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

[JDP]

No, they are in that position in the first place because of the zombie apocalypse. So no, there isn't. So that's how we know the film is set 3 years after the outbreak - the dialogue tells us this. All the zombies could vaporize in an instant and Cholo and Kaufman would still be at each other's throats. The zombies have no part in this feud. It's obviously about money and power. So, no, this doesn't clarify anything regarding the "3 years" bit. For all we know, these guys have been "in business" since quite before the zombies showed up. They just adapted their "business" to the zombie situation and continued as usual. Totally 100% plausible scenario that does NOT affect the plot one bit. The zombies themselves are rather irrelevant for this part of the plot. What is totally relevant here is money; that is what you truly can't do without for this part of the plot to work. Now, can you seriously imagine anyone quarreling over money in the much more devastated and decayed world of Day??? I certainly can't! In that movie there is no other concern but the zombies, everything gravitates around them, you can't take them out of the equation and still expect any part of its plot to work, as should be expected from a setting very deeply immersed into an ever worsening zombie apocalypse. - - - Updated - - - Yes, more or less. The world has changed so drastically that they would all have become irrelevant, depending which topic you're discussing of course. But we can plainly see that is not the case, since some of the characters in fact DO refer to things that happened before the zombies. Examples: Slack has lived all her life in the city, Riley did not have much bad luck before the zombies, Pillsbury & Motown talking about yearly auto-theft figures from the days when the car industry & international commerce were still around. Other statements are certainly about the zombies and their appearance into the scence. Examples: Riley's brother getting bit by a zombie and turning into one, Kaufman & company establishing other places with supplies and personnel just in case of an emergency, Dead Reckoning getting designed & built. And then there's the statements which due to insufficient info in the dialogue can have happened before or after the zombies, we can't be 100% certain either way. Examples: Cholo's dad becoming a loser, Charlie's accident, the "3 years" bit.

[Philly_SWAT]

Yes, more or less. The world has changed so drastically that they would all have become irrelevant, depending which topic you're discussing of course. This reply is wonderfully obtuse.

[EvilNed]

All the zombies could vaporize in an instant and Cholo and Kaufman would still be at each other's throats. Irrelevant and hypothetical. But we can plainly see that is not the case, since some of the characters in fact DO refer to things that happened before the zombies. But always with the zombies in mind, as in "what did you do before all this?" etc, etc. So with all that said, we're still left with Cholo and the mechanic both referring to something happening 3 years ago. So we as an audience all know how long its been since the zombie apocalypse started: 3 years. We know this because they say it.

[JDP]

Irrelevant and hypothetical. On the contrary, relevant and perfectly logical. You don't see Cholo calling Kaufman and making threats about him doing something about the zombies or else..., do you? When Cholo gets back to him, it is specifically about the problem they argued earlier on: money. You either give me the money that I feel you owe me, or I will blow up your "castle". The zombies have nothing to do with the feud between these two characters. They are never, ever part of the argument. This whole part of the plot can easily stand on its own without zombies, it doesn't concern them. But always with the zombies in mind, as in "what did you do before all this?" etc, etc. Always? What do yearly car theft figures have to do with anything about the zombies? And on the more uncertain references: what exactly does Cholo's dad have to do with the zombies? What does Charlie's accident also have to do with them? These ones are never settled either way, just like the "3 years" bit. So with all that said, we're still left with Cholo and the mechanic both referring to something happening 3 years ago. So we as an audience all know how long its been since the zombie apocalypse started: 3 years. We know this because they say it. Which you are just ASSUMING "must" refer to the same thing, which, unfortunately, is never clarified anywhere in the movie. The dialogue is simply not informative enough for you to be able to know this for sure. Plus the movie is set in a city with HUNDREDS of survivors, so the odds that most of them had something or other happen to them 3 years ago are HUMONGOUS. Meaning: it is totally and very easily possible that two random people in this city can mention 3 years (or any other number of years) and still in fact NOT BE REFERRING TO THE SAME THING. There was a proper place in this movie to clarify this matter of where does this movie stand in relation to Night, leaving no doubt whatsoever for the viewer: the intro. But all we see there is a very VAGUE "sometime ago" and then "today". That is the ONLY time the movie ever addresses the zombie outbreak in relation to the events we are about to see unfold. Everything else about it = SPECULATION

