Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate

[BillyRay]

While his movies do not feature the same characters they share a universe and a progressive/chronological order. Are you certain about that? I've never seen any indication of a shared universe/timeline in the first 4 films. There's been a lot of spirited, intelligent debate about where, in a shared timeline, each movie "fits". It's been a stitch lurking on the thread. But apart from the same Director (& the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario) I haven't found any clues that would suggest that these movies do share a world. (Apart from the Biker Zombie in Land, but to me that's just fan-service, not concrete evidence) I know that Mr. Romero is connecting the new movies (Franchise reboot? Ugh, let's not use that term) together using reoccuring characters. It'll be neat to see where he goes with the worldbuilding in Survival & beyond. But don't let my smart/half assed opinions spoil anybody's fun...

[krakenslayer]

Are you certain about that? I've never seen any indication of a shared universe/timeline in the first 4 films. There's been a lot of spirited, intelligent debate about where, in a shared timeline, each movie "fits". It's been a stitch lurking on the thread. But apart from the same Director (& the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario) I haven't found any clues that would suggest that these movies do share a world. (Apart from the Biker Zombie in Land, but to me that's just fan-service, not concrete evidence) I know that Mr. Romero is connecting the new movies (Franchise reboot? Ugh, let's not use that term) together using reoccuring characters. It'll be neat to see where he goes with the worldbuilding in Survival & beyond. But don't let my smart/half assed opinions spoil anybody's fun... Okay, so it's not internal evidence from the films themselves, but Romero has, on numerous occasions, bemoaned the tangled rights situation that prevents him from bringing back old characters. Ages ago, long before Land was released or even written, there was an interview (I'll see if I can find it, if it still exists) where he mentions wanting to show the survivors from Dawn "in the background" somewhere in the new movie, just to tie it to the old films. Does anyone else remember that? Also, Diary uses audio from the Night of the Living Dead radio broadcasts in some of the news montages.

[BillyRay]

I can see where you're coming from, but is intent the same as continuity?

[Philly_SWAT]

I have been lurking around just not posting too much work has been hectic and I do most of my reading and posting from here so... I read more than I post. Just glad to see you post from time to time so I know you are still alive! Remember, you would be my primary person to want to have with me in a zombie outbreak. So many good and interesting points on all sides it is a fun topic, like I said though to me personally I just see land as fourth. It came out fourth... I do not know why GAR would go back in time and no call it a prequel or something. It would be too confusing and too inconsistent. Hmm....so many things I could say here,....(like a sarcastic comment about GAR, who is well known for not paying attention to detail, going out of his way to NOT be confusing and/or inconsistent ) but I'll sya this...ever see Pulp Fiction? I assume you have. I have had 4 different people ask me some form of "How was John Travolta alive at the end of the movie when we saw him die earlier?" A lot of people in general are not that bright, and easily confused. Tarrentino could have put a big banner on screen that said "SCENES NOT SHOWN IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER", but gave his audience some credit to try to figure that out on their own. Perhaps GAR did the same thing. I again point to the state of decay in the zombies, their make up progressed from Night, to Dawn, to Day, to Land. They use more prosthetics and exaggerate the decay. They add in more zombies like the lady during the initial fireworks scene who is clearly severely decayed. The make up work shows more patches of no skin in areas or taught skin which screams to me it is beyond the point in day. I am not sure this points to anything in relation to the timeline. It could be attributed to better make up techniques when Land was filmed. I am not even sure I agree with your premise. Dr Tongue looked pretty decayed to me. Oh and and as has been said before, not being able to communicate with people does not indicate a lack of people just an inability to reach them. There are so many reasons why this might be the case. True enough. Although one perfectly valid reason would be that there are less people seen in Day because they are further into the outbreak and therefore less people on Earth. I am not trying to convince you, I respect your opinion as I said just some of the reasons why I feel as I do. Understood. Post more often dude! Are you certain about that? I've never seen any indication of a shared universe/timeline in the first 4 films. To my way of thinking, there is no reason at all to assume that they do NOT share the same universe/timeline. There's been a lot of spirited, intelligent debate about where, in a shared timeline, each movie "fits". It's been a stitch lurking on the thread. But apart from the same Director (& the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario) I haven't found any clues that would suggest that these movies do share a world. (Apart from the Biker Zombie in Land, but to me that's just fan-service, not concrete evidence) Having recurring characters is not a requirement to have movies set in the same universe. Take two movies...."Gettysburg" and "Saving Private Ryan". They have no characters in common, no actors, different director, different setting, different everything. The only thing they have in common is war, but two totally different styles of fighting. Are these two movies set in the same universe, along the same timeline? Of course, they are set in our own "real" universe, the one we live in. They are looking at historical events in the past. Tom Hanks character never mentions the battle of Gettysburg in his movie, yet you have to assume that a high ranking officer in World War II would know of a very important battle in the US Civil War. Sure, Savini's Biker zombie was just "fan-service" as you call it, however, either you assume that GAR created a universe that was very similar to our own universe with the major difference being that the dead rise and wish to attack the living, or that he created FOUR SEPARATE story-telling universes that are not related to each other. That would seem to be ludacris. But don't let my smart/half assed opinions spoil anybody's fun... Your half assed opinions ADD to the fun! Okay, so it's not internal evidence from the films themselves, but Romero has, on numerous occasions, bemoaned the tangled rights situation that prevents him from bringing back old characters. Ages ago, long before Land was released or even written, there was an interview (I'll see if I can find it, if it still exists) where he mentions wanting to show the survivors from Dawn "in the background" somewhere in the new movie, just to tie it to the old films. Does anyone else remember that? I seem to remember that, but I cant recall where/if I saw/heard it. Although, as I mentioned above, I dont think it is necessary to have blatant evidence in one movie to show that the next movie is set in the same universe. I can see where you're coming from, but is intent the same as continuity? Ummm......I would say that intent is not the same as continuity, however, I think you use those words inappropriately here. If GAR 'intended' to have characters from Dawn in the background to tie-into the old films, but didnt, that doesnt have anything to do one way or the other with whether the "dead films" are set in the same universe. There was some super long thread about this in the past that you could search for if you so wished. But just like Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan doesnt have to say "Boy I really feel like Robert E. Lee at the battle of Gettysburg, a very difficult task ahead of me finding this Private Ryan" in order for the two films to be set in the same universe, neither do the characters from Dawn need to be seen in Land or Day to in order for all the films to be set in the same universe.

