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

[bassman]

As I said, it’s the viewers choice which theory they’d want to believe when it comes to the connections of the series. That applies to all the films, with the exception of Diary and Survival, as those are the only films with direct character continuations. Even Dawn is a gray area when taking the seasonal differences into account. You could choose to believe it’s exactly as the character’s dialogue states, it’s something different entirely, or it’s not connected at all. With no definitive answer, there is no definitive timeline. Heck, you could believe Dawn takes place before Night, if you like.

[JDP]

As I said, it’s the viewers choice which theory they’d want to believe when it comes to the connections of the series. That applies to all the films, with the exception of Diary and Survival, as those are the only films with direct character continuations. Even Dawn is a gray area when taking the seasonal differences into account. You could choose to believe it’s exactly as the character’s dialogue states, it’s something different entirely, or it’s not connected at all. With no definitive answer, there is no definitive timeline. No, that simply is not possible in Dawn. Watch the sequence where Dr. Foster and the interviewer are arguing about the zombies. The filmmaker here is taking full command of his own story, he is leaving nothing to the viewer's opinion. The zombie situation started 3 weeks before. There is no other possible conclusion here. The dialogue is well written, it is clear, specific, unambiguous and in the appropriate context. No "ifs" or "buts" here. Heck, you could believe Dawn takes place before Night, if you like. That's quite impossible for any of the movies. The events in Night are very self-explanatory and self-evident, they need no explanation whatsoever from the part of the filmmaker: no one knew anything about any zombies, everyone in the world is caught by surprise by their appearance. That by itself prevents any of the other movies, where everyone is already well aware of the zombies, from taking place before Night.

[bassman]

Again, that’s your personal opinion and that’s fine. Conversely, one could choose to believe the three week timeline is iffy because of it not lining up with the timeline of Night. The particular three week dialogue could be interpreted in different ways. In the end, none of them actually matter to the overall presentation of the film.

[JDP]

Again, that’s your personal opinion and that’s fine. Conversely, one could choose to believe the three week timeline is iffy because of it not lining up with the timeline of Night. The particular three week dialogue could be interpreted in different ways. In the end, none of them actually matter to the overall presentation of the film. It is not possible to interpret the 3 weeks reference in Dawn in any other way. It happens right smack in the middle of a heated argument specifically dealing with the zombies and what they do. The reference is to how long the zombies have been around causing all this mayhem and confusion that the characters are arguing about.

[bassman]

Dude, you’re going to continue having a hard time if you insist on trying to convince others that your opinion is fact. Even though the character says something about the other tv personality not listening for three weeks, there’s nothing to say that is definitively the timeline of the film/series. For all we know, he could be talking about having been at that particular tv station for three weeks but the phenomenon started long before that.

[JDP]

Dude, you’re going to continue having a hard time if you insist on trying to convince others that your opinion is fact. Even though the character says something about the other tv personality not listening for three weeks, there’s nothing to say that is definitively the timeline of the film/series. For all we know, he could be talking about having been at that particular tv station for three weeks but the phenomenon started long before that. He clearly says "we've had this situation for the last 3 weeks", and the "situation" they are talking about is the zombies. This is not my "opinion" but a fact, it's what the dialogue plainly says and the context where it appears. It's specifically about the zombies and what they do, not about the TV station or anything else.

[bassman]

He says “you have not listened! You have not listened to this situation for three weeks! What does it take? What does it take to make people see?”. He could just as easily be referring to his time at this tv station and trying to convince this particular man. The viewer can choose to take it how they like. https://youtu.be/Czo24cU4dfA 2:22

[JDP]

He says “you have not listened! You have not listened to this situation for three weeks!”. He could just as easily be referring to his time at this tv station and trying to convince this particular man. The viewer can choose to take it how they like. Nope. Here is the entire bit of dialogue, fully within its context: - Do you believe the dead are returning to life? - I'm not so... -Do you believe the dead are returning to life and attacking the living? -I'm not so sure what to believe, doctor. All we get is what you people tell us. And it's hard enough to believe... -It's fact...! It's fact...! -It's hard enough to believe without you coming in here... -You're not running a talk-show here, Mr. Berman! You can forget pitching an audience the moral bullshit they wanna hear! -You're talking about abandoning any human code of behaviour... -You're not listening! You're not listening! We've had this situation for the last 3 weeks... What does it take? What does it take to make people see? -People aren't willing to accept your solutions, doctor, and I for one don't blame them! -Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill! The subject matter is plainly the zombies and what they do. This is the "situation" these characters are arguing about. The 3 week reference is about how long the zombies have been causing this confusion and mayhem. There is no other plausible interpretation here. The context is very clear.

