So which Night film is canon to George's series, original or remake?

[JDP]

What an ABSURD comparison? Why, that analogy is completely OFF THE CHARTS! Yes, it is, but remember: it is all yours, no one else's! You are the one who kept implying so over and over.

[EvilNed]

Yes, it is, but remember: it is all yours, no one else's! You are the one who kept implying so over and over. Never change, JDP. Never change. You're an infinite source of irony, humour and contradictions. I also admire your willpower!

[JDP]

Never change, JDP. Never change. You're an infinite source of irony, humour and contradictions. I also admire your willpower! Contradictions? But that's YOUR department! I mean, who else but you could possibly conclude that the ambiguous and totally open to interpretation "3 years" bit in Land is an example of "textbook exposition" just like the unambiguous, clear and specific "3 week" bit in Dawn actually is

[EvilNed]

Contradictions? But that's YOUR department! I mean, who else but you could possibly conclude that the ambiguous and totally open to interpretation "3 years" bit in Land is an example of "textbook exposition" just like the unambiguous, clear and specific "3 week" bit in Dawn actually is I know you're joking, but your previous behavior does make me doubt somewhat.

[JDP]

I know you're joking, but your previous behavior does make me doubt somewhat. Where's the "joke"? In your constant denials and invented "rules" about story-telling, I suppose. One is clearly written and in the appropriate context (the zombies themselves) to allow anyone to reach the only plausible conclusion that the scriptwriter had in mind, the other one is written in a way that does not compel anyone to have to interpret it as being necessarily about the zombies. One does not have any plausible alternative explanations, the other one does. They are not homologous by any means.

[EvilNed]

Where's the "joke"? In your constant denials and invented "rules" about story-telling, I suppose. The joke is that you can't see the irony in your arguments. I assume you're joking?

[JDP]

The joke is that you can't see the irony in your arguments. I assume you're joking? There isn't any "irony" in them. Do you seriously think that both time-references in these two movies are written with equal clarity and unambiguity? This is where we are not sure if you are joking, being purposefully obtuse, or honestly not getting it.

[Philly_SWAT]

There isn't any "irony" in them. Do you seriously think that both time-references in these two movies are written with equal clarity and unambiguity? This is where we are not sure if you are joking, being purposefully obtuse, or honestly not getting it. JDP, here is a thought experiment for you. Let's assume that you and another person appear to have an honest disagreement about some movie related minutiae, for example, time settings in a couple of George A. Romero movies. You both earnestly believe what you believe, and you both want to have an honest, intelligent discussion/debate about your varying views. If you ask the other person " Do you seriously think that both time-references in these two movies are written with equal clarity and unambiguity?", there is only two basic answers they could give, either yes or no (obviously). If they say yes, you may strongly disagree, but that is their honest opinion, and them ever agreeing with you is unlikely, although fun and intelligent debate can continue. If they say no, they may feel that agreeing to a point of yours may make it seem as if they are 'granting you a win' in your overall argument, so they might have to answer more than just a straight no, but say something like "well, it is less ambiguous and more clear in Dawn than in Day, however, that in and of itself doesn't disprove my point, or dissuade me from it", which is a fair answer. But, if for about 8 posts in a row your verbal sparring partner were to ignore any earnest question you ask, and instead simply say that you must be joking, are absurd, or full of irony, to me, that is ample evidence that they are in no way engaging in honest debate, but more or less messing with you and/or experimenting with some internet-typing-green-energy experiments or something. In a case like that, I would suggest that you take a different approach to your discussion method. I dont know what that different approach would be, however, trying to engage in a honest discussion by using logic and intelligent questions to elicit worthwhile views is a fruitless exercise against someone who had no interest in honest debate. Unless you enjoy metaphorically beating your head against a brick wall, then ignore what i have suggested and continue to bang away.

