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

[EvilNed]

Nope, that's your ASSUMPTION based on INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION, a very different thing. Actually, there's no assumption here whatsoever. The film is quite clear on the subject matter. The film is obviously set in a zombie apocalypse and any dialogue referring to something that happened 3 years ago is referring to that. No mystery or assumptions, just exposition and dialogue. The purpose of these two lines are to tell us viewers that the film is set 3 years after the zombie outbreak, which is how we know that to be the case.

[bassman]

But where does it say that the beginning of Dawn is during the winter? .....? It’s clearly visible, dude. No expository dialogue needed when it’s right in front of your eyes.

[MinionZombie]

.....? It’s clearly visible, dude. No expository dialogue needed when it’s right in front of your eyes. To play devil's advocate, Romero probably wasn't thinking too much about linking them up, even at that stage, and when the money's ready and you're ready, you shoot, hehe. But yeah, the lack of foliage, frosty breath at times, low winter sun ... it's got that kind of murky, miserable wintry vibe to it in several outdoor scenes. Plus we know it was shot over the winter of 1977 into the beginning of 1978 so, quite factually, the film was made during the winter. IIRC they had to take down Xmas decorations during the shoot in the mall, then get them back up again before the mall re-opened the following morning (and yes, I know you can shoot a movie at one time of year and pretend it's another time of year - likewise for locations). Anyway, that's an inconsistency we'll have to live with. Ultimately, I think it just comes down to the practical issue of when they were able to shoot. If you've got your cash and your crew all lined up in the indie film world, you don't hang around, you get that movie filmed!

[JDP]

Actually, there's no assumption here whatsoever. The film is quite clear on the subject matter. The film is obviously set in a zombie apocalypse and any dialogue referring to something that happened 3 years ago is referring to that. No mystery or assumptions, just exposition and dialogue. The purpose of these two lines are to tell us viewers that the film is set 3 years after the zombie outbreak, which is how we know that to be the case. It is totally an assumption, since the dialogue itself does not specify, clarify or even clearly imply anything of the sort. Plus the movie even has a specific expository "niche" wholly devoted to addressing this subject of the zombie outbreak in particular, and the "3 years" are nowhere in sight there but an extremely imprecise "sometime ago... today". Just to further illustrate how invalid your generalizing line of argumentation is: not everything that is said in a movie happening in WWII is about WWII. Same thing applies here. Zombies do not magically make new rules for story-telling where everything mysteriously revolves around them just for the heck of it. Movies are complex pieces of story-telling with several contexts, expositions, characters, sub-plots, etc. - - - Updated - - - .....? It’s clearly visible, dude. No expository dialogue needed when it’s right in front of your eyes. That's just incidental, not done on purpose. The movie itself does not say or even imply anything about it being winter anywhere. The filmmaker was probably constrained to shoot at a different time of the year than the story takes place. Despite this, the movie does not look overtly like it is happening during the winter time it was shot in either (no snow, no Christmas decorations, people and zombies are wearing a wide variety of clothes, not all necessarily winter ones.)

[bassman]

To play devil's advocate, Romero probably wasn't thinking too much about linking them up, even at that stage, and when the money's ready and you're ready, you shoot, hehe. But yeah, the lack of foliage, frosty breath at times, low winter sun ... it's got that kind of murky, miserable wintry vibe to it in several outdoor scenes. Plus we know it was shot over the winter of 1977 into the beginning of 1978 so, quite factually, the film was made during the winter. IIRC they had to take down Xmas decorations during the shoot in the mall, then get them back up again before the mall re-opened the following morning (and yes, I know you can shoot a movie at one time of year and pretend it's another time of year - likewise for locations). Anyway, that's an inconsistency we'll have to live with. Ultimately, I think it just comes down to the practical issue of when they were able to shoot. If you've got your cash and your crew all lined up in the indie film world, you don't hang around, you get that movie filmed! My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I seem to recall that they actually suspended filming during the Christmas season as to avoid dealing with the decorations, then resumed in January? I’d have to pop in the Blu Ray to confirm, though.... Anyway, I’m of the belief that the films aren’t connected other than similar titles and the central phenomenon of the dead returning to life. Other than that, it’s pointless to try and find any connection or timeline. It would be like trying to connect Wright and Pegg’s Cornetto Trilogy. They’re considered a series of films because of the people involved, but have absolutely no connection between them.

