Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 175

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

  1. #136
    Chasing Prey shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,193
    Ireland
    Because some people want it to be.

    Romero's laughing his arse off somewhere.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  2. #137
    Just been bitten Monrozombi's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hershey PA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    227
    United States
    or hanging his head wondering wtf is wrong w some people

  3. #138
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    590
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Monrozombi View Post
    I’m trying to figure out why this is a thing in the first place
    Not only is it a "thing", but it has been going on for a long time, and not only in this site. Example:

    http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Doe...lypse/id/12832

    Quote Originally Posted by Bingowings; Time 13-May-2011
    The first three certainly seem to follow an arc.

    A sudden outbreak where the recently dead rise again and look quite fresh, the living still outnumber the undead and the local 'militia' in the locality of the farmhouse eventually get that area cleared but chaos is described in the cities.

    People refuse to destroy corpses and the emergency broadcast system (seen in the first film) is inaccurate and sending people into danger zones.

    The characters of the second film fly over redneck militias like those in the first film who make sport of shooting the undead but pockets between the cities go missed (like the petrol station). The Mall draws zombies from all around. The zombies seem a bit more decayed and the numbers are definitely on the rise.

    In Day Of The Dead the undead are much more decayed and outnumber the living, there is no visible government and what military does exist is are cut off and is reluctantly following orders given a long time ago.

    If Land Of The Dead does fit in it could be between Dawn and Day but to be honest it feels out of place(it certainly feels more like an eighties film than Day does).

    Diary Of The Dead in my view can not be made to fit in with the first three films or the fourth.

    I haven't seen Survival Of The Dead so I can't comment on it.
    And as to "why?": well, read the various threads on this subject found around the net. What the guy quoted above pointed out are merely a couple of the many observations and arguments that can be easily brought up against seeing this movie as taking place after Day. Land is the only movie in Romero's zombie series that has sparked such endless debates regarding where exactly in the time-line it belongs. And it has to do with certain plot elements and details the movie introduced which conflict with those of the previous 2 movies, specially with Day. Romero should have more carefully planned this film and tried to "iron out" the several problems these plot elements introduced. "As is", it is hardly clear at all when exactly are the events in this movie happening in relation to even the later stages of Dawn, so needless to say in relation to Day.
    Last edited by JDP; 6 Days Ago at 01:17 PM. Reason: ;

  4. #139
    Just been bitten Monrozombi's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hershey PA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    227
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Not only is it a "thing", but it has been going on for a long time, and not only in this site. Example:

    http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Doe...lypse/id/12832



    And as to "why?": well, read the various threads on this subject found around the net. What the guy quoted above pointed out are merely a couple of the many observations and arguments that can be easily brought up against seeing this movie as taking place after Day. Land is the only movie in Romero's zombie series that has sparked such endless debates regarding where exactly in the time-line it belongs. And it has to do with certain plot elements and details the movie introduced which conflict with those of the previous 2 movies, specially with Day. Romero should have more carefully planned this film and tried to "iron out" the several problems these plot elements introduced. "As is", it is hardly clear at all when exactly are the events in this movie happening in relation to even the later stages of Dawn, so needless to say in relation to Day.
    I think Ned said it once, in Day they're still searching for survivors and talking about talking with Washington like it was recent memory and clinging to that for hope. In Land, they got what they got.

    Honestly I spent enough time around George that I never heard this be brought up to him and I don't think Land is before Day and I don't think he had any intention to put it there let alone put clues in to say otherwise.

  5. #140
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    590
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Monrozombi View Post
    I think Ned said it once, in Day they're still searching for survivors and talking about talking with Washington like it was recent memory and clinging to that for hope. In Land, they got what they got.
    But why would they want to look for survivors in Land when there's a whole bunch of people already thriving! Can't you see that that by itself is already a huge contradiction to the bleak and increasingly devastated world shown in both Dawn and Day??? The progression of these two movies is very clear: people are dwindling, zombies are thriving, not the other way around. That's why by the time of Day finding any other survivors has become quite the task. There seems to hardly be anyone else left around, at least on top ground. Even what's left of the government itself has been driven underground. Add to this problem the fact that Romero makes these outposts of Land to be an early development during the zombie crisis (the media itself reported their existence while it was still around), and you have yet another paradox: why are the people in the world of Dawn and Day (all of them very interested in finding out what's going on "out there" with other survivors) totally oblivious to the existence of these huge outposts with thousands of people thriving, which even the media had already reported while it was still around??? Land is a bagful of problems and contradictions if you try to see it as happening after Day.

