Mall Lights - Were they on or not?

[Philly_SWAT]

I hate long threads...it is hard to navigate where the last post was, and see posts in order when there are 60+ posts like in the "Nitpick" thread. So I will start a new one. This is from that thread...


Everyone keeps saying that the lights were off....the lights were on.


Where? When they look down into the mall through the skylight, the place is sunlit, and that's it. There is no light. If they're on, those are the darkest lights I've ever seen anywhere.

There are several quite clever and funny comments that come to mind in regards to the wording of that quote, but I will refrain from any such silliness while discussing such a serious topic. :)

Here is a screencap from my Divimax Edition at time stamp 28:30, the first time when Peter and Roger are looking down into the mall. I think it shows, quite conclusively, that the lights were in fact on.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/Philly_SWAT/DawnLights.jpg

[SRP76]

Those are the base lights, that always stay on. If the main overheads were on, the mall would be much brighter. Have you ever been in a mall that dim? I sure haven't.

...and on another subject, if you can get screencaps like those, we've been looking for several (like the football schedule and the hadshot/not headshot body on the escalator)...:D

[Philly_SWAT]

Those are the base lights, that always stay on. If the main overheads were on, the mall would be much brighter. Have you ever been in a mall that dim? I sure haven't.

...and on another subject, if you can get screencaps like those, we've been looking for several (like the football schedule and the hadshot/not headshot body on the escalator)...:D

Just cant admit defeat about the lights, can you? ;) The "dimness" of that shot is due to the resolution of my monitor. I made a point of giving the timestamp so people can see it on the movie for themselves. Trust me, the mall is very lit up.

In regards to your other requests...from the other thread..


I swear the one on the escalator was 1) a woman, and 2) shot. Wound right in the forehead, with the blood runner down her nose.

I'm heading to youtube to check again...
Actually, it is hard to imagine you dont have a DVD to look at. Head to youtube? Come on dude, get with the program!
Could be a shot in the forehead, or some other wound, hard to tell. Again, the real reason is "lack of thought by movie makers". But it is definately a man, not a woman.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/Philly_SWAT/Headshotonescalator.jpg

Here is a shot of the football schedule (the dates may be blocked for the line that says Homecoming, but it is odd that there isnt a school listed there) but I submit that this doesnt really tell anything as far as a definite date. Support of that statement: whoever was writing those scores down could have stopped for any number of reasons. He could have stopped the week of the outbreak, or several weeks (or months) prior, no way to know.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/Philly_SWAT/scores.jpg

[SRP76]

Actually, it is hard to imagine you dont have a DVD to look at. Head to youtube? Come on dude, get with the program!

I lost my DVD.:( It was just the theatrical version anway, and I just haven't got around to buying a new one yet.



Here is a shot of the football schedule (the bottom two scores are not blocked, there is just nothing there) but I submit that this doesnt really tell anything as far as a definite date. Support of that statement: whoever was writing those scores down could have stopped for any number of reasons. He could have stopped the week of the outbreak, or several weeks (or months) prior, no way to know.

It does prove that all hell broke loose after November 4. I can't see anyone in their right mind holding highschool football games with ghouls wandering onto the field. Things had to have still been ducky on that date.

And I forgot how it went, but I traced arrival to late November/early December using Fran's calendar. It was based on what month ended on a Friday, or something. Can't recall. But I actually figured out what month she was "x-ing" in that scene.

EDIT - and I owe you rep for the screenshots, if the feature ever gets turned on again.:)

[Philly_SWAT]

I lost my DVD.:( It was just the theatrical version anway, and I just haven't got around to buying a new one yet.



It does prove that all hell broke loose after November 4. I can't see anyone in their right mind holding highschool football games with ghouls wandering onto the field. Things had to have still been ducky on that date.

And I forgot how it went, but I traced arrival to late November/early December using Fran's calendar. It was based on what month ended on a Friday, or something. Can't recall. But I actually figured out what month she was "x-ing" in that scene.
Yes, it is difficult to go back in that other thread and find things. But logically, a date after Nov 4 could be Nov 5th, or Nov 3rd of the next year. We have no idea "when" it is in relation to that schedule, and as someone else had pointed out, it could be an old schedule there that is not recent at all.

And if you mean THIS calender...
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/Philly_SWAT/calendar.jpg
This doesnt really prove anything either.

[SRP76]

The schedule is definitely from 1977. Only year in the decade in which September 2 and September 9, etc. fall on Friday (which is when the games are played).

And Fran's calendar is a 31-day month that ends on a Friday in 1978. Which can only be March.

And if the movies are "timeless" (taking place "now", whenever "now" is), the year can be disregarded. The only way the days of months would line up is if the schedule and Fran's calendar are in back-to-back years, regardless f decade.

[Philly_SWAT]

The schedule is definitely from 1977. Only year in the decade in which September 2 and September 9, etc. fall on Friday (which is when the games are played).

