For those who have seen both, "Dawn Of The Dead", what is the better version, 1978 or 2004?

2004 hands down for me. There I said it, loud & proud. It’s by far one of the better remakes, of recent times certainly. Johnny Cash singing the opening an added bonus.

I think of them both as separate movies… I don’t really think of the 2004 version as a remake. I really enjoy both of them in their own light.

That said, if I had to compare the two, I’d take the ‘78 version.

Not only was the 78 film the better (and best Zombie movie ever), but it absolutely defined the modern image of a Zombie. The notion of a Zombie (as an undead brain-eater) was invented in that film.

Also, I thought the 2004 version lost sight of the whole anti-consumerist point of the original.

The 78 version all the way. It’s also my favourite zombie movie ever. It’s got cool zombies, fun characters, plenty of gore, and human conflict which characterizes the whole film through its metaphor. Well, actually that would stand more true with Day of the Dead, but I couldn’t help getting an image of Tom Savini trimming his stash in my head. Anyways, it’s great cuz it has zombies, but it’s also great because of its deeper hidden message. (Consumerism, routine; the mall as the number one pillar to said concept.)
It’s got this, man. It’s got this by the ass!

The ’‘remake’’ is great too, but it just isn’t the same. It’s like two different zombie flicks with the same name. But it has the coolest death bus ever, plus roof chess!

But fuck it man, if you like zombies, watch it, just don’t expect it to reflect the original Dawn in any way whatsoever.

I would like someone to explain why any zombie movie is good or interesting. I fail to see the fascination of creatures that won’t die, stink, and take bites out of you.

@Ron_C, zombies are a metaphor for the impending nature of human mortality. They slowly approach, staring blankly with the singular purpose of consuming you. Like death, there is nowhere you can be safe from them, and also like death, no matter what you do, they will just keep coming. People are both terrified and fascinated by death, and that’s partially why zombie movies can be both good and interesting.

The 2004 version is kind of campy. I wrecked my car on the way home from seeing it. Not that the two are related in any way, but that is now what I associate with it.
Go ahead and watch it, then watch the remake of Day of the Dead. It is less campy, but with a couple good nods to the original and way scarier than the new Dawn of the Dead, which is mostly just too silly to be taken seriously. Spoiler alert! (Except for the little bitty zombie, which is just creepy as all get out,)

Best scene, Burt Reynolds golf. Just thought it worthy of a nod.

Original, without question. The new version went for the gore but failed to hit the mark of what makes a zombie movie good. The original is well written, well directed, full of vibrant colors, creepy and is one of the best zombie movies, in my opinion. If you’re a fan of all the original zombie movies then you’ll likely be disappointed with the 2004 version. I’ve seen all of the original “of the Dead” movies and the remakes; the originals win hands down every time to me.

Good answer @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard
I’d like to add that, zombies are a simple concept, and while they don’t exist, they’re so related to humans in obvious ways that it makes them easy to place in a realistic setting, so you can do so many things with so little. They’re the ideal creature to explore the subjects @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard mentioned. It makes it easy to explore something complicated, no matter the allure or the approach taken, whether that’s comedy, gore fests or fear.
They’re also simple and innocent fun. :D

Thanks dahlin’