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

[EvilNed]

The contexts (plural) in those two cases are not the zombies but other characters Yes, but the zombie apocalypse context is what's interesting to us - as viewers. The characters are referring to it, not some prior and irrelevant engagement they had before all hell broke loose. As two characters refer to it, it becomes even more explicit. Through this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

[JDP]

I was just watching Frumkes’ Dream of the Dead, shot during the production of Land. At one point after getting into his zombie biker wardrobe, Savini comes out of the dressing room and says he’s been wandering around in that leather biker gear for a year and a half since we last saw him in Dawn. Just gonna drop that grenade and exit quickly... Sounds way more believable than 3 years! Imagine that. Suppose the unproven 3 years as if they were a "fact": how can Slack still be ignorant of what exactly do zombie bites do to people so far into the zombie crisis??? Even a year and half seems excessive for that to happen. Another contradiction: it's been 3 years of these scavenger armies looting the hell out of what remains out there so they can sustain the DROVES of people they have in the city, as well as provide luxury items and booze & tobacco for the wealthy... and they are still "raiding" TOWNS WHICH ARE A STONE'S THROW AWAY FROM THE CITY ITSELF!!! LOL! The "3 years" thing is a major plot hole if you actually accept such a theory. Maybe that's the reason behind the actual vagueness of the film when it comes to this point, leaving it "hanging" in the air for the viewer since it is never settled anywhere. - - - Updated - - - Yes, but the zombie apocalypse context is what's interesting to us - as viewers. The characters are referring to it, not some prior and irrelevant engagement they had before all hell broke loose. As two characters refer to it, it becomes even more explicit. Through this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. The zombies actually have ZERO to do with the quarrel between these two main characters, who are feuding over money for shady "services" due; criminal activities that are independent from the presence of the zombies and could very easily go back to times before the zombies appeared and would not affect the plot one bit. And the other character who mentions 3 years in fact implies something that happened to him specifically that has prevented him from driving a car, not to everyone else, otherwise if the mere appearance of the zombies into the scene was the reason behind his protestation then no one should be able to drive vehicles in & out of town, everyone would be affected equally. Far from helping your theory, this other character's statements actually put more question marks on the whole thing. Plus on top of all that, we actually have only one truly specific and unambiguous reference to the zombie outbreak in the entire movie, and all it says is a very VAGUE "sometime ago" and "today". Game over.

[EvilNed]

The zombies actually have ZERO to do with the quarrel between these two main characters, Not true. The zombies are the reason they're in this business relationship in the first place. The zombies have everything to do with this quarrel. The business relationship started when the zombies started to appear and Kaufman set up his safe zone. That's how we know it's been 3 years since the outbreak.

[JDP]

Not true. The zombies are the reason they're in this business relationship in the first place. The zombies have everything to do with this quarrel. The business relationship started when the zombies started to appear and Kaufman set up his safe zone. That's how we know it's been 3 years since the outbreak. That's a big ASSUMPTION on your part, it's something which is nowhere proved in the movie. The zombies are never mentioned or implied anywhere in their dispute. This is purely a problem between these two characters, no one else. You could take this entire Cholo-Kaufman dispute part of the movie's plot and drop it in the middle of a gangster movie, no zombies anywhere, and it would still work 100%. That's how "relevant" the zombies are for it!

[EvilNed]

That's a big ASSUMPTION on your part Thats a very minor assumption, if any at all. The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone. It's what they are talking about.

[JDP]

Thats a very minor assumption, if any at all. The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone. It's what they are talking about. But they are not talking about something that affected everyone equally, they are talking about something that has affected both of them in particular, it is a very specific issue between the two: Cholo wants the overdue payments that Kaufman owes him for some of the dirty work he has been doing for him, and he wants to use the money to "move up" the social scale, but Kaufman does not agree with his plans and pulls excuses. All this ends up leading to a "war" between the both of them. So, yes, it is a BIG ASSUMPTION on your part to decide that this dialogue must involve the zombies. You might as well tell us that the accident that scarred Charlie's face somehow also must have been caused by the zombies, but we all know that there is no conclusive evidence for that either. The dialogue needs to be clearer, more specific and less ambiguous for someone to be able to derive such conclusions in a definitive manner, where no other possible explanations can have a place.