[JDP]

JDP, here is a thought experiment for you. Let's assume that you and another person appear to have an honest disagreement about some movie related minutiae, for example, time settings in a couple of George A. Romero movies. You both earnestly believe what you believe, and you both want to have an honest, intelligent discussion/debate about your varying views. If you ask the other person " Do you seriously think that both time-references in these two movies are written with equal clarity and unambiguity?", there is only two basic answers they could give, either yes or no (obviously). If they say yes, you may strongly disagree, but that is their honest opinion, and them ever agreeing with you is unlikely, although fun and intelligent debate can continue. If they say no, they may feel that agreeing to a point of yours may make it seem as if they are 'granting you a win' in your overall argument, so they might have to answer more than just a straight no, but say something like "well, it is less ambiguous and more clear in Dawn than in Day, however, that in and of itself doesn't disprove my point, or dissuade me from it", which is a fair answer. But, if for about 8 posts in a row your verbal sparring partner were to ignore any earnest question you ask, and instead simply say that you must be joking, are absurd, or full of irony, to me, that is ample evidence that they are in no way engaging in honest debate, but more or less messing with you and/or experimenting with some internet-typing-green-energy experiments or something. In a case like that, I would suggest that you take a different approach to your discussion method. I dont know what that different approach would be, however, trying to engage in a honest discussion by using logic and intelligent questions to elicit worthwhile views is a fruitless exercise against someone who had no interest in honest debate. Unless you enjoy metaphorically beating your head against a brick wall, then ignore what i have suggested and continue to bang away. Well, it certainly is puzzling whether he actually cannot see the evident difference between both dialogues or if he actually does but up to now he has refused to admit it. Here is hoping that one day he will actually be honest about it and come clean.

[EvilNed]

There isn't any "irony" in them. Do you seriously think that both time-references in these two movies are written with equal clarity and unambiguity? This is where we are not sure if you are joking, being purposefully obtuse, or honestly not getting it. There is an obvious parallell to draw. If you can't see the irony in you arguing for a few months vehemently over a few lines of dialogue in land referencing a "3 year"-timespan and then taking a diametrically opposite stance on a very similar line in Dawn of the Dead then you are simply not big on irony.

[JDP]

There is an obvious parallell to draw. If you can't see the irony in you arguing for a few months vehemently over a few lines of dialogue in land referencing a "3 year"-timespan and then taking a diametrically opposite stance on a very similar line in Dawn of the Dead then you are simply not big on irony. There is no "irony" here, since the line in Dawn is certainly not very similar to those of Land. The contexts are very different. The line in Dawn happens right smack in the middle of a heated argument about the zombies and what they do. There is no possible mistaking it for anything else. Even bassman's very implausible "alternative interpretation" still cannot avoid the obvious and necessary connection of the 3 weeks with the zombies (he thinks that it could mean that Dr.Foster has been butting heads with those stubborn people for 3 weeks... but he would still be doing so because of the zombies. There just is no way to eliminate the zombies out of the equation here, they are very obviously the subject matter of the 3 weeks.) The "3 years" references in Land, on the other hand, happen in very different contexts that do not directly appertain to the zombies, they are thus conceivably open to other plausible interpretations that do not necessarily involve the zombies. It is very simple, and it would in fact be very puzzling if you really cannot grasp something so easy.

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, it certainly is puzzling whether he actually cannot see the evident difference between both dialogues or if he actually does but up to now he has refused to admit it. Here is hoping that one day he will actually be honest about it and come clean. It isn't puzzling to me. He isn't actually trying to see or being honest in his arguments. You are trying to find order amid chaos.

[JDP]

It isn't puzzling to me. He isn't actually trying to see or being honest in his arguments. You are trying to find order amid chaos. I certainly understand why you would conclude that. I mean, he's been around these forums for 12 years and has been engaged in these discussions for about that long. But I usually like giving people the benefit of the doubt. So, I am still entertaining the possibility that maybe he is not doing it wholly on purpose and hasn't really thought more carefully about the subject.

[EvilNed]

There is no "irony" here, since the line in Dawn is certainly not very similar to those of Land. Stopped reading there. There is a great irony in here. I already spelled it out to you. You can deny it if you like I guess. Maybe your life is better off for it. Maybe you don't care. Maybe this is a stupid argument to begin with.

[JDP]

Stopped reading there. There is a great irony in here. I already spelled it out to you. You can deny it if you like I guess. Maybe your life is better off for it. Maybe you don't care. Maybe this is a stupid argument to begin with. We all know that you didn't stop reading. Again, 12 years do not lie but easily betray you. Stop being purposefully obtuse, kid. You are not really this dense.