I Have A Question

[LoneCrusader]

Do the movies relate to eachother? Is LAND OF THE DEAD really the sequel to Day of the Dead, or are they all different? Do the events that take place in DAY affect LAND? Because in Night, they walk slowly, but in Dawn remake, they run, and in LAND, they walk again. explain. do they relate or not?

[NumberOneGARFan]

Do the movies relate to eachother? Is LAND OF THE DEAD really the sequel to Day of the Dead, or are they all different? Do the events that take place in DAY affect LAND? Because in Night, they walk slowly, but in Dawn remake, they run, and in LAND, they walk again. explain. do they relate or not?
The only way the original George A. Romero films (Night '68/Dawn '78/Day '85/and Land '05) relate to each other is that they show the evoloution of the zombies. They take place in different time frames and different areas of the U.S. of A. Night '90 was remade by director Tom Savini on pretty close to the same screenplay as Romero's original classic NOTLD '68. Dawn '04 was remade by a new director to the big screen Zach Snyder, based on the same general idea of Romero's original masterpiece DOTD '78. (Mall/Zombies) I hope that answers your questions.

[glsjaw]

and to go further more on that, Dawn remake has nothing to do with the GAR universe and may go have mercy on your soul if alot of people hear read this post

[Philly_SWAT]

All of GAR's movies relate to each other. You have to remember 2 things,
1) THe universe in which you are talking about and
2) The time frame involved with the movies.

Universe - all of GAR's movies exist in the same "universe", that it to say in the universe as a movie fan that your mind choses to except. In this case, a universe that is very similiar to our own, major difference, the dead can come to life and want to attack the living. The Dawn remake does not exist in that same universe. A very similiar one, but the zombies move faster.

Time Frame - There are two different time frames to think about, the "real" time frame in which the movies were made, and the "GAR Universe" time frame that exists in the movies themselves. Night, Dawn, Day and Land were made in 1968,1979,1985, and 2004 (if these arent exactly accurate, you still get the point). As movies made in the real universe, they reflect different movie making techniques available at the time, different clothing styles, soundtrack differences, etc. But in the Gar universe time frame, you have to accept that the movies are "timeless". Dawn was made 11 years after Night, but takes place three weeks after Night. It is not meant to be inferred that in a three week timespan that clothing styles, hairstyles, etc. have changed so much, they only changed in "real" time. You have to suspend your disbelief in this as you do that the dead can walk in the first place.

[DjfunkmasterG]

All of GAR's movies relate to each other. You have to remember 2 things,
1) THe universe in which you are talking about and
2) The time frame involved with the movies.

Universe - all of GAR's movies exist in the same "universe", that it to say in the universe as a movie fan that your mind choses to except. In this case, a universe that is very similiar to our own, major difference, the dead can come to life and want to attack the living. The Dawn remake does not exist in that same universe. A very similiar one, but the zombies move faster.

Time Frame - There are two different time frames to think about, the "real" time frame in which the movies were made, and the "GAR Universe" time frame that exists in the movies themselves. Night, Dawn, Day and Land were made in 1968,1979,1985, and 2004 (if these arent exactly accurate, you still get the point). As movies made in the real universe, they reflect different movie making techniques available at the time, different clothing styles, soundtrack differences, etc. But in the Gar universe time frame, you have to accept that the movies are "timeless". Dawn was made 11 years after Night, but takes place three weeks after Night. It is not meant to be inferred that in a three week timespan that clothing styles, hairstyles, etc. have changed so much, they only changed in "real" time. You have to suspend your disbelief in this as you do that the dead can walk in the first place.


This is probably the single best definition of the GAR timeline vs Real timeline for DEAD films I have read to date. Nice job man.

[axlish]

The precedent was set with this character.

Blades - Dawn of the Dead
http://www.brian-oshaughnessy.com/living-dead/images/dawn-blades.jpg

Blades - Land of the Dead
http://www.mk-magazine.com/news/archives/Savini%20zomb.jpg

[Danny]

that is pretty damn cool but i thought everyone knew it was the same timeline but night was ...well on the night (ill do it on the night:D ) dawn was two months in ,day was anywhere between 6 months and 2 years into the plague.


...err, i think.

[Adrenochrome]

I like how it made the circle (atmosphere-wise) night-dawn-day-night - I think you'll get my meaning (Mr. and Mrs. Frodos)

[LoneCrusader]

If the movies DO relate to eachother (GAR) then why is it that in Land of the Dead, you die, and you become a zombie, but in all other GAR movies, you have to get the disease tramsmitted...?



I think with each GAR movie, it just starts all over, because why wouldn't the later movies know how to stop them? Or prevent them?

[Philly_SWAT]

then why is it that in Land of the Dead, you die, and you become a zombie, but in all other GAR movies, you have to get the disease tramsmitted...?

This is not accurate. In the original Night, the radio specifically says how the dead are coming to life the morgues. It does not say that "zombies are attacking living people in the morgues and they are returning to life", so you have to logically assume that since this is at the beginning of the problem, the only dead people in the morgue are the same dead people that are in a morgue in everyday life, people that died, not ones that were attacked by zombies. Therefore, the dead who were not infected were returning to life.


I think with each GAR movie, it just starts all over, because why wouldn't the later movies know how to stop them? Or prevent them?

