Living Dead Movie Timeline?

[3pidemiC]

Hello,

I hope this isn't really that noobish of a question to ask. I've watched Romero's Living Dead films countless times and I've always wondered about the time frame between each one. If someone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

[jim102016]

Hello,

I hope this isn't really that noobish of a question to ask. I've watched Romero's Living Dead films countless times and I've always wondered about the time frame between each one. If someone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.


That's a damn good question that will never be figured out....at least agreed upon on this website. As I remember, it was addressed not long ago and everyone had lots of input. Search for it

[bassman]

:eek: AHHHH! This again!:p

Just as jimbo said, most everyone's thoughts on the matter are in other threads. There is no definitive timeline and because of that, there are a million different opinions on the subject.

Some think it's Night, Dawn, Day, Land.....others think it's Night, Dawn, Land, Day, and so on and so forth.

Personally, I don't think the films are meant to be connected at all. They're all different films in different worlds with the only connection being the walking dead.

[Mike70]

:lol:

the one thread guaranteed to bring out just about everybody's inner fanboy.:lol:

like jim and bassman said, this has been fought over, bi*ched about and has come close to making people square off with pistols at 10 paces several times over. :D

i'd necromance one of those threads and throw your two cents in.

[Legion2213]

Hello,

I hope this isn't really that noobish of a question to ask. I've watched Romero's Living Dead films countless times and I've always wondered about the time frame between each one. If someone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

There have been a few, how shall we say, "robust debates" on this issue. :D

Personally speaking, it's best just to watch the movies and enjoy them, create your own timeline that makes sense to you (and GAR has now hit the reset button with Diary, so it all begins again).

[hadrian0117]

My personal guess is that Dawn takes place 3 weeks after Night, Day takes place about 6 months after Dawn, and Land takes place 2.5 years after Day. Characters in Dawn mention something about the crisis going on for 3 weeks and in Land Cholo mentions he's worked for Kaufman for 3 years (a mechanic also tells Riley he hasn't seen a working car for 3 years).

[MikePizzoff]

This is just my take on when the very beginning of each movie takes place:

Night - First day
Dawn - 2 weeks
Day - 2 years
Land - 3 years
Diarrhea - First day

[AcesandEights]

*Rolls grenade into thread and closes the door*

[Andy]

Hello,

I hope this isn't really that noobish of a question to ask. I've watched Romero's Living Dead films countless times and I've always wondered about the time frame between each one. If someone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Many peoples opinions on this vary and romero refuses to say, so your opening a can of worms by asking really.

My personal take is that night happens over night on the first night (obviously), dawn picks up the next day and happens over about 6 months, lasting until winter of that year.. day then picks up where dawn finishes and lasts only a few days.

I dont beleive, as many do, that the events happen over years.

Thats my take on the original trilogy, i dont include diary as i havn't seen it yet, and i dont include land as i think its utter filth and not worthy of a place in the timeline.

[SRP76]

Personally, I don't think the films are meant to be connected at all. They're all different films in different worlds with the only connection being the walking dead.

That's the coward's way out!:p

I once started to try to come up with a decent timeline, but I kind of got distracted, and never got very far.

I can say that the first zombie attacks began on a Friday in late March or early April, and that Night takes place the Sunday after it.

If we ignore the fact that Dawn begins in the winter, rather than in summer, we can say that it picks up 3 weeks later. The difference in seasons gums up the whole thing.

[Craig]

In my opinion it's part of GAR's style to leave things that are un-explained or un-canonical (even a word?) in his movies so as not to impede the movie he wanted to make.

[Yojimbo]

Much debated, never resolved.

The only thing we know for sure is that the Night of the Living Dead occured on the day that the time changes for spring, presumably the early evening of March 10th 1968. Beyond that, everything else is speculation as to year, month, etc, and even with NOLD it is a big leap of faith to pin down the year as 1968 (since it could be something that is supposed to happen in the near future)

I agree with Bassman that each of the movies are related only by the fact that the dead are resurrecting, and that each are independent of the other. Otherwise, you need to reconcile the different time periods each is shot in, and therein lies madness.

[Philly_SWAT]

Hello,

I hope this isn't really that noobish of a question to ask. I've watched Romero's Living Dead films countless times and I've always wondered about the time frame between each one. If someone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Personally, I think that this is a great question! Rather than direct you to other threads, I will give you my answer here in this thread. As one of my favorite topics, my response may be lengthy, but I will attempt to answer as completely as I can.

Your specific question is about the "time frame between each one", which I will give my thoughts on. Before that, I feel it is worth mentioning the issues of "when do they take place" and "are they related to each other", which are two separate questions, but topics that others here have already addressed, even though they are not directly tied to your initial question.

As to "are they related", I suppose that is up to the viewers own interpretation, however, I would ask which option seems more reasonable to you, that GAR made separate movies, all set within the same story-telling universe, but chose to have them not related to each other, or that he made separate movies within the same story-telling universe, and chose to have them related to each other? I think it is far more logically to assume that they are in fact related to each other. Why bother to create such a great story-telling universe, and then tell separate stories that have nothing to do with each other set in that very universe? You will have to decide that for yourself, but I mention this first to let you know that I in fact believe they are connected to each other, and my answer to your initial question will be influenced by that belief. If they are not connected to each other, then by definition your question would be invalid to begin with. There would not be any "time frame between each one", since they are not connected to each other.

As to the "when do they take" question, I will briefly say that I believe the when is unimportant, and that the movies themselves should be seen to be set in a ... "non time-frame specific" universe, in other words, they are timeless. Part of the reason why questions such as these exist is that GAR was making movies on a limited budget, and without a lot of forethought into endless disection by us decades later. When he uses 1960's clothing styles in Night, and then late 1970's clothing styles in Dawn, it is not to be inferred that Dawn takes place a decade after Night, rather, he just shot the films in the real-world time they existed, without giving thought to the time frame problems that such issues create. Again, you have to make your own judgement on this question, but this is what I believe. Night is not set in 1968, but simply "at the start of the outbreak".

Now to your question. To determine how much time passes between each film, I suggest that we have to use the evidence provided within the films themselves. The evidence can be a little hazy at times, and not definitive, so again, you have to make your own determination. As already mentioned, there has been much debate over this issue in the past, so feel free to look at those posts in a later time. But here is my opinion, based on the evidence we have in the films themselves, and based on the core beliefs that I have expressed in this post.

Night - The start of the outbreak, around the time the US goes on Daylight Savings Time.

Dawn - Takes place approx. three weeks after the events in Night. The main evidence for this is Dr. Foster right at the beginning of Dawn saying "its been three weeks!" He was making the argument that it had been 3 weeks since the outbreak, and the situation is getting worse by the minute, and people had better start listening to him or all will be lost. The events in Dawn take place over a period of several months, as evidenced by Fran marking the calendar, and the fact that it is revealed that she is pregnant, and is showing at the films end.

Land/Day - Here I have an opinion that most disagree with, but it is my opinion nonetheless. I believe that the events in Day happen after the events in Land. The exact period of when the events in either film happen in relation to the events in Dawn is unclear. Many feel that Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak, due to several mentions in Land about "3 years", such as Cholo saying he worked for Kaufman for 3 years, and the dude in the garage saying "no car has driven out of here in 3 years". I could make logical arguements against this theory, however nothing definitive, so even if the events in Land are 3 years after the start of the outbreak, I still say the events in Day happen after that. I look to the evidence in the films themselves to support this idea. Day is more dark, more bleak, more lacking hope. It seems to me that is has to be much further into the outbreak that the events in Land. In Land, there are survivors all over the place. They are still using money to exchange for goods and services. With all of the people that are alive in the Green, they are still able to find food, medicine, booze, etc. in towns close enough to the Green to support everyone. Seems to me that after a long period of time, towns close enough for raids of this type would be depleted in short order, and the idea of using money would no longer be realistic. The mindset of the characters was still set in a "pre-outbreak" world, even though the world had obviously changed. Cholo, who seemed to be a rather smart guy, was obsessed with getting money, and Kaufman was also obsessed with keeping his money....to what end? Cholo wanted to money to take to another outpost, to Cleavland. Even though he realized that everyone in Cleavland may be dead, he still wanted the money. They were still deluded about things being the way they were. There is no such delutions in Day. They realize in Day that they are screwed. Communications are down. There is no hope in sight. They have searched for survivors 100 miles in each direction, and found none. Is it more logical to assume that for some reason survival rates would be so much higher in Pittsburgh that in Florida, or that more time had passed since Land, and there were less survivors left by the time Day rolls around? And all of these questions are clouded by the movie making techniques of GAR.

