GAR questions

[Mike70]

I've always pictured Romero as one of those people that start talking about government conspiracies and aliens when they get really high... *romero exhales bong hit* "you know there's this place like 10 miles under the desert in new mexico where the govt. is breeding human/alien hybrids in order to take over the world." *me* "no, man. i didn't know that." *romero* "yeah, it's all being done under the direction of the disembodied yet still living head of colonel sanders. he's ruling the world from an ice bunker in Antarctica."

[Philly_SWAT]

I think I'd rather pound my pecker with a meat tenderizer than confront the 1985 comment or the "evolve" discussion. Here ya go...

[Trin]

I love ya man, but I'd rather not share meat tenderizer with you. *pushes the bottle back across the table with a very long pair of tongs - then leaves the tongs*

[Philly_SWAT]

I love ya man, but I'd rather not share meat tenderizer with you. *pushes the bottle back across the table with a very long pair of tongs - then leaves the tongs* Oh its not mine, I got it for you! It is still unopened!

[Thorn]

There are some great ideas here. For me I always wanted to know about the continuity. While I agree you might not get an answer that really clears the air so to speak, I would like to know from him if he sees the films all existing in one universe and when he is telling the stories if he approaches it that way or if he just keeps the rule set (with tweaks) and then starts over.

[LoneCrusader]

Ask him this....that although you realize that none of his zombie movies are sequels to each other, and are not really "connected" to each other, was it his intent to have all the stories set in the same story-telling universe, or was it his intent to create separate universes for each film? Or you could ask him if his movies, for example Dawn of the Dead, are intended by him to be set in "the present" or in 1978? As "Art is Personal"~EvilNed, regardless of his answer(s) a viewer could still choose to take either position in their own mind, but it would shed light on his intentions as the film maker. They're not sequels to each other?!

[Philly_SWAT]

They're not sequels to each other?! Not direct sequels in the true sense of the word. There are no characters that carry over from one film to next (except for little in jokes for the fans, such as Savini playing a biker zombie in Land).

[LoneCrusader]

Not direct sequels in the true sense of the word. There are no characters that carry over from one film to next (except for little in jokes for the fans, such as Savini playing a biker zombie in Land). Okay, but they films are still related to each other, right? And if they are, how does the technology change and such?

[Philly_SWAT]

Okay, but they films are still related to each other, right? And if they are, how does the technology change and such? Well, opinions will vary about this here on this site. I will give you my take it on it (which obviously I think is the correct one), and also try to give info on what other opinions are. You can decide which you agree with, or maybe you even have a different idea. Either way, I would like to know what you think the answers to your own 2 questions are. First of all, I think most would agree that the films are in fact "related to each". They all had the same director/story-teller, they all are set in a universe where the dead are becoming reanimated for an unknown reason, and move in a slow shambling fashion, and want to attack and feast on the living. Other than those obvious facts, exactly how else they are related has been a matter of much debate. I believe that the movies are all set in the same story telling universe. Even though they are not direct sequels as I stated earlier, I believe that the gang from Dawn could have seen the farmhouse from Night if they had happened upon that area. That Ben was shot by the posse inside that house, and even though that has no relation to the 4 people in the chopper, that it all happened in the same timeline. Some people will argue that the stories DO NOT exist in the same universe, that Romero created different universes to set different stories in. This seems highly unlikely and unnecessary to me. Why create another universe so similar to the one you already created instead of already using that one? People will point to the fact that there are slight differences between the movies (for example differences in zombie behavior) as evidence that they are different story telling universes. I say those slight differences are due to low budget, movie making mistakes, and the filmakers not having a grand overall plan. They (Romero and friends) did not have a grand idea with all possible things planned out in a story "bible", to make sure that everything was consistent from film to film. They were just a bunch of people who wanted to make some movies. Funny thing is, there are HUGE inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series, yet no one ever argues that those are all set in different universes. Perhaps the fact the there is one main character that is in all the films makes people feel differently. In part V, they say Jason was cremated. In part VI, Tommy digs him up from where he was buried. MAJOR inconsistency. A different universe would explain it, however again I say that is highly unlikely and unnecessary. It was a result of those movie makers not giving a shit about inconsistencies, and just make a buck off a popular concept that didnt cost a lot of money to make. As far as your question "how does the technology change and such", opinions vary on this as well. Some feel that the movies are not related at all, and are set in the timeframe in which they were filmed, i.e. Night takes place in 1968, Dawn 1978, Day 1985, etc. If that is true, then that is why technology changes as it does. Personally, I believe that all the movies are set within the same universe and timeline, and are all set in "the perpetual present". Just as when you can see that a special effect didnt really happen (you see a string holding something in air, you can tell a stunt man was used, etc) you are supposed to "suspend your disbelief" in order to enjoy the story, I believe that you should suspend your disbelief about clothing, hairstyles, technology, etc changing in Romero's films. As a guy without a lot of money, without a huge overriding vision, and a guy who just wanted to make some cool movies (which almost all would agree he did), he did not put any thought of effort in trying to mask "time-stampable" items in his films. You can either suspend your disbelief about it or not. So it is my opinion that Night in set "now", whenever it is that you view the film. Dawn is set 3 weeks after that, and Day much further into the future after that. It is my belief that if Peter had managed to survive for a long time after the end of Dawn, he could have met the people in Day if they were in the same geographical area. They are not direct sequels in the sense that characters from one film continue on to the next, but the "setting" and "zombie rules" do continue from one film to the next. Any inconsistencies are a result of movie making mistakes and/or lack of foresight on the film makers part. Technology differences need to have the "suspend your disbelief" attribute applied. What do you believe? I would be interested to know. And it seems like you are a newer member, so welcome!