They do know how to stop them, kill the brain, kill the ghoul. Shoot it man, shoot it in the head! By the time of the events in Day, not only do they know how to stop them, but how to capture them, move them around for experiments, etc. The problem that exists in Romero's dead movies is not a lack of knowledge about how to kill the Zed's, but the same problem that exists now in our universe. That problem is man's inability to co-operate with his fellow man. That is a central theme in Romero's works. It is almost 5 years after the attacks on the World Trade Center, yet at ground zero there is no rebuilding efforts or monuments. Why, because we dont know how to build a building or a monument? No. Because different groups can not come to an agreement on what to do there.

In real life we know how to stop world hunger...feed those without food. Relocate them. But there is no profit in doing that, therefore the rest of the world kind of accepts that hundreds of thousands die of starvation every year on this planet, but thats OK, as long as the elite have huge luxery ships, mansions, etc at their disposal. We know how to stop and prevent world hunger, yet we do nothing.

[Svengoolie]

Time Frame - There are two different time frames to think about, the "real" time frame in which the movies were made, and the "GAR Universe" time frame that exists in the movies themselves. Night, Dawn, Day and Land were made in 1968,1979,1985, and 2004 (if these arent exactly accurate, you still get the point). As movies made in the real universe, they reflect different movie making techniques available at the time, different clothing styles, soundtrack differences, etc. But in the Gar universe time frame, you have to accept that the movies are "timeless". Dawn was made 11 years after Night, but takes place three weeks after Night. It is not meant to be inferred that in a three week timespan that clothing styles, hairstyles, etc. have changed so much, they only changed in "real" time. You have to suspend your disbelief in this as you do that the dead can walk in the first place.


The movies reflected the times they were produced not because of some great artistic statement, but because it made the budget cheaper if GAR and the Pittsburgh Pimp squad could just ignore period continuity from film to film.

[Philly_SWAT]

The movies reflected the times they were produced not because of some great artistic statement, but because it made the budget cheaper if GAR and the Pittsburgh Pimp squad could just ignore period continuity from film to film
What you say is true. I was not implying that it was some great artistic statement, but I do say that great artistic achievement was the result. I submit not that they "ignored" period continuity, but that within the framework of the series, period continuity is of little importance.

[ipotts85]

maybe we should just advise him to go rent the original films, then watch them.

i mean, if he thinks the dawn remake was part of the original series, it's obvious he probably hasn't seen them...

[Andy]

was dawn really 3 months after night? i always thought they overlapped somewhat.. .. if you'll allow me to explain my theory.

i think dawn starts around the same time as night, maybe a day or 2 afterwards.. my main reason for this is the redneck party that comes along at the end of night, i think this is the same, if not a similar group that we see at the start of dawn.. i dont think these groups would last long so im putting these events about the same time. my second reasoning is the timeline, i'll get to that later.

then i also thought day started around the time dawn ends.. the world does seem pretty desolate when they leave the mall (just the feeling i get) but it is oohh lets say 6 months into the plague, with zombies congregating in cities they would be abandoned of life as they are at the start of day, most search and rescue parties, trying to save the injured, would also be vanguished by now. so i beleive dawn ends and day starts here. either at the same time or around the same time (give or take a few weeks), again, the timeline supports this which im coming to.

ok my timeline theory, stick with me on this.. based on the calendars this makes sense to me, in night... dosn't johnny or barbara make some remark about daylight savings time? so it must be happening about may/june(?)... in dawn, fran is marking off a calendar in "october" in the final month... and in day, sarah is marking a calendar in "november" at the beginning and end of the movie.. so it seems pretty logical to me that the three films do overlap somewhat.

ok.. assuming that night happens in may, and dawn concludes in october, and day starts in november. if we can assume that night and dawn overlap, meaning dawn would start in may and conclude in october/november, where day starts and lasts less than a month (sarah marks the same calendar again in november at the end of the movie).

so, if this theory is true, then the original trilogy takes place over 7 months from may to november, with dawn being the biggest part of the trilogy spanning 6 of those months. bridging night and day in a way.

now that makes sense to me and thats my personal theory on the timeline of the trilogy. no land is not included in that becuase i personally dont like land and dont accept it as a true dead film.

[DeadCentral]

Andy if you watch the original Night, it happens in October (and was actually filmed at the end of august right through October in real life)-

Listening to the Talk Show host in Dawn ,he states some where that for the past "3 weeks we've been in a state of Martial law in Philedelphia"-

In Day Sara Tells Logan "Your just proving theories that were developed Months ago...and just slicing up too many specimans.."-

And in Land riley states that he's been in the city for 3 years...
I think you can actually see the continuity ...
For myself, I don't really view the titles as a "position of the sun, or moon" but the state of man ..
Night- the early beginning
Dawn- the rising of the dead ,mans decline
Day-man is the minority and the dead predominant
Land- man has been over run to the brink

And to answer LoneCrusader question, the DAWN remake is not one of GAR's films remade, but a stand alone film based on the idea of GAR's films.

[Andy]

Andy if you watch the original Night, it happens in October ( and was actually filmed at the end of august right through October in real life )-

im talking about film time, not the actual REAL time its filmed. there is definatly a mention of daylight savings time which would place it much earlier in the year, around may or june unless im very much mistaken.


