GAR questions

[clanglee]

Ok, So next month is the American Zombie film fest in Charlotte With Georgie boy himself. I am attending the one on one seminar on sunday Feb 22nd, but for the life of me. . I can't think of a single question to ask(If I get the opportunity). Soooooo. . .I was wondering if my good friends here at HPOTD could give me some ideas. Any burning questions that anyone needs answered? This could be the opportunity. I am going to try to film it. . if it's allowed. If not. . I might swipe my mothers tiny crappy camera and film it anyways, on the low.

(Let me clarify. One on One does not mean I get Geroge to myself. It's a seminar. So I will only have a chance at one question most likely. So lets make it a good one.)

[3pidemiC]

How do you keep your beard so white?

[Philly_SWAT]

Ask him this....that although you realize that none of his zombie movies are sequels to each other, and are not really "connected" to each other, was it his intent to have all the stories set in the same story-telling universe, or was it his intent to create separate universes for each film?

Or you could ask him if his movies, for example Dawn of the Dead, are intended by him to be set in "the present" or in 1978?

As "Art is Personal"~EvilNed, regardless of his answer(s) a viewer could still choose to take either position in their own mind, but it would shed light on his intentions as the film maker.

[clanglee]

Not bad Philly. Me likey.

[SRP76]

"Why didn't Logan reanimate?"

"Would zombies eat a cow?"

"You know there would be zombies in Canada too, right?"

"Does Land take place before Day?";)

"Was Stephen really the father?"

[zombiekiller]

ask this, at the end of dawn, where was fran and peter going and did they make it alive or did the chopter crash and kill them both.

[Cartma7546]

Why did roger have to die? :(

[bassman]

We pretty much know all the trivia to the existing films, so I would ask something about "....of the Dead".

[AcesandEights]

Ask what he'd think about doing a stoner buddy movie set in the midst of a zombie uprising.

Please! :)

[Trin]

My personal opinion is that any questions of time period or universe are just going to cause more trouble than good. He either will blow off the question or give a poorly thought out answer (which has caused most of the disputes over time period and universe). Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have those questions answered too. I just think you're barking up a frustrating tree.

Questions I think he might entertain and I'd like to have answered:

- Do you have any thoughts on a Post-Land story? Not a direct sequel but a future time period? If so, how do you envision the zombies having changed Post-Land?

- Do you see the zombie evolution in Land as having been an isolated event or was that type of evolution occurring throughout the world?

- Will the Dead series continue after you retire? That is, are there any plans being made to pass the baton of Dead filmmaking to another?

[Mr.G]

I would ask him what preventative measures he is taking to make sure HE doesn't come back as a zombie.

[Philly_SWAT]

My personal opinion is that any questions of time period or universe are just going to cause more trouble than good. He either will blow off the question or give a poorly thought out answer (which has caused most of the disputes over time period and universe). Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have those questions answered too. I just think you're barking up a frustrating tree.
Unfortunately, you are probably right.


- Do you have any thoughts on a Post-Land story? Not a direct sequel but a future time period? If so, how do you envision the zombies having changed Post-Land?
I think he already did a project like this back in 1985....


- Do you see the zombie evolution in Land as having been an isolated event or was that type of evolution occurring throughout the world?
I dont think that this was evolution in any event. When Henry Ford first started making cars, the only people that had cars were those close to where they were made. As more were made, the land area of people who had them got bigger. And even years later, there was still large areas where no one had, or had even seen, a car. I look at "zombie learning" like that. For all we know, there were vast areas of ...."regular" zombies all over, and maybe places where due to various reasons zombies were behaving more intelligently than the ones we see in Land. But I do not take it that the zombies had "evolved" in the true sense of the word, anymore than mankind "evolving" when Ford invented cars.


- Will the Dead series continue after you retire? That is, are there any plans being made to pass the baton of Dead filmmaking to another?
The baton can be grabbed by anyone who wants it, whether GAR passes it or not. People already are.

[Trin]

Awesome answers Philly. Think I'd still be interested in GAR's responses though. ;)

I think I'd rather pound my pecker with a meat tenderizer than confront the 1985 comment or the "evolve" discussion.

However, as for the baton passing, I disagree. There can and surely will be those who choose to emulate GAR in zombie filmmaking, but that's not passing the baton. I'm wondering if there is anyone he has or will take under wing and share his secrets. An apprentice as it were. Someone to learn from the master and carry on the series in his style and vision.

