GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline [Archive]

Philly_SWAT

27-Nov-2006, 12:16 AM

I have searched online at various dictionary sites to find definitions of the terms “universe” and “timeline”. They vary from site to site, and don’t necessarily relate directly to universe and timeline in regards to a series of movies. There have been discussions on this board, recently and in the past, in regards to these two terms in relation to GAR’s dead movies. Members here seem to have different ideas as to the very definition of these terms, and how the GAR films fit into these definitions. In this thread, I would like to offer what I think the proper definitions are, and how I think GAR’s films fit into them. I would be interested to see how many members agree with me, and if they don’t, how they define the terms, and their thought on how the films fit into them. I would think that there would be less disagreements as to the definition and more disagreements as to how the films fit, but we shall see.

UNIVERSE – This term is used to define the rules of the world/scenario that exists with a film, or series of films. Most films are made/set within the “real universe”, meaning the world in which we live now. A romantic love story, for example, is set in our universe, meaning the characters in the movie live on planet Earth, there are countries like the United States and England, gravity exists, we use money in exchange for goods and services, etc. It exists in the real universe. Could characters from these types of movies interact with each other? Yes, they could, if they were to meet. Other films are set in universes different than our own, sometimes with minor differences, sometimes major. The Friday the 13th movies for example are set in a universe very similar to ours. Everything is the same, United States and England exist, gravity exits, etc. with one difference: there is a guy who can not be killed, can walk as fast as others can run, he kills people and then cleverly arranges the dead bodies after the fact, etc. (You could say another difference is that the characters act totally dumber than we do in this universe, but that is a movie technique, not a universe “rule”). Could George Clooney’s character in “One Fine Day” meet up with Jason Vorhees? No, they exist in different universes. Could Clooney meet Clint Eastwood’s character in “The Bridges of Madison County”? Yes, they exist in the same universe. I am not implying there should be a movie showing them meet, only that they could, because they exist in the same universe. The question here is "do the GAR movies take place in the same universe, or different universes?" I say they have to be the same. Gar created a universe that is just like ours, except that the dead can rise and want to attack the living, To say each film exists within a different universe suggest that GAR created 4 different universes, very similar to each other, with minor differences. To answer the question “How come the cemetery zombie from Night moves so fast, but in Dawn, none do?” is either answered by saying it was imperfections in the movie making process, or that GAR purposely created separate universe. What do you think?

TIMELINE – This term is very similar to universe, but different. It does not mean that a series of movies necessarily follow a certain order in relation to each other, only that they exist in the same timeline. For example, you could have a movie showing the story of Hitler, and another movie looking at a story of what would have happened if Hitler had been killed in the middle of WWII. Both would exist in the same universe, our own, the “real universe”. One would be a movie based on fact, a story we already know, the other would take place in a “different timeline”, one in which Hitler would be killed, and how that would affect the timeline of events that follow. It would still exist in our universe, but the timeline would be different. The fact that events that did not happen are in the movie does not mean it is in a different universe, only that the timeline was changed. Like in Star Trek, if you go back in time and mess with some event that has already happened, it changes the “timeline”, not the “universe”. So in GAR’s films, are they taking place in the same timeline, or not? I say they are. When they happen in relation to the timeline can be argued…. does Dawn take place 3 weeks after Night, or not? Do the events in Land happen after the events in Day, or not? Does Land take place three years after Night, or not? These questions are open to interpretation. But to suggest that the films take place in different timelines would mean that it is possible that after Night ends, the zombie plague could in fact end right there, and the world would return to normal, and that in Dawn, that is a whole new epidemic that has nothing to do with the events in Night. This would mean that GAR decided to start a new timeline with each film, and that new “rules” would exist in each film, and that imperfect movie making techniques are not the cause of minor differences. Which do you think is the case?

HLS

27-Nov-2006, 12:38 AM

I amswered "GAR's movies take place in the same universe, but different timelines'' Well I found this one very hard to answer. I feel Night, Dawn, Day are in the same Universe but I can not say the same for Land. Just the whole feeling of Land and the mood of the movie seems to be more of a Universal "Hollywood hoopla'" thing and does not carry the same mood the other movies had. I do not know how to explain myself better. sorry

EvilNed

27-Nov-2006, 12:52 AM

Where is the "It is of no relevance to the plot" vote? otherwise I vote same universe, but different timelines. Different takes on what an outbreak could cause but the films do not share a timeline.

Night and Dawn might take place in the same timeline. But they don't take place in the same one as Land.

radiokill

27-Nov-2006, 01:09 AM

"GAR's movie take place in the same timeline, but different universes (Is this even possible?)"

That's one way of putting it. Like Romero says all the time, these are different characters, different stories. Night at the beginning......Dawn days or weeks into it, Day a few more weeks/months, Land a few years. They happen at different points on the timeline of the epidemic, but the stories and characters are unconnected. I just voted that because, well, none of the choices really suited me.....I guess you could say same timeline, same universe, parallel dimension where the timeline starts a bit later in each one.

Philly_SWAT

27-Nov-2006, 01:18 AM

"GAR's movie take place in the same timeline, but different universes (Is this even possible?)"

Like Romero says all the time, these are different characters, different stories. Night at the beginning......Dawn days or weeks into it, Day a few more weeks/months, Land a few years. They happen at different points on the timeline of the epidemic, but the stories and characters are unconnected.
That is true, they are not connected to each other as far as relating to each other in the storylines, however, the characters from any movies existing in the "real universe" are not connected to each other either, yet they still exist in the same universe. Just like Philly_SWAT and radiokill...we have no relation to each other, yet we exist in the same universe.

radiokill

27-Nov-2006, 01:29 AM

Yeah...that's why I don't really think of it as a different Universe....I just decided to pic that one because of the same timeline bit.....I go back and forth on how I think about it actually. Whatever I'm in the mood for. I most often look at with the James Bond effect in mind (what was that called again?). So however you would say that....same universe, same timeline, but the characteristics of the present decade continue to change. Each film is like making a new painting in a series on a different medium. However, the changes in medium are a bit of a necessity for GAR.

oh...I didn't read the choices good...that was the first one!!!!!

capncnut

27-Nov-2006, 01:32 AM

Although I believe Land was set in the same timeline and universe, I had to choose the Alive Man option. Hell, it's the only vote he's gonna get and I'm an 'underdog' kind of guy! :lol:

Philly_SWAT

27-Nov-2006, 01:38 AM

creepntom

27-Nov-2006, 02:57 AM

i don't get the whole different universe scenario. you mean like how land of the lost was in a different universe? or would that be a different timeline? :confused:

radiokill

27-Nov-2006, 03:10 AM

LOL. I was wondering why you didnt pick the first one. Very well said about a new painting on a different medium. I think I will steal that line.

lol...thanks! feel free.

Philly_SWAT

27-Nov-2006, 03:23 AM

i don't get the whole different universe scenario. you mean like how land of the lost was in a different universe? or would that be a different timeline? :confused:
Well, are far as you know, in the "real" universe that we exist in, would an earthquake, even the greatest earthquake every known, drop someone down a 1000 feet below where dinasaurs and sleezstacks roam? If not, then Land of the Lost would exist in a different universe.

Danny

27-Nov-2006, 03:23 AM

to quote shaun "uhh.... the first one":D

Deadman_Deluxe

27-Nov-2006, 11:07 AM

GAR's movies take place in the same universe, but different timelines.

... and are based on seperate outbreaks, purely for story telling purposes ... but to be honest, i don't think that everyone will fully understand either the question or the options.

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 11:11 AM

I'm a professional sci-fi writer and really never, and I mean N-E-V-E-R, had to deal with such confusion about scientific terminology and the related pseudo-scientific/sci-fi concepts. You guys are messing-up 60 years of sci-fi, really, I'm not joking.

NO WAY.

ONE "GIVEN" UNIVERSE FEATURES ONE AND ONLY ONE "GIVEN" TIMELINE. UNIVERSE = Space/time continuum. "Continuum" as consequencial and coherent sequence of events placed in the same "space". So, the word "Universe" doesn't only imply a space characterized by given parameters (either similar or different from the parameters ruling "our" universe to various degrees) but also, and I mean also, one coherent timeline.
ONE COHERENT TIMELINE.
A parallel universe can't truly contain MORE slightly/heavily different timelines (WHAT?), but only ONE timeline, slightly/heavily different from "ours" (Universe Prime, or Earth Prime, as the Tv show 'Sliders? used to call that).

ERGO: MORE TIMELINES, MORE UNIVERSES. MORE "SIMILAR" TIMELINES, MORE "SIMILAR" UNIVERSES (= Parallel Universes, or Alternative Realities).

Thus, the second and third assumptions of the poll don't make sense whatsoever and I'm still laughing, in all regards.

EvilNed

27-Nov-2006, 01:47 PM

ONE "GIVEN" UNIVERSE FEATURES ONE AND ONLY ONE "GIVEN" TIMELINE. UNIVERSE = Space/time continuum.

That would be up to the author of the story which uses the timeline. Not the readers, really.

A quick way to explain it is Back to the Future 2, where Doc provides a basic explanation in less than 30 seconds. There, it's the same universe but different timelines.

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 02:07 PM

A quick way to explain it is Back to the Future 2, where Doc provides a basic explanation in less than 30 seconds. There, it's the same universe but different timelines.

No. It's an altered timeline, but ALWAYS one timeline.

EvilNed

27-Nov-2006, 03:42 PM

No. It's an altered timeline, but ALWAYS one timeline.

It's two paralell ones. Chaos theory sort of thing, you know.

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 06:01 PM

radiokill

27-Nov-2006, 06:13 PM

I guess I'll knock the dust off of The History of Time later...:)

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 06:18 PM

I guess I'll knock the dust off of The History of Time later...:)

Stephen Hawkings? Is the book I'm reading right now, before to go to sleep! Beautiful! :cool:

radiokill

27-Nov-2006, 06:23 PM

Stephen Hawkings? Is the book I'm reading right now, before to go to sleep! Beautiful! :cool:

yeah, I think a few quotes from that book could fix this debate

EvilNed

27-Nov-2006, 06:41 PM

Are you talking about the "alternate" 1985 A.C. caused by Old Biff (from the future) giving the book to his younger counterpart in 1955 A.C.? According to the "rules" set by the 'BACK TO THE FUTURE' saga, that manipulating event wiped out the old timeline (LITERALLY) and replaced it with a new one.

It couldn't have wiped the old timeline out since Marty and Doc were still timetraveling. It's highly unlikely, given the state that the world had turned into, that they would be the exact same as before. Thus, there must have been at least two timelines.

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 07:37 PM

EvilNed,

EVERYONE in the world knows that the BACK trilogy somehow goofed it. It's not based on timeline splints, that's for sure, because the erase-and-rewrite timeline concept was well estabilished by the FIRST (brilliant) movie. Marty and Doc should have disappeared (do you remember the "disappearing pic" that Marty used as Time-O-Meter in BTTF1?), you're right, but they didn't. The TIMELINE is one, even if altered. It's not supposed to BE this way according to the FIRST movie, but everyone in the world knows that the BACK sequels messed it up.
Ask to the hardcore fans. They will say the same thing.

I FOUND IT:

"According to Doctor Emmett Brown in Back to the Future Part II, whenever a time-traveler alters key events occurring in the past or future, they effectively bring an alternate timeline into existence at their point-of-entry, and their original timeline is erased, even though its events are not forgotten by the time-traveler. Thus, every time jump depicted in the Back to the Future saga “destroys” a current timeline and “creates” a new one, although Doc Brown often uses the phrase “erased from existence” to describe the deleterious effects of this process."

From Wiki.

I was right.

EvilNed

27-Nov-2006, 08:20 PM

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 08:40 PM

A movie sets it's own rules. YOU cannot decide in what manner the Back to the Future films should run and how they should work. The directors do. The same way it goes for all timelines.

And as for your WIKIPEDIA source... I have no further comment. :)

All I'm saying is that noone can decide for me if I wish to write a story about alternate timelines what rules it should follow. Timelines in themselves are often just used in Science-Fiction. And Science-Fiction is often about creating things that aren't possible.

BACK TO THE FUTURE authors themselves explained the mechanics of their timeline(s): http://www.bttf.com/film_faq.htm

It's *CANON*, fanon, everything. It is estabilished by the first movie and following entries in the saga, and fully depicted ON SCREEN. Trust me, man!

As far as GAR is concerned, I agree with you (I firmly believe in the "now" set by THE STRETCH concept) but I say that an UNIVERSE can't PHYSICALLY contain more timelines, just one "at the time". You can alter that same timeline, of course, or make it valid through the insurgence of paradoxes (too).
If you split a timeline in two parallel timelines, then what you get is TWO parallel universes. Not ONE UNIVERSE!

When I - sci-fi writer - "create" an universe, I can ALMOST do everything I want, but there is one BASIC concept to keep intact: an universe can deal only with one timeline (indipendently to what HAPPENS to that timeline - modifications; altering; paradoxes) because it's logic and intuitive reasoning you CAN'T really really really SKIP.

Two timelines = Two universes.

So, if you don't agree with the Stretch, what you get it's a set of FOUR separated but similar universes, containing EACH one timeline, featuring each a Zombie outbreak which unfortunately occured at some point.

radiokill

27-Nov-2006, 08:53 PM

...sci-fi writer...

Are you published? I now invite you to shamelessly hock your work! :)

The Alive Man

27-Nov-2006, 08:54 PM

Although I believe Land was set in the same timeline and universe, I had to choose the Alive Man option. Hell, it's the only vote he's gonna get and I'm an 'underdog' kind of guy! :lol:

I love KENT. Definitely. :cool:

Are you published? I now invite you to shamelessly hock your work! :)

I will do that via PM. Many thanks Radio! :cool:

EvilNed

27-Nov-2006, 10:43 PM

Philly_SWAT

28-Nov-2006, 12:22 AM

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this The Alive Man, because I don't see how one universe can have multiple timelines. I understand your reasoning, but it doesn't convince me nor do I think it has too.

Back to the Future is, to me, a universe that has several timelines. Well. At least two.

having thought about it some more, I think that while most people generally agree on what a Timeline means, "Universe" is a bit more of a sketchy subject. This is probably why we disagree.
Here is my take on the discussion that you and The Alive Man are having. An example that I used in my initial post was this:

For example, you could have a movie showing the story of Hitler, and another movie looking at a story of what would have happened if Hitler had been killed in the middle of WWII. Both would exist in the same universe, our own, the “real universe”. One would be a movie based on fact, a story we already know, the other would take place in a “different timeline”, one in which Hitler would be killed, and how that would affect the timeline of events that follow. It would still exist in our universe, but the timeline would be different. The fact that events that did not happen are in the movie does not mean it is in a different universe, only that the timeline was changed.Both of these fictional movies would exist in the same universe. They would exist in separate timelines within that universe. But they are in fact separate movies, therefore, it is not like there are two timelines existing in that same universe at the same time. They both take place in the "real universe". One is based on fact, and shows what happened in the "real timeline", the one that we are currently moving in. The other is based on fiction, and exists in our "real" universe, but a separate timeline that the one we are in now.

As far as the Back to the Future discussions goes, those were made to be comedy/action movies, and there are a lot of problem with those movies to where they can not be used to accurately describe these issues. Of the many problems that come to mind is this....when Marty's mother, back when she is in high school, meets "Calvin Klein", a new guy in town who gets the best of Biff, a guy who she wants to "bone", she wouldnt recognize that her son when she gets older looks exactly indentical to "Calvin"? She and her as of yet not conceived son were interacting with each other, obviously they were exisiting in the same universe. Then, when Marty goes "back to the future", whether you say that the timeline had changed, or that the universe has changed, he is now in a different....."place" than when the movie started. His girlfriend is still there, his parents are still there, Biff is still there, but now Biff is an idiot and his Dad is all cool and successful. The reasons for these changes, whether they be to timeline or universe, are because of Marty's actions "in the past". So his mother he sees back in the future, is the same person who wanted to screw him back in the past. And she doesnt recognize that at all? That makes no sense. But like I said, this was a comedy piece, where such questions were not really addressed, and they shouldnt have been.

creepntom

28-Nov-2006, 12:24 AM

Well, are far as you know, in the "real" universe that we exist in, would an earthquake, even the greatest earthquake every known, drop someone down a 1000 feet below where dinasaurs and sleezstacks roam? If not, then Land of the Lost would exist in a different universe.

sorry dude, not trying to bogart your thread or anything, i just don't understand the parallel universe theory in any form, much less the zombie world

although to a degree, that'd be kinda cool if you knew in a parallel universe somewhere humans are fighting zombies for survival

sorta like planet of the apes i guess, only zombies instead

Adolf Kitler

28-Nov-2006, 12:35 AM

This thread makes my head hurt.

Philly_SWAT

28-Nov-2006, 01:10 AM

sorry dude, not trying to bogart your thread or anything, i just don't understand the parallel universe theory in any form, much less the zombie world

although to a degree, that'd be kinda cool if you knew in a parallel universe somewhere humans are fighting zombies for survival

sorta like planet of the apes i guess, only zombies instead
No need to apologize. As long as we are talking "dead talk", its all good. I cant discuss it much with people that I know around here. The easy way to explain it would be this....

We now currently exist in the universe. Depending on your beliefs, it was either created by "God", or just came into being because of an as of yet unknown reason (Big Bang Theory being the most well known theory). So if a movie, or comic book, or novel, has all the rules of "our" universe, it is taking place in this universe. If there is something in that movie/comic/novel that does not coincide when the "rules" of "our" universe, it is taking place in a different universe. The important thing is are the "rules" in the movie following the "rules" in our universe? Even if some rediculous things are happening in the movie, it could still be in our universe. The "Marvel Universe", for example, is a universe very similar to our own, the main difference being that superheros exist. A guy can be bit by a radioactive spider and then can climb walls, have "spidey-sense", etc. Four people can get exposed to space radiation and become the Fantastic Four. These things, as far as we can tell, can not really happen in our univese, therefore we refer to those stories as being set in the Marvel Universe.

Now lets say there is a movie where Steve-O from Jackass fame gets elected as President of the United States. A rediculous premise to be sure, but is that movie set in our universe, or not? Well, could Steve-O be elected President of the US? The question is not would that be a good idea, or that the population would never elect him, but is it possible. Yes it would be. He is a natural born citizen, and as long as he followed the election rules of this country, and either secured a national parties nomination, or got his name placed on the ballot of the 50 States by following proper procedues i.e. signed petitions with a minimum number of signatures, etc. he could run for and be elected the Prez. Now we both know that is incredibly, extremely unlikly, but possible. Therefore that movie is set in this universe. If the same movie also had Steve-O with the ability to teleport into other countries to have meetings with world leaders, that one difference would make the movie not be in "our" universe, but a different universe.

As far as the "Romero Universe" goes, he has created a universe mainly identical to ours with one glaring exception: the dead can come back to life and want to attack the living. That is the Romero universe. So, do the stories take place in the same universe, the "Romero universe", or is there several differnt universes, very similiar, but different enough from each other to where there are different "rules" in place? I submit that all of GAR's dead movies are set in the same universe. Any minor differences in "rules" that you see are due to imperfect movie making techniques, not an intention to create separate universes. It would be like this...in the Marvel Universe, lets say Spider-Man broke his left pinkie finger. Two years later, the writers make a brief, unimportant-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things reference to SPider-Man breaking his right pinkie finger two years ago. Was that a purposeful decision to have that story take place in a totally different universe, one where the other finger was broken, or simply a mistake by the writer? Just a mistake. Same explanation for "why does the cemetary zombie move so fast while the ones in Dawn dont?" Purposeful decision by GAR to create another universe in Dawn, or just a by-product of the low budget, decade later process of making a follow-up. That is for yo uto decide.

Dont know if that clears it up, or makes it more confusing. The question "Do GAR's dead films take place in the same universe" is not asking do they take place in the same universe we exist in, they clearly dont. The dead havent, arent, and arent likely in the future, to rise andd attack the living. The question is are they in the same universe as each other. I say yes, others say no. What do you think?

Deadman_Deluxe

28-Nov-2006, 01:28 AM

The Alive Man ... when you are talking about a "universe" i think you are talking about "the" universe ... as in space terminology, full of solar systems, suns, planets, stars, comets etc etc.

When we are referring to GARs "universe" we simply mean the place where his stories exist and his storytelling "rules" are enforced.

Nothing so overly complicated about that right?

+

NOTLD: This is GARs story about how a "zombie apocalypse" would unfold IF it was to happen during the period it was made in. It also reflects society during the period it was made in. We join this story approx. THREE DAYS AFTER the "initial outbreaks" or the discovery of a "patient zero". GARs storytelling rules apply here.

DOTD: This is GARs story about how a "zombie apocalypse" would unfold IF it was to happen during the period it was made in. It also reflects society during the period it was made in. We join this story approx. THREE WEEKS AFTER the "initial outbreaks" or the discovery of a "patient zero". GARs storytelling rules apply here.

DAY: This is GARs story about how a "zombie apocalypse" would unfold IF it was to happen during the period it was made in. It also reflects society during the period it was made in. We join this story approx. THREE MONTHS AFTER the "initial outbreaks" or the discovery of a "patient zero". GARs storytelling rules apply here.

LOTD: This is GARs story about how a "zombie apocalypse" would unfold IF it was to happen during the period it was made in. It also reflects society during the period it was made in. We join this story approx. THREE YEARS AFTER the "initial outbreaks" or the discovery of a "patient zero". GARs storytelling rules apply here.

Can you see the pattern now? Hope that helps you! ;)

Maitreya

28-Nov-2006, 01:49 AM

Hmmm... I voted the same universe same timeline. Because I believe they happen along the same timeline, for the simple fact that the zombies remain the same, the dead return to life, and they can be killed by head trauma.

The reason they may appear to be different timelines I suppose would be that none of the movies are DIRECTLY linked, but I could put it to you this way by talking about a different movie series: the Alien series, with a slight modification. Knocking the first two out of the picture, as they're direct continuations with Ripley in both, and would have no bearing on my argument. Now assume Alien 3 was made the way it was originally intended (Xenomorph outbreak on planet Earth) they could have a story following Ripley, Hicks, Newt, and Bishop at the beginning, showing how they came back and brought the eggs/facehuggers with them.

The writers could then go into a whole series of movies similar to the dead series, showing different points of the outbreak with totally different people with completely different experiences sharing only one thing in common: The xenomorph's infestation of planet earth. They could even add in the confusion of the general populace not knowing how they came to be, as it would be a very restricted group that would know of the true nature of the outbreak. Those are my thoughts at least, sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's the best way I could think to explain them, using my second favorite series of movies.

creepntom

28-Nov-2006, 03:01 AM

ok, i get it now. i'd also agree that it's the same universe. i wouldn't think they'd have made up valentine's day in a different universe :p

The Alive Man

28-Nov-2006, 02:05 PM

Philly,

Another possible assumption is that the GARs universe is one and only, but frequently re-arranged by RETCONS: Retroactive Continuity "waves" (fluctuations) that modify and somehow adjust the pre-existent reality with no specified reason behind (maybe it's an heavily unstable universe).

From WIKI:

"Retroactive continuity or retcon is the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction. The change itself is referred to as a "retcon", and the act of writing and publishing a retcon is called "retconning". Retconning can be done either on-purpose, or accidentally, wherein a break in continuity is not noticed until later and is then blessed by later events.

Retcons are common in comic books, especially those of large publishing houses such as Marvel Comics and DC Comics, because of the lengthy history of many series and the number of independent authors contributing to their development; this is the context in which the term was coined. Retconning also occurs in soap operas, movie sequels, professional wrestling, video games, radio series, series of novels, and can be done in any other type of episodic fiction. It is also used in roleplaying, when the game master feels it is needed to maintain consistency in the story or to fix significant mistakes that were missed during play."

So basically, the events in NIGHT "at first" occurred in 1968 A.C., but suddenly a Retcon Wave translated those same events into the late '70ies, 3 weeks prior DAWN.
DAWN originally occurred in 1978 A.C., then all the package (NIGHT + DAWN) was translated into 1985 A.C., and DAY thus occurred.
Samely, the package slid down to the mid-2000, and LAND thus occurred.

We're talking about DRASTICAL CHANGES to the background stories of the characters and the society (clothes, items, vehicles) in order to "collocate" the events of each Dead movie in a new decade.
Example: Ben was supposedly 30 years-old when NIGHT originally happened in 1968, so he was born in 1938. When NIGHT was transferred into 1978 by the effect of a Retcon Wave, Ben was NOW born in 1948, of course, but everything else was basically the same.
Likely, every dated vehicle in NIGHT went automatically "switched" with an equivalent but updated vehicle, whatever the Retcon Waves happened.
The story remains the same (Ben; Barbara; the house): that's the "matrix". But all the marginal details "change" in order to adapt the reality to a new decade.

EvilNed

28-Nov-2006, 03:23 PM

I'm sorry The Alive Man, but that's just an overly complicated way at looking at it and I don't really think it bears any difference whatsoever. The Dead films aren't supposed to be continuations of each other. Night reflects the 60's, Dawn the 70's and Day the 80's.

With your Retcon theory, they would still be placed in different timelines. Which is what we've been saying all along.

The Alive Man

28-Nov-2006, 04:12 PM

With your Retcon theory, they would still be placed in different timelines. Which is what we've been saying all along.

No. With my retcon theory, it's one timeline where the movies/events update themselves, but stay true to their roots.
However, I prefer the Stretch theory.

Philly_SWAT

28-Nov-2006, 05:25 PM

EvilNed

28-Nov-2006, 08:41 PM

No. With my retcon theory, it's one timeline where the movies/events update themselves, but stay true to their roots.
However, I prefer the Stretch theory.

This is contradicting yourself. A timeline which alters itself from it's previous version creates two different ones. With the Retcon theory, there are four timelines. One for Night, one for Dawn, one for Day and one for Land. Which makes sense, of course. But they can't be one timeline.

DEAD BEAT

28-Nov-2006, 09:23 PM

yeah yeah yeah and the knee bone is conected to the diick bone!:sneaky:

capncnut

29-Nov-2006, 03:18 AM

This Alive Man keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper! :lol:

The Alive Man

29-Nov-2006, 10:35 AM

This is contradicting yourself. A timeline which alters itself from it's previous version creates two different ones. With the Retcon theory, there are four timelines. One for Night, one for Dawn, one for Day and one for Land. Which makes sense, of course. But they can't be one timeline.

No. It's the same timeline, but the "content" INSIDE alters itself in some details. There is no split whatsoever. It's like when you update your antivirus program. The program is always the same, but pluggs-in somewhat enhance or modify it to "fit" the current task.

EvilNed

29-Nov-2006, 10:54 AM

No. It's the same timeline, but the "content" INSIDE alters itself in some details. There is no split whatsoever. It's like when you update your antivirus program. The program is always the same, but pluggs-in somewhat enhance or modify it to "fit" the current task.

If the content updates itself, then it replaces the old timeline. It certainly doesn't do that, since Night of the Living Dead does suddenly turn into a full color film with cellphones.

So thus, altering the timeline would either spawn a new one or overwrite the old one. You can't have both.

As I said, you're contradicting yourself with this stuff. :|

The Alive Man

29-Nov-2006, 11:09 AM

It certainly doesn't do that, since Night of the Living Dead does suddenly turn into a full color film with cellphones.

It happened so, like you're predicting, even if nobody saw it.

The NIGHT movie depicts the timeline before the "change", the very first Retcon Wave.

By the time the THIRD Retcon Wave happened, NIGHT featured cellphones.

Wait a moment, there are many "coloured" DVD releases of NIGHT out of there... LOL!

Deadman_Deluxe

29-Nov-2006, 11:40 PM

EvilNed

29-Nov-2006, 11:56 PM

It happened so, like you're predicting, even if nobody saw it.

The NIGHT movie depicts the timeline before the "change", the very first Retcon Wave.

By the time the THIRD Retcon Wave happened, NIGHT featured cellphones.

Wait a moment, there are many "coloured" DVD releases of NIGHT out of

there... LOL!

No, because Night, as you can clearly see, doesn't CHANGE!

I'm getting a bit fed up with this Retcon stuff, because you KEEP CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!

If you change a timeline, you ether rewrite it completly or create a new one. As apparent by Night, they didn't rewrite it. They just created a new one.

Your "Retcon" theory doesn't hold any water at all. It can't be done. Impossible, finito, end. It's just a stupid way of patching together the Dead films in one timeline...

Deadman_Deluxe

30-Nov-2006, 12:18 AM

Your "Retcon" theory doesn't hold any water at all. It can't be done. Impossible, finito, end. It's just a stupid way of patching together the Dead films in one timeline...

It certainly sounds that way! And ... WTF is a "retcon" anyways? Did he just make that sh1t up or what?

The Alive Man

30-Nov-2006, 01:07 AM

EvilNed and Deluxe,

There is no room for anger or lack of respect towards a person (Deluxe :rockbrow: ). Cool out, guys.

"RETCON" is a very very popular term used in COMICS. I usually make up my sh*t in the bathroom as every civilized people out of there.

NIGHT doesn't change AT FIRST (when you watch the movie), but by the time DAWN happens, NIGHT has already "adapted" to the late '70ies timeframe in order to preceed DAWN. You're not paying enough attention, man.
So I don't contradict myself at all.
It's just my second theory, the first one being THE STRETCH.
I'm free to make whatever I want in this board - and to pull off hundreds of theories - as far as nobody is offended.

QUIET!

Deadman_Deluxe

30-Nov-2006, 01:24 AM

Hey,

You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe in, but please ... your "tinpot" theorys will only serve to further confuse people. As most of us are aware, you are just clutching at straws, but to make things worse ... you are also making such a simple issue so overly-complicated ... that it is no longer funny.

NIGHT doesn't change AT FIRST (when you watch the movie), but by the time DAWN happens, NIGHT has already "adapted" to the late '70ies timeframe in order to preceed DAWN. You're not paying enough attention, man.
So I don't contradict myself at all.
It's just my second theory, the first one being THE STRETCH.

YET MORE ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

So let me get this right. Night of the Living Dead (a celluloid movie) actually changes itself about ten years after it was made? And it does this so that it can "adapt" itself to a fictitious 1975?

Not only that, but Night of the Living Dead changed itself specifically "in order to preceed DAWN" ... regardless of the fact that it would ALWAYS preceed DAWN anyways, seeing as how it was the first part of an intended trilogy, DAWN being the sequel, or second part, and was filmed many years previous to the sequel?

That's not a theory ... it's just a bunch of words in the wrong order!

EvilNed

30-Nov-2006, 01:32 AM

[SIZE="4"]
NIGHT doesn't change AT FIRST (when you watch the movie), but by the time DAWN happens, NIGHT has already "adapted" to the late '70ies timeframe in order to preceed DAWN. You're not paying enough attention, man.

Actually, I think you're the one not paying attention. First off, this is a theory that's completly untested and there's absolutly no "evidence" to support it in form of interviews or statements or whatever. You just "made it up" and applied it to the Dead universe. But in a pretty sloppy way.

So I don't contradict myself at all.

Yes, you are. Because you're not making any sense. You claim that a timeline cannot be split. Just overwritten. Yet I can prove that Night 68 was never overwritten (because it's obviously not taking place in the 00's). You claim Night 68 was overwritten and moved to the 70's... Then the 80's...

If Dawn takes place in the 70's as you say, but is 3 weeks after the outbreak and at the same time Night is updated to the 70's.

And Day takes place in the 80's and is 3 months after the outbreak. Night and Dawn are updated to the 80's.