[EvilNed]

But they are not talking about something that affected everyone equally I'm not saying that they're talking about something that affected everyone equally, I don't know where you got that from. But it's obvious to anyone that the world changed forever when the zombies began to walk and whatever business arrangements were in place prior to that would be irrelevant in this new world. When Cholo says they've been having dealings for 3 years, he means what he's been doing for Kaufman for 3 years in this post-apoc world - taking out the garbage from Fiddler's Green (which in itself did not exist in it's current form prior to the apocalypse). Besides, there's two characters referring to something that happened 3 years ago, and they're both knee deep in a zombie apocalypse. That something is the start of the zombie apocalypse. That's how we know it started 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal in the dialogue of the film.

[JDP]

I'm not saying that they're talking about something that affected everyone equally, I don't know where you got that from. But it's obvious to anyone that the world changed forever when the zombies began to walk and whatever business arrangements were in place prior to that would be irrelevant in this new world. When Cholo says they've been having dealings for 3 years, he means what he's been doing for Kaufman for 3 years in this post-apoc world - taking out the garbage from Fiddler's Green (which in itself did not exist in it's current form prior to the apocalypse). Besides, there's two characters referring to something that happened 3 years ago, and they're both knee deep in a zombie apocalypse. That something is the start of the zombie apocalypse. That's how we know it started 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal in the dialogue of the film. I am getting it from the very fact that you said so yourself above: "The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone." But these two characters are obviously talking about things that are peculiar/specific to them, not to everyone else equally, which is what their dialogues would imply if what they were talking about was really just the appearance of the zombies, which is your ASSUMPTION, which I keep pointing out for you that such a conclusion is NOT guaranteed anywhere in the film. So, there is NOTHING remotely "clear as crystal" anywhere in this movie regarding the zombie outbreak itself. All it ever specifically and unambiguously says regarding this point is an EXTREMELY VAGUE "sometime ago" and "today". That's it! Everything else regarding it = ASSUMPTIONS. Also, you keep bringing up the equally invalid claim that just because a movie happens during a zombie apocalypse everything the characters say about the past has to somehow involve the zombies and their appearance into the scene. Once again, I challenge you to prove that Charlie's accident happened during the zombie apocalypse, or that Cholo's dad became a loser because of the zombies. The fact is that you can't, not any more than you can also prove that the "3 years" really refers to the zombie outbreak and not to things that also COULD VERY EASILY have happened before the appearance of the zombies and DO NOT AFFECT THE PLOT ONE BIT. And Fiddler's Green obviously existed before the zombies, Kaufman just took over it. But how do you know that Cholo wasn't already "taking out the garbage" (i.e. dumping the bodies of "inconvenient" people that his crooked boss gets rid of) for Kaufman before the zombies appeared??? Once again, you can't prove it. In fact, no one can. Why? Well, because the movie itself doesn't say anything to contradict any such possibility either. Just because the present action is happening during a zombie crisis it does NOT mean that all past events referred to in the movie "must" also refer to it.

[EvilNed]

I am getting it from the very fact that you said so yourself above: "The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone." Yes, it did. So everything everyone is talking about is directly or indirectly connected to the zombie apocalypse. No exceptions. This makes it all the more easier to discern that the film takes places 3 years after the zombie outbreak. You see, several characters mention this in the film. "3 years ago" is a line meant to convey to us viewers a sense of timescale when this new world is set. It's set three years into the outbreak. We know this because both Cholo and the old guy living in the car shop says this.

[JDP]

Yes, it did. So everything everyone is talking about is directly or indirectly connected to the zombie apocalypse. No exceptions. This makes it all the more easier to discern that the film takes places 3 years after the zombie outbreak. You see, several characters mention this in the film. "3 years ago" is a line meant to convey to us viewers a sense of timescale when this new world is set. It's set three years into the outbreak. We know this because both Cholo and the old guy living in the car shop says this. Quite incorrect premise. We can plainly see examples of things in this movie that obviously have nothing to do with the zombies, and Cholo & Kaufman's feud over money is in fact one of them: you can take it "as is" and place it in a non-zombie movie and it still works 100%. Their quarrel is obviously not about the zombies. Some other things in the movie are even pretty specifically said or very logically implied to have happened before the zombies (like Pillsbury and Motown commenting on how many cars are stolen in Samoa and Detroit every year, for example; this has to obviously refer to pre-zombie times, back when the car industry and international commerce was still around, as logic dictates), while other things could have happened either before or after the zombies, but insufficient information does not allow to decide one way or the other. So, no, everything that everyone is talking about in this movie is MOST DEFINITELY NOT connected with the zombies. You can easily tell when the dialogue refers to the zombies, either because they are specifically referred to or at least they are clearly implied. But in the examples we have been dealing with (viz. Cholo's dad, Charlie's accident, the "3 years") neither condition is met. There simply isn't enough information in the dialogue to settle any of these matters.