@Mr. G - Maybe his plan is to come back as a zombie and continue doing what he did in life - make zombie movies. Maybe he died a long time ago and is already doing that. It might explain a bit about Diary. Hehehe.... :p

[Mike70]

"You know there would be zombies in Canada too, right?"


but...but everything is so clean up there.:lol:


I would ask him what preventative measures he is taking to make sure HE doesn't come back as a zombie.

if i were clang, this might just have to be the winner.


as far as questions for romero go, how bout this one:
"would you like to smoke a fat one with me after the seminar is over? i've got some crazy hydroponic shit from canada, talk about zombified."

[bassman]

"would you like to smoke a fat one with me after the seminar is over? i've got some crazy hydroponic shit from canada, talk about zombified."


:lol:
I've always pictured Romero as one of those people that start talking about government conspiracies and aliens when they get really high...

[Mike70]

:lol:
I've always pictured Romero as one of those people that start talking about government conspiracies and aliens when they get really high...

:lol:
*romero exhales bong hit*

"you know there's this place like 10 miles under the desert in new mexico where the govt. is breeding human/alien hybrids in order to take over the world."

*me*
"no, man. i didn't know that."

*romero*
"yeah, it's all being done under the direction of the disembodied yet still living head of colonel sanders. he's ruling the world from an ice bunker in Antarctica."

[Philly_SWAT]

I think I'd rather pound my pecker with a meat tenderizer than confront the 1985 comment or the "evolve" discussion.


Here ya go...

http://www.healthline.com/blogs/outdoor_health/uploaded_images/Meat-tenderizer-747313.gif

[Trin]

I love ya man, but I'd rather not share meat tenderizer with you.

*pushes the bottle back across the table with a very long pair of tongs - then leaves the tongs*

[Philly_SWAT]

I love ya man, but I'd rather not share meat tenderizer with you.

*pushes the bottle back across the table with a very long pair of tongs - then leaves the tongs*

Oh its not mine, I got it for you! It is still unopened! :lol:

[Thorn]

There are some great ideas here. For me I always wanted to know about the continuity. While I agree you might not get an answer that really clears the air so to speak, I would like to know from him if he sees the films all existing in one universe and when he is telling the stories if he approaches it that way or if he just keeps the rule set (with tweaks) and then starts over.

[LoneCrusader]

Ask him this....that although you realize that none of his zombie movies are sequels to each other, and are not really "connected" to each other, was it his intent to have all the stories set in the same story-telling universe, or was it his intent to create separate universes for each film?

Or you could ask him if his movies, for example Dawn of the Dead, are intended by him to be set in "the present" or in 1978?

As "Art is Personal"~EvilNed, regardless of his answer(s) a viewer could still choose to take either position in their own mind, but it would shed light on his intentions as the film maker.



They're not sequels to each other?!

[Philly_SWAT]

They're not sequels to each other?!

Not direct sequels in the true sense of the word. There are no characters that carry over from one film to next (except for little in jokes for the fans, such as Savini playing a biker zombie in Land).

[LoneCrusader]

Not direct sequels in the true sense of the word. There are no characters that carry over from one film to next (except for little in jokes for the fans, such as Savini playing a biker zombie in Land).



Okay, but they films are still related to each other, right?

And if they are, how does the technology change and such?

[Philly_SWAT]

Okay, but they films are still related to each other, right?

And if they are, how does the technology change and such?

Well, opinions will vary about this here on this site. I will give you my take it on it (which obviously I think is the correct one), and also try to give info on what other opinions are. You can decide which you agree with, or maybe you even have a different idea. Either way, I would like to know what you think the answers to your own 2 questions are.

First of all, I think most would agree that the films are in fact "related to each". They all had the same director/story-teller, they all are set in a universe where the dead are becoming reanimated for an unknown reason, and move in a slow shambling fashion, and want to attack and feast on the living. Other than those obvious facts, exactly how else they are related has been a matter of much debate.

I believe that the movies are all set in the same story telling universe. Even though they are not direct sequels as I stated earlier, I believe that the gang from Dawn could have seen the farmhouse from Night if they had happened upon that area. That Ben was shot by the posse inside that house, and even though that has no relation to the 4 people in the chopper, that it all happened in the same timeline. Some people will argue that the stories DO NOT exist in the same universe, that Romero created different universes to set different stories in. This seems highly unlikely and unnecessary to me. Why create another universe so similar to the one you already created instead of already using that one? People will point to the fact that there are slight differences between the movies (for example differences in zombie behavior) as evidence that they are different story telling universes. I say those slight differences are due to low budget, movie making mistakes, and the filmakers not having a grand overall plan. They (Romero and friends) did not have a grand idea with all possible things planned out in a story "bible", to make sure that everything was consistent from film to film. They were just a bunch of people who wanted to make some movies.

