GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline

[EvilNed]

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. And in doing so, compared films to humans. It's unavoidable when doing relationship comparisons like that. I mean, you just put Full Metal Jacket and George Bush in the same spot in the the comparison, and argued that if it works for Bush (the timeline) it should work for FMJ. Thus: comparing the two. Ergo, evolution is a human concept. If evolution turned out to be real (which I believe is the case, but that's beside the point) then evolution would just be a world. The concept itself would be nature's, not humans. 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. But coincidences are still something that would exist, wether humans were around or not. Coincidence is just the word we use to describe that kind of situation. 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. Like... coaching the NBA team? That was a bit of a stretch, wasn't it? 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. There's nothing in the Rocky films that proves he has a mom. She might be dead, what do I know. And there's nothing in the Dead films that proves they are tied together (HOWEVER, the beginning of the Land commentary could be counted as some proof to this, I can say). On the other hand, there is strong evidence to suggest that these films really do not have anything to do with each other. And yet, you've claimed that I've said that the films itself DISPROVE your theory, something which I've never said. See, there's a big difference between "Nothing in the films prove this" and "The films disprove this". 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. Why should a timeline be that at all? Think of all the stories, movies and songs written that tell a tale? Are they automaticly in some kind of timeline, that can be intertwined with another? To me, it's pretty obvious that each film has it's own timeline. Why? Because that's more likely the directors vision (unless stated otherwise, such as in a sequel or TV-series). It doesn't make sense to tie films together that don't belong together, and what you end up with is just a soup that none of the directors of those movies ever wanted you to have. One needs to let films be films. Just that, a story. A simple story without relation to other films.

[Philly_SWAT]

And in doing so, compared films to humans. It's unavoidable when doing relationship comparisons like that. I mean, you just put Full Metal Jacket and George Bush in the same spot in the the comparison, and argued that if it works for Bush (the timeline) it should work for FMJ. Thus: comparing the two. I am not even sure what your point is with this "cant compare people to films" comment. Even when looking at a single film (or book), like for example, Animal Farm, do you not think it was the intent of the author to draw comparisons about real-life human activities and the activities of the animals in the made-up story? But in this specific case, I am saying that films, whether intentional or not, can exist in the same timeline. Thus, for my argument, it only makes sense to compare the relationships of films to the relationships of real people. If evolution turned out to be real (which I believe is the case, but that's beside the point) then evolution would just be a world. The concept itself would be nature's, not humans. I assume you mean "evolution would just be a WORD", not "evolution would just be a world" as you typed. TO my knowledge and understanding, "words" and "concepts" do not exist in nature, except in the minds of humans. The "concept" of evolution would definatley be a human concept, not a nature concept, as nature has no means with which to create, know about, care about, or understand about any concept at all. But coincidences are still something that would exist, wether humans were around or not. Coincidence is just the word we use to describe that kind of situation. Coincidence, as I said, it definately a "human concept." If there were no humans, or other intellignet lifeform, to gather data and draw a conclusion from that data that it was a coincidence, there would be no coincidence, as that concept only has relevance to a human mind. Again, in your example, the penguins would not see or interpret what happened as a coincidence or anything else. The planet Earth, we can safely assume I think, we would continue to exist if all humans died. Sure, the words "the Earth" is just a sound that we as humans have chosen to describe this third rock from "the sun" that we live on, but the physical planet would still exist. The concepts you refer to would not. There's nothing in the Rocky films that proves he has a mom. She might be dead, what do I know. And there's nothing in the Dead films that proves they are tied together (HOWEVER, the beginning of the Land commentary could be counted as some proof to this, I can say). You mean, this beginning of the Land commentary? 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. On the other hand, there is strong evidence to suggest that these films really do not have anything to do with each other. "Do not have ANYTHING to do with each other"? Is that really what you want to say? And yet, you've claimed that I've said that the films itself DISPROVE your theory, something which I've never said. See, there's a big difference between "Nothing in the films prove this" and "The films disprove this". I have not claimed you said that. I have claimed that 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. Taken in context, you did not simply made a random statement that there was nothing in the films to prove this. You specifically used that statement in the middle of an argument to illustrate your point that the GAR films take place in differenet timelines. There is a big difference in the two statements above. There is also a big difference in looking at a statement in a vaccum, or in context. Why should a timeline be that at all? Think of all the stories, movies and songs written that tell a tale? Are they automaticly in some kind of timeline, that can be intertwined with another? Well, think of all the stories, events, wars, people, actions, etc. that exist in real life. Do they not all exist in the same timeline? As far as we know, everything exits in a timeline. Maybe this ***WARNING Analogy Alert**** will help. Even the stories of Star Trek are meant to exist in our own real timeline. Part on the perception of the viewers, as well as the intent of the story-teller, was to look at a possible future of mankind, one where humans are co-operating and have achieved much without killing each other off. Am I am suggesting that in our own real universe that things will play out the way they do in Star Trek? No. I am saying that Roddenberry was suggesting that he thinks the future of our own real timeline will play out the way it does in his stories? No. As you say, his are simply made-up stories. But part of the appeal of those stories is to think that humankind has greatness in that future he creates, and we immediately have empathy with those characters, as they are "us". If those stories existed in a "different timeline", why would we as viewers care as much about them as apparently we do? To me, it's pretty obvious that each film has it's own timeline. Why? Because that's more likely the directors vision (unless stated otherwise, such as in a sequel or TV-series). It doesn't make sense to tie films together that don't belong together, and what you end up with is just a soup that none of the directors of those movies ever wanted you to have. Again, you keep mentioning a purposeful intent of filmmakers wanting to "tie togehter movies". They are not tied together anymore than Bush and Washington are tied together. The "soup" you refer to is no different to the "soup" that exists in our present reality. There is no reason that the actions of Mother Teresa and the actions of Adolph Hitler should be tied together. In fact, they are not really tied together at all, other than the fact they exist in the same timeline. I assume that as a person who has knowledge of history, the fact that Hitler and MT exist in the same timeline does not confuse you, even though there is no "intent" by anybody to have them related in some way. I assume you realize that there stories are separate, but also exist in the same timeline. One needs to let films be films. Just that, a story. A simple story without relation to other films. Films, for the most part, are simply stories without relation to other films. That doesnt mean they exist in different timelines. If I make a film based on the story of my life, and you make a film based on the story or your life, they have no connection at all in them (of course assuming that we both chose to not include the fantastic time we share with each other here on HPOTD). But both films by definition would exist in the same timeline, as you and I both exist in the same timeline. They would have no rules that "bind them together". We would each have different story-telling styles. We would each be decribing events that have no relation to each other. They would each have a totally different cast of characters, which have no relationship to each other. There would be no intent on either of our parts to "tie-in" our movie with the one the other guy was making. They would be totally separate, simple stories, without relation to the other film. And they both would exist in the same timeline.