The movies are supposed to be "timeless" and not be set in a specific year (or decade, for that matter). As a viewer, you are supposed to think that the movie is set in the present, or the near future. That is why no year is ever mentioned in any movie. The fact that we can see "197X" on the schedule was not intentional....no one thought that in the year 2008 someone would actually be looking that closely at something that was no doubt just happened to be there, was not put there by the director, and was not important to the scene, and in fact no attention was brought to it.

NOTE: When I made this post, the previous post only contained what you see here. SRP76 was editing it as I posted :)

[krakenslayer]

Emergency/base lighting was on. Peter and Roger later switched on the full "shopping mode" lighting. Simple.

[axlish]

The name of the School is Gateway, I have a close up of the schedule with final results posted on my site somewhere.

[EvilNed]

The movies are supposed to be "timeless" and not be set in a specific year (or decade, for that matter). As a viewer, you are supposed to think that the movie is set in the present, or the near future. That is why no year is ever mentioned in any movie. The fact that we can see "197X" on the schedule was not intentional....no one thought that in the year 2008 someone would actually be looking that closely at something that was no doubt just happened to be there, was not put there by the director, and was not important to the scene, and in fact no attention was brought to it.

What George A. Romero "intends" and what is actually IN the film are two different things.

The dates ARE in the film. Even if George A. Romero intended them to be or not, and thus that is when the film is set. We can only interpret what we see, and not what Romero says.

As for the lights, I have no idea. Probably a continuity error. But they do seem rather dim when they go in there, lots of shadows. So it's probably the "night lighting".

[jim102016]

Great pics, Philly. With the emergency/base lights on, I can't help but think the mall was invaded during the night time bottling up processing, or right after the main doors were opened in the morning for the merchants.

The close up of the dead guy with the blood trail running down his face, combined with the security guy in the boiler room and the janitor in the store, indicates there must have been some kind of struggle during one of the above periods.

I remember the book approached it a bit differently? I wish GAR has at least left some more bread crumbs around the mall for our enjoyment since he obviously didn't find it important enough to develop in the bigger scheme of things. But, then, what the hell would we talk about?

[sandrock74]

Lights on! Lights off! Lights on, lights off....the Clapper!

Maybe that's all it was a matter of?

[FoodFight]

It couldn't be the clapper. That technology wasn't developed until the mid '80s.

Nitpicky mode off.

[Philly_SWAT]

What George A. Romero "intends" and what is actually IN the film are two different things.

The dates ARE in the film. Even if George A. Romero intended them to be or not, and thus that is when the film is set. We can only interpret what we see, and not what Romero says.


So, by this line of reasoning, if we see the reflection of a film crew in a window in any movie, are we to assume that the characters are walking down the street and dont seem to notice a motion picture crew following them around filming them? If a boom mic sinks into frame during a bedroom scene, are we to assume the couple having sex dont notice a big microphone hanging over there bed? There are some things the audience has to accept as not being supposed to be there.

[sandrock74]

It couldn't be the clapper. That technology wasn't developed until the mid '80s.

Nitpicky mode off.

Check, my friend.

Then, a midget was at the main light switch control, just having fun with the switch.

Checkmate. :sneaky:

[SRP76]

Lights on! Lights off! Lights on, lights off....the Clapper!



You found Daniel-san's secret lesson!


So, by this line of reasoning, if we see the reflection of a film crew in a window in any movie, are we to assume that the characters are walking down the street and dont seem to notice a motion picture crew following them around filming them? If a boom mic sinks into frame during a bedroom scene, are we to assume the couple having sex dont notice a big microphone hanging over there bed? There are some things the audience has to accept as not being supposed to be there.

There is no way you can claim the dates are the same thing as a blooper. Fran's marking off of dates is specifically shot for the movie. It is "supposed to" be there.

[Philly_SWAT]

You found Daniel-san's secret lesson!



There is no way you can claim the dates are the same thing as a blooper. Fran's marking off of dates is specifically shot for the movie. It is "supposed to" be there.

If you look carefully at the posts, EvilNed and I were not talking about the dates on Frans calender, but the year on the football schedule.

[EvilNed]

So, by this line of reasoning, if we see the reflection of a film crew in a window in any movie, are we to assume that the characters are walking down the street and dont seem to notice a motion picture crew following them around filming them? If a boom mic sinks into frame during a bedroom scene, are we to assume the couple having sex dont notice a big microphone hanging over there bed? There are some things the audience has to accept as not being supposed to be there.

No, because that's not part of the storytelling, that's just a serious mishap. But everything within the misé-en-scene is fair game when analysing a film. And that calender or footall scores is part of the misé-en-scene, wether or not Romero intended it to be there. (Well, obviously the calenders meant to be there...)

A film always has to be able to stand on it's own. No film can stand on what it's director "intended".

[Philly_SWAT]

No, because that's not part of the storytelling, that's just a serious mishap. But everything within the misé-en-scene is fair game when analysing a film. And that calender or footall scores is part of the misé-en-scene, wether or not Romero intended it to be there. (Well, obviously the calenders meant to be there...)

