So which Night film is canon to George's series, original or remake?

[MinionZombie]

See the underlined parts of your very own post I copied & pasted above (in red text.) IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA. And where in this text is there any mention of the dialogue that Sarah gives relating to the short amount of time that it took to put the operation together? As in - a different conversation elsewhere in the film in which timespan is referenced, if I remember correctly. Your response, to that red text was: That reference is about how long it took to put that operation together, certainly not about how long has the zombie crisis been going on. Which isn't the case, because Sarah says "days" not "months", much like I never said "months" in relation to the length of time it took to set up the operation. I did, however, say "months" in relation to how deep into the ZA 'Day of the Dead' takes place. The first time I wrote that red text was in response to Ned saying: True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here. So either you're reading something that literally isn't there, or you're havin' a laugh, JDP. Either way - I'm not entertaining this any more. - - - Updated - - - Pffft...so much for my big plans. The missus "reminded" me that I had other things to do. Hmmm ... she clearly needs to be re-educated regarding the importance of Romero movies!

[Moon Knight]

I could have swore Big Daddy was an evolution of Bub. *shrugs*

[EvilNed]

I could have swore Big Daddy was an evolution of Bub. *shrugs* So does Romero. Capone: Although, according to reports about LAND OF THE DEAD as well as the DVD commentary for DAY OF THE DEAD, it sounds like the zombies get smarter and evolve somewhat. G.R.: They have been. The last zombie you see in DAWN is holding a gun with some familiarity. And of course, in DAY OF THE DEAD there's Bub. In LAND, I'll have uber-Bub and a couple others that make it clear that the zombies are getting it together a little bit. They're still stumbling around, but they are developing a bit and there's more memory.

[shootemindehead]

And I haven't seen any convincing argument to suggest the opposite. Plus I haven't seen any very convincing counterarguments to the Land ----> Day order either. As I said, if that floats your boat, go for it. But, you'll have a hard time convincing that vast majority of people of its validity. - - - Updated - - - Women. Can't live with 'em. Can't shoot 'em in the head. Hmmm ... she clearly needs to be re-educated regarding the importance of Romero movies! Mmmmm...well apparently I "promised" to take her out for dinner. In any case, I stuck on 'Land of the Dead' when we got home. My opinion on it hasn't changed since 2005. It's an Ok film, let down here and there by some questionable gags (the zombie with the flip top head) and ill-thought out scenes (Mouse at the docks) and cameos (Savini). And the tech employed is at odds with other entries in the quad (I don't consider Diary or Survival part of the series). There shouldn't be laptops and digital wotsits knocking around. But, yeh. It's grand. I think The Mentalist is an ok front man and I like Asia. Cholo is ok as is Denis Hopper. Big Daddy is pretty awful, but his troupe contain some great zombies. That girl with half her cheek missing creeps me out and Dr. Butcher and Mr. Tambourine man are fun. I'm kind of left feeling disappointed that Romero chose to reboot and modernise his series rather than following on from 'Land of the Dead'. There's still the oportunity for someone (Nicotero?) to carry on the series, given the interest in all things zombie and it would be great to have a truly good zombie film to watch amidst all the dross. But, given his work schedule on 'The Walking Dead' and the damage to the "...of the Dead" brand that Survival and Diary did, it's difficult to see that come to fruition.

[JDP]

