The Football Schedule in Dawn

[EvilNed]

My point was that by using logic, the existence of the schedule does not give an indication of "when" it is. Logic? I saw little logic in your argument (or in mine for that matter), but fine, if that's what you want to call it. And what WOULD imply it is set in the perpetual present? Don't ask me, but there's certainly nothing in Dawn that claims, suggests or even hints at it. While there are numerous hints towards it being set in the 70's. Look at it as a throwback to your arguments about the moving cars... Are we as an audience to assume that the main characters live in a parallel universe that is constantly stuck in the 70's, albeit they live... Now? Or that once they arrive at the mall, they enter the Twilight Zone, and set up shop in a mall stuck in the 70's? Well... Art is personal, after all, though I have a hard time thinking anyone would think any of those scenarios would be feasible.

[Thorn]

I think a lot of energy was put into this for no good reason by too many people. Dawn is a movie filmed in the 70s, about a zombie outbreak that occurs in the 70s, featuring people in 70s clothing and with 70s hair styles. Driving 70s cars, using 70s technology. I again have not seen rollerball. But I have to assume at lease some form of futuristic SOMETHING makes it into the film other than just the blatant information from the people who made the film explaining to the viewer it was a film about future events. No matter how far or short into the future that is. It was not "now" it was in the future. Dawn was set in the 70's. I do not personally feel the calendar was put there on purpose, I do not feel it was anything more than something left on the wall there for whatever reason. If it was placed on the wall it was done so to help add life to the shot to fill the screen and make the office look believable and not much attention was paid to detail because let's face it that happens a lot in GAR films. Either way, it in no way changes that it was a film made in the 70s about people in the 70s. If GAR wanted us to view it as a feature piece he would have let us know that. "A long time ago during a zombie uprising in a galaxy far far away". The calendar is inconsequential to the over all plot, it does not advance the story, it does nothing but take up a heartbeat or less of screen time it is not worth talking about really. As for the period piece rebuttal. A period piece properly defined and accepted is "any work of art whose special value lies in its evocation of a historical period " I dare say Dawn of the Dead's purpose is NOT to show the special value of the 70s. It is a zombie flick set in the 70's. In this case it certainly was not made in anyway to celebrate the 70's, to expound on events of the 70's. It just happened to be when it was filmed. Had Mr Romero wanted to make a period piece he could have set it in the Elizabethan era, and detailed how those people dealt with it... that might have passed for a period piece. Again I just do not understand why this topic has gone on and on. What are the two sides of the debate here? Is the Calendar relevant? Was the film set in the 70's? Whats the core topic of discussion?

[Philly_SWAT]

Logic? I saw little logic in your argument (or in mine for that matter), but fine, if that's what you want to call it. I dont know what else to call it OTHER than logic, but call it what you want. Thats what it was called in logic class. Logically....erm....."whateverly", the existence of a date does not mean it is that date. This point is entirely outside the discussion of Dawn, movies in general, etc. That is why I gave the Nascar story to illustrate. If you really and truly to not accept this point, then that explains the length of this conversation. Don't ask me, but there's certainly nothing in Dawn that claims, suggests or even hints at it. While there are numerous hints towards it being set in the 70's. Look at it as a throwback to your arguments about the moving cars... Are we as an audience to assume that the main characters live in a parallel universe that is constantly stuck in the 70's, albeit they live... Now? Or that once they arrive at the mall, they enter the Twilight Zone, and set up shop in a mall stuck in the 70's? Well... Art is personal, after all, though I have a hard time thinking anyone would think any of those scenarios would be feasible. Of course those scenarios are not feasible, hence the perpetual present. Again, I ask you what steps could a filmmaker take, in any film, to suggest it is a perpetual present? The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed. There would be no way around it, unless you know of some way that you havent mentioned. They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics.