Funny thing is, there are HUGE inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series, yet no one ever argues that those are all set in different universes. Perhaps the fact the there is one main character that is in all the films makes people feel differently. In part V, they say Jason was cremated. In part VI, Tommy digs him up from where he was buried. MAJOR inconsistency. A different universe would explain it, however again I say that is highly unlikely and unnecessary. It was a result of those movie makers not giving a shit about inconsistencies, and just make a buck off a popular concept that didnt cost a lot of money to make.

As far as your question "how does the technology change and such", opinions vary on this as well. Some feel that the movies are not related at all, and are set in the timeframe in which they were filmed, i.e. Night takes place in 1968, Dawn 1978, Day 1985, etc. If that is true, then that is why technology changes as it does. Personally, I believe that all the movies are set within the same universe and timeline, and are all set in "the perpetual present". Just as when you can see that a special effect didnt really happen (you see a string holding something in air, you can tell a stunt man was used, etc) you are supposed to "suspend your disbelief" in order to enjoy the story, I believe that you should suspend your disbelief about clothing, hairstyles, technology, etc changing in Romero's films. As a guy without a lot of money, without a huge overriding vision, and a guy who just wanted to make some cool movies (which almost all would agree he did), he did not put any thought of effort in trying to mask "time-stampable" items in his films. You can either suspend your disbelief about it or not.

So it is my opinion that Night in set "now", whenever it is that you view the film. Dawn is set 3 weeks after that, and Day much further into the future after that. It is my belief that if Peter had managed to survive for a long time after the end of Dawn, he could have met the people in Day if they were in the same geographical area. They are not direct sequels in the sense that characters from one film continue on to the next, but the "setting" and "zombie rules" do continue from one film to the next. Any inconsistencies are a result of movie making mistakes and/or lack of foresight on the film makers part. Technology differences need to have the "suspend your disbelief" attribute applied.

What do you believe? I would be interested to know. And it seems like you are a newer member, so welcome!

[Thorn]

What Philly said pretty much sums up my feelings as well. Same universe with minor tweaks due to lack of over all vision by the story tellers, same world, all survivors could meet up or see the areas that those people fought their "last stands" in.

I do not see Dawn as a film unrelated to Night sharing only zombies as central theme .

[Trin]

That's a great post Philly. It sums up all the side of the debate objectively while doing a good job of stating your own personal opinion.

[LoneCrusader]

Well, opinions will vary about this here on this site. I will give you my take it on it (which obviously I think is the correct one), and also try to give info on what other opinions are. You can decide which you agree with, or maybe you even have a different idea. Either way, I would like to know what you think the answers to your own 2 questions are.

First of all, I think most would agree that the films are in fact "related to each". They all had the same director/story-teller, they all are set in a universe where the dead are becoming reanimated for an unknown reason, and move in a slow shambling fashion, and want to attack and feast on the living. Other than those obvious facts, exactly how else they are related has been a matter of much debate.

I believe that the movies are all set in the same story telling universe. Even though they are not direct sequels as I stated earlier, I believe that the gang from Dawn could have seen the farmhouse from Night if they had happened upon that area. That Ben was shot by the posse inside that house, and even though that has no relation to the 4 people in the chopper, that it all happened in the same timeline. Some people will argue that the stories DO NOT exist in the same universe, that Romero created different universes to set different stories in. This seems highly unlikely and unnecessary to me. Why create another universe so similar to the one you already created instead of already using that one? People will point to the fact that there are slight differences between the movies (for example differences in zombie behavior) as evidence that they are different story telling universes. I say those slight differences are due to low budget, movie making mistakes, and the filmakers not having a grand overall plan. They (Romero and friends) did not have a grand idea with all possible things planned out in a story "bible", to make sure that everything was consistent from film to film. They were just a bunch of people who wanted to make some movies.

Funny thing is, there are HUGE inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series, yet no one ever argues that those are all set in different universes. Perhaps the fact the there is one main character that is in all the films makes people feel differently. In part V, they say Jason was cremated. In part VI, Tommy digs him up from where he was buried. MAJOR inconsistency. A different universe would explain it, however again I say that is highly unlikely and unnecessary. It was a result of those movie makers not giving a shit about inconsistencies, and just make a buck off a popular concept that didnt cost a lot of money to make.