[EvilNed]

It is totally an assumption, No actually, it's quite evident in the film. You see the film is set in a zombie apocalypse. The dialogue refers to this when a character mentions an event or gamechanger that occured 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal, in the dialogue of the film. So because two different characters mention it we know the film is set 3 years after the start of the outbreak.

[MoonSylver]

Exposition is a device used in television programs, films, literature, poetry, plays and even music. It is the writer's way to give background information to the audience about the setting and the characters of the story. Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions. Just sayin'... This thread is like like a Donkey Show...it's not really my thing, & I don't exactly want to watch, but I can't look away... I'm kidding of course. I do want to watch.

[JDP]

No actually, it's quite evident in the film. You see the film is set in a zombie apocalypse. The dialogue refers to this when a character mentions an event or gamechanger that occured 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal, in the dialogue of the film. So because two different characters mention it we know the film is set 3 years after the start of the outbreak. Gee, a guy working for someone else and a drunk/wino not driving a car for who-knows-what-reason are such earth-shattering events that we must conclude they refer to the appearance of the zombies, really! Your "arguments" ran out of fuel ages ago. Answer the question: does everything said in a movie happening during WW2 have to necessarily be about WW2? Also answer: did Charlie's accident have anything to do with the zombies? After all, more than one character refers to it, so according to your strange "logic" this must mean that they had a hand in it. Really? Go ahead and prove it by actually citing evidence from the dialogue itself, not making assumptions. - - - Updated - - - Exposition is a device used in television programs, films, literature, poetry, plays and even music. It is the writer's way to give background information to the audience about the setting and the characters of the story. Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the answer that makes the fewest assumptions. Just sayin'... This thread is like like a Donkey Show...it's not really my thing, & I don't exactly want to watch, but I can't look away... I'm kidding of course. I do want to watch. LOL! Is this supposed to be your "proof" that you were trying to "taunt" me with some posts back? Ned already tried such faulty arguments ages ago. They did not work then, they still don't work now. "Exposition" doesn't mean a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to freely engage in lazy, vague & sloppy writing. There is such a thing as INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION: https://gideonsway.wordpress.com/201...ur-screenplay/ "Exposition is defined as the descriptive, non-dramatic elements of your screenplay. Many pundits say that too much can weigh down your screenwriting with too much unnecessary, redundant information that doesn’t advance your screenplay. On the other hand, too little exposition can leave your audience lost, confused or visualizing a different movie than you envisioned." And Land suffers from an acute case of it. We hardly know anything at all about any of its characters, things are said in vague, imprecise and/or ambiguous manners and in disparate unconnected contexts, plus in the only instance in the whole movie where the issue at hand is ever addressed we are only offered a very vague "sometime ago" and then "today". Compare that vagueness/ambiguity with the "exposition" about the zombie outbreak in Dawn. Now, THAT is a perfectly clear and unambiguous "exposition" that leaves ZERO doubts regarding when exactly did the zombie outbreak happen in relation to the events of that movie. Again, you might argue that perhaps in Land Romero fully intended such lack of precision, so as to keep the audience unclear regarding this topic, but that means an admission of purposeful vagueness. I am fine with that, but that still leaves the matter unsettled, as the storyteller intended it to be. That means that all plausible "solutions" which we, the audience, may find to what he left unclear are by force SPECULATIVE ASSUMPTIONS. I never said that Ned's ASSUMPTION regarding the "3 years" was "implausible", I only said that it is NOT the only plausible one. On top of that, "Occam's Razor" (not that it has much to do with the discussion at hand, since the number of assumptions required to explain the "3 years" references in a different manner than Ned's is hardly much different), is also well known to not be infallible: http://scienceblogs.com/developingin...theory-is-alm/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/inn...ams-razor3.htm By all means keep me entertained with the "Donkey Show"