    Honestly I spent enough time around George that I never heard this be brought up to him and I don't think Land is before Day and I don't think he had any intention to put it there let alone put clues in to say otherwise.
    Very strange that no one brought all these discrepancies and problems to his attention. Someone should have, specially before he actually made the movie. Maybe he could have worked out many of these details in a better way that would not conflict so much with the other movies.

  6. #141
    Just been bitten Monrozombi's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hershey PA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    227
    United States
    they weren't looking for survivors in Land? they were supply gathering, doing the jobs they had assigned.

    I've seen Land happening after Day since the first time I saw it and while on set. I've never once thought of it happening before Day and this thread is the only place in 13 years that i've ever seen it brought up and its only maybe one or 2 people so i doubt the problem is as big as you say it was.

    As for nobody bringing it up to George, maybe that should tell you that its widely accepted that Land is after Day. George didn't concern himself with timelines and intricacies that fans spend time plowing through looking for things that aren't there.

    At the end of the day, to me, this is a non-issue becoming an issue because some people are looking for things that aren't there. Which causes people to trivialize and dig for stuff to prove their pointer because its more important that the views of one or two people mean an entire fandom should change what it has seen has something that isn't an issue to begin with.

    - - - Updated - - -

    also in Dawn which is a few weeks after the outbreak who is putting up big outposts? they weren't outposts they were rescue stations, gyms, hospitals, nothing like you see in Land

    Again thats digging for something that isn't there because it wasn't part of the story. No matter how much you want it to be that wasn't something George was concerning himself with because it wasn't important to the story in Dawn. So saying why didn't the people in Dawn go to these outposts? because we're human and self serving.

  7. #142
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,520
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This little nonsensical comparison of yours is wearing real thin by now. It has already been sufficiently explained why your analogy falls flat. Apples & oranges.
    It is in noway absurd. It makes as little sense as your Day/Land argument.
    But if that's the way you want it, then I'll play your game.

  8. #143
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    590
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Monrozombi View Post
    they weren't looking for survivors in Land? they were supply gathering, doing the jobs they had assigned.
    You said it yourself: they were looking for SUPPLIES (medicine, food, booze, cigars, etc.), not for any other survivors. These guys already had their hands full of people, or didn't you notice the THRONGS of people on the streets going about their lives? They had no interest whatsoever in having more mouths to feed. Very different from the situation in Day, where people have become very scarce and finding survivors is quite a difficult task.

    I've seen Land happening after Day since the first time I saw it and while on set.
    Even the very first time I saw Land I thought quite the opposite: this movie has to be happening before Day. It was only when I started reading these internet discussions that, to my surprise, I saw people who did not quite get why this is the most logical conclusion you can come to when you consider everything shown in the previous two movies.

    I've never once thought of it happening before Day and this thread is the only place in 13 years that i've ever seen it brought up and its only maybe one or 2 people so i doubt the problem is as big as you say it was.
    Then look again. I just showed you a post regarding this from 7 years ago in another forum. This site alone has several huge threads regarding this issue. Plenty of people have noticed the problems with this movie in respect to the previous two.

    As for nobody bringing it up to George, maybe that should tell you that its widely accepted that Land is after Day. George didn't concern himself with timelines and intricacies that fans spend time plowing through looking for things that aren't there.

    At the end of the day, to me, this is a non-issue becoming an issue because some people are looking for things that aren't there. Which causes people to trivialize and dig for stuff to prove their pointer because its more important that the views of one or two people mean an entire fandom should change what it has seen has something that isn't an issue to begin with.
    Maybe because the majority of people aren't critical enough to easily see the several problems with it. Spotting these problems in fact requires what you are rather liberally dismissing to do: concerning yourself with and noting such intricacies and details. "Nitpicking", if you like.

    - - - Updated - - -

    also in Dawn which is a few weeks after the outbreak who is putting up big outposts? they weren't outposts they were rescue stations, gyms, hospitals, nothing like you see in Land

    Again thats digging for something that isn't there because it wasn't part of the story. No matter how much you want it to be that wasn't something George was concerning himself with because it wasn't important to the story in Dawn. So saying why didn't the people in Dawn go to these outposts? because we're human and self serving.
    That hardly cuts it. People who are desperately looking for a safe place to go to would not so casually dismiss these outposts, no matter how big or small they were at the beginning of the zombie crisis.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    It is in noway absurd. It makes as little sense as your Day/Land argument.
    But if that's the way you want it, then I'll play your game.
    For reasons already more than sufficiently explained to you: no. Your analogy doesn't pass muster. Apples & oranges.

