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

[Philly_SWAT]

View the clip I posted. Your quote is off. His quote is off, understandably, as the scene cuts back and forth to different discussions, and there is a lot of chaos in the station with people talking over one another. However, his point is still valid. On the clip that you posted, starting at 2 minutes 11 seconds, Fran starts talking over the beginning of Dr. Foster's statements and says "tell Givens to see me" just as Foster says "reactivate". Unclear what he said immediately prior to that, but you can hear him talking behind Fran talking, and afterwards. Precisely, he says... ...reactivate. And it's precisely the responses of irresponsible public figures like yourself that this situation is being dealt with irresponsibly by the public at large You have not listened You have not listened (hard to make out 100%, but sounds like "to this situation", definitely *** this situation) to this situation for three weeks! What does it take? What does it take to make people see? So it seems clear that the "situation" he is referring to is the people-coming-back-from-the-dead-killing-and-eating-the-living situation, and not some 'time at this specific station' situation. He is making a general comment about responsible people with positions of influence not accepting the current situation and leading the masses astray. In response to your quote: Originally Posted by 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. A viewer could obviously take this comment as not meaning exactly three weeks...perhaps it has been 2 weeks and 5 days, or 3 weeks and 3 days...the doctor's point was not that an exact number of days, 21, that people havent been listening,but that people havent been listening for about three weeks. And the three weeks generality is a reference to the current zombie problem. If you take the events in Night as Day one, the radio and TV broadcasts make it clear that knowledge of the problem exists in cities throughout the country, so that would be the starting point of the 'three weeks' comment.

[JDP]

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. If you really can't understand the implications of your proposed alternative explanation, then I think I really can't do much to remedy the problem. But let me try it again: what you are proposing necessarily implies that the zombie situation has been going on for more than three weeks. There is nothing in the dialogue that suggests so, though. And yes, when the guy says 3 weeks he can easily mean a close approximation. For example, maybe it was 22 days, not exactly 21. But that's not going to make a difference, though, the guy is not at the TV station to argue about semantics or colloquial usage of words. We have to conclude that around 3 weeks have passed since the events we saw in Night. A couple of days more or less does not alter this fact. There is no other plausible conclusion.

[bassman]

Okay man. In your opinion, regardless of other variables, the dialogue has to be taken as a definitive timeline and in my opinion, taking those variables into account, it doesn’t have to be taken as a definitive timeline. We just have to agree to disagree on that.

[JDP]

Okay man. In your opinion, regardless of other variables, the dialogue has to be taken as a definitive timeline and in my opinion, taking those variables into account, it doesn’t have to be taken as a definitive timeline. We just have to agree to disagree on that. If the two movies are connected, then I am afraid we have little choice but to accept the 3 weeks (OK, approximately 3 weeks, no problem, it doesn't alter the main argument) in relation to the events seen in Night. As far as I know, and feel free to correct me if otherwise, Romero did intend this movie to be a sequel, not a movie totally disconnected from Night.

[bassman]

Related by the phenomenon, but not a direct sequel. I’ve always joked that Return of the Living Dead has more of a right to claim sequel than Dawn.

[shootemindehead]

Forget it Bassman...it's Chinatown.

[MinionZombie]

I'd originally, way back, considered Night/Dawn/Day (so pre-Land) to be set in different zombie apocalypses, but they all just so happened to take place further and further into said ZAs so there was still a linear progression. This was mainly down to the large differences in the world presented on screen - i.e. technology, clothing, etc. For a while there I couldn't get my head around it otherwise. Now, though, I accept the 'decade differences' and see them all as part of the same ZA (Savini's cameo would suggest it, even though it's just a cameo), but each film progresses further and further into the ZA. However, I've always personally considered Diary and Survival to be part of a different ZA, especially as they're directly linked (which is different to the Night-Land quartet). IIRC there was talk of a 'new trilogy', but there was never a follow-up to Survival, so...

[EvilNed]

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. No I don't think it was meant to be sarcastic. And in any case, it reads as an accurate statement of what the film is trying to convey. You see, the film is feeding us relevant background information through character dialogue. The information conveyed is exposition on the world we're watching. In this case, how long ago did the world go to hell? 3 years ago. There are two characters who mention this, so we know this much.

[beat_truck]

IIRC there was talk of a 'new trilogy', but there was never a follow-up to Survival, so... We were probably never going to get the third part of that trilogy, no matter how long GAR lived. He would have probably made "Road of the Dead" or whatever his zombie/chariot race abortion was called. That probably would have been the end for his career, unless by some miracle it turned out not to be the horrible idea it sounded like. I'm still sad that he died, but I'm honestly glad that he didn't get to make a movie that would likely have just caused himself embarrassment.