A film always has to be able to stand on it's own. No film can stand on what it's director "intended".

The thing about what you are saying that doesnt make sense is this.... it is obvious that the football thing is NOT meant to be there. It is something that just happened to be there in the mall office...it was not meant to be part of the story telling process. It was just a mishap (not even a serious mishap, as I said before, the audience isnt even supposed to see that. I doubt they even really noticed it was there when making the movie. It wasnt part of the story, and it isnt important.)

I have personally been in that office. There was stuff laying all over when I was there, and little post it notes all over the window. It is a cluttered environment. The crew did not have the time, the resources, or the desire, to find any little thing that might be noticed in the background for one second and move it out of the scene, then put it back where they found it.

From wikipedia:

Mise-en-scène (IPA: [mizɑ̃sɛn]) is an expression used in the theatre and film worlds to describe the design aspects of a production. It has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term," but that is not because of a lack of definitions. Rather, it's because the term has so many different meanings that there is little consensus about its definition.
Odd choice of terms to bring up in a discussion, as their is little consensus as to what the term itself even means.

[CoinReturn]

The lights stayed on during the recent screening of Dawn at Monroeville Mall, I can tell you that. Pretty much made the movie unwatchable. :(

[EvilNed]

The thing about what you are saying that doesnt make sense is this.... it is obvious that the football thing is NOT meant to be there. It is something that just happened to be there in the mall office...it was not meant to be part of the story telling process. It was just a mishap (not even a serious mishap, as I said before, the audience isnt even supposed to see that. I doubt they even really noticed it was there when making the movie. It wasnt part of the story, and it isnt important.)

I have personally been in that office. There was stuff laying all over when I was there, and little post it notes all over the window. It is a cluttered environment. The crew did not have the time, the resources, or the desire, to find any little thing that might be noticed in the background for one second and move it out of the scene, then put it back where they found it.

What's your point? It's there, accept it, and thus it's as much as part of the film as anything else. It makes perfect sense, actually. Because what we see, and what we hear, that's what the film is. What George A. Romero says in an interview, that is NOT what the film is. Accept it or don't, it's not my problem.

Authors, directors and painters are often very adamant about what they want to say with their art. They are often the ones who get a bit upset when their art is misinterpreted. But art is personal! It's not objective, it's subjective. And that piece of paper is part of that subjective experience, I'm sorry, but not even you can deny that.

EDIT: Actually, I can prove that it's part of the storytelling process as much as the rest: We are discussing it. That means someone noticed it. Someone thought it added to the film. And not a damn word that George A. Romero has to say about it is going to change it. We're still discussing it.

[Philly_SWAT]

What's your point? It's there, accept it, and thus it's as much as part of the film as anything else. It makes perfect sense, actually. Because what we see, and what we hear, that's what the film is. What George A. Romero says in an interview, that is NOT what the film is. Accept it or don't, it's not my problem.

Authors, directors and painters are often very adamant about what they want to say with their art. They are often the ones who get a bit upset when their art is misinterpreted. But art is personal! It's not objective, it's subjective. And that piece of paper is part of that subjective experience, I'm sorry, but not even you can deny that.

EDIT: Actually, I can prove that it's part of the storytelling process as much as the rest: We are discussing it. That means someone noticed it. Someone thought it added to the film. And not a damn word that George A. Romero has to say about it is going to change it. We're still discussing it.
I never said that Romero said anything about it at all one way or the other. I am saying it is common sense. Common sense...use it or dont, its not my problem.

Regardless of who is right, if you say that we see the football scores, therefore it is part of the film, then the same logic applies to crew reflections in a window. They are both the exact same thing. Either they are both suppose to be there, or neither are.

If we are watching a movie that is set in say...the year 1999. It is based on a true story that happened in 1999, and it clearly says on screen "October 1999", and in one scene, a character uses a cell phone to make a call. Some sharp observers notice when pausing it on DVD that the model of cell phone came out in 2005, the year the movie was made. Are we to assume that there has been some sort of time travel not shown on screen, where someone went forward in time, got a cell phone from 2005, and brought it back to 1999? Or are we to assume that the movie isnt about time travel, the cell phone was totally irrelevant to the story telling process in the movie, and that is was just a production flaw?

[SRP76]

I never said that Romero said anything about it at all one way or the other. I am saying it is common sense. Common sense...use it or dont, its not my problem.

Regardless of who is right, if you say that we see the football scores, therefore it is part of the film, then the same logic applies to crew reflections in a window. They are both the exact same thing. Either they are both suppose to be there, or neither are.

If we are watching a movie that is set in say...the year 1999. It is based on a true story that happened in 1999, and it clearly says on screen "October 1999", and in one scene, a character uses a cell phone to make a call. Some sharp observers notice when pausing it on DVD that the model of cell phone came out in 2005, the year the movie was made. Are we to assume that there has been some sort of time travel not shown on screen, where someone went forward in time, got a cell phone from 2005, and brought it back to 1999? Or are we to assume that the movie isnt about time travel, the cell phone was totally irrelevant to the story telling process in the movie, and that is was just a production flaw?