Yes, they do. Twice an event is mentioned that happened 3 years ago. That's twice. Two different characters. Heavily implied. You can disregard this, but that would be as absurd as disregarding anything that's not explicit. So you're essentially making the case that Night could theoretically take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly mentioned in either. Checkmate. And neither one is within any context necessarily having to do with the zombies or when they first appeared. Plus the other comment is by some random bum/wino (who was that guy??? not even this is clear) and what he says hardly makes any sense regarding when the zombie crisis began: in fact we can plainly see that cars still roll in & out of the city (Riley himself wants to do just that!), so the zombies are obviously not preventing people from engaging in such an activity. Not a very reliable source for claiming that the appearance of the zombies somehow would necessarily prevent anyone from driving a car and therefore it must refer to them. So what exactly was that bum/wino/whoever-he-was referring to that would prevent him from driving a car 3 years ago?? Where is the "clear-cut" or even implied reference to the zombies here??? This one is even more vague and easily open to interpretation than the Cholo-Kaufman reference (which is within another context, but, once again, not specifically about the zombies.) There simply is no unequivocal line in this movie as to how long the zombies have been around, unlike there is in Dawn. There the time reference is impossible to be interpreted any other way because the line is said within the context of a very explicit and clear discussion about the zombies and all the mayhem they have been causing. Touché. - - - Updated - - - And where in this text is there any mention of the dialogue that Sarah gives relating to the short amount of time that it took to put the operation together? As in - a different conversation elsewhere in the film in which timespan is referenced, if I remember correctly. Your response, to that red text was: Which isn't the case, because Sarah says "days" not "months", much like I never said "months" in relation to the length of time it took to set up the operation. I did, however, say "months" in relation to how deep into the ZA 'Day of the Dead' takes place. The first time I wrote that red text was in response to Ned saying: So either you're reading something that literally isn't there, or you're havin' a laugh, JDP. Either way - I'm not entertaining this any more. Did you or did you not say: "IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead."? There's only two lines in that movie that say "a matter of (some period of time)": one is a reference to how long Dr. Logan thinks it will take him to be able to show the results of his progress to Rhodes, and the other one is that line in reference to how long it took to put the operation together. From the context of your post, we can easily rule out the Logan quote. That only leaves Sarah's remark about how long it took to put the current operation together. - - - Updated - - - I could have swore Big Daddy was an evolution of Bub. *shrugs* How can you deduce that from what the two movies show these two characters do in common? Everything Big Daddy does in common with what we saw Bub do, he does it pretty much just like him. Where is the "evolution" here? If Big Daddy shot guns with sniper-like accuracy, or if he kept his cool and did not go into fits of rage when he saw something he did not like, then such a conclusion would be warranted. But from what we are shown that both Bub and him did in common, there is no shred of evidence that Big Daddy is "more evolved".

[EvilNed]

And neither one is within any context necessarily having to do with the zombies or when they first appeared. Yes - they are. Thus ignoring them because they are not explicit is like saying that Night could take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly stated. Which is what you are advocating.

[JDP]

Yes - they are. Thus ignoring them because they are not explicit is like saying that Night could take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly stated. Which is what you are advocating. Nope, they aren't, and you have yet to show even one logical argument as to how can the very plainly earlier events in Night possibly be happening after Day, when the zombie crisis is also very plainly in a much more advanced stage, as easily seen by the fact that no one is surprised by the existence of the zombies, everyone knows what they are and what they do, the media is gone, the government itself is apparently "gone" too, the cities are in decay and full of zombies and wild animals, scarce survivors left, etc. All of them very self-explanatory and self-evident, unlike the vague lines in Land which do not even happen during any conversation about the zombies. Your analogy is totally faulty.

[EvilNed]

Nope, they aren't, and you have yet to show even one logical argument as to how can the very plainly earlier events in Night possibly be happening after Day That's the point. That's the equivalence. It makes as much sense, and is as logical, as all the points you have been trying to make. Your arguments are absurdist and focused on really minutae details, whereas you ignore a lot of things (like for instance: Actual exposition relayed through dialogue) that do not support your far out theory. So the case you're making makes as much sense as claiming that Night takes place after Day. It's on the same level.

[CallMeChico]

Oh, boy. Interesting discussion, i never attended to something like this before. Many valid arguments on both side, but it has got stuck a few pages ago, i think. To my opinion, the only effectiv timeline in the ... of the Dead-Movies is that Day settles up after Dawn. In germany they are named Zombie and Zombie 2 - Das letzte Kapitel, which fits very good i think. To me Dawn is clearly no follow-up to Night 'cause in Night mankind wins the battle (while the group loses, especially Ben), in Dawn they are about losing it. They are two versions of the same outbreak story. On the other side could Land be a follow-up to Dawn, but not to Day, because at the end of Day mankind only finds shelter on an island (if this is real and no dream). But it's doomed to end up as footnote of evolution. And the themes of either Day and Land are taken from the same Romero script, the original Day of the Dead (which is also more Land than Day actually). To me possible Timelines are: 1. Dawn > 2. Day 1. Dawn > 2. Land 1. Diary > 2. Survival AND 1. Night > 2. Crazies > 3. Return of the Living Dead And just one point to the function of money in Land of the Dead; money is an illusion because Kaufman doesn't want Cholo to move in the tower, despite the amount of money has henchman owns. He wants him down to his service not to be part of the upper class. This makes Cholos plan of taking the dead reckoning as hostag for ransom looking so absurd.