[MoonSylver]

LOL! Is this supposed to be your "proof" that you were trying to "taunt" me with some posts back? I think you've got me confused with someone else bub. By all means keep me entertained with the "Donkey Show" You & Ned are doing a fine job on your own. No need for a threesome.

[JDP]

I think you've got me confused with someone else bub. You & Ned are doing a fine job on your own. No need for a threesome. OK, maybe I am misreading some of your past posts in this thread, which seemed to give the impression of being semi-veiled "jabs" at anyone who defends the position that Land does not look like it could really be happening after Day.

[EvilNed]

Gee, a guy working for someone else and a drunk/wino not driving a car for who-knows-what-reason are such earth-shattering events that we must conclude they refer to the appearance of the zombies, really! Yes, exactly and I agree. There is simply no other logical deduction other than that what they are referring to is when the end of the world began. Glad we have that settled. So we're all in agreement then, Land of the Dead takes place 3 years after the outbreak. As per the dialogue in the film.

[MinionZombie]

My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I seem to recall that they actually suspended filming during the Christmas season as to avoid dealing with the decorations, then resumed in January? I’d have to pop in the Blu Ray to confirm, though.... Aye, now you mention it that does ring a bell. Perhaps they had to do it a little bit (depending on when the mall put the decs up - maybe they waited much longer than they do these days, eh?), but yes, I do recall them having a break over Christmas.

[JDP]

Yes, exactly and I agree. There is simply no other logical deduction other than that what they are referring to is when the end of the world began. Glad we have that settled. So we're all in agreement then, Land of the Dead takes place 3 years after the outbreak. As per the dialogue in the film. That was obviously a sarcastic remark, keep reading the post, or work on your reading & comprehension skills, or maybe just stop trying to be purposefully obtuse. Obviously a guy working for someone else and some bum/wino not being able to drive a car are very mundane and common things that can perfectly happen without the zombies being involved in any way, shape or form. So, no, the dialogue or "exposition" is not compelling anyone to make any such inferences as you desperately want to make by force. There is no apparent connection between what any of those characters say and the beginning of the zombie situation, not any more than two random characters in a WW2 movie making disparate and disconnected references to "3 years" necessarily mean that they are referring to 1939 (the beginning of that war.) Oh, and stop beating around the bush and answer the questions you have been asked numerous times already. It is perfectly obvious you ran out of any kind of counterarguments years ago and are just recycling the same old ASSUMPTIONS as if they were some sort of "fact" warranted by the sloppy INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION of this movie.

[bassman]

At the end of the day, there are no definitive answers and it’s all down to each viewer’s personal preference. All of the films have issues concerning any type of timeline or connective tissue, so the viewer can choose to believe the films are in a certain order or not connected at all. Being that there is no definitive answer, it’s all fair game.

[JDP]

At the end of the day, there are no definitive answers and it’s all down to each viewer’s personal preference. All of the films have issues concerning any type of timeline or connective tissue, so the viewer can choose to believe the films are in a certain order or not connected at all. Being that there is no definitive answer, it’s all fair game. This applies to Land and Day, since both movies are vague regarding the timeline, but it just cannot apply to Dawn. There is a very specific, unambiguous and clear reference to the beginning of the zombie situation (i.e. the events we saw in Night) in this movie. It is just not possible to brush it aside in this case since the filmmaker himself was very specific and clear regarding this point. We are in fact compelled to acknowledge and given no alternative choice that the beginning of Dawn takes place 3 weeks after the events in Night.