As far as your question "how does the technology change and such", opinions vary on this as well. Some feel that the movies are not related at all, and are set in the timeframe in which they were filmed, i.e. Night takes place in 1968, Dawn 1978, Day 1985, etc. If that is true, then that is why technology changes as it does. Personally, I believe that all the movies are set within the same universe and timeline, and are all set in "the perpetual present". Just as when you can see that a special effect didnt really happen (you see a string holding something in air, you can tell a stunt man was used, etc) you are supposed to "suspend your disbelief" in order to enjoy the story, I believe that you should suspend your disbelief about clothing, hairstyles, technology, etc changing in Romero's films. As a guy without a lot of money, without a huge overriding vision, and a guy who just wanted to make some cool movies (which almost all would agree he did), he did not put any thought of effort in trying to mask "time-stampable" items in his films. You can either suspend your disbelief about it or not.

So it is my opinion that Night in set "now", whenever it is that you view the film. Dawn is set 3 weeks after that, and Day much further into the future after that. It is my belief that if Peter had managed to survive for a long time after the end of Dawn, he could have met the people in Day if they were in the same geographical area. They are not direct sequels in the sense that characters from one film continue on to the next, but the "setting" and "zombie rules" do continue from one film to the next. Any inconsistencies are a result of movie making mistakes and/or lack of foresight on the film makers part. Technology differences need to have the "suspend your disbelief" attribute applied.

What do you believe? I would be interested to know. And it seems like you are a newer member, so welcome!

I think it would be neat if they are related to each other, but the inconsistencies are bugging me. Like how they eat insects in Night, the technologies, how they fear fire in Night, how they feel fire in Dawn, etc. And the infinite inconsistencies between the first three and Land. And how George has said that they're not sequels/not related etc.

I think it would be neat. But I'm not so sure if I believe they are related at all. (i just watched Land a few minutes ago, once without commentary, and then again with. it kinda killed most of my hopes for any of them being related.)


so, i'm not 100% sure, but i think i'm leaning more towards the "separate universes" theory.

[Philly_SWAT]

I think it would be neat if they are related to each other, but the inconsistencies are bugging me. Like how they eat insects in Night, the technologies, how they fear fire in Night, how they feel fire in Dawn, etc. And the infinite inconsistencies between the first three and Land. And how George has said that they're not sequels/not related etc.

I think it would be neat. But I'm not so sure if I believe they are related at all. (i just watched Land a few minutes ago, once without commentary, and then again with. it kinda killed most of my hopes for any of them being related.)


so, i'm not 100% sure, but i think i'm leaning more towards the "separate universes" theory.
Hmmm....disappointing....

Do you suspend your disbelief about other things in other movies? What about the inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series? Do you think they are set in different universes as well?

[LoneCrusader]

Hmmm....disappointing....

Do you suspend your disbelief about other things in other movies? What about the inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series? Do you think they are set in different universes as well?



lol friday the 13th movies are hardly movies. i hate them. don't really think anything of them, really. just saying what i think about the dead series.

[Philly_SWAT]

lol friday the 13th movies are hardly movies. i hate them. don't really think anything of them, really. just saying what i think about the dead series.

OK, take out the Friday the 13th reference, input any series of "moving pictures with sounds" that you do consider films, and tell me if you suspend your disbelief with inconsistencies in them or not. I only used Friday the 13th as an obvious example.

[LoneCrusader]

OK, take out the Friday the 13th reference, input any series of "moving pictures with sounds" that you do consider films, and tell me if you suspend your disbelief with inconsistencies in them or not. I only used Friday the 13th as an obvious example.


can't think of any examples. all of what i can think of is consistent. and one or two consistencies is nothing.

i don't mean to sound like a smartass or anything, but why doesn't george just admit that they're sequels or whatever, if they are? is there some copyright issues or something going on? (which i know he has problems with all the time.)

[Philly_SWAT]

can't think of any examples. all of what i can think of is consistent. and one or two consistencies is nothing.

i don't mean to sound like a smartass or anything, but why doesn't george just admit that they're sequels or whatever, if they are? is there some copyright issues or something going on? (which i know he has problems with all the time.)
Well, copyright issues would have no bearing on whether a series of movies were sequels or not. But the issue of what we are discussing is not whether they are sequels or not, but whether they exist in the same universe or not.