    Night happening before Day ------> self-explanatory, self-evident, does not need any explicit dialogue lines to plainly show it, the events shown clearly prove it, and in fact the filmmaker CANNOT address such a thing explicitly within the context of the movie or he will ruin it!

    Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years -----> does not necessarily imply anything else other than that fact

    Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years SINCE A CERTAIN EVENT -----> unequivocal, irrefutable, clear-cut, solid, indisputable time reference to that event in question

  9. #144
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,520
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    For reasons already more than sufficiently explained to you: no. Your analogy doesn't pass muster. Apples & oranges.

    Night happening before Day ------> self-explanatory, self-evident, does not need any explicit dialogue lines to plainly show it, the events shown clearly prove it, and in fact the filmmaker CANNOT address such a thing explicitly within the context of the movie or he will ruin it!

    Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years -----> does not necessarily imply anything else other than that fact

    Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years SINCE A CERTAIN EVENT -----> unequivocal, irrefutable, clear-cut, solid, indisputable time reference to that event in question
    It is not apples and oranges. It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your argument hinges on two lines in Land which give exposition regarding when the film takes place: 3 years after the outbreak. But since the characters only strongly imply, rather than explicitly state it - you disregard it. Thus anything that's not explicitly stated is up for debate. Thus according to you, it is possible that Night takes place after Day.
    Last edited by EvilNed; 5 Days Ago at 03:34 PM. Reason: gfdgfd

  10. #145
    Chasing Prey shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,193
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by Monrozombi View Post
    they weren't looking for survivors in Land? they were supply gathering, doing the jobs they had assigned.

    I've seen Land happening after Day since the first time I saw it and while on set. I've never once thought of it happening before Day and this thread is the only place in 13 years that i've ever seen it brought up and its only maybe one or 2 people so i doubt the problem is as big as you say it was.

    As for nobody bringing it up to George, maybe that should tell you that its widely accepted that Land is after Day. George didn't concern himself with timelines and intricacies that fans spend time plowing through looking for things that aren't there.

    At the end of the day, to me, this is a non-issue becoming an issue because some people are looking for things that aren't there. Which causes people to trivialize and dig for stuff to prove their pointer because its more important that the views of one or two people mean an entire fandom should change what it has seen has something that isn't an issue to begin with.
    While there isn't any bolted on timeframes, for me the clue has always been in the title and other little indications. In 'Land of the Dead', The Dead have won, they own the land, it's a land of the dead. Fiddler's Green is an enclave onto itself, clawed back and probably hard won. It's carved out a functioning mini society, that has fallen back into the crass trappings of a pre-apocalypse world...class, status, money, the haves and have nots. That was always the point Romero was trying to make. Fiddler's Green isn't somewhere that's just experiencing a breakdown of society. It's gone through the zombie apocalypse and rose back up, with all the failings of the worst of humanity intact.

    Also, they specifically mention having to go further and further out to scavenge supplies. It isn't about looking for survivors anymore, like they are in 'Day of the Dead', because such efforts are futile. As far as the folk in Fiddler's Green are concerned, there are no more survivors, or at least none that they can get to. The group in 'Land of the Dead' also travel by cars and other motor vehicles, allowing for a greater miliage to be covered. The group in 'Day of the Dead', are limited to the search distance of their Jet Ranger, which can get 100 to 150 miles max over Florida's 12,000 mile coastline before having to turn around. That's an extremely short amount of terrain they can cover. So while nothing about the state of the rest of the country, or world for that matter, can really be gleaned from either film, it's less so from 'Day of the Dead' because of the short range of travel the group can achieve.

    In 'Day of the Dead', Pvt. Johnson says "There's more and more of them every day", indicating that they haven't seen the numbers of zombies that are at the gates in the film before. In 'Land of the Dead', I believe they state that "They don't come here around so much any more", indicating that the zombies have "learned" not to go near the electrified fences that surround the city blocks. One group are surprised by the lack of survivors being found and the numbers of zombies at their gates. The other group have given up looking for survivors and are surprised at the lack of zombies encroaching on their perimeter.

    At the end of the day, if people want 'Day of the Dead' to take place after 'Land of the Dead', then off they go. I can see why they may want think that way. The survivors in 'Day of the Dead' have a grimer time of it than those in 'Land of the Dead'. But to me 'Land of the Dead' clearly takes place after 'Day of the Dead' and I haven't seen a convincing argument to suggest otherwise.

    But, if it floats your boat, go for it.

