Chronological Possibilities with all the Spinoffs?

[Seiferboy]

Here's my first thread on the forums. Hope it's a good one!

So, I've combed through the threads and haven't seen anything related to this question. Out of all the remakes and sequels, are there any you would place within George Romero's official lineup? I'm interested in watching each film in what I consider chronological order, and was wondering if anything else could work well within the story and Romero's world. It doesn't have to be from the Pittsburgh area, it could even be set in other countries. Here's the lineup of Romero films I plan to try and watch. This lineup makes chronological sense to me from a storytelling perspective.


Night of the Living Dead (68)
Diary of the Dead
Survival of the Dead
Dawn of the Dead (78)
Land of the Dead
Day of the Dead (85)


As for unofficial sequels, I'd consider placing "Children of the Dead", after Day.

If the movie is ever released, I'd place "Night of the Living Dead: Genesis", after Children. Why? Because we find out what happens to Barbra after the events of the original movie. She survives and manages to be rescued, after wandering down a road, badly injured. Judith O'dea even reprises her role as Barbra! There's a few trailers for the movie on YouTube, and I cannot wait for them to (hopefully) finally release it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41LnVpVnA3g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xhUyDxdQDk

Have you thought about this topic? If so, what are your thoughts? Keep in mind, it's totally fine to use a remake in place of the original. For example, Night of the Living Dead (1990) could easily replace the 1968 version with either the original sequels, or the remake sequels. Maybe a mix of them? Who knows! :D

[beat_truck]

Unless you are a masochist or just want to see everything remotely Romero related, skip Children all together. From what I recall from seeing it, it is truly awful.:barf: The same goes for Flesheater.

[EvilNed]

The way they fit together in my mind is;

Night and Diary show us the initial reactions and the very first hours of the outbreak.
Dawn of the Dead show us how society is falling apart. People abandoning their posts, fending for themselves. The collapse.
Survival of the Dead depicts a post-collapse. This could very well take place the minute Dawn ends.
Day of the Dead takes place months later. Society is completely gone and is no contact between anyone.
Land of the Dead takes place years later. Basically people starting to begin anew. In the film they say it's been five years since the shit hit the fan, so that's a good timeframe for the other films as well.

[shootemindehead]

Diary and Survival don't fit in with the others in any way. Diary doesn't even fit with the remake of NotLD.

Night, Dawn, Day, Land.

That's it. And even then you have to ignore obvious problems with clothing, weaponry and other stuff.

[beat_truck]

Diary and Survival don't fit in with the others in any way. Diary doesn't even fit with the remake of NotLD.

Night, Dawn, Day, Land.

That's it. And even then you have to ignore obvious problems with clothing, weaponry and other stuff.

I agree.

Night > Dawn > Day > Land

I consider Diary and Survival to be stand alone movies that don't really fit or have anything to do with the others. I also consider them to be crap, but that's beside the point.:)

[EvilNed]

I also consider them to be crap, but that's beside the point.:)

Oh, I don't know... I've got a feeling it's related somehow... ;)

[JDP]

Here's my first thread on the forums. Hope it's a good one!

So, I've combed through the threads and haven't seen anything related to this question. Out of all the remakes and sequels, are there any you would place within George Romero's official lineup? I'm interested in watching each film in what I consider chronological order, and was wondering if anything else could work well within the story and Romero's world. It doesn't have to be from the Pittsburgh area, it could even be set in other countries. Here's the lineup of Romero films I plan to try and watch. This lineup makes chronological sense to me from a storytelling perspective.


Night of the Living Dead (68)
Diary of the Dead
Survival of the Dead
Dawn of the Dead (78)
Land of the Dead
Day of the Dead (85)


This is the most appropriate chronological order when considering all that is depicted and implied in the movies themselves (regardless of what years they were made and released in or what Romero might have said here or there in some interviews, specially in his later years when his memory had gotten quite bad.) Day depicts a humanity almost gone extinct and driven underground in a world overtaken by the hordes of the living dead, which none of his other movies does, thus why it is the obvious final chapter in the saga. Entropy, folks, entropy. All the other movies are evidently taking place at earlier times during the same zombie disaster, periods of time when organized society is still managing to survive to a greater or lesser degree in the midst of the said ongoing disaster.


As for unofficial sequels, I'd consider placing "Children of the Dead", after Day.

No, don't... just don't. That crap doesn't belong anywhere in this topic and has not even a remote connection to Romero's movies. And most certainly even less trying to place it after Day!

If you must consider any non-Romero zombie film as supposedly somehow "related" to the time-line of the same zombie apocalypse, then consider Fulci's Zombie and Mattei's Hell of the Living Dead as "prequels", actually, definitely not "sequels". Both of these movies have been attempted to have some sort of "connection" to Romero's movies (even though they really do not have any, except that they both borrow the idea of the cannibalistic zombie from them), and the only way that could ever be is by considering them as "prequels", and for obvious reasons (both movies begin in a world where the reality of zombies is totally unknown to most people, and then they gradually spread everywhere.)

