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

[JDP]

Yes, the film clearly presents to us exposition meant to convey when the film is set. When the characters are referring to something happened 3 years ago, it is very explicit and the film is conveying to us information about the world we're in. The film is saying, to us through dialogue, that the outbreak started 3 years ago. Which is how we know Land takes place 3 years after the start of the outbreak. No, because the "exposition" is not saying any such thing. The statements about the "3 years" are disparate and disconnected and do not have any apparent connection to the start of the zombie crisis. The only concrete information about the zombie outbreak itself in the whole movie is a very VAGUE "sometime ago" and "today" during the opening intro. The dialogue itself is simply not informative enough to warrant such a conclusion as 3 years supposedly having happened since the zombies first appeared. And neither is the fact that two or more characters mention something, that by force it has to be about the zombies. I already challenged you to prove that Charlie's accident, which is referred to by several characters, had something to do with the zombies, and we all can see you couldn't, and it is not difficult to know why: for the exact same reason you can't prove that the "3 years" bit really refers to the beginning of the zombie crisis: LACK OF INFORMATION IN THE DIALOGUE ITSELF. In other words, INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION, to use that little word you like to throw around so much, as if it was some sort of permit to excuse unintended SLOPPY & LAZY WRITING. When you write a story and your audience can easily start arbitrarily ASSUMING things about what your characters are saying, and which you did not really intend, but still TOTALLY WORK AND DO NOT AFFECT THE PLOT ONE BIT, then you should know you are engaging in SLOPPY & LAZY WRITING that will make some parts of your movie perfectly open to such arbitrary interpretations by the viewers. Now, you can argue that some filmmakers do such things on purpose (look at the absurd, illogical, bizarre and quite simply impossible ending of Being There as an example of this; 100% done on purpose to befuddle the audience and make us speculate what in blazes is going on), in which case then there is no problem, but you are admitting you are not feeding enough info to your audience so that some things remain unclear and they have a free-license to "fill in the blanks" with whatever they want to ASSUME is happening. If that was Romero's intention, then he totally SUCCEEDED. On the other hand, if his intention was to make us conclude that 3 years have passed since the events shown in the first movie in the series, then he FAILED. There is NOTHING in the movie that FORCE US to conclude this. And I am not even considering here the obvious contradictions of such a premise, BTW, like Slack being ignorant of what exactly do zombie bites do to people, or the mercenary armies from the city still looting the hell out of abandoned towns located in proximity to the populous city itself, which are simply ridiculous and fly in the face of common sense if what we are watching is supposed to be so long after the appearance of the zombies.

[EvilNed]

No, because the "exposition" is not saying any such thing. It is, though. Exposition is dialogue - or other information - conveyed to us viewers shedding light on the background of the film. The background in this case is the zombie outbreak. The "new world" that they live in. Everything has to be viewed through this context. Romero is telling us how long ago it was the outbreak started by having characters discuss the past. So through dialogue; Romero tells us that the outbreak started 3 years ago. This is exposition.

[bassman]

Debate is fun and the whole purpose of forums and all, but you guys are going to have to agree to disagree on this three years thing at some point! You’re going round and round with the same stuff and getting nowhere.

[beat_truck]

This is downright silly. Totally unbelievable that this is STILL going on. I thought it was obvious that nobody was ever going to change their minds... about 10 pages ago. No, actually when I read the previous thread from years ago. I know I sure have better things to do than repeat the same facts and opinions OVER AND OVER, to somebody who is NEVER going to listen to my side. Carry on, though.

[MinionZombie]

The definition of madness being played out in front of your eyes, folks.

[JDP]

It is, though. Exposition is dialogue - or other information - conveyed to us viewers shedding light on the background of the film. The background in this case is the zombie outbreak. The "new world" that they live in. Everything has to be viewed through this context. Romero is telling us how long ago it was the outbreak started by having characters discuss the past. So through dialogue; Romero tells us that the outbreak started 3 years ago. This is exposition. No, the last part is not "exposition", that is your ASSUMPTION based on INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION. A fully specific and unambiguous "exposition" that would guarantee that your conclusion is the only possible one would be if Cholo had actually said something like "How long have I been working for you since this mess started? 3 years?" Now, THAT "exposition" would fully justify your conclusion as the only possible one. That's all it takes. A few well-placed words can make a whole difference in a dialogue. From vagueness and ambiguity to clarity. But as written in the shooting script, not so. The question remains open since we don't know enough background on any of these characters. It is because of INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION that you also cannot prove that Cholo's dad being a loser has something to do with the zombies, or if Charlie's accident also had anything to do with them either. The fact that such lines are uttered during a zombie apocalypse DO NOT IPSO FACTO MAKE THEM ABOUT THE ZOMBIES. More info is needed. That is "exposition". The characters the movie is presenting to us are ACTUAL, COMPLEX HUMAN BEINGS WITH PASTS, not two-dimensional cardboard figures whose lives have always revolved around the zombies and nothing else, so your ASSUMPTION that they are always referring to the zombies is quite mistaken. In fact, I have already shown you instances where the characters undoubtedly refer to things that have nothing to do with the zombies or that extend back to times when they were not around. One of the movies' major plot elements is in fact the deep desire of many of these people to get stuck in the past, as if the zombies had never appeared in the first place. That's why Kaufman has come up with Fiddler's Green, so that the wealthy can continue indulging in the same way of life without the zombies interrupting it.