How does that NOT put them in different timelines? You can retcon all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Dawn takes place in the 70's and Day in the 80's.

I'm sorry, but if you're not contradicting yourself, then you're making even less sense. In either case you don't seem to know what you're talking about. :shifty:

Also, making your text larger doesn't really enhance your point. Please stop (no arrogance intended).

I understand that these are only theories, and just films. But heck, it's what we are here to discus.

capncnut

30-Nov-2006, 09:26 AM

I'm free to make whatever I want in this board - and to pull off hundreds of theories - as far as nobody is offended.

QUIET!

Something tells me we 'aint heard the last of this. :D

Deadman_Deluxe

30-Nov-2006, 10:41 AM

hAHAHA Bring it on!!!

New "theorys" are always great, but please be aware that if they are rubbish we will say so, if they are good, then likewise ... we will say so ;)

The Alive Man

30-Nov-2006, 11:26 AM

hAHAHA Bring it on!!!

New "theorys" are always great, but please be aware that if they are rubbish we will say so, if they are good, then likewise ... we will say so ;)

Deluxe,

I think you are all overacting. Mine was just a comic-book inspired theory, and just a theory. I never pretended it to be "the" truth. WTF? It was just a theory valid like another one.
I firmly believe in THE STRETCH anyway, the second one was just a toy, so to speak.

Surely, I didn't expect such negative reactions so vocal and cruel.

:( Gravely disappointed.

You claim that a timeline cannot be split. Just overwritten. Yet I can prove that Night 68 was never overwritten (because it's obviously not taking place in the 00's). You claim Night 68 was overwritten and moved to the 70's... Then the 80's...

If Dawn takes place in the 70's as you say, but is 3 weeks after the outbreak and at the same time Night is updated to the 70's.

And Day takes place in the 80's and is 3 months after the outbreak. Night and Dawn are updated to the 80's.

Nice summary, you got it.

NIGHT overwrites itself just some time before DAWN, anyway, not at the same time.

You got it man.

hAHAHA Bring it on!!!

New "theorys" are always great, but please be aware that if they are rubbish we will say so, if they are good, then likewise ... we will say so ;)

Scrap the Retcon crap if you want, THE STRETCH is my main theory, and the one I firmly believe to be the truest to Romero's "not-direct timeline but almost".

EvilNed

30-Nov-2006, 03:27 PM

Nice summary, you got it.

NIGHT overwrites itself just some time before DAWN, anyway, not at the same time.

You got it man.

Yes. Both me and Deadman_Deluxe understand the theory. We're just saying it doesn't make any sense. And it still doesn't. The theory places Night and Dawn into different timelines, I don't get why you won't accept it. :/

Philly_SWAT

30-Nov-2006, 04:04 PM

I posted a question for you over a day ago The Alive Man, but you have not responded to it. It may be because this thread is so big now, and you didnt see it (another example of why I liked the display aspects of the old board better.) But you keep replying in this part of the thread, so I will post it again, and hopefully you will see it and respond.

The Alive Man,

Seeing as you are so fond of "scientific sounding terms" to define the topic at hand, how about using "Occam's razor". To quote from your favorite source, wiki:

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

So given this widely accepted scientific principle, what seems more logical to you, that GAR, as a local filmmaker using limited budgets, limited means, and making a series of movies that are made as many as 20 years apart, that he intend simply for the movies to be set in "the now" ignoring the near-impossible task (and totally unnecesary task) of trying to try them all together using continuity throughout (i.e. no use of cell phones in Land seeing as they didnt exist in Night, etc.) or that a man who was in love with making movies, watching horror movies, and reading horror comics as a kid with no scientific training, chose to use RETCON and multi-convergence theories to weave his stories together?

Which is the "less complicated formulation" in your mind?

radiokill

30-Nov-2006, 04:18 PM

Okie dokie...this proving/disproving theories stuff is getting out of hand. There is nothing to prove or disprove. They are three movies about the living dead. If Romero wanted them to be tied together, he would have made it obvious. However, we, as fans, elect which way we view these films for the purpose of entertainment and nostalgia. :)

edit: oops, four movies!

Deadman_Deluxe

30-Nov-2006, 04:22 PM

Deluxe,

Surely, I didn't expect such negative reactions so vocal and cruel.

:( Gravely disappointed.

Well if you are going to take what i say about your retcon theory to heart, on a personal level, of course you will be disappointed. Don't take it so personal ok?

What i am saying is that the retcon theory just does not work, but at the same time, we look forward to hearing about all your other theorys.

radiokill

30-Nov-2006, 04:30 PM

Well if you are going to take what i say about your retcon theory to heart, on a personal level, of course you will be disappointed. Don't take it so personal ok?

What i am saying is that the retcon theory just does not work, but at the same time, we look forward to hearing about all your other theorys.

awwww, how sweet! :D :lol:

The Alive Man

30-Nov-2006, 06:36 PM

Philly,

Thanks to have pointed out such Occam's razor concept. Never heard about it before. I agree with you, by the way.

The more simplicistic one? The STRETCH.
The Retcon stuff is too much complicated to be fully grasped in the eye of the average viewer. That's damn true!

Deluxe,

You fill my heart with love and devotion :lol: :lol: :lol:

Deadman_Deluxe

30-Nov-2006, 09:17 PM

The Retcon stuff is too much complicated to be fully grasped in the eye of the average viewer. That's damn true!
:

No it isn't ... it's just pure rubbish!!!!!!

EvilNed

30-Nov-2006, 10:10 PM

The Retcon stuff is too much complicated to be fully grasped in the eye of the average viewer. That's damn true!

That's bullcrap. You admitted yourself that I described it perfectly, so obviously I get it. But do you? :rockbrow:

The Alive Man

01-Dec-2006, 11:11 AM

Man I was just proposing.

I firmly believe in the Stretch, repeat.

EvilNed

01-Dec-2006, 12:08 PM

Man I was just proposing.

I firmly believe in the Stretch, repeat.

I'm not saying you don't. Nobody is.

N2NOther

01-Dec-2006, 02:25 PM

Sorry I'm late to the party but I most emphatically say "same universe, same timeline"

The stories themselves are what settles this. Not so much the aesthetics or set dressings. Those are means to an end and using what you have is the nature of low budget filmmaking.

The Alive Man

01-Dec-2006, 02:27 PM

EvilNed

01-Dec-2006, 02:37 PM

Danny

01-Dec-2006, 02:44 PM

EvilNed

01-Dec-2006, 03:53 PM

gah!, what is with this multidimensional stuff thats like saying return of the jedi was in a parrelel dimension to a new hope just becuase the title and story was different and it was a sequel.:rolleyes:

Oh. Except that Return of the Jedi had the same characters. And same world. And required you to have watched the previous Star Wars films. But other than that, yeah, EXACTLY the same thing!

The Alive Man

01-Dec-2006, 04:26 PM

RETURN OF THE JEDI was juvenile, and PHANTOM MENACE was even worse, so yes, both the movies happened into a universe alternative to the one the other four SW movies were set in. :lol:

EvilNed

01-Dec-2006, 06:45 PM

RETURN OF THE JEDI was juvenile, and PHANTOM MENACE was even worse, so yes, both the movies happened into a universe alternative to the one the other four SW movies were set in. :lol:

Haha, you got that right. Infact, the entire Prequel Trilogy took place in an Alternate universe where Star Wars had suddenly become something dull and uninteresting.

capncnut

02-Dec-2006, 03:06 AM

Haha, you got that right. Infact, the entire Prequel Trilogy took place in an Alternate universe where Star Wars had suddenly become something dull and uninteresting.

I thought Episode III was pretty good but the continuity between III and IV seems flawed to me. It just doesn't add up. :confused:

The Alive Man

02-Dec-2006, 11:45 AM

Knutboy,

You're right, of course. Leia said she remembered "about" her natural mother in JEDI, but she never actually met her as a child according to EPIII... she was just a new-born when it happened.

EPISODE III is one hell of a movie, and maybe even better than EMPIRE (!!!), but you're damn right.

HLS

02-Dec-2006, 01:11 PM

Haha, you got that right. Infact, the entire Prequel Trilogy took place in an Alternate universe where Star Wars had suddenly become something dull and uninteresting.

Well I am a little lost on how a thread on the romero movies became a thread on star wars...

I think the whole prequel series sucked. It did not measure up to the first three. I usually like CGI but in this case it ruined the whole story. It does seem that the prequel is in another universe than the first origional 3 but I do not think that is what Lucas intended it to be.
What I feel ruined the series is how he went back to the origional three Star Wars and altered them and changed the ending completely to Return of the Jedi so it would blend in more to the prequel. If the prequels were made more to the stile of how the first three were made then the 6 movies together would make a lot more sence.

Knutboy,

You're right, of course. Leia said she remembered "about" her natural mother in JEDI, but she never actually met her as a child according to EPIII... she was just a new-born when it happened.

EPISODE III is one hell of a movie, and maybe even better than EMPIRE (!!!), but you're damn right.

Ya you right. I think Leia did talk a little about of what she remembered of her mother but in the latest movie he mother died giving birth? Or am I remembering it incorrectly? Ya. I liked Episode III compared to the other sucky prequel.

capncnut

02-Dec-2006, 02:00 PM

Leia said she remembered "about" her natural mother in JEDI, but she never actually met her as a child according to EPIII... she was just a new-born when it happened.

Not only that but what about Luke's adopted parents? When he was handed to them as a baby in III they were in their early twenties, but in IV they are both in their sixties? :confused:

EPISODE III is one hell of a movie, and maybe even better than EMPIRE (!!!)

Now that's just crazy talk!

EvilNed

02-Dec-2006, 05:40 PM

I think Episode 3 is the weakest in the series. It's bad plot, coupled with the expected Prequel-trilogy crapfest adds up to one of the worst hollywood films of last year.

The Alive Man

02-Dec-2006, 06:04 PM

I think Episode 3 is the weakest in the series. It's bad plot, coupled with the expected Prequel-trilogy crapfest adds up to one of the worst hollywood films of last year.

Really ????? I found it compelling and almost frightening at points...

N2NOther

03-Dec-2006, 01:28 PM

But the stories make even more sense when set in different timelines, no?

Make more sense? Not really, but not less either. They make perfect sense to me as a continuation of the same outbreak.

EvilNed

03-Dec-2006, 02:14 PM

Make more sense? Not really, but not less either. They make perfect sense to me as a continuation of the same outbreak.

So to you, it makes perfect sense that there's cellphones and pocket-radars in Land?

N2NOther

08-Dec-2006, 06:38 PM

So to you, it makes perfect sense that there's cellphones and pocket-radars in Land?

No actually, but not because of continuity...Because those things are incidental...Keeping things in the 60's isn't important enough when he has something to say...The look and technology of the films isn't as important as the development of society in this situation...What doesn't make sense is how cell-phones would still work....

EvilNed

09-Dec-2006, 05:48 PM

No actually, but not because of continuity...Because those things are incidental...Keeping things in the 60's isn't important enough when he has something to say...The look and technology of the films isn't as important as the development of society in this situation...What doesn't make sense is how cell-phones would still work....

So basicly, it makes sense when you want it to, but when it doesn't make sense you just disregard it? :rockbrow:

Deadman_Deluxe

09-Dec-2006, 06:57 PM

Seriously,

The ONLY thing that this poll has proven to date is that at least eight stupid people have voted.

Thus ONLY serving to confuse the already confused ...

When GAR has already stated numerous times that these movies are NOT meant to be "connected" via a direct timeline, why would eight people here insist that they are?

And eight become eleven, disabling the correct opinion, and thus proving my point ... congratulations to whoever it was who started this thread! The already confused are now officially further confused.

Philly_SWAT

09-Dec-2006, 10:27 PM

When GAR has already stated numerous times that these movies are NOT meant to be "connected" via a direct timeline, why would eight people here insist that they are?To me, there is a difference is saying they are not connected via a direct timeline, and that they dont exist in the same timeline. On MtV, there used to be a show called "Jackass". When President Clinton was in office, the United States was dropping bombs on Kosovo. Are these two events connected in any way? I dont think so. By mentioning them, it doesnt imply that they have anything to do with each other. But do they exist in the same timeline? Of course. They are not connected via a direct timeline, but they do both exist in the same timeline.

Shadowofthedead

10-Dec-2006, 02:34 AM

same universe... same time line but time line must be dictated by the viewer enough said... any one account notld 90 more up to date theres your basis for a beginning. as for the difference in notld 68 and 90 was the venus probe. no mention in notld 90 of the probe. so id say same time line and dawn and day fall after notld 90. one last example notice the opening of land and how they had 60's era radio in it in the openinig credits? ill go with my first arguement... besides the beer says im right

The Alive Man

10-Dec-2006, 10:04 AM

one last example notice the opening of land and how they had 60's era radio in it in the openinig credits?

Beautiful proof we're all in the Stretch. Never noticed that. Many thanks. :cool:

EvilNed

10-Dec-2006, 12:08 PM

I have a 60's radio in my kitchen. Doesn't mean I'm IN the 60's.

The Alive Man

10-Dec-2006, 02:09 PM

I have a 60's radio in my kitchen. Doesn't mean I'm IN the 60's.

Indeed, Riley is *NOT* in the '60ies, but in 1988 A.C., three years after the events set in DAY (1985 A.C.)
It's just that 1988 A.C., in that alternative dimension's Earth version, looks like a combo of different decades of OUR Earth.

N2NOther

10-Dec-2006, 02:44 PM

So basicly, it makes sense when you want it to, but when it doesn't make sense you just disregard it? :rockbrow:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I mean you must because you read what is written and then infer things that weren't stated or even implied.

It makes sense because the technology in the films is important to the current film, not maintaining some arbitrary era continuity.

coma

10-Dec-2006, 07:13 PM

It makes sense because the technology in the films is important to the current film, not maintaining some arbitrary era continuity.
I agree with that. Its seems elementary to me. It is convienient to make it relevant to the current tiome when making a film, plus budgetary concerns preclude GAR from making them period pieces.
Suspension of disbelief etc.

No, Land is not in '88. Thats all hypothetical.

The Alive Man

10-Dec-2006, 07:31 PM

capncnut

10-Dec-2006, 07:36 PM

Not OUR 1988 A.C., but the counterpart year of the Stretch.

What absolute twaddle.

EvilNed

10-Dec-2006, 07:58 PM

I agree with that. Its seems elementary to me. It is convienient to make it relevant to the current tiome when making a film, plus budgetary concerns preclude GAR from making them period pieces.
Suspension of disbelief etc.

No, Land is not in '88. Thats all hypothetical.

Exactly. The movies have no real link, except the "Dead" in the title. All that matters is that they are set NOW. Not a certain amount of years after Day or Dawn, but NOW.

N2NOther, you disregard stuff when it doesn't suit you and you acknowledge stuff when it fits your theory. No offense, but that's just what you're doing.

The "He had no budget!" excuse is bull****, because Romero could easily have set Land in the 60's or 80's if he wanted too. He would have saved alot of money doing so.

coma

10-Dec-2006, 08:48 PM

Not OUR 1988 A.C., but the counterpart year of the Stretch.
Im saying , the differences are due to practical reasons, not any kind of Phantasmagoria.
And isn't it AD (Anno Domani) not AC?
Os that some new revisionism that I haven't noticed?

You are truly on the Alter of Roy Thomas:p

The Alive Man

10-Dec-2006, 08:52 PM

Im saying , the differences are due to practical reasons, not any kind of Phantasmagoria.
And isn't it AD (Anno Domani) not AC?
Os that some new revisionism that I haven't noticed?

You are truly on the Alter of Roy Thomas:p

Well, it's my theory.

A.C. = After Christ.

WTF? Who is Roy Thomas?

coma

10-Dec-2006, 09:57 PM

Well, it's my theory.

A.C. = After Christ.

WTF? Who is Roy Thomas?
I know its after Christ, I just have never seen that used anywhere. Is that some Italian thing?

Roy Thomas is a comics writer who in the 60s and 70s created an extremely convoluted Alternate set of universes for D.C. to explain away any continutiy errors that led up into an overcomplicated, impossible to follow continuom.

capncnut

10-Dec-2006, 11:02 PM

I know its after Christ, I just have never seen that used anywhere. Is that some Italian thing?

Maybe it's an Italian football team, as in A.C. Milan. :lol:

coma

11-Dec-2006, 01:49 AM

Maybe it's an Italian football team, as in A.C. Milan. :lol:
Alternating Current?!?!?!

rawrOTD

11-Dec-2006, 02:42 AM

so this thread is crazy and redonkulously far fetched

i have a plan
im going to make a movie
linking the Bat Man series
and the Godfather Series

in order to piss off fans of both the Godfather and Batman:D

but now i know a better idea for ruining movies

I'll either remake all the dead movies taking out the anachronisms and things that shouldnt exists if it was a straight laced time line
or
maybe i'll make movies for in between each movie
where they invent all of the things that shouldnt exist in the following film!

then you guys could stop with all this hubbub!:p

seriously though
they dont go in a straight time line
they do go in a line based on the level of invasion and level of zombie learnin'
so in that manner i consider them a series
they after all have the same themes and focus
but figuring out some crazy formula to warp time and space to the Dead Films is just insanity

they are a series but they each take place in the present
each film takes the same zombie invasion and puts it in the present day but taken to the natural next level
if they had been all in the 60s Romero would have quit long ago due to the limited scope of such a strict world
if they all were chronological then where in hell did they invent all that crap?

on a very off topic note
(not that I'm ever on topic, or offering much to the discussion)
Dead Next Door is the BEES KNEES

has anyone made some sort of ULTIMATE TIMELINE OF THE ZOMBIE INVASION?

like Night of the Living Dead and all of its sequels, rip offs, spin offs, tangents, illegitamite lovers, modern remakes, parodies and obvious inspirations?
not based upon time, but based on the logical advancement of Zombies and their mission to eat everyone

now that timeline would impress my socks off

Shadowofthedead

11-Dec-2006, 02:50 AM

it happens on ther same universe and the same time line romero is the one who will dictate the years and the time line seeing how hes the creator of the universe he is the god of that universe.... ahhhhhhhhhhh all this intellect makes my somewhat intellegent brain hurt. wthe 3 weeks to three years between movies is fine for now until we recieve an official notice from the man... you make this poor follower of romoero want to turn in his gun and be comnsumed by the dead... SHUT UP ALL READY... if you watch the opening of LAND you will see the different eras of years in the back ground and besides it takes time for creatures to evolve as did the "zombies" supposedly so whos to say that the time line is just that the way the movies have come in order. dr logan does say that the decomposition has slowed down in DAY making 20- 40 years of a zombie living not all that impossible... JUST TAKE THE MOVIES HOW THEY ARE AND SHUT UP OR ILL COME BACK FROM THE DEAD AND EAT YOU ALL... i need another beer oh and take LAND's beginning for what it is... oh and the movie UNDEAD was on show time last night so look out for it later this month...:mad:

N2NOther

11-Dec-2006, 04:50 AM

N2NOther, you disregard stuff when it doesn't suit you and you acknowledge stuff when it fits your theory. No offense, but that's just what you're doing.

The "He had no budget!" excuse is bull****, because Romero could easily have set Land in the 60's or 80's if he wanted too. He would have saved alot of money doing so.
He would have saved money by making clothes, hairstyles, cars and whathaveyou? No, he really wouldn't have...Not to mention that it's a logistics and continuity nightmare to make sure nothing is anachronistic. Friggin' Die Hard 2 had 10x the budget of every Dead film combined and they couldn't even make the Pay Phones say something other than Pacific Bell for a movie that takes place in DC...

coma

11-Dec-2006, 04:53 AM

Friggin' Die Hard 2 had 10x the budget of every Dead film combined and they couldn't even make the Pay Phones say something other than Pacific Bell for a movie that takes place in DC...
hahahaahha!:lol::lol:
Darn it, thats funny

The Alive Man

11-Dec-2006, 12:41 PM

Alternating Current?!?!?!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Alive Man

15-Dec-2006, 08:11 PM

dracenstein

15-Dec-2006, 08:45 PM

Voted same universe, different timelines. My reasoning is;

I think the films follow the same outbreak with Dawn 3 weeks to 6 months after Night (Fran's developing pregnancy), Day about the same time as Dawn ends (the blown newspaper at the beginning, it hasn't decayed sufficiently for it to be significantly later. There had to be enough normality or reason to publish newspapers. Maybe disease [cholera, malaria, zombieitis, whatever] in their area greatly increased the walking dead numbers). And Land about three years after Night.

The timeline is the differing technology. [I]Night[I], the car, tv, radio and tv studio - and Washington sequence, clearly 1960s.

Dawn, the fashions of the tv studio people, the helocopter, the look, are 70s.

Day, the guns, different vintage. Ok, not much to go on here.

Land, cell phones, tech in general. Clearly different from Night. Cooper wasn't asking anyone if they had a cell phone in that farmhouse.

Well, I hope that makes sense, and you know what I'm on about.

Danny

16-Dec-2006, 01:49 PM

first off, argh!, zombie thread!

second, who cares?, there good movies (BUT LAND WAS AMASTERPIECE FOR SOME!:thumbsup: , :lol:) there damn entertaining, what secret do you hope to unlock in all this, just enjoy it for what it is.

EvilNed

16-Dec-2006, 02:16 PM

He would have saved money by making clothes, hairstyles, cars and whathaveyou? No, he really wouldn't have...Not to mention that it's a logistics and continuity nightmare to make sure nothing is anachronistic. Friggin' Die Hard 2 had 10x the budget of every Dead film combined and they couldn't even make the Pay Phones say something other than Pacific Bell for a movie that takes place in DC...

Yes, he would have. Dead Reckoning the tank... Nuff said'.

Ravenous is set in the 19th century and has a lower budget than Land. Aguirre - the Wrath of God was made on a shoestring budget and still features lots of extras, costumes and weaponry.

capncnut

16-Dec-2006, 03:26 PM

Has anyone checked out the poll scores? There's a bit of a head-to-head going on with the top two, damn interesting. Not only that but The Alive Man theory is ranked 3rd out of 5!!! :eek:

The Alive Man

16-Dec-2006, 04:57 PM

Has anyone checked out the poll scores? There's a bit of a head-to-head going on with the top two, damn interesting. Not only that but The Alive Man theory is ranked 3rd out of 5!!! :eek:

I say: SH*T HAPPENS. :lol:

Deadman_Deluxe

16-Dec-2006, 11:22 PM

Voted same universe, different timelines.

Congratulations dracenstein, you have voted correct!

Unlike the guy beneath who not only voted for the incorrect option ... but also managed to make "a good funny" by misspelling quite a relevant word ;)

it happens on ther same universe and the same time line romero is the one who will dicate the years and the time line .... ahhhhhhhhhhh all this intellect makes my somewhat intellegent brain hurt.

Intellegent? Say what? On ther? Say somewhat? What? :lol:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Intelligent

dracenstein

17-Dec-2006, 02:25 PM

I know.

Thanks for acknowledging my superior wisdom.

N2NOther

17-Dec-2006, 02:52 PM

Yes, he would have. Dead Reckoning the tank... Nuff said'.

Ravenous is set in the 19th century and has a lower budget than Land. Aguirre - the Wrath of God was made on a shoestring budget and still features lots of extras, costumes and weaponry.

There is a difference between a period piece with era cars and one with horses and cabins and such...Replicating an era where "modern" technology didn't exist at all is a lot cheaper and easier than replicating the 60's...It's a logical conclusion...Setting something in the 19th century while having your primary location be a fort in the woods is much more affordable than recreating the look of a city in the 60's.

DIE HARD 2 is horrid. :dead:

A) No it really isn't and
B) What you think of Die Hard 2 is irrelevant to this dicussion.

EvilNed

17-Dec-2006, 09:05 PM

There is a difference between a period piece with era cars and one with horses and cabins and such...Replicating an era where "modern" technology didn't exist at all is a lot cheaper and easier than replicating the 60's...It's a logical conclusion...Setting something in the 19th century while having your primary location be a fort in the woods is much more affordable than recreating the look of a city in the 60's.

That's bullcrap, especially considering you have to design and create all the customs from scratch either way. Making it in the 60's wouldn't make the film any more expensive. Why would it?

Land of the Dead had sets and costumes designed for the 00's. They could easily have done the same, but with the 60's.

Whitnail & I from 1987. Low budget. Takes place in the 60's. I mean, there's really no excuse for Land. It could have been in the 60's had Romero wanted it too.

N2NOther

17-Dec-2006, 11:15 PM

That's bullcrap, especially considering you have to design and create all the customs from scratch either way. Making it in the 60's wouldn't make the film any more expensive. Why would it?

Cars, phones, clothes, advertisements, buidling faces...Just a few of the things that would be a design nightmare from a budget standpoint.

Land of the Dead had sets and costumes designed for the 00's. They could easily have done the same, but with the 60's.

Clothing companies often donate their product to films for free...

Whitnail & I from 1987. Low budget. Takes place in the 60's. I mean, there's really no excuse for Land. It could have been in the 60's had Romero wanted it too.

It could have and he didn't want it to...Because like Land, Night is supposed to be era-less...It should be viewed as if it happened 3 years prior to Land...This is an easy concept to grasp.

EvilNed

18-Dec-2006, 12:13 AM

Cars, phones, clothes, advertisements, buidling faces...Just a few of the things that would be a design nightmare from a budget standpoint.

Clothing companies often donate their product to films for free...

What cars, phones, clothes, advertisements and building faces did you see in Land that could not have just as easily/painstakingly have been replaced with ones from the 60's? Fact is it's all manufactured from scratch, especially in a film like Land where there's really no marketing involved. As I've already said; it would not have been any more expensive to make it set in the 60's.

It could have and he didn't want it to...Because like Land, Night is supposed to be era-less...It should be viewed as if it happened 3 years prior to Land...This is an easy concept to grasp.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Land doesn't take place 3 years after Night, it simply takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It has little to no connection (timeline-wise) to Night. It's set NOW, just as Night is set NOW (back in the 60's) and both reflect their respective times.

N2NOther

18-Dec-2006, 07:25 AM

What cars, phones, clothes, advertisements and building faces did you see in Land that could not have just as easily/painstakingly have been replaced with ones from the 60's? Fact is it's all manufactured from scratch, especially in a film like Land where there's really no marketing involved. As I've already said; it would not have been any more expensive to make it set in the 60's.

Yeah it really would have. Getting a slew of cars and trucks for the scenes in Land would have cost more money than getting modern cars...Look at what Jackson had to do with Kong in order to set it in 1930's NY...He could have saved a ****-load of money setting it now...

Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Land doesn't take place 3 years after Night, it simply takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It has little to no connection (timeline-wise) to Night. It's set NOW, just as Night is set NOW (back in the 60's) and both reflect their respective times.

It's still the same timeline...They exist in one timeline Night, then Dawn 3 weeks later, then Day months later and Land 3 years...That's been my whole point on this...For him to make everything fit as if it took place in the 60's is pointless...

Danny

18-Dec-2006, 12:19 PM

dont make me get out the beating a dead horse image again.

ready.

set.

FLAME ON!:mad: :lol:

EvilNed

18-Dec-2006, 12:49 PM

Yeah it really would have. Getting a slew of cars and trucks for the scenes in Land would have cost more money than getting modern cars...Look at what Jackson had to do with Kong in order to set it in 1930's NY...He could have saved a ****-load of money setting it now...

My grandfather was involved in the filming of Road to Perdition. He and a bunch of guys were asked to participate with their old cars. Guess what? They did it for free.

Basicly, you have to get the equipment there somehow. It would have been cheaper to get and trash old cars than to get and trash new cars.

It's still the same timeline...They exist in one timeline Night, then Dawn 3 weeks later, then Day months later and Land 3 years...That's been my whole point on this...For him to make everything fit as if it took place in the 60's is pointless...

As you can clearly see, it's pretty obvious that this argument is more or less impossible. In Land there are radars and personal tanks. In Night, the most advanced thing is a bolt action rifle.

N2NOther

18-Dec-2006, 01:12 PM

They did it free? Lucky Sam Mendes...The guy who directed an Academy Award winning film. Clout goes a long way.

As you can clearly see, it's pretty obvious that this argument is more or less impossible. In Land there are radars and personal tanks. In Night, the most advanced thing is a bolt action rifle.

Because you're looking at the films literally in their repsective era...Which is clearly not the intention...But hey, you think what you want...You're wrong and you seem to be ok with it.

EvilNed

18-Dec-2006, 02:08 PM

They did it free? Lucky Sam Mendes...The guy who directed an Academy Award winning film. Clout goes a long way.

Fact is people support these kinds of things for fun all the time. Not everytime, but alot of time. And besides, I bet any car they needed wouldn't have cost awhole lot more than those already in the film. Probably less.

Because you're looking at the films literally in their repsective era...Which is clearly not the intention...But hey, you think what you want...You're wrong and you seem to be ok with it.

Uhm. You're wrong. It is CLEARLY the intention to look at them in their respective era, and infact one of the main reasons you'll find political statements within the films. It's obvious how much stuff you actually dismiss outright and ignore just to support your theory. :rockbrow:

So now that I've crushed your "Romero couldn't have made a 60's film because of a lack of budget!" argument, I guess all you have left is... nothing.

N2NOther

18-Dec-2006, 02:25 PM

Fact is people support these kinds of things for fun all the time. Not everytime, but alot of time. And besides, I bet any car they needed wouldn't have cost awhole lot more than those already in the film. Probably less.

Tell you what...You go find out how much it would cost to make a film with the same plots/locations as the other Dead films to all take place in the 60's and then you get back to me...Otherwise all you have is an extremely ignorant knowledge of filmmaking.

Uhm. You're wrong. It is CLEARLY the intention to look at them in their respective era, and infact one of the main reasons you'll find political statements within the films. It's obvious how much stuff you actually dismiss outright and ignore just to support your theory. :rockbrow:

So now that I've crushed your "Romero couldn't have made a 60's film because of a lack of budget!" argument, I guess all you have left is... nothing.

No, I didn't say it was just because of budget...Budget is PART of the reason. If his goal and intention is to reflect his view of the socio-political world in it's modern climate then worrying about such things as making the film look like it takes place in the 60's is unimportant...The look of the era is not important to these films so he can free up his budget (which have all been low) to address the issues he wants to address...You haven't crushed anything...In order for that to happen you would need PROOF not your erroneous conjecture and speculation...So you started with nothing and still have nothing.

GR: Well, I’m sort of going back to the roots, basically. I’m going back to the first night, when things started. You know, I’ve done the four films in the series… can’t call it a trilogy anymore, cause there’s four of them… but I wanted to… you know there’s a lot of sort of unanswered questions. People keep saying, “Well, you know, like, can animals come back from the dead?” and a million unanswered questions… So I wanted to go back to the very first night, the first night that it started, and I wanted do it from like a different, completely different perspective… and have characters that learn about it the way… in the original Night, you know the people in the farmhouse learn about it on the news and, you know, not so much from first-hand experience because they’re just locked up in this house. So I wanted a new set of characters… and sort of like, I don’t know, Skip and Spector did those books called Book of the Dead, and so it’s basically going back to the beginning with a different set of character and taking the whole phenomenon as it comes.

Romero is clearly stating that in Diary we will see a different perspective of the events of START of the outbreak that were covered in Night...

EvilNed

18-Dec-2006, 02:29 PM

Tell you what...You go find out how much it would cost to make a film with the same plots/locations as the other Dead films to all take place in the 60's and then you get back to me...Otherwise all you have is an extremely ignorant knowledge of filmmaking.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. I've already offered many films with low budget that managed to take place back in time. And I've already explained to you that costumes, wether set in the now or in the 60's, cost pretty much the same. If anyone here is ignorant about filmmaking, I don't think it's me.

