Chronological Possibilities with all the Spinoffs?

[EvilNed]

You could say that from Night to Day, it's a been period of 8 or 9 months. Babs says in NotLD that "They ought to make the day the time changes the first day of Summer..." and Steel say that "It's going to be a long winter." in DotD. Dawn is somewhere in between. When I rewatched Dawn it's pretty evident that it's taking off in the fall though. There's light snow on the roof when they arrive at the mall. Having said that I don't really think that's something that was ever intended to form any form of continuity.

[shootemindehead]

What is left of the government could have been maintaining the relays for months and even years, no way of knowing. What we do know for a fact is that they "used to talk to Washington all the time" until relatively recently, that's why they are pressuring their radio man to attempt to reestablish contact, which is why he complains that the equipment at his disposal is not adequate to do that. These guys have not been in such isolation for a very long time, they were up to date on what was going on in other places up until relatively recently, and their outlook on the situation is a very pessimistic one. Obviously the feedback from their bosses in Washington was not encouraging at all. That's the first time they explore that particular area by helicopter, that does not mean that they haven't been doing other explorations, either by chopper or on land (they got plenty of land vehicles at the base.) We can easily deduce that they in fact have been doing just that. When they arrive at the base after visiting the dead city, Miller sarcastically remarks: "another waste of time, huh?", to which John replies "got that right, man!" From their previous explorations, Miller already anticipated that this one was also going to be a failure. Also, when they are at the dead city, John tells McDermott that: "It's a dead place. Like all the others, you know". Again implying that they have been looking around, but have found nothing but zombies. The operation itself was put together hastily, but that doesn't mean anything regarding how much time it has actually passed since the events in Night, though. Their bosses in Washington could have planned it in just a few days but many months or even years ago! Sarah is referring to the fact that the operation itself was not well thought out and put together in a short time, she's not saying that they only have been there in the bunker for a few days. Also, considering how many zombies they had captured and brought down to the cave area, I would say that it in fact took at least several months to actually accomplish just that task alone! They had to go up to the surface, round up, capture and restrain zombies that were roaming free, then bring them down and free them in the cave system. Before that, they obviously also had to make sure that the caves were isolated from the main underground complex and also eliminate any other possible exits (minus the missile silo, since zombies are too clumsy to climb such a tall ladder, so no need to block that one), otherwise the zombies would have found their way out. When you consider all such details, it becomes pretty obvious that these guys have been in this bunker for a good while. As I said, you can have your way if you want. But there's nothing actually in 'Day of the Dead' that supports the idea that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'. - - - Updated - - - When I rewatched Dawn it's pretty evident that it's taking off in the fall though. There's light snow on the roof when they arrive at the mall. Having said that I don't really think that's something that was ever intended to form any form of continuity. No. Romero plays it loose. You can say that Night is after Dawn if you really want to, or even happening at the same time.

[Seiferboy]

This is the most appropriate chronological order when considering all that is depicted and implied in the movies themselves (regardless of what years they were made and released in or what Romero might have said here or there in some interviews, specially in his later years when his memory had gotten quite bad.) Day depicts a humanity almost gone extinct and driven underground in a world overtaken by the hordes of the living dead, which none of his other movies does, thus why it is the obvious final chapter in the saga. Entropy, folks, entropy. All the other movies are evidently taking place at earlier times during the same zombie disaster, periods of time when organized society is still managing to survive to a greater or lesser degree in the midst of the said ongoing disaster. No, don't... just don't. That crap doesn't belong anywhere in this topic and has not even a remote connection to Romero's movies. And most certainly even less trying to place it after Day! If you must consider any non-Romero zombie film as supposedly somehow "related" to the time-line of the same zombie apocalypse, then consider Fulci's Zombie and Mattei's Hell of the Living Dead as "prequels", actually, definitely not "sequels". Both of these movies have been attempted to have some sort of "connection" to Romero's movies (even though they really do not have any, except that they both borrow the idea of the cannibalistic zombie from them), and the only way that could ever be is by considering them as "prequels", and for obvious reasons (both movies begin in a world where the reality of zombies is totally unknown to most people, and then they gradually spread everywhere.) Yes! I think Hell of the Living Dead, followed by Zombi 2 would be the perfect way to start a binge watch. Those two followed by NOTLD makes a lot of sense to me. In Hell, we see a mysterious virus take hold of New Guinea. In Zombi, it's a Caribbean island. We also see the zombies on that famous bridge in NYC, so that could explain how they entered the U.S. and how it spread so fast.