[EvilNed]

Quite incorrect premise. No, there is no such instance. The film takes place in a zombie apocalypse, and there is nothing in the film that has not been affected by it. Notice how Pilsbury doesn't work stealing cars anymore, for instance.

[JDP]

No, there is no such instance. The film takes place in a zombie apocalypse, and there is nothing in the film that has not been affected by it. Notice how Pilsbury doesn't work stealing cars anymore, for instance. Sure there is, and Cholo's feud with Kaufman happens to be one of them. They are feuding about things that do not require the zombies to be around. Their fight would easily still happen if all the zombies magically disappeared. That's not going to settle the score between these two. They are plainly fighting over money, which at this stage of the zombie apocalypse obviously still has managed to retain its old allure and value, quite unaffected by the presence of the zombies (which by itself also throws a lot of question marks over the theory that 3 years could seriously have passed since the zombies first appeared.) But notice that Pillsbury and Motown are referring to things that went on every year before the coming of the zombies, back when the car industry was still around. Just like Slack also does refer to things before the zombies when she tells others about her life in the city. And also maybe the same with Charlie's accident, or Cholo's dad (though these last two examples cannot be proven 100% either way, just like the "3 years" bit can't be proven either way either.)

[EvilNed]

Sure there is, and Cholo's feud with Kaufman happens to be one of them. No, they are in that position in the first place because of the zombie apocalypse. So no, there isn't. So that's how we know the film is set 3 years after the outbreak - the dialogue tells us this.

[Philly_SWAT]

Originally Posted by EvilNed I'm not saying that they're talking about something that affected everyone equally, I don't know where you got that from. But it's obvious to anyone that the world changed forever when the zombies began to walk and whatever business arrangements were in place prior to that would be irrelevant in this new world. When Cholo says they've been having dealings for 3 years, he means what he's been doing for Kaufman for 3 years in this post-apoc world - taking out the garbage from Fiddler's Green (which in itself did not exist in it's current form prior to the apocalypse). Besides, there's two characters referring to something that happened 3 years ago, and they're both knee deep in a zombie apocalypse. That something is the start of the zombie apocalypse. That's how we know it started 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal in the dialogue of the film. Not sure that I understand your point here. Are you suggesting that all communication between human beings in a zombie apocalypse would ignore pre-outbreak occurrences? For example, if a film was set three years into a zombie apocalypse, and two characters had a relationship fore more than a decade prior to the outbreak, that would only refer to the 'three years' when talking to each other? If they started a business together 12 years prior to the outbreak, and continued some type of business together after the outbreak, in conversation they would say "we have been in business together for 3 years" as opposed to saying "we have been in business together from 15 years"? That would seem to be both odd and nonsensical to me. I agree with you when you say that everything in a post outbreak world would be affected by the outbreak, but I disagree if you are saying that normal verbal conversation would change to the point where everything that happened prior to the outbreak would be ignored, as if the world only started three years ago. Would a father say to his adult son "you have been my son for three years"? Would a couple that was married for 20 years refer to themselves as being married for three years? I dont think so. It is more likely than not that Cholo worked for Kaufman prior to the outbreak, so his 'three years' comments seems to timestamp the zombie outbreak at less than 3 years ago. Otherwise, you are arguing that Kaufman quit working with anyone he had a relationship with prior to the outbreak (wouldn't you want to work with known commodities in times of stress?) and started a brand new relationship with Cholo on day one of the outbreak?

[EvilNed]

Not sure that I understand your point here. Are you suggesting that all communication between human beings in a zombie apocalypse would ignore pre-outbreak occurrences? Yes, more or less. The world has changed so drastically that they would all have become irrelevant, depending which topic you're discussing of course.