[shootemindehead]

Day depicts a humanity almost gone extinct and driven underground in a world overtaken by the hordes of the living dead)

Except it doesn't.

'Day of the Dead' depicts that ONE group sent underground (pretty recently too, from the dialogue, most likely a matter of months). We have no idea what's going on in the rest of the country. We don't even know what's going on in the rest of Florida. That particular group in the film are isolated and cut off and within 100 miles each way, they haven't found anyone else. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any other groups or, in fact, entire organised enclaves still left operating.

We only see things from Sarah and Co's point of view.

It's far from conclusive that 'Day of the Dead' is the "final" chapter in Romero's Dead series.

[EvilNed]

Let's just all agree to disagree. :)

[beat_truck]

Is this going to start again?:rockbrow:

Apparently, ~35 pages of the same back and forth wasn't enough the last time.:)

[JDP]

Except it doesn't.

'Day of the Dead' depicts that ONE group sent underground (pretty recently too, from the dialogue, most likely a matter of months). We have no idea what's going on in the rest of the country. We don't even know what's going on in the rest of Florida. That particular group in the film are isolated and cut off and within 100 miles each way, they haven't found anyone else. But that doesn't mean that there aren't any other groups or, in fact, entire organised enclaves still left operating.

We only see things from Sarah and Co's point of view.

It's far from conclusive that 'Day of the Dead' is the "final" chapter in Romero's Dead series.

The movie very clearly implies that what is going on in Florida is also pretty much going on elsewhere. The people in the Florida bunker have only relatively recently become "incommunicado" via the airwaves. And it's not just 200 miles, they used to talk to people as far up north as at least Washington DC (that's about 1000 miles from South Florida.) And their view of the situation is absolutely grim and desperate. That implies that all the info they got from elsewhere up to that point was not good at all.

[shootemindehead]

The movie very clearly implies that what is going on in Florida is also pretty much going on elsewhere. The people in the Florida bunker have only relatively recently become "incommunicado" via the airwaves. And it's not just 200 miles, they used to talk to people as far up north as at least Washington DC (that's about 1000 miles from South Florida.) And their view of the situation is absolutely grim and desperate. That implies that all the info they got from elsewhere up to that point was not good at all.

OK, I'm not going to labour this. You can take 'Day of the Dead' however you wish.

But...they used to talk to Washington over the radio. They can't any more, because the relays are down. That implies a short enough amount of time after an outbreak if relay stations were in operation until recently. McDermott's radio is WWII equipment, so he says, meaning it probably can't even get a signal through to the next state on its own steam. Again, this is stating that they have a relatively small area within which to contact people over the air. They are "incommunicado", because of his "puny" signals.

At the beginning of the picture it's made clear that the crew of the helicopter has travelled 100 miles each way, up the coast of Florida and found nothing. That's not a very far distance and that helicopter type has a range limit of around 300 miles. Certainly, it's not enough to be making a claim that what is happening within the radius of the group that we see in the film is indicative of what is happening all over the state, the country or the world. It's also made quite clear that they haven't done that before, because Steel is surprised that they found nobody alive.

Their situation is, indeed, both grim and desperate. But that doesn't mean that they've been in operation for a lengthy period. It just means that it was hastily put together..."in a matter of days..." as Sarah says. If that's the case, it's an even stronger indication that the group in the bunker haven't been there for that long.

But, as I said, you can have it your way. None of these films are truly connected anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[EvilNed]

But...they used to talk to Washington over the radio. They can't any more, because the relays are down. That implies a short enough amount of time after an outbreak if relay stations were in operation until recently. McDermott's radio is WWII equipment, so he says, meaning it probably can't even get a signal through to the next state on its own steam. Again, this is stating that they have a relatively small area within which to contact people over the air. They are "incommunicado", because of his "puny" signals.


I rewatched Dawn the other evening and in that film they do say (on the television) that they've lost communication with.. I think Detroit and a few other places. Dawn probably takes place over a period of weeks, or months maybe? You could take this as an implication that Day takes place a short time after Dawn ends - which is what I do.

During Dawn radio communication is going out all over the country. Including the sever of contacts between Washington and Florida.

[shootemindehead]

I rewatched Dawn the other evening and in that film they do say (on the television) that they've lost communication with.. I think Detroit and a few other places. Dawn probably takes place over a period of weeks, or months maybe? You could take this as an implication that Day takes place a short time after Dawn ends - which is what I do.

During Dawn radio communication is going out all over the country. Including the sever of contacts between Washington and Florida.

You could say that from Night to Day, it's a been period of 8 or 9 months. Babs says in NotLD that "They ought to make the day the time changes the first day of Summer..." and Steel say that "It's going to be a long winter." in DotD. Dawn is somewhere in between.

[JDP]

OK, I'm not going to labour this. You can take 'Day of the Dead' however you wish.