[EvilNed]

I am not even sure what your point is with this "cant compare people to films" comment... I'm saying you can't compare reality to fiction, which is what you do. You can draw analogies, like in Animal Farm, to further your purpose, but that's a whole different thing. I am saying that films, whether intentional or not, can exist in the same timeline. Thus, for my argument, it only makes sense to compare the relationships of films to the relationships of real people. No. They were never meant to, thus don't. I assume you mean "evolution would just be a WORD", not "evolution would just be a world" as you typed. TO my knowledge and understanding, "words" and "concepts" do not exist in nature, except in the minds of humans. The "concept" of evolution would definatley be a human concept, not a nature concept, as nature has no means with which to create, know about, care about, or understand about any concept at all. Any intelligent species would realize the concept of evolution. Evolution is the human, or rather ENGLISH word for it. Doesn't change the concept, which has probably been around for longer than humans. Coincidence, as I said, it definately a "human concept." If there were no humans, or other intellignet lifefor... Wether you mean that seriously or not doesn't matter. Because it doesn't change the fact that you STILL can't compare something (in the timeline context) that nature created to a fictional piece of art, as if it was obvious? George Washington to George Bush vs. Bridge over River Kwai and FMJ? Give me a break. I have not claimed you said that. Uh, yes you have. You've brought it up dozens of times and asked me to explain myself. I never said it, so if you agree that I never said it, why continue along this path? Philly_Swat compares films to humans. Again. "Hey Stan." "Yes?" "Skyscrapers are tiny." "No, they're not. Why do you figure?" "Because such is the case with pebbles, so thus skyscrapers must also be tiny!" "Ehrm..." Ok? Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler exist in the same timeline? As far as I know, there is no dispute in real world about who's going to exist in this timeline or that timeline?! Apart from the fact that you're actually taking reallife figures and comparing them to fictional pieces of art as if that would somehow prove something, it just doesn't work that way. See a film is something someone intentionally created with a purpose. John T. McTiernans Die Hard films might take place in the same timeline as Star Trek? Yeah, they might. But it was never meant to, thus it doesn't. It's as simple as that. Why would it? Why should it? There is no reason to take two things that were never supposed to be linked together in a same timeline and then make it so. No reason whatsoever! George Washington and George Bush exist in the same timeline because this is the only timeline that they know about, and they didn't have much saying in it. They were born and there they were. Films on the other hand is a story. Yes, Philly, a film is a mere story told in pictures (unlike humans who really don't resemble films in any way) and it's created by a director and a writer. And unless one of them says "Hey, wouldn't it be fun to tie this together in with Blade Runner?" it really doesn't tie in with Blade Runner. Because it's a film, and it has it's own timeline because it's created from scratch. But both films by definition would exist in the same timeline, as you and I both exist in the same timeline. Not necessarily, no. That would mean that Alexander took place in the same timeline as Braveheart. But that would also mean that Alexander (in the movie universe) took Darius III's family as prisoners in Babylon instead of after the Battle of Issus (And the Scottish war of Independence would be about a man strongly resembling Mel Gibson fighting off the english at the battle of Stirling Bridge - minus the bridge). That would mean that if someone else were to make a movie about Alexander and make some changes, there would suddenly be TWO films about Alexander and both told a different story, but at the very same TIME! So no. Let sleeping timelines lie.