[DjfunkmasterG]

May I say something? No? well screw ya I am doing it anyway. First I respect GAR and his work on the original 3 films, but once LAND came about, any genius the man may have had was clearly trashed upon the release of that movie. May I say, cool that you went through all of that typing and thought to analyze a football schedule, but seriously man, you read way too much into it I think. I highly doubt with the compressed shooting schedule and low budget they had time to throw in little things to make you go hmmmmm. I think honestly you are over reaching and maybe taking your DEAD obsession a bit to far, I mean its cool to be a fan, but some of you guys really go off the deep end with how you over analyze these films. What social commentary does exist in the film is strictly the consumerism aspect, which to be honest I doubt was really ever intended, and a lot of people just read that into it, and that is how the movie is perceived. Kind of like I doubt George was trying to say something about Vietnam with Night of the Living Dead. The only blatant social commentary George has ever done was in DAY, LAND, and DIARY. He overdid it in LAND, DIARY's commentary was not much of a commentary at all, and Day, well that was pretty spot on to the feeling of that decade. Dawn however, I think was a fluke in the commentary as I feel the same about Night. I think the critics read a lot into it and George just ran with it... Yeah you're right etc etc. However, I will say i was entertained reading your rant philly, I mean you developed a whole backstory to one blink and you'll miss him character, and it was enlightening how you surmised all of it off a football schedule, but seriously dude, you need to not overthink things so much. IMHO I doubt that was anything more than a set decoration or just a piece of paper they didn't pay much attention too. In regards to your Roger story, keep in mind this much. Romero never states what city the film takes place in throughout the entire film. EVeryone assumed it was Philly based on what? The video box? Some synopsis? a script? They never say in the film the mall is in Pittsburgh, or the SWAT team is from Philly, and I highly doubt one police department would be loaning their cops to another or send them out looking for amissing person when they have an entire city being overrun by the dead waking up and walking around.

[Philly_SWAT]

LOL! You are not the first to take the sarcasm in this post and think I was being serious. This discussion started in another thread. As you do (and any rational person would, I think) I think the schedule was "just a piece of paper they didn't pay much attention too", as you say. The movie definately starts in Philadelphia. One thing that comes to mind immediately is Roger saying to Flyboy in the chopper to stay out of the major cities, that if its "anything like Philly we might not get out of there alive", to which Peter replies "we may not get out of anywhere alive."

[EvilNed]

I dont know what else to call it OTHER than logic, but call it what you want. Thats what it was called in logic class. Logically....erm....."whateverly", the existence of a date does not mean it is that date. This point is entirely outside the discussion of Dawn, movies in general, etc. That is why I gave the Nascar story to illustrate. If you really and truly to not accept this point, then that explains the length of this conversation. I could use logic in the exact same manner: If one displays one single date, which gets no payoff whatsoever, it is logical to assume that is the present date and that it was just meant to inform the viewer. Now, this is not what I believe the date in Dawn was for. But my assumption is just as logical as yours. So, again... Call it what you will. Of course those scenarios are not feasible, hence the perpetual present. Erhm, now there's an illogical statement if there ever was one... All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the film that claims, suggests or even hints that the film is set in the prepetual present, while there is alot to suggest that it's set in the 70's. But if you wish to counter this argument, by, and only by, showing me where in the film it claims, suggests or hints at being set in the prepetual present then please do so. Again, I ask you what steps could a filmmaker take, in any film, to suggest it is a perpetual present? The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed. There would be no way around it, unless you know of some way that you havent mentioned. They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics. A simple text that displays "Now" or "Present time" would suffice. Infact, those are the most used tools to do this. Not that hard to do either. Are we to assume that all films that do not feature a date are set in the prepetual present? Including Alien? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[Philly_SWAT]

I could use logic in the exact same manner: If one displays one single date, which gets no payoff whatsoever, it is logical to assume that is the present date and that it was just meant to inform the viewer. Now, this is not what I believe the date in Dawn was for. But my assumption is just as logical as yours. So, again... Call it what you will. You are mis-using logic here. If the date was on a computer screen, then yes, there isnt many (any?) reasonable ideas as to why someone would have an inaccurate date on their computer. But a something in the background? (See Nascar analogy). Also, your use of the term "display". The schedule was not displayed to the audience. It was a random thing in the background in a real office. Erhm, now there's an illogical statement if there ever was one... All I'm saying is that there is nothing in the film that claims, suggests or even hints that the film is set in the prepetual present, while there is alot to suggest that it's set in the 70's. But if you wish to counter this argument, by, and only by, showing me where in the film it claims, suggests or hints at being set in the prepetual present then please do so. There must be some fancy film school term that would explain why a movie should be set in a perpetual present, but I lack the vocabulary. Perhaps you know what it is? You still didnt address the idea about "The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed." and how "They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics." Even with a big graphic that says "NOW" in the beginning, the viewer will still see old clothes, architecture, etc. A simple text that displays "Now" or "Present time" would suffice. Infact, those are the most used tools to do this. Not that hard to do either. Are we to assume that all films that do not feature a date are set in the prepetual present? Including Alien? Sorry, doesn't work that way. So are you saying that the lack of a "Now" displayed in the beginning is proof that it isnt set in the now?

