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

[JDP]

Actually, yes it is. You see, the dialogue lines are what in film are referred to as Exposition. They are both referring to the context of the film - the Zombie outbreak. Two different characters no less are referring to it, so there's more to it than just Cholo. So no, there are no assumptions. It is exposition given within the film, referring to the start of the zombie outbreak (3 years ago). The film has more than one context, the zombies are not the only one. The specific context regarding Cholo & Kaufman and the 3 years is their business relationship, not the zombies or when they first appeared. So yes, you are making assumptions. Granted that they are plausible assumptions, but they are not the only ones. The lines of dialogue are not specific enough to rule out other assumptions that are also plausible, like Cholo and Kaufman's business relationship extending to a time before the zombies appeared. Show us something in the movie that would preclude such an assumption from being possible. We know that some of these people have been living their WHOLE LIVES in that city (that implies they were there before the zombies), so there is no impossibility whatsoever in some of them having known each other since long before any zombies appeared. If the city itself had not existed before the zombies, you would have a better point that perhaps Cholo and Kaufman could not have known each other before, but that is not the case. The city and its dwellers clearly have pre-zombie pasts as well.

[EvilNed]

The film has more than one context, the zombies are not the only one. Well, since we are talking exposition given to us explicitly by characters on several occassions, there can be only one relevant context: The start of the outbreak. All Other contexts are irrelevant and can be dismissed as options. Thus, for the intents and purposes of this argument the dialogue explicitly references the outbreak and we can deduce from it how long ago it has been since the start of the outbreak: 3 years. It's there, clear as crystal.

[JDP]

Well, since we are talking exposition given to us explicitly by characters on several occassions, there can be only one relevant context: The start of the outbreak. All Other contexts are irrelevant and can be dismissed as options. Thus, for the intents and purposes of this argument the dialogue explicitly references the outbreak and we can deduce from it how long ago it has been since the start of the outbreak: 3 years. It's there, clear as crystal. Hardly so. Even Romero himself kept insisting that the zombies are not the most important thing in his "living-dead" movies and saw them as secondary to the other plot elements. In the specific case of Cholo & Kaufman's dialogue, the obvious context is their weakening business relationship (which will eventually lead to a "war" between these two characters) and most certainly not the zombies or when they first appeared. You could easily have the exact same dialogue in a non-zombie movie and it would work 100% the same without any zombies around anywhere. That's how non-zombie-related Cholo & Kaufman's dialogue is. So there is more than one choice here, it does not necessarily mean "zombie outbreak!" like you want it to exclusively mean. The way the dialogue in Land is written it leaves the whole thing open to interpretation. Compare it now with the truly specific, clear and unambiguous dialogue in Dawn. You can't take that whole Dawn dialogue about the 3 weeks verbatim and put it into a non-zombie movie, it will never work. That's how specific, unambiguous and 100% crystal clear the Dawn dialogue is; it leaves zero doubt whatsoever that the characters are referring to zombies and how long they have been around.

[EvilNed]

Hardly so. Even Romero himself kept insisting that the zombies are not the most important thing in his "living-dead" movies and saw them as secondary to the other plot elements. In the specific case of Cholo & Kaufman's dialogue, the obvious context is their weakening business relationship (which will eventually lead to a "war" between these two characters) and most certainly not the zombies or when they first appeared. The dialogue is meant to give us background. This type of dialogue is called exposition. Here you can read a bit about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative) To put it simply, the dialogue is there to convey information about the characters, the setting and the narrative to us viewers. Two different characters refer to something "3 years ago". The context is a zombie apocalypse. The dialogue is referring to this zombie apocalypse. Textbook exposition really. Thus, we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

[JDP]