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm saying you can't compare reality to fiction, which is what you do. You can draw analogies, like in Animal Farm, to further your purpose, but that's a whole different thing. Many people, not just myself, compare reality to fiction. If there was nothing at all to be drawn from a work of fiction as to how it relates to our reality, then fiction would have a lot less significance in our culture than it does. No. They were never meant to, thus don't. I am glad you made this quote here. It is another example, and a shorter clearer example at that, of what I am talking about with your "there is nothing IN the films....." comment. Again, mathematically you are saying "A isnt true, therefore B is true." That is not a valid argument. I have said consistently that just because films were MEANT to be in the sametimeline, it doesnt mean that they neccesarily arent. You say clearly here that "They were never meant to, thus don't". That is an absolute statement that is not valid. I will try to refrain from mentioning the "theres nothing IN the films..." quote, and instead mention your more straitforward quote here. Any intelligent species would realize the concept of evolution. Evolution is the human, or rather ENGLISH word for it. Doesn't change the concept, which has probably been around for longer than humans. This is absolutely correct. Any intelligent species would in fact realize the concept of evolution, even if they didnt believe it. However, if there were no intelligent life in the universe, there would be no "concept" of anything. The mountains, rocks, waters, gasses, etc. of various palnets would have no ability to recognize this concept, no frame of reference to understand its importance, etc. An intelligent mind is needed to both assign meaning to and analyse data in this manner. If it makes you more comfortable, call evolution an "intelligent species concept". As there is no proof of other intelligent life other than humans, I am confortable calling it a "human concept", but would agree with you to call it an "intelligent species concept". Wether you mean that seriously or not doesn't matter. Because it doesn't change the fact that you STILL can't compare something (in the timeline context) that nature created to a fictional piece of art, as if it was obvious? George Washington to George Bush vs. Bridge over River Kwai and FMJ? Give me a break. I say you can. Do you think that "nature created" gravity? Does it exist in films, even though there is no reason to or intent on the part of the film maker to examine the existence of gravity in his films? Uh, yes you have. You've brought it up dozens of times and asked me to explain myself. I never said it, so if you agree that I never said it, why continue along this path? See above, with the "They were never meant to, thus don't" quote. "Hey Stan." "Yes?" "Skyscrapers are tiny." "No, they're not. Why do you figure?" "Because such is the case with pebbles, so thus skyscrapers must also be tiny!" "Ehrm..." Ehrm.....indeed. Ok? Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler exist in the same timeline? As far as I know, there is no dispute in real world about who's going to exist in this timeline or that timeline?! Apart from the fact that you're actually taking reallife figures and comparing them to fictional pieces of art as if that would somehow prove something, it just doesn't work that way. See a film is something someone intentionally created with a purpose. John T. McTiernans Die Hard films might take place in the same timeline as Star Trek? Yeah, they might. But it was never meant to, thus it doesn't. It's as simple as that. Why would it? Why should it? There is no reason to take two things that were never supposed to be linked together in a same timeline and then make it so. No reason whatsoever! George Washington and George Bush exist in the same timeline because this is the only timeline that they know about, and they didn't have much saying in it. They were born and there they were. Films on the other hand is a story. Yes, Philly, a film is a mere story told in pictures (unlike humans who really don't resemble films in any way) and it's created by a director and a writer. And unless one of them says "Hey, wouldn't it be fun to tie this together in with Blade Runner?" it really doesn't tie in with Blade Runner. Because it's a film, and it has it's own timeline because it's created from scratch. Again, you keep using phrases like "linked" and "tied together" as if I am suggesting filmmakers are purposely trying to "link" their movie with other movies, which I keep saying I am not. I think we can both agree that in just about every movie we see, human beings in the films are breathing. Does that mean the filmmakers are tying the films together because the people in them are breathing? No. That doesnt mean that we should assume that Bruce Willis's character in Die Hard is not breathing because the director doesnt specifcally mention it. Not necessarily, no. That would mean that Alexander took place in the same timeline as Braveheart. But that would also mean that Alexander (in the movie universe) took Darius III's family as prisoners in Babylon instead of after the Battle of Issus (And the Scottish war of Independence would be about a man strongly resembling Mel Gibson fighting off the english at the battle of Stirling Bridge - minus the bridge). That would mean that if someone else were to make a movie about Alexander and make some changes, there would suddenly be TWO films about Alexander and both told a different story, but at the very same TIME! I find it interesting here that you ignore my example and use Alexander/Braveheart instead. Your only direct response to my point that if you and I both made a film about our lives they would exist in the same timeline was "Not necessarily, no." This again shows to me that you dont understand what a timeline is.

