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

[EvilNed]

Do you try hard to be an asshole, or does it just come naturally to you? Dont answer that, either way it doesnt matter. Dude. Don’t want to be treated like an asshole? Don’t act like one. I respect you but your posts are as smug and condesending as they come.

[Philly_SWAT]

Dude. Don’t want to be treated like an asshole? Don’t act like one. I respect you but your posts are as smug and condesending as they come. I didnt mention whether or not I wanted to be treated like an asshole, nor did I accuse you of treating me like one.

[EvilNed]

I didnt mention whether or not I wanted to be treated like an asshole, nor did I accuse you of treating me like one. I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but nitpicking semantics is not really working out for you. Let’s just agree to disagree.

[Philly_SWAT]

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but nitpicking semantics is not really working out for you. Let’s just agree to disagree. I was saying exactly what I said, directly responding to your quote. What exactly are you suggesting we agree to disagree on?

[EvilNed]

I was saying exactly what I said, directly responding to your quote. What exactly are you suggesting we agree to disagree on? Lol! Yeah, I got that. And it doesnt make any sense to me, except - again - as acting like an asshole. That Land takes place After Day, of course.

[JDP]

In Land, on the other hand, society has fallen and then re-assembled in small enclaves. The Phoenix rising from the ashes is one of the main themes of the film - but it's rising battered and bruised. We see a return to mankind's old ways for certain people - those in the tower - they can go back to their old life, indeed with even more power than they had before, and that's intoxicating. They have the consumerist dream back again and they're forgotten about the dead (again, one of the key themes of Land, and one of the very first driving ideas that Romero had in writing Land as a sequel to Day, something he spoke of on multiple occasions). This entire "Phoenix rising from the ashes" premise is undermined (unwittingly, maybe? too difficult to tell, considering that at this point in his career he had even forgotten some elemental things he had established in the earlier movies) by Romero himself in the introductory sequence: we know for a fact that these outposts are not the result of any "future society after a total collapse" but have in fact been around since early on during the zombie situation. Even the media reported their existence while it was still around. The only thing the introductory sequence serves to reinforce is the exact same impression we get later on: these guys are desperately trying to cling to the "old world" and maintain the illusion everything is just like it was before, as if the zombies had never appeared in the first place. They have not "fallen" and "risen" from any "ashes". They are simply an uninterrupted continuation of the recent past. When it inevitably collapses, you see the powerful folks of Fiddler's Green fleeing with their possessions and fur coats - Kaufman takes his money as money is power in his own mini economies that he's set up in various locations - and they're faced with the harsh reality. They require leadership and protection. You are conveniently "forgetting" here that Cholo is extorting his old boss for money, a very important part of the movie. It is very obvious that money still has power other than just in Kaufman's "mini-economies". If it wasn't so, his entire master plan would simply be retarded and self-defeating. It would make a farce out of an important part of the plot. If Cholo wants that money so badly, it's because he knows he can use it elsewhere outside of Kaufman's "kingdom". Money still "talks" in the world of Land, just like it still "talked" in the world of Dawn (even as late as the biker army assault on the mall; the bikers are very actively looting money from the bank. That means that money still has value this late into the movie.) But money is nothing but a joke in the world of Day, a relic from a long gone past that now lies unclaimed on the streets, just like garbage. The people who are really going to survive are those who can adapt to the new world, the Rileys of the world, although even Riley doesn't want to play along with that - he wants to go off alone to Canada and forget everyone else, so he's just as bad in different ways. Charlie is more adept, but he's a tagalong in mentality. Cholo sees an opportunity to attain the wealth and power in this new world as the rules have changed, but can't see how Kaufman is lying to him and using him. The fact that this guy can even seriously entertain the idea of making a trip all the way up into the Canadian wilderness in a friggin' car is also very telling. Can anyone seriously imagine such a thing going on in the much more devastated, decayed, zombie-infested world of Day??? I sure as heck can't! Even travelling by chopper is deemed risky in that world, let alone a long distance trip on the ground.

[EvilNed]

The Bub in the gas station argument is to me a non-starter, because we have no idea what he’s been up to for the three years since the dead began to walk. And only biological evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years, by the way. Other things can evolve too, like ideas. The Land citizens not feeling depressed is because they’re past that stage. Also, one could argue some of them are. But the classic Stages of Grief places Depression (as in Dawn) comes before Acceptance (as in Land). If anything, this even strengthens the argument for Lands place in the timeline.

