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

[EvilNed]

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. Yes, that is also textbook exposition - like in Land they convey to us the viwwer when the film is set. I forgot the case in Dawn, but in Land the mention of three years clearly tells us viewers that it's been three years since the outbreak. In Land, two different characters tells us this - leaving no room for any interpretation.

[JDP]

Yes, that is also textbook exposition - like in Land they convey to us the viwwer when the film is set. I forgot the case in Dawn, but in Land the mention of three years clearly tells us viewers that it's been three years since the outbreak. In Land, two different characters tells us this - leaving no room for any interpretation. No, Land did no such thing, and that is the key difference between both examples: Dawn did a very good job at leaving no doubts whatsoever when the action at the start of that movie is happening with respect to the zombie outbreak. The only thing in Land even remotely close to what Dawn did in this respect is when the opening sequence tells us "sometime ago" (follow TV/radio broadcasts about the zombie outbreak) and then "today" (follows the sequence of Riley's team preparing to raid a town.) And even here, where Romero had a golden opportunity to clarify this issue to everyone and then some, the whole thing is totally vague again! "Sometime ago" and "today" do not answer any specific questions in this respect, and certainly neither do two totally disconnected "3 year" references in different contexts that do not appertain to the zombies.

[EvilNed]

No, Land did no such thing, Actually yes it did. You see, as two different characters are referring to something that happened 3 years ago, in a setting that is clearly a zombie apocalypse - the thing they are referring to is the start of the outbreak. The time when the world changed. Thus we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

[JDP]

Actually yes it did. You see, as two different characters are referring to something that happened 3 years ago, in a setting that is clearly a zombie apocalypse - the thing they are referring to is the start of the outbreak. The time when the world changed. Thus we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. Actually, no, it did not. You see, you know all too well by now that those 3 year references happen in two TOTALLY DISCONNECTED contexts. The characters are obviously NOT talking about the same thing and the two contexts have JACK-SQUAT to do with the zombies. On top of that, you also know well by now that just because someone mentions some event of the past it does not necessarily mean it has to do with the zombies. The fact that you keep failing to prove that Charlie got his scars because of the zombies or Cholo's dad became a loser because of the zombies speaks volumes about this point. Same with the "3 years" bit. Plus now you have also been reminded that at the very start of the movie there is in fact THE ONLY SPECIFIC, CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS REFERENCE TO THE ZOMBIE OUTBREAK IN THE WHOLE MOVIE, and what does your much ballyhooed "exposition" tell us there, when it had the golden chance of settling the matter for the viewer beyond any shadow of a doubt? "Sometime ago" and "today". Could not be more vague! Game over.

[EvilNed]

Actually, no, it did not. You see, you know all too well by now that those 3 year references happen in two TOTALLY DISCONNECTED contexts. Exactly, which further proves my point that the lines are explicit references to some event that took place 3 years ago. Since we're in a zombie apocalypse, that event is clearly the start of the zombie apocalypse. It's there for all to see in the dialogue that the outbreak started 3 years ago. Which is how we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak - through dialogue.

[JDP]

Exactly, which further proves my point that the lines are explicit references to some event that took place 3 years ago. Since we're in a zombie apocalypse, that event is clearly the start of the zombie apocalypse. It's there for all to see in the dialogue that the outbreak started 3 years ago. Which is how we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak - through dialogue. Not even by a huge stretch; those lines are explicit references to two very different events that have nothing to do with each other, and neither one concerns the zombies. I don't think I need to explain them again since you know them all too well by now. For your kind of argument to have any weight these totally disconnected mentions of three years would have to happen in a SETTING (look up what this is) where only a few survivors are involved, then you can more safely rule out the role of coincidence. But in a city where we can plainly see LOADS AND LOADS of survivors all over the place, all of them with their own peculiar pasts... not a chance, Jack! The likelihood that most of them had things happen to them 3 years ago that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other or the zombies is HUMONGOUS. So, in a movie with a setting involving HUGE NUMBERS of survivors you need a specific reference to the zombie outbreak itself, otherwise your type of argumentation doesn't fly. It falls squarely under the category of ASSUMPTIONS. And guess what? Yours are as good as mine. There is nothing settled here by the movie itself. Now try to pull that one with the truly specific and explicit reference in Dawn. Good luck! Here viewers do not have to go around assuming anything, the movie itself is very clear and leaves no doubts at all regarding this topic.

[EvilNed]

Not even by a huge stretch; those lines are explicit references to two very different events that have nothing to do with each other No, not really. You see, in film terminology there's something called Exposition. Exposition is meant to convey information to us viewers which would be relevant and interesting for us to have. In this case, the context of that exposition is the zombie apocalypse. The two characters, by telling us of something that happened 3 years ago are referring to the start of the zombie outbreak. That's how we know Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

[JDP]

No, not really. You see, in film terminology there's something called Exposition. Exposition is meant to convey information to us viewers which would be relevant and interesting for us to have. In this case, the context of that exposition is the zombie apocalypse. The two characters, by telling us of something that happened 3 years ago are referring to the start of the zombie outbreak. That's how we know Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. The "expositions" (notice the PLURAL, because a movie has many of them, not just one) in the "three year" bits of dialogue are: 1- a guy complaining about his business relationship with another character, zombies mentioned nowhere, and which will result in a "war" developing between the two characters, and 2- a totally disconnected guy protesting he is innocent of theft by the fact he hasn't driven a car out of town, something we can plainly see plenty of his fellow citizens are able to do without any problems, the mere presence of the zombies notwithstanding (notice the underlined bit well, as it implicates something else that is peculiar to this character in particular and not to everyone else without exception.) They are NOT the same "exposition", and neither are the "expositions" here about the zombies themselves but about these two other characters. I suggest you actually get acquainted with what "exposition" is, because it does not mean you making ASSUMPTIONS about things a movie does not actually clearly state anywhere and trying to pass them as if they were. "Exposition" is the filmmaker conveying clear information to the viewer regarding a particular/specific subject. And do you know what is the only bit of "exposition" in Land regarding the zombie outbreak? Yep, its intro sequence. I think I don't need to remind you what the "exposition" there actually says. It could not be more VAGUE. The "3 years" are seen nowhere in sight there. But keep on trying. Maybe one day you will hit upon an actually valid counterargument.