[EvilNed]

Many people, not just myself, compare reality to fiction. If there was nothing at all to be drawn from a work of fiction as to how it relates to our reality, then fiction would have a lot less significance in our culture than it does. But you're not comparing the two to create some kind of political debate. You're just comparing the two to prove that what works as a storyline point in fiction could very well apply to real persons as well... I am glad you made this quote here. Well, why SHOULD a film that was never meant to take place in the same timeline, do just that? Re: Evolution. You're wrong. Evolution occurs with or without us. Thus it's one of nature's concept, not ours. This is of course assuming evolution actually happens at all. If it doesn't, then it's just a human concept. I say you can. Do you think that "nature created" gravity? Does it exist in films, even though there is no reason to or intent on the part of the film maker to examine the existence of gravity in his films? See above, with the "They were never meant to, thus don't" quote. Ehrm.....indeed. The films are often a depiction of our world. Gravity exists in our world, so thus the films often include this little detail. Breathing is something we all do. Without thinking. It's an "obvious choice" to have one's characters to breathe. It's not quite so obvious to sit down and link ones films together with The Rock, Armageddon, Elizabeth and some crazy indian thriller. Here's an analogy...! Take the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Or indeed, ANY film you wish. Now let's say that the message of The League is about wishes and how they come true. This is of course not the message of LXG, but as far as I'm concerned I don't think the film has one, so it's a perfect example. The director purposefully put this message in there. Yet there are some die hard fans of the film that desperatly attempt, and claim, that the film is indeed about the meaning of life. While this doesn't break any laws, and the fans can speculate all they want, that doesn't make it true. And it will never be true. Because that's seeing something in a film that even it's creator does not. Same goes for timeline. I find it interesting here that you ignore my example and use Alexander/Braveheart instead. Your only direct response to my point that if you and I both made a film about our lives they would exist in the same timeline was "Not necessarily, no." This again shows to me that you dont understand what a timeline is. I understand perfectly what a timeline is, but I'd be pretty scared to see your timeline. As far as I'm concerned there are like 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae. So in your "movie" timeline there would be 3-4 seperate battles of Thermopylae all raging at once. At the same place. That would be a scary sight, and one worthy of Back to the Future paradoxes! If our two movies about our lifes were supposed to take place in the same timeline through hints or such, then yes they would. but otherwise? No, they would just be a depiction (and probably inaccurate one) of reality. Just like the Thermopylae and Alexander films.