[BillyRay]

Having recurring characters is not a requirement to have movies set in the same universe. I thought that a shared universe was just that: reoccurring characters, reoccurring locations. Like Marvel or DC Comics have a shared universe. But I'll quibble more below.. Take two movies...."Gettysburg" and "Saving Private Ryan". They have no characters in common, no actors, different director, different setting, different everything. The only thing they have in common is war, but two totally different styles of fighting. Are these two movies set in the same universe, along the same timeline? Technically, if that were true, that would make "Star Wars" part of that same universe too. It also has war, and a different style of fighting. But...you did argue that your examples are set in a "real" universe. (Just wanted to play Devil's Advocate.) So does every movie taking place during wartime (at least the ones attempting some kind of historical accuracy) belong to that same universe? Or, for that matter, any movie taking place in the "real" world? Do "Schindler's List" and the latest Romantic Comedy drek out of Hollywood share a universe, then? Sure, Savini's Biker zombie was just "fan-service" as you call it, however, either you assume that GAR created a universe that was very similar to our own universe with the major difference being that the dead rise and wish to attack the living, or that he created FOUR SEPARATE story-telling universes that are not related to each other. That would seem to be ludacris. Not as much as you might think. Thematicly, they're all quite distinct. That doesn't necessarilly mean seperate Universes (universii?), but GAR tends to write his zombie stories as metaphors, so a continuity between films is unnecessary, and not implied. That's been my impression. I dont think it is necessary to have blatant evidence in one movie to show that the next movie is set in the same universe. If GAR 'intended' to have characters from Dawn in the background to tie-into the old films, but didnt, that doesnt have anything to do one way or the other with whether the "dead films" are set in the same universe. But, if you only have the 'Zombie Apocalypse' as a through-line tying those films together, in theory any zombie film would qualify as part of Continuity (but not necesarilly Canon) It's the individual storylines we would be following that would build the Shared Universe. Your half assed opinions ADD to the fun! Can I use that as a sig?