[JDP]

As I said, you can have your way if you want. But there's nothing actually in 'Day of the Dead' that supports the idea that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'. It goes both ways: there is nothing in Land of the Dead that supports that it comes after Day of the Dead. But if you consider all the details that have been discussed many times, one should be more inclined to believe that Day seems to be happening at a later time than the events we see in Land. No. Romero plays it loose. You can say that Night is after Dawn if you really want to, or even happening at the same time. Not quite. It is not possible that Dawn can be happening at the same time as Night, since we have a clear dating of when the events of Dawn are taking place within the ongoing zombie situation: 3 weeks (as stated by Dr. Foster during the TV debate sequence.) Night happens during the first day that the zombies show up. Nobody knows anything about them until that day early in the morning (as established during the TV interview of Dr. Grimes, who together with some of his colleagues at the university must have been one of the first eye-witnesses to the reality of zombies.)

[EvilNed]

It goes both ways: there is nothing in Land of the Dead that supports that it comes after Day of the Dead. But if you consider all the details that have been discussed many times, one should be more inclined to believe that Day seems to be happening at a later time than the events we see in Land. Well, that's not true though. There are lines of dialogue in Land that mention the passage of time since the shit hit the fan. Two lines that state "5 years ago". I don't believe there's anything in Day that would suggest it's been five years since the Dead walked. They still believe they are on some kind of government contract... They haven't even abandoned their posts, hehe.

[shootemindehead]

It goes both ways: there is nothing in Land of the Dead that supports that it comes after Day of the Dead. But if you consider all the details that have been discussed many times, one should be more inclined to believe that Day seems to be happening at a later time than the events we see in Land. Well, as Ned has just told you, there are actual lines in the movie about how much time has past. But there's nothing in 'Day of the Dead' that could lead one to conclude that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'. There's simply no clear evidence to support such a conclusion. These films are isolated stories. Even if you want to have 'Dawn of the Dead' occur after 'Day of the Dead', go for it. It doesn't matter, because it didn't really matter that much to George Romero.

[EvilNed]

By the way, here's my head-canon. Night of the Living Dead Hell of the Living Dead Return of the Living Dead (Unrelated zombie outbreak) Return of the Living Dead 2 (Another unrelated zombie outbreak) Children of the Living Dead (Related but belated zombie outbreak) Zombi 2 Diary of the Dead Night of the Living Dead '90 (the real zombie outbreak) Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 (Related to the unrelated zombie outbreak) Return of the Living Dead 3 Dawn of the Dead (highly related zombie outbreak) Survival of the Dead Zombie Flesh Eaters 3 (It's related somehow) Return of the Living Dead 4 Return of the Living Dead 5 Day of the Dead Land of the Dead And clearly: Zombie 5: Killing Birds takes place years after the others.

[JDP]

Well, that's not true though. There are lines of dialogue in Land that mention the passage of time since the shit hit the fan. Two lines that state "5 years ago". I don't believe there's anything in Day that would suggest it's been five years since the Dead walked. They still believe they are on some kind of government contract... They haven't even abandoned their posts, hehe. We've been over this time and time again. There are no such "lines" in Land. Vague references to things that happened some years ago in contexts that have zero to do with the zombies themselves prove absolutely nothing regarding them. They are not like the "3 weeks" line in Dawn, which is unquestionably about the zombies. Plus there is nothing in Day that proves anything regarding exactly how long they have been in there either. For all we know it could in fact be several years since the zombie outbreak. The glimpses we get of the "dead city" certainly show that a lot of abandonment and decay has been going on since the zombie outbreak. Definitely more than just "a few months". Now, the world we see towards the end of Dawn does look like one where only a few months have passed. - - - Updated - - - Well, as Ned has just told you, there are actual lines in the movie about how much time has past. But there's nothing in 'Day of the Dead' that could lead one to conclude that it comes after 'Land of the Dead'. There's simply no clear evidence to support such a conclusion. There are no such lines in Land. The only time that something relating to time and the zombies is specifically mentioned in that movie we only get a very vague "sometime later". Hardly much proof of anything regarding this topic. Plus the world of Day definitely looks more devastated and desolate than that of Land. Plenty of details in both movies point to the impression that Day is taking place at a later time than Land. These films are isolated stories. Even if you want to have 'Dawn of the Dead' occur after 'Day of the Dead', go for it. It doesn't matter, because it didn't really matter that much to George Romero. Whether Romero intended it or not, Dawn definitely looks like it's happening at an earlier time than Day. Plenty of reasons to come to such a conclusion.

[EvilNed]

We've been over this time and time again. There are no such "lines" in Land Gotta disagree with you there bud. There clearly are. But agree to disagree.

