The Football Schedule in Dawn

[Philly_SWAT]

I had an epiphany about Dawn while reading some quotes from Sir Author Conan Doyle the other day. If the name doesn’t ring a bell, he is the creator of the greatest fictional detective of all time, Sherlock Holmes. The two quotes that made be realize something important about Dawn were…

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
And
“It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.”

I already gave credit to George A. Romero for making a series of films that I really enjoy, but now I realize that he had even more genius as a filmmaker than even I gave him credit for, and I gave him a lot to begin with.

There are several flaws seen in the movie Dawn of the Dead, most notably with automobiles, but…were they really flaws? Or were they simply part of an overall line of brilliance, so subtle, that you would literally miss if it you blinked? More about this later…

The scene in when Roger and Peter first discover the security office…what is this really all about? Many answers could follow. One thought I always had was that it was dumb of them to turn the main mall escalators on. This is what led the zombies upstairs…(remember, they didn’t see any on the second floor prior). But mainly it was a way for them to find the walkie talkies and the keys to the doors. But why the need to get keys? As we see shortly thereafter, they have trouble opening the doors, almost getting overwhelmed as the story is just getting going. It would have been easier to just break in a door, and then barricade with the counters once inside. So why have them have the keys? Why have the close up shot of Roger grabbing the big keying? Then it hit me…the point of the scene is not that Roger is grabbing the keys, but to show what is on the wall BEHIND the keys! The football schedule! Now, the schedule is really only shown for a second (literally) so if you blink you might miss it. Here is a screen cap…

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

At first glance, the schedule may appear to just be something unimportant to the story. A piece of paper that just happened to be in the actual mall office. Something the script girl just missed. But this schedule is the key to many things that previously I considered to be movie flaws. Doyle – “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important”. Of course! This has to be the key!

Why was the security guy dead in the first place? He had blood all over his face, but didn’t appear to be bitten or shot. Why were there cars driving all over the place in the background? Why was Roger driving a Pittsburgh police car and not a Philadelphia police car? Doyle – “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”.

So it came to me as if a bolt out of the blue. The security guy was also the head football coach at Gateway High School, which had just won the State Championship. It was a feel good story about an underdog overcoming the odds…it was a statewide sensation. But he wasn’t good managing his money, so he worked part time as mall security. That is why the schedule is there! While he was chasing a rat in an out of the way part of the room, he fell and hit his head, hard! He didn’t die right away, he lay there for days, delirious, slowly bleeding, and unable to call out (his now weak voice couldn’t be heard anyway). That’s why he was dead, not shot or attacked!

But when he didn’t show up to school on Monday, it started a panic. Local news ran stories, “Coach Missing…A Community in Crisis”. People were searching all over for him, even as the zombie outbreak was gaining steam. He had relatives in Philadelphia, so the Pittsburgh police chief made a special exception and let some officers drive to Philly to see if they could find him there….but alas, they couldn’t. The car had engine problems after driving cross state, and they were needed back home, so they borrowed a car and drove back, leaving their car there. That’s why Roger had a Pittsburgh police car in Philadelphia!

In fact, in all likelihood, that is why Flyboy subconsciously started to fly from Philly to Pittsburgh. Sure he wanted to escape the madness in the city, but even the Philly TV stations were running the story of the missing Gateway coach. Flyboy wanted to spot him from the air! Brilliant! That’s why he was flying west instead of north to get to Canada!

Even after communication broke down across the State, and the zombie epidemic was continuing full steam, people were still worried about the coach (not realizing that he had died as a result of hitting his head and bleeding to death chasing a rat in the boiler room, and being shot after he rose again by Flyboy). So all those cars we see in the background of Dawn? People out looking for the coach! Most of them were football players from the high school. Remember the movie Red Dawn? High school football players are survivors! (Red Dawn…was that a silent tribute to Dawn of the Dead? Excellent!) That is why Roger and Peter don’t mention the van driving in the truckyard. OBVIOUSLY, it was people still driving around looking for the coach! No need to mention the obvious!

I can’t believe it took all these years for me to realize the simple truth in all this. ROMERO IS A GOD!! This is why he is so respected as a filmmaker. He doesn’t treat his audience as if they are idiots (like so many filmmakers do). He treats his audience with respect, knowing they will notice the less than one second of screen time he gives to the football schedule (cleverly disguising the shot as a look at some “keys”), and also knowing they will figure all this out.

Special thanks to Sir Author Conan Doyle. Your quotes were an inspiration for me to figure all this out. Long live misé-en-scene!

[bassman]

Damn Philly. I respect your opinion and all the time and thought you put into this, but I'm pretty sure it was just something already on the wall.

If it was intended to have any significance I think it would have a longer shot. And to be honest....I'm having a hard time deciding if you're being sarcastic or serious about this.:confused:

[Thorn]

By George, I think you've got it!!!

How did he solve this mystery? It was... “Elementary, my dear Watson.”

[Philly_SWAT]

And to be honest....I'm having a hard time deciding if you're being sarcastic or serious about this.:confused:

That was my goal :)

[Yojimbo]

Dudes, my hat goes off to Philly for this one. This may come from sarcasm, but the reasoning he utilizes is sound, and it very well may be the actual truth as much as the truth can be extrapolated from Romero's well made -albeit not well thought out - universe.

[EvilNed]

Simple logic, Watson!

[sandrock74]

This again?!? :annoyed:

[SRP76]

It doesn't matter. It's there, and it fits the other two time indicators: Fran's calendar and the season outside.

If something fits, use it. The only reason not to is to stubbornly try to deny all the evidence in place, and claim Dawn takes place in July. So unless you're trying to prove the movie takes place in July, there's no reason to claim "it doesn't exist".

[MoonSylver]

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

[Philly_SWAT]

It doesn't matter. It's there, and it fits the other two time indicators: Fran's calendar and the season outside.