Listening to the Talk Show host in Dawn ,he states some where that for the past "3 weeks we've been in a state of Martial law in Philedelphia"-

again, i do say in my original post, give or take a few weeks on this timescale..


In Day Sara Tells Logan "Your just proving theories that were developed Months ago...and just slicing up too many specimans.."-

they could be in the silo before dawn ends, they could of been in the silo from the beginning of the plague. there's no mention of that anywhere. i do say the films overlap, not begin where the previous one ends.



And in Land riley states that he's been in the city for 3 years...
I think you can actually see the continuity ...

you do seem to of entirely missed out the last part of my post where i do say, i dont count land towards the dead story as i dont think it is.

anyway, even counting land, as there's absolutly no indication of time between land and day its entirely possible that land follows 3 years or more afterwards.

i mean they have had time to secure and barricade a entire city :rockbrow:


my strongest evidence is the calendar theory, which is the whole basis of my 7 month theory. which you have not argued against at all.

[DeadCentral]

Well ....thats because I'm not arguing with you ...lol

I believe they do overlap in ways , remember they're not exactly sequels to each other but stories within a universe that this phenom is occuring..overlapping is a possibility,because some of these stories could overlap, and be happening simultaneously, but not how I view it personally..

[Andy]

i agree with you there, they are 3 completely seperate stories.. but my timeline "7 month" theory works well for me. it fits in place and gives a scale to the zompocalypse i think.

but it is only that, my personal theory. im sure alot of you have your own which will contradict mine.

i was simply answering lone crusaders questions then answering your "holes" in my theory.

:)

[DeadCentral]

Dawn and Day could have begun at the very same moment , the four from DAWN could have left the docks & at the same exact time Logan and his group could have been dropped at the underground bunker, and when Sara & John and Mcdermitt leave for the island, DAWN could have been just at the point that Peter & Francine leave the mall.

I tend to think that the DAY scenario is a bit later due to the decrepit state of the city they visit and based on Logans ratio theory...


im talking about film time, not the actual REAL time its filmed. there is definatly a mention of daylight savings time which would place it much earlier in the year, around may or june unless im very much mistaken.





Here in the states, DST is applied during usually end of April & October. looking at how the characters are dressed in both NIGHT & DAWN would it be safe to agree that perhaps it began in the fall & each scenario carried thru to spring?

Fran was skinny in the beginning of the film, but extremely large at the end, that would mean a minimum of 6 months had past at that point for her pregnancy to display itself that vividly...
Both Johnny & Barbara are wearing winter clothes in NIGHT and the trees are somewhat bare as well which would imply autumn ...

[Andy]

Dawn and Day could have begun at the very same moment , the four from DAWN could have left the docks & at the same exact time Logan and his group could have been dropped at the underground bunker, and when Sara & John and Mcdermitt leave for the island, DAWN could have been just at the point that Peter & Francine leave the mall.

I tend to think that the DAY scenario is a bit later due to the decrepit state of the city they visit and based on Logans ratio theory...



Here in the states, DST is applied during usually end of April & October. looking at how the characters are dressed in both NIGHT & DAWN would it be safe to agree that perhaps it began in the fall & each scenario carried thru to spring?

Fran was skinny in the beginning of the film, but extremely large at the end, that would mean a minimum of 6 months had past at that point for her pregnancy to display itself that vividly...
Both Johnny are wearing winter clothes in NIGHT and the trees are somewhat bare as well which would imply autumn ...
now your catching onto what im getting at :)

again as for the state of the city, you got to remember beforehand it would of been looted and scene to mass murders... of course its going to be decrepit.

as for logans theory, there's no exact timescale on the ratios or how quickly they break down..

also frans pregnency fits in with my theory, i do say dawn is by far the biggest spanning at least 6 months.

and johnny is just wearing a suit and barbara is wearing a dress with a coat over the top. how are these winter clothes?

[DeadCentral]

Damn you're quick...lol read my edits above ...lol

[MinionZombie]

I think it's something like this - Dawn is 3 weeks after Night, Day is a year after Night and Land is up to 5 years (so I've heard/read) after the whole thing began. That's always what I've gone on, never got confused with "real time" and "GAR time" though, so personally I 'got' what he was doing...to comment on a post further up the stream.

[Philly_SWAT]

My thoughts on the timeline.....

I think that it should be accepted that Dawn starts three weeks after the events in Night. Dr. Foster clearly says "Three weeks. For three weeks you have not listened!" (Or something close to that. He definately says three weeks.) I am not sure where the "three months" theory comes from, that is definately wrong.

I think that the "redneck groups" could for sure last three weeks, and probably a lot longer than that. While other people are scrambling to find guns and ammo, they would already have that in ample supply. As you can see, local law enforcement was more than eager to have their assistance, both in Night and Dawn. They would also be adept at living off the land, being able to hunt and find edible food in the woods.