[bassman]

View the clip I posted. Your quote is off.

[JDP]

What is supposedly "off" about it (i.e. the relevant part)? Whether he says "we've (had)" or "to" (not 100% clear because of all the noisy activity in the studio), the fact is that the zombie situation has been going on for 3 weeks (this part is 100% clear, the background noise does not make it difficult to hear), or else they would not even be having these arguments in the first place.

[bassman]

What is supposedly "off" about it? Whether he says "we've" or "to" (not 100% clear because of all the noisy activity in the studio), the fact is that the zombie situation has been going on for 3 weeks, or else they would not even be having these arguments in the first place. He says “You have not listened to this situation for three weeks”. Not that the situation has gone on for three weeks. So that makes his intent less clear, possibly referring to his time at this tv station debating with this man, and not a definitive indication of a timeline.

[JDP]

He says “You have not listened to this situation for three weeks”. Not that the situation has gone on for three weeks. So that makes his intent less clear, possibly referring to his time at this tv station debating with this man, and not a definitive indication of a timeline. You expect anyone to believe that people have not been listening to the zombie situation for 3 weeks only, but apparently they were listening to it before and understanding what had to be done??? Does that make sense to you? It is obvious that the zombies can only have been around for 3 weeks, and misinformed people (the ones who are not listening) are making things worse because they are not getting rid of the bodies of the dead in the proper manner to avoid them coming back as zombies. I ask you again: how can anyone interpret any of this differently than it is plainly presented to the viewer??? It is as plain as water!

[bassman]

No, I’m not saying they were listening to this man prior to three weeks, I’m only clarifying that his particular dialogue is stating that he hasn’t been listened to for three weeks. Does that mean the phenomenon started exactly three weeks ago, or is it possible that this man joined the tv broadcast three weeks ago, some time after the phenomenon had already begun? That does not have a definitive answer, so it’s viewer’s choice. As I’ve said from the start, it all comes down to what each viewer chooses to believe, there’s no absolutely clear indication of the timeline or when exactly the phenomenon began.

[JDP]

No, I’m not saying they were listening to this man prior to three weeks, I’m only clarifying that his particular dialogue is stating that he hasn’t been listened to for three weeks. Does that mean the phenomenon started exactly three weeks ago, or is it possible that this man joined the tv broadcast three weeks ago, some time after the phenomenon had already begun? That does not have a definitive answer, so it’s viewer’s choice. As I’ve said from the start, it all comes down to what each viewer chooses to believe, there’s no absolutely clear indication of the timeline or when exactly the phenomenon began. Dr. Foster is not at the TV station to convince only the interviewer, he's there to try to inform the public at large of what has to be done. That's his purpose, nothing else. When he complains that they have not listened he's referring to the public, not only to the interviewer. How long have they not been listening? He takes care to inform us: 3 weeks. I ask you again: does it sound logical to you that the zombies could possibly have been around for longer than that? People were paying attention and doing what had to be done before that, but for some bizarre reason now they have stopped paying attention and stopped doing what has to be done? Doesn't sound very plausible, does it? The only plausible interpretation: the zombies appeared 3 weeks ago, and many people are stubbornly refusing to accept the facts and do what has to be done to stop their multiplication. This is what Dr. Foster is complaining about and the reason why he has gone to the TV station, not to try to convince only one or a few persons. His target is the whole public, millions of people, many of whom are not doing what they have to do to stop the zombies from proliferating. This is his target audience; these are the people who are not listening.

[bassman]

I’m not sure where you’re getting this notion that people were listening to the man’s instructions prior to three weeks, I’d never made that claim. My point is simple, you had an incorrect quote and were claiming that his dialogue states the situation(phenomenon) had been happening for three weeks, when in fact the dialogue is that they haven’t listened for three weeks, thus leaving the exact timeframe of the phenomenon up in the air. Is it likely around three weeks? Most likely, but the point here is that it is NOT as definitive as you claim. There is no direct line such as “it all started three weeks ago”, but rather vague references, which leads the viewer to form their own opinion or estimation of the timeframe of the events. Saying “you’ve not listened for three weeks” is not the end-all, be-all answer to when the phenomenon began. Is it possible? Sure. Is it possible the phenomenon began before three weeks and he got to the tv station some time after the phenomenon had already begun? Sure. Either way is possible, and again to my point, because it’s possible in different ways and never given an absolutely definitive time, it’s down to the viewer’s choice.