic is Halloween, I think the film with the best atmosphere, acting, and writing is the Thing. As a fellow Carpenter fan, I can appreciate your comments, but again I don't think he made a better film. Plenty that I enjoy, but in the end of the day after we all leave this mortal coil I'm sure Halloween and the Thing are his two movies that will still be talked about.

Is classic and iconic the same thing? I think Halloween is his best film. It was revolutionary, because it started the serial killer trend of masked maniacs.

The Thing is a classic because it was a boxoffice failure upon release but was rediscovered much later and became way more than a "cult" hit. It's also a bleak horror film that folks were not ready for because E.T. got there first.

Then again, I'm splitting hairs since JC is my favorite director of all time.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Caseyscott

No it literally doesn’t by definition, that’s the actual definition of the classification. It cannot be subjective or the term is rendered meaningless. “Classic” is not a critique of merit, it’s a classification of merit. And I’m certainly not the only who recognizes that, it is widely acknowledged distinction that is held by the entire film and art history disciplines.

Lol, just scroll back over the last few pages. Some people call this film a classic but not that one. It’s all opinion.
Where is this “classification of merit” founded? What governing body declares it?
Nobody does. Lol.
Please show me where art labeled as “classic” is objective. Again, I will wait. Link me to some site that has the oversight to make such labels and then show me the complete 100% of the population that comply. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
Saying “it’s widely acknowledged” does not make take it out of the realm of opinion. It’s just what a bunch of people think. It’s subjective.
Or we can just agree to disagree.