I think that Day has to take place quite some time after that. When you see Fran marking off the calendar in October, to me that shows that they survived for many months in the mall. Didnt that calender have a bunch of months crossed off on it? And the biker gang survived "on the road" for that same many months, so there were pockets of people that were surviving during that period. Seems like I have a "three years later" thought sticking in my mind as far as Day goes, but I can not remember right this second where that came from. But you figure it would have to take a least some time to get their little underground party together. They have been there long enough to grow some marijuana plants that are very tall. I doubt that there was tall plants of "magic herb" growing on a military base before the dead plague started. Also, it would take quite a long time to gather up all those zombies and put those collars on them, dont you think? And doesnt Sarah say to Logan "you're just proving theories that were advanced months ago". That implies that they have been there for quite a while. Greg Nicitero says "we used to talk to Washington all the time". That also shows they have been there for quite a long time, otherwise he would say something like "we talked to Washington last week". Also, in the beginning, John says to Bill "Forget it Billy boy. It's a dead place. Just like all the others you know. Listen. You can hear it above the engines." By this time, the entire landscape of Florida is deserted, unlike in Dawn where biker gangs still roam the streets looking for booty (probably both kinds of booty!) When John says "Just like all the others", that implies that prior to the start of the movie, they have been searching the surrounding area for quite some time, looking for survivors.

Anyways, have I convinced you Andy? This all seems logical to me. Night starts on the day the Daylight savings time starts, then Dawn starts three weeks later. Dawn lasts thru October, then Day has to start a long time after that.

[EvilNed]

According to GARs Land of the Dead commentary, the films do NOT relate to each other in any other sense except that they are in the same series and all feature the same kind of zombies. He means that every film deals with a different outbreak, in a different universe. So Land of the Dead doesn't really take place after Day of the Dead, it's just a spinoff.

This is how he explains how the zombies look differently and why they are killed by certain things. He cites Night of the Living Dead as his example, where zombies could be killed by fire yet in the sequels (according to him) they cannot. This doesn't explain how Blades ended up in both Dawn and Land, however, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that was just a cameo (as Romero called it).

So no, the Dead movies are not in the same timeline. They are in different timelines, but in the same series. But I find that watching them, and imagening they are in the same timeline, makes it more interesting.

[MinionZombie]

As for the overlap thing, like with Day and Dawn...with Dawn at 3 weeks after Night, at the beginning of the plague relatively speaking, then yeh the folks in Day probably did go down into the underground facility at that point or a week or two later possibly. But of course when we join them they've been down there for months/up to a year after it all began.

So story wise there'll most likely be an overlap, but plot wise we don't see the overlap ... and as for Land being 3 years, indeed that's more like it, I said 5 originally but that was my original thought before someone said it was 3 years quite a while ago ... but my brain is a bit leaky these days.

Beginning ... 3 weeks ... up to a year ... up to 3 years.

That's the kind of timeframe a think we can all agree on.

Just wanted to add in my tuppence...

Romero keeps changing his opinion and ideas on his series though. I think it's quite acceptable to say it's all part of the same plague, we're just seeing different chunks of time in that plague. He's just using the films as a form of representation for the time in which they were made, of course the zombies are going to look different, techniques improve, but besides - the zombies are gradually rotting so they're going to get more haggard - you see it all the way up to Land with those emaciated (animatronic) zombie torsos that pop into shot, like the one that attacks Cholo, or in the opening shot.

I think it's rather daft the consider the series as FOUR different outbreaks of zombies ... because all four outbreaks would just go the same way because GAR's using the same narrative elements (essentially - mankind's own weaknesses causes it's own downfall and the zombies grow smarter). It smells fishy to me that it'd be any other way than showing the one plague advancing from one film to the next.

Guaranteed GAR changes his mind at some point in the future, I've seen many GAR interviews and he's often contradicted himself on certain issues.

Damn us folk get into these movies DEEP, eh? :D

[Andy]

Anyways, have I convinced you Andy? This all seems logical to me. Night starts on the day the Daylight savings time starts, then Dawn starts three weeks later. Dawn lasts thru October, then Day has to start a long time after that.


i just dont buy into the fact that day happens years after night. it dosn't seem work to me.

like i said though, each will have his own theory on what happened and their not all going to be the same, mine works best for me. you should be able to see alot of thought has gone into it :p

i still think dawn and day are alot closer together than most of you guys.

so no, you havn't convinced me, same way i doubt id be able to convince you my theory is right.

[Adrenochrome]

i just dont buy into the fact that day happens years after night. it dosn't seem work to me.

like i said though, each will have his own theory on what happened and their not all going to be the same, mine works best for me. you should be able to see alot of thought has gone into it :p

i still think dawn and day are alot closer together than most of you guys.

so no, you havn't convinced me, same way i doubt id be able to convince you my theory is right.
I see:
Night: it happened.
Dawn: a few days later.
Day: 6 months to 1 year.
Land: because fans wanted it. I love this movie, but, I'd rather it never been made. When Bub saluted, that was the "end". IMHO.

[Hawkboy]

Here's how I see it.

There was Night, then there was Dawn, then Day, then Land. As each film progressed the zombies were around longer than they were before. Thats about it! :cool:

[Svengoolie]

What you say is true. I was not implying that it was some great artistic statement, but I do say that great artistic achievement was the result. I submit not that they "ignored" period continuity, but that within the framework of the series, period continuity is of little importance.


I have to disagree with you on that, since it can hardly be a "great artistic achievement" if it was unintentional.

They ignored period continuity to have a substantially lower budget, and then came up with the idea to have each film reflect the decade it was produced in after the fact to explain it.