But...they used to talk to Washington over the radio. They can't any more, because the relays are down. That implies a short enough amount of time after an outbreak if relay stations were in operation until recently. McDermott's radio is WWII equipment, so he says, meaning it probably can't even get a signal through to the next state on its own steam. Again, this is stating that they have a relatively small area within which to contact people over the air. They are "incommunicado", because of his "puny" signals.

What is left of the government could have been maintaining the relays for months and even years, no way of knowing. What we do know for a fact is that they "used to talk to Washington all the time" until relatively recently, that's why they are pressuring their radio man to attempt to reestablish contact, which is why he complains that the equipment at his disposal is not adequate to do that. These guys have not been in such isolation for a very long time, they were up to date on what was going on in other places up until relatively recently, and their outlook on the situation is a very pessimistic one. Obviously the feedback from their bosses in Washington was not encouraging at all.


At the beginning of the picture it's made clear that the crew of the helicopter has travelled 100 miles each way, up the coast of Florida and found nothing. That's not a very far distance and that helicopter type has a range limit of around 300 miles. Certainly, it's not enough to be making a claim that what is happening within the radius of the group that we see in the film is indicative of what is happening all over the state, the country or the world. It's also made quite clear that they haven't done that before, because Steel is surprised that they found nobody alive.

That's the first time they explore that particular area by helicopter, that does not mean that they haven't been doing other explorations, either by chopper or on land (they got plenty of land vehicles at the base.) We can easily deduce that they in fact have been doing just that. When they arrive at the base after visiting the dead city, Miller sarcastically remarks: "another waste of time, huh?", to which John replies "got that right, man!" From their previous explorations, Miller already anticipated that this one was also going to be a failure. Also, when they are at the dead city, John tells McDermott that: "It's a dead place. Like all the others, you know". Again implying that they have been looking around, but have found nothing but zombies.


Their situation is, indeed, both grim and desperate. But that doesn't mean that they've been in operation for a lengthy period. It just means that it was hastily put together..."in a matter of days..." as Sarah says. If that's the case, it's an even stronger indication that the group in the bunker haven't been there for that long.

But, as I said, you can have it your way. None of these films are truly connected anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

The operation itself was put together hastily, but that doesn't mean anything regarding how much time it has actually passed since the events in Night, though. Their bosses in Washington could have planned it in just a few days but many months or even years ago! Sarah is referring to the fact that the operation itself was not well thought out and put together in a short time, she's not saying that they only have been there in the bunker for a few days. Also, considering how many zombies they had captured and brought down to the cave area, I would say that it in fact took at least several months to actually accomplish just that task alone! They had to go up to the surface, round up, capture and restrain zombies that were roaming free, then bring them down and free them in the cave system. Before that, they obviously also had to make sure that the caves were isolated from the main underground complex and also eliminate any other possible exits (minus the missile silo, since zombies are too clumsy to climb such a tall ladder, so no need to block that one), otherwise the zombies would have found their way out. When you consider all such details, it becomes pretty obvious that these guys have been in this bunker for a good while.

[EvilNed]

You could say that from Night to Day, it's a been period of 8 or 9 months. Babs says in NotLD that "They ought to make the day the time changes the first day of Summer..." and Steel say that "It's going to be a long winter." in DotD. Dawn is somewhere in between.

When I rewatched Dawn it's pretty evident that it's taking off in the fall though. There's light snow on the roof when they arrive at the mall.
Having said that I don't really think that's something that was ever intended to form any form of continuity.

[shootemindehead]

What is left of the government could have been maintaining the relays for months and even years, no way of knowing. What we do know for a fact is that they "used to talk to Washington all the time" until relatively recently, that's why they are pressuring their radio man to attempt to reestablish contact, which is why he complains that the equipment at his disposal is not adequate to do that. These guys have not been in such isolation for a very long time, they were up to date on what was going on in other places up until relatively recently, and their outlook on the situation is a very pessimistic one. Obviously the feedback from their bosses in Washington was not encouraging at all.



That's the first time they explore that particular area by helicopter, that does not mean that they haven't been doing other explorations, either by chopper or on land (they got plenty of land vehicles at the base.) We can easily deduce that they in fact have been doing just that. When they arrive at the base after visiting the dead city, Miller sarcastically remarks: "another waste of time, huh?", to which John replies "got that right, man!" From their previous explorations, Miller already anticipated that this one was also going to be a failure. Also, when they are at the dead city, John tells McDermott that: "It's a dead place. Like all the others, you know". Again implying that they have been looking around, but have found nothing but zombies.



The operation itself was put together hastily, but that doesn't mean anything regarding how much time it has actually passed since the events in Night, though. Their bosses in Washington could have planned it in just a few days but many months or even years ago! Sarah is referring to the fact that the operation itself was not well thought out and put together in a short time, she's not saying that they only have been there in the bunker for a few days. Also, considering how many zombies they had captured and brought down to the cave area, I would say that it in fact took at least several months to actually accomplish just that task alone! They had to go up to the surface, round up, capture and restrain zombies that were roaming free, then bring them down and free them in the cave system. Before that, they obviously also had to make sure that the caves were isolated from the main underground complex and also eliminate any other possible exits (minus the missile silo, since zombies are too clumsy to climb such a tall ladder, so no need to block that one), otherwise the zombies would have found their way out. When you consider all such details, it becomes pretty obvious that these guys have been in this bunker for a good while.