The dialogue is meant to give us background. This type of dialogue is called exposition. Here you can read a bit about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative) To put it simply, the dialogue is there to convey information about the characters, the setting and the narrative to us viewers. Two different characters refer to something "3 years ago". The context is a zombie apocalypse. The dialogue is referring to this zombie apocalypse. Textbook exposition really. Thus, we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. That would be fine and dandy if the zombies were the only thing going on in the movie, but they are clearly not. These people all had pasts that extend beyond the zombies as well. Their lives did not begin with the zombies. In fact, people wanting to cling to the past ways of life, back to the way things were before the zombies showed up, is a big plot element itself. So, unless clearer and more specific information is given regarding time references, it is open to interpretation what "something" regarding "x number of days/weeks/months/years" might refer to. "Something 3 years ago" could be a number of things, actually, and not necessarily the same thing either. The bum/wino lost his license three years ago, for example, and Kaufman's new "rules" after he took over have continued to prevent him from getting permission to drive a car again, or maybe he just doesn't have the money to get it back, or to buy a car. In fact, all of these would explain much better than the zombies why he has not driven a car since, as we can plainly see that zombies being around hasn't stopped other people from being able to drive cars. So, the bum/wino might easily be referring to something that happened to him specifically 3 years ago that prevented him from driving a car, and not necessarily, as you keep on assuming, "the zombie outbreak!!!!". In other words: some of the dialogue in Land is vague and choppy as hell and leaves a lot to be desired. Not Romero's best (but not his worst either.)

[EvilNed]

That would be fine and dandy if the zombies were the only thing going on in the movie, but they are clearly not. The films are still set in an apocalyptic enviroment and any exposition is refering to the setting. Since it is repeated by several characters, on numerous occasios, we can further deduce that the dialogue is explicitly referencing (and giving us exposition on) when in time the film is set. Any other conclusions are simply not true, and not based on anything other than wishful and contrived thinking. Thus we can deduce that the film is set 3 years after the outbreak. The real question is, as I've already stated, where does Day fit into this?

[JDP]

The films are still set in an apocalyptic enviroment and any exposition is refering to the setting. Since it is repeated by several characters, on numerous occasios, we can further deduce that the dialogue is explicitly referencing (and giving us exposition on) when in time the film is set. Any other conclusions are simply not true, and not based on anything other than wishful and contrived thinking. Thus we can deduce that the film is set 3 years after the outbreak. The real question is, as I've already stated, where does Day fit into this? False premise, not everything that is said in a zombie movie has to be regarding the zombies. We get examples of this in virtually any zombie movie. In this one in particular, just look at Cholo's statements about his father being a loser all his life, and how Riley reminds him of the fellow, for example. Where are the zombies in this? According to your faulty logic, this too must by force be referring to "the zombie outbreak!!!", but there is nothing to warrant such an assumption, just like any of a number of other things that can also be easily referring to things other than the zombies. So, no, unless more specifically, clearly and unambiguously stated, not everything said in this movie is necessarily about the zombies. Also, 3 years is only mentioned twice, not "numerous occasions", and in both cases it has nothing to do with the zombies. One is some random bum/wino trying to avoid the accusation of being a thief by saying he hasn't driven a car for that long, and the other one is another guy complaining about his business relationship with someone else. It takes a gigantic ASSUMPTION to try to connect these two separate references as supposedly having to do with the same thing, since they are about totally different subjects, neither of which have anything to do with the zombies. Why would the zombies stop anyone from driving a car, when we can plainly see other characters doing so despite the zombies? Why is it "impossible" that someone has been working with another person from before the zombies and they have continued their partnership all the way up to the present? How would the appearance of any "zombies" prevent such things from happening???? Go ahead an admit it once and for all instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on assumptions: it's SHODDY AND LAZY writing that hardly clarifies anything for the viewer, plain and simple. Certainly not Romero's best effort. Regarding "where does Day fit into this?": the more appropriate question would be: how can Land be happening after the clearly more desolate, depopulated, devastated and decayed world of Day??????

[EvilNed]

False premise, not everything that is said in a zombie movie has to be regarding the zombies. True, but any exposition regarding events is going to be. So the first part of your statement is incorrect, but the second is correct. Had Cholo said something like "We had a working relationship even before all this broke out" or the mechanic something along the lines of "You know, I've been in a bad place for 3 years, and that's not counting the 1 year before all this happened" then maybe something like what you're saying could make sense. As it stands now, the dialogue is just fairly straight forward exposition. The context is a zombie apocalypse. The result is explicit dialogue to tell us viewers what world we're in. Quite a common practice in these films. So we know that the film is set 3 years into the outbreak.