Let me try to put it this way....if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever in Romero's dead movies, would you then consider them to be in the same universe? If your answer to that question is yes, then I submit it would then be a question of whether you choose to accept inconsistencies as being contributed to Romero's low budget, poor advanced planning, regular dude making movies style, or you are unable to suspend your disbelief far enough to accept that and consider them as being in separate universes.

[LoneCrusader]

Well, copyright issues would have no bearing on whether a series of movies were sequels or not. But the issue of what we are discussing is not whether they are sequels or not, but whether they exist in the same universe or not.

Let me try to put it this way....if there were no inconsistencies whatsoever in Romero's dead movies, would you then consider them to be in the same universe? If your answer to that question is yes, then I submit it would then be a question of whether you choose to accept inconsistencies as being contributed to Romero's low budget, poor advanced planning, regular dude making movies style, or you are unable to suspend your disbelief far enough to accept that and consider them as being in separate universes.



i would accept the inconsistencies if all it was due to was budget or poor planning. but there are some plain-out inconsistent inconsistencies that can't really be attributed to anything other than the fact that they're in separate universes. plus, there's the fact that George always says that they're not directly related.

[clanglee]

What has become of my thread!!!!!!

Nah, just kidding. . carry on . . . interesting conversation.

[Philly_SWAT]

i would accept the inconsistencies if all it was due to was budget or poor planning. but there are some plain-out inconsistent inconsistencies that can't really be attributed to anything other than the fact that they're in separate universes. plus, there's the fact that George always says that they're not directly related.
"inconsistent inconsistencies"? LOL:lol

All I can say is that GAR had said many inconsistent things himself about his own films. And there is a difference between "directly related" and being in the same universe or not.

Example: Mel Gibson movies. Braveheart - story about the historical figure William Wallace, set in the 13th century. The Patriot - story about a man in the Revolutionary War in America, set in the 18th century. These movies are certainly not directed related at all. But they are set in the same universe...meaning the real universe, our universe, our collective perceived reality, etc.

You are of course perfectly free to interpret them as being in separate universes. That says to me that you are unwilling to suspend your disbelief about the inconsistencies in the movies, which is why I was trying to determine how likely/unlikely you are to suspend your disbelief about any movie. You said you can not think of any inconsistencies in any movies you have ever seen other than Romero's. So I dont know what to make of that. Practically any series of movies, or even single movies, have inconsistencies within them. Perhaps the nature of the inconsistencies in Romero's movies make it easier to stand out in your mind, hence no willingness on your part to suspend your disbelief. As I said, you or anyone is entitled to feel that way. If you want to continue this discussion, then be more specific about the things you are saying so we can have a conversation about them. If not, thats OK too.

[LoneCrusader]

"inconsistent inconsistencies"? LOL:lol

All I can say is that GAR had said many inconsistent things himself about his own films. And there is a difference between "directly related" and being in the same universe or not.

Example: Mel Gibson movies. Braveheart - story about the historical figure William Wallace, set in the 13th century. The Patriot - story about a man in the Revolutionary War in America, set in the 18th century. These movies are certainly not directed related at all. But they are set in the same universe...meaning the real universe, our universe, our collective perceived reality, etc.

You are of course perfectly free to interpret them as being in separate universes. That says to me that you are unwilling to suspend your disbelief about the inconsistencies in the movies, which is why I was trying to determine how likely/unlikely you are to suspend your disbelief about any movie. You said you can not think of any inconsistencies in any movies you have ever seen other than Romero's. So I dont know what to make of that. Practically any series of movies, or even single movies, have inconsistencies within them. Perhaps the nature of the inconsistencies in Romero's movies make it easier to stand out in your mind, hence no willingness on your part to suspend your disbelief. As I said, you or anyone is entitled to feel that way. If you want to continue this discussion, then be more specific about the things you are saying so we can have a conversation about them. If not, thats OK too.


Yeah I figured the phrase "inconsistent inconsistencies" made more of a point.


i was going to include this in my last post but i took it out. i guess i'll put it here: okay, in dawn, they were hurt by fire, yet in day and land, they don't have arms and legs sometimes but that doesn't hurt them. and how the zombies in land learned even though in the other movies the brains are nothing more than rotting mush.

and most series would have one or two inconsistencies. but rarely are the inconsistencies so noticeable or numerous, and even rarer does the writer of it admit that they are not directly related movies, as romero has said.