    Actually, I'm going to watch 'Land of the Dead' right now. Haven't seen it in quite a while.
    Last edited by shootemindehead; 5 Days Ago at 04:23 PM. Reason: Because I'm putting on Land of the Dead, of course!
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  11. #146
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    21,552
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Are you trying to pull my leg here? You know very well what you said and in what context. Accept that it was your mistake, on both counts: "a matter of months" (it is in fact "a matter of days", as you then more correctly remembered after I replied) and that this time reference in the movie does NOT have anything to do with when the zombie crisis started. Again, I quote your words, verbatim and within the clear context you intended:

    IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.
    Where in that quote do I connect "months" to the conversation or context about how long it took to set up the operation? - Show me exactly where.

    When I responded to your misquote of Sarah I was correcting your misquote. When I mentioned "months" in terms of Day's timeline, I wasn't placing it in connection to the dialogue Sarah says regarding the haste with which their operation was setup.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    Actually, I'm going to watch 'Land of the Dead' right now. Haven't seen it in quite a while.
    Do chime back in with your thoughts on it now after a long time not seeing it, your opinion of it then versus now etc.
    Last edited by MinionZombie; 5 Days Ago at 04:25 PM.

  12. #147
    Chasing Prey shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,193
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie View Post
    Do chime back in with your thoughts on it now after a long time not seeing it, your opinion of it then versus now etc.
    Pffft...so much for my big plans. The missus "reminded" me that I had other things to do.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  13. #148
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,520
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    Pffft...so much for my big plans. The missus "reminded" me that I had other things to do.
    Women. Can't live with 'em. Can't shoot 'em in the head.

  14. #149
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    590
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    It is not apples and oranges. It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your argument hinges on two lines in Land which give exposition regarding when the film takes place: 3 years after the outbreak. But since the characters only strongly imply, rather than explicitly state it - you disregard it. Thus anything that's not explicitly stated is up for debate. Thus according to you, it is possible that Night takes place after Day.
    The characters in Land do not say anything explicit regarding when exactly did the zombie situation start. Your interpretation is just a possible one, but not the only one. When Cholo is talking to Kaufman and he mentions those 3 years, it is specifically in regard to how long he has been working for Kaufman and doing his "dirty work". They are not specifically talking about the zombies or when they first popped up. This is certainly not in the same category as the truly zombie-specific line at the start of Dawn about the "situation" having been going on for 3 weeks. That line appears in the middle of a heated discussion about the zombies themselves, so it is very clear and impossible to interpret it in any other way. There is no such equivalent clear line in Land, so the issue of when exactly is this movie taking place in relation to Night can easily remain open to question. Day has the same problem. There is no specific reference to how long exactly has the zombie situation been going on there either.

    According to no one but you can Night supposedly take place after Day. It has already been explained to you a whole bunch of times why this intended analogy doesn't pass muster. Romero cannot have put any specific line of dialogue in Night saying something like "this is the first installment in a series of zombie movies". What you are requesting to try to use as an analogy is simply ludicrous and no filmmaker worth his salt would ever do such a thing since it would make a mockery of the whole film. The way anyone can easily tell that Night has to be the first movie in the series is simply through common sense: people knew nothing about zombies in that movie and everyone is caught by surprise by their sudden appearance. None of the other movies feature this, people in those films are already familiar with the zombie situation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which movie comes first. No explicit lines of dialogue are needed to know something so elemental.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie View Post
    Where in that quote do I connect "months" to the conversation or context about how long it took to set up the operation? - Show me exactly where.
    See the underlined parts of your very own post I copied & pasted above (in red text.)

    When I responded to your misquote of Sarah I was correcting your misquote. When I mentioned "months" in terms of Day's timeline, I wasn't placing it in connection to the dialogue Sarah says regarding the haste with which their operation was setup.
    My "misquote"? I was just quoting YOU verbatim!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    While there isn't any bolted on timeframes, for me the clue has always been in the title and other little indications. In 'Land of the Dead', The Dead have won, they own the land, it's a land of the dead.
    But by the time of Day it is already pretty much a "land of the dead". The scarce survivors still around seem to be mostly living underground or other isolated places where the zombies can't easily reach.

    Fiddler's Green is an enclave onto itself, clawed back and probably hard won. It's carved out a functioning mini society, that has fallen back into the crass trappings of a pre-apocalypse world...class, status, money, the haves and have nots. That was always the point Romero was trying to make. Fiddler's Green isn't somewhere that's just experiencing a breakdown of society. It's gone through the zombie apocalypse and rose back up, with all the failings of the worst of humanity intact.
    This idea is very questionable, since the movie itself establishes that these outposts have been set up since very early on during the zombie crisis. What they are more like is surviving relics from a not too distant past. The fact that they are still trying to cling to old society values, like money and real state, is rather telling also. This is quite different from the increasingly decayed world of Dawn and Day, where such things have pretty much lost their meaning.