As I said, you can have your way if you want.

But there's nothing actually in 'Day of the Dead' that supports the idea that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'.

- - - Updated - - -


When I rewatched Dawn it's pretty evident that it's taking off in the fall though. There's light snow on the roof when they arrive at the mall.
Having said that I don't really think that's something that was ever intended to form any form of continuity.

No. Romero plays it loose. You can say that Night is after Dawn if you really want to, or even happening at the same time.

[Seiferboy]

This is the most appropriate chronological order when considering all that is depicted and implied in the movies themselves (regardless of what years they were made and released in or what Romero might have said here or there in some interviews, specially in his later years when his memory had gotten quite bad.) Day depicts a humanity almost gone extinct and driven underground in a world overtaken by the hordes of the living dead, which none of his other movies does, thus why it is the obvious final chapter in the saga. Entropy, folks, entropy. All the other movies are evidently taking place at earlier times during the same zombie disaster, periods of time when organized society is still managing to survive to a greater or lesser degree in the midst of the said ongoing disaster.



No, don't... just don't. That crap doesn't belong anywhere in this topic and has not even a remote connection to Romero's movies. And most certainly even less trying to place it after Day!

If you must consider any non-Romero zombie film as supposedly somehow "related" to the time-line of the same zombie apocalypse, then consider Fulci's Zombie and Mattei's Hell of the Living Dead as "prequels", actually, definitely not "sequels". Both of these movies have been attempted to have some sort of "connection" to Romero's movies (even though they really do not have any, except that they both borrow the idea of the cannibalistic zombie from them), and the only way that could ever be is by considering them as "prequels", and for obvious reasons (both movies begin in a world where the reality of zombies is totally unknown to most people, and then they gradually spread everywhere.)

Yes! I think Hell of the Living Dead, followed by Zombi 2 would be the perfect way to start a binge watch. Those two followed by NOTLD makes a lot of sense to me. In Hell, we see a mysterious virus take hold of New Guinea. In Zombi, it's a Caribbean island. We also see the zombies on that famous bridge in NYC, so that could explain how they entered the U.S. and how it spread so fast.

[JDP]

As I said, you can have your way if you want.

But there's nothing actually in 'Day of the Dead' that supports the idea that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'.

It goes both ways: there is nothing in Land of the Dead that supports that it comes after Day of the Dead. But if you consider all the details that have been discussed many times, one should be more inclined to believe that Day seems to be happening at a later time than the events we see in Land.


No. Romero plays it loose. You can say that Night is after Dawn if you really want to, or even happening at the same time.

Not quite. It is not possible that Dawn can be happening at the same time as Night, since we have a clear dating of when the events of Dawn are taking place within the ongoing zombie situation: 3 weeks (as stated by Dr. Foster during the TV debate sequence.) Night happens during the first day that the zombies show up. Nobody knows anything about them until that day early in the morning (as established during the TV interview of Dr. Grimes, who together with some of his colleagues at the university must have been one of the first eye-witnesses to the reality of zombies.)

[EvilNed]

It goes both ways: there is nothing in Land of the Dead that supports that it comes after Day of the Dead. But if you consider all the details that have been discussed many times, one should be more inclined to believe that Day seems to be happening at a later time than the events we see in Land.


Well, that's not true though. There are lines of dialogue in Land that mention the passage of time since the shit hit the fan. Two lines that state "5 years ago".
I don't believe there's anything in Day that would suggest it's been five years since the Dead walked. They still believe they are on some kind of government contract... They haven't even abandoned their posts, hehe.

[shootemindehead]

It goes both ways: there is nothing in Land of the Dead that supports that it comes after Day of the Dead. But if you consider all the details that have been discussed many times, one should be more inclined to believe that Day seems to be happening at a later time than the events we see in Land.

Well, as Ned has just told you, there are actual lines in the movie about how much time has past. But there's nothing in 'Day of the Dead' that could lead one to conclude that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'. There's simply no clear evidence to support such a conclusion.

These films are isolated stories. Even if you want to have 'Dawn of the Dead' occur after 'Day of the Dead', go for it. It doesn't matter, because it didn't really matter that much to George Romero.

[EvilNed]

By the way, here's my head-canon.

Night of the Living Dead
Hell of the Living Dead
Return of the Living Dead (Unrelated zombie outbreak)
Return of the Living Dead 2 (Another unrelated zombie outbreak)
Children of the Living Dead (Related but belated zombie outbreak)
Zombi 2
Diary of the Dead
Night of the Living Dead '90 (the real zombie outbreak)
Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 (Related to the unrelated zombie outbreak)
Return of the Living Dead 3
Dawn of the Dead (highly related zombie outbreak)
Survival of the Dead
Zombie Flesh Eaters 3 (It's related somehow)
Return of the Living Dead 4
Return of the Living Dead 5
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead

And clearly:

Zombie 5: Killing Birds takes place years after the others.