[Philly_SWAT]

But you're not comparing the two to create some kind of political debate. You're just comparing the two to prove that what works as a storyline point in fiction could very well apply to real persons as well... If a film that has a setting of our own current timeline, I would hardly describe that as a "storyline point", any more than the fact that gravity exists in a film is a "storyline point". Well, why SHOULD a film that was never meant to take place in the same timeline, do just that? Well, as far as you and I know, or at least can prove, there is only one true timeline, you one you and I are currently existing in. Why SHOULD a film that is a normal film with no different rules from our current timeline take place in a totally separte timeline? Re: Evolution. You're wrong. Evolution occurs with or without us. Thus it's one of nature's concept, not ours. This is of course assuming evolution actually happens at all. If it doesn't, then it's just a human concept. Are you saying that "nature" has consciencous thought? Without us, trees would still grow, continental plates would still drift, volcanos would still erupt, presumably certain animals would thrive while others went extinct, etc. Those things would continue to happen. However, looking at all of those things and assigning a concept such as evolution to them would not happen, seeing as there were no initelligent mind there to make those types of assignments. The films are often a depiction of our world. Gravity exists in our world, so thus the films often include this little detail. Breathing is something we all do. Without thinking. It's an "obvious choice" to have one's characters to breathe. It's not quite so obvious to sit down and link ones films together with The Rock, Armageddon, Elizabeth and some crazy indian thriller. Here's an analogy...! What is obvious is that you continue to use the words "tied together" and "linked", which implies a purposeful decision to do something. I am not suggesting that such purposeful decisions are made. Take the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Or indeed, ANY film you wish. Now let's say that the message of The League is about wishes and how they come true. This is of course not the message of LXG, but as far as I'm concerned I don't think the film has one, so it's a perfect example. The director purposefully put this message in there. Yet there are some die hard fans of the film that desperatly attempt, and claim, that the film is indeed about the meaning of life. While this doesn't break any laws, and the fans can speculate all they want, that doesn't make it true. And it will never be true. Because that's seeing something in a film that even it's creator does not. Same goes for timeline. I do not know enough about LXG to make intelligent comments about it. I can say that the existence of a timeline is not more complex than the existence of gravity, humans need to breathe air, rain falls from the sky, etc. I understand perfectly what a timeline is, but I'd be pretty scared to see your timeline. As far as I'm concerned there are like 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae. So in your "movie" timeline there would be 3-4 seperate battles of Thermopylae all raging at once. At the same place. That would be a scary sight, and one worthy of Back to the Future paradoxes! This is not what I am saying. If you look back, I said things like "most films", "these films", etc. exist in the same timeline. Not that all films do. But all of the 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae are "set" within the same timeline. That is not the same thing as saying the events of the 3-4 movies, which are bound to be different, are all happening at the same time. Any film portraying an accurate depiction of historical events would have a "setting" of the same timeline. That would not mean that if there were 50 films depicting the battle of Gettysburgh that there would be 50 different Pickett's charges happening at the same time, with 50 different people who were all General Pickett leading the 50 different charges. The setting is the same, and they are set in the same timeline. If our two movies about our lifes were supposed to take place in the same timeline through hints or such, then yes they would. but otherwise? No, they would just be a depiction (and probably inaccurate one) of reality. Just like the Thermopylae and Alexander films. So are you saying that you and I exist in different timelines?

[EvilNed]