If something fits, use it. The only reason not to is to stubbornly try to deny all the evidence in place, and claim Dawn takes place in July. So unless you're trying to prove the movie takes place in July, there's no reason to claim "it doesn't exist".

Who was saying it doesnt exist?

Here is another calender shot for you... this calender on the wall, which clearly shows three months that are X'd off...which does make it appear to be March at the end of the movie. Still dont see a year though. And we also dont know how long they have been in the mall, it is hard to tell exactly how pregnant Fran is.

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

[EvilNed]

Well... There was a year on the football schedule. Not saying that year was accurate. Me? I don't go by the football schedule at all. I go by the silly fashion. :D

[Thorn]

The fashion clearly marks this a 70's film and it dates it. As does the video games, style of the malls arcitecture, and a number of other items such as the vehicles.

Could ALL the vehicles be aging but still in use? Certainly. Is it however likely? No not at all, it would defy logic and common sense.

"Hey we know it is 2001 but let's all wear bell bottoms, drive dated vehicles, ans hang out in a mall with stores and architecture that plainly mark it straight out of the 70's."

Even the video cameras, the color schemes, the interior design all scream 70's/early 80's to me.

I just do not know what we are debating here. Maybe someone can sum it up in a brief paragraph for me.

[EvilNed]

I think that the football schedule kinda ruins Philly's idea of the film being set "Now", since it has a year printed on it. So he's trying to come up with whatever explanation there is to try to deny that there is infact a year stamped in Dawn of the Dead 78.

As if the fashion styles hadn't given it away.

[Philly_SWAT]

The fashion clearly marks this a 70's film and it dates it. As does the video games, style of the malls arcitecture, and a number of other items such as the vehicles.

Could ALL the vehicles be aging but still in use? Certainly. Is it however likely? No not at all, it would defy logic and common sense.

"Hey we know it is 2001 but let's all wear bell bottoms, drive dated vehicles, ans hang out in a mall with stores and architecture that plainly mark it straight out of the 70's."

Even the video cameras, the color schemes, the interior design all scream 70's/early 80's to me.

I just do not know what we are debating here. Maybe someone can sum it up in a brief paragraph for me.
Ever see the movie Rollerball? Not the remake, but the original with James Caan? (If not, you should, it is an awesome movie). That movie was set "in the future", I dont think any specific year was every mentioned, but it was a future where corporations have taken over the world. In that movie, even though it was set in the future (filmed in 1975), rather than making some futuristic looking outfits, people just wore what people wore then. Very wide collars, top 4 buttons not buttoned, exposing their chests (very 1970's). The "futuristic" TV sets they show look very chincy compared to what is available now. So should we take that this movie was set in "the future" or in 1975?


I think that the football schedule kinda ruins Philly's idea of the film being set "Now", since it has a year printed on it. So he's trying to come up with whatever explanation there is to try to deny that there is infact a year stamped in Dawn of the Dead 78.

As if the fashion styles hadn't given it away.
I think your fault here EvilNed lies in the fact that you are trying to make art objective, not realizing that art is personal.

I know a lot of people in here are not Nascar fans, but I am. I have a big picture in my living room of the 1987 All-Star race, "The Winston". It is clearly marked with the date May 17, 1987. Why would I have such an old picture in my living room? Because I like it and is is important to me. It is not unreasonable to assume that a football schedule could be important to someone (for example, they were on that years team, their son was on that years team, that there grandson was on that years team, etc.) It is also not unreasonable to assume that the schedule could have just been laying around a cluttered office. It is not definitive proof, but not unreasonable. I had a file cabinet at work that no one ever used that had all kinds of old shit in it. Years ago shit. Employees that were no longer there had stuff in there. It is not unreasonable to think they days before whatever caused the mall to cease normal operations, someone found this ancient schedule in an old drawer, pulled it out and displayed it in the room. Not saying we should assume this is the case, just saying it is not unreasonable to think it is possible.

As far as the Nascar picture in my living room, if I took a picture of my living room, you would see that picture sitting there. If I took the picture now in 2009, but you saw a picture clearly marked as 1987 there, it would not be unreasonable either to think you are looking at a picture taken in 1987, or soon thereafter. But although it wouldnt be unreasonable for you to think that, you would in fact be wrong.

To both of you, when a film is in black and white, do we assume that for some weird reason that colors have ceased to exist in the universe?

[EvilNed]

I think your fault here EvilNed lies in the fact that you are trying to make art objective, not realizing that art is personal.

Uhm. That's just bullshit, Philly. I'm the one who's been pointing out the subjectiveness all along, whil you're the one who's basicly screamed out that "The football schedule should be ignored! Obey me!". If subjectiveness to you is to follow what GAR says, and the crew of the film intended, then sure. That's one sure-fire-way to misinterpret the word "subjective". :)


Infact, I can't believe that you even said that... You're basicly stealing my line! :lol:

Also, it's quite frustrating when you accuse me of saying things I've never said. I never said that the film took place in 197X, and that's that. Look it up yourself before you even go on making such a claim. Infact, all I ever claimed was that the football schedule was on the wall, and shouldn't be ignored (unless you choose to do so, but it's still there). Man, oh, man Philly, have you missed the mark. Please, do not accuse me of saying things I never have. It's kinda annoying, actually, and not good for the "debate".

As for Rollerball, it's set in a future where the 70's never stopped!

[AcesandEights]

http://www.dsfanboy.com/media/2006/02/Sarcasm.jpg

/Wilhem scream

*Crushed by sarcasm*

[Philly_SWAT]

Uhm. That's just bullshit, Philly. I'm the one who's been pointing out the subjectiveness all along, whil you're the one who's basicly screamed out that "The football schedule should be ignored! Obey me!". If subjectiveness to you is to follow what GAR says, and the crew of the film intended, then sure. That's one sure-fire-way to misinterpret the word "subjective". :)You keep making comments about "what GAR says", I am speaking for myself, not GAR. My subjectiveness is my own, not anyone elses. I was sure you were involved in my "Land happens before Day" discussions. Ever here GAR or any crew members say that?