So in closing, I say the time between each movie is...
Night - start of outbreak
Dawn - 3 weeks later
Land - 3 years after start of outbreak (this seems like too much time to me, I think it is much shorter, but everyone seems to like 3 years, so whatever, no real way to tell)
Day - hard to give any definitive answer, but after Land

This is my best answer to your question.

[SRP76]

It's possible that Dawn is a lot more than 3 weeks after the first outbreaks (after Night, in other words). The talking head just says that "you haven't listened" for 3 weeks.

Who's to say that this guy jumped on the air and started sounding the alarm the very instant that the first corpse chewed somebody up? Odds are great that he didn't. He's also on a local show; whatever the situation, even if it did start only when he went on tv, could be taking place at a different rate than other areas. Philadelphia itself may have been decently secured for awhile, and is only now starting to get into "all hell breaking loose" mode.

There could have been small, isolated outbreaks that got put down (like the one in Night) for months leading up to this point.

[Choas]

If you watch the movies ,they'll give you the time frame.

[3pidemiC]

No? That's why I am asking the question.

I thought maybe that GAR had adressed it before. I guess it's cool that everyone has their own opinions on it. The only thing that I would have to disagree with is the thoughts about Land. Everyone here seems to think that Land happens 3 years after the initial outbreak, but Slack mentions in the film that she has never been to the deadlands and that she has grown up with the living dead around here. Now, clearly she is older than three which would mean that Land takes place at least 18-20 years after the outbreak.

Any thoughts?

[Choas]

No? That's why I am asking the question.

I thought maybe that GAR had adressed it before. I guess it's cool that everyone has their own opinions on it. The only thing that I would have to disagree with is the thoughts about Land. Everyone here seems to think that Land happens 3 years after the initial outbreak, Slack mentions that she has never been to the deadlands and that she has grown up with the living dead around here. Now, clearly she is older than three which would mean that Land takes place at least 18-20 years after the outbreak.

Any thoughts?


I think she said that she lived in the city her whole life.Back when it was a real city.

[SRP76]

With all of the people that are alive in the Green, they are still able to find food, medicine, booze, etc. in towns close enough to the Green to support everyone. Seems to me that after a long period of time, towns close enough for raids of this type would be depleted in short order,

Perhaps not.

They aren't in an underground bunker; they are in a city. Not a little one, either; it's a huge urban area. Before even thinking about venturing out to raid the surrounding towns, the people holed up in the city would live on what's already there. And we know that Pittsburgh has a LOT of items within its borders at all times. With all the supermarkets, restaurants, drugstores, and so on, the survivors would have enough supplies already inside to last a very, very long time. Especially when the "unwashed masses" are only allowed tablescraps to begin with.

They probably didn't have to go on their first raid until a couple years in.

[Trin]

I prefer to think of the movies in the same universe.

My opinion:
Night/Diary - Initial Outbreak - first days
Dawn - 3 weeks up to 6 months or so
Day - 8 or 10 months
Land - 3-5 years

Day - I believe there is a lot of evidence that Day was within the first year. The researchers were still hung up on basics. The military were still losing people. They'd only recently lost contact with the government. The place was in a rapid downward spiral. It couldn't have been going on for years like that. They would've either imploded (like they did) or found some level point that would've likely continued indefinitely.

Also, the attitudes of the researchers and military was that there was still hope of finding a cure and returning the world to some semblance of normalcy. The military in particular were just waiting for the researches to figure it out so they could all go home. At the beginning of the movie Sarah was in denial over the new world. John was not. He'd moved on and was ready to start living according to the new world's rules. By the end of the movie Sarah had moved to acceptance as well.

Land - As opposed to Day they'd given up on the old world. They'd moved on and learned to exist in the new zombie world. They reached the level where they'd found the routine and survival mechanisms to cope. They saw the zombies as part of their world, not an aberration. They were no longer horrified by them - they used them for sport and novelty. No one was trying to solve the problem, they were living with it. They had long ago moved from denial into acceptance. I see all these attitudes as being MUCH further into the outbreak than what we saw in Day.

Riley in particular had been part of the new society long enough that he wanted out. He was so frustrated and beaten down over what he was having to do day in and day out that he was ready to leave the protected area and go out on his own. That kind of attitude doesn't come in a short period of time.

A few observations:
- In Day the helicopter flew over the Florida coastline. Power lines were still intact and boats were still moored. I don't see that being the case after even one storm season.
- We don't know how many people lived in Land nor do we know how far and wide they were scavenging. We do know that the zombies walked nearly 24 hours to reach the Green, which means it was a fair distance.
- Slack said that she hadn't been outside the city since it had been a real city, not that she had grown up after the outbreak. I took that to mean that she was in the city when it happened and was within the protected area when it was established.
- The economy in Land was a Kaufman re-estabilished one, not the previous free market one. It's implausible to believe that they just kept spending money from the initial point of the outbreak right up until Land began. At some point the economy had to fall and Kaufman had to re-establish it.

[DubiousComforts]

I can say that the first zombie attacks began on a Friday in late March or early April, and that Night takes place the Sunday after it.
You are correct. According to the radio broadcast, the phenomenon began two days earlier in Louisiana with the first reported murder of a family. (Someone in the forum had mentioned this, so I double-checked the film. Good catch.)

[Mike70]

well guys, romero was onced asked a question that is relevant to this discussion about horror sequels and here is his answer:


HW: Many horror sequels bring back previous survivors to fight the evil once again...
George: Yeah
HW: ...yet you have never done this in your Dead films.
George: No.
HW: Is there a reason for that?
George: Well you know, they were never... I never did anything with the period. I could have set them all in 1968 [laughs] and since they weren't connected in time... Well, in other words, I just used the period. I shot one in the 70's and the background was 70's - I shot one in the 80's and the background was the 80's - and this one this background will be 2000. So I don't feel that you can continue the same characters. The thing that continues is just the phenomena and I try to put a different spin on it that reflects the time when the film is made, rather than try to keep the same characters going, it just wouldn't make any sense unless they were all done in the same period.
HW: So you would never considered bringing back a character?
George: No, they're too far apart... well, I might. Actually at one point I thought about bringing back Peter from Dawn, but it would have to be 20 years later - and of course the actor would look right for it because he's 20 years older.

this was taken from a very long interview with romero that was done by horrorweb a couple of years ago. it can be found here:

http://www.horror-web.com/interviews/georgeromero.html

on an aside: at the end of the interview with romero you will find a link that will take you to a series of interviews done with the day cast: lori cardille, joe pilato, gary klar, and antone dileo are all interviewed at length.

[EvilNed]

I don't think they are connected, or were even meant to be. After all, they are set against different time-period backdrops. 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's. In my mind, they cannot logically be connected in a straight timeline. However they all take place further into the Outbreak. So my theory (I'm keeping this short):

Night takes place in the 60's, Outbreak +1.
Dawn takes place in the 70's, Outbreak +7.
Day takes place in the 80's, Outbreak +360
Land takes place in the 00's, Outbreak at least five years.

[MinionZombie]

None of the movies are connected at all, particularly Diary which is a whole other thing in the same idea.