[EvilNed]

1. Night > 2. Crazies > 3. Return of the Living Dead Now we're getting places.

[MinionZombie]

And just one point to the function of money in Land of the Dead; money is an illusion because Kaufman doesn't want Cholo to move in the tower, despite the amount of money has henchman owns. He wants him down to his service not to be part of the upper class. This makes Cholos plan of taking the dead reckoning as hostag for ransom looking so absurd. Hmmm ... but Dead Reckoning is an important tool in Kaufman's empire. Dead Reckoning is the commanding vehicle for all the expeditions into the outside world for supplies, so taking DR hostage is Cholo's only real play and it does carry some weight. You're right about Kaufman not wanting Cholo in the tower with him, and I believe that Cholo doesn't even get to see his cash - or only enough to tide him over on the streets to piss up the wall on booze and hookers and gambling (all vices that Kaufman had set up to entertain the masses and keep them distracted). I've always thought that Kaufman was 'keeping Cholo's cash' safe for him, IIRC that gets referenced in Land of the Dead (as if Cholo is building up credit). However, this all shows that money does have a purpose and is evidently very useful, plus it's a system that everyone understands from the old world. In addition to that bartering has become a bigger part. We have bartering in our world to some extent, people doing things for each other in trade, but it's a more important thing for the folks on the streets in Land living in the slums (e.g. Riley gets the meds for that man's sickly son), so there's two economies going on, but they also overlap.

[CallMeChico]

Hmmm ... but Dead Reckoning is an important tool in Kaufman's empire. Dead Reckoning is the commanding vehicle for all the expeditions into the outside world for supplies, so taking DR hostage is Cholo's only real play and it does carry some weight. You're right about Kaufman not wanting Cholo in the tower with him, and I believe that Cholo doesn't even get to see his cash - or only enough to tide him over on the streets to piss up the wall on booze and hookers and gambling (all vices that Kaufman had set up to entertain the masses and keep them distracted). I've always thought that Kaufman was 'keeping Cholo's cash' safe for him, IIRC that gets referenced in Land of the Dead (as if Cholo is building up credit). However, this all shows that money does have a purpose and is evidently very useful, plus it's a system that everyone understands from the old world. In addition to that bartering has become a bigger part. We have bartering in our world to some extent, people doing things for each other in trade, but it's a more important thing for the folks on the streets in Land living in the slums (e.g. Riley gets the meds for that man's sickly son), so there's two economies going on, but they also overlap. That's right, money has some value in Land... but only in the restrictions dictated by Kaufman. He wants to hold up the old system, but make also sure that he ist the one who decides whether a person can climb up a letter or not. And when Cholo takes the vehicle for ransom, the money, if he would get it, would be useless for him. It wouldn't bring him into the tower and outside the outpost this printed paper is quite useless. And it's no question he has to escape after the deal, for without the Dead Reckoning he would be worthless.

[shootemindehead]

That's right, money has some value in Land... but only in the restrictions dictated by Kaufman. He wants to hold up the old system, but make also sure that he ist the one who decides whether a person can climb up a letter or not. And when Cholo takes the vehicle for ransom, the money, if he would get it, would be useless for him. It wouldn't bring him into the tower and outside the outpost this printed paper is quite useless. And it's no question he has to escape after the deal, for without the Dead Reckoning he would be worthless. Cholo doesn't know this yet though and to be honest, he isn't that smart. Plus, as Peter said about money in 'Dawn of the Dead'..."You never know". In any case, the whole money angle is part of Romero's "message" in 'Land of the Dead', in that we cling to outdated and elitist concepts, instead of working with each other for the greater good. Something that harks back to his original subplot in 'Night of the Living Dead'. The city is portioned off and highly defensible. It's surrounded by water on two sides and the only way in or out is a guarded entry point, called "The Throat". So, in theory, it should be a kind of mecca for humans among the nightmare of the living dead hordes that control outside. But, the humans within are saddled with a need to hold onto items of nebulous worth like a fiat currency, or destructive items like self medication (booze and drugs), while the guy who "took" the Fiddler's Green tower block is concerned with self aggrandisement. We know that money probably doesn't have any "value" outside of the walls of the city. Hell, more than likely even Cholo knows. But, in the end that's all he has to cling to and he's probably been beholden to the idea of pursuing money for his entire life.