Infact, I can't believe that you even said that... You're basicly stealing my line! :lol:Indeed I was! :)


Also, it's quite frustrating when you accuse me of saying things I've never said. I never said that the film took place in 197X, and that's that. Look it up yourself before you even go on making such a claim. Infact, all I ever claimed was that the football schedule was on the wall, and shouldn't be ignored (unless you choose to do so, but it's still there). Man, oh, man Philly, have you missed the mark. Please, do not accuse me of saying things I never have. It's kinda annoying, actually, and not good for the "debate".
Yes, I completely understand the concept of being accused of saying things you never said. For example, I never said you said the movie took place in 197X.


As for Rollerball, it's set in a future where the 70's never stopped!
Cool idea, or scary thought?:shifty:

[bigmonkey2582]

http://enomosiki.zftp.com/misc/motivation/futility-tank.jpg

[Thorn]

Okay I may have seen it but I do not recall Rollerball. Help me out here...

Does the movie contain any text, dialogue, props, or direction that shows you that the film is one that is set in the future?

This could be futuristic vehicles, devices, voice overs, scrolling star wars text, books.... anything?

Edit to add:

Things like...

In the not-too-distant future, wars will no longer exist...

This movie will haunt your future ... because it's almost here!

The next war will not be fought - it will be played.

In the future there will be no war. There will only be Rollerball.

In the not-too-distant future, wars will no longer exist. But there will be Rollerball

I would then say, based on this, costuming, and props the movie is CLEARLY intended to take place in the future. It is expressly stated, implied, and written.

The same can not be said for Dawn in my opinion.

Dawn is a movie that was made to exist at the time it was shot, it in no way attempts to portray itself as a period piece. It is not timeless, it is not set in the future, it is not set in the past. It is set around the time it was shot.

Period.

[bassman]

Okay I may have seen it but I do not recall Rollerball. Help me out here...

Does the movie contain any text, dialogue, props, or direction that shows you that the film is one that is set in the future?

This could be futuristic vehicles, devices, voice overs, scrolling star wars text, books.... anything?

Edit to add:

Things like...

In the not-too-distant future, wars will no longer exist...

This movie will haunt your future ... because it's almost here!

The next war will not be fought - it will be played.

In the future there will be no war. There will only be Rollerball.

In the not-too-distant future, wars will no longer exist. But there will be Rollerball

This is a pretty good indication...http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg233/SteveAustinBookClub/rollerball_ver2.jpg

[Thorn]

Agreed.

That movies is set in the future.

Dawn was set in it's present day, or the tag line would have been...


"In the far far off future, when there was no more room in hell the dead would walk a technologically advanced earth where the people elected to live like it was 197x in a state of perpetuation"

[Trin]

The football schedule implies nothing about time period. It could be memorabilia - five years old still hanging there as evidence of their once great season.

I'm impressed at the screen shot though. I could never pull that kind of stop-motion detail off of any of my copies of Dawn.

Has anyone ever considered that GAR may be seeding inconsistencies in the movies as his own inside joke on the fans? "Let them chew on this for a while if they want to nit-pick. Hahaha"

[Philly_SWAT]

Okay I may have seen it but I do not recall Rollerball. Help me out here...

Does the movie contain any text, dialogue, props, or direction that shows you that the film is one that is set in the future?

This could be futuristic vehicles, devices, voice overs, scrolling star wars text, books.... anything?

Edit to add:

Things like...

In the not-too-distant future, wars will no longer exist...

This movie will haunt your future ... because it's almost here!

The next war will not be fought - it will be played.

In the future there will be no war. There will only be Rollerball.

In the not-too-distant future, wars will no longer exist. But there will be Rollerball

I would then say, based on this, costuming, and props the movie is CLEARLY intended to take place in the future. It is expressly stated, implied, and written.

I guess I didnt explain enough about Rollerball. bassman posted a pic that shows the poster, which does say "In the not too distant future..." although this could mean a few years, or a few hundred years (in the grand scheme of time in the universe). But it is expresses, implies and is written to be in the future. However, the props, dialogue, etc. are clearly 1970's. Which was the point of my question. There is conflicting evidence. To me, it is OBVIOUS that the movie is set in the future, yet if we use fashion as the key, then it would be in the 70's. So which would you say is the factor to determine when it is?


The same can not be said for Dawn in my opinion.

Dawn is a movie that was made to exist at the time it was shot, it in no way attempts to portray itself as a period piece. It is not timeless, it is not set in the future, it is not set in the past. It is set around the time it was shot.

Period.
I agree with most of what you say here. I completely agree with your comment that Dawn was not intended to be a period piece. From wikipedia:

In the performing arts, a period piece is a work set in a particular era. This informal term covers all countries, all periods and all genres. It may be as long and general as the medieval era or as limited as one decade—the Roaring Twenties, for example. Most commonly seen in film. A period piece movie is also referred to as a costume drama.This goes to my point, Dawn was NOT a period piece, NOT in the 1970's.

I also agree with your statements that it was not set in the future, and was not set in the past. If not those two, then when? Answer: the present.

[EvilNed]

You keep making comments about "what GAR says", I am speaking for myself, not GAR. My subjectiveness is my own, not anyone elses. I was sure you were involved in my "Land happens before Day" discussions. Ever here GAR or any crew members say that?

Then why are you having such trouble accepting the football schedule? I mean, it's there, after all.



Yes, I completely understand the concept of being accused of saying things you never said. For example, I never said you said the movie took place in 197X.

Are you telling me that your entire Nascar analogy was basicly just you rambling nonsense at random?


Cool idea, or scary thought?:shifty:

The latter, unfortunetly.

[Philly_SWAT]

The football schedule implies nothing about time period. It could be memorabilia - five years old still hanging there as evidence of their once great season.

I'm impressed at the screen shot though. I could never pull that kind of stop-motion detail off of any of my copies of Dawn.

Has anyone ever considered that GAR may be seeding inconsistencies in the movies as his own inside joke on the fans? "Let them chew on this for a while if they want to nit-pick. Hahaha"

This is exactly what I am saying. Well, the part about the schedule not implying anything, not the "GAR seeding inconsistences" bit :)

EDIT: Below is a merged auto post. I hate that!


Then why are you having such trouble accepting the football schedule? I mean, it's there, after all.Ummm... I wasnt aware that I was having trouble accepting that it is there. I was the one who posted the screenshot to begin with. I am saying it has no bearing on "when" it is in the movie.

Are you telling me that your entire Nascar analogy was basicly just you rambling nonsense at random?
Ummm..no I am not telling you that. It was a real world example of old dated items sitting out in plain sight, which should not be indicative of "when" it is.

[EvilNed]

The football schedule means nothing really, to me, except that it's set sometime in the 70's. But you know, somehow, while looking at all the fashion stuff, the video games and all that... I kinda got that feeling anyhow. :p

And remember, art is personal, so it's my own damn right to view the film as when the fashion implies: The 70's!

If someone makes a film that's not set in the future, and features a heavy load of 70's fashion... Well, then call me crazy, but I just assume it's set in the 70's.

[Philly_SWAT]

The football schedule means nothing really, to me, except that it's set sometime in the 70's. But you know, somehow, while looking at all the fashion stuff, the video games and all that... I kinda got that feeling anyhow. :p

And remember, art is personal, so it's my own damn right to view the film as when the fashion implies: The 70's!

If someone makes a film that's not set in the future, and features a heavy load of 70's fashion... Well, then call me crazy, but I just assume it's set in the 70's.

If someone makes a film set in the perpetual present, and doesnt make a movie/computer program hybrid that can change clothing styles as time passes, and accepts their limitations and understands that fashion always changes, and therefore no way to take that into account...call me crazy, but I have the capability to look past the fashion and see it as the "present".

[EvilNed]

If someone makes a film set in the perpetual present, and doesnt make a movie/computer program hybrid that can change clothing styles as time passes, and accepts their limitations and understands that fashion always changes, and therefore no way to take that into account...call me crazy, but I have the capability to look past the fashion and see it as the "present".

Aha! And there, I won the argument. Because now, finally, you understand that art is personal. Nice chat we had.

(Altough I would like to point out that there is nothing in Dawn that suggests it's set in the perpetual present. Nothing at all, infact.)

[bassman]

If someone makes a film set in the perpetual present, and doesnt make a movie/computer program hybrid that can change clothing styles as time passes...


George Lucas?:lol:

Nah, I kind of agree with you on that one, philly. The films are pretty much timeless as long as you can look past the clothes/cars. Then again...I'm one of those people who feel that the films aren't connected in anyway other than zombies, so it doesn't matter to me when each of them takes place.

BTW....this thread has been keeping me highly entertained. Keep it up!:p

[Philly_SWAT]

Aha! And there, I won the argument. Because now, finally, you understand that art is personal. Nice chat we had.

(Altough I would like to point out that there is nothing in Dawn that suggests it's set in the perpetual present. Nothing at all, infact.)

I always implied art was personal, and explicitly stated it a few posts ago. That was never in question. YOU were the one saying I didnt think that, I never did. If that was your point in the argument, it could have been cleared up long ago.

My point was that by using logic, the existence of the schedule does not give an indication of "when" it is.

And what WOULD imply it is set in the perpetual present?

[EvilNed]

My point was that by using logic, the existence of the schedule does not give an indication of "when" it is.

Logic? I saw little logic in your argument (or in mine for that matter), but fine, if that's what you want to call it. :p


And what WOULD imply it is set in the perpetual present?

Don't ask me, but there's certainly nothing in Dawn that claims, suggests or even hints at it. While there are numerous hints towards it being set in the 70's.

Look at it as a throwback to your arguments about the moving cars... Are we as an audience to assume that the main characters live in a parallel universe that is constantly stuck in the 70's, albeit they live... Now? Or that once they arrive at the mall, they enter the Twilight Zone, and set up shop in a mall stuck in the 70's? Well... Art is personal, after all, though I have a hard time thinking anyone would think any of those scenarios would be feasible.

[Thorn]

I think a lot of energy was put into this for no good reason by too many people.

Dawn is a movie filmed in the 70s, about a zombie outbreak that occurs in the 70s, featuring people in 70s clothing and with 70s hair styles. Driving 70s cars, using 70s technology.

I again have not seen rollerball. But I have to assume at lease some form of futuristic SOMETHING makes it into the film other than just the blatant information from the people who made the film explaining to the viewer it was a film about future events. No matter how far or short into the future that is. It was not "now" it was in the future.

Dawn was set in the 70's.

I do not personally feel the calendar was put there on purpose, I do not feel it was anything more than something left on the wall there for whatever reason. If it was placed on the wall it was done so to help add life to the shot to fill the screen and make the office look believable and not much attention was paid to detail because let's face it that happens a lot in GAR films.

Either way, it in no way changes that it was a film made in the 70s about people in the 70s. If GAR wanted us to view it as a feature piece he would have let us know that.

"A long time ago during a zombie uprising in a galaxy far far away".

The calendar is inconsequential to the over all plot, it does not advance the story, it does nothing but take up a heartbeat or less of screen time it is not worth talking about really.

As for the period piece rebuttal. A period piece properly defined and accepted is "any work of art whose special value lies in its evocation of a historical period " I dare say Dawn of the Dead's purpose is NOT to show the special value of the 70s. It is a zombie flick set in the 70's. In this case it certainly was not made in anyway to celebrate the 70's, to expound on events of the 70's. It just happened to be when it was filmed. Had Mr Romero wanted to make a period piece he could have set it in the Elizabethan era, and detailed how those people dealt with it... that might have passed for a period piece.