Something that fits isn't the same as something that doesn't. Your phone analogy would only work if the football schedule showed a contradiction. It doesn't. The schedule is like seeing a 1999 model phone in a movie set in 1999. Where's the error?

If something fits perfectly with the rest of the things seen in the movie, there's no reason to disregard it as an error.

Not like they didn't know the thing was sitting on the desk when they shot the scene, in the first place. They could have just moved it for a second if the didn't want it shown.

[Philly_SWAT]

Something that fits isn't the same as something that doesn't. Your phone analogy would only work if the football schedule showed a contradiction. It doesn't. The schedule is like seeing a 1999 model phone in a movie set in 1999. Where's the error?

If something fits perfectly with the rest of the things seen in the movie, there's no reason to disregard it as an error.

Not like they didn't know the thing was sitting on the desk when they shot the scene, in the first place. They could have just moved it for a second if the didn't want it shown.

Like I already said, I doubt they even noticed it. There are so many production flaws in Dawn, it would be difficult to list them all. To make the argument that they were all intended to be part of the story would render the entire movie worthless. The football schedule was in no way included as a "clue" to the audience as to "when" it is. It is something that just happened to already be in the office. If that is not blatantly obvious, then I guess there is nothing else I can say to make anyone see it.

[bigmonkey2582]

I worry about the status of our lives currently when this is a huge issue.

[SRP76]

Well, it's more fun than watching Law and Order reruns.

[bigmonkey2582]

I wouldn't be so sure. lol.

[DubiousComforts]

Here is a screencap from my Divimax Edition at time stamp 28:30, the first time when Peter and Roger are looking down into the mall. I think it shows, quite conclusively, that the lights were in fact on.
Except for a minute during the biker raid which intentionally shows the power going down, the mall lights were always on seeing as they used the actual mall lighting to the light the movie. :D

[EvilNed]

Regardless of who is right, if you say that we see the football scores, therefore it is part of the film, then the same logic applies to crew reflections in a window. They are both the exact same thing. Either they are both suppose to be there, or neither are.


No, because the crew in the window is obviously not supposed to be there. However, everything in the misé-en-scene goes for analysing. Any filmprofessor will tell you this.

You think filmanalysts analyse films from the perspective of the director? Think again. They, as we do, look at it completely independently from what the director wants or feels.

So again, it's not that hard to understand. If it's in the film, it's fair game for analysing. We can't selectively disregard some aspects of it. And a crew in a window is a blooper, a goof. There is the difference. That paper, however, is not a goof or blooper.


Something that fits isn't the same as something that doesn't. Your phone analogy would only work if the football schedule showed a contradiction. It doesn't. The schedule is like seeing a 1999 model phone in a movie set in 1999. Where's the error?

Exactly. Well said. Again, the difference between bloopers and what's in the film. Philly, I don't see why you're so hung up on what the crew intended to be there. Do you only view films how people tell you to view them? Must be pretty boring.

[Philly_SWAT]

No, because the crew in the window is obviously not supposed to be there. However, everything in the misé-en-scene goes for analysing. Any filmprofessor will tell you this.

You think filmanalysts analyse films from the perspective of the director? Think again. They, as we do, look at it completely independently from what the director wants or feels.

So again, it's not that hard to understand. If it's in the film, it's fair game for analysing. We can't selectively disregard some aspects of it. And a crew in a window is a blooper, a goof. There is the difference. That paper, however, is not a goof or blooper.
The difference here, in regards to misé-en-scene is this.....there is obviously a difference between a built set on a lot, and using an actual location. Do you not agree with this???????????

If the office had been a built set...for example, like the hideout (which was not in the mall, but in an empty office elsewhere) and the football schedule had been in the shot, then yes, you would be correct. However, the security office was not a built set....it was shot in the actual office in the boiler room of the mall. The football schedule was something that just happened to in the office. Taking into account that the audience is not supposed to "see" the schedule, just as the audience is not supposed to "see" crew reflections, they are the exact same thing. This is not "selectively disregarding some aspects", it is using common sense, as I stated before.

[EvilNed]

The difference here, in regards to misé-en-scene is this.....there is obviously a difference between a built set on a lot, and using an actual location. Do you not agree with this???????????


Like it or not, it was shot, it was developed, it was edited into the film. And it's the film that counts, not what precious little time the crew had. Deal with it. This is common sense. I'd like to see how you actually analyse films... :p

It's in the film, and we're discussing it. It kinda seems to me like you're trying to make art less subjective and personal, and more objective. Well, that's not the case. Art is personal, and not objective. That's just the way it is, sorry.

Now if you want to stick to your opinion, then fine. But don't expect us to do it, or at least not me, because I simply won't accept that art isn't personal (even if I do find your "practical" reasons for why it shouldn't be highly amusing). :)

[Philly_SWAT]

Like it or not, it was shot, it was developed, it was edited into the film. And it's the film that counts, not what precious little time the crew had. Deal with it. This is common sense. I'd like to see how you actually analyse films... :p

It's in the film, and we're discussing it. It kinda seems to me like you're trying to make art less subjective and personal, and more objective. Well, that's not the case. Art is personal, and not objective. That's just the way it is, sorry.