If a film that has a setting of our own current timeline, I would hardly describe that as a "storyline point", any more than the fact that gravity exists in a film is a "storyline point". It's obviously not tied to the actors or the make-up, so it's a storyline point. Well, as far as you and I know, or at least can prove, there is only one true timeline, you one you and I are currently existing in. Why SHOULD a film that is a normal film with no different rules from our current timeline take place in a totally separte timeline? Believe it or not, a film is different from people. Are you saying all films take place within the same timeline? Wow, I didn't know that. A film is a story. A depiction of reality. It's a spring off of OUR timeline to tell it's story. But each film springs off differently of course, because it's meant to be seen seperatly. Unless they are sequels (or prequels). Are you saying that "nature" has consciencous thought? Without us, trees would still grow, continental plates would still drift, volcanos would still erupt, presumably certain animals would thrive while others went extinct, etc. Those things would continue to happen. However, looking at all of those things and assigning a concept such as evolution to them would not happen, seeing as there were no initelligent mind there to make those types of assignments. Are you saying that the world didn't start to evolve until Darwin came up with the notion that it should? Evolution would happen with or without us. Evolution is just a word we have applied to that process. What is obvious is that you continue to use the words "tied together" and "linked", which implies a purposeful decision to do something. I am not suggesting that such purposeful decisions are made. Why would anyone want to place two films within the same timeline if they are not meant to be tied together? I do not know enough about LXG to make intelligent comments about it. I can say that the existence of a timeline is not more complex than the existence of gravity, humans need to breathe air, rain falls from the sky, etc. The point was that you can't see something in a film that isn't that. You may think you can, but that doesn't mean that it's there. This is not what I am saying. If you look back, I said things like "most films", "these films", etc. exist in the same timeline. Not that all films do. But all of the 3-4 films depicting the Battle of Thermopylae are "set" within the same timeline. That is not the same thing as saying the events of the 3-4 movies, which are bound to be different, are all happening at the same time. Any film portraying an accurate depiction of historical events would have a "setting" of the same timeline. That would not mean that if there were 50 films depicting the battle of Gettysburgh that there would be 50 different Pickett's charges happening at the same time, with 50 different people who were all General Pickett leading the 50 different charges. The setting is the same, and they are set in the same timeline. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If all films take place within the same timeline (or at least all films that are supposed to take place in reality) that would mean just that: 50 different battles of Gettysburgs. Because the depictions would all be different. And that is the ultimate notion that busts the "All films depicting history take place in the same timeline (unless stated otherwise)" theory! If you support this theory, then you must also accept the numerous paradoxes that comes with it. So are you saying that you and I exist in different timelines? No, why would we?

[Philly_SWAT]

It's obviously not tied to the actors or the make-up, so it's a storyline point. So, the existence of gravity is a storyline point? Believe it or not, a film is different from people. Are you saying all films take place within the same timeline? Wow, I didn't know that. A film is a story. A depiction of reality. It's a spring off of OUR timeline to tell it's story. But each film springs off differently of course, because it's meant to be seen seperatly. Unless they are sequels (or prequels). So I guess if someone made a film based on true facts, using the exact words people used in reality, by your definition, it would exist in a separate timeline. That makes no sense. Are you saying that the world didn't start to evolve until Darwin came up with the notion that it should? Evolution would happen with or without us. Evolution is just a word we have applied to that process. I say that a "human concept" is anything humans have come up with as a concept. To me, your argument here is just you disargeeing with anything I say. Why would anyone want to place two films within the same timeline if they are not meant to be tied together? I guess this depends on whether you insist that only purposeful decisions are facts. The point was that you can't see something in a film that isn't that. You may think you can, but that doesn't mean that it's there. Like seeing films as existing in separate timelines? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If all films take place within the same timeline (or at least all films that are supposed to take place in reality) that would mean just that: 50 different battles of Gettysburgs. Because the depictions would all be different. And that is the ultimate notion that busts the "All films depicting history take place in the same timeline (unless stated otherwise)" theory! If you support this theory, then you must also accept the numerous paradoxes that comes with it. Films that have the same historical setting would be set in the same timeline. Your argument here is rediculous. There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline". No, why would we? We wouldnt. But you say that if you and I each made a film based on our lives, they would exist in separate timelines.

[EvilNed]

So, the existence of gravity is a storyline point? Nope, never claimed it was. So I guess if someone made a film based on true facts, using the exact words people used in reality, by your definition, it would exist in a separate timeline. That makes no sense. It would obviously exist in it's own timeline, because it's a film. The event upon which it is based takes place in OUR timeline. But the film? it's a depiction of that event. You can't honestly claim that films actually take place in OUR timeline, can you? I say that a "human concept" is anything humans have come up with as a concept. To me, your argument here is just you disargeeing with anything I say. So you agree that evolution would happen if we were here or not? So it's not a human concept, it's "nature's" concept then? I guess this depends on whether you insist that only purposeful decisions are facts. Can't see what ain't there. It's that simple. Like seeing films as existing in separate timelines? No, like tying together a french film and a russian film fron the 50's and saying "hey, they both depict reality, thus they're in the same timeline!" even if all depictions of reality are biased. Films that have the same historical setting would be set in the same timeline. Your argument here is rediculous. There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline". Sorry man, your argument doesn't hold here. You claim that all depictions of reality take place within the same timeline. But that, as I claimed, would mean we have 4 different Battle of Thermopylaes in that timeline. If they exist simultaniously, then there are indeed 4 different battles. Which creates a paradox, and is ludicrous. Why can't you just let they be different depictions of the battle, as they were meant to be? We wouldnt. But you say that if you and I each made a film based on our lives, they would exist in separate timelines. Duh. They are just stories, after all. Biased ones, at that.