Again I just do not understand why this topic has gone on and on.

What are the two sides of the debate here? Is the Calendar relevant? Was the film set in the 70's? Whats the core topic of discussion?

[Philly_SWAT]

Logic? I saw little logic in your argument (or in mine for that matter), but fine, if that's what you want to call it. :p
I dont know what else to call it OTHER than logic, but call it what you want. Thats what it was called in logic class. Logically....erm....."whateverly", the existence of a date does not mean it is that date. This point is entirely outside the discussion of Dawn, movies in general, etc. That is why I gave the Nascar story to illustrate. If you really and truly to not accept this point, then that explains the length of this conversation.



Don't ask me, but there's certainly nothing in Dawn that claims, suggests or even hints at it. While there are numerous hints towards it being set in the 70's.

Look at it as a throwback to your arguments about the moving cars... Are we as an audience to assume that the main characters live in a parallel universe that is constantly stuck in the 70's, albeit they live... Now? Or that once they arrive at the mall, they enter the Twilight Zone, and set up shop in a mall stuck in the 70's? Well... Art is personal, after all, though I have a hard time thinking anyone would think any of those scenarios would be feasible.
Of course those scenarios are not feasible, hence the perpetual present. Again, I ask you what steps could a filmmaker take, in any film, to suggest it is a perpetual present? The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed. There would be no way around it, unless you know of some way that you havent mentioned. They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics.

[DjfunkmasterG]

May I say something? No? well screw ya I am doing it anyway. :p


First I respect GAR and his work on the original 3 films, but once LAND came about, any genius the man may have had was clearly trashed upon the release of that movie.

May I say, cool that you went through all of that typing and thought to analyze a football schedule, but seriously man, you read way too much into it I think. I highly doubt with the compressed shooting schedule and low budget they had time to throw in little things to make you go hmmmmm. I think honestly you are over reaching and maybe taking your DEAD obsession a bit to far, I mean its cool to be a fan, but some of you guys really go off the deep end with how you over analyze these films.

What social commentary does exist in the film is strictly the consumerism aspect, which to be honest I doubt was really ever intended, and a lot of people just read that into it, and that is how the movie is perceived. Kind of like I doubt George was trying to say something about Vietnam with Night of the Living Dead. The only blatant social commentary George has ever done was in DAY, LAND, and DIARY.

He overdid it in LAND, DIARY's commentary was not much of a commentary at all, and Day, well that was pretty spot on to the feeling of that decade. Dawn however, I think was a fluke in the commentary as I feel the same about Night. I think the critics read a lot into it and George just ran with it... Yeah you're right etc etc.

However, I will say i was entertained reading your rant philly, I mean you developed a whole backstory to one blink and you'll miss him character, and it was enlightening how you surmised all of it off a football schedule, but seriously dude, you need to not overthink things so much. IMHO I doubt that was anything more than a set decoration or just a piece of paper they didn't pay much attention too.

In regards to your Roger story, keep in mind this much. Romero never states what city the film takes place in throughout the entire film. EVeryone assumed it was Philly based on what? The video box? Some synopsis? a script? They never say in the film the mall is in Pittsburgh, or the SWAT team is from Philly, and I highly doubt one police department would be loaning their cops to another or send them out looking for amissing person when they have an entire city being overrun by the dead waking up and walking around.

[Philly_SWAT]

LOL! You are not the first to take the sarcasm in this post and think I was being serious. This discussion started in another thread. As you do (and any rational person would, I think) I think the schedule was "just a piece of paper they didn't pay much attention too", as you say.

The movie definately starts in Philadelphia. One thing that comes to mind immediately is Roger saying to Flyboy in the chopper to stay out of the major cities, that if its "anything like Philly we might not get out of there alive", to which Peter replies "we may not get out of anywhere alive."

[EvilNed]

I dont know what else to call it OTHER than logic, but call it what you want. Thats what it was called in logic class. Logically....erm....."whateverly", the existence of a date does not mean it is that date. This point is entirely outside the discussion of Dawn, movies in general, etc. That is why I gave the Nascar story to illustrate. If you really and truly to not accept this point, then that explains the length of this conversation.

I could use logic in the exact same manner:

If one displays one single date, which gets no payoff whatsoever, it is logical to assume that is the present date and that it was just meant to inform the viewer.

Now, this is not what I believe the date in Dawn was for. But my assumption is just as logical as yours. So, again... Call it what you will. :p




Of course those scenarios are not feasible, hence the perpetual present.

Erhm, now there's an illogical statement if there ever was one... All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the film that claims, suggests or even hints that the film is set in the prepetual present, while there is alot to suggest that it's set in the 70's. But if you wish to counter this argument, by, and only by, showing me where in the film it claims, suggests or hints at being set in the prepetual present then please do so.


Again, I ask you what steps could a filmmaker take, in any film, to suggest it is a perpetual present? The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed. There would be no way around it, unless you know of some way that you havent mentioned. They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics.

A simple text that displays "Now" or "Present time" would suffice. Infact, those are the most used tools to do this. Not that hard to do either. Are we to assume that all films that do not feature a date are set in the prepetual present? Including Alien? :lol: Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[Philly_SWAT]

I could use logic in the exact same manner:

If one displays one single date, which gets no payoff whatsoever, it is logical to assume that is the present date and that it was just meant to inform the viewer.

Now, this is not what I believe the date in Dawn was for. But my assumption is just as logical as yours. So, again... Call it what you will. :p

You are mis-using logic here. If the date was on a computer screen, then yes, there isnt many (any?) reasonable ideas as to why someone would have an inaccurate date on their computer. But a something in the background? (See Nascar analogy).

Also, your use of the term "display". The schedule was not displayed to the audience. It was a random thing in the background in a real office.