Now if you want to stick to your opinion, then fine. But don't expect us to do it, or at least not me, because I simply won't accept that art isn't personal (even if I do find your "practical" reasons for why it shouldn't be highly amusing). :)

OK, so just to be clear let me see if I understand.....if something is shot, developed, and edited into the film, then it is an important part of the film, and not regarded as a goof (even though by your own definition, crew reflections are in fact shot, developed, and edited into the film, but whatever).

So if a football schedule that just happens to be in an office qualifies, then surely automobiles do as well. So let me ask you about 4 specific things that we see in the film, that were shot, developed, and edited in, and see if you regard them as inconsequential (as I regard the football schedule) or if you think since someone noticed them, they are worthy of analysis.

ITEM 1: approx timestamp 16:53
When Roger and Peter pull up to the dock to meet Flyboy for the first time, they are clearly driving a car that has "Pittsburgh" police emblems on it. Are we to assume this is a mistake (since they are supposed to be in Philly) or is it valid to assume they stole a car in Pittsburgh? That Roger isnt who he claims to be, etc?

ITEM 2: approx timestamp 59:16
When Roger and Peter are getting the first truck, as the trucks pull out, we can see a car driving in the distance behind them. Are we to assume this is a mistake, or is it valid to assume that people are casually going out for Sunday drives during a zombie outbreak? That they arent as alone as they think they are?

ITEM 3: approx timestamp 1:01:36
When Roger and Peter are getting the 2nd truck, right as Peter is saying "three more baby, three more!" we can see a van driving, not in the distance, but right there in the truck yard. Are we to assume that this is a mistake, or is it valid to start asking why no one notices this van driving right in front of them? That someone else has snuck in, and since Peter and Roger are busy stealing trucks, they decide to steal a van (unnoticed and uncommented on by Peter and Roger?)

ITEM 4: approx timestamp 1:43:19
Right after Flyboy tells Fran they are going to shut the gates, we see the bikers approaching the mall. We can clearly see some cars stopped at an intersection, waiting for the bikers to pass. We can even see the second car in line move forward a little bit. Are we to assume this is a mistake, or that there was a car gang out there as well? That the car gang was gathered for a raid on the mall, but decided against it after they saw the biker gang was already making a raid?

Of course, ANYTHING in the world is a subject for debate. The assumptions I made could be argued if you were trying to prove a point (for example, a car gang was about to raid the mall). However, they fact that it CAN be debated, doenst mean that it is logical, or that it exhibits any common sense on the part of the debater. All four of these items were in fact shot, developed, and edited into the film. I say simple common sense dictates that they are mistakes, just as crew reflections are, and just as the football schedule is. What do you think?

[EvilNed]

Well, again, you're mistaking misé-en-scene with goofs. But as to answer all of your items:

Make up your own damn mind, and don't think about what the director thinks. ;)

There, 'nuff said. And please, stop equating goofs to misé-en-scene as they are two different things.

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, again, you're mistaking misé-en-scene with goofs. But as to answer all of your items:

Make up your own damn mind, and don't think about what the director thinks. ;)

There, 'nuff said. And please, stop equating goofs to misé-en-scene as they are two different things.

What I am saying has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what the director thinks. It is what you and I think that I am talking about.

Seeing as you did not really reply to what I typed, I guess you are saying that the 4 car items I mentioned are in fact goofs. That totally flies in the face of your filmed, developed, edited in comments.

The 4 car items are the exact same thing as the football schedule. Unintended things that were shot, developed, and edited into the film.

[EvilNed]

Goofs are filmed, developed and edited all the time. But the difference is that they are mistakes that contradict other things in the set story. The football schedule does not, so no, I'm sorry. Not the same thing.

[Philly_SWAT]

Goofs are filmed, developed and edited all the time. But the difference is that they are mistakes that contradict other things in the set story. The football schedule does not, so no, I'm sorry. Not the same thing.

They are the same thing. But I guess what you are saying is that if something supports your argument, it is a goof, but if it doesnt it is misé-en-scene.

[EvilNed]

No, as I and others have explained, if something is contradicting the storyline, then it's more likely to be a goof. Such as the phone and license plate issue.

There is no such issue with the football schedule. Infact, it takes up the better part of the screen. I have a hard time thinking the DOP or script girl "simply missed" it. And even so, the film stands on it's own merits. Not what any artist claims. It's not a mistake, sorry. :)

[Philly_SWAT]

No, as I and others have explained, if something is contradicting the storyline, then it's more likely to be a goof. Such as the phone and license plate issue.

There is no such issue with the football schedule. Infact, it takes up the better part of the screen. I have a hard time thinking the DOP or script girl "simply missed" it. And even so, the film stands on it's own merits. Not what any artist claims. It's not a mistake, sorry. :)

What is showing on the screen is Roger grabbing the keys, not looking at the football schedule.