No, I didn't say it was just because of budget...Budget is PART of the reason. If his goal and intention is to reflect his view of the socio-political world in it's modern climate then worrying about such things as making the film look like it takes place in the 60's is unimportant...The look of the era is not important to these films so he can free up his budget (which have all been low) to address the issues he wants to address...You haven't crushed anything...In order for that to happen you would need PROOF not your erroneous conjecture and speculation...So you started with nothing and still have nothing.

Wrong. Budget had nothing to do with it.

But you've got one thing right. His goal is to reflect the now with his own views, and thus he views it unimportant to link this film timeline-wise with the older ones. They were never supposed to be like that, and there is no evidence to support it.

And again, you bring the budget back into the fold. The argument which I've already proved wrong. So I guess you have nothing else then.

Romero is clearly stating that in Diary we will see a different perspective of the events of START of the outbreak that were covered in Night...

Yeah... So? What he's "clearly" stating is that he'll go back to the beginning of the outbreak. Not that it will be the same outbreak as the one in Night. Again, you're just seeing it the way which suits you.

N2NOther

18-Dec-2006, 03:13 PM

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. I've already offered many films with low budget that managed to take place back in time. And I've already explained to you that costumes, wether set in the now or in the 60's, cost pretty much the same. If anyone here is ignorant about filmmaking, I don't think it's me.

You offered 2 films that take place in the woods (no technology at all) and a film by an Oscar winning director, his first film, in fact, after he won the Academy award...The 12 minute short I made which has hardly any FX, and used things and locations that we had still cost $6,000...

Wrong. Budget had nothing to do with it.

Right...Budget had nothing do with it. Because Ravenous was made for less right?

But you've got one thing right. His goal is to reflect the now with his own views, and thus he views it unimportant to link this film timeline-wise with the older ones. They were never supposed to be like that, and there is no evidence to support it.

And again, you bring the budget back into the fold. The argument which I've already proved wrong. So I guess you have nothing else then.

Again, you haven't proved anything...Sorry to break this to you but the only thing that can prove something wrong is actually proof...See how that works? "Proof" and "Prove"?

Yeah... So? What he's "clearly" stating is that he'll go back to the beginning of the outbreak. Not that it will be the same outbreak as the one in Night.

Are you blind? Do you know to comprehend what you're reading? He says, and I even bolded it for you, that he's getting a different perspective than the one given in Night from the beginning of THE outbreak. There is a difference between the articles "the" and "a". "The" would be specific. "A would be general. He's clearly saying "THE" not "a".

Again, you're just seeing it the way which suits you.

I could say the same thing about you, only I'd be correct.

Deadman_Deluxe

18-Dec-2006, 03:33 PM

It's still the same timeline...They exist in one timeline Night, then Dawn 3 weeks later, then Day months later and Land 3 years...That's been my whole point on this...For him to make everything fit as if it took place in the 60's is pointless...

Look, i am not trying to annoy you, but you do seem to be ignoring the fact that GAR himself has already stated the exact opposite of what you are saying.

These movies are not, and were never, intended to be connected via a direct timeline. They do not exist in the same timeline.

Why would you totally ignore that?

It seems to me that you are still stuck on the common misperception that dawn happens (approx.) three weeks after the events seen in the previous movie, when in reality dawn happens three weeks after the initial outbreaks which that particular "story" is based around.

Seperate storys, held together by the creator and a common theme, and taking place within the same "storytelling universe" and thus following the same rules or "guidelines" which define GARs "storytelling universe".

The point at which we actually join the characters and storyline for each movie is shortly after seperate outbreaks from within the same storytelling universe, and deffinately not from the events seen in the previous movie!

If you still don't belive in what i am saying, then you should at least believe in what GAR has said himself.

EvilNed

18-Dec-2006, 04:25 PM

You offered 2 films that take place in the woods (no technology at all) and a film by an Oscar winning director, his first film, in fact, after he won the Academy award...The 12 minute short I made which has hardly any FX, and used things and locations that we had still cost $6,000...
Right...Budget had nothing do with it. Because Ravenous was made for less right?

Tell me this, are you serious or are you just joking with me?! There's a ****LOAD of films out there made for on a shoestring budget that take place somewhere else. I mean look at Whitnail and I that I mentioned earlier. Quadrophenia (made in 79, but takes place in 65) etc. etc. Is it so hard for you to grasp that you're just right out wrong?

Again, you haven't proved anything...Sorry to break this to you but the only thing that can prove something wrong is actually proof...See how that works? "Proof" and "Prove"?

It's kind of hard to convince someone who blindly refuses to see whatever is offered to them unless it suits their view. No offense, but arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. You've provided nothing but a theory and you don't back it up. When an argument of yours is disproven, you just ignore whatever said.

Are you blind? Do you know to comprehend what you're reading? He says, and I even bolded it for you, that he's getting a different perspective than the one given in Night from the beginning of THE outbreak. There is a difference between the articles "the" and "a". "The" would be specific. "A would be general. He's clearly saying "THE" not "a".

No, he says there's a different take on THE NIGHT it started. THE NIGHT, he didn't mention it's a different take on THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Seriously man. You need to broaden your horizons. You have no case.

Danny

18-Dec-2006, 04:57 PM

y'know this topics just degenerated into two 30'somethings bitching for around 3 pages now, you cant force people to think the sme way you do, just leave it at that guys, geez:rolleyes:

coma

18-Dec-2006, 05:19 PM

y'know this topics just degenerated into two 30'somethings bitching for around 3 pages now, you cant force people to think the sme way you do, just leave it at that guys, geez:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
What does their age have to do with anything?
You seem to think people stop arguing after their 20.
If you don't want people to be condescending to you, you should not do that to others.

Danny

18-Dec-2006, 05:33 PM

its just more juvenile the older the people are in my opinion when it comes to dumb arguments.

EvilNed

18-Dec-2006, 07:23 PM

y'know this topics just degenerated into two 30'somethings bitching for around 3 pages now, you cant force people to think the sme way you do, just leave it at that guys, geez:rolleyes:

No offense, but you're not Mahatma Ghandi when it comes to arguing. I'm not attacking you, but there's no need to "step in" and wave a flag around. We know what we're doing.

Danny

18-Dec-2006, 11:11 PM

aye fair point, it just the thread kinda turned into a two man band, like a few others have.

N2NOther

19-Dec-2006, 05:17 AM

Tell me this, are you serious or are you just joking with me?! There's a ****LOAD of films out there made for on a shoestring budget that take place somewhere else. I mean look at Whitnail and I that I mentioned earlier. Quadrophenia (made in 79, but takes place in 65) etc. etc. Is it so hard for you to grasp that you're just right out wrong?

If the era in which a film takes place is important enough, budgets can be reworked...But each film has it's own set of obstacles to overcome...Budget is a factor and when it's not important enough to set it in the 60's (which just happens to be when he made Night), then it's not worth it...

It's kind of hard to convince someone who blindly refuses to see whatever is offered to them unless it suits their view. No offense, but arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. You've provided nothing but a theory and you don't back it up. When an argument of yours is disproven, you just ignore whatever said.

It's not hard to convince me...If you provide proof...You haven't done that...Your "opinion" doesn't qualify.

No, he says there's a different take on THE NIGHT it started. THE NIGHT, he didn't mention it's a different take on THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

GR: Well, I’m sort of going back to the roots, basically. I’m going back to the first night, when things started. You know, I’ve done the four films in the series… can’t call it a trilogy anymore, cause there’s four of them… but I wanted to… you know there’s a lot of sort of unanswered questions. People keep saying, “Well, you know, like, can animals come back from the dead?” and a million unanswered questions… So I wanted to go back to the very first night, the first night that it started, and I wanted do it from like a different, completely different perspective… and have characters that learn about it the way… in the original Night, you know the people in the farmhouse learn about it on the news and, you know, not so much from first-hand experience because they’re just locked up in this house. So I wanted a new set of characters… and sort of like, I don’t know, Skip and Spector did those books called Book of the Dead, and so it’s basically going back to the beginning with a different set of character and taking the whole phenomenon as it comes.

He does say it's a different perspective on the first night of the outbreak than the perspective he covered in Night...It's right there in "print". Not edited at all. It's from Dread Central and there's audio to accompany the interview...

He clearly is comparing how the characters in Night learn about it to how the characters in Diary learn about it...IT being THE outbreak...Not AN outbreak.

Seriously man. You need to broaden your horizons. You have no case.

I do have a case and I've backed it up with proof-there's that word again-which you haven't done.

Look, i am not trying to annoy you, but you do seem to be ignoring the fact that GAR himself has already stated the exact opposite of what you are saying.

These movies are not, and were never, intended to be connected via a direct timeline. They do not exist in the same timeline.

Why would you totally ignore that?

It seems to me that you are still stuck on the common misperception that dawn happens (approx.) three weeks after the events seen in the previous movie, when in reality dawn happens three weeks after the initial outbreaks which that particular "story" is based around.

Seperate storys, held together by the creator and a common theme, and taking place within the same "storytelling universe" and thus following the same rules or "guidelines" which define GARs "storytelling universe".

The point at which we actually join the characters and storyline for each movie is shortly after seperate outbreaks from within the same storytelling universe, and deffinately not from the events seen in the previous movie!

If you still don't belive in what i am saying, then you should at least believe in what GAR has said himself.

Ok then...All I ask is for the cite of that quote...Where does he say this? If you can provide that, I'll concede because everything I've read he says differently.

EvilNed

19-Dec-2006, 03:30 PM

If the era in which a film takes place is important enough, budgets can be reworked...But each film has it's own set of obstacles to overcome...Budget is a factor and when it's not important enough to set it in the 60's (which just happens to be when he made Night), then it's not worth it...

It's not hard to convince me...If you provide proof...You haven't done that...Your "opinion" doesn't qualify.

I have already. You just won't accept it. You still keep to the theory that Land doesn't fit with the others timelinewise because of the budget. But I've already provided films which managed to pull off similar feats with a much lower budget. You just won't accept it.

He does say it's a different perspective on the first night of the outbreak than the perspective he covered in Night...It's right there in "print". Not edited at all. It's from Dread Central and there's audio to accompany the interview...

He clearly is comparing how the characters in Night learn about it to how the characters in Diary learn about it...IT being THE outbreak...Not AN outbreak.

All films start with THE outbreak, wether or not they follow a timeline! Nowhere in that text does it specifically say that THIS FILM FOLLOWS THE SAME OUTBREAK AS IN NIGHT. Infact, you just read it that way.

"So I wanted to go back to the very first night, the first night that it started, and I wanted do it from like a different, completely different perspective… and have characters that learn about it the way… in the original Night you know the people in the farmhouse learn about it on the news and, you know, not so much from first-hand experience because they’re just locked up in this house."

He's talking about the Original Night of the Living Dead without actually saying it's going to be set that very same night! Did you see any video cameras in the original Night? Any cellphones? Well?

Ok then...All I ask is for the cite of that quote...Where does he say this? If you can provide that, I'll concede because everything I've read he says differently.

Land commentary. First twenty minutes. Enjoy. Here's some quotes from George A. Romero himself. About 3:30 minutes into the film:

"This is not meant to be a sequel..."

"I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..." "... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..."

He also talks about how the rules were slightly different in Night. How he didn't think of the zombies as zombies, but rather ghouls and flesheaters. And that in later films they only eat flesh, but in the original they eat insects and are afraid of fire. He explains this by saying that he hadn't really fleshed out a set of rules yet.

Again, again and again: You have no case. Accepts the proofs and facts thrown at you and stop being such a baby man.

Deadman_Deluxe

19-Dec-2006, 05:50 PM

Ok then...All I ask is for the cite of that quote...Where does he say this? If you can provide that, I'll concede because everything I've read he says differently.

Like i said before, i am not winding you up, GAR has actually said the exact opposite of what you are saying multiple times during the past few decades, so again, if you do not want to believe what i am saying, then you should at least believe what GAR is saying.

I don't have time to "gather evidence" in order to prove my point to you. I know that what i am saying is the truth and i am just trying to save you time, set you straight, and save you further embarrasment, if any.

Alternatively, you could just gather your own evidence ... or as suggested in the thread above, just listen to the latest LAND commentary where you will hear it from the man himself.

Land commentary. First twenty minutes. Enjoy. Here's some quotes from George A. Romero himself. About 3:30 minutes into the film:

"This is not meant to be a sequel..."

"I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..."

"... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..."

So, as we were saying ... this poll ONLY serves to further confuse the already confused ;)

Two further points:

1: Hahahah ... Did hellsing just call someone "juvenile"?
2: It all went kinda quiet ... is that a tumbleweed blowing past?

Chaos

19-Dec-2006, 11:07 PM

The series takes place in the same universe and each installment follows its predecessor in chronological order. Although filmed in seperate decades, the films are meant to follow the same timeline. But I will admit that Day felt more like the last in the series than Land did.

To be frank, Land didn't even feel like a continuation (the end?) of the same series.

Deadman_Deluxe

20-Dec-2006, 03:50 PM

The Alive Man

20-Dec-2006, 04:23 PM

"This is not meant to be a sequel..."

"I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..." "... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..."

He also talks about how the rules were slightly different in Night. How he didn't think of the zombies as zombies, but rather ghouls and flesheaters. And that in later films they only eat flesh, but in the original they eat insects and are afraid of fire. He explains this by saying that he hadn't really fleshed out a set of rules yet.

Even if I hate to admit this but... four parallel universe, four different timelines, four different "Outbreaks" and following effects.
Goodbye, Stretch...

Deadman_Deluxe

20-Dec-2006, 04:45 PM

Even if I hate to admit this but... four parallel universe, four different timelines, four different "Outbreaks" and following effects.
Goodbye, Stretch...

Word! Welcome to the club of truth! Amen!

NTS: Now watch ALL the other DVDs with the GAR commentary ON and see what else you can learn ;)

PS: Strictly speaking it is not actually FOUR parrallel universe, but ONE, that being GARs "storytelling universe" ... but everything else is pretty much carved in stone.

Hope that this "enlightenment" is to your benefit!

The Alive Man

20-Dec-2006, 05:59 PM

Deluxe,

Is there any evidence that the Living Dead in the NIGHT timeline eat insects as Romero is revealing? :eek: That's quite interesting! :cool:

coma

20-Dec-2006, 06:10 PM

Deluxe,

Is there any evidence that the Living Dead in the NIGHT timeline eat insects as Romero is revealing? :eek: That's quite interesting! :cool:
It's in NOTLD68. A Zombie eats a big ass bug off a tree

The Alive Man

20-Dec-2006, 06:42 PM

It's in NOTLD68. A Zombie eats a big ass bug off a tree

Strange. I didn't remember this scene.... oh GREAT! :)

I love this saga. :cool:

Deadman_Deluxe

20-Dec-2006, 06:44 PM

Deluxe,

Is there any evidence that the Living Dead in the NIGHT timeline eat insects as Romero is revealing? :eek: That's quite interesting! :cool:

Well yes, the so called "evidence" is there for all to see on celluloid.

Though i would compare that early scene in particular to nothing more than a young baby putting the TV remote control in its mouth ... a basic type of curiosity/learning curve, which is taking place BOTH within the on screen zombies in the movie itself, and also within the confines of the "rules" or "guidelines" which govern, and will eventually define, GARs "newborn" storytelling universe ;)

GAR has recently revealed (possibly also in the same LAND DVD commentary during a conversation regarding the zombie rats which were thankfully "dropped" from an early write of LAND) a possibility about "revisiting" that scene and the introduction of "zombie animals", but i doubt VERY much if he will actually commit such scenes again.

I personally think that it would fly in the face of all he has achieved to date.

I mean, if animals COULD have contracted this "virus" then SURELY there would have been some other evidence put forward during the last THIRTY EIGHT (38!) years in addition to the early "bug eating zed" from NOTLD?

The introduction of such "zombie animals" would also overly complicate matters by involving a "virus" or "possible cause" which could contaminate ANY species, including those with less than 23 pairs of chromosomes!

The Alive Man

20-Dec-2006, 07:05 PM

Not only that, Deluxe:

World must have been conquered by millions of "revitalized" and "re-animated" dead insects, which is truly not the case. So I'm happy with it, anyway: no Living Dead Insects or any other re-animated animal form.

On a side note, we can easily assume that the Living Dead belonging to the NIGHT timeline are different; they are not "impulse-dominated" like those in DAWN, neither strong as the DAY counterparts, nor intelligent as the ones in LAND. They are afraid by fire, eat insects, use tools on a very primitive basis and look not so rot and decayed.

Cell decay is anothe rissue: four different rates in all four timelines.

Finally, as last consideration: don't call it "universe". Rather, it's GAR's "multi-universe". Every universe featuring a timeline of its own.

Deadman_Deluxe

20-Dec-2006, 07:21 PM

Finally, as last consideration: don't call it "universe". Rather, it's GAR's "multi-universe". Every universe featuring a timeline of its own.

As recently stated above: PS: Strictly speaking it is not actually FOUR parrallel universe, but ONE, that being GARs "storytelling universe"

Again, to clarify, i personally do not believe it needs to be classified as a "multi-universe" (correct title would be MULTIVERSE of course) as it is clearly within the ONE universe where all of the storys take place, this singular universe of course being GARs "storytelling universe", otherwise known as the place where his storys actually exist, and are defined and governed by his "rules" or "guidelines".

u·ni·verse. (N)

1. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
3. a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe.

The Alive Man

20-Dec-2006, 07:57 PM

Yeah, but the RULES and the PARAMETERS change from a timeline to another.

The LAND Living Dead were always so "witty" and attracted by fireworks. They are not the "product" of some advancement.

The DAY Living Dead were always so "strong" and predisposed to be tamed (Bub). They are not the "product" of some advancement.

And so on...

There is NO consequencial evolution. Only four different "Outbreaks" which spawned different breeds of Living Dead, featuring four different "set of rules", in four different timelines set in ONE MULTI-UNIVERSE/MULTIVERSE: GAR'S ONE !!!

You can't "place" more than ONE timeline in ONE SINGLE "universe" --- from a sci-fi standpoint, the assumption sounds WRONG.
"GAR's multiverse" is a very correct way to describe the "storytelling universe" you're talking about !!! TRUST ME!

EvilNed

20-Dec-2006, 10:22 PM

The Alive Man, I like you and all.

But you're habit of using large font sizes is ****ing annoying... Personally, I usually ignore those posts since they're just irritating to read.

Mutineer

20-Dec-2006, 10:44 PM

I'd suggest ... same universe, but different timelines

Hi Ned !

Deadman_Deluxe

20-Dec-2006, 11:40 PM

I'd suggest ... same universe, but different timelines

Hi Ned !

And you would be correct sir!

Now please vote for that option in this poll, as the balance is STILL currently tipped to the wrong option :confused:

Philly_SWAT

21-Dec-2006, 01:58 AM

Hey Deadman, in your opinion, does the Friday the 13th series take place in the same timeline, or not?

N2NOther

21-Dec-2006, 05:24 AM

I have already. You just won't accept it. You still keep to the theory that Land doesn't fit with the others timelinewise because of the budget. But I've already provided films which managed to pull off similar feats with a much lower budget. You just won't accept it.

As far as you and I go, no, you haven't provided a lick of proof...And no, it's not because of budget...I said, budget is a factor...It doesn't use the same era as Night because it would be a pointless distraction and not worth the money spent to recreate that era when it could be used elsewhere more effectively...

All films start with THE outbreak, wether or not they follow a timeline! Nowhere in that text does it specifically say that THIS FILM FOLLOWS THE SAME OUTBREAK AS IN NIGHT. Infact, you just read it that way.

Nowhere in the text does it say that it doesn't follow the same outbreak as Night...And I read it that way because that's what was said...

He's talking about the Original Night of the Living Dead without actually saying it's going to be set that very same night! Did you see any video cameras in the original Night? Any cellphones? Well?

No...Because the didn't exist when he made the film...Which is why he didn't use anything in the film that says 1968 either...So the film can exist NOW if you're watching it NOW.

Land commentary. First twenty minutes. Enjoy. Here's some quotes from George A. Romero himself. About 3:30 minutes into the film:

"This is not meant to be a sequel..."

"I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..." "... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..."

He also talks about how the rules were slightly different in Night. How he didn't think of the zombies as zombies, but rather ghouls and flesheaters. And that in later films they only eat flesh, but in the original they eat insects and are afraid of fire. He explains this by saying that he hadn't really fleshed out a set of rules yet.

Nothing in those quotes signifies that the films don't follow the same timeline...They're not connected by any characters and as a general rule, sequels follow a character or characters and their story arc...I'm not saying they aren't a series...I'm saying they follow the same timeline...

Again, again and again: You have no case. Accepts the proofs and facts thrown at you and stop being such a baby man.

When you accept proofs and facts thrown at you then maybe you'd have a case...

This is another Romero quote about Land of the Dead...

"It's about ignoring the problem. After the events in Day of the Dead, the remaining survivors are living in exclusive gated communities that protect them from the dead outside. They attempt to live normally while ignoring the problem in the world outside their walls...."

Here he is clearly using the term "after" in regards to the events in Day of the Dead when talking about where Land starts off...Now, call me crazy, but why on Earth would he make a point to say this when they don't exist in the same timeline? Or am I ignoring more proofs and facts?

EvilNed

21-Dec-2006, 06:21 AM

Nothing in those quotes signifies that the films don't follow the same timeline...They're not connected by any characters and as a general rule, sequels follow a character or characters and their story arc...I'm not saying they aren't a series...I'm saying they follow the same timeline...

I'm so bloody tempted putting you on ignore... But since you've already lost this debate by a mile, I'm just going to smile and nod and act as anyone actually cares what it is you're saying.

Seriously. I provide the proof. You shuffle it aside for stupid reasons. What's the point in continuing? You've lost, go cry in bed or whatever it is you do.

N2NOther

21-Dec-2006, 12:46 PM

I'm so bloody tempted putting you on ignore... But since you've already lost this debate by a mile, I'm just going to smile and nod and act as anyone actually cares what it is you're saying.

Seriously. I provide the proof. You shuffle it aside for stupid reasons. What's the point in continuing? You've lost, go cry in bed or whatever it is you do.

First of all, nothing in this "debate" matters enough to me for it to affect me enough to "cry" and your "I've already won this debate" responses show me that you're an infant with internet access whose basically sticking his fingers in his ears saying "I'm not listening to you"...I don't give 2 ****s if you put me on ignore...

Danny

21-Dec-2006, 04:41 PM

bassman

21-Dec-2006, 05:52 PM

but thats exactly what your doing to, if niether can concede or change your opinion, and instead only try to change others you aint gonna get anywhere, just agree to disagree theres no point insulting someone youll never meet over how they see a movie cus no two people see them quite the same way.

Spoken like a true prophet.:thumbsup:

Just as you say....everyone has their own opinion. Some may like Romero's films for this reason, while some may like them for that reason. But you know what? At least you can fall back on the fact that everyone here likes the majority of his films. So we all have that in common.:)

N2NOther

21-Dec-2006, 05:59 PM

I do think it's more than a bit ridiculous that someone gives this much of a **** about someone's interpretation of a film...I've stated my reasons why I believe the films are in the same "timeline" (Being that the events in Night preceed the events in Dawn, which preceed Day, which preceed Land) and shown proof to why I feel this way. If someone doesn't agree I really don't give a ****...But calling someone a "baby" for it is beyond stupid.

The Alive Man

21-Dec-2006, 06:18 PM

bassman

21-Dec-2006, 06:28 PM

I think you have to moderate yourself, "newbie". Nobody is offending you or your opinions. I think you have to cool out, really.

Throwing around "newbie" could be considered an offensive word. And PLEASE, man.....use normal sized font from now on. Multiple people have asked many times. Nicely, Might I add.

Danny

21-Dec-2006, 06:40 PM

Spoken like a true prophet.:thumbsup:

Just as you say....everyone has their own opinion. Some may like Romero's films for this reason, while some may like them for that reason. But you know what? At least you can fall back on the fact that everyone here likes the majority of his films. So we all have that in common.:)

exactly ,you just gotta enjoy movies for what they are or gone on some hooper x type thing about star wars being racist

"uh, whats a nubian?"

"shut the **** up!":lol:

Deadman_Deluxe

21-Dec-2006, 06:48 PM

Hey Deadman, in your opinion, does the Friday the 13th series take place in the same timeline, or not?

Sorry man, i do not have ANY opinion on a timeline for the Friday the 13th series.

Philly_SWAT

22-Dec-2006, 12:32 AM

Well, that's convenient.

Deadman_Deluxe

22-Dec-2006, 12:57 AM

Well, that's convenient.

Come on then. Please do tell.

Firstly, why is it convenient that i do not have any opinion on any potential timeline's within the friday the 13th series?

Secondly, why are you even asking me that?

Philly_SWAT

22-Dec-2006, 05:22 AM

Come on then. Please do tell.

Firstly, why is it convenient that i do not have any opinion on any potential timeline's within the friday the 13th series?It is convenient that you have such a passionate view about the timeline of the GAR Dead series, yet none whatsoever on another popular series, therefore your views can not be examined outside a very narrow realm.

Secondly, why are you even asking me that?
I was asking that in order to examine your view outside of the very narrow realm of one series of movies. The Friday series is frought with problems, illogical premises, and total lack of cohensiveness one from movie to the next, yet, it would seem obvious to me that they are intended as, and taken as, exising in the same universe and the same timeline. So by asking your opinion of this series, I was interested to see if you would effectively apply your same ideas to that series, or if your own arguments would fall apart when reflecting against a different background. Obviously, it was a fruitless effort on my part.

EvilNed

22-Dec-2006, 11:47 AM

Deadman_Deluxe

22-Dec-2006, 01:29 PM

It is convenient that you have such a passionate view about the timeline of the GAR Dead series, yet none whatsoever on another popular series, therefore your views can not be examined outside a very narrow realm.

I don't think it is convenient. How about irrelevant?

Likewise, i do not think that repeating what GAR has already stated should instantly class my view as passionate.

I was asking that in order to examine your view outside of the very narrow realm of one series of movies. The Friday series is frought with problems, illogical premises, and total lack of cohensiveness one from movie to the next, yet, it would seem obvious to me that they are intended as, and taken as, exising in the same universe and the same timeline. So by asking your opinion of this series, I was interested to see if you would effectively apply your same ideas to that series, or if your own arguments would fall apart when reflecting against a different background. Obviously, it was a fruitless effort on my part.

I really do not know that much about F13, but i would imagine that it is "frought with problems, illogical premises, and total lack of cohensiveness one from movie to the next" mainly due to inconsistencies relating to multiple directors and writers for each episode all with their own individual ideas?

But in saying that, i doubt very much whether anything GAR has stated regarding timelines, rules, guidelines etc etc which take place within his own series would apply to ANY other series, especially a series where almost every other episode is under the creative influence of a different person with his or her own ideas.

Philly_SWAT

22-Dec-2006, 03:12 PM

I don't think it is convenient. How about irrelevant?
Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is convenient. If you were arguing about the proper way to coach an NBA team, yet were only basing your arguments on how KC Jones coached the 1980 Celtics, and would not consider any other number of coaching styles and philosophies, some would find it convenient that you refused to discuss other frames of reference in the midst of the discussion, some may find it irrelevant. To each his own.
Likewise, i do not think that repeating what GAR has already stated should instantly class my view as passionate.
Me either, I agree. If you had stated that once and that ended it, you would simply have been repeating GAR's statement. However, you have made many a post in this thread, which to me indicates, and seems to fit the definition, of a passionate view. Again, open to intrepretation, I guess.
I really do not know that much about F13, but i would imagine that it is "frought with problems, illogical premises, and total lack of cohensiveness one from movie to the next" mainly due to inconsistencies relating to multiple directors and writers for each episode all with their own individual ideas?
I would say you give an accurate idea of the problems of the Friday series. By the same token, I would say that the problems and illogical processes within the GAR dead series would relate to the series being made during mulitiple decades with limited budgets and not due to the filmmakers choosing to put the movies in "different timelines". One thing that I have mentioned before, and if you replied specifically to this I did not see it, it that just because two different movies do not relate directly to each other time-wise does not mean that they were set in a different timeline. I do not question the fact that GAR made the statements you attribute to him, just your interpretation of those statements. Another example, the movie "Point Break" starring Keanu Reeves and the movie "Flahdance" starring Jennifer Beals obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and are not trying to tie together to each other via a timeline, however, I say they both are set within the same timeline, the timeline of "real life", the timeline you and I are existing in right now. I am not saying that these stories are true, I am saying they were set in "the now". They were not set in an alternate timeline from our own, in fact, no thought whatsoever was put into timeline issues by the makers of either movie, it was just set "now". In other words, the Keanu character could meet the Beals character in that timeline, not that they ever would on screen because there is no reason for them to, but that they could, as they both exist in the same timeline.
But in saying that, i doubt very much whether anything GAR has stated regarding timelines, rules, guidelines etc etc which take place within his own series would apply to ANY other series, especially a series where almost every other episode is under the creative influence of a different person with his or her own ideas.This is true, what GAR says about his movies do not have anything to do with what happens in other series. However, to talk about timeline issues in one instance, it is relevant to discuss timeline issues in other series. I asked about the Friday series to try to expand the overall topic, not to necesarily corrolate the two series together. By GAR saying the movies are "not intended to be connecting via a direct timeline" to me does not mean they exist in different timelines anymore than Point Break and Flashdance exist in different timelines, just that they are not intended to be connected via the timeline, anymore than those movies are. They are set in the same timeline, just not suppose to be directly connected.

EvilNed

22-Dec-2006, 06:39 PM

Philly, you can't really compare Friday the 13th with the Dead series. Friday the 13th was always intended to be in a straight line. The Dead series was not.

Philly_SWAT

22-Dec-2006, 07:34 PM

Philly, you can't really compare Friday the 13th with the Dead series. Friday the 13th was always intended to be in a straight line. The Dead series was not.According to you perhaps. It makes no sense that GAR would create a story-telling universe, and then have different stories set within different timelines within that universe. Why bother creating that universe if you are not going to tell a continuing story?

Again, what I keep saying that no one responds to is the fact that just because two or more films are not directly connected via a direct timeline, does not mean they dont exist in the same timeline.

EvilFlyingCow

22-Dec-2006, 08:31 PM

According to you perhaps. It makes no sense that GAR would create a story-telling universe, and then have different stories set within different timelines within that universe. Why bother creating that universe if you are not going to tell a continuing story?

Again, what I keep saying that no one responds to is the fact that just because two or more films are not directly connected via a direct timeline, does not mean they dont exist in the same timeline.

I'm a bit late on this discussion, so pardon me if this has already been discussed. But, how could it possibly be the same timeline? Night was full of objects and styles clearly from the 1960's. Dawn had things and styles clearly from the 1970's. Day... well it could fit into several eras I suppose. But Land was clearly set in an era many years later. The nostalgia from before the outbreak of the living dead is evident in each of these films.
In my opinion, each film is set in the same universe, but are totally unrelated to each other as far as a timeline goes.

If you take, for example, a series of movies that were set in the same universe and timeline, look at Back to the Future. The film was made in 1985. The second film in the series was made in 1989, but it was set in the same timeline, and they continued to use the same styles and look of the film from 1985. The same with part 3, which was filmed in 1990.