That's called "backtracking"...not "artistic".

[Adrenochrome]

I have to disagree with you on that, since it can hardly be a "great artistic achievement" if it was unintentional.

They ignored period continuity to have a substantially lower budget, and then came up with the idea to have each film reflect the decade it was produced in after the fact to explain it.

That's called "backtracking"...not "artistic".
This, coming from a huge fan of The Bad News Bears and The Thing? Come on!

[EvilNed]

This, coming from a huge fan of The Bad News Bears and The Thing? Come on!

Another negative post about the Thing from you, and I'll have your head!

[Adrenochrome]

Another negative post about the Thing from you, and I'll have your head!
ok,.............
..........spider/crab-head guy was retarded!!!!!

[Svengoolie]

This, coming from a huge fan of The Bad News Bears and The Thing? Come on!

Actually, both were written by the same guy--Bill Lancaster.

If only GAR could've learned to write screenplays like Bill....:rolleyes: :D

[Adrenochrome]

If only GAR could've learned to write screenplays like Bill....:rolleyes: :D
Are you serious? I hope the "rolleyes" was an admition of jest.

[Andy]

easy now fellas.. lets keep this civil.

[Adrenochrome]

easy now fellas.. lets keep this civil.
I will respect your authority!

[LoneCrusader]

so if the movies are connected and all dead people return to life, then why is it in dawn of the dead (remake) andre and that old woman were shooting eachother and killed one another. they didn't come back, and they had no head shots.

[EvilNed]

so if the movies are connected and all dead people return to life, then why is it in dawn of the dead (remake) andre and that old woman were shooting eachother and killed one another. they didn't come back, and they had no head shots.

Uhm... Are you... Are you serious?

The Dawn of the Dead REMAKE, has nothing to do with the originals. This has been explained X number of times already.

There's two Dawn of the Dead films. The one you are referring to is just a re-imagenation of the original Dawn of the Dead and has running zombies or not.

There's noway that Dawn 04 takes place in the same timeline as the others.

[LoneCrusader]

lol....that explains a lot.


now i shall burn snyder's remake.

[MinionZombie]

Day comes roughly a year after the outbreak kicked off, therefore when you think about it, when we join Day it'll be a matter of a few months after the end of Dawn (as Dawn takes place over a few months itself). Day of the Dead however takes place over a matter of days.

[Svengoolie]

Well, as has been pointed out before--it's obvious that Night takes place in the springtime, due to the fact that they're talking about getting an extra hour of daylight in the evening just before Bill Hinzman makes his appearance.

And, Dawn is supposed to take place about three weeks after Night--hence the "You haven't listened to the situation for three weeks!" or something or another in the opening credits montage.

Day--well, I always figured it was a period of several months ("You're just proving theories that were advanced months ago....").

As for Land...I believe it was a period of a couple of years--maybe three (according to dialogue in the film).

But, this timeline is moot due to the fact that each film reflects the decade it was produced in.

Oh, and as for Bill Lancaster--he's a better screenwriter at breakfast than GAR is all day, Adrenochrome.:D

[ipotts85]

i can't believe someone is actually attempting to explain these things!!!

go rent the original movies!!!!!!!!!!! then watch them!!!!!!!!!

go up to the films section of this website, get the right ones, then watch them!




also frans pregnency fits in with my theory, i do say dawn is by far the biggest spanning at least 6 months.

if you look at the calendars on the wall in the group's hideout in dawn, you see that they are only in the mall for around three months...

[DeadCentral]

if you look at the calendars on the wall in the group's hideout in dawn, you see that they are only in the mall for around three months...

IPOTTS it took 3 months to film the movie!! for a pregnnant woman to begin showing as much as Fran was at the end is a minimum of 6 months!
I have 2 kids..... it's common knowledge, wake up bud ....
Stephen actually says, she's only along a couple of months, the first night they holed up in the mall, when Peter offers to abort it ...I think maybe you should watch it again, and then maybe you should google preganancy...

[Marie]

We know how to stop and prevent world hunger, yet we do nothing.

Part of preventing world hunger is birth control. We have billions of people and only so much arible land. When you talk about us Americans and our extravagant lifes, think about the poor of the world and their seven to ten kids they can't feed. But still have.

M_ (heartless b*tch)

[MinionZombie]

The fact that the films reflect what was happening in the decade they were made in has no impact on the overall plot of the movie. It just means that on screen fashions and tech changes - but it's all part of the same timeline. The "what was happening in that decade" is for us the viewer to watch. The people in the timeline of the movies are unaware of any of that, to them fashion or technology hasn't changed at all. It's just something for the viewer.

As for the whole time of year thing, I don't think GAR really paid much attention to it at all, the time of year the films were shot were just the times of year that they were ready to shoot on their personal schedule.

[ipotts85]

IPOTTS it took 3 months to film the movie!! for a pregnnant woman to begin showing as much as Fran was at the end is a minimum of 6 months!
I have 2 kids..... it's common knowledge, wake up bud ....
Stephen actually says, she's only along a couple of months, the first night they holed up in the mall, when Peter offers to abort it ...

maybe you shold just rewatch that scene and try your math again, before being such an assh*le.

look at the calendars, how many there are and what month it is, you'll see that they are only in the mall for between 3-4 months before the end of the film.

i'm not even saying the pregnancy necessarily correctly fits within this timeline, i'm simply saying that this is what was depicted in the film...besides, we don't know for sure how far along fran is - stephen may not know exactly (his guess sounded like an estimate more than exact knowledge anyways)...if she was already around three months, plus three or four months...well, that works doesn't it? and that isn't including taking into account error on behalf of the filmmakers (or they may have just exagerrated it to make a dramatic point).


