When Dawn Takes Place

[greetlyte]

I've owned the first print novelization of DOTD for 10 years and I just sat down to read it again since '97 and noticed something I guess I didn't pay attention to before.

This is early on in the novel from Roger's point of view during the SWAT ghetto scene:

"The stillness <of the night> was deceptive: it didn't seem that this was the national disaster that the politicians had been crying about for months. The population really felt that the government was putting one over on them"

So, there you have it folks. This is straight from old Georgey's pen. The "three weeks" figure everyone has been touting (including me) since forever is apparently wrong. In fact, in the novel, Dr. Foster actually says "you have not listened....for the last three weeks!" not just "you haven't listened for three weeks! What does it take...." as Foster seems to say in the film.

So, where does this then place Day? or Land? So I guess it took the zombie epidemic "months", which we could assume from that figure must at least two (probably more), for the world to reach the state it was in at the beginning of Dawn?

Are all of your perceptions now shattered? ;)

The novel was written by GAR and Susannah Sparrow, so it's official.

Thoughts?

[Yojimbo]

Greetlyte, welcome to the boards.

The dead series timeline has been the subject of much debate, and has been covered on a couple of previously posted threads. I could be wrong, but I think this exact point - that is the several month statement from the Romero/Sparrow novelization - was in fact brought up in one of those threads, so I don't think it is going to be perception shattering. Nevertheless it is a good and fair observation and one worthy of consideration.

[EvilNed]

My thought is that Dawn takes place in an alternate 1978, some time after the undead begin to rise. Personally, I do not believe that it takes place for months, as I believe society would deteriorate much faster than that. Especially if everyone who dies becomes a zombie.

So, it may be in the novel, but it ain't in the film.

[RustyHicks]

I always thought Day happened after Dawn,
like a year or two after Dawn...then Land came
after Day like another year or two...

And Dawn came a few weeks after Night...

[Bub666]

The movie is always different from the book.

[sandrock74]

Oh boy, this is like Star Trek! The novels, while entertaining, always contradict the movies and television shows. Us Trekkies only consider official "cannon" to be what makes it into the television shows and movies.

[darth los]

Well, i guess it depends on what came first. Remember, there are many instances where films don't always follow what the novel says and vice versa.

[SRP76]

It's not like "3 weeks" is real convincing in the first place. Just because one talk show host "hasn't listened for 3 weeks" doesn't mean the phenomenon has only been happening that long.

Example:

I haven't listened to Barack Obama's crap for 3 weeks now. Does that mean he's only been politicking for 3 weeks? Unlikely.

A few months would fit in line with Night. Since Diary sucked, it doesn't count, so its contradictions don't matter.

[darth los]

I'd have to go back and check but i could have sworn that Dr. Foster says that "this has been the situation for three weeks. What does it take to make people see!?!"

[capncnut]

Any situation could be three weeks, give or take a week. Depending on what happened the day the news broke.

What I mean is that the first report could've been a good week or two before the situation esclated and was noteworthy.

[Mike70]

I'd have to go back and check but i could have sworn that Dr. Foster says that "this has been the situation for three weeks. What does it take to make people see!?!"

dr. foster's statement is a bit nebulous and can be interpreted in a few ways.

the three weeks could very well refer to how long there has been martial law and the forced collection/disposition of bodies.

[SRP76]

So, where does this then place Day? or Land?


It wouldn't alter the timing of Day or Land one bit. Neither references the other movies ("it's been x months since Peter and Fran flew out of the mall"); they only hint at time passed since the start of the outbreak, so they'll be unaffected.

[Skippy911sc]

I think the idea of trying to determine how long since the outbreak took place is mental masturbation. If GAR wanted us to know he would have come right out and told us. I don't think the guy has put as much thought into this as many of us have. Just like William Shatner said on SNL...its a movie/tv show get a life! I think if the date is in the book that GAR wrote it should be valid unless otherwise noted in the film. Since there is no way to determine how long since the original outbreak in Dawn we must fall back on the book...or the script.

[sandrock74]

I look at the whole thing as being based on a sliding time scale. Similar to what Marvel Comics does. No matter what the current year is, its always been 11 years since the events of Fantastic Four #1 (the first "modern" Marvel Comic) which came out in 1961.

I always viewed the exact date of the begining of the events (NIGHT and DIARY now) not to be as important as the order of the films. It was "years" ago by the time of DAY and LAND regardless of what the current year is. As far as the apparant level of technology, clothing and hair styles go, you have to take that with a grain of salt. Its just the usual things that creep into a movie when its made. Hell, even the original Star Wars trilogy shows its age due to everyones hair!

Thats just my two cents...

[darth los]

I look at the whole thing as being based on a sliding time scale. Similar to what Marvel Comics does. No matter what the current year is, its always been 11 years since the events of Fantastic Four #1 (the first "modern" Marvel Comic) which came out in 1961.

I always viewed the exact date of the begining of the events (NIGHT and DIARY now) not to be as important as the order of the films. It was "years" ago by the time of DAY and LAND regardless of what the current year is. As far as the apparant level of technology, clothing and hair styles go, you have to take that with a grain of salt. Its just the usual things that creep into a movie when its made. Hell, even the original Star Wars trilogy shows its age due to everyones hair!

Thats just my two cents...


But Stan Lee will admit that. GAR has alway sbeen vauge about timlines and stuff. As a matter of fact I don't think he has one. He strikes me as someone who just goes with the flow. I think the timeline is much less important to him that the message he's trying to get across.

If anything a timeline would be a usefull tool in determinig how long it took society to get to the various points that they did in each film respectively. Like how long it took for broadcast television and radio to be abandoned, Marshall law to be declared, etc.