[MinionZombie]

That's right, money has some value in Land... but only in the restrictions dictated by Kaufman. He wants to hold up the old system, but make also sure that he ist the one who decides whether a person can climb up a letter or not. And when Cholo takes the vehicle for ransom, the money, if he would get it, would be useless for him. It wouldn't bring him into the tower and outside the outpost this printed paper is quite useless. And it's no question he has to escape after the deal, for without the Dead Reckoning he would be worthless. Cholo doesn't know this yet though and to be honest, he isn't that smart. Plus, as Peter said about money in 'Dawn of the Dead'..."You never know". We know that money probably doesn't have any "value" outside of the walls of the city. Hell, more than likely even Cholo knows. But, in the end that's all he has to cling to and he's probably been beholden to the idea of pursuing money for his entire life. Aye, Cholo doesn't know until much later - he's already gone through with his hostage plan, that fails, and then he's only got vengeance in mind for Kaufman (they end up fighting - Cholo as a zombie - right when Big Daddy blows them up ... using his post-Day evolutionary zombie thinking ). As for money - there's a bunch of other pockets of humanity spread out, which Kaufman helped set up (he's planning to escape to one of them in his limo when the shit goes down) - so the money would be good there, too (which will be the practical reason why Kaufman's bags are stuffed full o'cash and nothing else).

[JDP]

That's the point. That's the equivalence. It makes as much sense, and is as logical, as all the points you have been trying to make. Your arguments are absurdist and focused on really minutae details, whereas you ignore a lot of things (like for instance: Actual exposition relayed through dialogue) that do not support your far out theory. So the case you're making makes as much sense as claiming that Night takes place after Day. It's on the same level. No, that's our point, not yours. Yours is a totally faulty analogy with a couple of guys making vague references that do not even happen within the context of the zombies themselves with things that are plainly self-explanatory, which means NO EXPLICIT EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED because everyone with at least a modicum of common sense knows that things progress in chronological order: people not knowing anything about zombies and being caught by surprise by their appearance must necessarily precede people being very well familiar with them and no longer being surprised. It's how the world works, sorry, we can't do anything about the natural progression of time. So no, it's not "on the same level" by any stretch of the imagination. Keep trying. - - - Updated - - - Oh, boy. Interesting discussion, i never attended to something like this before. Many valid arguments on both side, but it has got stuck a few pages ago, i think. To my opinion, the only effectiv timeline in the ... of the Dead-Movies is that Day settles up after Dawn. In germany they are named Zombie and Zombie 2 - Das letzte Kapitel, which fits very good i think. To me Dawn is clearly no follow-up to Night 'cause in Night mankind wins the battle (while the group loses, especially Ben), in Dawn they are about losing it. They are two versions of the same outbreak story. On the other side could Land be a follow-up to Dawn, but not to Day, because at the end of Day mankind only finds shelter on an island (if this is real and no dream). But it's doomed to end up as footnote of evolution. And the themes of either Day and Land are taken from the same Romero script, the original Day of the Dead (which is also more Land than Day actually). To me possible Timelines are: 1. Dawn > 2. Day 1. Dawn > 2. Land 1. Diary > 2. Survival AND 1. Night > 2. Crazies > 3. Return of the Living Dead And just one point to the function of money in Land of the Dead; money is an illusion because Kaufman doesn't want Cholo to move in the tower, despite the amount of money has henchman owns. He wants him down to his service not to be part of the upper class. This makes Cholos plan of taking the dead reckoning as hostag for ransom looking so absurd. I will take issue with 2 of your statements: 1- We saw people beat the zombies in Night only in that rural setting where the story takes place. It does not mean that people in the big cities and towns actually were able to beat them too. So there is absolutely nothing preventing Dawn from being what it plainly is: a sequel to Night. The zombie plague was able to continue in the more populated areas and it eventually spread everywhere again. 2- Money evidently has value outside of Kaufman's city. Otherwise it would make no sense at all for Cholo to want to get all that money from him if he can't use it anywhere else. It would be a self-defeating plan. In fact, Kaufman would laugh it off himself, he could simply end the whole charade by telling Cholo: "Where are you going to use all that dough, dumbass? I am the only one you can use it with LOL!" But no, he takes the threat very seriously and refuses to pay him instead. Plus Kaufman himself wants to take the money with him when he attempts to flee his own city. Why, if it is supposedly worthless out there? And trying to "explain" this pertinent little fact the way Minion wants to, by conjuring up the other places that Kaufman has set up as emergency refuges, hardly makes sense since he owns those places too, he does not need any money there. The supplies in those places belong to him and his associates. So why does Kaufman need any money, then? The only reasonable answer is that in the plainly less devastated world of Land money still "talks" with the other survivors "out there". That is the only reason why Kaufman needs the money he wants to take with him. He will have to hire more new people to try to rebuild his empire. And these people want money. Again, why??? Only reasonable answer: money is still worth something at the time the movie is happening. Otherwise no one would accept it as payment, they would go back to gold/silver currency, or bartering, but not paper money which is not being backed up by anything.