GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline

[EvilNed]

He would have saved money by making clothes, hairstyles, cars and whathaveyou? No, he really wouldn't have...Not to mention that it's a logistics and continuity nightmare to make sure nothing is anachronistic. Friggin' Die Hard 2 had 10x the budget of every Dead film combined and they couldn't even make the Pay Phones say something other than Pacific Bell for a movie that takes place in DC... Yes, he would have. Dead Reckoning the tank... Nuff said'. Ravenous is set in the 19th century and has a lower budget than Land. Aguirre - the Wrath of God was made on a shoestring budget and still features lots of extras, costumes and weaponry.

[capncnut]

Has anyone checked out the poll scores? There's a bit of a head-to-head going on with the top two, damn interesting. Not only that but The Alive Man theory is ranked 3rd out of 5!!!

[The Alive Man]

Has anyone checked out the poll scores? There's a bit of a head-to-head going on with the top two, damn interesting. Not only that but The Alive Man theory is ranked 3rd out of 5!!! I say: SH*T HAPPENS.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Voted same universe, different timelines. Congratulations dracenstein, you have voted correct! Unlike the guy beneath who not only voted for the incorrect option ... but also managed to make "a good funny" by misspelling quite a relevant word it happens on ther same universe and the same time line romero is the one who will dicate the years and the time line .... ahhhhhhhhhhh all this intellect makes my somewhat intellegent brain hurt. Intellegent? Say what? On ther? Say somewhat? What? http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...&q=Intelligent

[dracenstein]

I know. Thanks for acknowledging my superior wisdom.

[N2NOther]

Yes, he would have. Dead Reckoning the tank... Nuff said'. Ravenous is set in the 19th century and has a lower budget than Land. Aguirre - the Wrath of God was made on a shoestring budget and still features lots of extras, costumes and weaponry. There is a difference between a period piece with era cars and one with horses and cabins and such...Replicating an era where "modern" technology didn't exist at all is a lot cheaper and easier than replicating the 60's...It's a logical conclusion...Setting something in the 19th century while having your primary location be a fort in the woods is much more affordable than recreating the look of a city in the 60's. DIE HARD 2 is horrid. A) No it really isn't and B) What you think of Die Hard 2 is irrelevant to this dicussion.

[EvilNed]

There is a difference between a period piece with era cars and one with horses and cabins and such...Replicating an era where "modern" technology didn't exist at all is a lot cheaper and easier than replicating the 60's...It's a logical conclusion...Setting something in the 19th century while having your primary location be a fort in the woods is much more affordable than recreating the look of a city in the 60's. That's bullcrap, especially considering you have to design and create all the customs from scratch either way. Making it in the 60's wouldn't make the film any more expensive. Why would it? Land of the Dead had sets and costumes designed for the 00's. They could easily have done the same, but with the 60's. Whitnail & I from 1987. Low budget. Takes place in the 60's. I mean, there's really no excuse for Land. It could have been in the 60's had Romero wanted it too.

[N2NOther]

That's bullcrap, especially considering you have to design and create all the customs from scratch either way. Making it in the 60's wouldn't make the film any more expensive. Why would it? Cars, phones, clothes, advertisements, buidling faces...Just a few of the things that would be a design nightmare from a budget standpoint. Land of the Dead had sets and costumes designed for the 00's. They could easily have done the same, but with the 60's. Clothing companies often donate their product to films for free... Whitnail & I from 1987. Low budget. Takes place in the 60's. I mean, there's really no excuse for Land. It could have been in the 60's had Romero wanted it too. It could have and he didn't want it to...Because like Land, Night is supposed to be era-less...It should be viewed as if it happened 3 years prior to Land...This is an easy concept to grasp.

[EvilNed]

Cars, phones, clothes, advertisements, buidling faces...Just a few of the things that would be a design nightmare from a budget standpoint. Clothing companies often donate their product to films for free... What cars, phones, clothes, advertisements and building faces did you see in Land that could not have just as easily/painstakingly have been replaced with ones from the 60's? Fact is it's all manufactured from scratch, especially in a film like Land where there's really no marketing involved. As I've already said; it would not have been any more expensive to make it set in the 60's. It could have and he didn't want it to...Because like Land, Night is supposed to be era-less...It should be viewed as if it happened 3 years prior to Land...This is an easy concept to grasp. Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Land doesn't take place 3 years after Night, it simply takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It has little to no connection (timeline-wise) to Night. It's set NOW, just as Night is set NOW (back in the 60's) and both reflect their respective times.