EvilNed

22-Dec-2006, 08:52 PM

Philly_SWAT

22-Dec-2006, 11:06 PM

EvilFlyingCow pretty much hit it spot on, Philly. There's no possible way the dead films CAN exist in the same timeline, no matter how much you want it so. And there's really no way you can realistically interpret it as such, and if you do it's like trying to find the meaning of life in Zardoz. It's simply analyzing a film beyond it's limits.

I disagree. It is very simple really. GAR just choose to ignore the traditional techniques to make his films look like they are close together timewise instead of decades apart. If we were watching a period fim set in the decade of the 1950's, and way in he background of one scene, we see a 1998 Ford Mustang, should we assume some weird time-traveler must be lurking in the background of the movie, or that the film-maker simply made a mistake by having that car seen on screen? (Or a purposeful decision to leave it in, figuring in the grand scheme of the story it wasnt important, no time or money to reshoot scene, etc). When a new actor plays James Bond, are we supposed to think that the character went thru an elaborate plastic surgery to look different? Or do we suspend our disbelief, and just accept that a new actor is playing James Bond. Same for GAR films, do we assume that he created a story-telling universe, and then created separate timelines for the stories set in that universe, or that he simply ignored any effort to "timestamp" the series in a particular period, and choose to have each film just set in the now, and make social commentary of the time in which they were made.

If you take, for example, a series of movies that were set in the same universe and timeline, look at Back to the Future. The film was made in 1985. The second film in the series was made in 1989, but it was set in the same timeline, and they continued to use the same styles and look of the film from 1985. The same with part 3, which was filmed in 1990.
Ummmm......if my memory serves me, styles did not change drastically between the years of 1985 to 1990.

EvilNed

22-Dec-2006, 11:47 PM

I disagree. It is very simple really. GAR just choose to ignore the traditional techniques to make his films look like they are close together timewise instead of decades apart.

GAR did not choose to ignore the traditional techniques to make his films. That statement would have been true if GAR had actually done that, and intended for the films to be sequels to one-another. But he never did.

To GAR, he simply got chances to direct zombiefilms which is what they did. The only thing they have incommon is that they take place further and further down the line of a zombie outbreak, but there's a different zombie outbreak each time.

When you say that the director simply didn't find it important to tie the films together in a timelinelike fashion but still intended for each film to be a sequel to the previous one, you pretty much stumble on your own argument. Your center does not hold.

If GAR wanted to make another zombieflick, but wasn't ready to sacrifice artifical integrity or his budget to make it visually fit in with the previous film, why was it that he in any way at all tried to tie them together? Because as you can clearly see from the films, there is NOTHING that ties them together. So you're just seeing something you want to see, but isn't there. Like I said. It's like trying to find the meaning of life by watching Zardoz. It's not there. Neither is there a connection between GARs films, and GAR never intended there to be.

There is obviously intended to be a connection between the Bond films. You know why? The character Bond appears in all of them as a major character (so don't wave around the "Blades" reference in Land). The Bond films are neither very deep or politically involved films. They're entertainment and everybody knows it. Nobody feels the need to dwelve deep into them and ask why Bond suddenly has blonde hair.

Maybe some of us could learn a bit from the Bond fans. Don't overanalyze the Dead series of films. They're unconnected. They're split. They have zombies in them, that's it. Get over it!

coma

22-Dec-2006, 11:49 PM

If we were watching a period fim set in the decade of the 1950's, and way in he background of one scene, we see a 1998 Ford Mustang, should we assume some weird time-traveler must be lurking in the background of the movie, or that the film-maker simply made a mistake by having that car seen on screen? (Or a purposeful decision to leave it in, figuring in the grand scheme of the story it wasnt important, no time or money to reshoot scene, etc). When a new actor plays James Bond, are we supposed to think that the cha
Like Basketball Diaries. The filmmaker couldnt afford to do it period style. Contrary to what some have said here , it can cost a ton and eat up the whole budget of low budg film if you do it right without any anachronisms. His compramise was using peroid costumes, modern locations like cars and buildings, but trying to avoid an modern trappings. Before I saw it I thought it was going to be stupid, but I think it worked really well.

Deadman_Deluxe

23-Dec-2006, 01:10 AM

Philly, please ...

Remember that time you went on and on and on for months about how LAND of the dead happened before DAY of the dead?

You got LOT's of so called "evidence" together, and then it all sort of folded in on itself and didn't quite make any sense at all?

This is exactly what is happening here ... again!

... go get a beer or something ;)

In my opinion, each film is set in the same universe, but are totally unrelated to each other as far as a timeline goes.

Better late than never? ;)

You made quite a few good points, but all of those good points aside ... you are very correct in your opinion, although, ironically ... you, and myself among others, are STILL in the minority so far as this poll is concerned!

Philly_SWAT

23-Dec-2006, 05:00 PM

Philly, please ...

Remember that time you went on and on and on for months about how LAND of the dead happened before DAY of the dead?

You got LOT's of so called "evidence" together, and then it all sort of folded in on itself and didn't quite make any sense at all?
I do remember that. Well, I remember the discussion, not that it "didnt make any sense at all". I also remember how I repeated over and over that I may in fact be wrong. I was making points to support my theory, points which were roundly ignored, and refuted by arguments that amounted to "you are wrong" rather than sound points. If I was making a complex mathematical argument, for example, and them made the point "well, two plus two equals four, right?" that is an irrefutable fact. It may not prove my overall point, but it is a true fact none-the-less, however, people were refusing to acknowledge the 2+2 points that I was making, and instead, just said the overall point was wrong.

I also remember that people who believe Land happens after Day were pointing to the fact that the poll agreed with them, and that should be the end of it. Yet in this case, the poll disagrees with you, yet you continue with your theory, and dispute the poll. Hey pot, the Deadman_Deluxe kettle is calling you black. :)

The question I am trying to find your answer for, which again if you have answered I still havent seen it, is the reason I brought up the Friday the 13th question. Can two movies exist in the same timeline without necesarily relating to each other directly via a direct timeline? For example, Point Break and Flashdance, do they exist in the same timeline, or not? They do not relate to each other in any way whatsoever, yet, I say they exist in the same timeline. What is your opinion on this?

HLS

23-Dec-2006, 05:24 PM

The question I am trying to find your answer for, which again if you have answered I still havent seen it, is the reason I brought up the Friday the 13th question. Can two movies exist in the same timeline without necesarily relating to each other directly via a direct timeline? For example, Point Break and Flashdance, do they exist in the same timeline, or not? They do not relate to each other in any way whatsoever, yet, I say they exist in the same timeline. What is your opinion on this?

Well this thread has grown to be so long I am lost in it but in my opinion I think two movies can exist in the same timeline but I think they have to be directly related to one another. I do not think two movies can exist in the same timeline and not be directly related. I would need to see some more examples. I never saw Point Break. As far as Friday the 13th is concerned the series has become some what of a joke. God this thread is giving me a headache. Ugggghh. Peace:eek:

Philly_SWAT

23-Dec-2006, 05:26 PM

To GAR, he simply got chances to direct zombiefilms which is what they did. The only thing they have incommon is that they take place further and further down the line of a zombie outbreak, but there's a different zombie outbreak each time.
Your first sentence here is exactly what I am saying, he simply got the chance to direct zombie films which is what he did. He didnt put any thought into continuity of time-period stamps, ie clothing styles, technology, etc., he simply made the movies in "the now".

When you say that the director simply didn't find it important to tie the films together in a timelinelike fashion but still intended for each film to be a sequel to the previous one, you pretty much stumble on your own argument. Your center does not hold.
I have never said, in this thread or any other, that each film was a "sequel" to the others. This goes to what I am saying about people making arguments to a point that someone else is not making. I say that are in the same timeline, not that they are sequels. Flashdance and Point Break occur in the same timeline, but obviously are not sequels.

There is obviously intended to be a connection between the Bond films. You know why? The character Bond appears in all of them as a major character (so don't wave around the "Blades" reference in Land). The Bond films are neither very deep or politically involved films. They're entertainment and everybody knows it. Nobody feels the need to dwelve deep into them and ask why Bond suddenly has blonde hair.
Yes, the character of Bond appears in all films. Is there are character(s) that appear in the GAR dead films? Hmmm....lemme think.... oh yeah, the walking dead. Not specific, particular flesh-eaters, but the un-named masses that they are. And it is interesting indeed that you would so easily dismiss the "Blades" character as it does not support your argument.

The original Star Trek series was set approx. 400 years into the future, yet the "starship technology" appeared to be little more than cheap flashing lights glued to flimsy, cardboard "computers". Was this a result of Gene Rodenberry simply getting the chance to make a futuristic space series, but was limited by budget restrainsts, or was he creating a different timeline whereas in that timeline, computers looked like cheap cardboard boxes with flashing lights glued to them? When the Next Generation show came around, and he had a better budget, and the computers looked more like advanced technology, had he created a different timeline, just based on a similar idea of a Federation with a flagship named Enterprise, or was it the same timeline, and they just used the better technology that they had available to them at the time of production? When they would make the occasional reference to a "Kirk" from the past, is that something you would dismiss the same way you dismiss "Blades", or was it simpy an acknowledgement that they were in the same timeline?

EvilNed

23-Dec-2006, 06:10 PM

Your first sentence here is exactly what I am saying, he simply got the chance to direct zombie films which is what he did. He didnt put any thought into continuity of time-period stamps, ie clothing styles, technology, etc., he simply made the movies in "the now".

Great, so you agree that no specific thought was put into the timeline. Which is why they aren't in the same ones, as that would obviously create a bunch of continuity errors.

I have never said, in this thread or any other, that each film was a "sequel" to the others. This goes to what I am saying about people making arguments to a point that someone else is not making. I say that are in the same timeline, not that they are sequels. Flashdance and Point Break occur in the same timeline, but obviously are not sequels.

So unless a film states that it does not take place in another films timeline, they do for you? That's a bit wierd. Let's take a Bruce Willis movie. Anyone. In that movie, he happens to stumble upon another Bruce Willis film while zapping the television. How can those two films then take place in the same timeline? See, your argument doesn't hold.

Point Break and Flashdance don't occur in the same timeline. They're just movies.

Yes, the character of Bond appears in all films. Is there are character(s) that appear in the GAR dead films? Hmmm....lemme think.... oh yeah, the walking dead. Not specific, particular flesh-eaters, but the un-named masses that they are. And it is interesting indeed that you would so easily dismiss the "Blades" character as it does not support your argument.

No, there are no characters that tie the Dead films together. The Living Dead aren't a character. If that's the case, then xXx and The Bond Films take place in the same timeline! You know why? Both have henchmen in them! Err... That argument just doesn't work.

As for Blades. He died in the 70's, yet when he appears 30 years later he hasn't rotted awhole lot. That's why it's a reference, inside joke. Nothing more. I could accept it as an argument if Land took place in 70's. But it doesn't. It takes place "NOW" when the film was made, which happens to be the 00's. Night doesn't take place NOW in that it that it could be anywhere and anytime. It takes place in the 60's. NOW at that time.

The original Star Trek series was set approx. 400 years into the future, yet the "starship technology" appeared to be little more than cheap flashing lights glued to flimsy, cardboard "computers". Was this a result of Gene Rodenberry simply getting the chance to make a futuristic space series, but was limited by budget restrainsts, or was he creating a different timeline whereas in that timeline, computers looked like cheap cardboard boxes with flashing lights glued to them? When the Next Generation show came around, and he had a better budget, and the computers looked more like advanced technology, had he created a different timeline, just based on a similar idea of a Federation with a flagship named Enterprise, or was it the same timeline, and they just used the better technology that they had available to them at the time of production? When they would make the occasional reference to a "Kirk" from the past, is that something you would dismiss the same way you dismiss "Blades", or was it simpy an acknowledgement that they were in the same timeline?

It was the same timeline because it had the same characters. It was meant to be in the same timeline. It was meant to follow the old series. It was pretty obvious. Duh.

You can't apply stuff like that to the Dead series, because it doesn't prove anything about your view of the Dead series. It can prove a point, but no point that is relevant to this discussion.

Philly_SWAT

23-Dec-2006, 09:24 PM

So unless a film states that it does not take place in another films timeline, they do for you? That's a bit wierd. Let's take a Bruce Willis movie. Anyone. In that movie, he happens to stumble upon another Bruce Willis film while zapping the television. How can those two films then take place in the same timeline? See, your argument doesn't hold.
Apparently you miss the point entirely of what I am saying. I did not say, nor imply, that unless a film states that it does not take place in another films timeline, they do. I say by using common sense, you can tell if you movie in question is taking place in our timeline or not. I am not sure of your point about a Bruce Willis character seeing himself on TV in a movie.

Point Break and Flashdance don't occur in the same timeline. They're just movies.This shows to me that you do not underline the definition of timeline. You and I, as we sit here posting on the HPOTD, exist in a timeline. It is the only definitive, provable timeline that exists. We could make valid scientific points about other timelines exisiting, but that is not proveable. Lets call this timeline the "real" timeline (or anything else you want to call it). Hitler was a real person that led Germany back in the day in THIS timeline. Ronald Reagan was President of the United States in THIS timeline. Now, do Hitler, Ronald Reagan, or you and me sitting here posting have anything at all to do with each other? Of course not. But that are all events that occur in the same timeline, the "real" timeline. The two PARTICULAR movies that I mention, Flashdance and Point Break, exist in the story-telling same timeline. You watch those movies with the inherent understanding that in those movies, Hitler used to lead Germany, Reagan used to be President, etc. Those points are totally unimportant to the movie but they are intented to be set in our timeline, therefore, they are true to the background timeline. If we watched a movie where all of the "real" universe rules appear to apply, except that Reagan never became President but Walter Mondale did, that would be a movie existing in a different timeline. That is why I didnt use, say Blade and Superman as my two examples. They do not exist in the same timeline as us.

No, there are no characters that tie the Dead films together. The Living Dead aren't a character. If that's the case, then xXx and The Bond Films take place in the same timeline! You know why? Both have henchmen in them! Err... That argument just doesn't work.
Err...that argument does work. The difference is, in the real universe, which both xXx and the Bond movies are set in, henchmen really exist. There are henchmen roaming around in real life as we speak. As far as I know, there are no zombie outbreaks occuring here in this universe. GAR created a universe in which there is a zombie outbreak, and zombies are roaming around. There would be no need to further segregate his story-telling universe to also sub-divide that universe into separate timelines as well. The "living dead" are indeed a "character" within the movies.

As for Blades. He died in the 70's, yet when he appears 30 years later he hasn't rotted awhole lot. That's why it's a reference, inside joke. Nothing more. I could accept it as an argument if Land took place in 70's. But it doesn't. It takes place "NOW" when the film was made, which happens to be the 00's. Night doesn't take place NOW in that it that it could be anywhere and anytime. It takes place in the 60's. NOW at that time.
Here I disagree. Night could be anyplace, anytime. That is part of its allure and appeal. The idea that it could happen now, tomorrow, that your family and friends could become dead and you would have to kill them or be killed. That is the scariness of the movie. To watch it and think it is something that happened back in the 60's would remove any scariness from it, because obviously it never happened. There is no mention of it in our history.

It was the same timeline because it had the same characters. It was meant to be in the same timeline. It was meant to follow the old series. It was pretty obvious. Duh.
Duh, indeed. My point exactly in comparing it to the dead series. It is pretty obvious that the Star Trek series were intended to be in the same timeline, despite the differences in real world budgetary constraints.

You can't apply stuff like that to the Dead series, because it doesn't prove anything about your view of the Dead series. It can prove a point, but no point that is relevant to this discussion.
"Proving" anything to anyone that has already made up their mind, with no openness to changing their mind, is impossible in and of itself. The point here that is very relevant to this discussion is that Rodenberry dealt with the budget he has when he made the original series, and then the budget he had when dealing with the Next Generation. Should he have made the computers crappy looking in his newer shows just so they seemed to be in the same "timeline technology-wise" with the series he previoulsy created, or should he have done what he did? The answer seems obvious. By the same token, "Enterprise" was the newest series set in that universe/timeline, yet it takes place before any of the others, showing that just because a show/movie is made after another show/movie in that same series doesnt necesarily mean that is in cronological order with the rest.

EvilNed

23-Dec-2006, 09:57 PM

Philly_SWAT

23-Dec-2006, 11:07 PM

I'm sorry, but saying that Star Trek series take place in the same timeline even though they look different is a rather pointless argument in this debate, seeing as how Land could easily have looked 60's if GAR wanted it too. Yet it didn't. In another debate, that point might actually have proven anything. Here, it doesn't. .Ummm...couldnt Star Trek the Next Generation have easily looked like TOS is Rodenberry had wanted it to?

Accept the fact that there is nothing, apart from Blades character, that ties the movies together. And if you want to link the films together using Blades character, you have a huge continuity error going on. A movie made 20 years after another movie, which makes no effort to link itself with the previous movie, doesn't follow it. What makes Land follow Day? The zombies you say?I dont say anything makes Land follow Day, I say Day follows Land, but that is a different argument. And also, I didnt say that Blades links the movies, only that it was interesting that you dismiss that so easily. There is nothing other than Blades that ties the movies together? How about a zombie epidemic that is plaguing the world? A movie made 20 years after another does not have to make an effort to link itself with a previous movie if it is obvious. "The Two Jakes" starring Jack Nicholson was a direct sequel to "Chinatown". It was made 16 years after Chinatown, and it makes no effort to link itself to the previous movie, other than the fact that it is obvious.

Does that mean Zombie Flesh Eaters take place in the same timeline as Dawn? Or can only GAR movies that follow his rules take place in the same timeline?

Doesn't work, sorry. Your theory falls flat.
Ummm.....that isnt my theory. Whether ZFE takes place in the same timeline as GAR's movies is a totally different argument.

The problem between the two theories here is that one is based on pure fan speculation, whereas the other one is based on common sense and George A. Romero quotes. One could say that the "One timeline" theory is non-canon, since Romero is the boss of what is canon, and "seperate timeline" is canon.
I have never seen or heard anything attributed to GAR that the movies are in "separate timelines", other that they are not directly linked within the timeline, the same way Flashdance and Point Break are not directly linked within the timeline, but still exist within the same one.

However, your post wasn't complete gibberish. There was a comment I found quite fitting. It was this:
""Proving" anything to anyone that has already made up their mind, with no openness to changing their mind, is impossible in and of itself."
I offered that comment as a universal truth, in direct response to your comment that
Originally Posted by EvilNed
You can't apply stuff like that to the Dead series, because it doesn't prove anything about your view of the Dead series. It can prove a point, but no point that is relevant to this discussion.You say the point is quite fitting because you think it applies to me, yet give no indication that it applies to you as well. You specifically mentioned how what I was saying "doesnt prove anything about" my view, so I responded directly to your comment. You saying how impressed you were with that comment is designed as a sarcastic attack on me. At least I can see where you are coming from with that line of argument.

Deadman_Deluxe

23-Dec-2006, 11:10 PM

Philly_SWAT

23-Dec-2006, 11:28 PM

Just to clarify, you are wrong.

Not only that, but this is NOT just my own opinion. This is GAR's own explanation, one which he has already stated MULTIPLE times during the last two decades, including most recently, several times, on the LAND DVD commentary you seem to be avoiding ;)

You are looking to make an arguement here, when there is really nothing to argue about. GAR has already stated "what is what" regarding timelines, and you still continue to ignore his own words in favour of your own redundant theory.

That is just plain old crazy!!!!!

Drawing comparissons on GAR's "of the Dead" movies to Friday the 13th, when in reality none actually exist, and then labelling the fact that i have no opinion on friday the 13th, because i am not really a fan of Friday the 13th, as "convenient" is not really a fair way to argue ANY point.

Going on further to draw comparrison to NBA coaching tactics and Star Trek timelines, again, when no "real" comparisson can be made, only proves one thing ... you are clutching at straws.

You have already been told what GAR himself has said and you STILL choose to believe the exact opposite.

Im sorry Philly,

But when you start scraping the bottom of the barrel like this, then your case is well and truly lost, and i am out of here.

You obviously feel the need to have the last word here ... so go ahead and knock yourself out.

No hard feelings ;)
No hard feelings at all. But not to dissappoint, I will make another comment. Hopefully it is not the last word, but of course, that is up to you.

Maybe this is a more accurate analogy than the Star Trek series, Friday series, or NBA coaching strategies, at least on the point where you and I differ. Christains believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. They use "The Bible" as the official canon of their beliefs. That being said, there is great disagreement over what the bible is really saying and what it really means. There are numerous denominations of Christains who differ over the interpretation of the Bible. I could go on, but I would assume that you both understand what I am saying and agree with it.

I do not dispute that GAR has said "the movies do not connect directly via a direct timeline" or some such similiar quote. What I disagree with is what does that exactly mean. I say that Flashdance and Point Break exist in the same timeline, even though they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and that the filmmakers gave absolute zero thought to that fact (which, there is no reason to). This is the concept that you have still not responded to (and you may not, given that you are "out of here"). I interpret that as this: if we had seen the Sheriff from Night in the scene in Dawn where the rednecks, local police and National Guard were having coffee, then that would be a DIRECT connection in the timeline. If we would have seen a shot of Fran and Peter flying in a chopper past the Dead Reckoning, that would have been a DIRECT connection in the timeline. Obviously, we dont see things like that, therefore there is no DIRECT connection. But there is an INDIRECT connection of all the events in all the movies. George Washington was dead long before George Bush was even born. There is no DIRECT connection between them to suggest that they exist in the same timeline. But indirectly, if we believe out history books, they both exist(ed) in the same timeline, the one that both you and I are existing in right now. There doesnt have to be a DIRECT connection between any two things in order for them to exist in the same timeline. Everything that has happened in the history of Earth is indirectly connected in the same timeline, but a small fraction are DIRECTLY connected.

Danny

23-Dec-2006, 11:46 PM

after reading the whole page on a pc screen i now think i need glasses:D

EvilNed

23-Dec-2006, 11:59 PM

Ummm...couldnt Star Trek the Next Generation have easily looked like TOS is Rodenberry had wanted it to?

Of course he could have. But there's a difference between making a film looking ****ty and making a film take place in the 60's.

"The Two Jakes" starring Jack Nicholson was a direct sequel to "Chinatown". It was made 16 years after Chinatown, and it makes no effort to link itself to the previous movie, other than the fact that it is obvious.

Jack Nicholson stars as the same character. They both are set in the 30's. Again, a bad comparison. The Dead series doesn't have a character that link them together. The walking dead are not a character, and if you choose to have them be that, then Zombie Flesh Eaters would be set in the same timeline. Thus, it IS your argument.

I have never seen or heard anything attributed to GAR that the movies are in "separate timelines", other that they are not directly linked within the timeline, the same way Flashdance and Point Break are not directly linked within the timeline, but still exist within the same one.

Read the quotes I provided earlier. Notice the fact that Dawn takes place in the 70's and Land in the 00's. Listen to Romero state how the Zombie rules in Night do not apply in Dawn on the Land commentary.

I offered that comment as a universal truth, in direct response to your comment thatYou say the point is quite fitting because you think it applies to me, yet give no indication that it applies to you as well. You specifically mentioned how what I was saying "doesnt prove anything about" my view, so I responded directly to your comment.

So you admit you used it as a defensive attack, directed at me, yet I cannot do the same thing without it being "sarcastic"? I'm sorry, but I'm smelling a hypocrisy fart. You clearly said it in the first place to attack me, so you'll just have to play the game if you start it.

As for the fact that it applies to me, there's a difference. My theory is based on common sense and logic (not saying you're lacking either), whereas your theory is based purely on fan speculation. Why should I change my mind and accept a theory that makes no sense? Not saying it's a bad theory, it's just a theory that doesn't make any sense. Kind of like a Fulci film.

But there is an INDIRECT connection of all the events in all the movies.

That is a very good comment, and it also proves my point that the only connection you can find between the films is in the viewers own mind. Not in the creators mind, or in the films themselves.

Philly_SWAT

24-Dec-2006, 01:11 AM

Of course he could have. But there's a difference between making a film looking ****ty and making a film take place in the 60's.That is a true statement. However, Rodenberry could have made TNG look like TOS if he had wanted to. You said "I'm sorry, but saying that Star Trek series take place in the same timeline even though they look different is a rather pointless argument in this debate, seeing as how Land could easily have looked 60's if GAR wanted it too. Yet it didn't." I was being very specific as to the point you made. Doenst mean that I am right, however, I specifically addressed your point. Whether the look was ****ty or not would be a matter of opinion. You made the argument that is was a pointless argument to say that the two Trek series looking different in the same timeline because GAR could have made look 60's if he wanted to. I said that so could have Rodenberry. That does not prove my overall point, but it does show how that one specific comment you made was not a valid one to prove your point.

Jack Nicholson stars as the same character. They both are set in the 30's. Again, a bad comparison. The Dead series doesn't have a character that link them together. The walking dead are not a character, and if you choose to have them be that, then Zombie Flesh Eaters would be set in the same timeline. Thus, it IS your argument.No, it isnt. ZFE zombies are not GAR zombies. They exist in the Hinzman universe, not the GAR universe. I did not mean to say any old walking dead, but specifically GAR walking dead. This is not a bad comparison. The specific point you made was "A movie made 20 years after another movie, which makes no effort to link itself with the previous movie, doesn't follow it." I addressed your specific point. Again, that does not prove my overall view, but it shows how your argument about a movie being made approx 20 years after another with no effor to link them means it doesnt follow. When any topic is discussed in such detail, each individual point has to be examined. You can not dismiss everything the other person has to say as wrong, and that anything you say is right, even if your overall premise is correct and theirs is wrong. Your overall premise may be precisely correct, but many of your supporting arguments can be wrong.

Read the quotes I provided earlier. Notice the fact that Dawn takes place in the 70's and Land in the 00's. Listen to Romero state how the Zombie rules in Night do not apply in Dawn on the Land commentary.Again, these quotes are not the same as GAR saying "these films do not occur in the same timeline."

So you admit you used it as a defensive attack, directed at me, yet I cannot do the same thing without it being "sarcastic"? I'm sorry, but I'm smelling a hypocrisy fart. You clearly said it in the first place to attack me, so you'll just have to play the game if you start it.
Funny, I went out of my way to explain myself here, yet you did not get what I was saying. I did not say it to attack you, but to address your comment that my comparison to the Trek series did not constitute "proof" of anything relating to GAR's dead movies. My point was directly to your point about "proof", not at you personally. As I said, it is a universal truth, which applies to everyone who is so embedded in a position that they are unwilling to change their mind.

As for the fact that it applies to me, there's a difference. My theory is based on common sense and logic (not saying you're lacking either), whereas your theory is based purely on fan speculation. Why should I change my mind and accept a theory that makes no sense? Not saying it's a bad theory, it's just a theory that doesn't make any sense. Kind of like a Fulci film.My theory is based on the movies themselves. As I responded to Deadman_Deluxe, I disagree with the intrepretation of GAR's comment that "the series dont connect to each other via a DIRECT timeline". You intrepret that to mean he is saying they exist in SEPARATE timelines, I intrepret that as they exist in the same timeline, just that dont DIRECTLY connect, the same way George Washington and George Bush to do not DIRECTLY connect in our own timeline, yet they clearly exist in the same timeline. GAR could have easily said "the movies exist in totally separate timelines" if he had wanted to, yet he said "they dont connect via a direct timeline". It would be helpful here if you would answer the question, do George Washington and George Bush exist in the same timeline, even though there is no DIRECT between them?

That is a very good comment, and it also proves my point that the only connection you can find between the films is in the viewers own mind. Not in the creators mind, or in the films themselves.
That comment hardly proves your point that the only connection between the films is in the viewers own mind. Doesnt disprove it either. The comment shows that everything is the history of the world is indirectly linked and exists in the same timeline, our own timeline, the one we are currently existing in. I would assume that every rational person already automatically knows that. But there are no direct links between literally millions of things that have happened in the history of the world. That does not mean in any way that they dont exist in the same timeline. I was making a universal point about timelines, not a specific point about GAR films.

EvilFlyingCow

24-Dec-2006, 01:48 AM

However, Rodenberry could have made TNG look like TOS if he had wanted to.

In episode #130 of Star Trek: TNG, entitiled "Relics," the Enterprise discovers a ship that had crashed 75 years before. Scotty, from TOS, was on board that ship, and had survived for three quarters of a century by keeping himself suspended in molecular limbo in the ship's transporter system.

The crew beams Scotty aboard, and he is dazzled by the ship's display of 24th-century technology.

Later, he visits the Holodeck, where he has the computer simulate the Bridge of his old Enterprise. The bridge is EXACTLY like the one from TOS--fake-looking computers with flashing lights and all.

This shows that in the timeline in Star Trek, the old Enterprise really was supposed to look like that. In the timeline of the series, it wasn't until the 24th century that the computers looked like the ones on TNG.

Philly_SWAT

24-Dec-2006, 02:03 AM

In episode #130 of Star Trek: TNG, entitiled "Relics," the Enterprise discovers a ship that had crashed 75 years before. Scotty, from TOS, was on board that ship, and had survived for three quarters of a century by keeping himself suspended in molecular limbo in the ship's transporter system.

The crew beams Scotty aboard, and he is dazzled by the ship's display of 24th-century technology.

Later, he visits the Holodeck, where he has the computer simulate the Bridge of his old Enterprise. The bridge is EXACTLY like the one from TOS--fake-looking computers with flashing lights and all.

This shows that in the timeline in Star Trek, the old Enterprise really was supposed to look like that. In the timeline of the series, it wasn't until the 24th century that the computers looked like the ones on TNG.
Umm...that does not mean that. Even 10 years ago, in our own real universe, computers looked much better than the ones on Star Trek TOS. There was an episode of Deep Space Nine, dont remember the episode title or number, but the crew had to go back in time to correct some devious activities by time-travlers "mucking up" the timeline. They went back to the time of "The Trouble with Tribbles." They very cleverly spliced footage from the original series with new footage from the new crew. If you recall, Kligons in the original series looked just like humans, they just had fu-man-chu mustaches. What it the likilhood of that? Not likely, that was due to budgetary restraints. When TNG started, and in all series after that, the bigger budgets allowed for more elaborate Klingon make-up, the big ridges on the forehead, the bigger teeth, ridged noses, etc. There is a scene where the DS9 crew, including Worf, were hiding under a table as the fight between humans and Klingons breaks out in TOS. The other crewmen look at the fight, then look at Worf, and without saying a word, you see by the look on their faces that they are saying "ummm...how come those Klingons looks like humans with fu-man-chus and you dont?" Worf looks at them and say "Dont ask". It was a funny line, necesary in that particular episode. It was not meant to be implied that the Klingon looked had changed so drastically in 80 years, but that the budget of the shows had. In TNG episode "Relics" that you mention (which is a great episode btw) it would have made no sense to have Scotty go to a bridge that didnt look like the bridge of the 1701. They could have even had him go to the bridge of the 1701-B or something, but the casual TV fan associates the old look of the bridge to the original crew, therefore a good choice was made to show that bridge. Your same argument here would seem to suggest that when we see a bunch of boulders falling off a mountain in TOS, and they bounce like cheap paper machette props, that we are suppose to assume that "rocks in the Star Trek universe looked like that in the 23 century", rather than know that it was due to a lack of budget.