[EvilNed]

Always? What do yearly car theft figures have to do with anything about the zombies? None of them are stealing cars anymore - for a reason. Besides, it's just a quip. Which you are just ASSUMING "must" refer to the same thing, which, unfortunately, is never clarified anywhere in the movie. It's clarified perfectly, as I've already explained. And since it is clarified perfectly - in dialogue no less - we know that the film takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It's a clear as crystal reference.

[JDP]

None of them are stealing cars anymore - for a reason. Besides, it's just a quip. Nevertheless it is about the past, and it has nothing to do with the zombies. Yet more proof that not everything that is said in the dialogue is about the zombies. It's clarified perfectly, as I've already explained. And since it is clarified perfectly - in dialogue no less - we know that the film takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It's a clear as crystal reference. There is no such clarification. All we have are two totally disconnected statements in totally different contexts. Trying to make a "connection" here is pure SPECULATION on your part. It would be a different matter had such references been connected to one another, or, even better, be inserted where it truly should have been inserted: at the intro, the only place in the whole movie that is about the zombie outbreak itself. But, alas, no such thing happened, therefore there is nothing "crystal clear" here regarding these "3 years" and the start of the zombie crisis. No such specific information is given anywhere in the movie. For all we know, Kaufman and Cholo could have been in business before the zombies showed up and then just adapted to the zombie situation, "business as usual"; and that mechanic/bum/wino at the garage suffered an accident 3 years ago that prevents him from driving cars anymore, or the authorities revoked his license for driving drunk. In fact, these last "explanations" would make much more sense than the appearance of the zombies, since we can plainly see other characters drive cars without any problem whatsoever. The zombies obviously did NOT stop anyone from engaging in this activity, as long as you have access to a working car and a permit to drive it.

[Philly_SWAT]

None of them are stealing cars anymore - for a reason. Then what happened to Riley's car, which he said he had just seen the previous day?

[EvilNed]

There is no such clarification. There is ample clarification for anyone who knows how filmmaking works and how information is conveyed through dialogue to give us viewers a picture of the world they live in. Romero doesn't explicitly have to state that "The zombie outbreak started 3 years ago", all he has to do is have two different characters mention that something happened 3 years ago and we know - because the context is a zombie apocalypse.T Thus we know that the film is set three years after the zombie apocalypse. It's in the dialogue, twice actually.

[MinionZombie]

Then what happened to Riley's car, which he said he had just seen the previous day? One of the mysteries of the film. Either some random person half-inched it, or my theory has always been that Kaufman had someone pinch it so that Riley couldn't leave - because Riley is a valuable asset and can be relied upon to bring in supplies (we see how Cholo is a bit hot-headed, whereas Riley is purely focused on the job at hand). I'd reckon the drunk garage owner was paid off (likely in booze) to feign ignorance.

[JDP]

There is ample clarification for anyone who knows how filmmaking works and how information is conveyed through dialogue to give us viewers a picture of the world they live in. Romero doesn't explicitly have to state that "The zombie outbreak started 3 years ago", all he has to do is have two different characters mention that something happened 3 years ago and we know - because the context is a zombie apocalypse.T Thus we know that the film is set three years after the zombie apocalypse. It's in the dialogue, twice actually. Then apparently you don't know how "filmmaking works". As even you agreed, Romero did do a very good job at establishing such information for the viewer in Dawn. But in Land there simply is no equivalent to what he did there. No viewer will have any doubts that Dawn is happening 3 weeks after the start of the zombie outbreak, because the dialogue is sufficiently informative there regarding this point, and the said time reference happens within the APPROPRIATE CONTEXT for it to convey the information clearly to the viewer. But any critical viewer will not have any such clarity from two or more TOTALLY DISCONNECTED AND HAPPENING WITHIN TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXTS references to any amount of time, which could easily be referring to different things WITHIN THE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS WHERE THEY ARE SAID. The only time where the context of the zombie outbreak itself is specifically addressed in Land is the intro, and you already know too well what VAGUE statements are made there. This would have been the place to put the "3 years" bit if the filmmaker really wanted to clarify this for the viewer, and not during some random character's complaints about not driving a car or another character's complaints about his business relationship with another character, TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT & DISCONNECTED CONTEXTS THAT DO NOT SPECIFICALLY APPERTAIN TO THE ZOMBIE OUTBREAK ITSELF.

