GAR questions

[LoneCrusader]

OK, take out the Friday the 13th reference, input any series of "moving pictures with sounds" that you do consider films, and tell me if you suspend your disbelief with inconsistencies in them or not. I only used Friday the 13th as an obvious example. can't think of any examples. all of what i can think of is consistent. and one or two consistencies is nothing. i don't mean to sound like a smartass or anything, but why doesn't george just admit that they're sequels or whatever, if they are? is there some copyright issues or something going on? (which i know he has problems with all the time.)

[Philly_SWAT]

can't think of any examples. all of what i can think of is consistent. and one or two consistencies is nothing. i don't mean to sound like a smartass or anything, but why doesn't george just admit that they're sequels or whatever, if they are? is there some copyright issues or something going on? (which i know he has problems with all the time.) Well, copyright issues would have no bearing on whether a series of movies were sequels or not. But the issue of what we are discussing is not whether they are sequels or not, but whether they exist in the same universe or not. Let me try to put it this way....if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever in Romero's dead movies, would you then consider them to be in the same universe? If your answer to that question is yes, then I submit it would then be a question of whether you choose to accept inconsistencies as being contributed to Romero's low budget, poor advanced planning, regular dude making movies style, or you are unable to suspend your disbelief far enough to accept that and consider them as being in separate universes.

[LoneCrusader]

Well, copyright issues would have no bearing on whether a series of movies were sequels or not. But the issue of what we are discussing is not whether they are sequels or not, but whether they exist in the same universe or not. Let me try to put it this way....if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever in Romero's dead movies, would you then consider them to be in the same universe? If your answer to that question is yes, then I submit it would then be a question of whether you choose to accept inconsistencies as being contributed to Romero's low budget, poor advanced planning, regular dude making movies style, or you are unable to suspend your disbelief far enough to accept that and consider them as being in separate universes. i would accept the inconsistencies if all it was due to was budget or poor planning. but there are some plain-out inconsistent inconsistencies that can't really be attributed to anything other than the fact that they're in separate universes. plus, there's the fact that George always says that they're not directly related.

[clanglee]

What has become of my thread!!!!!! Nah, just kidding. . carry on . . . interesting conversation.

[Philly_SWAT]

i would accept the inconsistencies if all it was due to was budget or poor planning. but there are some plain-out inconsistent inconsistencies that can't really be attributed to anything other than the fact that they're in separate universes. plus, there's the fact that George always says that they're not directly related. "inconsistent inconsistencies"? LOL:lol All I can say is that GAR had said many inconsistent things himself about his own films. And there is a difference between "directly related" and being in the same universe or not. Example: Mel Gibson movies. Braveheart - story about the historical figure William Wallace, set in the 13th century. The Patriot - story about a man in the Revolutionary War in America, set in the 18th century. These movies are certainly not directed related at all. But they are set in the same universe...meaning the real universe, our universe, our collective perceived reality, etc. You are of course perfectly free to interpret them as being in separate universes. That says to me that you are unwilling to suspend your disbelief about the inconsistencies in the movies, which is why I was trying to determine how likely/unlikely you are to suspend your disbelief about any movie. You said you can not think of any inconsistencies in any movies you have ever seen other than Romero's. So I dont know what to make of that. Practically any series of movies, or even single movies, have inconsistencies within them. Perhaps the nature of the inconsistencies in Romero's movies make it easier to stand out in your mind, hence no willingness on your part to suspend your disbelief. As I said, you or anyone is entitled to feel that way. If you want to continue this discussion, then be more specific about the things you are saying so we can have a conversation about them. If not, thats OK too.

[LoneCrusader]

"inconsistent inconsistencies"? LOL:lol All I can say is that GAR had said many inconsistent things himself about his own films. And there is a difference between "directly related" and being in the same universe or not. Example: Mel Gibson movies. Braveheart - story about the historical figure William Wallace, set in the 13th century. The Patriot - story about a man in the Revolutionary War in America, set in the 18th century. These movies are certainly not directed related at all. But they are set in the same universe...meaning the real universe, our universe, our collective perceived reality, etc. You are of course perfectly free to interpret them as being in separate universes. That says to me that you are unwilling to suspend your disbelief about the inconsistencies in the movies, which is why I was trying to determine how likely/unlikely you are to suspend your disbelief about any movie. You said you can not think of any inconsistencies in any movies you have ever seen other than Romero's. So I dont know what to make of that. Practically any series of movies, or even single movies, have inconsistencies within them. Perhaps the nature of the inconsistencies in Romero's movies make it easier to stand out in your mind, hence no willingness on your part to suspend your disbelief. As I said, you or anyone is entitled to feel that way. If you want to continue this discussion, then be more specific about the things you are saying so we can have a conversation about them. If not, thats OK too. Yeah I figured the phrase "inconsistent inconsistencies" made more of a point. i was going to include this in my last post but i took it out. i guess i'll put it here: okay, in dawn, they were hurt by fire, yet in day and land, they don't have arms and legs sometimes but that doesn't hurt them. and how the zombies in land learned even though in the other movies the brains are nothing more than rotting mush. and most series would have one or two inconsistencies. but rarely are the inconsistencies so noticeable or numerous, and even rarer does the writer of it admit that they are not directly related movies, as romero has said.