But I guess the DOP or script girl "simply missed" all the really big cars in the shots.

[EvilNed]

Or they just chose the shot they were most happy with. Still, cars contradict, football schedule does not.

[Philly_SWAT]

Or they just chose the shot they were most happy with. Still, cars contradict, football schedule does not.

Well, obviously I am not the brilliant student of film analysis like you are, and I dont use phrases like "misé-en-scene" in casual conversation, but however you want to look at it, the football schedule was not the intended thing you are supposed to see in the scene, Roger grabbing the keys is, and whether it "contradicts" anything or not, whether it is a "mistake" or not, it still has no bearing on when the movie takes place. The movie could have taken place in 2008, and there was just an old 1978 football schedule that has sat there 2 decades.

But it is interesting to learn from such a knowledgeable film analyst like yourself that cars driving in the background where they should be no cars is simply a case of the film makers "choosing the shot they were most happy with", not worthy of analysis, but a scrap of paper in the background of a scene shot in a real location is worthy of iron clad knowledge about that particular scene.

[EvilNed]

Well, obviously I am not the brilliant student of film analysis like you are, and I dont use phrases like "misé-en-scene" in casual conversation, but however you want to look at it, the football schedule was not the intended thing you are supposed to see in the scene, Roger grabbing the keys is, and whether it "contradicts" anything or not, whether it is a "mistake" or not, it still has no bearing on when the movie takes place. The movie could have taken place in 2008, and there was just an old 1978 football schedule that has sat there 2 decades.


I have actually studied filmanalysis, so you are correct there. And one of the first things we got to accept was "The director be damned, it's what's on film that counts". And of course, this is reasonable. Because art is personal. If you can't accept that, then whatever. I think you very well see my point, but you just won't accept it.

As for the shot itself, you do of course realize that every shot in most every movie ever made is littered with things which are not important to the story itself, but they bring life to the shot, and by extension, the film. That football schedule is one such example. The shot would be pretty dull if there was nothing on the table except a keyring. George A. Romero probably looked at the table and said "Leave it as it is! Looks like someone actually worked here."

In anycase, it's in the film and unless GAR changes his mind and does a Stephen Spielberg and changes that piece of paper into something completely different with CGI, it still will be in ten, twenty years.

[Philly_SWAT]

I have actually studied filmanalysis, so you are correct there. And one of the first things we got to accept was "The director be damned, it's what's on film that counts". And of course, this is reasonable. Because art is personal. If you can't accept that, then whatever. I think you very well see my point, but you just won't accept it.
I see your point, but you dont see mine. Either the motto "it's what's on film that counts" matters, or it doesnt. Either we see both the date on the schedule AND the cars driving around in the background, or we see neither.


As for the shot itself, you do of course realize that every shot in most every movie ever made is littered with things which are not important to the story itself, but they bring life to the shot, and by extension, the film. That football schedule is one such example. The shot would be pretty dull if there was nothing on the table except a keyring. George A. Romero probably looked at the table and said "Leave it as it is! Looks like someone actually worked here."
Of course I realize this, and I agree with everything you say here. GAR probably also did not notice something was there with a date on it, as he wasnt planning on focusing on the wall, instead focusing on Roger grabbing the keys.


In anycase, it's in the film and unless GAR changes his mind and does a Stephen Spielberg and changes that piece of paper into something completely different with CGI, it still will be in ten, twenty years.
This is something we both can agree on 100%.

[EvilNed]

I see your point, but you dont see mine. Either the motto "it's what's on film that counts" matters, or it doesnt. Either we see both the date on the schedule AND the cars driving around in the background, or we see neither.


Goofs and misé-en-scene. There's a difference. One does contradict the story. The other does not.

[Philly_SWAT]

Goofs and misé-en-scene. There's a difference. One does contradict the story. The other does not.

How does one contradict the story and the other doesnt? I mean, specifically the schedule and the cars.

[EvilNed]

Well, the earth is supposed to be still and zombieinfested, so if we see a moving car, somewhere far off, waaaaaaay off in the background, we assume that it's a blooper.

If there's a piece of paper, perfectly visible, that takes up about half the screen, and is simply a piece of paper with some information on it, then that's... Well, eh, a bit different. As I'm sure you realize. :)

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, the earth is supposed to be still and zombieinfested, so if we see a moving car, somewhere far off, waaaaaaay off in the background, we assume that it's a blooper.
The van in the truckyard is not waaaaay in the background, it is very visible.


If there's a piece of paper, perfectly visible, that takes up about half the screen, and is simply a piece of paper with some information on it, then that's... Well, eh, a bit different. As I'm sure you realize. :)
Not only does it take half the screen, it takes like half a second, hence the request for a screencap to begin with....it can not be seen. If you actually watch the scene, the oft mentioned "what is on the screen", the timer on the DVD literally does not even tick off a second the entire time the schedule is on screen. So apparently, the phrase "perfectly visible" means different things to different people.