[JDP]

Well, that's not true though. There are lines of dialogue in Land that mention the passage of time since the shit hit the fan. Two lines that state "5 years ago".
I don't believe there's anything in Day that would suggest it's been five years since the Dead walked. They still believe they are on some kind of government contract... They haven't even abandoned their posts, hehe.

We've been over this time and time again. There are no such "lines" in Land. Vague references to things that happened some years ago in contexts that have zero to do with the zombies themselves prove absolutely nothing regarding them. They are not like the "3 weeks" line in Dawn, which is unquestionably about the zombies. Plus there is nothing in Day that proves anything regarding exactly how long they have been in there either. For all we know it could in fact be several years since the zombie outbreak. The glimpses we get of the "dead city" certainly show that a lot of abandonment and decay has been going on since the zombie outbreak. Definitely more than just "a few months". Now, the world we see towards the end of Dawn does look like one where only a few months have passed.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, as Ned has just told you, there are actual lines in the movie about how much time has past. But there's nothing in 'Day of the Dead' that could lead one to conclude that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'. There's simply no clear evidence to support such a conclusion.

There are no such lines in Land. The only time that something relating to time and the zombies is specifically mentioned in that movie we only get a very vague "sometime later". Hardly much proof of anything regarding this topic. Plus the world of Day definitely looks more devastated and desolate than that of Land. Plenty of details in both movies point to the impression that Day is taking place at a later time than Land.



These films are isolated stories. Even if you want to have 'Dawn of the Dead' occur after 'Day of the Dead', go for it. It doesn't matter, because it didn't really matter that much to George Romero.

Whether Romero intended it or not, Dawn definitely looks like it's happening at an earlier time than Day. Plenty of reasons to come to such a conclusion.

[EvilNed]

We've been over this time and time again. There are no such "lines" in Land

Gotta disagree with you there bud. There clearly are. But agree to disagree.

[shootemindehead]

There are no such lines in Land. The only time that something relating to time and the zombies is specifically mentioned in that movie we only get a very vague "sometime later". Hardly much proof of anything regarding this topic.

There's references to three years in Land. You can choose to ignore that and run with the narrative you have in your head, if you want.


Plus the world of Day definitely looks more devastated and desolate than that of Land. Plenty of details in both movies point to the impression that Day is taking place at a later time than Land.


We don't see the "world" in 'Day of the Dead'. We see Fort Myers and an underground bunker in Florida and that's all. Our information is extremely limited. You, literally, have nothing to draw a conclusion on about the state of the rest of the country, never mind "the world".

And as I said, you can have it your way if you want. But you seeing what you want to see and not what's actually in the movie.

[JDP]

Gotta disagree with you there bud. There clearly are. But agree to disagree.

Nope. Saying that "something" totally unrelated to zombies happened x-number of years ago does not = "the zombies must have appeared then!" Go to a judge with such an assumption as "final and decisive evidence" and see how quickly he throws your case out of court.

[EvilNed]

Nope. Saying that "something" totally unrelated to zombies happened x-number of years ago does not = "the zombies must have appeared then!" Go to a judge with such an assumption as "final and decisive evidence" and see how quickly he throws your case out of court.

But... we're not in court. Apples and oranges. The characters are referring at two different occasions that a shift occured five years ago, implying it was when the dead rose - or rather accurately "when everything went to hell".

You don't have to agree with me tho, that's fine.

[JDP]

There's references to three years in Land. You can choose to ignore that and run with the narrative you have in your head, if you want.

Of course I can, and so can you or anyone else, considering the way those lines are written. Those references occur in fact in contexts that have nothing to do with the zombies. The only time reference that is unequivocally about the zombie situation happens during the beginning of the movie, and it only states an extremely vague "sometime later".


We don't see the "world" in 'Day of the Dead'. We see Fort Myers and an underground bunker in Florida and that's all. Our information is extremely limited. You, literally, have nothing to draw a conclusion on about the state of the rest of the country, never mind "the world".

And as I said, you can have it your way if you want. But you seeing what you want to see and not what's actually in the movie.

But the movie does imply much more than what we actually see. Romero did an excellent job at suggestion here. There's just no way that anyone can possibly conclude that what we see in Florida is just happening there and nowhere else, unless you want to assume that this entire group of characters are pretty much the biggest suicidal masochist idiots the world has ever seen. Again, as discussed in previous threads, the fact that one of the characters keeps taunting another character with "where will you go's?!?!" and that character is forced to shut up and swallow his pride in front of his men tells us that none of them are aware of any safe place left to relocate. And the only one that has any idea about this actually suggests moving to an island in order to try to isolate themselves from the mainland. Does anyone seriously believe that all this makes any iota of sense if the still surviving functional societies that we see in Land were still around at the time when Day is happening? The survivors of Day are well-aware of how bad the situation has gotten everywhere, not just their immediate surroundings.