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, second thing first... That Day takes place After Land, of course. It was obvious years ago that we disagreed on this topic, so I guess we both know that we disagree, and I guess we can agree that we disagree, however, that line usually means something along the lines of 'let's just end this discussion', which 1) where's the fun in that? and 2) you said you wanted to go to 1,000 posts in this thread, so you, I, and others, got a long way to go. I notice that the "Rate the last movie you've seen" thread has 1,567 posts as I type this. Dont know if that is the thread with the most posts ever or not, but we got even longer to go to hit that number, if you wanted to go that high. Lol! Yeah, I got that. And it doesnt make any sense to me, except - again - as acting like an asshole. You seem to genuinely not understand what I meant here, so I shall attempt to explain it to where you can understand. Throughout this whole thread, it seems to me, that you have not been genuine in your responses, ignore valid questions which, if answered, could actually expand someones knowledge about your real thoughts on the topic, claimed to be engaged in some type of green-energy plan by tricking people into responding to your un-insightful posts, bragged about it in fact, replied to a long post with "t/l; d/r", etc, things which seem to me to be acting like an asshole. Yet, I did not call you an asshole, or imply you were an asshole. Hey, its the internet, what are we gonna do. Then you posted: Acceptance comes after Depression. So I don’t see a problem here. to which I replied: If there are three things in life that are certain, they are death, taxes, and the fact that you wouldn't see any problem with any thought you had, regardless of evidence to the contrary. You do play devil's advocate well, if illogically and dishonestly. I assume that you and most people are familiar with the saying 'only two things in life are certain, death and taxes' so using that well known saying, I added in a playful insult to you as a third thing in the saying, in an attempt at humor (successful humor or not? for each to decide). Then I gave you kudos for playing a good devil's advocate. I could have went into more detail, but just made a short post. I am on a binge tv watch right now,so I am just sitting here watching tv and posting here at the same time. Then you posted: Not an argument. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model Don’t try to argue things you don’t understand. Posting a link such as this implies thinking that the person you are conversing with is unfamiliar with something as well known as the five stages of grief...something I am sure has been mentioned in dozens and dozens or TV shows and movies throughout the years, as well as on the news or online articles, etc. Then you very snidely (in my opinion) said dont try to argue things you dont understand. To me, that was you being an asshole. Yet, I did not go to the extreme of calling you an asshole, I posted this: Do you try hard to be an asshole, or does it just come naturally to you? Dont answer that, either way it doesnt matter. This was my being a smartass, kind of calling you an asshole without actually calling you an asshole. It seemed a lot less rude than saying 'you are an asshole'. After ignoring so many questions directly related to Romero movies, of course you reply to the one thing I have ever said to you dont reply to this,and you replied: Dude. Don’t want to be treated like an asshole? Don’t act like one. I respect you but your posts are as smug and condesending as they come. I did not say you called me an asshole, did not complain you called me an asshole, didnt imply anything at all about you calling me/treating me/acting like I was an asshole. I was politely calling you an asshole without actually calling you an asshole. Your reply asked the question Dont want to be treated like an asshole? I didnt say that in any way. Maybe I want to be treated like an asshole, maybe I dont. I didnt say anything about that. Your post implies that I made some assertion that I didnt want to be treated like an asshole, which I didnt,therefore I posted: I didnt mention whether or not I wanted to be treated like an asshole, nor did I accuse you of treating me like one. That seemed short and easily understandable to me, to which you replied: I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but nitpicking semantics is not really working out for you. I was not nitpicking semantics, but pointing out you were inaccurate in your interpretation of what I said. My complaint, if there was one, was that you were acting like an asshole, not complaining that you were treating me like an asshole. Maybe you do call that nitpicking, I call it a quest for accuracy. One thing is for sure, we have different opinions about words, meanings,etc. Hope that helps in clearing that one up for you. Hope I didnt have weird typos or anything, i didnt read this after typing, it was distracting enough copying and pasting. Anyway, tv time is over, so I shall end for now. Look forward to the continuing march for 1,567 and beyond later.

[EvilNed]

I’m not gonna argue semantics with you. You did call me an asshole, which I am fine with by the way because I can’t deny that. But you’re acting just as much as an asshole as I am so it felt pointless to point that out. But hey, that’s internet arguing for you, which I myself am guilty off. also, am on phone. Responses short. Happy midsummers eve!

