A New Half-Baked Theory...

[hadrian0117]

...Due to the changes in culture and technology, the films aren't direct sequels, but they do all follow on from each other in terms of a sensible progression into the zombie outbreak, first nights - 3 weeks - 1 year - 3 years... I've always just ignored the differences in technology and fashion and imagined they really do take place in the same reality. Of course if Romero's included bits of the radio & TV broadcasts from NotLD (being public domain) in Diary that would seem to confirm that it's all the same outbreak.

[MinionZombie]

I think Romero himself said they're not all the same outbreak, so that kinda answers that question. But indeed, I always tend to watch them as if they're the one outbreak and ignore the technology issues because I know they were made so far apart, but I see if the other way as well, so errr...yeah.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

LOL, I guess Philly hasn't noticed this thread yet. /p And do we ever thank the good lord for that For the umpteenth time, these movies are NOT, and were never intended to be, directly connected via ANY timeline and are simply movies of the same theme, made within the same "storytelling universe" and based around seperate outbreaks while observing GAR's basic guidelines in place within this "storytelling universe". A rough guide to each individual movies timeline is all you really need to enjoy them, anything in addition to what is listed below is purely a case of over analysing. NIGHT: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE DAYS after the initial outbreak. DAWN: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE WEEKS after the initial outbreak. DAY: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE MONTHS after the initial outbreak. LAND: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE YEARS after the initial outbreak. Amen. Thankyou. Case closed.

[MinionZombie]

It's probably been said already, but just out of interest, what was the theory/evidence behind 3 months for Day of the Dead?

[Deadman_Deluxe]

As i recall, DAY was the one and only slight exception to "the 3 guide" which was in turn left "open to debate" on anything from three to eight months, but for the sakes of keeping things simple it was left as three months with a bracket text stating: (Open to debate at three to eight months) While no evidence was offered to prove an eight month period, or to prove anything other than an intended three month period, i think most of the forward thinking people were happy to leave it open for debate between three and eight months as they were already exhausted from trying to explain (to philly, lol!) that these films were not connected via any direct timeline, plus a handful of people were throwing some interesting ideas around at the time. Personally, i always figured that a rough guide of three days, three weeks, three months, three years was simple to understand for everyone once they had disregarded the bogus back to back issues, and a rough guide is all they ever needed to enjoy these movies for what they truly are. In saying that, the rough guide itself was ONLY ever required due to peoples lack of basic understanding, or in some cases, confusion, and for the average person is not really needed at all! I guess i should have saved my previous posts (Logical and proven approach to George Romero's storytelling universe, seperate outbreaks, guidelines and timelines explained) about this subject to save writing it all out over and over

[Doc]

NIGHT: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE DAYS after the initial outbreak. DAWN: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE WEEKS after the initial outbreak. DAY: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE MONTHS after the initial outbreak. LAND: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE YEARS after the initial outbreak. I forgot where ,but I have heard that Day takes 9 months later.

[Trin]

I don't believe GAR made these movies to be in separate universes. Dawn picks up from Night. Day picks up from Dawn. Land (*cough* *choke*) picks up from Day. I believe any statements GAR has made to the contrary are made to counter technology nit-pickery from over-thinkers. Anyone who remembers the original Land trailer (prior to licensing issues) remembers that Land showed events from the previous movies to set the stage. These movies would be no fun if the assumption for each was that it was a completely new outbreak potentially with new rules and no backstory from the previous installments. Even if they were separate outbreaks it's still a valid disucssion as to what point in the outbreak each movie takes place.

[MinionZombie]

Do a forum search to re-find your old explanations? So why is it 8 months then, as a thought in that time bracket? lol...now I'm getting all Philly on you now, haha... But Day still comes BEFORE Land, because Day is (as you say) between 3 and 8 months after an outbreak (I'd say personally, up to a year perhaps) and Land is specifically 3 years after the beginning of an outbreak. I wonder if there'll be any "what came first, Night or Diary?" debates when the new one comes out? Woo, 9000th post.