[EvilNed]

The "expositions" (notice the PLURAL, because a movie has many of them, not just one) in the "three year" bits of dialogue are: - Both to be taken within the context of a zombie apocalypse, which is what the director wants to convey to us about. Since two different characters mention this three year time period, referring to an event in the past, with a zombie apocalypse raging all around them then it is obvious what they are referring too. Through dialogue this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. .

[JDP]

- Both to be taken within the context of a zombie apocalypse, which is what the director wants to convey to us about. Since two different characters mention this three year time period, referring to an event in the past, with a zombie apocalypse raging all around them then it is obvious what they are referring too. Through dialogue this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. . For that to be so the 3 years bits of dialogue NEED to refer to the zombies, since they are not the only "characters" around, and, despite what you want to imply, the movie does not in fact revolve exclusively around them. In other words, the context needs to involve them. But neither one does. The context in both cases is a very different one and it does not implicate the zombies anywhere. "Exposition" does not mean a free-license for the filmmaker to be totally vague and let his viewers decide things for him. There is only one specific and totally unambiguous reference in the whole movie regarding the zombie outbreak: its intro. And you already know very well what it says there: a very VAGUE "sometime ago" and then "today". There is no other specific, unambiguous statement regarding the zombie outbreak anywhere in the movie. If Romero wanted to settle this matter for the viewer in a clear and proper manner he could easily have written "3 years ago" and then "today" right there in that expository intro. But he did not. You can argue that perhaps Romero wanted to be vague on purpose, which is fine, but then that leaves the question totally open for the viewers. Whether he did it on purpose or unwittingly makes no difference. The fact is that the "exposition" regarding the zombie outbreak itself is VAGUE and not settled beyond any shadow of a doubt anywhere in the film itself. Two references to "3 years" in contexts that do NOT involve the zombies do not settle anything regarding this subject. You might as well tell us that the two separate references to Charlie's accident that left him scarred "must be because of the zombies! Look, it's a zombie apocalypse, and there's two references to it by different characters, so that must be it!" Really? Go ahead and prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt by citing pertinent dialogue that explicitly incriminates the zombies in that event. You know perfectly well you can't. Why? Because nowhere in those two references there is said anything regarding the zombies, so, for all we know, the zombies maybe did not have anything to do with that. And neither can you do the same regarding the two mentions of any "3 years" by those two characters, where nothing whatsoever is said about the zombies either. Do not confuse "probability" with "established fact".

[bassman]

The prologue of Land featured a shot of the old Zenith radio, so clearly that means Land takes place forty some odd years since the outbreak began. Boom, end of discussion!

[EvilNed]

For that to be so the 3 years bits of dialogue NEED to refer to the zombies No actually, all that is needed is for the dialogue to be stated in a context. The context being the zombie apocalypse. You see, when two characters mention something a life-changing moment, or otherwise shift from a previous status quo, as having happened "3 years ago" in the midst of a zombie apocalypse then they are referring to the start of the outbreak. That's how we know Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak.

[MinionZombie]

The prologue of Land featured a shot of the old Zenith radio, so clearly that means Land takes place forty some odd years since the outbreak began. Boom, end of discussion! *the courtroom bursts into a kerfuffle of muddled voices*

[JDP]

No actually, all that is needed is for the dialogue to be stated in a context. The context being the zombie apocalypse. You see, when two characters mention something a life-changing moment, or otherwise shift from a previous status quo, as having happened "3 years ago" in the midst of a zombie apocalypse then they are referring to the start of the outbreak. That's how we know Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak. The contexts (plural) in those two cases are not the zombies but other characters, so it refers to things that happened to or involve them only, unless other characters are specifically referred to or clearly alluded to in those dialogues. But they aren't. And the zombies ARE "characters" after all. Plus Charlie's accident changed his life (and Riley's too), and it is mentioned more than once in the movie. Was it because of the zombies, then??? According to your strange arguments, the answer must be a resounding "yes", but anyone can tell there is no evidence to prove any such thing in the movie itself. Why? Because there is no specific mention of the zombies in that context either. For all we know, the zombies had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Same with the "3 years" bit. Just because something is mentioned in a world where zombies exist it does not "by default" mean that they must be somehow involved. People are not cardboard figures. They all have pasts, extending well before the appearance of the zombies themselves. The world did not begin with the zombies. So, finding people referring to past events that do not involve the zombies is 101% perfectly fine and totally possible. In fact, we see that for sure in such examples as Slack having lived all her life in the city, or nothing bad ever happening to Riley (before the zombies.)

[bassman]

I was just watching Frumkes’ Dream of the Dead, shot during the production of Land. At one point after getting into his zombie biker wardrobe, Savini comes out of the dressing room and says he’s been wandering around in that leather biker gear for a year and a half since we last saw him in Dawn. Just gonna drop that grenade and exit quickly...