I think maybe you should watch it again, and then maybe you should google preganancy...

maybe you should google how to not be a douchebag, dude.

[MinionZombie]

As for Fran's pregnancy, if she's already 'gone' a month or so then that's some time already taken off. She develops a significant baby bump, but then she is still capable of climbing a ladder and running to the chopper - yes it could be Gaylen Ross not 'acting pregnant' enough, but it could very well also mean she isn't into the 'final trimester' or whatever one of those is :D Damn pregnancy and it's weird 'n' wonderful ways...hmmm.

So indeed, you'd think they're there for around 4 months, maybe 5, couldn't really be anymore than that.

[ipotts85]

As for Fran's pregnancy, if she's already 'gone' a month or so then that's some time already taken off. She develops a significant baby bump, but then she is still capable of climbing a ladder and running to the chopper - yes it could be Gaylen Ross not 'acting pregnant' enough, but it could very well also mean she isn't into the 'final trimester' or whatever one of those is :D Damn pregnancy and it's weird 'n' wonderful ways...hmmm.

So indeed, you'd think they're there for around 4 months, maybe 5, couldn't really be anymore than that.

thank you! deadcentral seemed to be under the impression that it was an impossible feat for them to have onl been there for around 4 months...

[DeadCentral]

Well if either of you had lived with a woman whose been pregnant, by the ages under you names I'd say that it's a fair assumtion you haven't,
you'd know...
in the scene that the bikers first make contacton the radio , Fran is as big as a house...She has major difficulties getting off the bed ...I've been there
at that point with a pregnant woman.... which means , she's ready to pop... nine months along maybe 8 1/2 to play it safe...
which in turn means, that even if she was 3 months along at the start in the mall, they'd have to have been there a minimum of 6 months... no two ways about it ...
As far as the name calling... act your ages, huh??

[Adrenochrome]

Well if either of you had lived with a woman whose been pregnant, by the ages under you names I'd say that it's a fair assumtion you haven't,
you'd know...
in the scene that the bikers first make contacton the radio , Fran is as big as a house...She has major difficulties getting off the bed ...I've been there
at that point with a pregnant woman.... which means , she's ready to pop... nine months along maybe 8 1/2 to play it safe...
which in turn means, that even if she was 3 months along at the start in the mall, they'd have to have been there a minimum of 6 months... no two ways about it ...
As far as the name calling... act your ages, huh??
:D ......that's what I'm talking about.....

[DeadCentral]

...one more detail, my two doubters...
Being Ken Forees webmaster has it's perks, I can go to the source for back up...which I did when I spoke to him this evening...

the timespan that the characters inhabited the mall was indeed 6 to 8 months , the stage of Frans "pregnancy" was Georges way of showing the passed time... so we can lay your theories to rest...

I do, however like the idea that Andy mentioned, that perhaps the group from DAY had been dropped at the bunker in the meantime so their adenture could have begun simultaneously as the DAWN group, or within the timeframe that they inhabited the mall... I think his theory is more than likely closer to the truth and highly likely....

[Philly_SWAT]

I have no problem accepting that they were in the Mall for 6-8 months. What I have a problem with is that Day was only a short time after Dawn. Everything that the people in Day say gives the impression that they were there for a long time. As for

perhaps the group from DAY had been dropped at the bunker in the meantime so their adenture could have begun simultaneously as the DAWN group, or within the timeframe that they inhabited the mall...
I dont think that this could be true. Night and Dawn take place within three weeks of each other. At the end of Dawn, which as you say is 6-8 months later, there is still people out and roaming around. The biker gang does not seem overly concerned with the inherent danger of zombies all around. They laugh and act like a bunch of kids as they enter and loot the mall. Apparently even with this foolhardy behavior, they have been able to survive on the road for 6-8 months. To be able to survive with this seeming lack of concern, wouldnt people who were taking a lot more precautions be alive somewhere also? Maybe waiting for a chopper to land nearby and yell out "HeellllOOOOOO!"
But in Day, there is no one anywhere around. They went "100 miles in both directions" in order to find someone. This comment was made at the beginning of Day. Therefore, it seems at the end of Dawn that human survivors could still be found simply roaming around in the open, but at the beginning of Day, no survivor could be found, even when flying a chopper and yelling on a bullhorn and broadcasting over the air that they were there looking for survivors to help.

These facts seem to strongly indicate that Day was a long time after Dawn, not during the same time span, or soon after.

[ipotts85]

...one more detail, my two doubters...
Being Ken Forees webmaster has it's perks, I can go to the source for back up...which I did when I spoke to him this evening...

the timespan that the characters inhabited the mall was indeed 6 to 8 months , the stage of Frans "pregnancy" was Georges way of showing the passed time... so we can lay your theories to rest...