This topic has been discussed many-a-time before alright. :p

Night - somewhere around day 3
Dawn - 3 weeks in, by the end of the flick it's a few months in
Day - I personally like to put it at 1 year, but others have offered 3 months ... I'm not entirely convinced, I feel that's a bit too short on time, perhaps 6 to 9 months, but I always liked 1 year personally.
Land - 3 years after outbreak (it's clearly suggested in the script - 'last car rolled out of here 3 years ago').

As they're not connected though, they're all separate out-breaks, perhaps in different universes if you wanted to get all like that...

Also, I don't think any of the movies specifically set themselves in their respective decades. Story wise they reflect the decades, but that's more for our benefit, rather than the characters I think - if that makes sense to youze lot. It's why GAR doesn't explicitly have any lines in the films where someone mentions the date ... not by year anyway, you do see Sarah in Day with her self-made calender which is somewhere at the start of November, if memory serves.

But again - within the plots/stories of the films themselves, I don't think they're specifically tied to the decade, that stuff is just for our - we the viewer - benefit.

...

As for the issue of Slack in Land, clearly she means she'd lived in the city her whole life - prior to the outbreak - then sh*t went down, and she ended up trapped there.

[3pidemiC]

I always pictured Day as being a least a year or two after the outbreak. With the grim atmosphere that world portrays and referrals to the ratio of living dead to humans and the quotes about being "the only one's left", just didn't seem like it could all happen that quickly. I'm finally getting into a steady pace of reading and close to finishing World War Z and it makes me look at it a little bit differently (not that there is any truth to that book or the films).

I do realize that none of the films are connected as far as the characters go, but I will always see them as part of the same outbreak. It just doesn't seem right to have them all part of something seperate, and it doesn't seem to be intended that way. Especially with every film being a further progression of the initial outbreak. The decomposition of the dead, the intellect of the dead, the landscape, the morale, it all seems continue to get worse in some way or another.

[hadrian0117]

...- The economy in Land was a Kaufman re-estabilished one, not the previous free market one. It's implausible to believe that they just kept spending money from the initial point of the outbreak right up until Land began. At some point the economy had to fall and Kaufman had to re-establish it.

Also when Cholo demands money even though he's not planning to return to Pittsburgh. So either he's insane or other settlements exist and use the same money. Romero didn't **** up by having people still use money. He ****ed up by having them use American currency left over from before the outbreak istead of Kaufman issued scrip.

[Trin]

I do realize that none of the films are connected as far as the characters go, but I will always see them as part of the same outbreak. It just doesn't seem right to have them all part of something seperate, and it doesn't seem to be intended that way. Especially with every film being a further progression of the initial outbreak. The decomposition of the dead, the intellect of the dead, the landscape, the morale, it all seems continue to get worse in some way or another.
This is exactly how I think on the topic.

[Philly_SWAT]

Trin, I respectfuly disagree with a lot of your points here.



Day - I believe there is a lot of evidence that Day was within the first year. The researchers were still hung up on basics. The military were still losing people. They'd only recently lost contact with the government. The place was in a rapid downward spiral. It couldn't have been going on for years like that. They would've either imploded (like they did) or found some level point that would've likely continued indefinitely.
If researchers were not "hung up" on the basics, what would be the point of research? As a situation gets more disperate, what approach should researchers take...a "swig some liquor and dance a jig while we try to solve the biggest problem of all-time" approach? And the fact that the military was "still" losing people does not have any bearing on the passing of time. Plus, it is not logical to think that after a short period of time, in Day they were on the brink of destruction, yet after a long period of time, in Land they were engaged in trade, going to clubs and having fun, etc.


A
lso, the attitudes of the researchers and military was that there was still hope of finding a cure and returning the world to some semblance of normalcy. The military in particular were just waiting for the researches to figure it out so they could all go home. At the beginning of the movie Sarah was in denial over the new world. John was not. He'd moved on and was ready to start living according to the new world's rules. By the end of the movie Sarah had moved to acceptance as well.
What else could the military do other than wait for the researchers? They certainly had no way to solve the problem on their own. The military was growing marijuana topside, and openly smoking joints in the middle of meetings. Would the military have such lax protocals after a short perios of time? And Sarahs denial and Johns acceptance have no bearing on the passage of time.


Land - As opposed to Day they'd given up on the old world. They'd moved on and learned to exist in the new zombie world. They reached the level where they'd found the routine and survival mechanisms to cope. They saw the zombies as part of their world, not an aberration. They were no longer horrified by them - they used them for sport and novelty. No one was trying to solve the problem, they were living with it. They had long ago moved from denial into acceptance. I see all these attitudes as being MUCH further into the outbreak than what we saw in Day.
I disagree. GAR himself has said the Land was about "ignoring" the problem, not coming to grips with it. We saw in Night90 that in the period of the initial outbreak, they were using the zombies for sport and novelty. In Dawn, the biker gang was hitting them in the face with pies. This fact in Land points to it being early in the outbreak, not later.


Riley in particular had been part of the new society long enough that he wanted out. He was so frustrated and beaten down over what he was having to do day in and day out that he was ready to leave the protected area and go out on his own. That kind of attitude doesn't come in a short period of time.
I would say that it easily could. How long would you want to live in a world where all your friends and fanily were dead, and reanimated, and everyone around you was just ignoring this and acting as if all they want is money?

A few observations:
- In Day the helicopter flew over the Florida coastline. Power lines were still intact and boats were still moored. I don't see that being the case after even one storm season.
This is more of a movie making flaw than evidence of a short time passing. There was no cgi in the first 3 movies, and GAR did not have a budget to rig a couple of boatyards to have overturned boats, etc. By this line of reasoning, then Land would be 40 years after Night, due to clothing styles differences, technology, etc.



- We don't know how many people lived in Land nor do we know how far and wide they were scavenging. We do know that the zombies walked nearly 24 hours to reach the Green, which means it was a fair distance.As is well documented, zombies move VERY slowly...



- The economy in Land was a Kaufman re-estabilished one, not the previous free market one. It's implausible to believe that they just kept spending money from the initial point of the outbreak right up until Land began. At some point the economy had to fall and Kaufman had to re-establish it. Yes, it was a "Kaufman" economy, but it was still the same money we have now, now some re-issued Kaufman currency. To me, it is implausible to believe that in a world overrun with the living dead that the aquisisition of money would be the prime concern of a large part of the populace, unless it was so close to the start of the outbreak that people were still in denial about the problem and thought the world would shortyly return to normal.

SRP76, in response to my assertion that "With all of the people that are alive in the Green, they are still able to find food, medicine, booze, etc. in towns close enough to the Green to support everyone. Seems to me that after a long period of time, towns close enough for raids of this type would be depleted in short order," you say...


Perhaps not.

They aren't in an underground bunker; they are in a city. Not a little one, either; it's a huge urban area. Before even thinking about venturing out to raid the surrounding towns, the people holed up in the city would live on what's already there. And we know that Pittsburgh has a LOT of items within its borders at all times. With all the supermarkets, restaurants, drugstores, and so on, the survivors would have enough supplies already inside to last a very, very long time. Especially when the "unwashed masses" are only allowed tablescraps to begin with.

They probably didn't have to go on their first raid until a couple years in.
I think your idea here is not correct at all. "The Green" was not a huge urban area, it was mainly just the downtown area of Pittsburgh, not the entire city. Here is Florida a few years ago after a series of hurricanes came through, power was out for several days on end, and a few of the main roads into the area I live were blocked with trees/debris. In that few days time, both gasoline and food delivery were scarce. People were calling people at 3 am if they saw a gas station open, and lines of cars were blocking main raods with the lines trying to get gas. Many grocery stores were closed all together. Restaurants were closed. This is because there was no food in either. Most or the perishable items in the grocery stores...perished. Even though the rest of the country was having no problems, a few blocked roads had supplies at a minimum for most of my county. You are talking about a time where no new supplies would be produced anywhere else. And as we see in Dawn, chaos was erupting in the early stages of the outbreak, where people were taking guns and stealing what they wanted, and even cops were losing it and shooting innocent people for no reason. Not having to go on a raid until "a couple of years in" is way off the mark. And as you can see from the computer screens in Land, only the downtown area was blocked off, not the entire city.