Erhm, now there's an illogical statement if there ever was one... All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the film that claims, suggests or even hints that the film is set in the prepetual present, while there is alot to suggest that it's set in the 70's. But if you wish to counter this argument, by, and only by, showing me where in the film it claims, suggests or hints at being set in the prepetual present then please do so.
There must be some fancy film school term that would explain why a movie should be set in a perpetual present, but I lack the vocabulary. Perhaps you know what it is? You still didnt address the idea about "The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed." and how "They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics." Even with a big graphic that says "NOW" in the beginning, the viewer will still see old clothes, architecture, etc.




A simple text that displays "Now" or "Present time" would suffice. Infact, those are the most used tools to do this. Not that hard to do either. Are we to assume that all films that do not feature a date are set in the prepetual present? Including Alien? :lol: Sorry, doesn't work that way.
So are you saying that the lack of a "Now" displayed in the beginning is proof that it isnt set in the now?

[EvilNed]

You are mis-using logic here. If the date was on a computer screen, then yes, there isnt many (any?) reasonable ideas as to why someone would have an inaccurate date on their computer. But a something in the background? (See Nascar analogy).

Also, your use of the term "display". The schedule was not displayed to the audience. It was a random thing in the background in a real office.

Exactly, if you'd actually read my post you'd see I already explained both of these things. Both of our viewpoints are "logical" and yes, as I said, it's not for display. It doesn't take away the logic, however.





There must be some fancy film school term that would explain why a movie should be set in a perpetual present, but I lack the vocabulary. Perhaps you know what it is? You still didnt address the idea about "The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed." and how "They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics." Even with a big graphic that says "NOW" in the beginning, the viewer will still see old clothes, architecture, etc.

Yes, we'd still see out of place architecture. But there'd still be that unmistakeable "NOW", so we'd just have to bite it. There's no such thing in Dawn. As for the fancy filmschool term, there might be, but I don't know it. On thursday I'll be going home, and I'll check Susan Haywards Cinema Studies and see if I can find anything like it. But given that there's a huge amount of things that binds Dawn specifically down to the 70's, I have a hard time seeing as how that could apply to the casual viewer. While of course, there is nothing to stop people from viewing it as it takes place NOW, but there's nothing in the film itself that suggests it does.




So are you saying that the lack of a "Now" displayed in the beginning is proof that it isnt set in the now?

No, but you asked for a way to display it, and I offered one. Are you not satisfied?

[krakenslayer]

Logic? I saw little logic in your argument (or in mine for that matter), but fine, if that's what you want to call it. :p



Don't ask me, but there's certainly nothing in Dawn that claims, suggests or even hints at it. While there are numerous hints towards it being set in the 70's.

Look at it as a throwback to your arguments about the moving cars... Are we as an audience to assume that the main characters live in a parallel universe that is constantly stuck in the 70's, albeit they live... Now? Or that once they arrive at the mall, they enter the Twilight Zone, and set up shop in a mall stuck in the 70's? Well... Art is personal, after all, though I have a hard time thinking anyone would think any of those scenarios would be feasible.

No. It's quite simple. When it was made, it was intended for the viewer to believe the events were taking place "now", or in the "very near future". At the time it was made, "now" just happened to be the 1970s. As viewers watching it today, we are still supposed to view it as the "present day". The plot, the commentary, the characters, the setting - as long as they remain relevant, then the little details like fashions, makes of car and football calendars are irrelevant. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief, like disregarding strings on special effects, and visible trampolines in stunt shots.

If he had wanted to set it firmly in 1977/1978 then he'd have shown us a date on the calendar, or a newspaper headline, or mentioned on an emergency broadcast. He didn't. He kept the time and the date (and even the place, come to think of it - Philadelphia is mentioned but Pittsburgh never is) deliberately indistinct, to maintain the impression of it being set in the "vague present".

[EvilNed]

No. It's quite simple. When it was made, it was intended for the viewer to believe the events were taking place "now", or in the "very near future". At the time it was made, "now" just happened to be the 1970s. As viewers watching it today, we are still supposed to view it as the "present day". The plot, the commentary, the characters, the setting - as long as they remain relevant, then the little details like fashions, makes of car and football calendars are irrelevant. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief, like disregarding strings on special effects, and visible trampolines in stunt shots.

As I said, there is nothing in the film itself that suggests it take place in the prepetual NOW. So if you want to view it as such, then by all means view at as such. But don't expect everyone to do it because there's nothing to suggest it. Especially considering all the 70's stuff around. :lol:

[Philly_SWAT]

Exactly, if you'd actually read my post you'd see I already explained both of these things. Both of our viewpoints are "logical" and yes, as I said, it's not for display. It doesn't take away the logic, however. You misunderstand the meaning of logic. Both viewpoints are "reasonable", but logically, the existence of dated material does not prove one way or the other what date it is when viewing the dated material.


Yes, we'd still see out of place architecture. But there'd still be that unmistakeable "NOW", so we'd just have to bite it. There's no such thing in Dawn. As for the fancy filmschool term, there might be, but I don't know it. On thursday I'll be going home, and I'll check Susan Haywards Cinema Studies and see if I can find anything like it. But given that there's a huge amount of things that binds Dawn specifically down to the 70's, I have a hard time seeing as how that could apply to the casual viewer. While of course, there is nothing to stop people from viewing it as it takes place NOW, but there's nothing in the film itself that suggests it does.
You can still bite it without the unmistakeable "NOW". (Double meaning :) )


No, but you asked for a way to display it, and I offered one. Are you not satisfied? Depends on the definition of "satisfied". Is it A way? Yes. That satisfies it technically. But it does not satisfy the spirit of the question. As you already stated above, even with a NOW banner, we would still see outdated architecture, so even a NOW banner does not solve the issue of outdated things, which is what you are basing your opinion on about the movie being set in the seventies. You admit that the lack of the banner does not prove that it "isnt" set in the present, and there is no way to prove that is, NOW banner or not.