[JDP]

True, but any exposition regarding events is going to be. So the first part of your statement is incorrect, but the second is correct. Again, not true. Example: Cholo referring to his father being a loser is a reference to an "event". Another example: Charlie, Riley and Slack referring to the fire accident that scarred Charlie's face is a reference to an "event". Now, prove to me that such references necessarily have to do with the zombies just because the movie is set in a zombie apocalypse. Good luck! Guess what? Same thing with the 3 years bit. "As is", such lines prove nothing regarding the zombies, and they are 100% open to question and subject to various plausible interpretations/assumptions. Had Cholo said something like "We had a working relationship even before all this broke out" or the mechanic something along the lines of "You know, I've been in a bad place for 3 years, and that's not counting the 1 year before all this happened" then maybe something like what you're saying could make sense. By the exact same token, had Cholo said something like "How long have I been working for you? Three years? Three years since this whole mess started!" or the mechanic/wino/bum something along the lines of "The last car I drove out of this town was 3 years ago, before it became a fortress" then maybe something like your assumption that it all has to do with the zombies could be 100% guaranteed and exclude all other plausible assumptions. But alas, Romero did not bother to be more precise and instead wrote such vague lines that leave the whole thing hanging in the air and open to interpretation, just like when did the fire happen that disfigured Charlie's face, or Cholo's father having become a loser. Same thing. All vague and quite open to interpretation regarding whether any of these "events" has anything to do with the zombies. And by the way, the mechanic/bum/wino (WHO IS THIS GUY??? Not even this is clear!) saying that he hasn't driven a car out of town for 3 years far from helping your case in fact throws more question marks at it. I repeat the same very pertinent question again: why exactly would the coming of the zombies prevent this guy from being able to drive a car out of the city? Your assumption that it "must" have to do with the zombies does not make much sense considering that we plainly see other people not being stopped at all by the exact same zombies from doing exactly what he is complaining about not being able to do: driving vehicles in & out of the city. All it takes for this action to happen is having enough money to buy a working vehicle (like Riley was doing) and/or getting permission from the authorities to drive vehicles. So the most logical conclusion here is that this fellow hasn't been able to drive a car because of something that specifically happened to him 3 years ago, and NOT something that by force happened to everyone else, which would be the case if his reference really was about the coming of the zombies (something that affected everyone, no exceptions.) So, this reference is even less clear and even more open to interpretation/assumptions than Cholo's also vague dialogue with Kaufman. As it stands now, the dialogue is just fairly straight forward exposition. The context is a zombie apocalypse. The result is explicit dialogue to tell us viewers what world we're in. Quite a common practice in these films. So we know that the film is set 3 years into the outbreak. As it stands, these lines in Land are all vague as hell and prove nothing beyond any shadow of a doubt, precluding any other possible assumptions. Again, compare them to the truly specific, clear and unambiguous "exposition" regarding the zombies and their uprising in Dawn, where no other plausible interpretation/assumptions are possible.

[EvilNed]

Again, not true. Example: Cholo referring to his father being a loser is a reference to an "event". Absolutely, but there's more to it than that; To explain to us who Cholo is and that his father is dead by now - probably even due to the zombies. So again, these references are all inseperable from the setting the film takes place in - a Zombie apocalypse. Which is why the "3 year"-lines all refer to the zombie outbreak. It's the logical conclusion. Thus we know for sure that Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak. It's mentioned in dialogue and is not refuteable.

[JDP]

Absolutely, but there's more to it than that; To explain to us who Cholo is and that his father is dead by now - probably even due to the zombies. So again, these references are all inseperable from the setting the film takes place in - a Zombie apocalypse. Which is why the "3 year"-lines all refer to the zombie outbreak. It's the logical conclusion. Thus we know for sure that Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak. It's mentioned in dialogue and is not refuteable. Operative word here being: PROBABLY. Notice that well. Not "surely". Same thing with the "3 years" bit. The way the dialogue in this movie is written, there are no guarantees regarding the zombies in respect to most of the "events" we hear about that extend to some time in the past. One of the very few ones that is for sure and leaves no doubt whatsoever is Slack having lived all her live in the city. Since she is not a baby, then there is NO choice but to conclude that this happened both before and after the zombies. But most of the other past "events" in the movie are really anyone's guess when exactly did they happen with respect to the appearance of the zombies, including the "3 years" bits of dialogue, which could easily be referring to things other than the zombies, like that mechanic/bum/wino protesting about not having driven a car for that long, something which the appearance of the zombies did not prevent everyone else from doing, and therefore must refer to something that specifically happened to him and not everyone else equally.

[EvilNed]

Operative word here being: PROBABLY. Yes, Cholo's dad probably died from being eaten by zombies. It's only mentioned once - unlike the 3 year referene - and to be honest he looks like he lived a rough life prior to outbreak 3 years ago as well. This has no effect on the exposition the films gives us regarding the time the film is set in - which the film clearly spells out is 3 years after the outbreak.

[JDP]

Yes, Cholo's dad probably died from being eaten by zombies. It's only mentioned once - unlike the 3 year referene - and to be honest he looks like he lived a rough life prior to outbreak 3 years ago as well. This has no effect on the exposition the films gives us regarding the time the film is set in - which the film clearly spells out is 3 years after the outbreak. Just like there is no clarification on that bit about Cholo's dad, or when exactly did Charlie manage to survive the fire that scarred him (which is also referred to more than once, but is not made any clearer by that fact either, as nothing having to do with the zombies is specifically mentioned in that context either), the "3 years" references also do not clarify anything regarding the zombies, as they also happen in other contexts that do not specifically appertain to the zombies themselves: one is a guy protesting that he has not driven a car for that long (something that we can plainly see hasn't happened to many other people in the city, therefore obviously the zombies are not impeding vehicles from going in & out of the city, so something else happened to that guy in particular that prevented him from driving a car), another one is a guy ranting about his business relationship with someone else. No zombies implicated anywhere. Just like in Cholo's dad case or Charlie's accident. But could the zombies have had something to do with all of these things? Yes. But is it a must that they did have something to do with them? No. So, no, the movie clarifies nothing in regards to how long have the zombies been around. It is something that is simply never specifically addressed in the movie.

[EvilNed]

Just like there is no clarification on that bit about Cholo's dad, or when exactly did Charlie manage to survive the fire that scarred him (which is also referred to more than once, but is not made any clearer by that fact either, as nothing having to do with the zombies is specifically mentioned in that context either), the "3 years" references...[/U] Incorrect, The setting is clarification enough. We can easily deduce that the intention was to tell us when the film is set in regards to the outbreak. It's textbook exposition. So we know the film takes place 3 years after the outbreak. How do we know? The characters tell us so, in dialogue. In the film itself. On two occasions.

[JDP]

Incorrect, The setting is clarification enough. We can easily deduce that the intention was to tell us when the film is set in regards to the outbreak. It's textbook exposition. So we know the film takes place 3 years after the outbreak. How do we know? The characters tell us so, in dialogue. In the film itself. On two occasions. Truly incorrect. "Textbook exposition" would be the dialogue about 3 weeks in Dawn, which very well and clearly informs the viewer when exactly is the action happening with respect to the first movie. What we see in Land are only vague lines that do not address such information but are plainly about other subjects. Two totally disconnected mentions of some amount of time are not guarantee of anything, specially not when the subjects are so different and peculiar to each separate character and do not implicate the zombies at all: 1- A character protesting about not having driven a car out of town in 3 years, which we know other characters can actually do without any problem, the mere presence of the zombies notwithstanding (note well this very pertinent last bit, that's why it's underlined. It points out that the mere presence of the zombies cannot account for the character's statements.) 2- A character complaining about his 3 year business relationship with another character, with no mention of anything appertaining to the zombies anywhere in this dialogue either Where is the supposed necessary involvement of the zombies anywhere in either case, then??? I keep asking you the same VERY PERTINENT question over and over, and all you keep giving is the same invalid claim that "exposition" must somehow magically "fill in the blanks" for the viewer. Wrongo! Some viewers making GIGANTIC ASSUMPTIONS about totally disconnected mentions of some amount of time is NOT what "exposition" is all about. What this in fact tells us is that the "exposition" in this movie is sloppy enough that different viewers can easily go around making DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS about some of what the movie "exposes". Notice that such a thing CANNOT happen in a truly well-done "exposition", like that of Dawn, where no alternative explanations/interpretations/assumptions regarding its mention of "3 weeks" are possible.