Danny

24-Dec-2006, 05:18 AM

When TNG started, and in all series after that, the bigger budgets allowed for more elaborate Klingon make-up, the big ridges on the forehead, the bigger teeth, ridged noses, etc. There is a scene where the DS9 crew, including Worf, were hiding under a table as the fight between humans and Klingons breaks out in TOS. The other crewmen look at the fight, then look at Worf, and without saying a word, you see by the look on their faces that they are saying "ummm...how come those Klingons looks like humans with fu-man-chus and you dont?" Worf looks at them and say "Dont ask". It was a funny line, necesary in that particular episode. It was not meant to be implied that the Klingon looked had changed so drastically in 80 years, but that the budget of the shows had.

i aint a major star trek fan but ive seen a lot of the re-runs and i think that one was explained in enterprise, they needed a vaccine for...something i cant remember and that archer guy let them use his DNA for it, which cured them but meant that for a few generations klingons would have a humanoid appearance.

...or something like that.

_liam_

24-Dec-2006, 11:03 AM

what the hell are you even debating...the production design in the original star trek series looks kinda tacky because it was a low budget television program made over 40 years ago at a time when most of the technology it concerned itself with was in it's infancy.

TNG and subsequent series look different because theyre set a fair few decades (even a century?) later, and also because they had more money and were produced in a more technologically sophisticated era.

i think that's a slightly more reasonable conclusion than assuming they take place in different universes...

enterprise looks more advanced than TOS because the producers kinda cocked it up, and couldnt control themselves.

but aye, in response to the original question, i reckon it's the same universe but different timelines, cos to me the world feels a bit more screwed over in day than it does in land.

EvilNed

24-Dec-2006, 03:11 PM

Lots of text about Gene Roddenberry

The Star Trek argument was pretty invalid to begin with, so I won't take that any further before we go into stuff like Firefly and Andromeda. I think the Star Trek argument is faulty by default, since it does not tie into the Dead universe in anyway except for the budget reasons. Technology advances, there's no denying it. But unlike Gene, Romero made no point to tie his films/series together.

As others have already pointed out, the Star Trek argument is just rather silly.

Lots of text about ZFE, Hinzman and GAR universe

Here I disagree with you, and I think you are contradicting yourself. You claim that the walking dead tie the films together. Which is true, there is noway anybody can dismiss that. But the walking dead also link ZFE movies together, as well as the Russo films (had forgotten about those). Since ZFE was made as a deliberate sequel to Dawn, then why can't it take place in the same timeline? It makes more sense than Dawn and Day being in the same timeline.

Again, these quotes are not the same as GAR saying "these films do not occur in the same timeline."

No offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be satisfied by any quotes until you specifically hear GAR say "These movies are not in the same timeline". The timeline discussion is just one we have here, at HPOTD. It's obvious GAR made no attempt or had no intention to tie the films together. His comments clearly indicate that, altough not SUPER specifically.

Funny, I went out of my way to explain myself here, yet you did not get what I was saying. I did not say it to attack you, but to address your comment that my comparison to the Trek series did not constitute "proof" of anything relating to GAR's dead movies. My point was directly to your point about "proof", not at you personally. As I said, it is a universal truth, which applies to everyone who is so embedded in a position that they are unwilling to change their mind.

But if you adress the proof I lay forth, you're obviously attacking me since that comment was directed at none other than me. Universal truth or not, you were clearly trying to attack or at least poke at me.

Do you think Night and Land take place within 3 years of each other? No, anyone with eyes could tell you that. Thus, the same-timeline question is faulty by default. Even GAR realized this, and that's why he never had the intention to tie the films together. Which is what his comments are all about

That comment hardly proves your point that the only connection between the films is in the viewers own mind. Doesnt disprove it either.

The only true fact we know is that the logical thing is that the same-timeline theory is based on speculation, whereas the different-timeline theory is based more on what we see in the films themselves (and what Romero says). Which is what your comment summed up.

Philly_SWAT

24-Dec-2006, 09:04 PM

As others have already pointed out, the Star Trek argument is just rather silly.The only way I can see how people would say it is silly is because it doesnt support their position. Technology is used as an argument to support the idea that GAR's movies cant exist in the same timeline, but are silly when using the exact same reference to Star Trek?

Here I disagree with you, and I think you are contradicting yourself.
I disagree.

No offense, but something tells me you wouldn't be satisfied by any quotes until you specifically hear GAR say "These movies are not in the same timeline".
No offense taken. The "something" that tells you that is more than likely my posts. You arguments are based on GAR's own statements, why then didnt he simply just say precisely that? If you put so much weight into what he says, how about actually taking into accont exactly what he did say, not intrepretating what he said as supporting your theory?

Do you think Night and Land take place within 3 years of each other? No, anyone with eyes could tell you that. I guess the majority of people who voted in the poll have no eyes then, by this argument.

The timeline discussion is just one we have here, at HPOTD.Ummm...isnt that type of discussion the purpose of this site? ISnt that what we are doing?

The only true fact we know is that the logical thing is that the same-timeline theory is based on speculation, whereas the different-timeline theory is based more on what we see in the films themselves (and what Romero says). Which is what your comment summed up. I almost agree with this statement. I would say that more accurately, that the only true fact we know is that the logical thing is that the different-timeline theory is based on speculation, whereas the same-timeline theory is based more on what we see in the films themselves (and what Romero says). This is what my comment summed up. And the majority seem to agree with me.

EvilNed

25-Dec-2006, 01:13 PM

The only way I can see how people would say it is silly is because it doesnt support their position. Technology is used as an argument to support the idea that GAR's movies cant exist in the same timeline, but are silly when using the exact same reference to Star Trek?

Because it has already been explained a zillion times that first off, the Next Generation series takes place (you guessed it) a generation after the first one. Which could explain the somewhat niced technology. And secondly, there are characters that bind the Star Trek series together. There is nothing like that in the Dead series. You say the zombies, but the zombies are also in other films. Yet they aren't tied together? Hence; You contradicting yourself.

No offense taken. The "something" that tells you that is more than likely my posts. You arguments are based on GAR's own statements, why then didnt he simply just say precisely that? If you put so much weight into what he says, how about actually taking into accont exactly what he did say, not intrepretating what he said as supporting your theory?

I'm not intepretating. The only one who is doing that is you, you interpret them to something that suits your style. He clearly says that the movies were NOT INTENDED TO BE SEQUELS. He also said THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY. What do YOU think he meant by that?

I guess the majority of people who voted in the poll have no eyes then, by this argument.

I love when I can say something like this:

The majority of people who voted in this poll are... wrong. I'm right.

I almost agree with this statement. I would say that more accurately, that the only true fact we know is that the logical thing is that the different-timeline theory is based on speculation, whereas the same-timeline theory is based more on what we see in the films themselves (and what Romero says). This is what my comment summed up. And the majority seem to agree with me.

There is nothing in the films that suggest that they take place in the same timeline. Quite the opposite. Land obviously takes place 3 years after an outbreak, but 30 years after Dawn. Again, you ignore Romero's comments.

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this.

Philly_SWAT

26-Dec-2006, 05:20 AM

Because it has already been explained a zillion times that first off, the Next Generation series takes place (you guessed it) a generation after the first one. Which could explain the somewhat niced technology. And secondly, there are characters that bind the Star Trek series together. There is nothing like that in the Dead series. You say the zombies, but the zombies are also in other films. Yet they aren't tied together? Hence; You contradicting yourself.
So I am contradicting myself by saying that since zombies exist in the GAR series, and other films, yet they are not connected, but you did NOT contradict yourself when you said that henchmen being in the Bond films, and henchmen being in other films does not tie them together? ALLL_RIGHTY then. Also, what you point out is not a "contradiction". There are background crewmen in both Star Trek and Babylon 5. Does that tie them together?

I'm not intepretating. The only one who is doing that is you, you interpret them to something that suits your style. He clearly says that the movies were NOT INTENDED TO BE SEQUELS. He also said THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY. What do YOU think he meant by that?I have never said they are sequels. I have stated over and over that movies can exist in the same timeline without directly connecting to each other. Do you disagree? Also, when/where did GAR say they are not connected in ANY way?

I love when I can say something like this:

The majority of people who voted in this poll are... wrong. I'm right.
Well, with this type of thought-process, I guess you are right in any argument that you ever choose to make.

There is nothing in the films that suggest that they take place in the same timeline. Quite the opposite. Land obviously takes place 3 years after an outbreak, but 30 years after Dawn. Again, you ignore Romero's comments.Obvious to you perhaps.

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this. The ONLY thing that binds them together is speculation? Same director? No binding? A large number of the same people working behind the scenes? No binding? The names of the films, Night, Dawn, Day, following the progression of time passing? No binding? Living dead walking the earth looking to eat warm, living flesh? No binding?

There is nothing in the bible that "proves" God exists, but does he? There is nothing in the Godfather films that "prove" an Attorney General of the United States exists, but do you think there is one in the Godfather universe? There is nothing in the Rocky series that "proves" Rocky Balboa had a mother, do you think he did, or did he appear magically in a hospital one day? There is nothing in the HPOTD that "proves" that "Neil" owns the site, but does he?

EvilNed

26-Dec-2006, 12:14 PM

So I am contradicting myself by saying that since zombies exist in the GAR series, and other films, yet they are not connected, but you did NOT contradict yourself when you said that henchmen being in the Bond films, and henchmen being in other films does not tie them together? ALLL_RIGHTY then. Also, what you point out is not a "contradiction".

Haha, no offense but you're kind of lost on this argument. I never claimed that agent films weren't tied together. Infact I suggested that by your logic, they WERE.

If Zombies tie films together, then Zombie Flesh Eaters take place in the same timeline as Dawn of the Dead. But it really doesn't.

I have never said they are sequels. I have stated over and over that movies can exist in the same timeline without directly connecting to each other. Do you disagree? Also, when/where did GAR say they are not connected in ANY way?

But the Dead films obviously do not take place in the same time, or timeline. As for GAR comments, the Land commentary.

Well, with this type of thought-process, I guess you are right in any argument that you ever choose to make.

The majority of arguments I choose to partake in aren't as one-sided as this one. The problem here is that the side I'm against doesn't really have any proof, which makes it hard to disprove it when there's nothing to disprove.

Obvious to you perhaps.

Have you seem the film? There are radars and rockettanks in Land. The most advanced thing in Dawn are the 'fros.

The ONLY thing that binds them together is speculation? Same director? No binding? A large number of the same people working behind the scenes? No binding?

Oh, so that means Friday the 13th Part 2 and Halloween H20 are connected? They have the same director after all. Again, those bindings can be found in an abundant of films. But all those films AREN'T connected with the Dead films, are they? Otherwise, where would you say Creepshow ties in in the Romero timeline?

[QUOTE]There is nothing in the bible that "proves" God exists, but does he? There is nothing in the Godfather films that "prove" an Attorney General of the United States exists, but do you think there is one in the Godfather universe? There is nothing in the Rocky series that "proves" Rocky Balboa had a mother, do you think he did, or did he appear magically in a hospital one day? There is nothing in the HPOTD that "proves" that "Neil" owns the site, but does he?[QUOTE]

No, I fail to see what all those things aid your argument? Are you confirming the fact that your theory is only based on speculation?

Philly_SWAT

26-Dec-2006, 02:31 PM

About the only way to respond to your post is to pose to you this idea. Let's assume for a minute that your overall premise, that GAR's movies do not take place in the same timeline is 100% correct, and that my premise, that they do take place in the same timeline, is 100% wrong. But we both enjoy posting on HPOTD and we continue to make arguments to rebut each other. But even though your premise is 100% correct, that does not automatically mean that all of your supporting arguments are correct. Any discussion, whether on an internet message board, or in real life in person, that continues for a long time are bound to have points made to support the underlying premise that are faulty, and not good arguments. It is not like we are putting in hours of research like a lawyer preparing a brief to make sure it is 100% airtight, we are simply "talking" off the top of our heads. There is bound to be missteps, lapses in logic, that take place in our supporting arguments, regardless of the strengths of our overall premise. I say all that because it seems to me that you think every point you make it correct, simply because your overall premise is correct. If that is the case, then I would suggest that even though I am enjoying the debate, perhaps we should end it. With these thoughts in mind I will reply specifically to your post.

Haha, no offense but you're kind of lost on this argument. I never claimed that agent films weren't tied together. Infact I suggested that by your logic, they WERE.

If Zombies tie films together, then Zombie Flesh Eaters take place in the same timeline as Dawn of the Dead. But it really doesn't.
By saying you "never claimed agent films werent tied together", by distancing yourself from that, are you saying that they are? That a non-Bond film from the 1950's and the newest Bond film are connected in the same timeline because of agents? I dont think you actually think that, but otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. By your same technology arguments, the technology in the early Bond films, one of which I just watched the other day, are far cheesier and weaker than the newer ones. Does that mean that Bond is over 100 years old, and just looks good? Again, I think not. And after the first time you mentioned the whole ZFE thing, I specifically said that "GAR zombies" are one of the things that tie the series together, not any old zombies. Your suggestion that "zombies" can not be used to tie GAR's movies together unless they tie all zombie movies together is faulty. Any disinterested witness to this discussion would agree with that.

But the Dead films obviously do not take place in the same time, or timeline. As for GAR comments, the Land commentary.
The next time I listen to the Land commentary, I will see if I hear him say that. But again, you say "comments". I was asking about the specific comment that you attributed to GAR, and put in all caps, THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY. Your other comment there was that they are not intended to be sequels, an idea that I said I never supported. It would not make sense that GAR would say his dead films are not connected in ANY way, that is absurd. Any casual viewer would see at the least a small association with each film. And I cant believe that you actually think that they are not connected in ANY way. The use of the word "ANY" is a very absolute term.

The majority of arguments I choose to partake in aren't as one-sided as this one. The problem here is that the side I'm against doesn't really have any proof, which makes it hard to disprove it when there's nothing to disprove.
Your assertion that the argument is "one-sided" is refuted by your opinon being in the MINORITY. The "proof" is in common sense and the movies themselves.

Have you seem the film? There are radars and rockettanks in Land. The most advanced thing in Dawn are the 'fros.A very humorous and sarcastic point on your point (nothing wrong with that). However, when watching many movies, as a viewer you are required to "suspend your disbelief". These elements are unimportant in establishing a timeline in GAR's movies. Look at Star Trek. I dont mean tie together the various series, I mean look at any one particular episode of TOS. When that show was made in the 1960's, computers that actually existed, although very large compared to today, were in fact made of metal shells, and were quite heavy and hard to move. On the show, you could see them move sometimes when someone bumped into them. And not "move" the way a heavy table can move when you bump into it hard, but move it the way a lightweight cardboard box would move. Are we to take that as a sign that Rodenberry created a timeline where a ship was capable of moving faster than the speed of light in outer space, yet had filmsy balsa wood computers guilding them? Or should we suspend our disbelief and accept that his low budget negated the ability to even have sturdy prop computers?

Oh, so that means Friday the 13th Part 2 and Halloween H20 are connected? They have the same director after all. Again, those bindings can be found in an abundant of films. But all those films AREN'T connected with the Dead films, are they? Otherwise, where would you say Creepshow ties in in the Romero timeline?
Here you are trying so hard to not accept ANYTHING I say as accurate, you start to make less and less sense. The point that you made was "The only thing that binds the films together is speculation." You use the word "only", again an absolute. If you are going to use an absolute word such as "nothing, never, always, impossible, etc" in any argument, generally you can expect yourself to be wrong. I did not say, nor imply, that simply having the same director ties two movies together in a timeline. I was specifically addressing your point that the "only" thing that binds the films together is speculation.

No, I fail to see what all those things aid your argument? Are you confirming the fact that your theory is only based on speculation? Here lies the problem. You fail to see how all those things "aid my argument". Well, they do not aid my overall premise that GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline (or detract from it). They do specifically address your specific point in reference to my assertion that the GAR dead movies do in fact take place in the same timeline "There is nothing IN the films that prove this." Again, I dont know if you are closely reading what I am saying, but I am reading closely what you are saying. You said there was nothing IN the films that prove my point. I replied to that specific claim with a series of points, like there is nothing IN the Rocky series that proves he has a mother. Do not confuse statements specifically commenting on a specific comment of yours to be "proof" of the overall topic. I say that in fact there are things in GAR's dead movies that DO support the same timeline concept, but that was not my argument here. I was showing by example how just because there is nothing in a film to "prove" one point or another, it does does logically follow then that the point is "disproved".

EvilNed

26-Dec-2006, 06:29 PM

I can admit that alot of my own arguments are inaccurate of can be disproven, at which point I'll admit so and say it. But so far I've yet feel the urge to step down a stool on any of the points and say "Hmm, I can see where you are going on this, maybe I was wrong". Mostly because, well to be frank, you keep putting forth awhole lot of nonsense that doesn't really apply.

Also, I will not reply specifically to your post, mostly because that way we get carried away in a bunch of smaller arguments that will end up going absolutley nowhere. I have a feeling that it'll eventually evolve into something nasty, and when I look at our latest posts I can already see that the first step has been taken down that route. None of those points will prove you wrong, me right or anything else. But I will have to say that there's alot, ALOT of mumbo-jumbo going on. I'll quote you on a few places, where I'll just ask you to explain exactly how this fits in with the Dead legacy.

... I replied to that specific claim with a series of points, like there is nothing IN the Rocky series that proves he has a mother. Do not confuse statements specifically commenting on a specific comment of yours to be "proof" of the overall topic. I say that in fact there are things in GAR's dead movies that DO support the same timeline concept, but that was not my argument here. I was showing by example how just because there is nothing in a film to "prove" one point or another, it does does logically follow then that the point is "disproved".

This bit, I find to be a totally irrelevant argument, as there is neither anything in the Rocky films that suggests that he does NOT have a mother. We can thus assume that he has one. But there are things in the Dead films that suggest that indeed, these films do NOT take place in the same timeline. So therefore such an argument cannot be used.

Let's continue along these lines, shall we? I agree that there are of course things that tie the films together on a superficial and trivial basis, but I thought we could pretty much see past these things. I mean The Rock is tied in with Bad Boys 2 on a superficial basis. Both have explosions and both are directed by Michael Bay. But apart from that, there really isn't anything that would make them connected. The same could go for Romero's Dead series. There's zombies in all of them. They are all directed by George A. Romero. In Land Tom Savini plays a zombie that resembles his character in Dawn. That's pretty much the end of it. If we take these three things as the only thing that definetly ties the films together, they can easily be countered by more logical things. Such as the incredible leap of technology between the films.

If I made a film set in Medieval times with zombies in it, and then had the next one set in Renaissance times, nobody would actually believe they were tied together (Unless they were really poorly educated, of course). Even IF Jeremy Irons played a character in both films, and even if both films had, I don't know, evil turks as the villains or something. People would probably realize that there was a superficial connection between them, and recognize that connection in reviews and such. But nobody would actually believe that the later Renaissance film was a continuation of the story in the Medieval film.

In the same way that Day is not a continuation of Dawn. In anyway. Zombies tie them together. Yes. But zombies also tie Zombie Flesh Eaters and Dawn together, and the ZFE zombies follow GAR rules as far as I know.

Your assertion that the argument is "one-sided" is refuted by your opinon being in the MINORITY. The "proof" is in common sense and the movies themselves.

Again, look at the Medieval - Renaissance prespective. If 19 voted that those two films took place in the same timeline they would still be wrong. Even IF they were the majority.

Philly_SWAT

27-Dec-2006, 12:06 AM

This bit, I find to be a totally irrelevant argument, as there is neither anything in the Rocky films that suggests that he does NOT have a mother. We can thus assume that he has one. But there are things in the Dead films that suggest that indeed, these films do NOT take place in the same timeline. So therefore such an argument cannot be used.
Here is where you are not being specific enough. You say such an argument can not be used, can not be used for what? If you mean it can not be used to suggest that GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline, you are correct. If you mean that argument cant be used to suggest that just because a point in a film isnt PROVED therfore by definition it is DISPROVED, then you are incorrect. I was refuting your specific claim. Forget GAR's dead movies, this applies to all movies.

I mean The Rock is tied in with Bad Boys 2 on a superficial basis. Both have explosions and both are directed by Michael Bay. But apart from that, there really isn't anything that would make them connected. The same could go for Romero's Dead series.
I can not believe that you actually think there is no more a connection between GAR's dead movies than there is between Bad Boys 2 and The Rock.

If we take these three things as the only thing that definetly ties the films together, they can easily be countered by more logical things.
Why would we take those three things as the only things that tie the films together?

Such as the incredible leap of technology between the films. Lets say that a young 20 year old decides to make a series of films that tells a continuing story. The filmmaker is telling the story of a specific event, with different characters in each film, but they exist in the same universe and timeline, according to the filmmakers desire. But due to lack of money, lack of proper distribution, etc. he takes his time and makes the three films when he gets the chance to . By the time he finishes his third film, 30 years has passed. He used the technology that existed at the time he was making the three films in his films, therefore, there are technological tools that appear in the third film that did not even exist at the time he made the first one. This is not GAR's stoy, just a made up example. In this case, do these three films take place in the same timeline or not? If this was a specific choice by the filmaker to just make the movies using technology available at the time, and ignore the technology implications as relating to timeline, do they exist in the same timeline because that was the stated desire of the individual filmmaker, or do they exist in separate timelines because EvilNed says it makes no sense that technology advanced so quick in a series that supposedly takes place within a three year period?

In the same way that Day is not a continuation of Dawn. In anyway. Zombies tie them together. Yes. But zombies also tie Zombie Flesh Eaters and Dawn together, and the ZFE zombies follow GAR rules as far as I know.
Your argument in this area make no sense to me. There is a difference between movies being "tied together" and existing in the same timeline, which is what we have been discussing. You say Day is not a continuation of Dawn. I agree. That does not mean they dont exist in the same timeline. Take these two films, "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Full Metal Jacket". Bridge was made in 1957 about prisoners in WWII being forced to built a bridge. Jacket was made in 1987 about recruits going thru training at Paris Island and later being in Viet Nam. They were made by totally different directors, actors, crew, etc. with different story-telling goals in mind. They are only "tied together" superifically, they are war movies with people being killed, etc. Yet, both movies exist in the same timeline. They are stories about events that took place in the past in our own current timeline. Whether the events in the movies are 100% historically accurate or not doesnt matter, they are intended to be stories, whether true or made up, that exist in the same timeline we exist in, set in the past. Whether this "proves or disproves" anything about GAR's movies here is not my point. My point is that two movies can be in the same timeline regardless of how they are "tied together" or not.

EvilNed

27-Dec-2006, 12:06 PM

Here is where you are not being specific enough. You say such an argument can not be used, can not be used for what? If you mean it can not be used to suggest that GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline, you are correct. If you mean that argument cant be used to suggest that just because a point in a film isnt PROVED therfore by definition it is DISPROVED, then you are incorrect. I was refuting your specific claim. Forget GAR's dead movies, this applies to all movies.

We're not discussing ALL movies, we're discussing GAR's movies. At least I am. But if you wish it, yes alright. That logic might be applied to some movies, but as I've already said they don't work here.

I can not believe that you actually think there is no more a connection between GAR's dead movies than there is between Bad Boys 2 and The Rock.

There isn't.

Why would we take those three things as the only things that tie the films together?

Can you think of more? And I'm not looking for stuff like "the color blue is in both Dawn and Land".

Lots of timeline text

If a movie is tied together with characters or a plot and if the moviemakers intended for you to just suspend your disbelief. Then yes, they could take place in the same timeline, but it wouldn't be relevant.

I don't know why you brought that up, tho, because it has nothing to do with the Dead series. Which is what I am discussing.

Full Metal Jacket and Bridge over River Kwai

First off, those two films are only set in the same timeline if you wish it. But a movie is always just a movie, and wether or not it ties into another films timeline is entirely up to the director, even if you can wish to view it as such should you disagree with him.

As you said. They are intended to be stories, seperate from each other. Timeline questions are irrelevant.

Philly_SWAT

27-Dec-2006, 01:22 PM

Maybe you disagree that when discussing a certain topic, it is relevant to bring examples into the discussion to illustrate what you are trying to say when talking only of the main topic does not seem to be illustrating your point. In my experience, whether discussing movies, things in the workplace, or personal issues, most people use examples and think that doing so is worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Philly_SWAT
Here is where you are not being specific enough. You say such an argument can not be used, can not be used for what? If you mean it can not be used to suggest that GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline, you are correct. If you mean that argument cant be used to suggest that just because a point in a film isnt PROVED therfore by definition it is DISPROVED, then you are incorrect. I was refuting your specific claim. Forget GAR's dead movies, this applies to all movies.

We're not discussing ALL movies, we're discussing GAR's movies. At least I am. But if you wish it, yes alright. That logic might be applied to some movies, but as I've already said they don't work here.
Not only does this logic apply to all movies, it applies to just about everything in life. Just because something isnt proved doesnt mean by definition that the same something is disproved. To me this is a simple and straight forward concept. For you to refuse to acknowledge this point makes it appear that you are so hellbent on your overall point that GARs dead movies take place in different timelines that you are unwilling to admit to anything that might in any way cast the smallest shread of doubt on that idea. One example is this: I think that when I die I am going to heaven. I can not prove this. According to you, therefore that theory is disproved. I may or may not be going to heaven when I die, but the fact that I cant prove it doesnt by definition mean that it is disproved. I could give hundreds of examples of not being able to prove something, yet that doesnt mean that something is disproved. I can not think of one example of something that can not be proved, therefore by definition it is disproved.

I can not believe that you actually think there is no more a connection between GAR's dead movies than there is between Bad Boys 2 and The Rock

There isn't.
This is so rediculous that I wont even try to comment.

There's zombies in all of them. They are all directed by George A. Romero. In Land Tom Savini plays a zombie that resembles his character in Dawn. That's pretty much the end of it.

Why would we take those three things as the only things that tie the films together?

Can you think of more? And I'm not looking for stuff like "the color blue is in both Dawn and Land".
1. All the films show how the living are trying to combat the threat of a zombie apocalypse
2. All the films take place in various stages of said apocalypse
3. All the films provide social commentary about the times in which they were made
4. They are all set within the same universe. And not an all encompassing universe, such as our own real universe, but a very narrow universe created by GAR where the dead walk and want to attack the living
5. The use of the progression of time passing in the names of the first three, Night, Dawn, Day
There's five more

Lots of timeline text

If a movie is tied together with characters or a plot and if the moviemakers intended for you to just suspend your disbelief. Then yes, they could take place in the same timeline, but it wouldn't be relevant.

I don't know why you brought that up, tho, because it has nothing to do with the Dead series. Which is what I am discussing.
So you finally admit that films can with vastly differing technology can exist in the same timeline. That was the only reason I was using the Star Trek arguments to begin with. I brought up the "lots of timeline text", as I mention in the beginning of this post, as an example to illistrate what I am saying in regards to the topic at hand, the Dead series. By agreeing that the two theoretical examples I created could take place in the same timeline makes it hard to understand why you so easily dismiss that the GAR movies could also take place in the same timeline. Not that they do, but that they could. Even if GAR himself made some comment that could be interpreted that the films dont exist in the same timeline, a possibility exists that he mispoke. Have you ever mispoke anything in your life? Most people have.

Full Metal Jacket and Bridge over River Kwai

First off, those two films are only set in the same timeline if you wish it. But a movie is always just a movie, and wether or not it ties into another films timeline is entirely up to the director, even if you can wish to view it as such should you disagree with him.

As you said. They are intended to be stories, seperate from each other. Timeline questions are irrelevant.
Any movie that is made to be a regular story, and especially ones made to reflect specific events in human history, would have to be considered in the same timeline. Do you not understand that we, you and I, are existing within the same timeline right now? The "real" timeline? And that most movies are set in that timeline? Timeline questions are irrelevant, but there really is no question. They are set in the "real" timeline, therefore they are set in the same timeline. The fact that I dont want to die is irrelevant to the point that I am going to die. But it is still a fact that I dont want to die.

At some point millions of years ago, this planet came into being. God created it, there was a "big bang", whatever. From that point until now is all in the same timeline. If two movies are set withing that timeline, then they exist in that timeline. It may not be relevant that those two movies exist in the same timeline, but it is a fact none-the-less.

EvilNed

27-Dec-2006, 05:36 PM

Dude.

Stop it. You're trying to hard. And so am I, for that matter.

1. All the films show how the living are trying to combat the threat of a zombie apocalypse
2. All the films take place in various stages of said apocalypse
3. All the films provide social commentary about the times in which they were made
4. They are all set within the same universe. And not an all encompassing universe, such as our own real universe, but a very narrow universe created by GAR where the dead walk and want to attack the living
5. The use of the progression of time passing in the names of the first three, Night, Dawn, Day
There's five more

Bad Boys 2 and The Rock:

1. Both are about terrorists.
2. Both have two main characters who keep being at odds with one another.
3. They are both set within the same universe (something the Dead films are not, at least not Night and the rest of them. Dawn-Land maybe, but not Night, see Romero's comments on why).

Point five is very thin, so I think you should strike that one.

As you can see, such connections can be found anywhere.

And yes, technology can exist at different stages throughout the same timeline, but only if it's A) explained why it is so or B) obvious that you're really not supposed to care. In Land in particular, the technology plays a serious ROLE in the movie itself! And all of the films are clearly made in different times and are all comments on those times. Mashing them together in one timeline is just silly as they obviously don't belong there. Again. Fro's in Dawn, Tanks in Land.

At some point millions of years ago, this planet came into being. God created it, there was a "big bang", whatever. From that point until now is all in the same timeline. If two movies are set withing that timeline, then they exist in that timeline. It may not be relevant that those two movies exist in the same timeline, but it is a fact none-the-less.

Again, I disagree. A film, just because it's set in reality, does not tie together in with another films timeline and I don't see why it should. Of course, unless it's explained as such.

As for your Proven until Disproven theory, that's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo man. I realize you're only bringing it out to prove a point, but it proves absolutly nothing about the Dead films since it's already proven in them that they do not take place in the same timeline (see Fro's vs Tanks).

Philly_SWAT

27-Dec-2006, 10:40 PM

Dude.

Stop it. You're trying to hard. And so am I, for that matter.
Well, feel free to stop anytime.

Bad Boys 2 and The Rock:

1. Both are about terrorists.
2. Both have two main characters who keep being at odds with one another.
3. They are both set within the same universe (something the Dead films are not, at least not Night and the rest of them. Dawn-Land maybe, but not Night, see Romero's comments on why).
So now you say GARs films are not even set in the same universe. So I guess that you are the one person who voted that the films take place in different universes and different timelines.

Point five is very thin, so I think you should strike that one.So films titles of movies have no bearing on connecting them?

As you can see, such connections can be found anywhere. Yes, the same way conspiracies can be found everywhere if you are looking for them. Doenst make them true.

And yes, technology can exist at different stages throughout the same timeline, but only if it's A) explained why it is so or B) obvious that you're really not supposed to care. In Land in particular, the technology plays a serious ROLE in the movie itself! And all of the films are clearly made in different times and are all comments on those times. Mashing them together in one timeline is just silly as they obviously don't belong there. Again. Fro's in Dawn, Tanks in Land.
Would you have been more happy as a viewer if GAR had used 60's technology with Land? Would people have been as likely to part with their hard earned money to view a film such as this set in the 60's in 2005? I would think it is obvious that there are real world implications when making a movie, making money being at or near the top of the list. PS - Tanks existed in the 1970's when Dawn was made, we just didnt see any on screen.

Again, I disagree. A film, just because it's set in reality, does not tie together in with another films timeline and I don't see why it should. Of course, unless it's explained as such.
Again, I think you are confusing "tying in" together with simply "existing" together. The only way that you and I are "tied in" to our existing timeline is superficially that we both post on the HPOTD. But we both "exist" in the same timeline.