[shootemindehead]

There are no such lines in Land. The only time that something relating to time and the zombies is specifically mentioned in that movie we only get a very vague "sometime later". Hardly much proof of anything regarding this topic. There's references to three years in Land. You can choose to ignore that and run with the narrative you have in your head, if you want. Plus the world of Day definitely looks more devastated and desolate than that of Land. Plenty of details in both movies point to the impression that Day is taking place at a later time than Land. We don't see the "world" in 'Day of the Dead'. We see Fort Myers and an underground bunker in Florida and that's all. Our information is extremely limited. You, literally, have nothing to draw a conclusion on about the state of the rest of the country, never mind "the world". And as I said, you can have it your way if you want. But you seeing what you want to see and not what's actually in the movie.

[JDP]

Gotta disagree with you there bud. There clearly are. But agree to disagree. Nope. Saying that "something" totally unrelated to zombies happened x-number of years ago does not = "the zombies must have appeared then!" Go to a judge with such an assumption as "final and decisive evidence" and see how quickly he throws your case out of court.

[EvilNed]

Nope. Saying that "something" totally unrelated to zombies happened x-number of years ago does not = "the zombies must have appeared then!" Go to a judge with such an assumption as "final and decisive evidence" and see how quickly he throws your case out of court. But... we're not in court. Apples and oranges. The characters are referring at two different occasions that a shift occured five years ago, implying it was when the dead rose - or rather accurately "when everything went to hell". You don't have to agree with me tho, that's fine.

[JDP]

There's references to three years in Land. You can choose to ignore that and run with the narrative you have in your head, if you want. Of course I can, and so can you or anyone else, considering the way those lines are written. Those references occur in fact in contexts that have nothing to do with the zombies. The only time reference that is unequivocally about the zombie situation happens during the beginning of the movie, and it only states an extremely vague "sometime later". We don't see the "world" in 'Day of the Dead'. We see Fort Myers and an underground bunker in Florida and that's all. Our information is extremely limited. You, literally, have nothing to draw a conclusion on about the state of the rest of the country, never mind "the world". And as I said, you can have it your way if you want. But you seeing what you want to see and not what's actually in the movie. But the movie does imply much more than what we actually see. Romero did an excellent job at suggestion here. There's just no way that anyone can possibly conclude that what we see in Florida is just happening there and nowhere else, unless you want to assume that this entire group of characters are pretty much the biggest suicidal masochist idiots the world has ever seen. Again, as discussed in previous threads, the fact that one of the characters keeps taunting another character with "where will you go's?!?!" and that character is forced to shut up and swallow his pride in front of his men tells us that none of them are aware of any safe place left to relocate. And the only one that has any idea about this actually suggests moving to an island in order to try to isolate themselves from the mainland. Does anyone seriously believe that all this makes any iota of sense if the still surviving functional societies that we see in Land were still around at the time when Day is happening? The survivors of Day are well-aware of how bad the situation has gotten everywhere, not just their immediate surroundings. - - - Updated - - - But... we're not in court. Apples and oranges. The characters are referring at two different occasions that a shift occured five years ago, implying it was when the dead rose - or rather accurately "when everything went to hell". You don't have to agree with me tho, that's fine. I can't agree because the definitive evidence simply isn't there. Some wino at a mechanic's garage commenting on when was the last time he drove a car and a goon complaining to his crime boss about their business relationship do not really tell us anything about the zombies themselves. For all we know, this is as unconnected to them as other pieces of background information throughout the movie, like Cholo's father having been a loser (was it because of the zombies too?), or Charlie's accident that disfigured him (was it because of the zombies as well??), or Slack having never been outside of the city (were the zombies responsible for this too???), or Pillsbury being a car thief (did the zombies also force him into this criminal activity????), and so forth.

[shootemindehead]

Nope. Saying that "something" totally unrelated to zombies happened x-number of years ago does not = "the zombies must have appeared then!" Go to a judge with such an assumption as "final and decisive evidence" and see how quickly he throws your case out of court. A lack of evidence will get you thrown out of court, too, and so far you haven't provided any to support your claim JDP. But, it doesn't matter. You can watch these films in any sequence you wish. - - - Updated - - - But the movie does imply much more than what we actually see. The problem is, though, is that it doesn't imply what you're suggesting it does.

[beat_truck]

By the way, here's my head-canon. Night of the Living Dead Hell of the Living Dead Return of the Living Dead (Unrelated zombie outbreak) Return of the Living Dead 2 (Another unrelated zombie outbreak) Children of the Living Dead (Related but belated zombie outbreak) Zombi 2 Diary of the Dead Night of the Living Dead '90 (the real zombie outbreak) Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 (Related to the unrelated zombie outbreak) Return of the Living Dead 3 Dawn of the Dead (highly related zombie outbreak) Survival of the Dead Zombie Flesh Eaters 3 (It's related somehow) Return of the Living Dead 4 Return of the Living Dead 5 Day of the Dead Land of the Dead And clearly: Zombie 5: Killing Birds takes place years after the others. You are gonna have to revise that. You missed a few movies that will obviously fit the timeline.