[EvilNed]

You are mis-using logic here. If the date was on a computer screen, then yes, there isnt many (any?) reasonable ideas as to why someone would have an inaccurate date on their computer. But a something in the background? (See Nascar analogy). Also, your use of the term "display". The schedule was not displayed to the audience. It was a random thing in the background in a real office. Exactly, if you'd actually read my post you'd see I already explained both of these things. Both of our viewpoints are "logical" and yes, as I said, it's not for display. It doesn't take away the logic, however. There must be some fancy film school term that would explain why a movie should be set in a perpetual present, but I lack the vocabulary. Perhaps you know what it is? You still didnt address the idea about "The changing of fashion, architecture, etc. would make it difficult, therefore any film set in a perpetual present would naturally show indications of the time in which it was filmed." and how "They wouldnt be "hints" that the movie was set in a particular time period, just unavoidable logistics." Even with a big graphic that says "NOW" in the beginning, the viewer will still see old clothes, architecture, etc. Yes, we'd still see out of place architecture. But there'd still be that unmistakeable "NOW", so we'd just have to bite it. There's no such thing in Dawn. As for the fancy filmschool term, there might be, but I don't know it. On thursday I'll be going home, and I'll check Susan Haywards Cinema Studies and see if I can find anything like it. But given that there's a huge amount of things that binds Dawn specifically down to the 70's, I have a hard time seeing as how that could apply to the casual viewer. While of course, there is nothing to stop people from viewing it as it takes place NOW, but there's nothing in the film itself that suggests it does. So are you saying that the lack of a "Now" displayed in the beginning is proof that it isnt set in the now? No, but you asked for a way to display it, and I offered one. Are you not satisfied?

[krakenslayer]

Logic? I saw little logic in your argument (or in mine for that matter), but fine, if that's what you want to call it. Don't ask me, but there's certainly nothing in Dawn that claims, suggests or even hints at it. While there are numerous hints towards it being set in the 70's. Look at it as a throwback to your arguments about the moving cars... Are we as an audience to assume that the main characters live in a parallel universe that is constantly stuck in the 70's, albeit they live... Now? Or that once they arrive at the mall, they enter the Twilight Zone, and set up shop in a mall stuck in the 70's? Well... Art is personal, after all, though I have a hard time thinking anyone would think any of those scenarios would be feasible. No. It's quite simple. When it was made, it was intended for the viewer to believe the events were taking place "now", or in the "very near future". At the time it was made, "now" just happened to be the 1970s. As viewers watching it today, we are still supposed to view it as the "present day". The plot, the commentary, the characters, the setting - as long as they remain relevant, then the little details like fashions, makes of car and football calendars are irrelevant. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief, like disregarding strings on special effects, and visible trampolines in stunt shots. If he had wanted to set it firmly in 1977/1978 then he'd have shown us a date on the calendar, or a newspaper headline, or mentioned on an emergency broadcast. He didn't. He kept the time and the date (and even the place, come to think of it - Philadelphia is mentioned but Pittsburgh never is) deliberately indistinct, to maintain the impression of it being set in the "vague present".

[EvilNed]

No. It's quite simple. When it was made, it was intended for the viewer to believe the events were taking place "now", or in the "very near future". At the time it was made, "now" just happened to be the 1970s. As viewers watching it today, we are still supposed to view it as the "present day". The plot, the commentary, the characters, the setting - as long as they remain relevant, then the little details like fashions, makes of car and football calendars are irrelevant. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief, like disregarding strings on special effects, and visible trampolines in stunt shots. As I said, there is nothing in the film itself that suggests it take place in the prepetual NOW. So if you want to view it as such, then by all means view at as such. But don't expect everyone to do it because there's nothing to suggest it. Especially considering all the 70's stuff around.