- - - Updated - - -


But... we're not in court. Apples and oranges. The characters are referring at two different occasions that a shift occured five years ago, implying it was when the dead rose - or rather accurately "when everything went to hell".

You don't have to agree with me tho, that's fine.

I can't agree because the definitive evidence simply isn't there. Some wino at a mechanic's garage commenting on when was the last time he drove a car and a goon complaining to his crime boss about their business relationship do not really tell us anything about the zombies themselves. For all we know, this is as unconnected to them as other pieces of background information throughout the movie, like Cholo's father having been a loser (was it because of the zombies too?), or Charlie's accident that disfigured him (was it because of the zombies as well??), or Slack having never been outside of the city (were the zombies responsible for this too???), or Pillsbury being a car thief (did the zombies also force him into this criminal activity????), and so forth.

[shootemindehead]

Nope. Saying that "something" totally unrelated to zombies happened x-number of years ago does not = "the zombies must have appeared then!" Go to a judge with such an assumption as "final and decisive evidence" and see how quickly he throws your case out of court.

A lack of evidence will get you thrown out of court, too, and so far you haven't provided any to support your claim JDP.

But, it doesn't matter. You can watch these films in any sequence you wish.

- - - Updated - - -


But the movie does imply much more than what we actually see.

The problem is, though, is that it doesn't imply what you're suggesting it does.

[beat_truck]

By the way, here's my head-canon.

Night of the Living Dead
Hell of the Living Dead
Return of the Living Dead (Unrelated zombie outbreak)
Return of the Living Dead 2 (Another unrelated zombie outbreak)
Children of the Living Dead (Related but belated zombie outbreak)
Zombi 2
Diary of the Dead
Night of the Living Dead '90 (the real zombie outbreak)
Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 (Related to the unrelated zombie outbreak)
Return of the Living Dead 3
Dawn of the Dead (highly related zombie outbreak)
Survival of the Dead
Zombie Flesh Eaters 3 (It's related somehow)
Return of the Living Dead 4
Return of the Living Dead 5
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead

And clearly:

Zombie 5: Killing Birds takes place years after the others.

You are gonna have to revise that. You missed a few movies that will obviously fit the timeline.:D

[JDP]

A lack of evidence will get you thrown out of court, too, and so far you haven't provided any to support your claim JDP.

But, it doesn't matter. You can watch these films in any sequence you wish.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is, though, is that it doesn't imply what you're suggesting it does.

Yes, it does. Unless you want to assume that all the characters in Day are a bunch of suicidal dolts who for some bizarre reason voluntarily prefer to remain inside a bunker increasingly surrounded by free wandering zombies instead of getting the hell out of there and relocating to greener pastures. But there is no evidence that these characters are such a thing. They all want to survive and be safe, one way or another. And if they were aware of any such safer place to be in, they would have moved there already. But they don't, and not because they don't want to, but pretty much because they have very little options left besides the bunker. An island isolated from the mainland is about the best option left at this point. Definitely nothing like the huge still surviving "pockets" of society in Land is an option in Day.

[shootemindehead]

Yes, it does. Unless you want to assume that all the characters in Day are a bunch of suicidal dolts who for some bizarre reason voluntarily prefer to remain inside a bunker increasingly surrounded by free wandering zombies instead of getting the hell out of there and relocating to greener pastures. But there is no evidence that these characters are such a thing. They all want to survive and be safe, one way or another. And if they were aware of any such safer place to be in, they would have moved there already. But they don't, and not because they don't want to, but pretty much because they have very little options left besides the bunker. An island isolated from the mainland is about the best option left at this point. Definitely nothing like the huge still surviving "pockets" of society in Land is an option in Day.

They're not aware of much at all. That's the point. They haven't the capability for such awareness and neither does the viewer, because we are only seeing things from a very narrow scope.

The ONLY evidence we have is that Sarah an Co helicoptered 100 miles each way from Fort Myers. Up and down the West coast from Sarasota to the Everglades and they were surprised that they found nothing. If they had been there for any real length of time, they probably would have done that long before we see them doing it in the opening of the movie. All we have is that within the limited perimeter of a Bell Jet Ranger, they haven't found anyone.

That doesn't mean that there is nobody left anywhere else in the US, it doesn't even mean that there's nobody left in the state of Florida. Nor that they have been in the bunker for a significant amount of time.

The suggestions that you make can be torn down by the actual events in the movie and by the fact that you have to include you own additions to try and make those suggestions work.

Personally I don't care whether someone wants to look at 'Day of the Dead' coming after 'Land of the Dead'. I don't think even George would have cared.

But, nothing in the actual film is there to allow one to conclude such a thing.

[EvilNed]

I can't agree because the definitive evidence simply isn't there.

Well, obviously we're seeing things you aren't.

[JDP]

Well, obviously we're seeing things you aren't.

Things that just aren't really there, mind you.

- - - Updated - - -


They're not aware of much at all. That's the point. They haven't the capability for such awareness and neither does the viewer, because we are only seeing things from a very narrow scope.