[shootemindehead]

Here is something else. In Dawn, after they have taken over the mall, at first we see our protagonists going throughout the mall with glee, "shopping" in the stores, robbing the bank, ice skating, playing games in the arcade, etc, having unfettered fun that most of us would have if we had free reign in a mall with no need to pay and no negative consequences for not doing so. But later, we see them dragging ass around, as solemn music plays, the fun has gone as they realize that life sucks when there is nothing other than being in that mall. This realization hits them after only a few months. Why are the residents of the tower Fiddler's Green so happy and content with their very similar situation after three years? Because there's more people and the zombies are futher away. In 'Dawn of the Dead', the zeds are literally at the door and there's just Fran, Peter, Roger and Stephen stuck in the mall. A few months of that would do anyone's head in. Into the bargain, they're just coming to the realisation that this is it. This is the end. The folk in Pittsburg have gone through the apoc and accepted their lot. They've fought to reclaim much of the city and set up an enclave that allows them to have a semi-comfortable existence. One where they don't have to worry about the zombies out in the wasteland and can ignore them, if they wish. The resisdents of the Green don't think of the dead outside the city walls. Nor do they care much for the other people living in the streets, who have much harder daily lives and when it all comes crashing down around them, it's their willful ignorance that led them there.

[Philly_SWAT]

Because there's more people and the zombies are futher away. In 'Dawn of the Dead', the zeds are literally at the door and there's just Fran, Peter, Roger and Stephen stuck in the mall. A few months of that would do anyone's head in. Into the bargain, they're just coming to the realisation that this is it. This is the end. The folk in Pittsburg have gone through the apoc and accepted their lot. They've fought to reclaim much of the city and set up an enclave that allows them to have a semi-comfortable existence. One where they don't have to worry about the zombies out in the wasteland and can ignore them, if they wish. The resisdents of the Green don't think of the dead outside the city walls. Nor do they care much for the other people living in the streets, who have much harder daily lives and when it all comes crashing down around them, it's their willful ignorance that led them there. This is a thoughtful reply,thank you. Based on your reply I would like to ask you this. You say that the residents of the Green dont think of the dead outside (obviously true) and that they dont care for the people living in the streets (also obviously true). You say that they 'reclaimed' much of the city, meaning it was overrun, then they retook it. I think it is more logical that they held much of the city, not retook it, but that aside,here is the question....who do you envision it was that actually took on the task of retaking that portion of the city? The 'rich folk' that are living in the tower? Do you think it was they that waded into hordes of zombies, fighting, shooting, hand to hand combat, risking death, etc., won, and then set up residence in a luxury tower and decide to ignore everything that they just fought their way thru,and let some commoners who didnt help them inside the fences just for the heck of it? Or do you think the commoners on the street took all the risks and dangers of fighting to retake the city, and then they allowed the rich folk to live in luxury while they lived in squalor? Or do you think that both social classes fought together to reclaim the city, then for some reason sectioned themselves off according to old ideas of class from the pre-ZA? Seems like it had to be one of these three scenarios, although it could be even a different scenario. The movie does not explicitly say exactly who did what, when, but what do you think?

[JDP]

Think of the dead outside (obviously true) and that they dont care for the people living in the streets (also obviously true). You say that they 'reclaimed' much of the city, meaning it was overrun, then they retook it. I think it is more logical that they held much of the city, not retook it.... That's pretty much what it looks like to me too. Why? Well, as pointed out before, we know for a fact that these outposts are early developments during the zombie crisis, not things that were established in the distant future, when zombies vastly outnumbered people, like in Day of the Dead. The people responsible for these outposts simply took over control of sections of the cities while the zombie situation was still not in full swing. Since the government had its hands full trying to control the said zombie situation, it left a void in these places, which rich crooks like Kaufman filled in. They hired mercenaries and turned sections of the big cities into fortresses to keep the zombies from moving in. They became the overlords of these sections since the government eventually lost control of the situation and never came back to reclaim the cities. Now, the real question here is: why does no one from Dawn and Day seem to know anything about this??? Doctor Rausch, for example, seriously proposes to drop atomic bombs over all major cities. That would eliminate a huge number of zombies, indeed, since they concentrate in those areas, but at the same time they would be wiping out a whole bunch of humans too if these outposts existed. To government people like Dr. Rausch, the cities are a lost cause. There's basically nothing but loads of zombies there. So bombing the shit out of them is not an issue. You would only be killing zombies and maybe the odd human here and there who still have managed to survive in there. It is obvious that in Dawn no one, not even the government, is aware that there are still these large pockets of people left in some big cities. And the folks in Day also are equally as ignorant about any of these outposts. But how could such things go by unnoticed??? We are not talking about small shelters with a handful of people here, but large portions of entire cities with hundreds of inhabitants still thriving on the surface. As if that wasn't already enough, the media itself also reported the establishment of such outposts while it was still around. There's just no way that these outposts could have gone unnoticed. I don't think that Romero realized the very evident problems and contradictions he introduced into the series with Land. That's one of the reasons why it's the "black sheep" of his zombie series, which many fans have disowned. No other movie of his has given rise to so many arguments.

[Moon Knight]

Fiddlers Green has tons of residents and much more open space to go out and about. The mall in Dawn had like three living residents and a prison like feel to it. So after awhile, the mall was pretty damn depressing. Also, people here are still arguing that Day came after Land?