[Philly_SWAT]

Nope, never claimed it was. SO you agree that the existence of gravity is not a storyline point, but the existence of a timeline is? It would obviously exist in it's own timeline, because it's a film. The event upon which it is based takes place in OUR timeline. But the film? it's a depiction of that event. You can't honestly claim that films actually take place in OUR timeline, can you? Did the events in The Bridges of Madison County take place in OUR timeline? No. Was it set in OUR timeline? Yes. So you agree that evolution would happen if we were here or not? So it's not a human concept, it's "nature's" concept then? No. "Evolution" is a concept we humans have created to describe continental drift, species becoming extinct with time, etc. Can't see what ain't there. It's that simple. Ummm....it is true you cant see what aint there. I cant see the planet Saturn, but I'm pretty sure it is there. No, like tying together a french film and a russian film fron the 50's and saying "hey, they both depict reality, thus they're in the same timeline!" even if all depictions of reality are biased. Well, when you use the phrase "tying together" is all makes sense....... Sorry man, your argument doesn't hold here. You claim that all depictions of reality take place within the same timeline. But that, as I claimed, would mean we have 4 different Battle of Thermopylaes in that timeline. If they exist simultaniously, then there are indeed 4 different battles. Which creates a paradox, and is ludicrous. Why can't you just let they be different depictions of the battle, as they were meant to be? I can let that be. Hence, my statement that "There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline". " I guess you see no difference. Duh. They are just stories, after all. Biased ones, at that. Bias is not a relevant factor when discussing timelines. For certain there was bias used by America historians when descibing the events of WWII, however, it doesnt change the fact that certain events during WWII all happened within the same timeline.

[EvilNed]

SO you agree that the existence of gravity is not a storyline point, but the existence of a timeline is? As far as I know, both questions are of such ridiculous irrelevance that only someone with to much time on their hands would sit down and speculate over something like it... Like us. Timeline is sometimes a storyline point, and sometimes not a point at all. When it's not a point at all is when you have to assume the film just follows it's own rules and "timelines". Did the events in The Bridges of Madison County take place in OUR timeline? No. Was it set in OUR timeline? Yes. It was depicted as such, yes. But it didn't occur in our timeline. Again, fiction vs. reality. No. "Evolution" is a concept we humans have created to describe continental drift, species becoming extinct with time, etc. Nope. Evolution is a word. And what the word Evolution means is something we humans have come to terms with or believe in. But it's not our concept, because we didn't create Evolution. We did create the word "evolution", tho. Ummm....it is true you cant see what aint there. I cant see the planet Saturn, but I'm pretty sure it is there. Pick up a telescope. It's there, trust me. Well, when you use the phrase "tying together" is all makes sense....... Alot of things in this topic make no sense whatsoever, so I'm glad you found something that does. I can let that be. Hence, my statement that "There is a difference with all Gettysburg films being "set in the same timeline" and "existing simultaniously in the same timeline". " I guess you see no difference. Again. The paradox. You fail to see the paradox of your statement and of your theory. If you can't accept the paradox, then you're so called "movie timeline" is so ****ed up I wouldn't want to spend a second in there, let alone watch any of the films. All Gettysburg existing together? Hmm. It's a nice thought. To bad it makes NO sense whatsoever. Bias is not a relevant factor when discussing timelines. For certain there was bias used by America historians when descibing the events of WWII, however, it doesnt change the fact that certain events during WWII all happened within the same timeline. All accounts are biased and fictionalized. They're depicted as being set in our timeline, but that's pretty much it. They don't take place in our timeline, because they're films. And films rarely (if ever) cross the border between reality and fiction.

[Brubaker]

After you guys are done fighting like cats and dogs, I'm sure the make-up sex will be great!