The ONLY evidence we have is that Sarah an Co helicoptered 100 miles each way from Fort Myers. Up and down the West coast from Sarasota to the Everglades and they were surprised that they found nothing. If they had been there for any real length of time, they probably would have done that long before we see them doing it in the opening of the movie. All we have is that within the limited perimeter of a Bell Jet Ranger, they haven't found anyone.

That doesn't mean that there is nobody left anywhere else in the US, it doesn't even mean that there's nobody left in the state of Florida. Nor that they have been in the bunker for a significant amount of time.

The suggestions that you make can be torn down by the actual events in the movie and by the fact that you have to include you own additions to try and make those suggestions work.

Personally I don't care whether someone wants to look at 'Day of the Dead' coming after 'Land of the Dead'. I don't think even George would have cared.

But, nothing in the actual film is there to allow one to conclude such a thing.

Once again, "the devil is in the details", and there's plenty of them (already discussed a bunch of times) in both movies to easily make one more inclined to believe that Day is happening at a later date than Land. Even by the end of Dawn we can clearly see that there's relatively few people left around (on the surface.) Dr. Rausch has no problem whatsoever with a plan for dropping atomic bombs on the major cities, for example. This could only be if by that time there's virtually no people left in them, pretty much just a bunch of dangerous zombies roaming around. The only large group of survivors the protagonists still encounter are the marauding biker gang, and we can easily see why they have managed to survive this long (there's a whole bunch of them and they are armed to the teeth, a rolling army that can still openly defy the zombies.) So, needless to say by the time of Day there's even still less people left around (on the surface.) The movie's gloomy atmosphere of impending doom for humanity at large (not just for our group of survivors) is very clear.

[EvilNed]

Things that just aren't really there, mind you.


Well, that's not for you to say, to be honest.

[shootemindehead]

Once again, "the devil is in the details"


The details don't lend credence to your conclusions though. You are concluding that 'Land of the Dead' comes before 'Day of the Dead', because you want to. But there is no evidence available in 'Day of the Dead' to support your position. You are extrapolating, based on what you want, rather than what is actually presented.

[JDP]

The details don't lend credence to your conclusions though. You are concluding that 'Land of the Dead' comes before 'Day of the Dead', because you want to. But there is no evidence available in 'Day of the Dead' to support your position. You are extrapolating, based on what you want, rather than what is actually presented.

If you consider the details on a case by case basis only, then no, but if you add them all together then the least problematic point of view is the one that places Land before Day.

[Neil]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:-


Night of the Living Dead
Diary of the Dead
Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk"
Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night.
Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break.
Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked."

[EvilNed]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:-


Night of the Living Dead
Diary of the Dead
Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk"
Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night.
Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break.
Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked."


Interesting. Especially considering the original Day of the Dead-script is basically Land of the dead...
I reread it recently, and apart from the character names it doesn't really bear any resemblance to the finished film.
If anything, I would have thought this would more be in favour of Land being set five years after the outbreak?

[MinionZombie]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:-


Night of the Living Dead
Diary of the Dead
Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk"
Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night.
Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break.
Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked."


While I understand inserted Diary and Survival in there in terms of 'distance into a zombie apocalypse', I've never considered them to be a part of the same series.

Night/Dawn/Day/Land are a quartet ... ... then we have Diary & Survival as their own thing, especially because the films actually share the character of Crockett, and the latter directly references/shows footage from Diary in a flashback context. Survival is a direct sequel to Diary, and Diary was Romero going back to the beginning again - starting over, as it were.


Interesting. Especially considering the original Day of the Dead-script is basically Land of the dead...
I reread it recently, and apart from the character names it doesn't really bear any resemblance to the finished film.
If anything, I would have thought this would more be in favour of Land being set five years after the outbreak?

Indeed. Land of the Dead has a lot in common with the original Day script. The actual film that was made of Day of the Dead, from a totally re-written script, has much less to do with it. The scale was drawn in and so, too, was the time scale.

[shootemindehead]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:-


Night of the Living Dead
Diary of the Dead
Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk"
Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night.
Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break.
Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked."


That list is silly.

'Night of the Living Dead' doesn't even exist in the same universe as 'Diary of the Dead'.

[JDP]

In an interview I read a while back, according to Romero the events of Diary are happening at the same time as those of Night. But why exactly do the worlds shown in both movies are so different does not appear to have bothered him. Go figure.

[EvilNed]

In an interview I read a while back, according to Romero the events of Diary are happening at the same time as those of Night. But why exactly do the worlds shown in both movies are so different does not appear to have bothered him. Go figure.

I personally don't have a problem with this, but I think it all boils down to the fact that each film is more of a thematic sequel (or prequel) to the others instead of actually following up on them in a narrative sense. They are all kind of timeless to me.

By the way, as time goes I feel myself warming up to most of them. Maybe even Survival... Maybe.......

[MinionZombie]

I personally don't have a problem with this, but I think it all boils down to the fact that each film is more of a thematic sequel (or prequel) to the others instead of actually following up on them in a narrative sense. They are all kind of timeless to me.