[MoonSylver]

If I didn't KNOW better, I'd swear Ned is keeping this going, just to see how LONG he can keep it going.... Of course though, I know better...

[EvilNed]

Debate is fun and the whole purpose of forums and all, but you guys are going to have to agree to disagree on this three years thing at some point! You’re going round and round with the same stuff and getting nowhere. Oh I don't mind. No, the last part is not "exposition", that is your ASSUMPTION based on INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION. No, you are incorrect. The exposition is quite clear. They are talking about the start of the outbreak. You see, these lines of expositon are meant to convey to us - the audience - information about the world in which the characters are inhabiting. This is relevant to us, which is why it's there. So through these two lines of exposition we learn that the film is set 3 years after the start of the outbreak.

[bassman]

I’ve seen it referenced a couple times that Dawn is three weeks in? That doesn’t necessarily work either, as Night takes place during the time change in Spring and Dawn takes place in the winter....

[beat_truck]

If I didn't KNOW better, I'd swear Ned is keeping this going, just to see how LONG he can keep it going.... Of course though, I know better... I have been suspecting that for a good while, too.

[JDP]

No, you are incorrect. The exposition is quite clear. They are talking about the start of the outbreak. You see, these lines of expositon are meant to convey to us - the audience - information about the world in which the characters are inhabiting. This is relevant to us, which is why it's there. So through these two lines of exposition we learn that the film is set 3 years after the start of the outbreak. Nope, that's your ASSUMPTION based on INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION, a very different thing. Anyone without an agenda or reading & comprehension issues who examines those lines of dialogue will plainly see that there is no specific or explicit reference to the zombie outbreak, or anywhere else in the movie for that matter, with the only exception of the intro sequence, where the zombie outbreak is indeed specifically addressed, but you know only too well what it says there: "sometime ago"... "today". Couldn't be more VAGUE! Where are the "3 years" here, where they should have been if that was what the filmmaker wanted to be 100% clear regarding this point? Oh, that's right, NOWHERE. - - - Updated - - - I’ve seen it referenced a couple times that Dawn is three weeks in? That doesn’t necessarily work either, as Night takes place during the time change in Spring and Dawn takes place in the winter.... The Dawn time reference to the zombie outbreak is very clear and unambiguous, unlike the one in Land. See earlier in the thread where the dialogue that delivers this bit of info to the viewer is fully quoted (it happens during the opening sequence of Dawn, at the TV station, when Dr. Foster and the interviewer are engaged in back and forth heated arguments about the zombies and what they do.) There is no doubt whatsoever that the filmmaker is here giving us no choice but to conclude that 3 weeks have passed since the zombies appeared. There are no possible plausible alternative interpretations here. Land, on the other hand, is written in a rather vague and sloppy manner which leaves such a question open for the viewers to speculate. This is not necessarily a "bad" thing, BTW. Many filmmakers love doing that too. In fact, Romero himself was purposefully vague in Day regarding the issue of time. Unlike Dawn, there is nothing in that movie that allows us to conclude with 100% certainty when exactly are the events of that movie happening with respect to the events shown in the first movie. But Day was also made during Romero's prime, his "golden age" (70s & 80s), unlike Land, which was made during Romero's declining years (1990s & 2000s) So, it is not entirely clear to me whether Romero was being purposefully vague in Land as well, or if due to his reputedly worsening memory problems or having "lost his touch" he was actually engaging in unwittingly sloppy & lazy writing. The fact that he even contradicts things that he had established in the original trilogy seem to argue that such issues were unwitting rather than purposeful.

[bassman]

^ You just did everything BUT address the point I made.

[JDP]

^ You just did everything BUT address the point I made. Where did Dawn specifically establish the time of the year, though? If it did, then you have a valid "nitpick" there (if the Nitpickers.com site was still around you could have entered it as a valid plot mistake/contradiction.)

[bassman]

Night is obviously the beginning, that film clearly states the time of year, and Dawn couldn’t be three weeks since the beginning because it’s during the winter.

[JDP]

Night is obviously the beginning, that film clearly states the time of year, and Dawn couldn’t be three weeks since the beginning because it’s during the winter. But where does it say that the beginning of Dawn is during the winter?