As for your Proven until Disproven theory, that's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo man. I realize you're only bringing it out to prove a point, but it proves absolutly nothing about the Dead films since it's already proven in them that they do not take place in the same timeline (see Fro's vs Tanks). It is not mumbo jumbo, or even a theory, it is a fact. You claimed that because something was not proved in GARs movies, therefore it was disproved. It is a fact that just because something is not proved, does not mean it is disproved. Again, even if your overall point is correct it does not mean all your supporting statements are automatically correct. And I guess is someone were to make a movie set in 2006 in the current Iraq conflict, and a bunch of the characters had "Fro's", then you would say it is obivous that the film takes place in a different universe and a different timeline.

EvilNed

27-Dec-2006, 11:12 PM

I never claimed anything was disproven just because it wasn't proven. I'm just jumping to logical conclusions. I thought you were reading my posts, or are you just interpreting them? :p

So now you say GARs films are not even set in the same universe. So I guess that you are the one person who voted that the films take place in different universes and different timelines.

Truth be told, I can't even remember what I voted for anymore. But it was either that or the same universe, different timeline one. To be honest, the universe question is rather irrelevant to me. I don't give a damn about it since it doesn't change anything.

I'm leaning towards what Alive Man said about there having to be different universes for different timelines now. But to be honest, it just DOESN'T MATTER.

So films titles of movies have no bearing on connecting them?

Oh. I never realized Return of the Living Dead was a sequel to Night of the Living Dead... Hmmm....

And again, the existing together on River Kwai and Full Metal Jacket is irrelevant and they were never intended to be apart of the same timeline. Thus they aren't, and I doubt anyone would think it was "cool" if they were.

Philly_SWAT

28-Dec-2006, 12:04 PM

I would love to reply to the points you just made, but a had a traumatic experience in life that I am still shaken up about, and it is hard for me to get my bearings. I was walking down the street yesterday. It was a normal day, or so I thought, and although not consciencously thinking about it, I was secure in the knowledge that everything was going OK for me this day. Then it happened. As I was walking, a passed an American American male, and he was sporting a 'Fro. From reading your posts here recently, it made me realize that I must have inadvertantly stumbled into another timeline, as it is impossible for a 'Fro to exist in the same timeline as cell phones and tanks, and I know they exist in my "normal" timeline because I own and use two cell phones, and there is a tank right down the street from where I live at the armoury. I stared in shock at the man, and after a few minutes he was out of sight, and I was able to regain my breath. Everything seems normal again, inlcuding my ability to post here on HPOTD, but I am still shook up about traveling into another timeline. I will try to muster a weak attempt to look at something you did post. In reference to my claim that GAR's films take place in the same timeline a few post ago, you said:

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this.
Then you just said:

I never claimed anything was disproven just because it wasn't proven. I'm just jumping to logical conclusions.The first quote seems to me that you were in fact saying that because nothing "IN the films prove this" that meant that it was an invalid supposition. And I would also say that it is much more logical that a guy who took the time to create a story-telling universe would not then subdivide that universe into separate timelines. But then again, I am still recovering from my timeline-shift, and as of yet do not know the short or long-term ramifications of this. If I was feeling better, I would probably quote you saying

And again, the existing together on River Kwai and Full Metal Jacket is irrelevant and they were never intended to be apart of the same timeline.and then probably reply that whether it was "intended" or not is not even a valid statement. George Bush did not "intend" to exist in the same timeline as George Washington, but that doesnt change the fact that he does, whether against his wishes or not, or whether it was his intent or not.

N2NOther

28-Dec-2006, 01:13 PM

I like the way you ridicule yourself man. But a sincere tip, and this is constructive criticism is to get some argument training. Join a debate club or something.

I don't need to...I am fully capable of debating...I can even use facts to support my opinion. Which is based on facts. It's a never ending cycle. You, on the other hand, have said nothing but conjecture and speculation based on cell-phones. Brilliant. AND to top it off, you've acted like a child that wants to take his ball home.

EvilNed

28-Dec-2006, 07:29 PM

The first quote seems to me that you were in fact saying that because nothing "IN the films prove this" that meant that it was an invalid supposition.

As far as I'm concerned, gravity is just a theory. It's not really a proven theory, but we all pretty much believe in it. The theory is sound, and it seems to work out.

Has anybody ever proven to you that the earth is round? Yet you believe in it right? But you have no proof, does that make it an invalid theory?

I never said it was invalid. I'm just saying I don't think it makes any sense when you add it up with what you can see in the films.

And I would also say that it is much more logical that a guy who took the time to create a story-telling universe would not then subdivide that universe into separate timelines.

Apparently he did, as evident in the films. By the way, as I've already stated, George is constantly changing his zombie rules (if you are to believe his Land commentary, and it makes sense), which raises the question if he really did create an all encompassing story universe to begin with. If he did so, then he might very well have done so for each of his films. He admits that the zombierules in Night differs from those in Dawn, for instance.

But then again, I am still recovering from my timeline-shift, and as of yet do not know the short or long-term ramifications of this. If I was feeling better, I would probably quote you saying
and then probably reply that whether it was "intended" or not is not even a valid statement. George Bush did not "intend" to exist in the same timeline as George Washington, but that doesnt change the fact that he does, whether against his wishes or not, or whether it was his intent or not.

Real life vs. fiction. There is a difference, believe it or not.

N2NOther

29-Dec-2006, 03:50 AM

At this point I can honestly say I don't give a ****...No one has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't the very same outbreak and I'm not going to lose sleep if it isn't.

Philly_SWAT

29-Dec-2006, 06:35 AM

Has anybody ever proven to you that the earth is round? Yet you believe in it right? But you have no proof, does that make it an invalid theory?Not at all. But I never said anything about a lack of proof meant something was disproved, you did. See below:

I never said it was invalid. I'm just saying I don't think it makes any sense when you add it up with what you can see in the films.What you said was
FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this.
Just plug in the earth is round quote.

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that shows the earth is flat is speculation. There is nothing IN the universe that proves this.
_______________

Apparently he did, as evident in the films. By the way, as I've already stated, George is constantly changing his zombie rules (if you are to believe his Land commentary, and it makes sense), which raises the question if he really did create an all encompassing story universe to begin with. If he did so, then he might very well have done so for each of his films. He admits that the zombierules in Night differs from those in Dawn, for instance.Admiting that the zombie rules differ from Night to Dawn is a far cry from saying they exist in different timelines. Klingon rules differ from TOS to TNG, yet you accept that they exist in the same timeline.

Real life vs. fiction. There is a difference, believe it or not. Of course there is. Doesnt change the very essense and definition of "timeline".

EvilNed

29-Dec-2006, 04:38 PM

Not at all. But I never said anything about a lack of proof meant something was disproved, you did. See below:

What you said was
Just plug in the earth is round quote.

Uhm, do you even know the meaning of what you just said? You claim I've said that if something isn't proven, it's disproven... But the quotes you lifted from my earlier posts suggest no such theory. So... What the hell are you talking about?

Admiting that the zombie rules differ from Night to Dawn is a far cry from saying they exist in different timelines. Klingon rules differ from TOS to TNG, yet you accept that they exist in the same timeline.
Of course there is. Doesnt change the very essense and definition of "timeline".

Yes, that's true. But when you pile these "Star Trek" comparisons together you get alot of pure "far shot" arguments. I don't see why you accept Night of the Living Dead into the series, but you instantly dismiss Zombie Flesh Eaters for example. Doesn't make any sense to me.

The Dead films (and I think even you'll agree with me on this) all take place in different times, yes? So it's pretty reasonable to guess they take place in different timelines.

As a sidenote, I don't give a rats ass if Star Trek TOS and TNG take place in the same timeline or not. They might not, what do I know?

Philly_SWAT

29-Dec-2006, 05:27 PM

Uhm, do you even know the meaning of what you just said? You claim I've said that if something isn't proven, it's disproven... But the quotes you lifted from my earlier posts suggest no such theory. So... What the hell are you talking about?
Well, you said this

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this.
What are you saying then? By saying there is nothing IN the films that prove this, it suggests that therefore it is not true. Is that not what you were saying?

Yes, that's true. But when you pile these "Star Trek" comparisons together you get alot of pure "far shot" arguments. I don't see why you accept Night of the Living Dead into the series, but you instantly dismiss Zombie Flesh Eaters for example. Doesn't make any sense to me.Same reason that I dismiss that Babylon 5 in the same timeline as Star Trek.

The Dead films (and I think even you'll agree with me on this) all take place in different times, yes? So it's pretty reasonable to guess they take place in different timelines.I totally disagree. In our current real timeline, WWII and the Viet Nam war take place in different times, yet they exist in the same timeline.

As a sidenote, I don't give a rats ass if Star Trek TOS and TNG take place in the same timeline or not. They might not, what do I know?
By your same arguement, I would say what do you know about the Gar dead series? We both agree that the Star Trek series do in fact take place in the same timeline. I use that as an example of why I think the GAR dead movies do to. That in and of itself does not prove that GAR's dead movies do exist in the same timeline, but I have to wonder about your argument skills when you dismiss every valid point in comparing the two. We both do not think that the Klingons underwent a massive evolutionary charge to look so radically different a generation later. We accept that as Rodenberry having a bigger budget used better makeup for the Klingons. We both accept that the huge advance in the appearance of technology was due to an increased budget, not a suggestion of a different timeline. Yet you refuse to see how this applies to GAR's films as well. By using cell phones in Land, GAR was not trying to suggest that the events in Land happened almost 40 years after Night, or in a different timeline, he simply used the technology available at the time and put them in the current movie. He was playing to the current audience. An audience in 2005 would expect characters to have and use cellphones, therefore they did. William Shakespeare did the same types of things. A lot of the things in his plays were specifically designed to play to the audiences of the day. He made those plays for the masses, not for royalty, and he had a lot of humor in them, humor specifically designed for the average person at the time. Now in 2006, the humor is sometimes lost as we did not live in those times, and do not speak in that fashion anymore. Many artists will create art simply for the sake of creating art, others specifically craft their art to please the viewers of that art of the time the art is created. Would a studio want to put money behind a project such as Land, released in this decade, where the setting was the 1960's, and using that technology? No, the studios want to make money, and GAR wants people, including new fans, to see his work, so he did what was prudent in the reality of now to make his film.

EvilNed

30-Dec-2006, 12:35 PM

Well, you said this

What are you saying then? By saying there is nothing IN the films that prove this, it suggests that therefore it is not true. Is that not what you were saying?

I'm saying just what I said? I don't get what the heck you're trying to say man? :rockbrow: I'm saying that there is nothing in the films that prove they tie together, and therefore they are based on speculation? Whats so hard to get about that?

Same reason that I dismiss that Babylon 5 in the same timeline as Star Trek.

Oh. So zombies only tie films together as long as it suits you?

I totally disagree. In our current real timeline, WWII and the Viet Nam war take place in different times, yet they exist in the same timeline.

Yeah, they're 30 years apart. But the Dead films, by your argument, would be 3 years apart... Yet still set in different times.

By your same arguement, I would say what do you know about the Gar dead series? We both agree that the Star Trek series do in fact take place in the same timeline. I use that as an example of why I think the GAR dead movies do to. That in and of itself does not prove that GAR's dead movies do exist in the same timeline, but I have to wonder about your argument skills when you dismiss every valid point in comparing the two. We both do not think that the Klingons underwent a massive evolutionary charge to look so radically different a generation later. We accept that as Rodenberry having a bigger budget used better makeup for the Klingons. We both accept that the huge advance in the appearance of technology was due to an increased budget, not a suggestion of a different timeline. Yet you refuse to see how this applies to GAR's films as well. By using cell phones in Land, GAR was not trying to suggest that the events in Land happened almost 40 years after Night, or in a different timeline, he simply used the technology available at the time and put them in the current movie. He was playing to the current audience. An audience in 2005 would expect characters to have and use cellphones, therefore they did. William Shakespeare did the same types of things. A lot of the things in his plays were specifically designed to play to the audiences of the day. He made those plays for the masses, not for royalty, and he had a lot of humor in them, humor specifically designed for the average person at the time. Now in 2006, the humor is sometimes lost as we did not live in those times, and do not speak in that fashion anymore. Many artists will create art simply for the sake of creating art, others specifically craft their art to please the viewers of that art of the time the art is created. Would a studio want to put money behind a project such as Land, released in this decade, where the setting was the 1960's, and using that technology? No, the studios want to make money, and GAR wants people, including new fans, to see his work, so he did what was prudent in the reality of now to make his film.

The problem is that you're comparing a series that is meant (to my knowledge, I am no trekkie) to tie together with a series that is NOT meant to tie together. GAR didn't put cell phones in Land just because they're new and cool. He put them there because Land is set now, commenting the events of the 00's. The George Bush administration. And altough it is possible to set a film in the 60's and still comment the Bush administration, that was not his intention. He could have if he wanted too, but he didn't. Why? Because the films DON'T tie in together!

The films all take place within the time that they are made. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no fancy master plan at work and Romero has right out said that there is no connection between the films.

Now you can question my argumentation skills all you like, but at least I stay on subject and don't draw wild comparisons that add little or nothing to the discussion.

Philly_SWAT

30-Dec-2006, 01:09 PM

I'm saying just what I said? I don't get what the heck you're trying to say man? :rockbrow: I'm saying that there is nothing in the films that prove they tie together, and therefore they are based on speculation? Whats so hard to get about that?There is nothing hard to get about what you said. The way you just explained it is exactly as I have been interpreting what you are saying. What I cant understand is why you dont understand my reply to your point. I will try to break it down this way. In mathematical terms, you are saying "there is nothing in "A" that proves they tie together, therfore they are based on "B". What I am saying is that is an invalid conclusion. As I said using other examples, other examples you seemed to agree with, just because "A" isnt proved, doesnt mean that therefore "A" is disproved, and "B" is automatically shown to be correct. This point doesnt really prove either of our views about GAR's dead series timeline, but is simply saying that your one argument is not a valid one. I dont see what is so hard to get about that.

Same reason that I dismiss that Babylon 5 in the same timeline as Star Trek.

Oh. So zombies only tie films together as long as it suits you? So are you saying you believe Star Trek and Babylon 5 are "tied together" in the same timeline? I thought you said before that you didnt, which is obvious, and you expect me to explain why they are where I never said they are. I am saying that the same way two series set in the same genre are obviously not connected, Star Trek and Babylon 5, that GARs dead films and ZFE are obviously not connected.

Yeah, they're 30 years apart. But the Dead films, by your argument, would be 3 years apart... Yet still set in different times.
The United States in the days preceeding 9/11/2001 and the days right after 9/11/2001 are totally different times, yet they are only a few days apart.

The problem is that you're comparing a series that is meant (to my knowledge, I am no trekkie) to tie together with a series that is NOT meant to tie together. GAR didn't put cell phones in Land just because they're new and cool. He put them there because Land is set now, commenting the events of the 00's. The George Bush administration. And altough it is possible to set a film in the 60's and still comment the Bush administration, that was not his intention. He could have if he wanted too, but he didn't. Why? Because the films DON'T tie in together!
Again, "tying together" and "existing in the same timeline" are two different things.

The films all take place within the time that they are made. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no fancy master plan at work and Romero has right out said that there is no connection between the films.No fancy plan, such as creating a story-telling universe, and then subdividing that universe into separate timelines?

Now you can question my argumentation skills all you like, but at least I stay on subject and don't draw wild comparisons that add little or nothing to the discussion. I guess that depends on your definition of "wild" comparisons. When one person makes the argument "the differences in technology show the films are in different timelines" and another person says "but this other series of films has difference in technology, yet obviously is in the same timeline" does not seem a wild comparison to me, but one right on point. It seems wilder to suggest that because two different films have similar things in them, GARs dead films and ZFE both having zombies, and suggesting they are in the same timeline. The main difference in that argument is this: we both agree, Trekkies or not, that it is obvious that the Star Trek series are exisiting in the same timeline, and that is the basis of my point. Neither of us think that GARs films and ZFE is in the same timeline, yet you want me to disprove something that neither one us of believes. I attempted to find something we could agree on to illustrate my point, you have taken something that neither us of agrees with to try to negate mine.

Danny

30-Dec-2006, 01:15 PM

ever get that wierd feeling when its two guys in a room talking to themselves and no one else?:p

Philly_SWAT

30-Dec-2006, 01:35 PM

ever get that wierd feeling when its two guys in a room talking to themselves and no one else?:pWell, you are here, so there is at least THREE guys in the room!:D

Normally I wait for someone to post to my response before I give another one, but here I will make an exception. EvilNed has continually said "GAR said such and such on the Land commentary", so I just put in Land to listen to the commentary. I am only a few minutes in, but already, what I have heard is very interesting. The first question GAR is asked is "why did you use the old black and white Universal logo" at the beginning? He said "we wanted this opening sequence in black and white to get a sense that it was set it the past" and also that "we wanted to show clips of Night Dawn and Day, but we couldnt, so we did it this way instead" or words to that effect. He also said seeing the old Zenith radio in the opening was a "reference to Night of the Living Dead". Also, before the film actually begins, on screen is bold capital letters is says "SOME TIME AGO". Does this not show that he did intend for the films to be "tied together", to use your terms?

Danny

30-Dec-2006, 02:29 PM

yeah i gotta agree, then y'know the titles kind of give it away, night dawn day...... see?

there it only took 15 pages:lol:

EvilNed

30-Dec-2006, 06:33 PM

Lots of text about you not having a clue what I was saying...

Interpret it how you want. But I don't know where you get the "You said that if it's not proven, it's disproven", because I never said that. I never said ANYTHING of the sort.

...I am saying that the same way two series set in the same genre are obviously not connected, Star Trek and Babylon 5, that GARs dead films and ZFE are obviously not connected.

What makes it so obvious that Dawn and Night are connected, yet Dawn and Zombie aren't? Is it the blue zombies?

The United States in the days preceeding 9/11/2001 and the days right after 9/11/2001 are totally different times, yet they are only a few days apart.

Yeah, but they weren't 30 years apart so that's quite a irrelevant argument you got there.

Again, "tying together" and "existing in the same timeline" are two different things.

Yeah, so? The films have no connection, and George A. Romero never intended them to have. AND YES, now you say "But what about the zombies?!" well, Romero wanted to make a zombie film to comment on our current society. That's what he always did. He also probably wanted to make some cash, which, I guess, is what he did. At least a little.

No fancy plan, such as creating a story-telling universe, and then subdividing that universe into separate timelines?

I doubt Romero even considered this whenever he wrote the scripts. If you listen to him talk, he obviously never meant for them to be in the same timeline because he just wants to make a zombie film that ties in with the times they were made in.

Story-telling universe and subdividing it into seperate timelines? Hey, maybe he crated a different story-telling universe for each film. Who knows. In any case, you make it sound as if it's something elaborate and hard thing to do, when infact it's not.

I guess that depends on your definition of "wild" comparisons. When one person makes the argument "the differences in technology show the films are in different timelines" and another person says "but this other series of films has difference in technology, yet obviously is in the same timeline" does not seem a wild comparison to me, but one right on point. It seems wilder to suggest that because two different films have similar things in them, GARs dead films and ZFE both having zombies, and suggesting they are in the same timeline. The main difference in that argument is this: we both agree, Trekkies or not, that it is obvious that the Star Trek series are exisiting in the same timeline, and that is the basis of my point. Neither of us think that GARs films and ZFE is in the same timeline, yet you want me to disprove something that neither one us of believes. I attempted to find something we could agree on to illustrate my point, you have taken something that neither us of agrees with to try to negate mine.

You've even the timeline to the Bond films, Friday films and coaching an NBA team for chrissakes!

Also, I never said that ZFE doesn't take place in the same timeline as Dawn, but I think it's quite obvious you don't. Frankly, I think each zombiefilm should be viewed independently. Each Dead film can be.

As for your Star Trek argument, they have characters that bind them together. Is it so hard to distinguish them this from the Dead films, where nothing matches? Except that it's set on earth and there are zombies in them? Oh, and lets NOT forget the title. Such overwhelming evidence towers over the fact that the films are quite obviously (both thematicly and plotwise) set in different times from one another.

Normally I wait for someone to post to my response before I give another one, but here I will make an exception. EvilNed has con...

So you've finally got something to back your theory up with. but again, I can just take YOUR route and "interpret" what GAR says in a way that suits my argument. For instance, there IS no footage of the Dawn, Day and Night films in the Land. Later on, GAR says that Night follows different rules than Dawn etc. etc., so obviously takes place in a different storytelling universe. And wether or not the film is actually SET sometime ago, that could mean anything. But it's not set next to Night, that's pretty obvious considering the leap in technology! And THEMES!

Philly_SWAT

31-Dec-2006, 01:56 AM

Interpret it how you want. But I don't know where you get the "You said that if it's not proven, it's disproven", because I never said that. I never said ANYTHING of the sort.It is frustrating to keep belaboring this point. What you said, again, was:

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this. Yes, you did not use the exact phrase "becuase if its not proven, therefore it is disproven." But what else does your quote mean? You say there is nothing IN the films to prove they are "tied together", and that the ONLY thing that binds them is speculation. It appears very evident to me that you are saying there is no proof they exist in the same timeline because there is nothing "IN" the films that prove this, and therefore that is proof that they dont exist in the same timeline. If that is not what you meant I apologize, but it sure seems like that is what you were saying. Again, I am responding to your specific point here.

Yeah, but they weren't 30 years apart so that's quite a irrelevant argument you got there.Irrelevant perhaps to the overall question of "Do GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline" but not irrelevant to your specific point in reference to...cant find it, but I believe it was in reference to the Bridge on the River Kwai and Full Metal Jacket being 30 years apart.....

Originally Posted by EvilNed
Yeah, they're 30 years apart. But the Dead films, by your argument, would be 3 years apart... Yet still set in different times.
I was talking about your specific point about those two films, that they were set in "different times". I was showing that "different times" can be a long period of time, or a short period of time.

You've even the timeline to the Bond films, Friday films and coaching an NBA team for chrissakes!
I will try to start making a conscious effort to keep future posts shorter, and bring less analogy into the discussion. You said in the past, and put it in bold letters, that GAR said on the Land commentary that the films were NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY! I listened to the entire commentary, and he does not say that. You criticize me for "interpreting" what GAR said, well I now criticize you for not giving accurate quotes, and not providing any context to those quotes. He does say he wasnt trying to connect the films, but the context of the whole quote shows what he meant by that. The first question out of the box also shows his "intent" of the timeline.

The commentary starts with this exchange:

GAR - Hi this is George Romero,
PG - and Peter Grunwald,
MD - and Michael Doherty , the editor
GAR - We’re watching Land of the Dead, with you

PG - Talk about why you picked the old universal logo.

GAR - I have fond memories of seeing it on old, you know, Val Lewtin flicks and so I thought it would be nice and ….. we wanted this opening sequence to be in black and white to get a sense that it was set in the past. Originally we wanted to use footage from my other zombie films, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead, but there were problems, so we wound up having a company called “Spin” design this sequence.

ONSCREEN - SOME TIME AGO appears on screen

MD - Naomi at Spin did a fantastic job with all of this footage, making it look old.

GAR - A little reference, that old Zenith radio is a little bit of a reference to NOTLD, it’s the kind of radio that we had in the farmhouse in the first film.
How do you intrepret this? He says he wanted the opening in black and white to give a sense that it was set in the past. He wanted to use clips from his other movies, and since he couldnt, used the black and white to show the connection. He specifically mentions the old-style radio and how that connects to the radio used in Night. As far as the "connection" quote, this is what is said there....

PG - Actually the fireworks are arguably the only new rule that’s in this movie compared with the other zombie films, the fact that they can be memorized by something.

GAR - Yeah, there were some things actually in the very original Night of the Living Dead, again, I’m not trying to connect the films, even though theoretically it’s the same phenomenon, the people are just not staying dead, but they’re not connected, the stories are separate, there’s different characters in each story. In the first film, I didn’t even call them zombies; I didn’t think of them as zombies, I thought of them as flash eaters, ghouls, that’s the forgotten Universal monster, the ghoul. But they were eating insects in the, you know everyone says they only eat flesh, but they were eating insects in the original NOTLD, they were also afraid of fire in NOTLD, you know, it was the first one of these I’d done and I hadn’t really done a rulebook, (laughs) so now the rules are ... I don’t know, developing a little more. Well see what happens ifs there’s another one.

MD or PG – What, they’ll smoke cigarettes and lounge?
GAR - Smoke cigarettes and drink gin. (Laughter)

How do you interpret this? He doesnt say they arent connected IN ANY WAY, and doesnt say they dont exist in the same timeline. He does say that theoretically it’s the same phenomenon. He says "but they’re not connected, the stories are separate, there’s different characters in each story." He specifically mentions that the stories and characters are different, not that they are set in different timelines. This seems to me the same way in the different Star Trek series, there are different stories and different characters in each series. He also specifically says about Night that it was the first "one of these" he had done, and that he didnt have a "rulebook". This goes to what I have been saying, about low-budget and non-perfect movie making techniques were the result of differences in rules, not because of different timelines.

EvilNed

31-Dec-2006, 01:09 PM

First off, I want to commend you for finally getting some things to back up your argument with. And here goes:

It is frustrating to keep belaboring this point. What you said, again, was:[/QUOTE]

I can imagine it's frustrating trying to keep bringing up this point, considering you really have no idea of what I was talking about and should stop interpreting things I said so it suits your argument. I don't know what you're trying to prove here (this side argument), but it's only annoying and it's just twisting what I said.

Irrelevant perhaps to the overall question of "Do GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline" but not irrelevant to your specific point in reference to...cant find it, but I believe it was in reference to the Bridge on the River Kwai and Full Metal Jacket being 30 years apart.....

I was talking about your specific point about those two films, that they were set in "different times". I was showing that "different times" can be a long period of time, or a short period of time.

And Bridge over River Kwai and FMJ argument didn't work out as well, and didn't really prove anything. Reality vs. fiction, remember? They are different. There's no saying that those two films take place in the same timeline, and I don't see why they have too. It's not like there's a universal "General" timeline where all Hollywood films take place if the creator wants it. Sure, both take place in "THIS" timeline, but that doesn't mean it's the same "THIS" timeline.

As for time, yes. Different times can be moments apart or years apart. But in this case, it's obviously many years apart. So again, why bring this up?

I will try to start making a conscious effort to keep future posts shorter, and bring less analogy into the discussion. You said in the past, and put it in bold letters, that GAR said on the Land commentary that the films were NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY! I listened to the entire commentary, and he does not say that. You criticize me for "interpreting" what GAR said, well I now criticize you for not giving accurate quotes, and not providing any context to those quotes. He does say he wasnt trying to connect the films, but the context of the whole quote shows what he meant by that. The first question out of the box also shows his "intent" of the timeline.

How does it show any intent of a timeline? I can agree that it shows an intent of connection between the films (where you get a point) but it shows no real intent of a timelien! He mentions using old radio sound and filter, but as soon as the film itself gets going, we're OBVIOUSLY back in the now. Which is quite a bit ahead of old radios and black and white television. Heck, in the Fiddlers Green underground, they've even watching a color TV set.

The black and white start was pretty much just to catch people up with the story.

How do you interpret this? He doesnt say they arent connected IN ANY WAY...

It's true he doesn't say they aren't connected but his intentions are obviously pretty clear. There's not a set timeline these films take place in. There never was, however, an intention to create a timeline. Listen to him, he's totally disinterested in connecting these films. Add these things to the fact that the zombie rules change and that the times change and voíla! The "Same timeline" theory loses even further credibility.

He says that the only thing he strives for with these films is to make another film about the zombie phenomenom. But there's no need to create an entire universe that evolves super fast, just to do that!

Philly_SWAT

31-Dec-2006, 03:27 PM

I can imagine it's frustrating trying to keep bringing up this point, considering you really have no idea of what I was talking about and should stop interpreting things I said so it suits your argument. I don't know what you're trying to prove here (this side argument), but it's only annoying and it's just twisting what I said.
Well, I guess enough said about this. As I have said several times, even if your overall arguement is correct, it doesnt mean all of your underlying points are correct. It is interesting you say I am "twisting what you said" when I went out of my way to continually directly cut and paste what you said, like this :

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this.

____________________

Sure, both take place in "THIS" timeline, but that doesn't mean it's the same "THIS" timeline.LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This pretty much says it all.

As for time, yes. Different times can be moments apart or years apart. But in this case, it's obviously many years apart. So again, why bring this up?Same reason I brought up the "there is nothing IN..." quote, I was disputing your specific claim. Here, you said GARs films take place in "different times" and therefore exist in different timelines. I disagreed, and said that "different times" does not necesarily mean different timelines.

How does it show any intent of a timeline? I can agree that it shows an intent of connection between the films (where you get a point) but it shows no real intent of a timelien! He mentions using old radio sound and filter, but as soon as the film itself gets going, we're OBVIOUSLY back in the now. Which is quite a bit ahead of old radios and black and white television. Heck, in the Fiddlers Green underground, they've even watching a color TV set.

The black and white start was pretty much just to catch people up with the story.

It's true he doesn't say they aren't connected but his intentions are obviously pretty clear. There's not a set timeline these films take place in. There never was, however, an intention to create a timeline. Listen to him, he's totally disinterested in connecting these films. Add these things to the fact that the zombie rules change and that the times change and voíla! The "Same timeline" theory loses even further credibility.

He says that the only thing he strives for with these films is to make another film about the zombie phenomenom. But there's no need to create an entire universe that evolves super fast, just to do that!
Well, it appears pretty clear that we do not agree on the very defintion of the word "timeline" as it relates to movies, hence the length of our discussion, and my bringing in analogies. You said that "It's not like there's a universal "General" timeline where all Hollywood films take place". I disagree. If a movie is a simple movie with no reason for it to exist in a separate timeline, why would it? You agree that George Bush and George Washington exist in the same timeline even though there was no intent for that to be true, and are may years apart, yet dismiss the idea that movies with no intent of existing in the same timeline do for the same reason, by saying "reality vs fiction" is different. Perhaps your defintion of the word "timeline" would be helpful for me to understand.

EvilNed

01-Jan-2007, 05:42 PM

Well, I guess enough said about this. As I have said several times, even if your overall arguement is correct, it doesnt mean all of your underlying points are correct. It is interesting you say I am "twisting what you said" when I went out of my way to continually directly cut and paste what you said, like this :

I'm not saying all my underlying arguments are correct, infact I'm sure there's a buckload of them that can be proven to be pure manure. But this is thing you're doing here is just pure crap. You say I've said something I haven't,
and then you quote me (correctly) and somehow you interpret it into something I never said?! It's just bewildering. Bewildering...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This pretty much says it all.

Uhm, Ok. I won't argue with you there, because I don't think there's anything to argue about...

Same reason I brought up the "there is nothing IN..." quote, I was disputing your specific claim. Here, you said GARs films take place in "different times" and therefore exist in different timelines. I disagreed, and said that "different times" does not necesarily mean different timelines.

No, you're right. You're right on the fact that different times does not mean different timelines. At least not when these two "different times" are minutes apart. But that's not the case here, since obviously Land is set in a vastly different time than Dawn. A time that is not just minutes apart, but decades. That is why I find the 9/11-time comparison to be irrelevant to this particular argument, even though it's a good argument to prove that different times can be mere minutes apart.