I do, however like the idea that Andy mentioned, that perhaps the group from DAY had been dropped at the bunker in the meantime so their adenture could have begun simultaneously as the DAWN group, or within the timeframe that they inhabited the mall... I think his theory is more than likely closer to the truth and highly likely....

did you by any chance re-watch the scene i mentioned?

and unfortunately ken foree didn't write or film dawn of the dead - he was just an actor.


Well if either of you had lived with a woman whose been pregnant, by the ages under you names I'd say that it's a fair assumtion you haven't,
you'd know...
in the scene that the bikers first make contacton the radio , Fran is as big as a house...She has major difficulties getting off the bed ...I've been there
at that point with a pregnant woman.... which means , she's ready to pop... nine months along maybe 8 1/2 to play it safe...
which in turn means, that even if she was 3 months along at the start in the mall, they'd have to have been there a minimum of 6 months... no two ways about it ...
As far as the name calling... act your ages, huh??

actually, i have been around pregnant women before...

and act your ages? did you by any chance read your first post? it was confrontational as hell...one can make an argument without being an ass about it...so perhaps you should take your own advice.

and once again (!) - i never said that fran's pregnancy fit in the timeframe...i already said this twice (!) - it could have easily been an oversight or continuity error (as the calendars could have been as well), and if you re-read the post i made, you would see that i based the ENTIRE argument on the scene when you see the calendars on the wall. from the start month until the current month they are in when they abandon the mall, is only around 3 - 4 months...(can anyone else confirm that scene? i don't have the film on hand...)

deadcentral, do me a favor, pop in the movie and check out that scene, and lets just put this argument to rest. and the only way to put this entire timeline argument to rest would be to ask george romero (which someone should try doing) - unfortunately ken foree isn't exactly the definative source (no offense to ken foree)...




These facts seem to strongly indicate that Day was a long time after Dawn, not during the same time span, or soon after.

i still can't even believe this is an argument...like philly_swat states above: i think it's pretty obvious the timeline...

[DeadCentral]

did you by any chance re-watch the scene i mentioned?

and unfortunately ken foree didn't write or film dawn of the dead - he was just an actor.





Hmm yes an actor, who worked the script that we seem to be debating the very film you are theorizing about, but he's not? the type of source you're willing to accept being proven wrong by ? is that what you're saying ??
and as far as being "around" pregnant women ..is that what I asked ?? no it wasn't ...it was if you could do simple math...

a woman at three months(assuming as you say) enters a safe haven , not showing of course, which can only imply 2 months to perhaps 3 month along from watching both of MY children conceived and progressig in my wifes womb, ( at 4 months along ANY woman starts to show), the we skip forward to the point that this same woman is now as large as can be and can barely move without help ( as the scene with Fran stepping up from the bed) implies very late in the third tri-mester or...the 9 month mark which if you have any simple math skills makes it incredibly evident ... 9 minus 3 equals ????? 6 ...hmmm and boy .. I'm not even a rocket scientist .... think that could sink into your brain even slightly ???
The calenders were probably an oversite. Think that makes sense ??
And as far as watching the scene ... my friend Ipotts, I was watching the movie in the theaters back in '78 , through the 80's on VHS & 90's on DVD up to date...long before you even saw the outside of you mothers womb ... I don't need to re-watch it to clarify my position .
As far as being confrontational... not even close buddy, sarcastic yes , rude sometimes , confrontational..... only young people like yourself think in that fashion on a forum board... You just refuse to accept a logical timeframe and defended your statements by name calling...especially when someone comes along and points out simple flaws in your theory with common logic.

[ipotts85]

Hmm yes an actor, who worked the script that we seem to be debating the very film you are theorizing about, but he's not? the type of source you're willing to accept being proven wrong by ? is that what you're saying ??
and as far as being "around" pregnant women ..is that what I asked ?? no it wasn't ...it was if you could do simple math...

a woman at three months(assuming as you say) enters a safe haven , not showing of course, which can only imply 2 months to perhaps 3 month along from watching both of MY children conceived and progressig in my wifes womb, ( at 4 months along ANY woman starts to show), the we skip forward to the point that this same woman is now as large as can be and can barely move without help ( as the scene with Fran stepping up from the bed) implies very late in the third tri-mester or...the 9 month mark which if you have any simple math skills makes it incredibly evident ... 9 minus 3 equals ????? 6 ...hmmm and boy .. I'm not even a rocket scientist .... think that could sink into your brain even slightly ???
The calenders were probably an oversite. Think that makes sense ??
And as far as watching the scene ... my friend Ipotts, I was watching the movie in the theaters back in '78 , through the 80's on VHS & 90's on DVD up to date...long before you even saw the outside of you mothers womb ... I don't need to re-watch it to clarify my position .
As far as being confrontational... not even close buddy, sarcastic yes , rude sometimes , confrontational..... only young people like yourself think in that fashion on a forum board... You just refuse to accept a logical timeframe and defended your statements by name calling...especially when someone comes along and points out simple flaws in your theory with common logic.


you are getting ridiculous bro.

re-read your posts - you started with the confrontation (sarcasm, whatever the hell you want to call it)...i made an argument based on a section of the film, backed it up, and in fact never argued the points you are making, and actually provided that both sides could be an equal oversight...

and yes, i am not willing to accept the opinion of the actor, who acted - he didn't write it bro. i know you and ken are like superfriends or something, but sorry if i don't take his opinion as gospel...

and no offense but i you are so old, aren't you a little past arguing on a forum board? (just wondering)...besides: what are you even arguing about?! i'm not even arguing that you are WRONG!!!!!!!!!! i'm simply stating that - based on evidence from the film - there might be another answer. either way of this argument may be continuity error. i bow down to you, master of all things pregnancy, but i am not arguing with you on that!!