[Deadman_Deluxe]

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? Well actually, technically this does not have anything to do with timelines or storytelling universes. GAR wanted tom to have a small role, or a "cameo" role, in LOTD, for himself, but also for the fans. What better then for tom to reprise his old role of blades? Im probably over analyzing, but then again, who here isnt? Me. It really is as simple as that.

[Philly_SWAT]

As far as I know, both questions are of such ridiculous irrelevance that only someone with to much time on their hands would sit down and speculate over something like it... Like us. Timeline is sometimes a storyline point, and sometimes not a point at all. When it's not a point at all is when you have to assume the film just follows it's own rules and "timelines". I'm glad you used the word "us". It was depicted as such, yes. But it didn't occur in our timeline. Again, fiction vs. reality. In a movie, when we see a very non-important shot of the sun in the sky, do you think that is not supposed to be "our" sun, but some other sun that exists only in movie-land? Nope. Evolution is a word. And what the word Evolution means is something we humans have come to terms with or believe in. But it's not our concept, because we didn't create Evolution. We did create the word "evolution", tho. Exactly, what "we humans have come to terms with or believe in." Without our perceptions there are no such things as concepts. Pick up a telescope. It's there, trust me. Pick up some copies of GAR's dead films, the timeline is there, trust me. Alot of things in this topic make no sense whatsoever, so I'm glad you found something that does. Maybe someday you will find the "human concept" of sarcasm...... Unless you think that sarcasm would exist without intelligent minds to interpret. Again. The paradox. You fail to see the paradox of your statement and of your theory. If you can't accept the paradox, then you're so called "movie timeline" is so ****ed up I wouldn't want to spend a second in there, let alone watch any of the films. All Gettysburg existing together? Hmm. It's a nice thought. To bad it makes NO sense whatsoever. You are correct, you way you say "existing together" makes no sense. However, I did not say that. What I said, again, it that they have a "setting" in the same timeline, not that the events are occuring simultaneously in the same timeline. All accounts are biased and fictionalized. They're depicted as being set in our timeline, but that's pretty much it. They don't take place in our timeline, because they're films. And films rarely (if ever) cross the border between reality and fiction. That is what I have been saying all along that the films are "depicted as being set in our timeline" to use your exact words. As an interesting sidenote, well after the poll that started this thread was closed, someone has gone in and altered the total votes. There used to be 19 votes for option number 1. Either a mod has taken to revisionist poll-history, or this very thread itself has drifted into a different timeline.

[EvilNed]

In a movie, when we see a very non-important shot of the sun in the sky, do you think that is not supposed to be "our" sun, but some other sun that exists only in movie-land? No. Why would it be? We're talking timelines here, not universes. If you don't know the difference, I suggest you... stop working your case! Exactly, what "we humans have come to terms with or believe in." Without our perceptions there are no such things as concepts. Would you say that the landmass of America is a human concept? Not the name, or what the land implies, but the landmass itself? Or would the landmass still be there, even if no human had ever set their foot there? Same thing, really. Evolution, wether we figured it out or not, would still be a process going on all around us. Now you can argue all you want how you feel it's just a human concept because we humans have given it a name, but that's just insane. Pick up some copies of GAR's dead films, the timeline is there, trust me. Where is it? Hidden between the decade-long timelapses? Maybe someday you will find the "human concept" of sarcasm...... Whenever someone pulls some really bad sarcasm directed at me, I usually pretend like nothing because it's just stupid in the first place. I can understand you're getting tired, but then just let that point be. You are correct, you way you say "existing together" makes no sense. However, I did not say that. What I said, again, it that they have a "setting" in the same timeline, not that the events are occuring simultaneously in the same timeline. Haha. You're timeline theory is only getting more far-fetched by the minute. So two films exist in the same timeline, but if they depict the same events, the other one ignores the first one completly just not to cause any trouble with your theory? Again: Doesn't make any sense. That is what I have been saying all along that the films are "depicted as being set in our timeline" to use your exact words. Good, finally you come to your senses. Now can we please just let films be films and realize that even though that a film is depicted in our timeline, that doesn't mean it has to be in the same timeline as any other film? It was never meant to, so it's not. As an interesting sidenote, well after the poll that started this thread was closed, someone has gone in and altered the total votes. There used to be 19 votes for option number 1. Either a mod has taken to revisionist poll-history, or this very thread itself has drifted into a different timeline. If I'm not mistaken, that is because four of the votes were done by the same user using different accounts.