[N2NOther]

What cars, phones, clothes, advertisements and building faces did you see in Land that could not have just as easily/painstakingly have been replaced with ones from the 60's? Fact is it's all manufactured from scratch, especially in a film like Land where there's really no marketing involved. As I've already said; it would not have been any more expensive to make it set in the 60's. Yeah it really would have. Getting a slew of cars and trucks for the scenes in Land would have cost more money than getting modern cars...Look at what Jackson had to do with Kong in order to set it in 1930's NY...He could have saved a ****-load of money setting it now... Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Land doesn't take place 3 years after Night, it simply takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It has little to no connection (timeline-wise) to Night. It's set NOW, just as Night is set NOW (back in the 60's) and both reflect their respective times. It's still the same timeline...They exist in one timeline Night, then Dawn 3 weeks later, then Day months later and Land 3 years...That's been my whole point on this...For him to make everything fit as if it took place in the 60's is pointless...

[Danny]

dont make me get out the beating a dead horse image again. ready. set. FLAME ON!

[EvilNed]

Yeah it really would have. Getting a slew of cars and trucks for the scenes in Land would have cost more money than getting modern cars...Look at what Jackson had to do with Kong in order to set it in 1930's NY...He could have saved a ****-load of money setting it now... My grandfather was involved in the filming of Road to Perdition. He and a bunch of guys were asked to participate with their old cars. Guess what? They did it for free. Basicly, you have to get the equipment there somehow. It would have been cheaper to get and trash old cars than to get and trash new cars. It's still the same timeline...They exist in one timeline Night, then Dawn 3 weeks later, then Day months later and Land 3 years...That's been my whole point on this...For him to make everything fit as if it took place in the 60's is pointless... As you can clearly see, it's pretty obvious that this argument is more or less impossible. In Land there are radars and personal tanks. In Night, the most advanced thing is a bolt action rifle.

[N2NOther]

They did it free? Lucky Sam Mendes...The guy who directed an Academy Award winning film. Clout goes a long way. As you can clearly see, it's pretty obvious that this argument is more or less impossible. In Land there are radars and personal tanks. In Night, the most advanced thing is a bolt action rifle. Because you're looking at the films literally in their repsective era...Which is clearly not the intention...But hey, you think what you want...You're wrong and you seem to be ok with it.

[EvilNed]

They did it free? Lucky Sam Mendes...The guy who directed an Academy Award winning film. Clout goes a long way. Fact is people support these kinds of things for fun all the time. Not everytime, but alot of time. And besides, I bet any car they needed wouldn't have cost awhole lot more than those already in the film. Probably less. Because you're looking at the films literally in their repsective era...Which is clearly not the intention...But hey, you think what you want...You're wrong and you seem to be ok with it. Uhm. You're wrong. It is CLEARLY the intention to look at them in their respective era, and infact one of the main reasons you'll find political statements within the films. It's obvious how much stuff you actually dismiss outright and ignore just to support your theory. So now that I've crushed your "Romero couldn't have made a 60's film because of a lack of budget!" argument, I guess all you have left is... nothing.

[N2NOther]

Fact is people support these kinds of things for fun all the time. Not everytime, but alot of time. And besides, I bet any car they needed wouldn't have cost awhole lot more than those already in the film. Probably less. Tell you what...You go find out how much it would cost to make a film with the same plots/locations as the other Dead films to all take place in the 60's and then you get back to me...Otherwise all you have is an extremely ignorant knowledge of filmmaking. Uhm. You're wrong. It is CLEARLY the intention to look at them in their respective era, and infact one of the main reasons you'll find political statements within the films. It's obvious how much stuff you actually dismiss outright and ignore just to support your theory. So now that I've crushed your "Romero couldn't have made a 60's film because of a lack of budget!" argument, I guess all you have left is... nothing. No, I didn't say it was just because of budget...Budget is PART of the reason. If his goal and intention is to reflect his view of the socio-political world in it's modern climate then worrying about such things as making the film look like it takes place in the 60's is unimportant...The look of the era is not important to these films so he can free up his budget (which have all been low) to address the issues he wants to address...You haven't crushed anything...In order for that to happen you would need PROOF not your erroneous conjecture and speculation...So you started with nothing and still have nothing. GR: Well, I’m sort of going back to the roots, basically. I’m going back to the first night, when things started. You know, I’ve done the four films in the series… can’t call it a trilogy anymore, cause there’s four of them… but I wanted to… you know there’s a lot of sort of unanswered questions. People keep saying, “Well, you know, like, can animals come back from the dead?” and a million unanswered questions… So I wanted to go back to the very first night, the first night that it started, and I wanted do it from like a different, completely different perspective… and have characters that learn about it the way… in the original Night, you know the people in the farmhouse learn about it on the news and, you know, not so much from first-hand experience because they’re just locked up in this house. So I wanted a new set of characters… and sort of like, I don’t know, Skip and Spector did those books called Book of the Dead, and so it’s basically going back to the beginning with a different set of character and taking the whole phenomenon as it comes. Romero is clearly stating that in Diary we will see a different perspective of the events of START of the outbreak that were covered in Night...