Well, it appears pretty clear that we do not agree on the very defintion of the word "timeline" as it relates to movies, hence the length of our discussion, and my bringing in analogies. You said that "It's not like there's a universal "General" timeline where all Hollywood films take place". I disagree. If a movie is a simple movie with no reason for it to exist in a separate timeline, why would it? You agree that George Bush and George Washington exist in the same timeline even though there was no intent for that to be true, and are may years apart, yet dismiss the idea that movies with no intent of existing in the same timeline do for the same reason, by saying "reality vs fiction" is different. Perhaps your defintion of the word "timeline" would be helpful for me to understand.

Right. Timeline to me is a long cycle of time where something takes place. For instance, the timeline we live in is where we are now. Alexander the Great existed in the same timeline that Joan of Arc and George Washington. But that doesn't mean that Alexander (the film) and The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is set in the same timeline. Why? Because each film is set in it's own timeline where the director puts forth his take on films.

Just because two films depicts events that have happened in the past (or fictional events that could have happened) doesn't mean that they actually TAKE PLACE in the same timeline. Why would they? There's no reason for them to do so. Mostly because a films foremost concern is to tell a story. There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and does that do not. It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!

Reality is not fiction. You have to differ. You can't compare a living person to a film. That's like comparing an apple to the perspectives used in Mona Lisa.

Philly_SWAT

02-Jan-2007, 02:37 AM

Just because two films depicts events that have happened in the past (or fictional events that could have happened) doesn't mean that they actually TAKE PLACE in the same timeline. Why would they? There's no reason for them to do so. Mostly because a films foremost concern is to tell a story. There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and does that do not. It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!Saying it is irrelevant means that it never had any bearing whatsoever. Saying it is obsolete means that it used to have a bearing, yet now does not. You use both terms in the same sentence. If I let this line of reasoning go, I am letting a point that in an of itself contradicts itself stand. If I question it, I will "bewilder" you by interpreting it into "something you never said". It is hard to debate under those circumstances.

I agree that "There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and (those) that do not." There is indeed no need, and I have never suggested such a need exists. It is irrelevant that two individual movies exist in the same timeline if that is unimportant to the stories of the two movies. That does not change the fact that the two movies in question exist in the same timeline.

Reality is not fiction. You have to differ. You can't compare a living person to a film. That's like comparing an apple to the perspectives used in Mona Lisa.
Obviously, reality is not fiction. I am not comparing a living person to a film. Your "Mona Lisa-apple" point is confusing. If it was a fact that all apple growers believed the Mona Lisa was a great work of art, it would have little bearing on the question "is the Mona Lisa a great work of art?" A much wider sampling of opinions would be in order to answer that question. However, it wouldnt change the fact that all apple growers believe the Mona Lisa is a great work or art, even if that was irrelevant to the overall question.

EvilNed

02-Jan-2007, 12:38 PM

Saying it is irrelevant means that it never had any bearing whatsoever. Saying it is obsolete means that it used to have a bearing, yet now does not. You use both terms in the same sentence. If I let this line of reasoning go, I am letting a point that in an of itself contradicts itself stand. If I question it, I will "bewilder" you by interpreting it into "something you never said". It is hard to debate under those circumstances.

Really. I should just rest my case on this point. You said I had said that if something is not proven, it is disproven. Then you pull up some quote that has nothing to do with that, and indeed, bewilder me by interpreting it into something it isn't! If you can't argument under those circumstances, I suggest you just stop interpreting stuff and just let quotes be quotes and take them for what they say, not what you want them to say.

I agree that "There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and (those) that do not." There is indeed no need, and I have never suggested such a need exists. It is irrelevant that two individual movies exist in the same timeline if that is unimportant to the stories of the two movies. That does not change the fact that the two movies in question exist in the same timeline.

Yes, it does. Two stories never meant to take place in the same timeline only do so if the viewer wishes it too. Otherwise we're entering League of Extraordinary Gentlemen territory, where it's make-belief.

Obviously, reality is not fiction. I am not comparing a living person to a film.

Yes, you are. You've compared the Bridge over River Kwai/Full Metal Jacket to George Washington and other jolly presidents.

Your "Mona Lisa-apple" point is confusing. If it was a fact that all apple growers believed the Mona Lisa was a great work of art, it would have little bearing on the question "is the Mona Lisa a great work of art?" A much wider sampling of opinions would be in order to answer that question. However, it wouldnt change the fact that all apple growers believe the Mona Lisa is a great work or art, even if that was irrelevant to the overall question.

Ok, so when did apple growers enter the picture? My point was just that you can't compare people to films. It's like comparing nature to art. One is created by evolution/god/coincidence and the other is just a human concept.

Of course, you COULD create nature to art, but it would be a very confusing thing to do and not something that should be done. You could also compare apples to oranges, contrary to popular belief, but it wouldn't get you anywhere.

Philly_SWAT

02-Jan-2007, 02:42 PM

Really. I should just rest my case on this point. You said I had said that if something is not proven, it is disproven. Then you pull up some quote that has nothing to do with that, and indeed, bewilder me by interpreting it into something it isn't! If you can't argument under those circumstances, I suggest you just stop interpreting stuff and just let quotes be quotes and take them for what they say, not what you want them to say.This was not intrepretation, this was exactly what you said. You said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!" I pointed out that irrelevant means there is no relevance, but obsolete means it used to have relevance, but no longer does. That is an invalid statement.

Yes, it does. Two stories never meant to take place in the same timeline only do so if the viewer wishes it too. Otherwise we're entering League of Extraordinary Gentlemen territory, where it's make-belief. No it doesnt.

Yes, you are. You've compared the Bridge over River Kwai/Full Metal Jacket to George Washington and other jolly presidents.I compared Bridge on the River Kwai to Full Metal Jacket, two films. I compared Washington to Bush, two real people. I was in fact comparing apples to apples, to continue your fruit analogies.

Ok, so when did apple growers enter the picture? My point was just that you can't compare people to films. It's like comparing nature to art. One is created by evolution/god/coincidence and the other is just a human concept.Evolution, god, and coincidence are all human concepts.

Of course, you COULD create nature to art, but it would be a very confusing thing to do and not something that should be done. You could also compare apples to oranges, contrary to popular belief, but it wouldn't get you anywhere. It seems you believe that nobody can compare anything to anything.

EvilNed

02-Jan-2007, 06:25 PM

This was not intrepretation, this was exactly what you said. You said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!" I pointed out that irrelevant means there is no relevance, but obsolete means it used to have relevance, but no longer does. That is an invalid statement.

So, you're the director of Grammar Nazis Must Die, then? I wasn't referring to the words, I was referring to the extreme liberties you took with my quote.

No it doesnt.

Damnit. I wasn't prepared for such a powerful and argument riddled comment... Good thing I had my guard up, or else you might actually have persuaded me with that!

I compared Bridge on the River Kwai to Full Metal Jacket, two films. I compared Washington to Bush, two real people. I was in fact comparing apples to apples, to continue your fruit analogies.

No, you were comparing the BotRK/FMJ predicament to the Washington and Bush one. So thus, you WERE comparing films to people.

Evolution, god, and coincidence are all human concepts.

God? Yes. Evolution? Doubtful. Coincidence? No. Nature? Definetly no.

It seems you believe that nobody can compare anything to anything.

I do, when it makes sense. But when people compare films to people and watching Romero's zombie films to coaching a NBA team, my "Does not compute" muscle starts to strain.

Philly_SWAT

03-Jan-2007, 03:16 AM

So, you're the director of Grammar Nazis Must Die, then? I wasn't referring to the words, I was referring to the extreme liberties you took with my quote.So you admit you made an invalid statement when you said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!"? My point about this statement and the other one is that you are not being careful with what you are saying. In the grand scheme of things, who cares? It's not like this discussion is going to lead to riches or fame for either of us. Although, since it is continuing, it seems valid to actually question what the other person is saying.

Damnit. I wasn't prepared for such a powerful and argument riddled comment... Good thing I had my guard up, or else you might actually have persuaded me with that!I told you I was going to try to keep posts shorter. Your overall point was "Yes it does". Hard to argue such an absolute, therefore I simply posted "No, it doesnt."

No, you were comparing the BotRK/FMJ predicament to the Washington and Bush one. So thus, you WERE comparing films to people.Yes, I was comparing the relationship of the films to the relationship to the Presidents, not one film to one President, as it seemed you were suggesting.

God? Yes. Evolution? Doubtful. Coincidence? No. Nature? Definetly no.I didnt say nature. The first three are defintately "human concepts".

I do, when it makes sense. But when people compare films to people and watching Romero's zombie films to coaching a NBA team, my "Does not compute" muscle starts to strain.
I think that your "does not compute" muscle starts to strain whenever someone disagrees with you. You make points to support your position. If those points are questioned, you say someone is "twisting your words." Someone makes a point, you say it is "irrelelvant". The use of analogies, a common practice, "bewilder" you.

You quote that "There is nothing IN the films that prove this". You capitalized the word "IN" to stress your point. I think that point is very clear. I think most anyone would "intrepret" that the same way. Since there is nothing "IN" the films that prove this (regardless of what the "this" is), therefore it is not true i.e. disproved. I dont see how that is "twisting" anything. It is obvious what you meant. You were arguing your point that GARs dead films do not take place in the same timeline. I was arguing that they do. To support your point, and to refute mine, you said:

FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this. What exactly was the point you were trying to get across with this statement? Again, it seems obvious you were trying to get the point across that since there was nothing IN the films to prove this, therefore it isnt true. Is that not what you were saying? What else could that mean? If you think that I am "interpreting" that incorrectly, feel free to correct me. I then said that the idea that something that is not proven is therefore disproven was not a valid, or accurate, argument. I then used analogies "There is nothing IN the universe that proves the world is round" or something like that. Doesnt mean that therefore the world is flat. You keep returning to this point, that I was "twisting" what you said. I dont see how I was twisting anything. I never said that you used the exact words "because something is not proven, therefore it is disproven". I said that is the meaning of what you said, in specific relation to that since there was nothing IN GARs dead films to prove they exist in the same timeline, therefore they dont. You keep bringing this up, yet you have not said exactly what that sentence is supposed to mean. It seems obvious what it means. If you mispoke, just admit it and move on. It doesnt mean your overall point is wrong. If I accidentally said something inaccurate, and you called me on it, I would just say you are right, I mispoke, but my overall argument is still valid, even though I made a mistake with this supposting arguement. You seem so offended that I am "twisting your words", yet it seems as if I am "interpreting" them in the only way they can be.

EvilNed

03-Jan-2007, 04:02 PM

So you admit you made an invalid statement when you said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!"? My point about this statement and the other one is that you are not being careful with what you are saying. In the grand scheme of things, who cares? It's not like this discussion is going to lead to riches or fame for either of us. Although, since it is continuing, it seems valid to actually question what the other person is saying.

I agree, on pretty much everything you said. I wasn't careful with I was saying, pretty much because both you and I have pretty much passed the "prime" of this discussion. We've laid forth all our opinions and "arguments", and now it's just repeating.

I told you I was going to try to keep posts shorter. Your overall point was "Yes it does". Hard to argue such an absolute, therefore I simply posted "No, it doesnt.

Alright. In the end, I don't think anybody cares anyway... So let's let that one die.

Yes, I was comparing the relationship of the films to the relationship to the Presidents, not one film to one President, as it seemed you were suggesting.

Yeah, but then you're comparing the films to persons. Since you're comparing the timelines of both timelines of people, right?

I didnt say nature. The first three are defintately "human concepts".

While evolution is just a theory that hasn't been proven, if it's true then it's NOT a human concept. Evolution is just a word we've chosen to describe one of nature's laws.

Same thing with coincidence. Coincidences would happen even if humans weren't around. Let's say a penguin. Walks along some ice, looking for a place to dive into the water and find food. Suddenly he finds his sister walking along the ice as well even though they had no idea that they'd be out there looking at the same time. Hey, coincidence.

I think that your "does not compute" muscle starts to strain whenever someone disagrees with you. You make points to support your position. If those points are questioned, you say someone is "twisting your words." Someone makes a point, you say it is "irrelelvant". The use of analogies, a common practice, "bewilder" you.

Yeah, man, I wish people would start making more sense by comparing TIMELINES to coaching NBA TEAMS. Seriously, accept that some of your analogies were, hmm... a bit of a stretch. To say the least. And that they would flex anyone's "Does not compute" muscle!

You quote that "There is nothing IN the films that prove this". You capitalized the word "IN" to stress your point. I think that point is very clear. I think most anyone would "intrepret" that the same way. Since there is nothing "IN" the films that prove this (regardless of what the "this" is), therefore it is not true i.e. disproved. I dont see how that is "twisting" anything. It is obvious what you meant.

Bull****. Just as you said before, just because Rocky's mom isn't mentioned in Rocky, that doesn't disprove that he has one. You said this yourself, and of course, it makes sense! But there's STILL nothing IN the films that says he has one. Maybe she's dead. But it's not DISPROVEN that she is alive.

See? Twisting what I said.

You were arguing your point that GARs dead films do not take place in the same timeline. I was arguing that they do. To support your point, and to refute mine, you said:
What exactly was the point you were trying to get across with this statement? Again, it seems obvious you were trying to get the point across that since there was nothing IN the films to prove this, therefore it isnt true. Is that not what you were saying?

Uhm. I was basing my theory on the obvious leap of time and technology between the films. That's kinda like the point what I was saying: The films themselves support this.

I don't really know how you saw my sentence, but it's not very obvious to me. Infact, the way you intepreted it contradicts things you said earlier which are obvious.

Philly_SWAT

03-Jan-2007, 11:19 PM

I agree, on pretty much everything you said. I wasn't careful with I was saying, pretty much because both you and I have pretty much passed the "prime" of this discussion. We've laid forth all our opinions and "arguments", and now it's just repeating. Well said.

Alright. In the end, I don't think anybody cares anyway... So let's let that one die. Fine with me.

Yeah, but then you're comparing the films to persons. Since you're comparing the timelines of both timelines of people, right?No, I was comparing the relationships in the films to the relationships of the people, seeing as that illustrates my theory of timelines, whether in "reality" or films.

While evolution is just a theory that hasn't been proven, if it's true then it's NOT a human concept. Evolution is just a word we've chosen to describe one of nature's laws.Ergo, evolution is a human concept.

Same thing with coincidence. Coincidences would happen even if humans weren't around. Let's say a penguin. Walks along some ice, looking for a place to dive into the water and find food. Suddenly he finds his sister walking along the ice as well even though they had no idea that they'd be out there looking at the same time. Hey, coincidence.
I definately applaud you use of an analogy! See how your penguin point pefectly illustrates the concept of coincidence! Or should I say, illustrates the human concept of coincidence. The penguins in your example would not think "hmmm, what a coincidence.

Yeah, man, I wish people would start making more sense by comparing TIMELINES to coaching NBA TEAMS. Seriously, accept that some of your analogies were, hmm... a bit of a stretch. To say the least. And that they would flex anyone's "Does not compute" muscle!
Sometimes mine, or anyones, analogies may be a bit of a stretch, especially if the first few analogies that seem very straitforward to not seem to be illuminating.

Bull****. Just as you said before, just because Rocky's mom isn't mentioned in Rocky, that doesn't disprove that he has one. You said this yourself, and of course, it makes sense! But there's STILL nothing IN the films that says he has one. Maybe she's dead. But it's not DISPROVEN that she is alive.

See? Twisting what I said.Not twisting at all. The "Rocky's mom" example I used as an example that that line of thinking DOESNT MAKE SENSE! I wasnt suggesting that Rocky did not have a mom, I was saying it was obvious that in fact Rocky did have a mom. Therefore, to first make the statement that Rocky doesnt have a mom, and then back it up by saying "Theres nothing IN the films that prove this" would be invalid. Same as making the statement that GARs films dont place place in the same timeline, and backing that up by saying "Theres nothing IN the films that prove this". Either this method is valid in both cases, or neiter. I say neither.

Uhm. I was basing my theory on the obvious leap of time and technology between the films. That's kinda like the point what I was saying: The films themselves support this.

I don't really know how you saw my sentence, but it's not very obvious to me. Infact, the way you intepreted it contradicts things you said earlier which are obvious. The things I said earlier, like the "Rockys mom" example, were designed to show that you logic on this point was not valid. Yes, there are obvious leaps of technology in the films. I say there are obvious leaps of technology in the Star Trek series, yet they take place in the same timeline. I think, to use one of your anaolgies, that we are in fact arguing "apples and oranges", as we dont agree on what a timeline is. I think that a "timeline" is an absolute, scienticfic concept, such as gravity. Gravity, although not specifically mentioned in most films, still exists in the films the same way we understand it. It is neither important to most films, nor given any thought by the filmmaker. Subconsciously a filmmaker just assumes we as viewers will accept that gravity exists in their film. We dont expect Clint Eastwood in The Bridges of Madison County to start having problems keeping his feet on the ground and flying off into space. I say the same logic applies to timelines. If nothing obvious contradicts it, a simple movie exists within our own real timeline.

RazielTalos

04-Jan-2007, 12:13 AM

I think they are all happening in the same world, but at different places and times.

Remember tom makes an appearance as the undead Blades in Land of the Dead, and in Dawn, Blades merely gets shot in the chest by Peter's rifle. And if you'll recall, you dont have to be bitten by a zombie to become one, according to the original film "The bodies of the recently dead are returning to life."

SO how can BLades be in Dawn of the dead, and appear in Land of the Dead, now a zombie, if the theory of different timelimes/universes is true? I think that everything is connected. Evans City from Night, is not very far from Pittsburgh, the opening of Dawn, which is very close to Monroeville, also from Dawn. Day seems to take place years later, and theres almost nothing alive left, zombies overrun the population, so it doesnt matter where it takes place, not to seem like im copping out on that one. Land i think takes place in Pittsbutgh as well, they just dont mention it by name, but its pretty obvious (due to Blade's appearance, and the conversations about going to canada, which isnt very far from PA)

Im probably over analyzing, but then again, who here isnt?

EvilNed

04-Jan-2007, 12:25 PM

No, I was comparing the relationships in the films to the relationships of the people, seeing as that illustrates my theory of timelines, whether in "reality" or films.

And in doing so, compared films to humans. It's unavoidable when doing relationship comparisons like that. I mean, you just put Full Metal Jacket and George Bush in the same spot in the the comparison, and argued that if it works for Bush (the timeline) it should work for FMJ. Thus: comparing the two.

Ergo, evolution is a human concept.

If evolution turned out to be real (which I believe is the case, but that's beside the point) then evolution would just be a world. The concept itself would be nature's, not humans.

I definately applaud you use of an analogy! See how your penguin point pefectly illustrates the concept of coincidence! Or should I say, illustrates the human concept of coincidence. The penguins in your example would not think "hmmm, what a coincidence.

But coincidences are still something that would exist, wether humans were around or not. Coincidence is just the word we use to describe that kind of situation.

Sometimes mine, or anyones, analogies may be a bit of a stretch, especially if the first few analogies that seem very straitforward to not seem to be illuminating.

Like... coaching the NBA team? That was a bit of a stretch, wasn't it? :p

Not twisting at all. The "Rocky's mom" example I used as an example that that line of thinking DOESNT MAKE SENSE! I wasnt suggesting that Rocky did not have a mom, I was saying it was obvious that in fact Rocky did have a mom. Therefore, to first make the statement that Rocky doesnt have a mom, and then back it up by saying "Theres nothing IN the films that prove this" would be invalid. Same as making the statement that GARs films dont place place in the same timeline, and backing that up by saying "Theres nothing IN the films that prove this". Either this method is valid in both cases, or neiter. I say neither.

There's nothing in the Rocky films that proves he has a mom. She might be dead, what do I know. And there's nothing in the Dead films that proves they are tied together (HOWEVER, the beginning of the Land commentary could be counted as some proof to this, I can say).

On the other hand, there is strong evidence to suggest that these films really do not have anything to do with each other.

And yet, you've claimed that I've said that the films itself DISPROVE your theory, something which I've never said. See, there's a big difference between "Nothing in the films prove this" and "The films disprove this".

The things I said earlier, like the "Rockys mom" example, were designed to show that you logic on this point was not valid. Yes, there are obvious leaps of technology in the films. I say there are obvious leaps of technology in the Star Trek series, yet they take place in the same timeline. I think, to use one of your anaolgies, that we are in fact arguing "apples and oranges", as we dont agree on what a timeline is. I think that a "timeline" is an absolute, scienticfic concept, such as gravity. Gravity, although not specifically mentioned in most films, still exists in the films the same way we understand it. It is neither important to most films, nor given any thought by the filmmaker. Subconsciously a filmmaker just assumes we as viewers will accept that gravity exists in their film. We dont expect Clint Eastwood in The Bridges of Madison County to start having problems keeping his feet on the ground and flying off into space. I say the same logic applies to timelines. If nothing obvious contradicts it, a simple movie exists within our own real timeline.

Why should a timeline be that at all? Think of all the stories, movies and songs written that tell a tale? Are they automaticly in some kind of timeline, that can be intertwined with another?

To me, it's pretty obvious that each film has it's own timeline. Why? Because that's more likely the directors vision (unless stated otherwise, such as in a sequel or TV-series). It doesn't make sense to tie films together that don't belong together, and what you end up with is just a soup that none of the directors of those movies ever wanted you to have.

One needs to let films be films. Just that, a story. A simple story without relation to other films.

Philly_SWAT

06-Jan-2007, 02:16 AM

And in doing so, compared films to humans. It's unavoidable when doing relationship comparisons like that. I mean, you just put Full Metal Jacket and George Bush in the same spot in the the comparison, and argued that if it works for Bush (the timeline) it should work for FMJ. Thus: comparing the two.I am not even sure what your point is with this "cant compare people to films" comment. Even when looking at a single film (or book), like for example, Animal Farm, do you not think it was the intent of the author to draw comparisons about real-life human activities and the activities of the animals in the made-up story? But in this specific case, I am saying that films, whether intentional or not, can exist in the same timeline. Thus, for my argument, it only makes sense to compare the relationships of films to the relationships of real people.

If evolution turned out to be real (which I believe is the case, but that's beside the point) then evolution would just be a world. The concept itself would be nature's, not humans.I assume you mean
"evolution would just be a WORD", not "evolution would just be a world" as you typed. TO my knowledge and understanding, "words" and "concepts" do not exist in nature, except in the minds of humans. The "concept" of evolution would definatley be a human concept, not a nature concept, as nature has no means with which to create, know about, care about, or understand about any concept at all.

But coincidences are still something that would exist, wether humans were around or not. Coincidence is just the word we use to describe that kind of situation.Coincidence, as I said, it definately a "human concept." If there were no humans, or other intellignet lifeform, to gather data and draw a conclusion from that data that it was a coincidence, there would be no coincidence, as that concept only has relevance to a human mind. Again, in your example, the penguins would not see or interpret what happened as a coincidence or anything else. The planet Earth, we can safely assume I think, we would continue to exist if all humans died. Sure, the words "the Earth" is just a sound that we as humans have chosen to describe this third rock from "the sun" that we live on, but the physical planet would still exist. The concepts you refer to would not.

There's nothing in the Rocky films that proves he has a mom. She might be dead, what do I know. And there's nothing in the Dead films that proves they are tied together (HOWEVER, the beginning of the Land commentary could be counted as some proof to this, I can say).You mean, this beginning of the Land commentary?

GAR - Hi this is George Romero,
PG - and Peter Grunwald,
MD - and Michael Doherty , the editor
GAR - We’re watching Land of the Dead, with you

PG - Talk about why you picked the old universal logo.

GAR - I have fond memories of seeing it on old, you know, Val Lewtin flicks and so I thought it would be nice and ….. we wanted this opening sequence to be in black and white to get a sense that it was set in the past. Originally we wanted to use footage from my other zombie films, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead, but there were problems, so we wound up having a company called “Spin” design this sequence.

ONSCREEN - SOME TIME AGO appears on screen

MD - Naomi at Spin did a fantastic job with all of this footage, making it look old.

GAR - A little reference, that old Zenith radio is a little bit of a reference to NOTLD, it’s the kind of radio that we had in the farmhouse in the first film.

On the other hand, there is strong evidence to suggest that these films really do not have anything to do with each other.
"Do not have ANYTHING to do with each other"? Is that really what you want to say?

And yet, you've claimed that I've said that the films itself DISPROVE your theory, something which I've never said. See, there's a big difference between "Nothing in the films prove this" and "The films disprove this".I have not claimed you said that. I have claimed that you said:
FACT (and you quite simply cannot disagree with this): The only thing that binds the films together is speculation. There is nothing IN the films that prove this.
Taken in context, you did not simply made a random statement that there was nothing in the films to prove this. You specifically used that statement in the middle of an argument to illustrate your point that the GAR films take place in differenet timelines. There is a big difference in the two statements above. There is also a big difference in looking at a statement in a vaccum, or in context.

Why should a timeline be that at all? Think of all the stories, movies and songs written that tell a tale? Are they automaticly in some kind of timeline, that can be intertwined with another?
Well, think of all the stories, events, wars, people, actions, etc. that exist in real life. Do they not all exist in the same timeline? As far as we know, everything exits in a timeline. Maybe this ***WARNING Analogy Alert**** will help. Even the stories of Star Trek are meant to exist in our own real timeline. Part on the perception of the viewers, as well as the intent of the story-teller, was to look at a possible future of mankind, one where humans are co-operating and have achieved much without killing each other off. Am I am suggesting that in our own real universe that things will play out the way they do in Star Trek? No. I am saying that Roddenberry was suggesting that he thinks the future of our own real timeline will play out the way it does in his stories? No. As you say, his are simply made-up stories. But part of the appeal of those stories is to think that humankind has greatness in that future he creates, and we immediately have empathy with those characters, as they are "us". If those stories existed in a "different timeline", why would we as viewers care as much about them as apparently we do?

To me, it's pretty obvious that each film has it's own timeline. Why? Because that's more likely the directors vision (unless stated otherwise, such as in a sequel or TV-series). It doesn't make sense to tie films together that don't belong together, and what you end up with is just a soup that none of the directors of those movies ever wanted you to have.Again, you keep mentioning a purposeful intent of filmmakers wanting to "tie togehter movies". They are not tied together anymore than Bush and Washington are tied together. The "soup" you refer to is no different to the "soup" that exists in our present reality. There is no reason that the actions of Mother Teresa and the actions of Adolph Hitler should be tied together. In fact, they are not really tied together at all, other than the fact they exist in the same timeline. I assume that as a person who has knowledge of history, the fact that Hitler and MT exist in the same timeline does not confuse you, even though there is no "intent" by anybody to have them related in some way. I assume you realize that there stories are separate, but also exist in the same timeline.

One needs to let films be films. Just that, a story. A simple story without relation to other films. Films, for the most part, are simply stories without relation to other films. That doesnt mean they exist in different timelines. If I make a film based on the story of my life, and you make a film based on the story or your life, they have no connection at all in them (of course assuming that we both chose to not include the fantastic time we share with each other here on HPOTD). But both films by definition would exist in the same timeline, as you and I both exist in the same timeline. They would have no rules that "bind them together". We would each have different story-telling styles. We would each be decribing events that have no relation to each other. They would each have a totally different cast of characters, which have no relationship to each other. There would be no intent on either of our parts to "tie-in" our movie with the one the other guy was making. They would be totally separate, simple stories, without relation to the other film. And they both would exist in the same timeline.

EvilNed

06-Jan-2007, 01:01 PM

I am not even sure what your point is with this "cant compare people to films" comment...

I'm saying you can't compare reality to fiction, which is what you do. You can draw analogies, like in Animal Farm, to further your purpose, but that's a whole different thing.

I am saying that films, whether intentional or not, can exist in the same timeline. Thus, for my argument, it only makes sense to compare the relationships of films to the relationships of real people.

No. They were never meant to, thus don't.

I assume you mean
"evolution would just be a WORD", not "evolution would just be a world" as you typed. TO my knowledge and understanding, "words" and "concepts" do not exist in nature, except in the minds of humans. The "concept" of evolution would definatley be a human concept, not a nature concept, as nature has no means with which to create, know about, care about, or understand about any concept at all.

Any intelligent species would realize the concept of evolution. Evolution is the human, or rather ENGLISH word for it. Doesn't change the concept, which has probably been around for longer than humans.

Coincidence, as I said, it definately a "human concept." If there were no humans, or other intellignet lifefor...

Wether you mean that seriously or not doesn't matter. Because it doesn't change the fact that you STILL can't compare something (in the timeline context) that nature created to a fictional piece of art, as if it was obvious? George Washington to George Bush vs. Bridge over River Kwai and FMJ? Give me a break.

I have not claimed you said that.

Uh, yes you have. You've brought it up dozens of times and asked me to explain myself. I never said it, so if you agree that I never said it, why continue along this path?

Philly_Swat compares films to humans. Again.

"Hey Stan."

"Yes?"

"Skyscrapers are tiny."

"No, they're not. Why do you figure?"

"Because such is the case with pebbles, so thus skyscrapers must also be tiny!"

"Ehrm..."

Ok? Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler exist in the same timeline? As far as I know, there is no dispute in real world about who's going to exist in this timeline or that timeline?! Apart from the fact that you're actually taking reallife figures and comparing them to fictional pieces of art as if that would somehow prove something, it just doesn't work that way.

See a film is something someone intentionally created with a purpose. John T. McTiernans Die Hard films might take place in the same timeline as Star Trek? Yeah, they might. But it was never meant to, thus it doesn't. It's as simple as that. Why would it? Why should it? There is no reason to take two things that were never supposed to be linked together in a same timeline and then make it so. No reason whatsoever! George Washington and George Bush exist in the same timeline because this is the only timeline that they know about, and they didn't have much saying in it. They were born and there they were. Films on the other hand is a story. Yes, Philly, a film is a mere story told in pictures (unlike humans who really don't resemble films in any way) and it's created by a director and a writer. And unless one of them says "Hey, wouldn't it be fun to tie this together in with Blade Runner?" it really doesn't tie in with Blade Runner. Because it's a film, and it has it's own timeline because it's created from scratch.

But both films by definition would exist in the same timeline, as you and I both exist in the same timeline.

Not necessarily, no. That would mean that Alexander took place in the same timeline as Braveheart. But that would also mean that Alexander (in the movie universe) took Darius III's family as prisoners in Babylon instead of after the Battle of Issus (And the Scottish war of Independence would be about a man strongly resembling Mel Gibson fighting off the english at the battle of Stirling Bridge - minus the bridge). That would mean that if someone else were to make a movie about Alexander and make some changes, there would suddenly be TWO films about Alexander and both told a different story, but at the very same TIME!

So no. Let sleeping timelines lie.

Philly_SWAT

06-Jan-2007, 10:01 PM

I'm saying you can't compare reality to fiction, which is what you do. You can draw analogies, like in Animal Farm, to further your purpose, but that's a whole different thing. Many people, not just myself, compare reality to fiction. If there was nothing at all to be drawn from a work of fiction as to how it relates to our reality, then fiction would have a lot less significance in our culture than it does.

No. They were never meant to, thus don't.
I am glad you made this quote here. It is another example, and a shorter clearer example at that, of what I am talking about with your "there is nothing IN the films....." comment. Again, mathematically you are saying "A isnt true, therefore B is true." That is not a valid argument. I have said consistently that just because films were MEANT to be in the sametimeline, it doesnt mean that they neccesarily arent. You say clearly here that "They were never meant to, thus don't". That is an absolute statement that is not valid. I will try to refrain from mentioning the "theres nothing IN the films..." quote, and instead mention your more straitforward quote here.

