Romero: new movie "more like Dawn"

**RJ_Sevin** · 02-Nov-2008

I really dig the minimalist approach to the zombie look this time around. I'm hopefully optimistic regarding this one. It has the potential to be a truly worthy installment in the series.

**MinionZombie** · 02-Nov-2008

Yojimbo - it won't be a direct sequel to Night, it just means that Night - and indeed Diary - were in the first days of the plague.

Dawn, and now seemingly this new flick, are in the first few weeks of the plague (and who knows, maybe it'll continue on for many more weeks or a few months, like Dawn did?).

None of the films are directly linked, they all just happen to take place in a zombie outbreak, and each new film takes a further leap along in terms of how far into a plague they are.

**krakenslayer** · 02-Nov-2008

Originally Posted by Yojimbo

Confused. The article says that GAR's film takes place a couple of weeks after the original 1968 Night outbreak. Is this then a period piece, with actors and sets dressed up to look like late 1968, or do they mean a couple of weeks after a NOLD-like (modern day) outbreak, after the initial time frame which DIARY was supposed to have happened?

People ALWAYS ask this when a new Romero film comes out. The answer is no, because the setting for these films is timeless - they're always set in the "present day", or the "near future", whenever that happens to be. Night looks like it's set in the 60s because it was shot in the 60s, but that doesn't mean Dawn was set 10 years later. It's like the James Bond movies; they're always set vaguely in the present, while Bond doesn't age.

Pay close attention to the films. GAR actually takes pains to avoid telling the audience what year it is supposed to be.

**Yojimbo** · 02-Nov-2008

Originally Posted by krakenslayer

People ALWAYS ask this when a new Romero film comes out. The answer is no, because the setting for these films is timeless - they're always set in the "present day", or the "near future", whenever that happens to be. Night looks like it's set in the 60s because it was shot in the 60s, but that doesn't mean Dawn was set 10 years later. It's like the James Bond movies; they're always set vaguely in the present, while Bond doesn't age.

Pay close attention to the films. GAR actually takes pains to avoid telling the audience what year it is supposed to be.

I am aware of why night looks like it was set in the 60s, and why Dawn looks like it was in the 70's and that this is a commonly asked question where the answer is typically "No" as you stated.

I realize that it is a common misconception among folks that all the films are tied together in a specific continguous timeline, and obviously this is due to misinterpreting GAR's intention. I realize this because, like most of the freaks here, I have been paying very close attention to the films.

But in this case, I think that this is a fair question, and not one that comes out of an unfamiliarity with the director or his storytelling process, because the article explicitly stated that it was taking place a couple of weeks after the initial 1968 outbreak, rather than saying that it took place a couple weeks after the initial outbreak.

Following the precedents set by GAR with his prior 6 dead films, I would venture to guess that the article is incorrect, though there is always a chance that GAR might throw a curveball here and deviate from his standard practice.

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

Yojimbo - it won't be a direct sequel to Night, it just means that Night - and indeed Diary - were in the first days of the plague.

Dawn, and now seemingly this new flick, are in the first few weeks of the plague (and who knows, maybe it'll continue on for many more weeks or a few months, like Dawn did?).

None of the films are directly linked, they all just happen to take place in a zombie outbreak, and each new film takes a further leap along in terms of how far into a plague they are.

This makes total sense. I assumed that the article was mistaken when it assigned a specific year to the outbreak.

**MoonSylver** · 02-Nov-2008

I think some of the reviewers get their facts a bit jumbled. I assumed they were trying to draw a parallel between how Dawn was a few weeks after Night & this is a few weeks after Diary. I also assumed the "returning characters" referred to Steve/Guardsman/Brubaker. Now if this LITERALLY the same character remains to be seen (& I have my doubts).

I think sometimes it's best to read between the lines on interviews & not take them verbatim.

**Trin** · 03-Nov-2008

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

While I liked Diary, I'm not all that fussed about it... unlike Dawn which I almost know as well as my own cock ... ...

Some things work as hand-held and some just don't.

Let's face it. GAR could have the movie based the day after Night with 2008 cars driving around and the original sheriff reprising his role though the actor is 40 years older. And then Dead Reckoning could pull up with Riley and crew on their way to Canada fresh out of watching the Green get destroyed even though those events are a good 3+ years into the timeline. And then Bub could show up alive working for the military pre-Day and then Bub could show up dead post-Day and Bub could kill Bub.

And GAR would not think twice about the consistency issues.

**MinionZombie** · 03-Nov-2008

Originally Posted by Trin

Some things work as hand-held and some just don't.

Let's face it. GAR could have the movie based the day after Night with 2008 cars driving around and the original sheriff reprising his role though the actor is 40 years older. And then Dead Reckoning could pull up with Riley and crew on their way to Canada fresh out of watching the Green get destroyed even though those events are a good 3+ years into the timeline. And then Bub could show up alive working for the military pre-Day and then Bub could show up dead post-Day and Bub could kill Bub.

And GAR would not think twice about the consistency issues.

Yeah ... ... I doubt that's gonna happen.

**clanglee** · 04-Nov-2008

Originally Posted by Trin

Some things work as hand-held and some just don't.

Let's face it. GAR could have the movie based the day after Night with 2008 cars driving around and the original sheriff reprising his role though the actor is 40 years older. And then Dead Reckoning could pull up with Riley and crew on their way to Canada fresh out of watching the Green get destroyed even though those events are a good 3+ years into the timeline. And then Bub could show up alive working for the military pre-Day and then Bub could show up dead post-Day and Bub could kill Bub.

And GAR would not think twice about the consistency issues.

And we would STILL go see the movie!!