Remember, this is a guy who forgot to put a copyright symbol on Night.


No. It's quite simple. When it was made, it was intended for the viewer to believe the events were taking place "now", or in the "very near future". At the time it was made, "now" just happened to be the 1970s. As viewers watching it today, we are still supposed to view it as the "present day". The plot, the commentary, the characters, the setting - as long as they remain relevant, then the little details like fashions, makes of car and football calendars are irrelevant. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief, like disregarding strings on special effects, and visible trampolines in stunt shots.

If he had wanted to set it firmly in 1977/1978 then he'd have shown us a date on the calendar, or a newspaper headline, or mentioned on an emergency broadcast. He didn't. He kept the time and the date (and even the place, come to think of it - Philadelphia is mentioned but Pittsburgh never is) deliberately indistinct, to maintain the impression of it being set in the "vague present".

Well said.

[krakenslayer]

As I said, there is nothing in the film itself that suggests it take place in the prepetual NOW.

But more tellingly, there's nothing in the film that suggests it isn't. It would have been so easy to let a little something like a date appear SOMEWHERE, even accidentally. How many times in a day at work or at the shops or whatever do you see or hear today's date? On a newspaper, at the bank, on a calendar, on a news broadcast. In Dawn, all of these things/locations appear but only twice do dates ever appear on screen, and even then it's only days of the month (which month is never explicitly shown) and nowhere, ever do we see a year. In fact, this stands not only for Dawn, but for Night, Day, Land and (I think) Diary too! It's like he's bending over backwards to AVOID telling us what year it is!!

To me it appears very deliberate and it says to me that GAR's deliberately trying to keep these films in a sort of timeless present.

[EvilNed]

But more tellingly, there's nothing in the film that suggests it isn't.

Oh, there's plenty. The video games are the most telling evidence, for one. So while there's things that binds it down to one single era in time, there's nothing that sets it loose. Nothing WITHIN the film itself. That's what I'm getting at. There's nothing IN the film that suggests it's in a prepetual "Now". But there's plenty to suggest it's in the 70's. Which doesn't make either of them right or wrong. Art is personal.


Philly:


You admit that the lack of the banner does not prove that it "isnt" set in the present, and there is no way to prove that is, NOW banner or not.

Remember, this is a guy who forgot to put a copyright symbol on Night.

Ehrm... Are we talking about the FILMS or the guy behind the films? Because what GAR intends has no bearing in this argument. It's what on film that counts.

[Philly_SWAT]

Oh, there's plenty. The video games are the most telling evidence, for one. So while there's things that binds it down to one single era in time, there's nothing that sets it loose. Nothing WITHIN the film itself. That's what I'm getting at. There's nothing IN the film that suggests it's in a prepetual "Now". But there's plenty to suggest it's in the 70's. Which doesn't make either of them right or wrong. Art is personal.
Again, video games are the same as fashion and architecture...unavoidable logistics.



Ehrm... Are we talking about the FILMS or the guy behind the films? Because what GAR intends has no bearing in this argument. It's what on film that counts. Ummm...we are talking about the films.

[Thorn]

Okay...

I think I get this now.

Philly you are saying when Mr. Romero filmed this he did not intend for the movie to be "locked into a time period" but instead filmed it in the 70's and that is why all the items in the film scream 70's. This said his intention was for it to be "without time period" and that it was just impossible (and logically so) to accomplish this.

So the film should exist outside of a "time" and we should use our ability to suspend disbelief and just accepted it as "now".

[EvilNed]

Again, video games are the same as fashion and architecture...unavoidable logistics.

Which still sets it in a time-period. Both you and I agree on that. Where our opinions differ is wether we should just ignore this, or ackowledge it. I'm sorry, but to me are so much more stronger if I just watch them. And accept them as they are.



Ummm...we are talking about the films.

Then why did you bring GAR into it by stating he was the same guy who forgot the copywrite?

[Philly_SWAT]

Okay...

I think I get this now.

Philly you are saying when Mr. Romero filmed this he did not intend for the movie to be "locked into a time period" but instead filmed it in the 70's and that is why all the items in the film scream 70's. This said his intention was for it to be "without time period" and that it was just impossible (and logically so) to accomplish this.

So the film should exist outside of a "time" and we should use our ability to suspend disbelief and just accepted it as "now".

This is almost what I am saying. Regardless of how GAR intended it or not (I do think he did intend it that way, but that wouldnt satisfy EvilNed's "art is personal" thing...) I am saying that the films ARE that way. Whether someone agrees or not, or thinks a filmmakers intentions are important or not, that is up to them to determine.

But I do think that a person should suspend their disbelief with the 70's clothes, just as krakken suggested to suspend your disbelief about strings holding spaceships up, visible trampolines, etc.

But overall, this entire discussion (which is proving quite enjoyable in any event) got side tracked a lot. The main point I was making to begin with is that from a logic standpoint, the existence of a date on the schedule does not prove anything about "when" the movie is.

[krakenslayer]

Okay...

I think I get this now.

Philly you are saying when Mr. Romero filmed this he did not intend for the movie to be "locked into a time period" but instead filmed it in the 70's and that is why all the items in the film scream 70's. This said his intention was for it to be "without time period" and that it was just impossible (and logically so) to accomplish this.

So the film should exist outside of a "time" and we should use our ability to suspend disbelief and just accepted it as "now".

I couldn't have put it any better. Exactly! :D

[Thorn]

I would agree that old dates on items do not prove anything.

When I moved into my last office there were pictures on the wall from 1970 something, items in the desk including files, file folders, and personal items dated from the 80's. This was in the year 2000. If that were captured on film it would not necessarily mean that the year of the film was what was listed on those items.

As for suspending disbelief I can do that too and ignore that a film was clearly made in the 80's. I don't have an issue with that, and do it routinely for other films in a variety of other ways.