[JDP]

The truly surprising and puzzling thing is that after all that has been explained there actually still are people out there who can possibly believe that it makes sense that Land can come after Day! For those who still don't get it: this has nothing to do with what Romero might or might not have intended when he made that movie, but with the plethora of contradictions and paradoxes that such a proposed order brings to his movies. When Land was made the guy couldn't even remember that he had clearly established that bitten people took as much as several days to eventually die and become zombies, for crying out loud! (in Land a zombie bite is equivalent to an immediate death sentence: it only takes a bitten person a few hours to die and become a zombie, that's why bitten people are eliminated almost immediately. Compare that to what is clearly established in Dawn.) Romero's memory was already getting bad when he made Land. That pretty much should tell anyone that Romero's intentions and what he actually managed to convey onscreen with this movie are two very different things. Even if someone can one day find a clear statement from the man himself saying "Yes, I fully intended Land to happen after Day", that still won't make all the contradictions/discrepancies/paradoxes magically "vanish". The most logical order, based on all the evidence that is either explicitly shown/said or that can be deduced from the three movies (Dawn, Day & Land) is that Land occupies an intermediate position between Dawn and Day, and certainly not after Day.

[nycbsn]

I know I'm coming 4 weeks late into this but wow, interesting viewpoints altogether. I would like to bring up a couple of things that I don't think anyone in this thread has brought up (forgive me if i am wrong, I haven't gone through every single page of it). Im going to be making some comparisons to the Walking Dead because, well, both situations are almost identical (the only difference is that Romero's zombies have a bit more intellect or rather they are capable of achieving intellect)... 1. An issue i read being brought up here is why are the survivors of Dawn and Day not going to these big outposts (Fiddlers green aka downtown Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc) when they have supposedly been operating since the start? Logically, I don't think a place like Fiddlers Green was operational from the start. I think it probably began as a rescue station or a series of rescue stations in downtown Pittsburgh. They defended these buildings (rescue stations) well enough to hold their own ground for a while and, overtime, kaufman banded everyone together to take back more of the city, section by section. Kind of like in Dawn, the survivors began living in the malls storage room. Then over a couple days they took more of the mall back from the dead. Soon they had the entire place to themselves. It seems logical that this is what occured in Fiddlers Green. Instead of holding up in mall storage room, kaufmans people held up in a tv station, high school, and maybe a hotel until an idea occured... Raise the bridges, close off the throat, and kill whatever is left inside. Just like what happened in Dawn but on a larger scale and took much longer, even requiring more manpower. Heck they probably screwed up a few times, losing some people in the.process. can you.imagine trying to enact such large scale risky plan like that? Look at Woodbury from the Walking Dead. The governor said they started out trapped in an apartment building in woodbury. Over time, they closed off woodbury and killed the stragglers inside. Eventually governor had his very own little Fiddlers green so to speak. So why didn't the survivors of Dawn and Day know about a place like Fiddlers Green? Probably because it wasnt fiddlers green just yet. It was a few rescue station.groups huddled together, struggling to survive at first and eventuallly gain control of the situation by taking the city back. So, assuming Day begins just when Dawn ends or assuming its a few months after, why doesn't the Florida crew know of the Pittsburgh and Cleveland outposts? Maybe they werent outposts yet, maybe they were still im the midst of getting their s*** together. It probably took more time, after securing pittsburgh, for kaufman to discover and establish communication with Cleveland. Does this make any sense? 2. Someone else here mentioned Savini's Land interview saying how his character Blades, now returning as a zombie, spent 1.5 years (am i right or off a bit?) Chasing his own shadow around mall fountain or some thing like that before arriving at Fiddlers green in Land. Now like it or not, that is zombified Blades you see in Land of the Dead, nevermind that its a cameo appearance. We have a Dawn character appearing as a zombie in Land. Savini gave us a time reference as well. Dawn's setting is about 20-30 min outside of Land's setting. Which would explain why he shows up in Land, probably because he and his buddies lived there (prior to outbreak of course, because remember Rome, i mean fiddlers green was not built in a day, week, or month). Now are we to interpret his time reference as the amount of time passed between Dawn and Land (assuming Day is in the middle)? His time mark almost meets up with the 3 year references in Land. Because Blades dies about 6-7 months after the outbreak starts (going by Fran's pregnancy). 3. About the 3 year references in Land.... The garage guy says the last car drove out of Pittsburgh 3 years ago. Cholo says hes been taking out kaufmans garbage for 3 years... Why do both things occur at the 3 year mark? Is it a coincidence that the last car drove out of town at the same time that Cholo started working for kaufman or did something occur 3 years ago to make both of those events happen at the same time? Thoughts?