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

[JDP]

Sure I did, The question at large is; When is Land of the Dead set. The answer; 3 years after the outbreak. We know this because it's stated in dialogue twice by two different characters. No need to really derail from that. What was that? Again you avoid answering pertinent questions that fully appertain to this matter? No surprise there, since you well know that no critical viewer will accept your generalizing "arguments". Things said by more than one character in a movie do NOT necessarily guarantee anything. Go ahead and answer the questions once and for all instead of avoiding them like the plague: does everything said in a movie set in, say, WW2 or the American Civil War, have to by force be about those wars or their beginnings??? Did Charlie's accident in Land have to by force been connected with the zombies just because more than one character refers to it??? You know damn well that this is no "derailment" but simple examples that just further illustrate your invalid sweeping generalizations. Anyone can plainly see that the answer to both questions is simply "NO!", and thus why your "the 3 years bit must refer to the zombie outbreak and no other explanation is possible" is based simply on your personal preferred ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS, not because the dialogue itself really guarantees that ASSUMPTION as the only possible one. Face the fact: Land's dialogue is written in a lazy and rather sloppy style which easily leaves its statements quite open to interpretation. There is NOTHING in it that compels viewers to make a necessary connection between the "3 years" and the beginning of the zombie situation, quite unlike the "3 weeks" in Dawn, where we are indeed compelled to associate both. If Land had such a thing, you would have cited the pertinent evidence from the dialogue itself AGES AGO, but you haven't, because it just isn't there. That's why you came up with the "two characters mention it, that means it must refer to the zombie outbreak" bit. And that's why I keep asking you: did Charlie's accident also have to do with the zombies, then, since more than one character also refers to it? Not even THE ACTOR WHO PLAYED CHARLIE KNOWS THIS, BTW, since, as he himself admits, such information IS SIMPLY NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE SCRIPT: http://madeinatlantis.com/interviews/robert_joy.htm "I play Charlie, who is sort of a sidekick. I'm the facially deformed and mentally damaged sidekick of Riley, the lead character. My personal back-story is that I was a mentally challenged adult living with my mother when the zombies took over. One thing led to another and my mother got killed in some kind of crisis. Then there was a fire. All we know definitely from the script is that Riley rescued me from the fire but not before half of my face was hideously burned. That's why my special effects makeup is so dramatic." The actor is here telling us what his preferred ASSUMPTION is (i.e. that the accident happened during the zombie outbreak), and then is careful to point out that the script itself only really says that Riley rescued him from the fire. That's all the dialogue in fact says or implies. So the answer to the question is, as you already know all too well, that there is NOTHING in the dialogue that says or implies anything about the zombies being involved in this incident. Yet it is mentioned by more than one character. Ooooops! There goes your 100% SELF-CONCOCTED "rule" that just because more than one character refers to something in a zombie movie it must somehow be connected with them. But keep trying. Maybe one day you will come up with an actually valid counterargument.

[EvilNed]

What was that? Again you avoid answering pertinent questions that fully appertain to this matter? No I'm simply keeping this discussion to what's relevant - which is: When does Land of the Dead take place? As we know from dialogue stated in the film it takes place 3 years after the start of the outbreak. This is undeniable seeing as it's explicitly stated in the film by two different characters. So after all this time, we can't dodge the fact that the film itself claims to take place 3 years after the outbreak.

[JDP]

No I'm simply keeping this discussion to what's relevant - which is: When does Land of the Dead take place? As we know from dialogue stated in the film it takes place 3 years after the start of the outbreak. This is undeniable seeing as it's explicitly stated in the film by two different characters. So after all this time, we can't dodge the fact that the film itself claims to take place 3 years after the outbreak. If that was truly your intention you would have answered the pertinent questions a long time ago, instead of avoiding them any which way you can. As for the dialogue itself, it does nothing of what you absurdly claim. There is no connection whatsoever between the statements of the two characters and the zombie outbreak. If there was, you should be able to cite it, not make invalid sweeping generalizations (you know, the ones that the questions that you keep avoiding address and show to be quite deficient.)

[EvilNed]

If that was truly your intention you would have answered the pertinent questions a long time ago Well, you see there is really only one pertinent question; When is Land of the Dead set? And we know, from dialogue mentioned in the film, that it's set 3 years after the start of the outbreak. That's the only real important question, but luckily we're presented with clear exposition in the film itself which answers this for us.