[JDP]

No I don't think it was meant to be sarcastic. And in any case, it reads as an accurate statement of what the film is trying to convey. You see, the film is feeding us relevant background information through character dialogue. The information conveyed is exposition on the world we're watching. In this case, how long ago did the world go to hell? 3 years ago. There are two characters who mention this, so we know this much. It was very obvious sarcasm, even a 4 year old could see it, and the movie in fact suffers from an acute lack of information on many things, including the zombie outbreak itself. The only time it specifically addresses the subject it gives nothing but vague statements. The "exposition" is simply INSUFFICIENT. And now answer the question: does everything said in a movie happening in WW2 have to by force be referring to that war or its beginning? Also answer: did Charlie's accident have anything to do with the zombies? More than one character mentions it, so according to your faulty "logic" it must mean that they did. Of course, any sensible and rational viewer will demand actual proof from the dialogue itself, not from your ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION. - - - Updated - - - Now, though, I accept the 'decade differences' and see them all as part of the same ZA (Savini's cameo would suggest it, even though it's just a cameo), but each film progresses further and further into the ZA. That's certainly the clear impression that the original trilogy conveys to the viewer. Land, on the other hand... that's a very debatable matter. It's the only movie in the series that looks out of place with the others. And I am not just referring here to the very dubious and easily contested "it takes place after Day" point of view, but to the fact that it even contradicts some things established in the previous films. This movie was nowhere nearly as well thought-out as the first three. Either Romero just didn't put enough thought into it or his apparently worsening memory problems simply did not allow him to.

[EvilNed]

and the movie in fact suffers from an acute lack of information on many things, including the zombie outbreak itself. Well that's an abstract value and is related to how much one wants to know. But one thing that's presented for instance, is the length of time it has been since the start of the outbreak. There are two different characters who mention that it started 3 years ago. Cholo and the bum in the workshop both mention this. So we know that it has been 3 years at least. As for other things you feel are missing, I suppose that depends on what things those are.

[JDP]

Well that's an abstract value and is related to how much one wants to know. But one thing that's presented for instance, is the length of time it has been since the start of the outbreak. There are two different characters who mention that it started 3 years ago. Cholo and the bum in the workshop both mention this. So we know that it has been 3 years at least. As for other things you feel are missing, I suppose that depends on what things those are. What was that? No answer to the pertinent questions you have been asked over and over again? I didn't think so. Answer the questions: does everything said in a movie set during WW2 have to by force be about WW2 or its beginning? Did Charlie's accident have to by force have involved the zombies? After all, more than one character mentions it. You know very well what the honest answers are, but you avoid them like the plague because you know they undermine your obviously faulty generalizing arguments. There is NOTHING in those lines of dialogue about "3 years" that makes any connection whatsoever to the beginning of the zombie situation. That they are somehow connected to it is just YOUR ASSUMPTION (yes, it's "plausible", but still AN ASSUMPTION.) One character is referring to his business relationship with his boss and the other one is trying to avoid an accusation of theft by referring to something PERSONAL that has caused him to not drive cars (how do we know this? Easy: we can PLAINLY SEE PLENTY OF OTHER CHARACTERS DRIVING VEHICLES WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM WHATSOEVER. So it is not the zombies or their appearance that for some mysterious reason have stopped traffic for everyone.) The setting is a city populated by HUNDREDS of people, most of them adults, meaning: people with plenty of past. So, you do the math. The chances that most of these people have had something or other TOTALLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE ZOMBIES happen to them 3 years ago are HUMONGOUS. The scriptwriter should have known better if his intention was to try to compel the audience to connect these "3 years" to the beginning of the zombie outbreak, because the way he has presented it can so easily be interpreted in other ways that DO NOT AFFECT THE PLOT ONE BIT. This is lazy scriptwriting, plain and simple. You know you have delivered your point across when your audience CANNOT EASILY INTERPRET THE INFO YOU ARE DELIVERING IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN YOU WANT TO. Example: the "3 weeks" reference in Dawn. That is well written, there is no other plausible interpretation than the one the scriptwriter has plainly delivered to us.

[bassman]

[EvilNed]

What was that? No answer to the pertinent questions you have been asked over and over again? Sure I did, The question at large is; When is Land of the Dead set. The answer; 3 years after the outbreak. We know this because it's stated in dialogue twice by two different characters. No need to really derail from that.

[Philly_SWAT]

No need to really derail from that. LOL, of course not, because that would make your arguments less effective than you pretend they are!