[Philly_SWAT]

Exactly, if you'd actually read my post you'd see I already explained both of these things. Both of our viewpoints are "logical" and yes, as I said, it's not for display. It doesn't take away the logic, however. You misunderstand the meaning of logic. Both viewpoints are "reasonable", but logically, the existence of dated material does not prove one way or the other what date it is when viewing the dated material. Yes, we'd still see out of place architecture. But there'd still be that unmistakeable "NOW", so we'd just have to bite it. There's no such thing in Dawn. As for the fancy filmschool term, there might be, but I don't know it. On thursday I'll be going home, and I'll check Susan Haywards Cinema Studies and see if I can find anything like it. But given that there's a huge amount of things that binds Dawn specifically down to the 70's, I have a hard time seeing as how that could apply to the casual viewer. While of course, there is nothing to stop people from viewing it as it takes place NOW, but there's nothing in the film itself that suggests it does. You can still bite it without the unmistakeable "NOW". (Double meaning ) No, but you asked for a way to display it, and I offered one. Are you not satisfied? Depends on the definition of "satisfied". Is it A way? Yes. That satisfies it technically. But it does not satisfy the spirit of the question. As you already stated above, even with a NOW banner, we would still see outdated architecture, so even a NOW banner does not solve the issue of outdated things, which is what you are basing your opinion on about the movie being set in the seventies. You admit that the lack of the banner does not prove that it "isnt" set in the present, and there is no way to prove that is, NOW banner or not. Remember, this is a guy who forgot to put a copyright symbol on Night. No. It's quite simple. When it was made, it was intended for the viewer to believe the events were taking place "now", or in the "very near future". At the time it was made, "now" just happened to be the 1970s. As viewers watching it today, we are still supposed to view it as the "present day". The plot, the commentary, the characters, the setting - as long as they remain relevant, then the little details like fashions, makes of car and football calendars are irrelevant. It's all part of the suspension of disbelief, like disregarding strings on special effects, and visible trampolines in stunt shots. If he had wanted to set it firmly in 1977/1978 then he'd have shown us a date on the calendar, or a newspaper headline, or mentioned on an emergency broadcast. He didn't. He kept the time and the date (and even the place, come to think of it - Philadelphia is mentioned but Pittsburgh never is) deliberately indistinct, to maintain the impression of it being set in the "vague present". Well said.

[krakenslayer]

As I said, there is nothing in the film itself that suggests it take place in the prepetual NOW. But more tellingly, there's nothing in the film that suggests it isn't. It would have been so easy to let a little something like a date appear SOMEWHERE, even accidentally. How many times in a day at work or at the shops or whatever do you see or hear today's date? On a newspaper, at the bank, on a calendar, on a news broadcast. In Dawn, all of these things/locations appear but only twice do dates ever appear on screen, and even then it's only days of the month (which month is never explicitly shown) and nowhere, ever do we see a year. In fact, this stands not only for Dawn, but for Night, Day, Land and (I think) Diary too! It's like he's bending over backwards to AVOID telling us what year it is!! To me it appears very deliberate and it says to me that GAR's deliberately trying to keep these films in a sort of timeless present.

[EvilNed]

But more tellingly, there's nothing in the film that suggests it isn't. Oh, there's plenty. The video games are the most telling evidence, for one. So while there's things that binds it down to one single era in time, there's nothing that sets it loose. Nothing WITHIN the film itself. That's what I'm getting at. There's nothing IN the film that suggests it's in a prepetual "Now". But there's plenty to suggest it's in the 70's. Which doesn't make either of them right or wrong. Art is personal. Philly: You admit that the lack of the banner does not prove that it "isnt" set in the present, and there is no way to prove that is, NOW banner or not. Remember, this is a guy who forgot to put a copyright symbol on Night. Ehrm... Are we talking about the FILMS or the guy behind the films? Because what GAR intends has no bearing in this argument. It's what on film that counts.

[Philly_SWAT]

Oh, there's plenty. The video games are the most telling evidence, for one. So while there's things that binds it down to one single era in time, there's nothing that sets it loose. Nothing WITHIN the film itself. That's what I'm getting at. There's nothing IN the film that suggests it's in a prepetual "Now". But there's plenty to suggest it's in the 70's. Which doesn't make either of them right or wrong. Art is personal. Again, video games are the same as fashion and architecture...unavoidable logistics. Ehrm... Are we talking about the FILMS or the guy behind the films? Because what GAR intends has no bearing in this argument. It's what on film that counts. Ummm...we are talking about the films.

[Thorn]

Okay... I think I get this now. Philly you are saying when Mr. Romero filmed this he did not intend for the movie to be "locked into a time period" but instead filmed it in the 70's and that is why all the items in the film scream 70's. This said his intention was for it to be "without time period" and that it was just impossible (and logically so) to accomplish this. So the film should exist outside of a "time" and we should use our ability to suspend disbelief and just accepted it as "now".