GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline

[Danny]

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

[EvilNed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.