Any intelligent species would realize the concept of evolution. Evolution is the human, or rather ENGLISH word for it. Doesn't change the concept, which has probably been around for longer than humans.This is absolutely correct. Any intelligent species would in fact realize the concept of evolution, even if they didnt believe it. However, if there were no intelligent life in the universe, there would be no "concept" of anything. The mountains, rocks, waters, gasses, etc. of various palnets would have no ability to recognize this concept, no frame of reference to understand its importance, etc. An intelligent mind is needed to both assign meaning to and analyse data in this manner. If it makes you more comfortable, call evolution an "intelligent species concept". As there is no proof of other intelligent life other than humans, I am confortable calling it a "human concept", but would agree with you to call it an "intelligent species concept".

Wether you mean that seriously or not doesn't matter. Because it doesn't change the fact that you STILL can't compare something (in the timeline context) that nature created to a fictional piece of art, as if it was obvious? George Washington to George Bush vs. Bridge over River Kwai and FMJ? Give me a break.I say you can. Do you think that "nature created" gravity? Does it exist in films, even though there is no reason to or intent on the part of the film maker to examine the existence of gravity in his films?

Uh, yes you have. You've brought it up dozens of times and asked me to explain myself. I never said it, so if you agree that I never said it, why continue along this path? See above, with the "They were never meant to, thus don't" quote.

"Hey Stan."

"Yes?"

"Skyscrapers are tiny."

"No, they're not. Why do you figure?"

"Because such is the case with pebbles, so thus skyscrapers must also be tiny!"

"Ehrm..."Ehrm.....indeed.

Ok? Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler exist in the same timeline? As far as I know, there is no dispute in real world about who's going to exist in this timeline or that timeline?! Apart from the fact that you're actually taking reallife figures and comparing them to fictional pieces of art as if that would somehow prove something, it just doesn't work that way.

See a film is something someone intentionally created with a purpose. John T. McTiernans Die Hard films might take place in the same timeline as Star Trek? Yeah, they might. But it was never meant to, thus it doesn't. It's as simple as that. Why would it? Why should it? There is no reason to take two things that were never supposed to be linked together in a same timeline and then make it so. No reason whatsoever! George Washington and George Bush exist in the same timeline because this is the only timeline that they know about, and they didn't have much saying in it. They were born and there they were. Films on the other hand is a story. Yes, Philly, a film is a mere story told in pictures (unlike humans who really don't resemble films in any way) and it's created by a director and a writer. And unless one of them says "Hey, wouldn't it be fun to tie this together in with Blade Runner?" it really doesn't tie in with Blade Runner. Because it's a film, and it has it's own timeline because it's created from scratch.Again, you keep using phrases like "linked" and "tied together" as if I am suggesting filmmakers are purposely trying to "link" their movie with other movies, which I keep saying I am not. I think we can both agree that in just about every movie we see, human beings in the films are breathing. Does that mean the filmmakers are tying the films together because the people in them are breathing? No. That doesnt mean that we should assume that Bruce Willis's character in Die Hard is not breathing because the director doesnt specifcally mention it.

Not necessarily, no. That would mean that Alexander took place in the same timeline as Braveheart. But that would also mean that Alexander (in the movie universe) took Darius III's family as prisoners in Babylon instead of after the Battle of Issus (And the Scottish war of Independence would be about a man strongly resembling Mel Gibson fighting off the english at the battle of Stirling Bridge - minus the bridge). That would mean that if someone else were to make a movie about Alexander and make some changes, there would suddenly be TWO films about Alexander and both told a different story, but at the very same TIME! I find it interesting here that you ignore my example and use Alexander/Braveheart instead. Your only direct response to my point that if you and I both made a film about our lives they would exist in the same timeline was "Not necessarily, no." This again shows to me that you dont understand what a timeline is.

EvilNed

06-Jan-2007, 10:58 PM

Many people, not just myself, compare reality to fiction. If there was nothing at all to be drawn from a work of fiction as to how it relates to our reality, then fiction would have a lot less significance in our culture than it does.

But you're not comparing the two to create some kind of political debate. You're just comparing the two to prove that what works as a storyline point in fiction could very well apply to real persons as well...

I am glad you made this quote here.

Well, why SHOULD a film that was never meant to take place in the same timeline, do just that?

Re: Evolution.

You're wrong. Evolution occurs with or without us. Thus it's one of nature's concept, not ours.

This is of course assuming evolution actually happens at all. If it doesn't, then it's just a human concept.

I say you can. Do you think that "nature created" gravity? Does it exist in films, even though there is no reason to or intent on the part of the film maker to examine the existence of gravity in his films?
See above, with the "They were never meant to, thus don't" quote.
Ehrm.....indeed.

The films are often a depiction of our world. Gravity exists in our world, so thus the films often include this little detail.

Breathing is something we all do. Without thinking. It's an "obvious choice" to have one's characters to breathe. It's not quite so obvious to sit down and link ones films together with The Rock, Armageddon, Elizabeth and some crazy indian thriller. Here's an analogy...!

Take the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Or indeed, ANY film you wish. Now let's say that the message of The League is about wishes and how they come true. This is of course not the message of LXG, but as far as I'm concerned I don't think the film has one, so it's a perfect example. The director purposefully put this message in there.

Yet there are some die hard fans of the film that desperatly attempt, and claim, that the film is indeed about the meaning of life. While this doesn't break any laws, and the fans can speculate all they want, that doesn't make it true. And it will never be true. Because that's seeing something in a film that even it's creator does not. Same goes for timeline.

I find it interesting here that you ignore my example and use Alexander/Braveheart instead. Your only direct response to my point that if you and I both made a film about our lives they would exist in the same timeline was "Not necessarily, no." This again shows to me that you dont understand what a timeline is.

I understand perfectly what a timeline is, but I'd be pretty scared to see your timeline. As far as I'm concerned there are like 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae. So in your "movie" timeline there would be 3-4 seperate battles of Thermopylae all raging at once. At the same place. That would be a scary sight, and one worthy of Back to the Future paradoxes!

If our two movies about our lifes were supposed to take place in the same timeline through hints or such, then yes they would. but otherwise? No, they would just be a depiction (and probably inaccurate one) of reality. Just like the Thermopylae and Alexander films.

Philly_SWAT

07-Jan-2007, 01:33 AM

But you're not comparing the two to create some kind of political debate. You're just comparing the two to prove that what works as a storyline point in fiction could very well apply to real persons as well...
If a film that has a setting of our own current timeline, I would hardly describe that as a "storyline point", any more than the fact that gravity exists in a film is a "storyline point".

Well, why SHOULD a film that was never meant to take place in the same timeline, do just that?Well, as far as you and I know, or at least can prove, there is only one true timeline, you one you and I are currently existing in. Why SHOULD a film that is a normal film with no different rules from our current timeline take place in a totally separte timeline?

Re: Evolution.

You're wrong. Evolution occurs with or without us. Thus it's one of nature's concept, not ours.

This is of course assuming evolution actually happens at all. If it doesn't, then it's just a human concept.Are you saying that "nature" has consciencous thought? Without us, trees would still grow, continental plates would still drift, volcanos would still erupt, presumably certain animals would thrive while others went extinct, etc. Those things would continue to happen. However, looking at all of those things and assigning a concept such as evolution to them would not happen, seeing as there were no initelligent mind there to make those types of assignments.

The films are often a depiction of our world. Gravity exists in our world, so thus the films often include this little detail.

Breathing is something we all do. Without thinking. It's an "obvious choice" to have one's characters to breathe. It's not quite so obvious to sit down and link ones films together with The Rock, Armageddon, Elizabeth and some crazy indian thriller. Here's an analogy...!What is obvious is that you continue to use the words "tied together" and "linked", which implies a purposeful decision to do something. I am not suggesting that such purposeful decisions are made.

Take the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Or indeed, ANY film you wish. Now let's say that the message of The League is about wishes and how they come true. This is of course not the message of LXG, but as far as I'm concerned I don't think the film has one, so it's a perfect example. The director purposefully put this message in there.

Yet there are some die hard fans of the film that desperatly attempt, and claim, that the film is indeed about the meaning of life. While this doesn't break any laws, and the fans can speculate all they want, that doesn't make it true. And it will never be true. Because that's seeing something in a film that even it's creator does not. Same goes for timeline.I do not know enough about LXG to make intelligent comments about it. I can say that the existence of a timeline is not more complex than the existence of gravity, humans need to breathe air, rain falls from the sky, etc.

I understand perfectly what a timeline is, but I'd be pretty scared to see your timeline. As far as I'm concerned there are like 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae. So in your "movie" timeline there would be 3-4 seperate battles of Thermopylae all raging at once. At the same place. That would be a scary sight, and one worthy of Back to the Future paradoxes!This is not what I am saying. If you look back, I said things like "most films", "these films", etc. exist in the same timeline. Not that all films do. But all of the 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae are "set" within the same timeline. That is not the same thing as saying the events of the 3-4 movies, which are bound to be different, are all happening at the same time. Any film portraying an accurate depiction of historical events would have a "setting" of the same timeline. That would not mean that if there were 50 films depicting the battle of Gettysburgh that there would be 50 different Pickett's charges happening at the same time, with 50 different people who were all General Pickett leading the 50 different charges. The setting is the same, and they are set in the same timeline.

If our two movies about our lifes were supposed to take place in the same timeline through hints or such, then yes they would. but otherwise? No, they would just be a depiction (and probably inaccurate one) of reality. Just like the Thermopylae and Alexander films. So are you saying that you and I exist in different timelines?

EvilNed

07-Jan-2007, 03:24 PM

If a film that has a setting of our own current timeline, I would hardly describe that as a "storyline point", any more than the fact that gravity exists in a film is a "storyline point".

It's obviously not tied to the actors or the make-up, so it's a storyline point.

Well, as far as you and I know, or at least can prove, there is only one true timeline, you one you and I are currently existing in. Why SHOULD a film that is a normal film with no different rules from our current timeline take place in a totally separte timeline?

Believe it or not, a film is different from people. Are you saying all films take place within the same timeline? Wow, I didn't know that.

A film is a story. A depiction of reality. It's a spring off of OUR timeline to tell it's story. But each film springs off differently of course, because it's meant to be seen seperatly. Unless they are sequels (or prequels).

Are you saying that "nature" has consciencous thought? Without us, trees would still grow, continental plates would still drift, volcanos would still erupt, presumably certain animals would thrive while others went extinct, etc. Those things would continue to happen. However, looking at all of those things and assigning a concept such as evolution to them would not happen, seeing as there were no initelligent mind there to make those types of assignments.

Are you saying that the world didn't start to evolve until Darwin came up with the notion that it should? Evolution would happen with or without us. Evolution is just a word we have applied to that process.

What is obvious is that you continue to use the words "tied together" and "linked", which implies a purposeful decision to do something. I am not suggesting that such purposeful decisions are made.

Why would anyone want to place two films within the same timeline if they are not meant to be tied together?

I do not know enough about LXG to make intelligent comments about it. I can say that the existence of a timeline is not more complex than the existence of gravity, humans need to breathe air, rain falls from the sky, etc.

The point was that you can't see something in a film that isn't that. You may think you can, but that doesn't mean that it's there.

This is not what I am saying. If you look back, I said things like "most films", "these films", etc. exist in the same timeline. Not that all films do. But all of the 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae are "set" within the same timeline. That is not the same thing as saying the events of the 3-4 movies, which are bound to be different, are all happening at the same time. Any film portraying an accurate depiction of historical events would have a "setting" of the same timeline. That would not mean that if there were 50 films depicting the battle of Gettysburgh that there would be 50 different Pickett's charges happening at the same time, with 50 different people who were all General Pickett leading the 50 different charges. The setting is the same, and they are set in the same timeline.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If all films take place within the same timeline (or at least all films that are supposed to take place in reality) that would mean just that: 50 different battles of Gettysburgs. Because the depictions would all be different. And that is the ultimate notion that busts the "All films depicting history take place in the same timeline (unless stated otherwise)" theory! If you support this theory, then you must also accept the numerous paradoxes that comes with it.

So are you saying that you and I exist in different timelines?

No, why would we?

Philly_SWAT

07-Jan-2007, 07:03 PM

It's obviously not tied to the actors or the make-up, so it's a storyline point.So, the existence of gravity is a storyline point?

Believe it or not, a film is different from people. Are you saying all films take place within the same timeline? Wow, I didn't know that.

A film is a story. A depiction of reality. It's a spring off of OUR timeline to tell it's story. But each film springs off differently of course, because it's meant to be seen seperatly. Unless they are sequels (or prequels).So I guess if someone made a film based on true facts, using the exact words people used in reality, by your definition, it would exist in a separate timeline. That makes no sense.

Are you saying that the world didn't start to evolve until Darwin came up with the notion that it should? Evolution would happen with or without us. Evolution is just a word we have applied to that process.I say that a "human concept" is anything humans have come up with as a concept. To me, your argument here is just you disargeeing with anything I say.

Why would anyone want to place two films within the same timeline if they are not meant to be tied together?I guess this depends on whether you insist that only purposeful decisions are facts.

The point was that you can't see something in a film that isn't that. You may think you can, but that doesn't mean that it's there.
Like seeing films as existing in separate timelines?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If all films take place within the same timeline (or at least all films that are supposed to take place in reality) that would mean just that: 50 different battles of Gettysburgs. Because the depictions would all be different. And that is the ultimate notion that busts the "All films depicting history take place in the same timeline (unless stated otherwise)" theory! If you support this theory, then you must also accept the numerous paradoxes that comes with it.Films that have the same historical setting would be set in the same timeline. Your argument here is rediculous. There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline".

No, why would we? We wouldnt. But you say that if you and I each made a film based on our lives, they would exist in separate timelines.

EvilNed

08-Jan-2007, 02:45 PM

So, the existence of gravity is a storyline point?

Nope, never claimed it was.

So I guess if someone made a film based on true facts, using the exact words people used in reality, by your definition, it would exist in a separate timeline. That makes no sense.

It would obviously exist in it's own timeline, because it's a film. The event upon which it is based takes place in OUR timeline. But the film? it's a depiction of that event. You can't honestly claim that films actually take place in OUR timeline, can you?

I say that a "human concept" is anything humans have come up with as a concept. To me, your argument here is just you disargeeing with anything I say.

So you agree that evolution would happen if we were here or not? So it's not a human concept, it's "nature's" concept then?

I guess this depends on whether you insist that only purposeful decisions are facts.

Can't see what ain't there. It's that simple.

Like seeing films as existing in separate timelines?

No, like tying together a french film and a russian film fron the 50's and saying "hey, they both depict reality, thus they're in the same timeline!" even if all depictions of reality are biased.

Films that have the same historical setting would be set in the same timeline. Your argument here is rediculous. There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline".

Sorry man, your argument doesn't hold here. You claim that all depictions of reality take place within the same timeline. But that, as I claimed, would mean we have 4 different Battle of Thermopylaes in that timeline. If they exist simultaniously, then there are indeed 4 different battles. Which creates a paradox, and is ludicrous. Why can't you just let they be different depictions of the battle, as they were meant to be?

We wouldnt. But you say that if you and I each made a film based on our lives, they would exist in separate timelines.

Duh. They are just stories, after all. Biased ones, at that.

Philly_SWAT

09-Jan-2007, 02:27 AM

Nope, never claimed it was.SO you agree that the existence of gravity is not a storyline point, but the existence of a timeline is?

It would obviously exist in it's own timeline, because it's a film. The event upon which it is based takes place in OUR timeline. But the film? it's a depiction of that event. You can't honestly claim that films actually take place in OUR timeline, can you? Did the events in The Bridges of Madison County take place in OUR timeline? No. Was it set in OUR timeline? Yes.

So you agree that evolution would happen if we were here or not? So it's not a human concept, it's "nature's" concept then?No. "Evolution" is a concept we humans have created to describe continental drift, species becoming extinct with time, etc.

Can't see what ain't there. It's that simple.
Ummm....it is true you cant see what aint there. I cant see the planet Saturn, but I'm pretty sure it is there.

No, like tying together a french film and a russian film fron the 50's and saying "hey, they both depict reality, thus they're in the same timeline!" even if all depictions of reality are biased.
Well, when you use the phrase "tying together" is all makes sense.......

Sorry man, your argument doesn't hold here. You claim that all depictions of reality take place within the same timeline. But that, as I claimed, would mean we have 4 different Battle of Thermopylaes in that timeline. If they exist simultaniously, then there are indeed 4 different battles. Which creates a paradox, and is ludicrous. Why can't you just let they be different depictions of the battle, as they were meant to be?I can let that be. Hence, my statement that "There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline". " I guess you see no difference.

Duh. They are just stories, after all. Biased ones, at that. Bias is not a relevant factor when discussing timelines. For certain there was bias used by America historians when descibing the events of WWII, however, it doesnt change the fact that certain events during WWII all happened within the same timeline.

EvilNed

09-Jan-2007, 03:02 PM

SO you agree that the existence of gravity is not a storyline point, but the existence of a timeline is?

As far as I know, both questions are of such ridiculous irrelevance that only someone with to much time on their hands would sit down and speculate over something like it... Like us. Timeline is sometimes a storyline point, and sometimes not a point at all. When it's not a point at all is when you have to assume the film just follows it's own rules and "timelines".

Did the events in The Bridges of Madison County take place in OUR timeline? No. Was it set in OUR timeline? Yes.

It was depicted as such, yes. But it didn't occur in our timeline. Again, fiction vs. reality.

No. "Evolution" is a concept we humans have created to describe continental drift, species becoming extinct with time, etc.

Nope. Evolution is a word. And what the word Evolution means is something we humans have come to terms with or believe in. But it's not our concept, because we didn't create Evolution. We did create the word "evolution", tho.

Ummm....it is true you cant see what aint there. I cant see the planet Saturn, but I'm pretty sure it is there.

Pick up a telescope. It's there, trust me.

Well, when you use the phrase "tying together" is all makes sense.......

Alot of things in this topic make no sense whatsoever, so I'm glad you found something that does.

I can let that be. Hence, my statement that "There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline". " I guess you see no difference.

Again. The paradox. You fail to see the paradox of your statement and of your theory. If you can't accept the paradox, then you're so called "movie timeline" is so ****ed up I wouldn't want to spend a second in there, let alone watch any of the films.

All Gettysburg existing together? Hmm. It's a nice thought. To bad it makes NO sense whatsoever.

Bias is not a relevant factor when discussing timelines. For certain there was bias used by America historians when descibing the events of WWII, however, it doesnt change the fact that certain events during WWII all happened within the same timeline.

All accounts are biased and fictionalized. They're depicted as being set in our timeline, but that's pretty much it. They don't take place in our timeline, because they're films. And films rarely (if ever) cross the border between reality and fiction.

Brubaker

09-Jan-2007, 05:20 PM

After you guys are done fighting like cats and dogs, I'm sure the make-up sex will be great! :D

Deadman_Deluxe

09-Jan-2007, 05:38 PM

SO how can BLades be in Dawn of the dead, and appear in Land of the Dead, now a zombie, if the theory of different timelimes/universes is true?

Well actually, technically this does not have anything to do with timelines or storytelling universes. GAR wanted tom to have a small role, or a "cameo" role, in LOTD, for himself, but also for the fans.

What better then for tom to reprise his old role of blades?

Im probably over analyzing, but then again, who here isnt?

Me. It really is as simple as that.

Philly_SWAT

10-Jan-2007, 01:05 PM

As far as I know, both questions are of such ridiculous irrelevance that only someone with to much time on their hands would sit down and speculate over something like it... Like us. Timeline is sometimes a storyline point, and sometimes not a point at all. When it's not a point at all is when you have to assume the film just follows it's own rules and "timelines".I'm glad you used the word "us".

It was depicted as such, yes. But it didn't occur in our timeline. Again, fiction vs. reality.In a movie, when we see a very non-important shot of the sun in the sky, do you think that is not supposed to be "our" sun, but some other sun that exists only in movie-land?

Nope. Evolution is a word. And what the word Evolution means is something we humans have come to terms with or believe in. But it's not our concept, because we didn't create Evolution. We did create the word "evolution", tho.Exactly, what "we humans have come to terms with or believe in." Without our perceptions there are no such things as concepts.

Pick up a telescope. It's there, trust me.
Pick up some copies of GAR's dead films, the timeline is there, trust me.

Alot of things in this topic make no sense whatsoever, so I'm glad you found something that does.Maybe someday you will find the "human concept" of sarcasm......

Unless you think that sarcasm would exist without intelligent minds to interpret.

Again. The paradox. You fail to see the paradox of your statement and of your theory. If you can't accept the paradox, then you're so called "movie timeline" is so ****ed up I wouldn't want to spend a second in there, let alone watch any of the films.

All Gettysburg existing together? Hmm. It's a nice thought. To bad it makes NO sense whatsoever.You are correct, you way you say "existing together" makes no sense. However, I did not say that. What I said, again, it that they have a "setting" in the same timeline, not that the events are occuring simultaneously in the same timeline.

All accounts are biased and fictionalized. They're depicted as being set in our timeline, but that's pretty much it. They don't take place in our timeline, because they're films. And films rarely (if ever) cross the border between reality and fiction. That is what I have been saying all along that the films are "depicted as being set in our timeline" to use your exact words.

As an interesting sidenote, well after the poll that started this thread was closed, someone has gone in and altered the total votes. There used to be 19 votes for option number 1. Either a mod has taken to revisionist poll-history, or this very thread itself has drifted into a different timeline.

EvilNed

11-Jan-2007, 06:13 PM

In a movie, when we see a very non-important shot of the sun in the sky, do you think that is not supposed to be "our" sun, but some other sun that exists only in movie-land?

No. Why would it be? We're talking timelines here, not universes. If you don't know the difference, I suggest you... stop working your case!

Exactly, what "we humans have come to terms with or believe in." Without our perceptions there are no such things as concepts.

Would you say that the landmass of America is a human concept? Not the name, or what the land implies, but the landmass itself? Or would the landmass still be there, even if no human had ever set their foot there? Same thing, really. Evolution, wether we figured it out or not, would still be a process going on all around us. Now you can argue all you want how you feel it's just a human concept because we humans have given it a name, but that's just insane.

Pick up some copies of GAR's dead films, the timeline is there, trust me.

Where is it? Hidden between the decade-long timelapses?

Maybe someday you will find the "human concept" of sarcasm......

Whenever someone pulls some really bad sarcasm directed at me, I usually pretend like nothing because it's just stupid in the first place. I can understand you're getting tired, but then just let that point be.

You are correct, you way you say "existing together" makes no sense. However, I did not say that. What I said, again, it that they have a "setting" in the same timeline, not that the events are occuring simultaneously in the same timeline.

Haha. You're timeline theory is only getting more far-fetched by the minute. So two films exist in the same timeline, but if they depict the same events, the other one ignores the first one completly just not to cause any trouble with your theory? Again: Doesn't make any sense.

That is what I have been saying all along that the films are "depicted as being set in our timeline" to use your exact words.

Good, finally you come to your senses. Now can we please just let films be films and realize that even though that a film is depicted in our timeline, that doesn't mean it has to be in the same timeline as any other film? It was never meant to, so it's not.

As an interesting sidenote, well after the poll that started this thread was closed, someone has gone in and altered the total votes. There used to be 19 votes for option number 1. Either a mod has taken to revisionist poll-history, or this very thread itself has drifted into a different timeline.

If I'm not mistaken, that is because four of the votes were done by the same user using different accounts.

Philly_SWAT

12-Jan-2007, 01:39 AM

No. Why would it be? We're talking timelines here, not universes. If you don't know the difference, I suggest you... stop working your case!I was checking to see how that would fit in with your "reality vs. fiction = everything different" argument. At least it doesnt extend to things like this.

Would you say that the landmass of America is a human concept? Not the name, or what the land implies, but the landmass itself? Or would the landmass still be there, even if no human had ever set their foot there? Same thing, really. Evolution, wether we figured it out or not, would still be a process going on all around us. Now you can argue all you want how you feel it's just a human concept because we humans have given it a name, but that's just insane.No I wouldnt. The landmass of America is not a concept, it is a physical, tangible "thing". You can see it, stand on it, smell it, even eat some of it if you desired. Not true of a concept such as evoltion.

Where is it? Hidden between the decade-long timelapses?Seeing as there is no Cliff Notes to help you along, perhaps you could use this very thread as your guide.

Whenever someone pulls some really bad sarcasm directed at me, I usually pretend like nothing because it's just stupid in the first place. I can understand you're getting tired, but then just let that point be.For the record, the statement about sarcasm was itself in fact more sarcasm.

Haha. You're timeline theory is only getting more far-fetched by the minute. So two films exist in the same timeline, but if they depict the same events, the other one ignores the first one completly just not to cause any trouble with your theory? Again: Doesn't make any sense.Your argument makes no sense. If two movies are set "in the woods in Austria" that does not mean the events in each are existing together at the same time. It is you have have continually pointed out that movies are simply stories, not connected to each other.

Good, finally you come to your senses. Now can we please just let films be films and realize that even though that a film is depicted in our timeline, that doesn't mean it has to be in the same timeline as any other film? It was never meant to, so it's not.If there is one true timeline, our timeline, and two different films are depicted in that timeline, how are they not IN the same timeline? It doesnt mean there are "connected, bundled together, tied together, linked, etc" in any other way, except for being set in the same timeline.

If I'm not mistaken, that is because four of the votes were done by the same user using different accounts.
If that is true, how do you know that? And who was the user/users?

EvilNed

12-Jan-2007, 04:24 PM

I was checking to see how that would fit in with your "reality vs. fiction = everything different" argument. At least it doesnt extend to things like this.

Ok, but I suggest we talk timelines, not universes. If you want to talk about universes, you'll have to find someone else.

No I wouldnt. The landmass of America is not a concept, it is a physical, tangible "thing". You can see it, stand on it, smell it, even eat some of it if you desired. Not true of a concept such as evoltion.

America is as much of a concept as Evolution is. Only human thing about them is that the words "america" and "evolution" were thought up and applied to things that nature created.

Seeing as there is no Cliff Notes to help you along, perhaps you could use this very thread as your guide.

Oh, so the only thing that ties the films together is speculation? Because that's all there is in this thread. So the timeline isn't there.

For the record, the statement about sarcasm was itself in fact more sarcasm.

Then that was really poor sarcasm. :lol:

Your argument makes no sense. If two movies are set "in the woods in Austria" that does not mean the events in each are existing together at the same time. It is you have have continually pointed out that movies are simply stories, not connected to each other.

I know, it is indeed I who have pointed that out! I'm simply using your theory about timelines to prove how far-fetched it is! Also, two movies set in "The woods of Austria" can be set anywhere in Austria. But the Battle of Gettysburg would probably take place within the vicinity of... Gettysburg!

How doesn't it make any sense? It's your theory that doesn't make any sense, since you claim all films that take place in OUR timeline take place in the SAME timeline. That would mean that all Gettysburg films (offering different depictions of the battle) would take place at the same place and time. And thus create a big paradox. That, ladies and gentlemen, does not make sense.

If there is one true timeline, our timeline, and two different films are depicted in that timeline, how are they not IN the same timeline? It doesnt mean there are "connected, bundled together, tied together, linked, etc" in any other way, except for being set in the same timeline.

Yes, it does mean they are connected, bundled together, tied together, linked, otherwise they would not take place in the same timeline. Films that do really take place in the same timeline are linked/tied together by their creators. Usually for a purpose even if it is just to amuse themselves and those lucky audience members that can spot it.

But in films, there is not one true timeline. Like in reality. And all films are depictions of reality, and films. So in essence they are untrue stories (even if based on true events) that builds up it's own little timeline to tell this story where some things can be changed to provide better entertainment.

If that is true, how do you know that? And who was the user/users?

I'm guessing. I've seen it before, but of course I can't say for sure in this case.

Philly_SWAT

12-Jan-2007, 07:22 PM

In an effort to cut down the length of these replies, I will not respond point by point to you here. I will say that before, you claimed GAR said in the Land commentary that the films were "NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY!" You even capitalized your statements to emphasize it. Then I gave exact quotes from the commentary, in context, and you never gave a concrete response to that. But, I was listening to the Dawn commentary yesterday, from the Divimax release. It starts out with intorductory comments, they talk about the red carpet on the walls on the studio, etc. At precisely three minutes in, GAR says this, in reference to why he made "another one" of these movies.

IT was Dario Argento who called up from, from Italy, and said "would you like to do a sequel?" and having seen the Mall and having gotten the idea I said "Yeah, OK, maybe I can do that."
You have also said more than once something to the effect of "they were never intended to be sequels" and that GAR never said they were sequels. What would be your response to this direct quote from the Dawn commentray?

EvilNed

13-Jan-2007, 06:22 PM

My responce would be that George A. Romero has said both that they are sequels and that they are not sequels. Which makes this debate pointless, seeing as your theory now has just as much validation as mine on the Sequel issue (but I say, not on the timeline issue).

So basicly, there is adequate proof for you to hold on to your theory, yet not enough to disprove mine. And there is adequate proof for me to hold on to my theory yet not enough to disprove yours.

But, I will say this:

Then I gave exact quotes from the commentary, in context, and you never gave a concrete response to that.

Infact I have given two or three repsonses to that. And I've also provided quotes, in context, infact I was the first one to do that. Now, depending on which quotes you meant, my answer would be different.

Philly_SWAT

13-Jan-2007, 10:25 PM

So would it be accurate to say that you will never yeild on any point, whether it be the timeline question, or any other possible question? Seeing as both of us are convinced in our timeline argument, the debate has moved to other topics not necesarily related to GARs timelines. It appears that we both enjoy a heated discussion, otherwise one of the two of us would have quit posting before now. But it seems as if you give no merit to anything I have said in refuting anything you have said, which has prompted me to say on several occasions that just because you feel your overall point is correct, that doesnt mean every single thing you say in response is automatically correct. You have said several times how GAR never intended for them to be sequels, in an effort to "prove" they are not "connected, tied-together, etc.", now you say he has said both and the discussion is pointless. (Which if true, shows that someone cant necesarily take eveything GAR says as gospel, which I have said before.) You provide quotes (which may or not be accurate) to prove your case, but if I provide quotes (word for word), it only renders the discussion pointless. The point of this discussion seems to be becoming moot. In regards to your comment

Infact I have given two or three repsonses to that. And I've also provided quotes, in context, infact I was the first one to do that. Now, depending on which quotes you meant, my answer would be different.I was referring specifcally to you saying that GAR said in the Land commentary that it was "NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY!" to his other films. Then I put pasted the exact comments, which shows he did not say those words, and it fact talks about several connections right at the start of the commentary. You did make comments after I posted that, but not concrete comments, like "Yeah I guess I was wrong" or "In my effort to prove my point, I guess my memory was incorrect on what he actually said" or something like that. I am referring to this commentary:

GAR - Hi this is George Romero,
PG - and Peter Grunwald,
MD - and Michael Doherty , the editor
GAR - We’re watching Land of the Dead, with you

PG - Talk about why you picked the old universal logo.

GAR - I have fond memories of seeing it on old, you know, Val Lewtin flicks and so I thought it would be nice and ….. we wanted this opening sequence to be in black and white to get a sense that it was set in the past. Originally we wanted to use footage from my other zombie films, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead, but there were problems, so we wound up having a company called “Spin” design this sequence.

ONSCREEN - SOME TIME AGO appears on screen

MD - Naomi at Spin did a fantastic job with all of this footage, making it look old.

GAR - A little reference, that old Zenith radio is a little bit of a reference to NOTLD, it’s the kind of radio that we had in the farmhouse in the first film.