As to the debate about the moving cars and such such... let's be honest. The moving cars were straight up a mistake that made it into the film. I do not beleive the football schedule was anything more than an oversight, not because George WANTED to purposefully mask the year but because frankly I do not think he cared one way or another to scrutinize it as closely as we would. Also by the mains own admittance he never expected the films to devlop this kind of die had fan base where people examine in minute detail frame by frame what he considered a "wrap". We are more apt to go over his work than his production crew, and we have had YEARS to do it, and no one breathing down our necks to make them money in the process.

[Philly_SWAT]

I would agree that old dates on items do not prove anything.

When I moved into my last office there were pictures on the wall from 1970 something, items in the desk including files, file folders, and personal items dated from the 80's. This was in the year 2000. If that were captured on film it would not necessarily mean that the year of the film was what was listed on those items.

As for suspending disbelief I can do that too and ignore that a film was clearly made in the 80's. I don't have an issue with that, and do it routinely for other films in a variety of other ways.

As to the debate about the moving cars and such such... let's be honest. The moving cars were straight up a mistake that made it into the film. I do not beleive the football schedule was anything more than an oversight, not because George WANTED to purposefully mask the year but because frankly I do not think he cared one way or another to scrutinize it as closely as we would. Also by the mains own admittance he never expected the films to devlop this kind of die had fan base where people examine in minute detail frame by frame what he considered a "wrap". We are more apt to go over his work than his production crew, and we have had YEARS to do it, and no one breathing down our necks to make them money in the process.
Well said.

[EvilNed]

Hey. I don't give a damn about the football schedule. All I'm saying is that it's there, and can't be ignored.

The film is definetly set in the 70's, tho. And how did I come to that conclusion? I watched the goddamn film! :D

[Philly_SWAT]

Hey. I don't give a damn about the football schedule. All I'm saying is that it's there, and can't be ignored.

The film is definetly set in the 70's, tho. And how did I come to that conclusion? I watched the goddamn film! :D

I agree that the football is in fact there. I say it can easily be ignored, as easily as we ignore the trampoline that the Savini zombie jumps on.

I watched the same goddamn film, and came to the conclusion that is it set in the "present".

[EvilNed]

So Daytona Beach, Florida is stuck in the 70's? ;)

[Philly_SWAT]

So Daytona Beach, Florida is stuck in the 70's? ;)

No. But the high schools still display old football stuff :)

[EvilNed]

Of course they do.

[Philly_SWAT]

Of course they do.

Of course!

[Thorn]

I like the idea that it is entirely possibly that this is a janitor reliving his old days of glory and has refused to take it down. It was on the wall when he first got his job there after his "high school career" ended and he just couldn't or wouldn't take it down. Like a trophy that maybe eluded him.

Is that the story? I tend to doubt it but it makes me smile all the same.

It reminds me of the breakfast club where if you pay attention the valedictorian (or whatever) turned out to be Carl the janitor. It is subtle but if you watch it, and you are a fan you notice it.

[Trin]

I am often accused of over-analyzing movies to the point that I cannot enjoy them for what they are. But I gotta say - you guys make me look quite under-analytical.

I'm one of the people who think that the movies all exist within the same universe with the same rules. In Land I believe if they looked hard enough they'd find a farmhouse with a burnt truck outside, a Mall with trucks parked across the doors, and an underground research facility with signs that survivors had been looking for answers. Fran and Peter and Sarah and John and Bill and Riley and Charlie are all out there and could find each other.

I agree with a lot of the posters in this thread that the movies are set in the indeterminate present and the 70's look of Dawn is merely a function of when the movie was filmed, not when it was set.

I enjoy that each movie is a continuation of the storyline of the world's descent into zombies, with each movie showing that descent from the perspective of a different group. I enjoy that too much to get tripped up on differences in fashion or video games.

I just don't know how anyone can enjoy the later movies without the context of the previous ones to set the stage.

[sandrock74]

Well spoken Trin and I readily agree with you on all points. :)

[krakenslayer]

I am often accused of over-analyzing movies to the point that I cannot enjoy them for what they are. But I gotta say - you guys make me look quite under-analytical.

I'm one of the people who think that the movies all exist within the same universe with the same rules. In Land I believe if they looked hard enough they'd find a farmhouse with a burnt truck outside, a Mall with trucks parked across the doors, and an underground research facility with signs that survivors had been looking for answers. Fran and Peter and Sarah and John and Bill and Riley and Charlie are all out there and could find each other.

I agree with a lot of the posters in this thread that the movies are set in the indeterminate present and the 70's look of Dawn is merely a function of when the movie was filmed, not when it was set.

I enjoy that each movie is a continuation of the storyline of the world's descent into zombies, with each movie showing that descent from the perspective of a different group. I enjoy that too much to get tripped up on differences in fashion or video games.

I just don't know how anyone can enjoy the later movies without the context of the previous ones to set the stage.

Agree wholeheartedly on all points. Excellent post. :)

[Thorn]

I am often accused of over-analyzing movies to the point that I cannot enjoy them for what they are. But I gotta say - you guys make me look quite under-analytical.

I'm one of the people who think that the movies all exist within the same universe with the same rules. In Land I believe if they looked hard enough they'd find a farmhouse with a burnt truck outside, a Mall with trucks parked across the doors, and an underground research facility with signs that survivors had been looking for answers. Fran and Peter and Sarah and John and Bill and Riley and Charlie are all out there and could find each other.

I agree with a lot of the posters in this thread that the movies are set in the indeterminate present and the 70's look of Dawn is merely a function of when the movie was filmed, not when it was set.

I enjoy that each movie is a continuation of the storyline of the world's descent into zombies, with each movie showing that descent from the perspective of a different group. I enjoy that too much to get tripped up on differences in fashion or video games.

I just don't know how anyone can enjoy the later movies without the context of the previous ones to set the stage.

Excellent post, and very well put.