A General Movie Timeline question

[Philly_SWAT]

EvilNed and I are having a discussion about films timelines. I said that if he and I both made a true auto-biographical film based on our lives, the two films would by definition be set within the same timeline. He says that unless we made purposeful decisions to show that the two films were tied together, they would exist within separate timelines. I really dont see how that makes any sense at all. Can anyone convince me that his argument is correct?

[Eyebiter]

An autobiography means the world as viewed through your own perceptual filter. Thus each film would represent a small slice of reality.

Consider if one person was in the US, while the other in the UK. Events that each hold in common would be viewed in very different ways. A royal wedding might be a small news item here in the US, but a major event in the UK. A scandal in Hollywood might dominate the US papers for weeks, but be only a minor source of amusement over the pond.

Thus unless your two films made the effort to crossover, both could be considered to exist in different film universes.

Examples:

Consider 'Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back'. And 'My Name is Earl'. Normally both would exist in seperate universes. While each was on planet earth in the early 21st century each stands on it's own.

Unless there was a 'My Name is Earl' episode where 'Jay and Silent Bob' were featured...

[HLS]

EvilNed and I are having a discussion about films timelines. I said that if he and I both made a true auto-biographical film based on our lives, the two films would by definition be set within the same timeline. He says that unless we made purposeful decisions to show that the two films were tied together, they would exist within separate timelines. I really dont see how that makes any sense at all. Can anyone convince me that his argument is correct?


I think the two movies will be in the same time lines. I do not see how it could not be in the same time lines unless there is a huge age difference between the two of you then you will have two seperate timeslines that overlap one another :)

[jdog]

An autobiography means the world as viewed through your own perceptual filter. Thus each film would represent a small slice of reality.

Consider if one person was in the US, while the other in the UK. Events that each hold in common would be viewed in very different ways. A royal wedding might be a small news item here in the US, but a major event in the UK. A scandal in Hollywood might dominate the US papers for weeks, but be only a minor source of amusement over the pond.

Thus unless your two films made the effort to crossover, both could be considered to exist in different film universes.

Examples:

Consider 'Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back'. And 'My Name is Earl'. Normally both would exist in seperate universes. While each was on planet earth in the early 21st century each stands on it's own.

Unless there was a 'My Name is Earl' episode where 'Jay and Silent Bob' were featured...

i agree with you because unless the two films crossover some how are they in the same timeline, unless everything is the same in the worlds of the two storys and they take place at the exact same times. even if everything is the same in the worlds of the two storys without the characters knowing about each other the storys will take place in their own little worlds and follow different characters.
im not really sure about this but that is my opinon

[Maitreya]

I'd say if you made a true autobiography at some point HPOTD would come into it, and he's on here.

And they would be set in the same timeline, as you're both alive right now aren't you?

Therefore by making autobiographies about your lives set in the real time, I can only conclude that they would be.

So I'm pretty sure you're right.

[_liam_]

lol P_S if you did an autobiography/biopic, there'd have to be at least a few minutes on your prodigious conquering of the arcade leaderboards on HPOTD, so there you would have the crossing of timelines ;)

[EvilNed]

The timeline question started in some other thread in the Land forum. So when people didn't agree with Philly he started a poll. When another discussion arose there, I didn't agree with him, so he started this... ? Come on, man. Anyway, it's fairly obvious that any autobiography film is going to be biased. Biased how? Biased on the writer, of course! And that would be me!

So no. They would not be set within the same timeline, but then again, nobody would ever, EVER sit down and think "Hmm! I wonder if these two films actually take place... IN THE SAME TIMELINE!!", which makes the question an irrelevant one.

[coma]

Every work, including autobiography, is fiction to a certain extent. The only things that exist in a work are things you choose to have exist.

[Philly_SWAT]

The timeline question started in some other thread in the Land forum. So when people didn't agree with Philly he started a poll. When another discussion arose there, I didn't agree with him, so he started this... ? Come on, man. I feel that hearing various opinions can help shed light on any subject. I guess you dont?

Anyway, it's fairly obvious that any autobiography film is going to be biased. Biased how? Biased on the writer, of course! And that would be me!Biased? Yes I agree. Bias in an of itself does not mean it is in a separate timeline, in my view.

So no. They would not be set within the same timeline, but then again, nobody would ever, EVER sit down and think "Hmm! I wonder if these two films actually take place... IN THE SAME TIMELINE!!", which makes the question an irrelevant one. To me it does not follow that if noone ever asks a quesion that an answer, or a universal truth, does not exist.


I think the two movies will be in the same time lines. I do not see how it could not be in the same time lines unless there is a huge age difference between the two of you then you will have two seperate timeslines that overlap one another :)I would say in that case, they would still be in the same timeline. My grandfather on my fathers side was dead before I was born. However, we both still existed in the same timeline.


Every work, including autobiography, is fiction to a certain extent. The only things that exist in a work are things you choose to have exist.This may be true, as far as specific events, interpretation of those events, etc, go, but even pure works of fiction can exist in the same timeline, for example the Matrix movies.

[EvilNed]

Yes, the Matrix films were kind of clearly marked as "sequels" to one-another. That doesn't mean that it takes place in the same timeline that Notting Hill does! :lol:

It's just rather silly to take all the worlds films and lump them together as if that would somehow get you any satisfaction? I ask you again, why can't you just let a film be a film, a story be a story and people be people?

One film is crafted independently from another one as a depiction of reality... At least often a depiction of reality, and I assume those are the films we're discussing. They're stories. Fiction. In other words... They don't exist.

[Philly_SWAT]

I can understand why you think that GAR's dead films exist in separate timleins, even though I dont agree. I can kind of see your point about evolution not being a "human concept", even though I think your wrong. I can see why you think an NBA coaching analogy is off topic when discussing the GAR timelines, although it seemed pertinent at the time. But what I cant understand, I dont mean I just disagree, I mean I cant understand, is why you make these types of comments:

It's just rather silly to take all the worlds films and lump them together as if that would somehow get you any satisfaction? I ask you again, why can't you just let a film be a film, a story be a story and people be people?I am not "lumping" all films together, nor implying that somehow that would give me "satisfaction". I am saying that many movies are "set" withing our our timeline. Does that make them true stories? No. Does that "tie them together?" No. Does that mean events in them are happening simultaneously? Not necesarily. What is the "setting" of the Bridges of Madison county that is important to viewers? That it is set in Madison County? Who has even been there, or knows where it is? That it is set in the USA? The themes of the movie are hardly soley relevant in this country. That it is set on the planet Earth? Well, that would be obvious, but isnt iimportant to the theme of the movie. The movie examines human emotions and the power of love. The important setting of the movie is that it is set in the now, in our timeline, that this type of story is happening in our country, in our town, perhaps in the house of our next-door neighbor. What gives it importance and illicates an emotional response from the viewer is the understanding of the universal truths it reveals. Is it just a made up story, with no "connection" (or use other terms instead of connection, tied together, lumped together, binded, etc) to other movies? Yes. Is it set in our current timeline? Yes. To suggest that the story-teller is going out of his way to create a separate timeline to tell a story such as this, with no reason to do so, is what makes no sense. Part of the power of a movie such as this is that the setting is our true timeline.

[EvilNed]

Saying all films depicted in our timeline takes place in the same timeline is lumping them together, wether you want to think so or not. There's no reason for them being so, and if it doesn't give you any satisfaction thinking so maybe you should just let it rest considering they were never meant to have this connection.

Now I'm out, I'm not having this discussion in two topics. The first one is dumb enough!

[Philly_SWAT]

We could start a new discussion on what a "setting" of a story is, if you'd rather.