[SRP76]

I think your idea here is not correct at all. "The Green" was not a huge urban area, it was mainly just the downtown area of Pittsburgh, not the entire city. Here is Florida a few years ago after a series of hurricanes came through, power was out for several days on end, and a few of the main roads into the area I live were blocked with trees/debris. In that few days time, both gasoline and food delivery were scarce. People were calling people at 3 am if they saw a gas station open, and lines of cars were blocking main raods with the lines trying to get gas. Many grocery stores were closed all together. Restaurants were closed. This is because there was no food in either. Most or the perishable items in the grocery stores...perished. Even though the rest of the country was having no problems, a few blocked roads had supplies at a minimum for most of my county. You are talking about a time where no new supplies would be produced anywhere else. And as we see in Dawn, chaos was erupting in the early stages of the outbreak, where people were taking guns and stealing what they wanted, and even cops were losing it and shooting innocent people for no reason. Not having to go on a raid until "a couple of years in" is way off the mark. And as you can see from the computer screens in Land, only the downtown area was blocked off, not the entire city.

All the "depleted supplies" along a hurricane route happen due to masses of people passing through, not due to the people who live there. There was nobody "passing through" their little area. The fences went up at the first sign of outbreak, and that was it. It can be no other way. Any waiting at all, and it would be utterly impossible to accomplish what they did, because they'd have already been overrun.

The area they have is over 70 blocks. Inside are over 60 restaurants, a dozen small markets, and not one, not two, but four supermarkets. That's just on the inside.

And once they do venture beyond the wire, they have to raid the entire city of Pittsburgh first, before they can even think of going into surrounding towns. I don't know how many supermarkets are inside the entirety of the city, because I stopped counting at 100. Along with literally hundreds of restaurants, probably a thousand convenience stores, and so on.

They were pretty well set for quite some time.

...................

Now, the Day issue....

There is no chance of it happening years upon years into the outbreak. They have VERY limited resources. The entire thing was "thrown together in a matter of days". In other words, no supplying the site beforehand. I doubt 5 years' worth of food (not to mention booze) was just lying around. It was a derelict equipment facility, not a biodome. It would be filled with machinery and non-consumables, not outfitted for long-term, unresupplied habitation.

And then there's the fuel issue. They run the helicopter, and ALL power off their tank of fuel. No way that's lasting very long.

And do we really think they'd only reach 100 miles out after 5 years? And only be looking for survivors? They'd be looking for anything they could scavenge at that point (just like our friends at Fiddler's Green).

Actually, do you really think they'd even look for survivors at that point? No way. They're not dumb enough to think that somebody would just be waiting in the middle of Main Street after years on end of zombie mayhem.

And do you think Sarah wouldn't have already been raped a few hundred times by then? Realistically, hell no. As the only female, she'd be targeted within months most likely, and the people in that underground hell would resemble humans in no kind of way after 5 years. You saw how fast they imploded in a 4-day span. Yet, you think they co-existed for years prior to this? Not a chance.

[jim102016]

All the "depleted supplies" along a hurricane route happen due to masses of people passing through, not due to the people who live there. There was nobody "passing through" their little area. The fences went up at the first sign of outbreak, and that was it. It can be no other way. Any waiting at all, and it would be utterly impossible to accomplish what they did, because they'd have already been overrun.

The area they have is over 70 blocks. Inside are over 60 restaurants, a dozen small markets, and not one, not two, but four supermarkets. That's just on the inside.

And once they do venture beyond the wire, they have to raid the entire city of Pittsburgh first, before they can even think of going into surrounding towns. I don't know how many supermarkets are inside the entirety of the city, because I stopped counting at 100. Along with literally hundreds of restaurants, probably a thousand convenience stores, and so on.

They were pretty well set for quite some time.

...................

Now, the Day issue....

There is no chance of it happening years upon years into the outbreak. They have VERY limited resources. The entire thing was "thrown together in a matter of days". In other words, no supplying the site beforehand. I doubt 5 years' worth of food (not to mention booze) was just lying around. It was a derelict equipment facility, not a biodome. It would be filled with machinery and non-consumables, not outfitted for long-term, unresupplied habitation.

And then there's the fuel issue. They run the helicopter, and ALL power off their tank of fuel. No way that's lasting very long.

And do we really think they'd only reach 100 miles out after 5 years? And only be looking for survivors? They'd be looking for anything they could scavenge at that point (just like our friends at Fiddler's Green).

Actually, do you really think they'd even look for survivors at that point? No way. They're not dumb enough to think that somebody would just be waiting in the middle of Main Street after years on end of zombie mayhem.

And do you think Sarah wouldn't have already been raped a few hundred times by then? Realistically, hell no. As the only female, she'd be targeted within months most likely, and the people in that underground hell would resemble humans in no kind of way after 5 years. You saw how fast they imploded in a 4-day span. Yet, you think they co-existed for years prior to this? Not a chance.



Have to agree with you on the Day' issue, it's definately set within months of the initial dead outbreak. Helicopters are complicated creatures that require lots of maintenance, there's no way it'd go years without breaking down. Perhaps one of the soldiers growing grass topside was a aviation mechanic, but how much equipment/spare parts could there be at a former missile site that was hastily reactivated within a matter of days for this mission?

There's no way they could make it down in the silo for five years, what the hell could possibly keep them going that long? At least the Green' had drugs, hookers, and jobs to occupy the residents.

[Trin]

Day cannot be over a year. As others have mentioned the consumables alone would not last that long. In addition to gasoline, food, and booze you have to consider batteries for flashlights, medical supplies, light bulbs etc. Heck, there were working lights in the furthest reaches of the tunnels where no human had been since the base was established.

I really like the point made regarding them searching for survivors. Why would they do that for 3+ years? They'd only do that for a short time and only within a short window after losing contact with other survivors/government.

I also will reiterate that the researchers would NOT be still defining the problem after 3 years. Sarah says that Dr. Logan is still proving theories they put forth months ago. That implies they've been there months, not years. Can we really believe that it took Logan 3+ years to come up with the research that they don't take nourishment from their food?

And there's no way I see the military sitting around for 3+ years prior to the inevitable "what are you doing with my time" speech. Not happening. They DO have options. They can stop helping the researchers and sit tight. They can go "on the road" and attempt to reach a former military base. I just don't see them regularly losing men for 3 solid years without putting their collective foot down. 6 or 8 months, yes, but not 3 years.

As for Land - The list of reasons why this setting cannot exist in under a year is lengthy. The entire attitude of the populace is that the short term crisis is over and they've settled into a routine.

The fact that they've re-established some sort of life that mimics their former society is evidence of a later time period, not an earlier one. There is no way that when the zombie apocalypse struck they just put up some fences and went about their business. The fact that they have re-established a currency and some semblance of their former society means they overcame the initial hurdles of the zombie world and built those things back up.

They have power. They have running water. Those things would not be self-contained within the zone prior to the outbreak. Add in Dead Reckoning with its remote control and gps system and you have an enormous infrastructure and technology re-establishment.

The zombies alone are evidence that Day precedes Land. In Day the zombies are still lined up outside the gates trying to get in. In Land "they hardly come around anymore." There were not as many zombies outside the walls in Land as there were in Dawn outside the mall or Night outside the farm house. They had to drive several dozen miles to find any concentration of zombies. That kind of space doesn't get cleaned out of zombies (and zombie corpses) in a major metropolitan area in just a few months.