[sandrock74]

I would think Day would be FAAAAAARRRRR longer into the outbreak than a mere 3 months. Would everyone be all on each others ass after 90 days? And thats NOT even 90 days TOGETHER! Also, look at the ending of Night 90. It leads directly into Dawn (original). I realize that the remake of Night isn't "cannon" per se, but Romero did indeed write it, so that MUST have been what he was intending. Knowing that a sequel would take place after the movie, he rewrote the ending to make a more smooth flow into the next one. Call it hindsight. I never did buy any of that bull that they take place in seperate universes. How did Blades appear in Dawn and Land? And why use clips from the first 3 movies in the trailer of Land? Just my view.

[SRP76]

I would think Day would be FAAAAAARRRRR longer into the outbreak than a mere 3 months. Would everyone be all on each others ass after 90 days? And thats NOT even 90 days TOGETHER! Also, look at the ending of Night 90. It leads directly into Dawn (original). I realize that the remake of Night isn't "cannon" per se, but Romero did indeed write it, so that MUST have been what he was intending. Knowing that a sequel would take place after the movie, he rewrote the ending to make a more smooth flow into the next one. Call it hindsight. I never did buy any of that bull that they take place in seperate universes. How did Blades appear in Dawn and Land? And why use clips from the first 3 movies in the trailer of Land? Just my view. I feel the same way. They were 3 weeks into the outbreak when they found the mall in Dawn. They were in the mall a minimum of 4 months and a week. So, when they left the mall (when the raiders attacked), it was 5 months into the outbreak. 5 months in, and there were still biker gangs running loose. Now, by the time of Day, there was NOthing, and NObody. That puts it further into the outbreak than the end of Dawn. More than 5 months, at the very least. "3 months in" is totally impossible.

[DubiousComforts]

NIGHT: Story begins ROUGHLY THREE DAYS after the initial outbreak. How did you come up with three days after the initial outbreak? Is this based on an assumption that the phenomenon (whether virus or radiation or combination of both) is spreading like a wave rather than happening all at once? It is mentioned during NIGHT, late in the film, that "the level of radiation is increasing," which would support any theory that the plague is emanating from a source and spreading throughout a wider and wider area. I also believe that NIGHT and LAND are directly connected, whereas DAWN and DAY take place in an alternate timeline (though you could make a good case for DAWN and LAND given the Blades zombie).

[MinionZombie]

I never did buy any of that bull that they take place in seperate universes. How did Blades appear in Dawn and Land? And why use clips from the first 3 movies in the trailer of Land? Just my view. Because the Blades zombie was chucked in for fans, a little nod and wink to us sorts, a little sight gag...nothing serious. They used clips from the three movies (initially anyway, before copyright problems) because GAR is best known for his zombie flicks, and you get across his previous films before showing footage from the new zombie flick, it also shows the stages and how it got out of hand and thus bringing you up to Land which is 3 years into an outbreak. Most zombie films, or films that masquerade as zombie-like films, always hang around the start of an infection breakout, so Land was quite different in that boom - 3 years into an outbreak, sh*t has gone down and people are clambering up a bit again...one of the reasons I love the film, we get to look far into the distance of an outbreak, rather than once again another 'beginning of' film...although with Diary again being a beginning, I'll let GAR off because he is the daddy of the genre and if anyone's going to do one, it should be him. That said, if he has other films in mind - please do get them rolling.

[Doc]

How did you come up with three days after the initial outbreak? You have to listen to the radio in Night when Ben turns it on it say the whole thing has been happening the past 2 days.

[DubiousComforts]

You have to listen to the radio in Night when Ben turns it on it say the whole thing has been happening the past 2 days. I'll check that out. You're talking about the original and not the 30th anniversary, right? Because they foolishly changed the radio broadcast in the latter. So if it's the past two days, then it's more like 48 hours into the outbreak rather than 72 hours.

[Mike70]

i will throw my lot in with MZ. there isn't any continuity among the films because that was never the intention. let's not invent something that doesn't exist and for god's sake quit treating these films as if they were star trek. next thing we know someone will comeout with a "technical manual" for dead reckoning.