[EvilNed]

Not only does it take half the screen, it takes like half a second, hence the request for a screencap to begin with....it can not be seen. If you actually watch the scene, the oft mentioned "what is on the screen", the timer on the DVD literally does not even tick off a second the entire time the schedule is on screen. So apparently, the phrase "perfectly visible" means different things to different people.

When you're framing a shot, it's definetly "perfectly visible". :p

[Philly_SWAT]

I get the feeling that you never admit you are wrong, regardless of any amount of logic or evidence or "misé-en-scene" that may or may not be, whether in regards to this topic, or any other. Perhaps I am the same way. However, in my argumentation class, we were taught to back up our comments with logic, and actually specifically adress comments made by the other team. Perhaps that is why you and I go on so long. Sometimes, we were forced to argue in favor of points that we totally disagreed with in order to keep out argumentation skills sharp (which also forced us to study the other side rather than just reject it out of hand).

You still havent explained what the existence of the football schedule supposedly contradicts.

[EvilNed]

How can I be wrong about anything? Seriously. What is there to be wrong about? The football schedule is there, it's not a goof, it's simply there. There's nothing to be wrong about. Please, tell me what it is you want me to admit I was wrong about. If not, stop making such accusations. You keep comparing a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds, crew reflections in mirrors... Well, guess what, there's things that break immersion. We call them goofs. And then there's things that give life to the frame. We call that misé-en-scene. When you've learnt the difference between the two, come back and we'll talk.

And I never said the football schedule contradicted anything. That was the whole point OF it, you see. Read my posts better. Now I'm off. I know I've got my point across, and I know you understand it, you're just playing dumb. So I've got nothing further to add. The football schedule is there, accept it or edit it out of your damn copy of the film. :lol:

[DubiousComforts]

Well, guess what, there's things that break immersion. We call them goofs. And then there's things that give life to the frame. We call that misé-en-scene. When you've learnt the difference between the two, come back and we'll talk.
What about when Fran calls Stephen "David" in the TV studio? Is that a "goof" or is it "misé-en-scene"? I sure can't tell based on your definition, so perhaps you can help to learnt me properly. :D

[EvilNed]

What about when Fran calls Stephen "David" in the TV studio? Is that a "goof" or is it "misé-en-scene"? I sure can't tell based on your definition, so perhaps you can help to learnt me properly. :D

That, my friend... Is the Twilight Zone!

[Philly_SWAT]

How can I be wrong about anything? Seriously. What is there to be wrong about? The football schedule is there, it's not a goof, it's simply there. There's nothing to be wrong about. Please, tell me what it is you want me to admit I was wrong about. If not, stop making such accusations. You keep comparing a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds, crew reflections in mirrors... Well, guess what, there's things that break immersion. We call them goofs. And then there's things that give life to the frame. We call that misé-en-scene. When you've learnt the difference between the two, come back and we'll talk.

And I never said the football schedule contradicted anything. That was the whole point OF it, you see. Read my posts better. Now I'm off. I know I've got my point across, and I know you understand it, you're just playing dumb. So I've got nothing further to add. The football schedule is there, accept it or edit it out of your damn copy of the film. :lol:

As far as comparing "a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds", the only comparison that I am making is that they are both irrelevant. Whatever high flalutin' terms you want to assign to them, neither has impact on the film, or they both do. It cant be that one does and the other doesnt.

I have never claimed to not understand that the football schedule is there. Obviously, it is there. Whether it is "giving life to the frame" or not, the fact is that is does not give insight into what the year it is in the movie. If a civil war musket is shown in a scene, are we to take it that the timeframe of the movie is in the 1860's? I think you HAVE to understand that fact, so I assume you are playing dumb.

[EvilNed]

As far as comparing "a bloody note on the wall to cars moving in backgrounds", the only comparison that I am making is that they are both irrelevant. Whatever high flalutin' terms you want to assign to them, neither has impact on the film, or they both do. It cant be that one does and the other doesnt.

I have never claimed to not understand that the football schedule is there. Obviously, it is there. Whether it is "giving life to the frame" or not, the fact is that is does not give insight into what the year it is in the movie. If a civil war musket is shown in a scene, are we to take it that the timeframe of the movie is in the 1860's? I think you HAVE to understand that fact, so I assume you are playing dumb.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, while still refusing to accept the difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers. Both are not irrelevant, unless you want them to be. Because one is a blooper, and one is filling the frame with life. So yes, I can choose to disregard the blooper as much as I damn well please. And I do! Because it's a blooper! :)

As for the musket, you are aware of that many people collect that stuff. Whereas not to many people collect handwritten football scores from the year 197X and hang them up on their security walls. I, sir, think that you have to understand that fact.

I will not simply write down a message that I will copy and paste until you've accepted the fact that Misé-en-scene is not interchangeable with bloopers:

The piece of paper in the security office is there to fill the frame with life. It is irrelevant if you choose it to be, but it's still there and it's open for interpretation for it is in the misé-en-scene. It is there, and nothing will change that fact.