Also, if my arguments regarding Sarah and John's attitudes have no bearing on the passage of time, then neither do observations about the lax attitudes of the military or the general feeling of hopelessness of Day.

[Philly_SWAT]

All the "depleted supplies" along a hurricane route happen due to masses of people passing through, not due to the people who live there. Huh?? I am not sure what you mean here. There were no people "passing through" my county after the hurricanes. Only residents were here. That was my point. No food and fuel trucks were passing through either, that is why there was such a shortage after only a week.

There was nobody "passing through" their little area. The fences went up at the first sign of outbreak, and that was it. It can be no other way. Any waiting at all, and it would be utterly impossible to accomplish what they did, because they'd have already been overrun.That is true. However, I say this is more of a movie flaw. The entire story of the movie would have to be redone if the Green wasnt blocked off. I doubt people would be so quick to put up fences. Look how long people have been bitching about fences along our SOuthern border. There are numerous examples in GAR movies where he did not think out long term logic of a premise, it was just put in. IN fact, that is true of many movies, not just GAR movies.

The area they have is over 70 blocks. Inside are over 60 restaurants, a dozen small markets, and not one, not two, but four supermarkets. That's just on the inside.
And once they do venture beyond the wire, they have to raid the entire city of Pittsburgh first, before they can even think of going into surrounding towns. I don't know how many supermarkets are inside the entirety of the city, because I stopped counting at 100. Along with literally hundreds of restaurants, probably a thousand convenience stores, and so on.
They were pretty well set for quite some time.
How long do you think perishable foods last in a supermarket? And how long do you think supplies last in supermarkets without trucks coming in mulitple times a week to replenish the shelves?

Now, the Day issue....
There is no chance of it happening years upon years into the outbreak. They have VERY limited resources. The entire thing was "thrown together in a matter of days". In other words, no supplying the site beforehand. I doubt 5 years' worth of food (not to mention booze) was just lying around. It was a derelict equipment facility, not a biodome. It would be filled with machinery and non-consumables, not outfitted for long-term, unresupplied habitation.The "scientific" part of the mission was thrown together in a matter of days, obviously not the facility itself. What good would it be to have an underground facility that was not well stocked except at the last second in a time of emergency? Also, they did have a chopper to go get more supplies in a relatively safe manner.

And then there's the fuel issue. They run the helicopter, and ALL power off their tank of fuel. No way that's lasting very long.So you dont think they would get fuel at other locations as the flew around for 100 miles in each direction?

And do we really think they'd only reach 100 miles out after 5 years? And only be looking for survivors? They'd be looking for anything they could scavenge at that point (just like our friends at Fiddler's Green).How far away from the only place you knew for sure was safe would you venture, regardless of the timeframe?

Actually, do you really think they'd even look for survivors at that point? No way. They're not dumb enough to think that somebody would just be waiting in the middle of Main Street after years on end of zombie mayhem.I assume that is why they were broadcasting on the radio and using a megaphone, to communicate with those smarter than to wait in the middle of the street...

And do you think Sarah wouldn't have already been raped a few hundred times by then? Realistically, hell no. As the only female, she'd be targeted within months most likely, and the people in that underground hell would resemble humans in no kind of way after 5 years. You saw how fast they imploded in a 4-day span. Yet, you think they co-existed for years prior to this? Not a chance. I guess the answer to this question depends upon the upbringing and the moral standards of those involved. I guess you think that after a few months with no sex, most men would take to raping the first woman they can find. If that is the case, then I guess maybe mankind doesnt deserve to survive.


There's no way they could make it down in the silo for five years, what the hell could possibly keep them going that long? At least the Green' had drugs, hookers, and jobs to occupy the residents.LOL!

Day cannot be over a year. As others have mentioned the consumables alone would not last that long. In addition to gasoline, food, and booze you have to consider batteries for flashlights, medical supplies, light bulbs etc. Heck, there were working lights in the furthest reaches of the tunnels where no human had been since the base was established.
Would have been boring scenes in a movie had there been no light for the viewer to see what was happening.

I really like the point made regarding them searching for survivors. Why would they do that for 3+ years? They'd only do that for a short time and only within a short window after losing contact with other survivors/government. Better hope you are never a survivor who has not been found within a short window....

I also will reiterate that the researchers would NOT be still defining the problem after 3 years. Sarah says that Dr. Logan is still proving theories they put forth months ago. That implies they've been there months, not years. Can we really believe that it took Logan 3+ years to come up with the research that they don't take nourishment from their food?So the theories that were put forth months ago were put forth immediately after entering the complex? And no, we cant take it took Logan 3+ years to come up with that, only he never discussed it with Sarah. We see that all 3 scientists are working on there own.

And there's no way I see the military sitting around for 3+ years prior to the inevitable "what are you doing with my time" speech. Not happening. They DO have options. They can stop helping the researchers and sit tight. They can go "on the road" and attempt to reach a former military base. I just don't see them regularly losing men for 3 solid years without putting their collective foot down. 6 or 8 months, yes, but not 3 years.
We have been regularly losing men in Iraq for over FIVE years now....

As for Land - The list of reasons why this setting cannot exist in under a year is lengthy. The entire attitude of the populace is that the short term crisis is over and they've settled into a routine.
Short term crisis? Yeah, the dead have returned to life and want to eat the living, there is no way to solve the problem...no biggie....pass me a donut....

The fact that they've re-established some sort of life that mimics their former society is evidence of a later time period, not an earlier one. There is no way that when the zombie apocalypse struck they just put up some fences and went about their business. The fact that they have re-established a currency and some semblance of their former society means they overcame the initial hurdles of the zombie world and built those things back up.
Perhaps you have a much brighter outlook on things than I do. To me, if a mjor disaster happened, like say, the dead returning to life and wanting to eat the living, with no end in sight, I would think that the further away you get from the start of that, the worse things would be, not that things would be bright and rosy later on, but bad right after.

The zombies alone are evidence that Day precedes Land. In Day the zombies are still lined up outside the gates trying to get in. In Land "they hardly come around anymore." There were not as many zombies outside the walls in Land as there were in Dawn outside the mall or Night outside the farm house. They had to drive several dozen miles to find any concentration of zombies. That kind of space doesn't get cleaned out of zombies (and zombie corpses) in a major metropolitan area in just a few months.The fences in Day were not electrified, and they were on an Island, so it would be harder for the zombies to wander off when they saw they couldnt get in. Plus, there would be nothing better for them to do. As we see in both Land and Day, zombies can learn with time, so in Land they learned that when the approached the fence, they would catfh fire and their heads would explode, so they would decide to look elsewhere for food.

Also, if my arguments regarding Sarah and John's attitudes have no bearing on the passage of time, then neither do observations about the lax attitudes of the military or the general feeling of hopelessness of Day. Not true. Someone stubborn, especially a woman :) , could hold onto denial for decades, and a mellow Jamaican could come to accept a new reality in short order. Their attitudes could be days in, months in, years in. I have never been in the military, maybe someone who has could comment on how long into a problem it would take for smoking a joint in front of military officers in a meeting to be considered acceptable.

[EvilNed]

I disagree. GAR himself has said the Land was about "ignoring" the problem, not coming to grips with it. We saw in Night90 that in the period of the initial outbreak, they were using the zombies for sport and novelty. In Dawn, the biker gang was hitting them in the face with pies. This fact in Land points to it being early in the outbreak, not later.


Actually, it's not a fact. It's a theory. And it doesn't point to anything, except that some people researched the problem and some decided to live around it.

What IS a fact is that Land is at least 3 years from the outbreak. The question is where to place Day. It seems to me, in Day, that they hadn't gotten that far in their search for survivors. So I rule out anything later than 1 year.


Better hope you are never a survivor who has not been found within a short window....

Just to point out, it's standard procedure to stop looking for someone MIA or generally just missing, after a certain amount of time. If they hadn't found any survivors by 3+ years, they would definetly have diverted their resources to something more useful.

[jim102016]

Huh?? I am not sure what you mean here. There were no people "passing through" my county after the hurricanes. Only residents were here. That was my point. No food and fuel trucks were passing through either, that is why there was such a shortage after only a week.
That is true. However, I say this is more of a movie flaw. The entire story of the movie would have to be redone if the Green wasnt blocked off. I doubt people would be so quick to put up fences. Look how long people have been bitching about fences along our SOuthern border. There are numerous examples in GAR movies where he did not think out long term logic of a premise, it was just put in. IN fact, that is true of many movies, not just GAR movies.

How long do you think perishable foods last in a supermarket? And how long do you think supplies last in supermarkets without trucks coming in mulitple times a week to replenish the shelves?
The "scientific" part of the mission was thrown together in a matter of days, obviously not the facility itself. What good would it be to have an underground facility that was not well stocked except at the last second in a time of emergency? Also, they did have a chopper to go get more supplies in a relatively safe manner.
So you dont think they would get fuel at other locations as the flew around for 100 miles in each direction?
How far away from the only place you knew for sure was safe would you venture, regardless of the timeframe?
I assume that is why they were broadcasting on the radio and using a megaphone, to communicate with those smarter than to wait in the middle of the street...
I guess the answer to this question depends upon the upbringing and the moral standards of those involved. I guess you think that after a few months with no sex, most men would take to raping the first woman they can find. If that is the case, then I guess maybe mankind doesnt deserve to survive.

LOL!

Would have been boring scenes in a movie had there been no light for the viewer to see what was happening.
Better hope you are never a survivor who has not been found within a short window....
So the theories that were put forth months ago were put forth immediately after entering the complex? And no, we cant take it took Logan 3+ years to come up with that, only he never discussed it with Sarah. We see that all 3 scientists are working on there own.

We have been regularly losing men in Iraq for over FIVE years now....

Short term crisis? Yeah, the dead have returned to life and want to eat the living, there is no way to solve the problem...no biggie....pass me a donut....

Perhaps you have a much brighter outlook on things than I do. To me, if a mjor disaster happened, like say, the dead returning to life and wanting to eat the living, with no end in sight, I would think that the further away you get from the start of that, the worse things would be, not that things would be bright and rosy later on, but bad right after.
The fences in Day were not electrified, and they were on an Island, so it would be harder for the zombies to wander off when they saw they couldnt get in. Plus, there would be nothing better for them to do. As we see in both Land and Day, zombies can learn with time, so in Land they learned that when the approached the fence, they would catfh fire and their heads would explode, so they would decide to look elsewhere for food.
Not true. Someone stubborn, especially a woman :) , could hold onto denial for decades, and a mellow Jamaican could come to accept a new reality in short order. Their attitudes could be days in, months in, years in. I have never been in the military, maybe someone who has could comment on how long into a problem it would take for smoking a joint in front of military officers in a meeting to be considered acceptable.

Philly, glad to see you back in rare form! You and Trin have presented some interesting information. Although I have to agree more with Trin, you have presented some interesting rebuffs. I went through a hurricane in 05' in Mississippi and I can't imagine something like that on a nation-wide scale. I think Trin means outside help when he says "passing people." The national guard was all over my area within days, as were police from all over the U.S. There was a blockade in front of my house and a curfew to cut down on looting. But, as with your situation, supplies such as gasoline were in short supply for a while and people resorted to pulling pistols on one another while in long lines.

While the mission was put together in a matter of days, I have to wonder about the prep time for the silo. Who built the corral, and who stocked it with dead bodies wearing collars? Perhaps Rhodes lost his first four men (not counting Major Cooper who died later) in this initial operation? Or maybe Washington sent an advanced team into the silo to get it up and running before the operation was "put together in a matter of days"?

Sarah was the scapegoat for the hatred the soldiers felt toward the whole scientific team and it's "worthless mission". She wouldn't have been raped because they were horny, she would have been raped because they were angry.

Losing men in Iraq is a bad comparison to Rhodes losing five men in a cave while the world falls apart above. I was in the service, and I don't think there's any way to find out how long it'd take the military to break down to where the enlisted men would be allowed to smoke grass during meetings. I imagine if I was an officer in charge of men who had witnessed their wives and family members come back to life and eat each other as the whole world fell apart, I'd probably have to take drastic measures to keep them going on the few brain cells that were left. That, or you'd have an entire until full of people acting like Miguel. In reality, I don't think you'd get months out of anyone, let alone years. I think suicide woudl be a huge factor. No way in hell they'd been down in that cave more than a few months.

When did we agree that the complex in Day' was situated on an island?

[Philly_SWAT]

Philly, glad to see you back in rare form!
Thanks!


You and Trin have presented some interesting information. Although I have to agree more with Trin, you have presented some interesting rebuffs. I went through a hurricane in 05' in Mississippi and I can't imagine something like that on a nation-wide scale. I think Trin means outside help when he says "passing people." The national guard was all over my area within days, as were police from all over the U.S. There was a blockade in front of my house and a curfew to cut down on looting. But, as with your situation, supplies such as gasoline were in short supply for a while and people resorted to pulling pistols on one another while in long lines.
It sounds as if your situation was more severe than mine. There were no national guard here, and looting was not a major concern. But you know what I mean about how quickly supplies disappear with no re-supply.


While the mission was put together in a matter of days, I have to wonder about the prep time for the silo. Who built the corral, and who stocked it with dead bodies wearing collars? Perhaps Rhodes lost his first four men (not counting Major Cooper who died later) in this initial operation? Or maybe Washington sent an advanced team into the silo to get it up and running before the operation was "put together in a matter of days"? Your idea here is possible. I always took it that Cooper and his men built the corral, rounded up the zeds, etc., after all the military and scientists were in the complex. Like when Sarah tells Logan to quit going thru specimens so quickly, because she wasnt sure the men would go up and get any more. On a side note, I always wondered about the death of Cooper. It was never said whether he died of some type of zombie attack, or natural causes, or what. When Sarah says theres another grave, Nicotero says its Major Cooper, he died this morning. She did not seemed surprised at the news. She didnt say "how did he die". So it appears that she may have known he was at deaths door when she left that day. But if so, it would be odd that she would be surprised to see a new grave. I chalk this up to another typical movie logic error.


Sarah was the scapegoat for the hatred the soldiers felt toward the whole scientific team and it's "worthless mission". She wouldn't have been raped because they were horny, she would have been raped because they were angry.Makes sense, although I am still not sure that rape would be such a quick option in a mans mind, especially if this was so close to the point of the outbreak as others seems to think.


Losing men in Iraq is a bad comparison to Rhodes losing five men in a cave while the world falls apart above. I was in the service, and I don't think there's any way to find out how long it'd take the military to break down to where the enlisted men would be allowed to smoke grass during meetings. I imagine if I was an officer in charge of men who had witnessed their wives and family members come back to life and eat each other as the whole world fell apart, I'd probably have to take drastic measures to keep them going on the few brain cells that were left. That, or you'd have an entire until full of people acting like Miguel. In reality, I don't think you'd get months out of anyone, let alone years. I think suicide woudl be a huge factor. No way in hell they'd been down in that cave more than a few months. I think that in the most disperate situations, and they were certainly in a desperate situation, that the instinct to survive would kick in, and they would last as long as possible. Just as the instinct to eat was still with the zombies, even with the one who had his stomach cut out, from the "primordial ooze" part of the brain, I think we all would have a survival instinct kick in.


When did we agree that the complex in Day' was situated on an island? Well, it does not say specifically in the movie that the bunker is on an island. In reality, the topside scenes were filmed on Sanibel Island off the coast of Ft. Myers, and we have discussed difficert island arguments before, but you are right, that is not made clear one way or the other in the movie. Of course, seeing how most of Florida is not much above sea level, I am not sure where there would be an underground bunker anywhere around here.

[SRP76]

It doesn't matter if they are on an island or not, because they are obviously connected to the mainland by some access point. More and more zombies show up every day. If they were completely disconnected, they wouldn't be showing up constantly, because there would be a set number of zombies, and that's all. They'd run out of new arrivals unless more were able to shamble across from the mainland.

[Yojimbo]

It doesn't matter if they are on an island or not, because they are obviously connected to the mainland by some access point. More and more zombies show up every day. If they were completely disconnected, they wouldn't be showing up constantly, because there would be a set number of zombies, and that's all. They'd run out of new arrivals unless more were able to shamble across from the mainland.

Good point about more showing up every day, but doesn't negate the possiblity of an island. It still could be a large island that has plenty of places for zombies to congregate before they get to the helipad. Though I agree that the supply of zombies would eventually run out if it was an island (unless more of the horde could make it's way underwater like in Land, and really, how unlikely would that be?)

But your point is well taken, if it is an island, it is likely connected to the mainland with shome sort of access point.

Regarding the issue of an underground, rather dry looking bunker being in Florida, exisiting below sea level, I do see the error in logic, but I am still willing to suspend disbelief since GAR Rules, and without suspension of disbelief the entire premise of the film (dead returning to life) goes straight to hell.

[EvilNed]

I think there have been many strong points for why Land takes place after Day. Such as in Land the dead no longer bother, but in Day they do. I guess that's a real clear cut case for me.

[MinionZombie]

I think there have been many strong points for why Land takes place after Day. Such as in Land the dead no longer bother, but in Day they do. I guess that's a real clear cut case for me.
As well as the fact that GAR himself - the dude who writes and directs these movies - says so. :p

[Philly_SWAT]

As well as the fact that GAR himself - the dude who writes and directs these movies - says so. :p

Where?

[MinionZombie]

Where?
All over your face!

Oooh, sick burn. :p:D

Seriously though. Land is after Day 'time into an outbreak' wise. Just is. :p

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Oh god ... not this topic again! :annoyed:


Despite some peoples insistence that this issue has not yet been resolved, it has, several years ago or more.

I can only presume that the people still whittling on about this were either not here at the time it was resolved, were here and didn't listen, were here and couldn't accept it, or are just plain stupid!

[Mike70]

Where?

actually romero says they aren't connected at all except by the phenomenon.



HW: Many horror sequels bring back previous survivors to fight the evil once again...
George: Yeah
HW: ...yet you have never done this in your Dead films.
George: No.
HW: Is there a reason for that?
George: Well you know, they were never... I never did anything with the period. I could have set them all in 1968 [laughs] and since they weren't connected in time... Well, in other words, I just used the period. I shot one in the 70's and the background was 70's - I shot one in the 80's and the background was the 80's - and this one this background will be 2000. So I don't feel that you can continue the same characters. The thing that continues is just the phenomena and I try to put a different spin on it that reflects the time when the film is made, rather than try to keep the same characters going, it just wouldn't make any sense unless they were all done in the same period.
i changed the bold/italic characters.

again from an interview given to horrorweb:
http://www.horror-web.com/interviews/georgeromero.html

sounds like george never meant for them to be connected in a timeline. sounds like he was simply trying to reflect the decade they were written in.

[Zombill]

*Rolls grenade into thread and closes the door*
opps i think you forgot to pull the pin

[Jonathan]

Yes, it was a "Kaufman" economy, but it was still the same money we have now, now some re-issued Kaufman currency. To me, it is implausible to believe that in a world overrun with the living dead that the aquisisition of money would be the prime concern of a large part of the populace, unless it was so close to the start of the outbreak that people were still in denial about the problem and thought the world would shortyly return to normal.


Here is the problem, you give people too much credit. I think with after the shock wore off the majority would be right back to the concept of money is everything.

[Philly_SWAT]

HW: Many horror sequels bring back previous survivors to fight the evil once again...
George: Yeah
HW: ...yet you have never done this in your Dead films.
George: No.
HW: Is there a reason for that?
George: Well you know, they were never... I never did anything with the period. I could have set them all in 1968 [laughs] and since they weren't connected in time... Well, in other words, I just used the period. I shot one in the 70's and the background was 70's - I shot one in the 80's and the background was the 80's - and this one this background will be 2000. So I don't feel that you can continue the same characters. The thing that continues is just the phenomena and I try to put a different spin on it that reflects the time when the film is made, rather than try to keep the same characters going, it just wouldn't make any sense unless they were all done in the same period.
This seems to support the argument that I have been making all along, that he simply made the movie in the time that existed when he made each one, and that does not have any effect on the "timeline". I dont think his quote that he did not use the same characters reveals anything, since we already knew that after watching the flims.

[Andy]

None of the movies are connected at all, particularly Diary which is a whole other thing in the same idea.

Actually the first 3 films, the original trilogy, are loosely connected (not directly) through comments, scenes and loose jokes.

[MinionZombie]

Actually the first 3 films, the original trilogy, are loosely connected (not directly) through comments, scenes and loose jokes.
And yet GAR has explicitly stated they're not connected...:rockbrow:

An off-the-cuff, for-the-fans side-joke doesn't link them. They all have the common theme of zombies, but they're not connected at all.

GAR - the chap who created these movies - says as such.

[Yojimbo]

Oh god ... not this topic again! :annoyed:


Despite some peoples insistence that this issue has not yet been resolved, it has, several years ago or more.

I can only presume that the people still whittling on about this were either not here at the time it was resolved, were here and didn't listen, were here and couldn't accept it, or are just plain stupid!

Deadman, though I lurked for many years, I only became active in 07, and therefore are among the damned souls who are relatively new. As a result of my short time I was not privy to the outcome of this argument, and my searches have yet to reveal the definitive answer. Therefore, for the clarification of this newbie could you please clarify and share the outcome of this with me and the rest of the folks here?

[Mike70]

Deadman, though I lurked for many years, I only became active in 07, and therefore are among the damned souls who are relatively new. As a result of my short time I was not privy to the outcome of this argument, and my searches have yet to reveal the definitive answer. Therefore, for the clarification of this newbie could you please clarify and share the outcome of this with me and the rest of the folks here?

:lol:
at 884 posts you are hardly a newbie but there really isn't a set answer. a lot of people have different ideas.

there are folks like yours truly who don't think there really is a "timeline." who think that romero was simply using a time period to tell a story and comment on american society at that time

then there are the folks who believe there is a definite linear timeline to the movies.

then there is the camp that wishes we would all shut the f*ck up.:p

[Trin]

HW: Many horror sequels bring back previous survivors to fight the evil once again...
George: Yeah
HW: ...yet you have never done this in your Dead films.
George: No.
HW: Is there a reason for that?
George: Well you know, they were never... I never did anything with the period. I could have set them all in 1968 [laughs] and since they weren't connected in time... Well, in other words, I just used the period. I shot one in the 70's and the background was 70's - I shot one in the 80's and the background was the 80's - and this one this background will be 2000. So I don't feel that you can continue the same characters. The thing that continues is just the phenomena and I try to put a different spin on it that reflects the time when the film is made, rather than try to keep the same characters going, it just wouldn't make any sense unless they were all done in the same period.
HW: So you would never considered bringing back a character?
George: No, they're too far apart... well, I might. Actually at one point I thought about bringing back Peter from Dawn, but it would have to be 20 years later - and of course the actor would look right for it because he's 20 years older.
Is there some other GAR proclamation about the movies not being connected? Because I don't see how this quote implies that the movies are not connected at all. All he's saying is that the movies are not connected in time. That is, that the backdrop changes to whatever is current.

The idea that the characters could not continue from one movie to the next seems to be a practicality issue based upon the length of time between movies vs. the length of time into the outbreak, not a conscious decision to disconnect the movies from one another.

He says right there that he'd bring back Peter from Dawn if it made sense from the perspective of the timeline vs. the actor's age.

As to Day being on an island - I don't think so. They talked about leaving and finding an island. Hard to believe they'd need to do that if they were already on one. And the general sense of the movie was that they were trapped inside the base. I cannot imagine the military going stir crazy in that base if all they had to do was clean off an island to have more room.

[SRP76]

Blades appears in both Dawn and Land. SAME CHARACTER. In two different movies. What did he do, find a Stargate? They're connected.

Same deal with the same tv broadcast being in both Night and Diary. Same exact news brief. Obviously, the people in both movies are watching the same channel. They weren't watching the Interdimensional News Network.

[3pidemiC]

^ nice

[bassman]

Blades appears in both Dawn and Land. SAME CHARACTER. In two different movies. What did he do, find a Stargate? They're connected.

Same deal with the same tv broadcast being in both Night and Diary. Same exact news brief. Obviously, the people in both movies are watching the same channel. They weren't watching the Interdimensional News Network.

OR.........they're just little nods to the earlier films? That happens alot....

[Philly_SWAT]

Blades appears in both Dawn and Land. SAME CHARACTER. In two different movies. What did he do, find a Stargate? They're connected.

Same deal with the same tv broadcast being in both Night and Diary. Same exact news brief. Obviously, the people in both movies are watching the same channel. They weren't watching the Interdimensional News Network.

Ah, good point about the Night/Diary connection. I have not yet seen Diary, or heard much specific info about it, so I would not be able to use it in my discussions. I hope top see it soon.

And yet GAR has explicitly stated they're not connected...:rockbrow:

An off-the-cuff, for-the-fans side-joke doesn't link them. They all have the common theme of zombies, but they're not connected at all.

GAR - the chap who created these movies - says as such.
Many people use the "GAR stated they are not connected" comment to try to make a claim that the movies are not connected in any way whatsoever. This is a faulty argument. There are many reasons why my statement here makes sense.

1) Firstly, GAR did not put the time and effort into thinking about the logic/timeline/connection/etc. that we fans do. He is simply a guy that was making movies, with limited resources, and did an excellent job, which I think we can all agree on. He did not create a "canon" to refer to as he continued with his various projects. He did not emerse himself in small details; he did not attempt to create an impenetrable storyline where nothing was in doubt, and every single solitary thing would make perfect logical sense in a grand discussion about his works. Other films makers have in fact tried this, and even then, there are details that hardcare fan discussions later reveal to be inconsistent, illogical, etc. It would be extremely difficult to create a film, much less several films, that was perfect in every way, even when you were purposely trying to. Without purposely trying to, it would be that much more unlikely that perfection could be achieved.

2) As you watch various interviews that GAR has given over the years, you can see that he is a very friendly person who is speaking off the cuff. He is not coming across as a pompous blowhard, thinking that his films are the greatest of all time, and extolling the virtue of his own excellence. He is not referring to notes. He is not worried about if his every word is making sense to the thousands of fans who disect his films ad nauseum. Any of us that have listened to his commentaries where other people are on the commentary also have notices how sometimes he gets details wrong and the other person corrects him. This is not slight on GAR, how much do you remember about details of something you did 25 years ago? Sure, you have general recolection, but you do not remember every single thing. If you mispeak (and not a Hillary Clinton mispeak, but a real mispeak), and your friend points out your error, and you admit yes you are correct, that does not mean you are an idiot, just that you did not remember that particular small detail and they did. When he says that the Fran helicopter scene was never shot, and Savini says it was, then pictures surface showing what appears to be that scene in action, what is the real truth? Was it shot, lost, and GAR forgot? Was it just set up to be shot, tested, but never shot, and Savini mispoke, remembering it set up and assuming it was shot? No way to know for sure, we were not there, and no one was filming all the actions of the film making process for posterity, so we only have what we have. The point being, that anyone one of us speaking off the cuff in bound to make comments that are inaccurate, downright wrong, etc.

3) So what does he mean when he says they are not connected? I myself have heard those words come from his mouth in an interview. I have seen and heard many GAR interviews, and do not remember which one, or ones, I have heard him say this in. Without context, it is hard to know exactly what any quote from anyone may mean. To my recollection, I took it that he was referring to the fact that they were not direct sequels, that the characters from one movie did not occur in the next, as is many times the case in a sequel. That is part of the appeal of a sequel to begin with, seeing Arnold as the Terminator again, seeing Marty and Doc traveling to the future/past again, etc. But with GARs dead films, the characters continuing is not what is important, but the outbreak continuing is what is important. In fact, since most all of the main players end up dead anyway, which makes logical sense due to the nature of the outbreak, most characters couldnt continue anyway, except as a zombie themselves (as the Blades character did in fact do). When GAR was addressing the issues on connectivity, he was usually answering a direct question, many times by a media type that is obviously not a GAR fan the way we are, asking typical media questions. So GAR was answering the questions in that context, not giving deep insight to long time fans, but explaining simple concepts to an uneducated interviewer. GAR understands how media works...when someone asks him "so is this project a sequel to your last one" it is not even intended as a deep thought provoking question, just a typical media question to get the star of the interview to say something. They are not looking for an hour long discussion addressing issues we discuss here, they want a quick soundbite to play on TV, radio, etc. Rather than giving a long answer (such as I am in the middle of typing) he simply says they are not connected, as in the characters from Dawn are not in Day.

4) And I also say that the films are in fact obviously connected in many ways. First GAR wrote all of them. Connection. Savini in involved in many of them. Connection. Nicotero is involved with some of them. Connection. Cletus and his wife did the set design in some of them. Connection. They are deal with a universe where the dead are rising and want to attack the living. Connection. Head shots kill the living dead. Connection. So obviously, they are connected. Less obviously, using a logical argument that people would usually not even think to voice, it that they must be connected in the grand scheme of movie story-telling. What I mean is that at the least they are connected in the same way as the Bridges of Madison County and Aikelah and the Bee are connected. Well, how the hell are those 2 movies conneceted? Two old people finding love, and a girl from Crenshaw entering a spelling bee? Both of those movies exist in a universe that we all already know about without any explanation, our own. The characters do not interact, the stories have no bearing on each other, yet they are connected in the same way that all life on earth is connected. When watching those movies, you have to assume that gravity exists, there is a President of the United States, cars run on gas, etc. There is no need to tell the auidence any of these facts because we already know this, and it is not crucial to those particular stories. They exist in "the real universe", whereas GARs dead films exist in the "GAR dead universe". They must be connected in this way.

[MinionZombie]

OR.........they're just little nods to the earlier films? That happens alot....
Exactly. I think I even remember GAR saying he put that in there as a little nod to the fans.

It's so incredibly brief too. A nod & wink to the fans doesn't mean they're all connected, especially when GAR himself says they aren't - he f*ckin' wrote and directed them, if anyone knows for sure - IT'S HIM.

Take his f*ckin' word on it people ... baaaahaahwahaagghhhhh!!!! ... *goes insane, unsubscribes from thread, cusses for four hours in the woods, then goes on a rampage somewhere 'out there', never to return...*

[EvilNed]

Blades appears in both Dawn and Land. SAME CHARACTER. In two different movies. What did he do, find a Stargate? They're connected.

Same deal with the same tv broadcast being in both Night and Diary. Same exact news brief. Obviously, the people in both movies are watching the same channel. They weren't watching the Interdimensional News Network.

So while the apparent different time epochs does not count as an argument, a similar newscast does?

[SRP76]

So while the apparent different time epochs does not count as an argument, a similar newscast does?

Not "similar", the same exact one. Track was taken off one movie, and put right into the other.

The time differences can't be helped, when the movies are filmed 10 years apart.

[Trin]

I think that philly_swat's take on the connection between movies posted above is the one I agree with the most and worthy of a read if you skimmed past it.