[Thorn]

What Philly said pretty much sums up my feelings as well. Same universe with minor tweaks due to lack of over all vision by the story tellers, same world, all survivors could meet up or see the areas that those people fought their "last stands" in. I do not see Dawn as a film unrelated to Night sharing only zombies as central theme .

[Trin]

That's a great post Philly. It sums up all the side of the debate objectively while doing a good job of stating your own personal opinion.

[LoneCrusader]

Well, opinions will vary about this here on this site. I will give you my take it on it (which obviously I think is the correct one), and also try to give info on what other opinions are. You can decide which you agree with, or maybe you even have a different idea. Either way, I would like to know what you think the answers to your own 2 questions are. First of all, I think most would agree that the films are in fact "related to each". They all had the same director/story-teller, they all are set in a universe where the dead are becoming reanimated for an unknown reason, and move in a slow shambling fashion, and want to attack and feast on the living. Other than those obvious facts, exactly how else they are related has been a matter of much debate. I believe that the movies are all set in the same story telling universe. Even though they are not direct sequels as I stated earlier, I believe that the gang from Dawn could have seen the farmhouse from Night if they had happened upon that area. That Ben was shot by the posse inside that house, and even though that has no relation to the 4 people in the chopper, that it all happened in the same timeline. Some people will argue that the stories DO NOT exist in the same universe, that Romero created different universes to set different stories in. This seems highly unlikely and unnecessary to me. Why create another universe so similar to the one you already created instead of already using that one? People will point to the fact that there are slight differences between the movies (for example differences in zombie behavior) as evidence that they are different story telling universes. I say those slight differences are due to low budget, movie making mistakes, and the filmakers not having a grand overall plan. They (Romero and friends) did not have a grand idea with all possible things planned out in a story "bible", to make sure that everything was consistent from film to film. They were just a bunch of people who wanted to make some movies. Funny thing is, there are HUGE inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series, yet no one ever argues that those are all set in different universes. Perhaps the fact the there is one main character that is in all the films makes people feel differently. In part V, they say Jason was cremated. In part VI, Tommy digs him up from where he was buried. MAJOR inconsistency. A different universe would explain it, however again I say that is highly unlikely and unnecessary. It was a result of those movie makers not giving a shit about inconsistencies, and just make a buck off a popular concept that didnt cost a lot of money to make. As far as your question "how does the technology change and such", opinions vary on this as well. Some feel that the movies are not related at all, and are set in the timeframe in which they were filmed, i.e. Night takes place in 1968, Dawn 1978, Day 1985, etc. If that is true, then that is why technology changes as it does. Personally, I believe that all the movies are set within the same universe and timeline, and are all set in "the perpetual present". Just as when you can see that a special effect didnt really happen (you see a string holding something in air, you can tell a stunt man was used, etc) you are supposed to "suspend your disbelief" in order to enjoy the story, I believe that you should suspend your disbelief about clothing, hairstyles, technology, etc changing in Romero's films. As a guy without a lot of money, without a huge overriding vision, and a guy who just wanted to make some cool movies (which almost all would agree he did), he did not put any thought of effort in trying to mask "time-stampable" items in his films. You can either suspend your disbelief about it or not. So it is my opinion that Night in set "now", whenever it is that you view the film. Dawn is set 3 weeks after that, and Day much further into the future after that. It is my belief that if Peter had managed to survive for a long time after the end of Dawn, he could have met the people in Day if they were in the same geographical area. They are not direct sequels in the sense that characters from one film continue on to the next, but the "setting" and "zombie rules" do continue from one film to the next. Any inconsistencies are a result of movie making mistakes and/or lack of foresight on the film makers part. Technology differences need to have the "suspend your disbelief" attribute applied. What do you believe? I would be interested to know. And it seems like you are a newer member, so welcome! I think it would be neat if they are related to each other, but the inconsistencies are bugging me. Like how they eat insects in Night, the technologies, how they fear fire in Night, how they feel fire in Dawn, etc. And the infinite inconsistencies between the first three and Land. And how George has said that they're not sequels/not related etc. I think it would be neat. But I'm not so sure if I believe they are related at all. (i just watched Land a few minutes ago, once without commentary, and then again with. it kinda killed most of my hopes for any of them being related.) so, i'm not 100% sure, but i think i'm leaning more towards the "separate universes" theory.

[Philly_SWAT]

I think it would be neat if they are related to each other, but the inconsistencies are bugging me. Like how they eat insects in Night, the technologies, how they fear fire in Night, how they feel fire in Dawn, etc. And the infinite inconsistencies between the first three and Land. And how George has said that they're not sequels/not related etc. I think it would be neat. But I'm not so sure if I believe they are related at all. (i just watched Land a few minutes ago, once without commentary, and then again with. it kinda killed most of my hopes for any of them being related.) so, i'm not 100% sure, but i think i'm leaning more towards the "separate universes" theory. Hmmm....disappointing.... Do you suspend your disbelief about other things in other movies? What about the inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series? Do you think they are set in different universes as well?

[LoneCrusader]

Hmmm....disappointing.... Do you suspend your disbelief about other things in other movies? What about the inconsistencies in the Friday the 13th series? Do you think they are set in different universes as well? lol friday the 13th movies are hardly movies. i hate them. don't really think anything of them, really. just saying what i think about the dead series.

[Philly_SWAT]

lol friday the 13th movies are hardly movies. i hate them. don't really think anything of them, really. just saying what i think about the dead series. OK, take out the Friday the 13th reference, input any series of "moving pictures with sounds" that you do consider films, and tell me if you suspend your disbelief with inconsistencies in them or not. I only used Friday the 13th as an obvious example.