By the way, as time goes I feel myself warming up to most of them. Maybe even Survival... Maybe.......

While not in the same league as Night through Land, "Survival" is one I really quite like. Aside from a few iffy comedy moments, the tone of the film and the central theme of two warring sides (essentially American politics in a zombie island context) has just become more and more relevant. I wrote a piece about just that for issue #8 of Exploitation Nation. :)

Diary of the Dead, on the other hand ... well ... I wanted to love it when I saw it in the cinema, and I even convinced myself that I did, but over the years my opinion on that movie really has dipped considerably, but I've also not seen it in quite a long while now. The other day I did feel a pang of intrigue in sticking it on again some time and seeing how I felt about it now, but nevertheless, Diary is the least of Romero's zombie films for me. Weirdly, it was made too soon for its subject matter. Social media and YouTube etc had really only just got going. Imagine a version of Diary of the Dead made under the current social media climate. I think, maybe, Romero couldn't quite manage to say what he wanted to either, being from a completely different generation. Plus, the tone of the movie is all over the place, and voice over never quite jived with me, and the strictures of 'found footage' filmmaking is always a problem and, I feel, limited what Romero could do. Trying to explain away why there was non-diegetic music used in the film never worked, for example.

I always put Night/Dawn/Day/Land together, as they all advance forward - days, weeks & months, months, and finally years into the/a zombie apocalypse - and they also speak to and of the times in which each was made.

Diary saw Romero go back to the early days of the ZA again, so I always saw that as him starting over on a new series of films and, indeed, I think that more so because Survival is directly linked in the exact same continuity as Diary. With the original four films it's different characters each time (save for a fan pleasing cameo of Savini as a machete wielding zombie, more a wink to the audience than anything concrete), so you don't have that continuity ... really, the lack of continuity is the continuity with those four films, as well as that each film is further and further into the/a zombie apocalypse.

[shootemindehead]

I've never understood or been comfortable with Romero's decision to reboot the series. He really shouldn't have. It was a dreadful idea.

I'd have much, MUCH, preferred if he'd just done another couple of movies about another enclave in the ZA. Ones that allowed him to work within the small budgets that the failure of 'Land of the Dead' meant for him. I suppose that 'Survival of the Dead' is a story about another group. But, frankly, that film was utter crap. One bad decision after another that just makes for a terrible movie. 'Diary of the Dead' which was one of those films that I made excuses for after I'd seen it, was simply tone deaf and way too reliant on the "message" which was pants too. Neither film can even hope to approach the quality of other Romero efforts.

It's unfortunate that the last couple of efforts from the man (a guy who's been a major part of my movie watching life for over 30 years) were so bad. Doubly so, cos they were set in the world he was responsible for creating in the first place.

[JDP]

I read the original Day script many years ago, and I don't find these claims that it resembles more Land than Day to hold water. Land revolves a lot around the armored vehicle, which becomes the object of several main characters' desire to possess (each one wanting to control it in order to be able to fulfill their own interests), an element which is totally lacking in the original Day script. That's just one example of huge differences between that script and Land. The original Day script has obviously more to do with Day than with Land. For example, an important element in the original script is the "training" of zombies to "behave", which, once again, is totally lacking in Land but still a very important element in the "reduced scale" version of Day that was actually filmed.

[EvilNed]

I read the original Day script many years ago, and I don't find these claims that it resembles more Land than Day to hold water. Land revolves a lot around the armored vehicle, which becomes the object of several main characters' desire to possess (each one wanting to control it in order to be able to fulfill their own interests), an element which is totally lacking in the original Day script. That's just one example of huge differences between that script and Land. The original Day script has obviously more to do with Day than with Land. For example, an important element in the original script is the "training" of zombies to "behave", which, once again, is totally lacking in Land but still a very important element in the "reduced scale" version of Day that was actually filmed.

Yeah, but the world building is all Land. And in the original Day script the "trained zombies" have been put into practice by the city itself - even by the military. In the finished film it's Logan's pet experiment to which the military is vehemently opposed.

It's got a little bit of both, agree, but the idea of a societal enclave in a sea of undead - rebuilding a semblance of society - is obviously Land.

[Mike70]

Yeah, but the world building is all Land. And in the original Day script the "trained zombies" have been put into practice by the city itself - even by the military. In the finished film it's Logan's pet experiment to which the military is vehemently opposed.

It's got a little bit of both, agree, but the idea of a societal enclave in a sea of undead - rebuilding a semblance of society - is obviously Land.

Therein lies one of the biggest faults with Land - the society is a thinly veiled take on our own culture. It's not deep. It's not fleshed out. It's not a satisfying as a cultural representation of a post-apoc society. It's all a carbon copy. Even the idiotic use of US paper money. Asinine and one of the major reasons, among many, that Land is a dud.

[Daoyinyang]

Originally I thought we were talking about the new remakes like Day of the dead and DOTD:Bloodline lol