[EvilNed]

Then apparently you don't know how "filmmaking works". Yes I do! And me and Romero seem to have the same idea regarding it, seeing as he put in explicit references to when the outbreak started in the films dialogue, which is textbook exposition. So how do we know the outbreak started 3 years ago? Two characters mention it in dialogue.

[JDP]

Yes I do! And me and Romero seem to have the same idea regarding it, seeing as he put in explicit references to when the outbreak started in the films dialogue, which is textbook exposition. So how do we know the outbreak started 3 years ago? Two characters mention it in dialogue. That is hardly what "exposition" is. You want to know where the "exposition" about the zombie outbreak actually is in Land? Watch the intro sequence. And you know very well what it actually says there. The "3 years" bit is NOWHERE to be seen there, which is where it should be had the filmmaker really wanted to make this point very clear to the viewer. Another thing: 1970s Romero = at the top of his game, that's why the "exposition" in Dawn is well done, clear and leaves no doubt whatsoever about such details. 2000s Romero = during his declining years, that's why the "expositon" in Land is overall sloppy & vague and leaves plenty of doubts & room for interpretation. In fact, declining 2000s Romero even contradicts some things he himself had established before during his "golden age". All of this is very likely due to his apparently increasingly failing memory.

[EvilNed]

That is hardly what "exposition" is. Yes, in fact it is. The characters are, through dialogue, giving us information on the world we are witnessing. The information they give us, through dialogue, is that it's been 3 years since the outbreak. This information is relevant to us. So that's how we know the film is set 3 years after the outbreak started.

[JDP]

Yes, in fact it is. The characters are, through dialogue, giving us information on the world we are witnessing. The information they give us, through dialogue, is that it's been 3 years since the outbreak. This information is relevant to us. So that's how we know the film is set 3 years after the outbreak started. And that is not what the movie does when it comes to this topic. Watch it again. There is no clear statement anywhere that these DISPARATE & UNCONNECTED mentions of "3 years" have anything to do with the zombie outbreak. That is just YOU MAKING AN ASSUMPTION & JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, not "exposition", which actually is what the SCRIPTWRITER (NOT YOU, THE VIEWER) has conveyed to the viewer/reader in a sufficiently clear manner so as to leave no possible doubt or alternative interpretations THAT DO NOT AFFECT THE PLOT ONE BIT. So, supposing that was really Romero's intention for Land in regard to when it is happening with respect to the first movie, then he FAILED to do so, as the mentions of the "3 years" happen in totally DISPARATE AND UNCONNECTED CONTEXTS that DO NOT APPERTAIN to the zombie outbreak itself and can be easily interpreted as something else WITHOUT AFFECTING THE PLOT ONE BIT. Watch Dawn for a good example of "exposition" regarding a time reference to a zombie outbreak. No room for doubt or any other plausible interpretations there regarding the "3 weeks". That's one clear reference, placed in the APPROPRIATE CONTEXT, and which you can't interpret any other way WITHOUT AFFECTING THE PLOT ITSELF.

[EvilNed]

And that is not what the movie does when it comes to this topic. Yes, the film clearly presents to us exposition meant to convey when the film is set. When the characters are referring to something happened 3 years ago, it is very explicit and the film is conveying to us information about the world we're in. The film is saying, to us through dialogue, that the outbreak started 3 years ago. Which is how we know Land takes place 3 years after the start of the outbreak.