[Philly_SWAT]

i was going to include this in my last post but i took it out. i guess i'll put it here: okay, in dawn, they were hurt by fire, yet in day and land, they don't have arms and legs sometimes but that doesn't hurt them. and how the zombies in land learned even though in the other movies the brains are nothing more than rotting mush. Whether or not zombies "feel pain" is not addressed at all in any of the films, I dont think. Wanting to not be near fire is a natural human response, and a common theme in all the movies is "they are us". Millard Roush says in Dawn that they appear to have memories from "normal life", using things for bludgeons, for example. It would be a memory of normal life to not want to get near fire. Remember in Night, Ben uses the torch to ward off the zeds, and even sets at least one on fire. Plus they use the molatav cocktails as well. In Day, the zeds appear effected when Logan turns off the lights. In Land, the zeds are memorized by the pretty lights in the air. This all seems consistent to me...the zeds are effected by things just as the living are. And just as all of us are not effected the same way by various things, neither are they. As for the "learning" in Land, a lot of people have trouble with that, although I will say that is the only movie where we actually focus of a few zeds for an extended period. Most of the others we see are just briefly, so we have no idea what they are capable of as far as learning goes. The only other time we see a zed appear to be "learning" is Bub, and he is the only other zed that is focused on. So every time in the series where zeds are actually focused on, we do see them learning, to some extent anyway. and most series would have one or two inconsistencies. but rarely are the inconsistencies so noticeable or numerous, and even rarer does the writer of it admit that they are not directly related movies, as romero has said. Again, whether movies are "directly related" or not has no bearing on whether or not they exist in the same story telling universe. And most movies that the average person sees are Hollywood efforts, where they have more money at their disposal, to pay for extra filming time, have a continuity person getting paid, more people involved with specific responsibilites, etc. Look at it this way. If you planned out your own vision for a series of movies, and made them based on the resources you have right now, over a period of a few decades, do you think that your movies would be masterful examples on consistency, or do you think they would be filled with flaws, despite your best efforts?

[LoneCrusader]

Whether or not zombies "feel pain" is not addressed at all in any of the films, I dont think. Wanting to not be near fire is a natural human response, and a common theme in all the movies is "they are us". Millard Roush says in Dawn that they appear to have memories from "normal life", using things for bludgeons, for example. It would be a memory of normal life to not want to get near fire. Remember in Night, Ben uses the torch to ward off the zeds, and even sets at least one on fire. Plus they use the molatav cocktails as well. In Day, the zeds appear effected when Logan turns off the lights. In Land, the zeds are memorized by the pretty lights in the air. This all seems consistent to me...the zeds are effected by things just as the living are. And just as all of us are not effected the same way by various things, neither are they. As for the "learning" in Land, a lot of people have trouble with that, although I will say that is the only movie where we actually focus of a few zeds for an extended period. Most of the others we see are just briefly, so we have no idea what they are capable of as far as learning goes. The only other time we see a zed appear to be "learning" is Bub, and he is the only other zed that is focused on. So every time in the series where zeds are actually focused on, we do see them learning, to some extent anyway. Again, whether movies are "directly related" or not has no bearing on whether or not they exist in the same story telling universe. And most movies that the average person sees are Hollywood efforts, where they have more money at their disposal, to pay for extra filming time, have a continuity person getting paid, more people involved with specific responsibilites, etc. Look at it this way. If you planned out your own vision for a series of movies, and made them based on the resources you have right now, over a period of a few decades, do you think that your movies would be masterful examples on consistency, or do you think they would be filled with flaws, despite your best efforts? Good points. And like I said I'm not 100% sure. But it seems like George's intents are that they are different universes.

[Philly_SWAT]

Good points. And like I said I'm not 100% sure. But it seems like George's intents are that they are different universes. Two things to say... 1) GAR's intent has little bearing. If I intend to make the funniest movie ever, but anyone that sees it leaves crying and says it is the saddest movie they have ever seen, I submit that I made a sad movie, regardless of my intent. 2) Again, I say that inconsistencies do not mean they are in different universes. Lets say you and I make a historical movie about the civil war, and in a couple of scenes, our lead actor accidentally was wearing a digital wristwatch, and we missed it the entire time, and it made the final edit of the movie. How do you think that people should view our movie, that we set it in the "real universe" and made a mistake with the watch, or that we created a different universe, very similar to the real one, but one in which digital watches existed in the 1860's?