    Also, they specifically mention having to go further and further out to scavenge supplies. It isn't about looking for survivors anymore, like they are in 'Day of the Dead', because such efforts are futile. As far as the folk in Fiddler's Green are concerned, there are no more survivors, or at least none that they can get to.
    Excuse me, but the people in Land do not show the slightest interest in finding "survivors" since their city is in fact already FULL of them! They already are quite busy trying to find food & medicine for all these people to really be concerned about any more survivors out there in other places. Plus they are in fact aware that they are not the only ones. They know about other places with people. The reason why they don't seem to care much about them is, again, because they already have enough problems handling all of the people they have within their city. This looks like a very different situation from even the end of Dawn, let alone than Day.

    The group in 'Land of the Dead' also travel by cars and other motor vehicles, allowing for a greater miliage to be covered. The group in 'Day of the Dead', are limited to the search distance of their Jet Ranger, which can get 100 to 150 miles max over Florida's 12,000 mile coastline before having to turn around. That's an extremely short amount of terrain they can cover. So while nothing about the state of the rest of the country, or world for that matter, can really be gleaned from either film, it's less so from 'Day of the Dead' because of the short range of travel the group can achieve.
    Travelling by land even in Dawn was already a dangerous thing to do, let alone in Day! All this land travelling in Land far from arguing in favor of Land taking place after Day in fact does the opposite! The people in Land are mysteriously quite comfortable with rather casually taking trips by land. Riley even wants to take a car and make a trip all the way into the friggin' Canadian wilderness, for crying out loud! Can anyone seriously imagine that in the way more dangerous world of Day???

    In 'Day of the Dead', Pvt. Johnson says "There's more and more of them every day", indicating that they haven't seen the numbers of zombies that are at the gates in the film before.
    The bunker seems to be in the middle of the wilderness, so it might very well have taken a while for stray zombies freely wandering the land to reach there and start accumulating at the gates.

    In 'Land of the Dead', I believe they state that "They don't come here around so much any more", indicating that the zombies have "learned" not to go near the electrified fences that surround the city blocks.
    Two different situations: the fences in Day were not electrified. There was nothing for the zombies to "learn" there.



    One group are surprised by the lack of survivors being found and the numbers of zombies at their gates.
    The reason there is because survivors have truly become scarce, unlike in Land, where they are still found aplenty.

    The other group have given up looking for survivors and are surprised at the lack of zombies encroaching on their perimeter.
    There is nothing in Land that suggests that. They in fact show hardly much interest in other survivors (and why should they? their city is already FULL of them!), plus they actually know they exist. They are aware of other places with people in them. But again, they show rather little interest in them, except for when someone is looking for another place to go to, like Foxy, who doesn't want to return to Kaufman's outpost and will take his chances elsewhere. The fact that these people can so casually abandon a safe place like Kaufman's to seek their fortunes elsewhere once again strongly argues against it really happening after Day, where finding a safe place to go to is quite the dilemma! Even in Dawn the issue of finding a safe place to go to is already very evident. But not in Land. These people still have a number of choices. The people in Land behave in a way that is quite in opposition to those of Day and even Dawn. It's almost as if they were totally oblivious of each other and the zombie situation they were going through was a different one altogether, when in theory it should be the same.

    At the end of the day, if people want 'Day of the Dead' to take place after 'Land of the Dead', then off they go. I can see why they may want think that way. The survivors in 'Day of the Dead' have a grimer time of it than those in 'Land of the Dead'. But to me 'Land of the Dead' clearly takes place after 'Day of the Dead' and I haven't seen a convincing argument to suggest otherwise.
    And I haven't seen any convincing argument to suggest the opposite. Plus I haven't seen any very convincing counterarguments to the Land ----> Day order either.
    Last edited by JDP; 5 Days Ago at 12:32 PM. Reason: ;

  15. #150
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,520
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The characters in Land do not say anything explicit regarding when exactly did the zombie situation start
    Yes, they do.
    Twice an event is mentioned that happened 3 years ago. That's twice. Two different characters. Heavily implied.
    You can disregard this, but that would be as absurd as disregarding anything that's not explicit. So you're essentially making the case that Night could theoretically take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly mentioned in either.

    Checkmate.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •