GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline

[Philly_SWAT]

ever get that wierd feeling when its two guys in a room talking to themselves and no one else? Well, you are here, so there is at least THREE guys in the room! Normally I wait for someone to post to my response before I give another one, but here I will make an exception. EvilNed has continually said "GAR said such and such on the Land commentary", so I just put in Land to listen to the commentary. I am only a few minutes in, but already, what I have heard is very interesting. The first question GAR is asked is "why did you use the old black and white Universal logo" at the beginning? He said "we wanted this opening sequence in black and white to get a sense that it was set it the past" and also that "we wanted to show clips of Night Dawn and Day, but we couldnt, so we did it this way instead" or words to that effect. He also said seeing the old Zenith radio in the opening was a "reference to Night of the Living Dead". Also, before the film actually begins, on screen is bold capital letters is says "SOME TIME AGO". Does this not show that he did intend for the films to be "tied together", to use your terms?

[Danny]

yeah i gotta agree, then y'know the titles kind of give it away, night dawn day...... see? there it only took 15 pages

[EvilNed]

Lots of text about you not having a clue what I was saying... Interpret it how you want. But I don't know where you get the "You said that if it's not proven, it's disproven", because I never said that. I never said ANYTHING of the sort. ...I am saying that the same way two series set in the same genre are obviously not connected, Star Trek and Babylon 5, that GARs dead films and ZFE are obviously not connected. What makes it so obvious that Dawn and Night are connected, yet Dawn and Zombie aren't? Is it the blue zombies? The United States in the days preceeding 9/11/2001 and the days right after 9/11/2001 are totally different times, yet they are only a few days apart. Yeah, but they weren't 30 years apart so that's quite a irrelevant argument you got there. Again, "tying together" and "existing in the same timeline" are two different things. Yeah, so? The films have no connection, and George A. Romero never intended them to have. AND YES, now you say "But what about the zombies?!" well, Romero wanted to make a zombie film to comment on our current society. That's what he always did. He also probably wanted to make some cash, which, I guess, is what he did. At least a little. No fancy plan, such as creating a story-telling universe, and then subdividing that universe into separate timelines? I doubt Romero even considered this whenever he wrote the scripts. If you listen to him talk, he obviously never meant for them to be in the same timeline because he just wants to make a zombie film that ties in with the times they were made in. Story-telling universe and subdividing it into seperate timelines? Hey, maybe he crated a different story-telling universe for each film. Who knows. In any case, you make it sound as if it's something elaborate and hard thing to do, when infact it's not. I guess that depends on your definition of "wild" comparisons. When one person makes the argument "the differences in technology show the films are in different timelines" and another person says "but this other series of films has difference in technology, yet obviously is in the same timeline" does not seem a wild comparison to me, but one right on point. It seems wilder to suggest that because two different films have similar things in them, GARs dead films and ZFE both having zombies, and suggesting they are in the same timeline. The main difference in that argument is this: we both agree, Trekkies or not, that it is obvious that the Star Trek series are exisiting in the same timeline, and that is the basis of my point. Neither of us think that GARs films and ZFE is in the same timeline, yet you want me to disprove something that neither one us of believes. I attempted to find something we could agree on to illustrate my point, you have taken something that neither us of agrees with to try to negate mine. You've even the timeline to the Bond films, Friday films and coaching an NBA team for chrissakes! Also, I never said that ZFE doesn't take place in the same timeline as Dawn, but I think it's quite obvious you don't. Frankly, I think each zombiefilm should be viewed independently. Each Dead film can be. As for your Star Trek argument, they have characters that bind them together. Is it so hard to distinguish them this from the Dead films, where nothing matches? Except that it's set on earth and there are zombies in them? Oh, and lets NOT forget the title. Such overwhelming evidence towers over the fact that the films are quite obviously (both thematicly and plotwise) set in different times from one another. Normally I wait for someone to post to my response before I give another one, but here I will make an exception. EvilNed has con... So you've finally got something to back your theory up with. but again, I can just take YOUR route and "interpret" what GAR says in a way that suits my argument. For instance, there IS no footage of the Dawn, Day and Night films in the Land. Later on, GAR says that Night follows different rules than Dawn etc. etc., so obviously takes place in a different storytelling universe. And wether or not the film is actually SET sometime ago, that could mean anything. But it's not set next to Night, that's pretty obvious considering the leap in technology! And THEMES!

[Philly_SWAT]

Interpret it how you want. But I don't know where you get the "You said that if it's not proven, it's disproven", because I never said that. I never said ANYTHING of the sort. It is frustrating to keep belaboring this point. What you said, again, was: 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. Yes, you did not use the exact phrase "becuase if its not proven, therefore it is disproven." But what else does your quote mean? You say there is nothing IN the films to prove they are "tied together", and that the ONLY thing that binds them is speculation. It appears very evident to me that you are saying there is no proof they exist in the same timeline because there is nothing "IN" the films that prove this, and therefore that is proof that they dont exist in the same timeline. If that is not what you meant I apologize, but it sure seems like that is what you were saying. Again, I am responding to your specific point here. Yeah, but they weren't 30 years apart so that's quite a irrelevant argument you got there. Irrelevant perhaps to the overall question of "Do GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline" but not irrelevant to your specific point in reference to...cant find it, but I believe it was in reference to the Bridge on the River Kwai and Full Metal Jacket being 30 years apart..... Originally Posted by EvilNed Yeah, they're 30 years apart. But the Dead films, by your argument, would be 3 years apart... Yet still set in different times. I was talking about your specific point about those two films, that they were set in "different times". I was showing that "different times" can be a long period of time, or a short period of time. You've even the timeline to the Bond films, Friday films and coaching an NBA team for chrissakes! I will try to start making a conscious effort to keep future posts shorter, and bring less analogy into the discussion. You said in the past, and put it in bold letters, that GAR said on the Land commentary that the films were NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY! I listened to the entire commentary, and he does not say that. You criticize me for "interpreting" what GAR said, well I now criticize you for not giving accurate quotes, and not providing any context to those quotes. He does say he wasnt trying to connect the films, but the context of the whole quote shows what he meant by that. The first question out of the box also shows his "intent" of the timeline. The commentary starts with this exchange: GAR - Hi this is George Romero, PG - and Peter Grunwald, MD - and Michael Doherty , the editor GAR - We’re watching Land of the Dead, with you PG - Talk about why you picked the old universal logo. GAR - I have fond memories of seeing it on old, you know, Val Lewtin flicks and so I thought it would be nice and ….. we wanted this opening sequence to be in black and white to get a sense that it was set in the past. Originally we wanted to use footage from my other zombie films, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead, but there were problems, so we wound up having a company called “Spin” design this sequence. ONSCREEN - SOME TIME AGO appears on screen MD - Naomi at Spin did a fantastic job with all of this footage, making it look old. GAR - A little reference, that old Zenith radio is a little bit of a reference to NOTLD, it’s the kind of radio that we had in the farmhouse in the first film. How do you intrepret this? He says he wanted the opening in black and white to give a sense that it was set in the past. He wanted to use clips from his other movies, and since he couldnt, used the black and white to show the connection. He specifically mentions the old-style radio and how that connects to the radio used in Night. As far as the "connection" quote, this is what is said there.... PG - Actually the fireworks are arguably the only new rule that’s in this movie compared with the other zombie films, the fact that they can be memorized by something. GAR - Yeah, there were some things actually in the very original Night of the Living Dead, again, I’m not trying to connect the films, even though theoretically it’s the same phenomenon, the people are just not staying dead, but they’re not connected, the stories are separate, there’s different characters in each story. In the first film, I didn’t even call them zombies; I didn’t think of them as zombies, I thought of them as flash eaters, ghouls, that’s the forgotten Universal monster, the ghoul. But they were eating insects in the, you know everyone says they only eat flesh, but they were eating insects in the original NOTLD, they were also afraid of fire in NOTLD, you know, it was the first one of these I’d done and I hadn’t really done a rulebook, (laughs) so now the rules are ... I don’t know, developing a little more. Well see what happens ifs there’s another one. MD or PG – What, they’ll smoke cigarettes and lounge? GAR - Smoke cigarettes and drink gin. (Laughter) How do you interpret this? He doesnt say they arent connected IN ANY WAY, and doesnt say they dont exist in the same timeline. He does say that theoretically it’s the same phenomenon. He says "but they’re not connected, the stories are separate, there’s different characters in each story." He specifically mentions that the stories and characters are different, not that they are set in different timelines. This seems to me the same way in the different Star Trek series, there are different stories and different characters in each series. He also specifically says about Night that it was the first "one of these" he had done, and that he didnt have a "rulebook". This goes to what I have been saying, about low-budget and non-perfect movie making techniques were the result of differences in rules, not because of different timelines.

[EvilNed]

First off, I want to commend you for finally getting some things to back up your argument with. And here goes: It is frustrating to keep belaboring this point. What you said, again, was:[/QUOTE] I can imagine it's frustrating trying to keep bringing up this point, considering you really have no idea of what I was talking about and should stop interpreting things I said so it suits your argument. I don't know what you're trying to prove here (this side argument), but it's only annoying and it's just twisting what I said. Irrelevant perhaps to the overall question of "Do GAR's dead films take place in the same timeline" but not irrelevant to your specific point in reference to...cant find it, but I believe it was in reference to the Bridge on the River Kwai and Full Metal Jacket being 30 years apart..... I was talking about your specific point about those two films, that they were set in "different times". I was showing that "different times" can be a long period of time, or a short period of time. And Bridge over River Kwai and FMJ argument didn't work out as well, and didn't really prove anything. Reality vs. fiction, remember? They are different. There's no saying that those two films take place in the same timeline, and I don't see why they have too. It's not like there's a universal "General" timeline where all Hollywood films take place if the creator wants it. Sure, both take place in "THIS" timeline, but that doesn't mean it's the same "THIS" timeline. As for time, yes. Different times can be moments apart or years apart. But in this case, it's obviously many years apart. So again, why bring this up? I will try to start making a conscious effort to keep future posts shorter, and bring less analogy into the discussion. You said in the past, and put it in bold letters, that GAR said on the Land commentary that the films were NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY! I listened to the entire commentary, and he does not say that. You criticize me for "interpreting" what GAR said, well I now criticize you for not giving accurate quotes, and not providing any context to those quotes. He does say he wasnt trying to connect the films, but the context of the whole quote shows what he meant by that. The first question out of the box also shows his "intent" of the timeline. How does it show any intent of a timeline? I can agree that it shows an intent of connection between the films (where you get a point) but it shows no real intent of a timelien! He mentions using old radio sound and filter, but as soon as the film itself gets going, we're OBVIOUSLY back in the now. Which is quite a bit ahead of old radios and black and white television. Heck, in the Fiddlers Green underground, they've even watching a color TV set. The black and white start was pretty much just to catch people up with the story. How do you interpret this? He doesnt say they arent connected IN ANY WAY... It's true he doesn't say they aren't connected but his intentions are obviously pretty clear. There's not a set timeline these films take place in. There never was, however, an intention to create a timeline. Listen to him, he's totally disinterested in connecting these films. Add these things to the fact that the zombie rules change and that the times change and voíla! The "Same timeline" theory loses even further credibility. He says that the only thing he strives for with these films is to make another film about the zombie phenomenom. But there's no need to create an entire universe that evolves super fast, just to do that!

[Philly_SWAT]

I can imagine it's frustrating trying to keep bringing up this point, considering you really have no idea of what I was talking about and should stop interpreting things I said so it suits your argument. I don't know what you're trying to prove here (this side argument), but it's only annoying and it's just twisting what I said. Well, I guess enough said about this. As I have said several times, even if your overall arguement is correct, it doesnt mean all of your underlying points are correct. It is interesting you say I am "twisting what you said" when I went out of my way to continually directly cut and paste what you said, like this : 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. ____________________ Sure, both take place in "THIS" timeline, but that doesn't mean it's the same "THIS" timeline. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This pretty much says it all. As for time, yes. Different times can be moments apart or years apart. But in this case, it's obviously many years apart. So again, why bring this up? Same reason I brought up the "there is nothing IN..." quote, I was disputing your specific claim. Here, you said GARs films take place in "different times" and therefore exist in different timelines. I disagreed, and said that "different times" does not necesarily mean different timelines. How does it show any intent of a timeline? I can agree that it shows an intent of connection between the films (where you get a point) but it shows no real intent of a timelien! He mentions using old radio sound and filter, but as soon as the film itself gets going, we're OBVIOUSLY back in the now. Which is quite a bit ahead of old radios and black and white television. Heck, in the Fiddlers Green underground, they've even watching a color TV set. The black and white start was pretty much just to catch people up with the story. It's true he doesn't say they aren't connected but his intentions are obviously pretty clear. There's not a set timeline these films take place in. There never was, however, an intention to create a timeline. Listen to him, he's totally disinterested in connecting these films. Add these things to the fact that the zombie rules change and that the times change and voíla! The "Same timeline" theory loses even further credibility. He says that the only thing he strives for with these films is to make another film about the zombie phenomenom. But there's no need to create an entire universe that evolves super fast, just to do that! Well, it appears pretty clear that we do not agree on the very defintion of the word "timeline" as it relates to movies, hence the length of our discussion, and my bringing in analogies. You said that "It's not like there's a universal "General" timeline where all Hollywood films take place". I disagree. If a movie is a simple movie with no reason for it to exist in a separate timeline, why would it? You agree that George Bush and George Washington exist in the same timeline even though there was no intent for that to be true, and are may years apart, yet dismiss the idea that movies with no intent of existing in the same timeline do for the same reason, by saying "reality vs fiction" is different. Perhaps your defintion of the word "timeline" would be helpful for me to understand.

[EvilNed]

Well, I guess enough said about this. As I have said several times, even if your overall arguement is correct, it doesnt mean all of your underlying points are correct. It is interesting you say I am "twisting what you said" when I went out of my way to continually directly cut and paste what you said, like this : I'm not saying all my underlying arguments are correct, infact I'm sure there's a buckload of them that can be proven to be pure manure. But this is thing you're doing here is just pure crap. You say I've said something I haven't, and then you quote me (correctly) and somehow you interpret it into something I never said?! It's just bewildering. Bewildering... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This pretty much says it all. Uhm, Ok. I won't argue with you there, because I don't think there's anything to argue about... Same reason I brought up the "there is nothing IN..." quote, I was disputing your specific claim. Here, you said GARs films take place in "different times" and therefore exist in different timelines. I disagreed, and said that "different times" does not necesarily mean different timelines. No, you're right. You're right on the fact that different times does not mean different timelines. At least not when these two "different times" are minutes apart. But that's not the case here, since obviously Land is set in a vastly different time than Dawn. A time that is not just minutes apart, but decades. That is why I find the 9/11-time comparison to be irrelevant to this particular argument, even though it's a good argument to prove that different times can be mere minutes apart. Well, it appears pretty clear that we do not agree on the very defintion of the word "timeline" as it relates to movies, hence the length of our discussion, and my bringing in analogies. You said that "It's not like there's a universal "General" timeline where all Hollywood films take place". I disagree. If a movie is a simple movie with no reason for it to exist in a separate timeline, why would it? You agree that George Bush and George Washington exist in the same timeline even though there was no intent for that to be true, and are may years apart, yet dismiss the idea that movies with no intent of existing in the same timeline do for the same reason, by saying "reality vs fiction" is different. Perhaps your defintion of the word "timeline" would be helpful for me to understand. Right. Timeline to me is a long cycle of time where something takes place. For instance, the timeline we live in is where we are now. Alexander the Great existed in the same timeline that Joan of Arc and George Washington. But that doesn't mean that Alexander (the film) and The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is set in the same timeline. Why? Because each film is set in it's own timeline where the director puts forth his take on films. Just because two films depicts events that have happened in the past (or fictional events that could have happened) doesn't mean that they actually TAKE PLACE in the same timeline. Why would they? There's no reason for them to do so. Mostly because a films foremost concern is to tell a story. There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and does that do not. It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete! Reality is not fiction. You have to differ. You can't compare a living person to a film. That's like comparing an apple to the perspectives used in Mona Lisa.

[Philly_SWAT]

Just because two films depicts events that have happened in the past (or fictional events that could have happened) doesn't mean that they actually TAKE PLACE in the same timeline. Why would they? There's no reason for them to do so. Mostly because a films foremost concern is to tell a story. There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and does that do not. It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete! Saying it is irrelevant means that it never had any bearing whatsoever. Saying it is obsolete means that it used to have a bearing, yet now does not. You use both terms in the same sentence. If I let this line of reasoning go, I am letting a point that in an of itself contradicts itself stand. If I question it, I will "bewilder" you by interpreting it into "something you never said". It is hard to debate under those circumstances. I agree that "There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and (those) that do not." There is indeed no need, and I have never suggested such a need exists. It is irrelevant that two individual movies exist in the same timeline if that is unimportant to the stories of the two movies. That does not change the fact that the two movies in question exist in the same timeline. Reality is not fiction. You have to differ. You can't compare a living person to a film. That's like comparing an apple to the perspectives used in Mona Lisa. Obviously, reality is not fiction. I am not comparing a living person to a film. Your "Mona Lisa-apple" point is confusing. If it was a fact that all apple growers believed the Mona Lisa was a great work of art, it would have little bearing on the question "is the Mona Lisa a great work of art?" A much wider sampling of opinions would be in order to answer that question. However, it wouldnt change the fact that all apple growers believe the Mona Lisa is a great work or art, even if that was irrelevant to the overall question.

[EvilNed]

Saying it is irrelevant means that it never had any bearing whatsoever. Saying it is obsolete means that it used to have a bearing, yet now does not. You use both terms in the same sentence. If I let this line of reasoning go, I am letting a point that in an of itself contradicts itself stand. If I question it, I will "bewilder" you by interpreting it into "something you never said". It is hard to debate under those circumstances. Really. I should just rest my case on this point. You said I had said that if something is not proven, it is disproven. Then you pull up some quote that has nothing to do with that, and indeed, bewilder me by interpreting it into something it isn't! If you can't argument under those circumstances, I suggest you just stop interpreting stuff and just let quotes be quotes and take them for what they say, not what you want them to say. I agree that "There's no need for a director to sit down and write up all the movies that take place in the same timeline and (those) that do not." There is indeed no need, and I have never suggested such a need exists. It is irrelevant that two individual movies exist in the same timeline if that is unimportant to the stories of the two movies. That does not change the fact that the two movies in question exist in the same timeline. Yes, it does. Two stories never meant to take place in the same timeline only do so if the viewer wishes it too. Otherwise we're entering League of Extraordinary Gentlemen territory, where it's make-belief. Obviously, reality is not fiction. I am not comparing a living person to a film. Yes, you are. You've compared the Bridge over River Kwai/Full Metal Jacket to George Washington and other jolly presidents. Your "Mona Lisa-apple" point is confusing. If it was a fact that all apple growers believed the Mona Lisa was a great work of art, it would have little bearing on the question "is the Mona Lisa a great work of art?" A much wider sampling of opinions would be in order to answer that question. However, it wouldnt change the fact that all apple growers believe the Mona Lisa is a great work or art, even if that was irrelevant to the overall question. Ok, so when did apple growers enter the picture? My point was just that you can't compare people to films. It's like comparing nature to art. One is created by evolution/god/coincidence and the other is just a human concept. Of course, you COULD create nature to art, but it would be a very confusing thing to do and not something that should be done. You could also compare apples to oranges, contrary to popular belief, but it wouldn't get you anywhere.

[Philly_SWAT]

Really. I should just rest my case on this point. You said I had said that if something is not proven, it is disproven. Then you pull up some quote that has nothing to do with that, and indeed, bewilder me by interpreting it into something it isn't! If you can't argument under those circumstances, I suggest you just stop interpreting stuff and just let quotes be quotes and take them for what they say, not what you want them to say. This was not intrepretation, this was exactly what you said. You said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!" I pointed out that irrelevant means there is no relevance, but obsolete means it used to have relevance, but no longer does. That is an invalid statement. Yes, it does. Two stories never meant to take place in the same timeline only do so if the viewer wishes it too. Otherwise we're entering League of Extraordinary Gentlemen territory, where it's make-belief. No it doesnt. Yes, you are. You've compared the Bridge over River Kwai/Full Metal Jacket to George Washington and other jolly presidents. I compared Bridge on the River Kwai to Full Metal Jacket, two films. I compared Washington to Bush, two real people. I was in fact comparing apples to apples, to continue your fruit analogies. Ok, so when did apple growers enter the picture? My point was just that you can't compare people to films. It's like comparing nature to art. One is created by evolution/god/coincidence and the other is just a human concept. Evolution, god, and coincidence are all human concepts. Of course, you COULD create nature to art, but it would be a very confusing thing to do and not something that should be done. You could also compare apples to oranges, contrary to popular belief, but it wouldn't get you anywhere. It seems you believe that nobody can compare anything to anything.

[EvilNed]

This was not intrepretation, this was exactly what you said. You said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!" I pointed out that irrelevant means there is no relevance, but obsolete means it used to have relevance, but no longer does. That is an invalid statement. So, you're the director of Grammar Nazis Must Die, then? I wasn't referring to the words, I was referring to the extreme liberties you took with my quote. No it doesnt. Damnit. I wasn't prepared for such a powerful and argument riddled comment... Good thing I had my guard up, or else you might actually have persuaded me with that! I compared Bridge on the River Kwai to Full Metal Jacket, two films. I compared Washington to Bush, two real people. I was in fact comparing apples to apples, to continue your fruit analogies. No, you were comparing the BotRK/FMJ predicament to the Washington and Bush one. So thus, you WERE comparing films to people. Evolution, god, and coincidence are all human concepts. God? Yes. Evolution? Doubtful. Coincidence? No. Nature? Definetly no. It seems you believe that nobody can compare anything to anything. I do, when it makes sense. But when people compare films to people and watching Romero's zombie films to coaching a NBA team, my "Does not compute" muscle starts to strain.

[Philly_SWAT]

So, you're the director of Grammar Nazis Must Die, then? I wasn't referring to the words, I was referring to the extreme liberties you took with my quote. So you admit you made an invalid statement when you said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!"? My point about this statement and the other one is that you are not being careful with what you are saying. In the grand scheme of things, who cares? It's not like this discussion is going to lead to riches or fame for either of us. Although, since it is continuing, it seems valid to actually question what the other person is saying. Damnit. I wasn't prepared for such a powerful and argument riddled comment... Good thing I had my guard up, or else you might actually have persuaded me with that! I told you I was going to try to keep posts shorter. Your overall point was "Yes it does". Hard to argue such an absolute, therefore I simply posted "No, it doesnt." No, you were comparing the BotRK/FMJ predicament to the Washington and Bush one. So thus, you WERE comparing films to people. Yes, I was comparing the relationship of the films to the relationship to the Presidents, not one film to one President, as it seemed you were suggesting. God? Yes. Evolution? Doubtful. Coincidence? No. Nature? Definetly no. I didnt say nature. The first three are defintately "human concepts". I do, when it makes sense. But when people compare films to people and watching Romero's zombie films to coaching a NBA team, my "Does not compute" muscle starts to strain. I think that your "does not compute" muscle starts to strain whenever someone disagrees with you. You make points to support your position. If those points are questioned, you say someone is "twisting your words." Someone makes a point, you say it is "irrelelvant". The use of analogies, a common practice, "bewilder" you. You quote that "There is nothing IN the films that prove this". You capitalized the word "IN" to stress your point. I think that point is very clear. I think most anyone would "intrepret" that the same way. Since there is nothing "IN" the films that prove this (regardless of what the "this" is), therefore it is not true i.e. disproved. I dont see how that is "twisting" anything. It is obvious what you meant. You were arguing your point that GARs dead films do not take place in the same timeline. I was arguing that they do. To support your point, and to refute mine, you said: 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. What exactly was the point you were trying to get across with this statement? Again, it seems obvious you were trying to get the point across that since there was nothing IN the films to prove this, therefore it isnt true. Is that not what you were saying? What else could that mean? If you think that I am "interpreting" that incorrectly, feel free to correct me. I then said that the idea that something that is not proven is therefore disproven was not a valid, or accurate, argument. I then used analogies "There is nothing IN the universe that proves the world is round" or something like that. Doesnt mean that therefore the world is flat. You keep returning to this point, that I was "twisting" what you said. I dont see how I was twisting anything. I never said that you used the exact words "because something is not proven, therefore it is disproven". I said that is the meaning of what you said, in specific relation to that since there was nothing IN GARs dead films to prove they exist in the same timeline, therefore they dont. You keep bringing this up, yet you have not said exactly what that sentence is supposed to mean. It seems obvious what it means. If you mispoke, just admit it and move on. It doesnt mean your overall point is wrong. If I accidentally said something inaccurate, and you called me on it, I would just say you are right, I mispoke, but my overall argument is still valid, even though I made a mistake with this supposting arguement. You seem so offended that I am "twisting your words", yet it seems as if I am "interpreting" them in the only way they can be.

[EvilNed]

So you admit you made an invalid statement when you said "It's so vastly irrelevant to the film, and thus obsolete!"? My point about this statement and the other one is that you are not being careful with what you are saying. In the grand scheme of things, who cares? It's not like this discussion is going to lead to riches or fame for either of us. Although, since it is continuing, it seems valid to actually question what the other person is saying. I agree, on pretty much everything you said. I wasn't careful with I was saying, pretty much because both you and I have pretty much passed the "prime" of this discussion. We've laid forth all our opinions and "arguments", and now it's just repeating. I told you I was going to try to keep posts shorter. Your overall point was "Yes it does". Hard to argue such an absolute, therefore I simply posted "No, it doesnt. Alright. In the end, I don't think anybody cares anyway... So let's let that one die. Yes, I was comparing the relationship of the films to the relationship to the Presidents, not one film to one President, as it seemed you were suggesting. Yeah, but then you're comparing the films to persons. Since you're comparing the timelines of both timelines of people, right? I didnt say nature. The first three are defintately "human concepts". While evolution is just a theory that hasn't been proven, if it's true then it's NOT a human concept. Evolution is just a word we've chosen to describe one of nature's laws. Same thing with coincidence. Coincidences would happen even if humans weren't around. Let's say a penguin. Walks along some ice, looking for a place to dive into the water and find food. Suddenly he finds his sister walking along the ice as well even though they had no idea that they'd be out there looking at the same time. Hey, coincidence. I think that your "does not compute" muscle starts to strain whenever someone disagrees with you. You make points to support your position. If those points are questioned, you say someone is "twisting your words." Someone makes a point, you say it is "irrelelvant". The use of analogies, a common practice, "bewilder" you. Yeah, man, I wish people would start making more sense by comparing TIMELINES to coaching NBA TEAMS. Seriously, accept that some of your analogies were, hmm... a bit of a stretch. To say the least. And that they would flex anyone's "Does not compute" muscle! You quote that "There is nothing IN the films that prove this". You capitalized the word "IN" to stress your point. I think that point is very clear. I think most anyone would "intrepret" that the same way. Since there is nothing "IN" the films that prove this (regardless of what the "this" is), therefore it is not true i.e. disproved. I dont see how that is "twisting" anything. It is obvious what you meant. Bull****. Just as you said before, just because Rocky's mom isn't mentioned in Rocky, that doesn't disprove that he has one. You said this yourself, and of course, it makes sense! But there's STILL nothing IN the films that says he has one. Maybe she's dead. But it's not DISPROVEN that she is alive. See? Twisting what I said. You were arguing your point that GARs dead films do not take place in the same timeline. I was arguing that they do. To support your point, and to refute mine, you said: What exactly was the point you were trying to get across with this statement? Again, it seems obvious you were trying to get the point across that since there was nothing IN the films to prove this, therefore it isnt true. Is that not what you were saying? Uhm. I was basing my theory on the obvious leap of time and technology between the films. That's kinda like the point what I was saying: The films themselves support this. I don't really know how you saw my sentence, but it's not very obvious to me. Infact, the way you intepreted it contradicts things you said earlier which are obvious.

[Philly_SWAT]

I agree, on pretty much everything you said. I wasn't careful with I was saying, pretty much because both you and I have pretty much passed the "prime" of this discussion. We've laid forth all our opinions and "arguments", and now it's just repeating. Well said. Alright. In the end, I don't think anybody cares anyway... So let's let that one die. Fine with me. Yeah, but then you're comparing the films to persons. Since you're comparing the timelines of both timelines of people, right? No, I was comparing the relationships in the films to the relationships of the people, seeing as that illustrates my theory of timelines, whether in "reality" or films. While evolution is just a theory that hasn't been proven, if it's true then it's NOT a human concept. Evolution is just a word we've chosen to describe one of nature's laws. Ergo, evolution is a human concept. Same thing with coincidence. Coincidences would happen even if humans weren't around. Let's say a penguin. Walks along some ice, looking for a place to dive into the water and find food. Suddenly he finds his sister walking along the ice as well even though they had no idea that they'd be out there looking at the same time. Hey, coincidence. I definately applaud you use of an analogy! See how your penguin point pefectly illustrates the concept of coincidence! Or should I say, illustrates the human concept of coincidence. The penguins in your example would not think "hmmm, what a coincidence. Yeah, man, I wish people would start making more sense by comparing TIMELINES to coaching NBA TEAMS. Seriously, accept that some of your analogies were, hmm... a bit of a stretch. To say the least. And that they would flex anyone's "Does not compute" muscle! Sometimes mine, or anyones, analogies may be a bit of a stretch, especially if the first few analogies that seem very straitforward to not seem to be illuminating. Bull****. Just as you said before, just because Rocky's mom isn't mentioned in Rocky, that doesn't disprove that he has one. You said this yourself, and of course, it makes sense! But there's STILL nothing IN the films that says he has one. Maybe she's dead. But it's not DISPROVEN that she is alive. See? Twisting what I said. Not twisting at all. The "Rocky's mom" example I used as an example that that line of thinking DOESNT MAKE SENSE! I wasnt suggesting that Rocky did not have a mom, I was saying it was obvious that in fact Rocky did have a mom. Therefore, to first make the statement that Rocky doesnt have a mom, and then back it up by saying "Theres nothing IN the films that prove this" would be invalid. Same as making the statement that GARs films dont place place in the same timeline, and backing that up by saying "Theres nothing IN the films that prove this". Either this method is valid in both cases, or neiter. I say neither. Uhm. I was basing my theory on the obvious leap of time and technology between the films. That's kinda like the point what I was saying: The films themselves support this. I don't really know how you saw my sentence, but it's not very obvious to me. Infact, the way you intepreted it contradicts things you said earlier which are obvious. The things I said earlier, like the "Rockys mom" example, were designed to show that you logic on this point was not valid. Yes, there are obvious leaps of technology in the films. I say there are obvious leaps of technology in the Star Trek series, yet they take place in the same timeline. I think, to use one of your anaolgies, that we are in fact arguing "apples and oranges", as we dont agree on what a timeline is. I think that a "timeline" is an absolute, scienticfic concept, such as gravity. Gravity, although not specifically mentioned in most films, still exists in the films the same way we understand it. It is neither important to most films, nor given any thought by the filmmaker. Subconsciously a filmmaker just assumes we as viewers will accept that gravity exists in their film. We dont expect Clint Eastwood in The Bridges of Madison County to start having problems keeping his feet on the ground and flying off into space. I say the same logic applies to timelines. If nothing obvious contradicts it, a simple movie exists within our own real timeline.

[RazielTalos]

I think they are all happening in the same world, but at different places and times. Remember tom makes an appearance as the undead Blades in Land of the Dead, and in Dawn, Blades merely gets shot in the chest by Peter's rifle. And if you'll recall, you dont have to be bitten by a zombie to become one, according to the original film "The bodies of the recently dead are returning to life." SO how can BLades be in Dawn of the dead, and appear in Land of the Dead, now a zombie, if the theory of different timelimes/universes is true? I think that everything is connected. Evans City from Night, is not very far from Pittsburgh, the opening of Dawn, which is very close to Monroeville, also from Dawn. Day seems to take place years later, and theres almost nothing alive left, zombies overrun the population, so it doesnt matter where it takes place, not to seem like im copping out on that one. Land i think takes place in Pittsbutgh as well, they just dont mention it by name, but its pretty obvious (due to Blade's appearance, and the conversations about going to canada, which isnt very far from PA) Im probably over analyzing, but then again, who here isnt?