The cars moving are also in the film, unfortunetly, but the differences are quite clear. For one, they do not take up a third of the screen in a close up. Second, they contradict the story of a lifeless, dead surrounding.

Apples. Oranges. Now, please. Accept it or agree to disagree. I still say that you're playing dumb because you do not want to accept defeat. So be it. I can accept a cease of hostilities just to get me out of this stupid argument, which is a crystal clear case to begin with... Why do I torture myself in this way...

[Philly_SWAT]

You're still comparing apples and oranges, while still refusing to accept the difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers. Both are not irrelevant, unless you want them to be. Because one is a blooper, and one is filling the frame with life. So yes, I can choose to disregard the blooper as much as I damn well please. And I do! Because it's a blooper! :)

As for the musket, you are aware of that many people collect that stuff. Whereas not to many people collect handwritten football scores from the year 197X and hang them up on their security walls. I, sir, think that you have to understand that fact.

I will not simply write down a message that I will copy and paste until you've accepted the fact that Misé-en-scene is not interchangeable with bloopers:

The piece of paper in the security office is there to fill the frame with life. It is irrelevant if you choose it to be, but it's still there and it's open for interpretation for it is in the misé-en-scene. It is there, and nothing will change that fact.

The cars moving are also in the film, unfortunetly, but the differences are quite clear. For one, they do not take up a third of the screen in a close up. Second, they contradict the story of a lifeless, dead surrounding.

Apples. Oranges. Now, please. Accept it or agree to disagree. I still say that you're playing dumb because you do not want to accept defeat. So be it. I can accept a cease of hostilities just to get me out of this stupid argument, which is a crystal clear case to begin with... Why do I torture myself in this way...

I can accept things that you say. You can not accept things that I say. That is apparently a difference between us. To prove my point....

1. I agree there is a difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers
2. I am aware people collect muskets
3. The schedule "fills the frame with life"

So I ask you direct questions...

1. We both agree people do not "collect" football scores from 197X (unless they were on the team and that was a great memory for them that year), but do you agree that sometimes old stuff tends to just sit around sometimes and not get thrown away?
2. If we do not take the film as happening "now", dont we care less about the story? (If we take the film as happening in 197X instead of "now", then the story is not compelling...we know that there was no zombie outbreak between 1979 and now)
3. Do you really, truly think that the schedule was put in there ON purpose to show the year? If so, how do you explain it is on the screen for less than one second, and can not be seen upon normal viewing?

[EvilNed]

I can accept things that you say.

No, that's exactly what you haven't done.



1. We both agree people do not "collect" football scores from 197X (unless they were on the team and that was a great memory for them that year), but do you agree that sometimes old stuff tends to just sit around sometimes and not get thrown away?

Yes, I agree with that.


2. If we do not take the film as happening "now", dont we care less about the story? (If we take the film as happening in 197X instead of "now", then the story is not compelling...we know that there was no zombie outbreak between 1979 and now)

Art is personal, so that's not for me to say. Personally? I've never actually thought that the film takes place in any time except the seventies, because it's kinda obvious to me, with the old arcade games, fashion clothing and all that, that it's not happening in the present. But that's just my way of interpreting it. So no, I feel no such thing, but I understand your angle. Which is why the wonderful thing about art is that it's personal. Which is what I've been saying all along.


3. Do you really, truly think that the schedule was put in there ON purpose to show the year? If so, how do you explain it is on the screen for less than one second, and can not be seen upon normal viewing?

This point is irrelevant, because it's there. That's what I've been saying all along.

[Philly_SWAT]

Originally Posted by Philly_SWAT View Post
3. Do you really, truly think that the schedule was put in there ON purpose to show the year? If so, how do you explain it is on the screen for less than one second, and can not be seen upon normal viewing?



This point is irrelevant, because it's there. That's what I've been saying all along.

It is not irrelevant to the discussion we are having. The van driving in the truckyard is there as well. Just because something is there does not mean necessarily that it has any particular significance.

[EvilNed]

It is not irrelevant to the discussion we are having. The van driving in the truckyard is there as well. Just because something is there does not mean necessarily that it has any particular significance.

Wouldn't you say that it's up to the viewer? It is irrelevant why it's there (and in this case, it's there to bring life to the frame, not because some script girl messed up). Or is your command law when it comes to the analysing of Dawn?

(Remember, you've already accepted the difference between misé-en-scene and bloopers, so don't bring up the car again. I've got you on tape! Haha!)

[AnxietyDilemma]

Or they just chose the shot they were most happy with. Still, cars contradict, football schedule does not.

You said it's subjective right? Well, maybe I believe his theory then that there was a car gang that intended to raid the mall, I mean, it's a part of the movie, clearly visible.

[EvilNed]

You said it's subjective right? Well, maybe I believe his theory then that there was a car gang that intended to raid the mall, I mean, it's a part of the movie, clearly visible.

Who am I to stop you from believing that, right?