[DeadCentral]

LOL
M.O.P. I like that....heh heh heh...

[Marie]

But in Day, there is no one anywhere around. They went "100 miles in both directions" in order to find someone. This comment was made at the beginning of Day. Therefore, it seems at the end of Dawn that human survivors could still be found simply roaming around in the open, but at the beginning of Day, no survivor could be found, even when flying a chopper and yelling on a bullhorn and broadcasting over the air that they were there looking for survivors to help.

These facts seem to strongly indicate that Day was a long time after Dawn, not during the same time span, or soon after.

There were no EVIDENT survivors in a section of the Florida coast. First and most importantly, I know I wouldn't just walk out when there was an army of zombies in the street attracted to any noise, even if there WERE a helicopter out there. Maybe BECAUSE there was a helicopter out there and some simpleton shouting I'd take the chance to nip out and find some food and water or maybe just run while the zombies were tracking that noise. By that time it would be evident to most survivors that the "safety" promised was at best transitory.

M_

[Andy]

i would seriously put the events of day a couple of weeks AT MOST after the end of the events in dawn.

as for the city being in the state its in, before when there where living people there, zombies would of been congregating in the cities, there would of been mass murder, people panicking, looting... the city would of been in a state a couple of weeks into the plague.

[ipotts85]

LOL
M.O.P. I like that....heh heh heh...

it's your new nickname!

[Philly_SWAT]

Hmm yes an actor, who worked the script that we seem to be debating the very film you are theorizing about, but he's not? the type of source you're willing to accept being proven wrong by ? is that what you're saying ??
I dont want to stop the ..... enlightened discussion..... that you and ipotts85are engaged in, but I must make a comment on this point. When I first got the Ultimate Edition, 4-disc DOTD set, I was very much looking forward to the commentary with the 4 stars of the film. I was disappointed after listening to it. The 4 of them seemed to be lacking in knowledge about some of the fundamental aspects of the film. The same held true when I was at the Comicon, personally talking to people who were both in the film and worked behind the scenes. The thing is, they have not watched and rewatched and rewatched the movie 100 times. That was a part of their life, they made the movie, and thats it. They still enjoy the popularity they still have because of it, and go to conventions and stuff, but its not like they watch the movie over and over in order to have 100% backup of whatever they might happen to say.

I respect both you DeadCentral, and Ken Foree, but just because he may say something does not mean it is 100% correct. I dare say that almost everyone on this board has seen Dawn many more times more than he. I am not even disputing that they were in the Mall for 6-8 months, just that a lot of the actors and stage people involved with the production of the movie put a lot less thought about the plot lines, meanings, etc. than we do.

Now, one could say "but who would know more than those that were involved with it?" Well, a movie, like a book, or any other work of art, means what it means to the end "user", in our case, movie viewers. Many of us engage in discussion on these boards as a means to have fun, and talk about movies that we love. Ken Foree's memories of events that happened almost 30 years ago have less relevance in my opinion than those of us that devote far more (and perhaps far too much) time debating the issues right here on HPOTD.

[DeadCentral]

And thats exactly what Potter (yer new nickname, bud) & I have been doing, though I did enjoy your post Philly, and I'm sure that to an extent you're probably correct in regard to how often an individual actor may have viewed their own films.


As Far as Ken is concerned, I asked him what the timespan that he and the rest of the cast were told that their characters had been inhabiting the mall, he stated that it was "supposedly" a timespan of 6 to eight months according to the script that he originally read. Simple enough??
Since he was involved and read the script originally written by George himself, for me, that's good enough to prove the point I was trying to make ... the length of time spent inhabiting the mall.

I based my assumptions on Frans pregnancy.

Any man on this board who is married and experienced having a child, can attest to the time frames I mentioned in my earlier posts, one does not need to be a "Master of all things Pregnant" as my esteemed collegue dubbed me, my statements are not based in fiction, nor opinion, regarding the pregnancy issue they're common fact.
Ken backed my statements with what was explained to him while filming the movie. Thats not too difficult for me to accept.

Ipotts based his on the calendars, which is all fine and good as well... but the flaw I have with that is somone mentioned DST on this...well DST is implement twice a year here in the states , in October & April ...again we have that magic number: 6 months on either side of it.
Now when they landed all were wearing jackets and dressed for colder weather, so it could have been October, it could have been April, but if it were April & the group stayed for 4 months... it would have been summer when they left & no need for Jackets on retreat from the mall. Fran was wearing one when she got in the chopper, doesn't make sense...

If it were October and the zombie plague began, then all would need jackets , and when the ending happens it would still be chilly enough for the jacket Fran was wearing (6 months later),BUT ! had it been four months , we would have seen snow for it would have been mid January. There is no snow apparent when Peter and Fran fly off.
When you look all these factors over ...I'm not going to claim I'm right, but doesnt it all make sense??