[Philly_SWAT]

i was going to include this in my last post but i took it out. i guess i'll put it here: okay, in dawn, they were hurt by fire, yet in day and land, they don't have arms and legs sometimes but that doesn't hurt them. and how the zombies in land learned even though in the other movies the brains are nothing more than rotting mush.
Whether or not zombies "feel pain" is not addressed at all in any of the films, I dont think. Wanting to not be near fire is a natural human response, and a common theme in all the movies is "they are us". Millard Roush says in Dawn that they appear to have memories from "normal life", using things for bludgeons, for example. It would be a memory of normal life to not want to get near fire. Remember in Night, Ben uses the torch to ward off the zeds, and even sets at least one on fire. Plus they use the molatav cocktails as well. In Day, the zeds appear effected when Logan turns off the lights. In Land, the zeds are memorized by the pretty lights in the air. This all seems consistent to me...the zeds are effected by things just as the living are. And just as all of us are not effected the same way by various things, neither are they. As for the "learning" in Land, a lot of people have trouble with that, although I will say that is the only movie where we actually focus of a few zeds for an extended period. Most of the others we see are just briefly, so we have no idea what they are capable of as far as learning goes. The only other time we see a zed appear to be "learning" is Bub, and he is the only other zed that is focused on. So every time in the series where zeds are actually focused on, we do see them learning, to some extent anyway.




and most series would have one or two inconsistencies. but rarely are the inconsistencies so noticeable or numerous, and even rarer does the writer of it admit that they are not directly related movies, as romero has said. Again, whether movies are "directly related" or not has no bearing on whether or not they exist in the same story telling universe. And most movies that the average person sees are Hollywood efforts, where they have more money at their disposal, to pay for extra filming time, have a continuity person getting paid, more people involved with specific responsibilites, etc. Look at it this way. If you planned out your own vision for a series of movies, and made them based on the resources you have right now, over a period of a few decades, do you think that your movies would be masterful examples on consistency, or do you think they would be filled with flaws, despite your best efforts?

[LoneCrusader]

Whether or not zombies "feel pain" is not addressed at all in any of the films, I dont think. Wanting to not be near fire is a natural human response, and a common theme in all the movies is "they are us". Millard Roush says in Dawn that they appear to have memories from "normal life", using things for bludgeons, for example. It would be a memory of normal life to not want to get near fire. Remember in Night, Ben uses the torch to ward off the zeds, and even sets at least one on fire. Plus they use the molatav cocktails as well. In Day, the zeds appear effected when Logan turns off the lights. In Land, the zeds are memorized by the pretty lights in the air. This all seems consistent to me...the zeds are effected by things just as the living are. And just as all of us are not effected the same way by various things, neither are they. As for the "learning" in Land, a lot of people have trouble with that, although I will say that is the only movie where we actually focus of a few zeds for an extended period. Most of the others we see are just briefly, so we have no idea what they are capable of as far as learning goes. The only other time we see a zed appear to be "learning" is Bub, and he is the only other zed that is focused on. So every time in the series where zeds are actually focused on, we do see them learning, to some extent anyway.


Again, whether movies are "directly related" or not has no bearing on whether or not they exist in the same story telling universe. And most movies that the average person sees are Hollywood efforts, where they have more money at their disposal, to pay for extra filming time, have a continuity person getting paid, more people involved with specific responsibilites, etc. Look at it this way. If you planned out your own vision for a series of movies, and made them based on the resources you have right now, over a period of a few decades, do you think that your movies would be masterful examples on consistency, or do you think they would be filled with flaws, despite your best efforts?


Good points. And like I said I'm not 100% sure.

But it seems like George's intents are that they are different universes.

[Philly_SWAT]

Good points. And like I said I'm not 100% sure.

But it seems like George's intents are that they are different universes.

Two things to say...

1) GAR's intent has little bearing. If I intend to make the funniest movie ever, but anyone that sees it leaves crying and says it is the saddest movie they have ever seen, I submit that I made a sad movie, regardless of my intent.
2) Again, I say that inconsistencies do not mean they are in different universes. Lets say you and I make a historical movie about the civil war, and in a couple of scenes, our lead actor accidentally was wearing a digital wristwatch, and we missed it the entire time, and it made the final edit of the movie. How do you think that people should view our movie, that we set it in the "real universe" and made a mistake with the watch, or that we created a different universe, very similar to the real one, but one in which digital watches existed in the 1860's?