[JDP]

Well, you see there is really only one pertinent question; When is Land of the Dead set? And we know, from dialogue mentioned in the film, that it's set 3 years after the start of the outbreak. That's the only real important question, but luckily we're presented with clear exposition in the film itself which answers this for us. Being purposefully (or maybe you are not being "purposeful"???) obtuse is not going to get you anywhere: the questions are pertinent because they plainly show that your "arguments" are a bunch of baloney that you pulled out of your hat, plain and simple. If you transfer the "3 years" lines of dialogue in Land verbatim to a movie set in WW2, they do not really compel anyone to conclude that the two characters "must" somehow be referring to the beginning of that war, not any more than in Land the very same lines are really compelling the viewer to conclude that they "must" be referring to the beginning of the zombie situation. That's how disconnected to that event those lines as written actually are: you can take them verbatim into another movie that has ZERO to do with zombies, and they still totally fit in, LOL! The viewer of the movie set in WW2 simply will see a guy bitching about his 3 year business relationship with his boss, which as written could easily extend back to before WW2, and some bum/wino in a WW2 era garage bitching about not having driven a car in 3 years, which as written gives no necessary inference at all that his problem has been caused by the war itself. Where, then, is the "necessary" connection to the year 1939 (i.e. the beginning of that war) in these disparate & disconnected lines of dialogue???? In other words and to sum it up for you: INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION. It is pretty obvious by now that you have no idea what "clear exposition" is. And apparently not even what analogies are, for that matter.

[bassman]

As amusing and entertaining as this thread has been, I don’t see why you let yourself get so worked up if someone doesn’t share your opinion. I know, I know, your response would be more of the same about exposition, filmmaker’s intent, it’s not about opinion, and all that, but it really is all down to each viewer’s interpretation. Maybe Romero 100% meant the 3 weeks/3 year’s dialogue, maybe he didn’t. He probably didn’t even put as much thought into either of them as we’ve seen in this thread, because at the end of the day they have absolutely zero to do with the enjoyment of each individual film. The films could omit these lines and it would make absolutely no difference to them. You could argue round-and-round(as this thread has been) that one line was intended a certain way, but no matter how many times you talk about his intent or the exposition, as we’ve seen here, the viewer can interpret it in their own way. It’s pointless to try to force your opinion onto someone else as fact...

[JDP]

As amusing and entertaining as this thread has been, I don’t see why you let yourself get so worked up if someone doesn’t share your opinion. I know, I know, your response would be more of the same about exposition, filmmaker’s intent, it’s not about opinion, and all that, but it really is all down to each viewer’s interpretation. Maybe Romero 100% meant the 3 weeks/3 year’s dialogue, maybe he didn’t. He probably didn’t even put as much thought into either of them as we’ve seen in this thread, because at the end of the day they have absolutely zero to do with the enjoyment of each individual film. The films could omit these lines and it would make absolutely no difference to them. You could argue round-and-round(as this thread has been) that one line was intended a certain way, but no matter how many times you talk about his intent or the exposition, as we’ve seen here, the viewer can interpret it in their own way. It’s pointless to try to force your opinion onto someone else as fact... The above applies certainly to Land, but not to Dawn, and I think you know it very well, specially after our little discussion of the "3 week" bit right here in this thread. It is very obvious what Romero's intention was in Dawn. Even if you want to somehow disconnect Dawn from Night, there is no doubt that his intention was that the zombies have been around for 3 weeks or thereabouts. In Land, on the other hand, it is anything but clear, so your comments fit for that movie very well.

[bassman]

More opinions.

[JDP]

More opinions. Not in the case of Dawn. The lines of dialogue there happen within a specific context appertaining to the zombies themselves, which is just not possible to plausibly interpret in any other way than Romero plainly delivers it to the audience. You, I or anyone else cannot plausibly conclude from that dialogue that the zombies have been around for longer than 3 weeks or thereabouts. On the other hand, with the "3 years" bit in Land, you, I or anyone -and then some!- can very easily interpret it in ways that have ZERO to do with the zombies or when they first appeared, because the contexts these references appear in do not have a necessary connection with the zombies themselves. Had Romero been more specific, like he was in Dawn, then we could not do that, he would have compelled us to make the connection to the zombies as the only plausible interpretation. But "as is", those lines of dialogue do not constitute evidence of anything other than what they are plainly referring to: two guys complaining about two personal things that happened to them 3 years ago, not something that "must" have to do with the zombie situation.

[bassman]

[JDP]

[EvilNed]

Being purposefully (or maybe you are not being "purposeful"???) obtuse is not going to get you anywhere: I'm not being obtuse, I'm just stating the obvious. The dialogue in the film makes it clear to use viewers that the film is set 3 years after the outbreak. There's no mystery or possible alternative interpretations about it. It's right there, in the dialogue. Textbook exposition. Don't see what's so obtuse about that. So anyway, to summarize, we know the film is set 3 years after the start of the outbreak. It's easy to deduce this thanks to the dialogue in the film.

[MinionZombie]

Maybe Romero 100% meant the 3 weeks/3 year’s dialogue, maybe he didn’t. I'll jump in here and say that Romero definitely intended it, especially as he wrote the scripts. You don't put references to timescales in for nothing, nor do you pick arbitrary numbers, so it's definitely intended. Romero wasn't the type to just toss in any old shit into a script and not think about it. Even if some viewers don't like what he did with Land, that's beside the point, because Romero had very clear (albeit bluntly displayed) intentions with Land of the Dead. He knew exactly what he was writing, why he was writing it, and how he was putting it across on the page. The context of the piece, of what you're writing, is always extremely important when laying out the story and the characters from the very beginning of the writing process.