[Philly_SWAT]

I thought that a shared universe was just that: reoccurring characters, reoccurring locations. Like Marvel or DC Comics have a shared universe. But I'll quibble more below.. I am not sure if you are saying there is a difference between a "shared universe" and "the same universe". But yes, most Marvel comics are in the same story telling universe. Except for titles like the "What If" series. Depending on your age you may or may not remember that series, but each comic asked a different question, like "What is DareDevil never went blind?" and then the whole comic was dedicated to examining that. Another example...if you read a single Spider-Man comic, and in that comic there was NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the Fantastic Four, that wouldnt mean that somehow it was set in a different universe. Technically, if that were true, that would make "Star Wars" part of that same universe too. It also has war, and a different style of fighting. Not sure if you are just being funny, or missing the point. In case it is the latter and not the former, the fact that both movies involved war was irrelevant, just thought they would be easy examples to see that they were in the same universe, the 'real' one. But...you did argue that your examples are set in a "real" universe. (Just wanted to play Devil's Advocate.) So does every movie taking place during wartime (at least the ones attempting some kind of historical accuracy) belong to that same universe? Or, for that matter, any movie taking place in the "real" world? Do "Schindler's List" and the latest Romantic Comedy drek out of Hollywood share a universe, then? If the latest Romantic Comedy did nothing to imply it wasnt set in the real universe, then yes, it would be in the same universe as Schindlers List. Same way that in real life, Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Palin both existed in the same universe, just at different times. Not as much as you might think. Thematicly, they're all quite distinct. That doesn't necessarilly mean seperate Universes (universii?), but GAR tends to write his zombie stories as metaphors, so a continuity between films is unnecessary, and not implied. That's been my impression. Yes, thematically GAR's dead movies are quite different. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not they are set in the same universe. But, if you only have the 'Zombie Apocalypse' as a through-line tying those films together, in theory any zombie film would qualify as part of Continuity (but not necesarilly Canon) Not true. But if a non-GAR zombie movie followed the same 'rules' (as inconsistent as they may be) as a GAR film, then you could argue that they exist in the same universe. Dawn04 would not be in the same universe, as the zeds run and not shamble. Can I use that as a sig? Of course! Feel free!

[BillyRay]

I guess the telling thing about your last post (imho) was the 'yes' on "Schindlers List" and "Romantic Comedy Taking Place in the Real World #287" taking place in the same universe. Really? Is a continuity between films with a similar grasp of 'reality' really that necessary, then? In zombie and non-zombie films? Not that I'm not enjoying the mental exercise, but I'm trying to figure why they would have to be. After all, they're all 'imaginary stories'; to take a phrase from the comics lexicon. Do the Dead movies need to be part of a larger narrative? Even if there isn't any concrete evidence supporting the existence of that shared/same universe?

[Philly_SWAT]

I guess the telling thing about your last post (imho) was the 'yes' on "Schindlers List" and "Romantic Comedy Taking Place in the Real World #287" taking place in the same universe. Really? Is a continuity between films with a similar grasp of 'reality' really that necessary, then? In zombie and non-zombie films? Not that I'm not enjoying the mental exercise, but I'm trying to figure why they would have to be. After all, they're all 'imaginary stories'; to take a phrase from the comics lexicon. Do the Dead movies need to be part of a larger narrative? Even if there isn't any concrete evidence supporting the existence of that shared/same universe? I think you must be mis-interpreting "continuity" and "same universe" as the same thing. I re-paste a good example from my last post If the latest Romantic Comedy did nothing to imply it wasnt set in the real universe, then yes, it would be in the same universe as Schindlers List. Same way that in real life, Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Palin both existed in the same universe, just at different times. Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Palin have very little to do with each other (both Republican, but thats about it). To learn about, read about, try to understand, etc. anything about one of them, you dont NEED to know anything about the other. They are not really related to each other in any way. However, they both exist in the same universe. The "real universe', for lack of a better term. Schlindlers List is also set in the "real universe", it is based on true events. The lastest dumbass romantic comedy, unless specifically identified as NOT being in this universe (for example, "My Ex-Girlfriend is a Superhero" is a romantic comedy, but Uma Thurman can fly, etc), then it is implied that it IS set in the real universe. Take the movie "Love Happens". The same way that you dont SEE Jennifer Aniston taking a shit...you dont see the shit coming out of her ass...you still assume that her character does in fact take a shit. It just makes for boring movies to focus on irrelevant stuff like that (OK I know some people WOULD like to see whole movies of that, but that is porn, and not part of this discussion). So you also assume that Jennifer Aniston's character breathes air (not water) that she has red blood (not green) there is a President in charge of the United States (not a king) etc, even though those things arent directly said to the audience. So "Love Happens" is set in the "real universe" even though it is a fictional story. Schindlers List is also set in the "real universe", but it is a true story.