[bassman]

I'll jump in here and say that Romero definitely intended it, especially as he wrote the scripts. You don't put references to timescales in for nothing, nor do you pick arbitrary numbers, so it's definitely intended. Romero wasn't the type to just toss in any old shit into a script and not think about it. Even if some viewers don't like what he did with Land, that's beside the point, because Romero had very clear (albeit bluntly displayed) intentions with Land of the Dead. He knew exactly what he was writing, why he was writing it, and how he was putting it across on the page. The context of the piece, of what you're writing, is always extremely important when laying out the story and the characters from the very beginning of the writing process. Even if I love the films, I guess I don’t have as much faith in a stoner that made such goofy films.

[JDP]

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just stating the obvious. The dialogue in the film makes it clear to use viewers that the film is set 3 years after the outbreak. There's no mystery or possible alternative interpretations about it. It's right there, in the dialogue. Textbook exposition. Don't see what's so obtuse about that. So anyway, to summarize, we know the film is set 3 years after the start of the outbreak. It's easy to deduce this thanks to the dialogue in the film. Again, there is no such specific statement anywhere in the movie regarding the beginning of the zombie situation, it's just your PREFERRED ASSUMPTION out of several plausible ones that those "3 years" are referring to such a thing, not something guaranteed by anything actually said in the movie. The only time this specific topic is ever dealt with in the movie it gives nothing but vague statements, something specific and unambiguous like "3 years" is nowhere to be found there (where in fact it should have been, if that was the intention of the scriptwriter, otherwise the purpose of an EXPOSITORY INTRO is rather pointless.) You obviously don't know what "textbook exposition" is. Read the original script for Raiders of the Lost Ark, for example. That is "textbook exposition"! Notice that the fact that "2 years" are mentioned by two separate characters in totally different contexts, the reader can clearly tell it's really just a COINCIDENCE and nothing else, not something related just because it is the same amount of years in both cases. Had the scriptwriter pulled a classic INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION a la "Land of the Dead" there, the reader would be left in a similar situation as that movie: not being able to decide one way or the other if these "2 years" have something in common or if they are because of totally different things, pure coincidence, WHICH IS A PERFECTLY NORMAL THING THAT HAPPENS ON A DAILY BASIS, so there is nothing "impossible" about it in the mind of the reader. So unless you clarify such things, you are leaving them open to question. Just because the movie happens to be about ruthless Nazis seeking archaeological artifacts all over the world, then, does not mean that the two "2 years" references had to necessarily do with them. The professor in fact died because of an accident, not because of the Nazis. The scriptwriter did a very nice job to clarify this for the reader. THAT IS GOOD, SUFFICIENT EXPOSITION. Original Raiders script = it has SUFFICIENT EXPOSITION to clarify things to the readers and not confuse or leave them in doubt in any way regarding the two "2 years" references in two totally disparate & unconnected contexts. Land script = INSUFFICIENT EXPOSITION to determine anything other than what the characters quite literally say, which has NOTHING SPECIFIC AT ALL to do with any "zombies" but with the PERSONAL PROBLEMS of each of them. Maybe you should take a course on Logic 101. - - - Updated - - - I'll jump in here and say that Romero definitely intended it, especially as he wrote the scripts. You don't put references to timescales in for nothing, nor do you pick arbitrary numbers, so it's definitely intended. Romero wasn't the type to just toss in any old shit into a script and not think about it. Even if some viewers don't like what he did with Land, that's beside the point, because Romero had very clear (albeit bluntly displayed) intentions with Land of the Dead. He knew exactly what he was writing, why he was writing it, and how he was putting it across on the page. The context of the piece, of what you're writing, is always extremely important when laying out the story and the characters from the very beginning of the writing process. That's hardly the case for Land. This was written during Romero's declining years. It is not as well-written as his earlier movies. He even contradicts things he had established in those movies. So, no, there is nothing "clear" about his intentions regarding the "3 years", at least as they are written in the shooting script. They are not written in a way that becomes self-evident by any means that they somehow have to do with the zombies, let alone when they first appeared. They are not equivalent to the "3 weeks" reference in Dawn by any means. That was well-done. The exposition & context are the appropriate ones there. The viewer cannot help but conclude that the zombies started appearing about 3 weeks ago. Land plainly did not do this by any means. It is written in such a way that anyone can easily interpret it in a different way than having to do with the zombies. It's a lazy piece of writing, woefully lacking in "exposition". And, yes, maybe Romero intended it so, and that's fine with me, BTW. But that is an admission of purposeful vagueness to leave the audience wondering. The matter at hand remains open to question by the viewers themselves.