Chronological Possibilities with all the Spinoffs?

[JDP]

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 - - - The problem is, though, is that it doesn't imply what you're suggesting it does. Yes, it does. Unless you want to assume that all the characters in Day are a bunch of suicidal dolts who for some bizarre reason voluntarily prefer to remain inside a bunker increasingly surrounded by free wandering zombies instead of getting the hell out of there and relocating to greener pastures. But there is no evidence that these characters are such a thing. They all want to survive and be safe, one way or another. And if they were aware of any such safer place to be in, they would have moved there already. But they don't, and not because they don't want to, but pretty much because they have very little options left besides the bunker. An island isolated from the mainland is about the best option left at this point. Definitely nothing like the huge still surviving "pockets" of society in Land is an option in Day.

[shootemindehead]

Yes, it does. Unless you want to assume that all the characters in Day are a bunch of suicidal dolts who for some bizarre reason voluntarily prefer to remain inside a bunker increasingly surrounded by free wandering zombies instead of getting the hell out of there and relocating to greener pastures. But there is no evidence that these characters are such a thing. They all want to survive and be safe, one way or another. And if they were aware of any such safer place to be in, they would have moved there already. But they don't, and not because they don't want to, but pretty much because they have very little options left besides the bunker. An island isolated from the mainland is about the best option left at this point. Definitely nothing like the huge still surviving "pockets" of society in Land is an option in Day. They're not aware of much at all. That's the point. They haven't the capability for such awareness and neither does the viewer, because we are only seeing things from a very narrow scope. The ONLY evidence we have is that Sarah an Co helicoptered 100 miles each way from Fort Myers. Up and down the West coast from Sarasota to the Everglades and they were surprised that they found nothing. If they had been there for any real length of time, they probably would have done that long before we see them doing it in the opening of the movie. All we have is that within the limited perimeter of a Bell Jet Ranger, they haven't found anyone. That doesn't mean that there is nobody left anywhere else in the US, it doesn't even mean that there's nobody left in the state of Florida. Nor that they have been in the bunker for a significant amount of time. The suggestions that you make can be torn down by the actual events in the movie and by the fact that you have to include you own additions to try and make those suggestions work. Personally I don't care whether someone wants to look at 'Day of the Dead' coming after 'Land of the Dead'. I don't think even George would have cared. But, nothing in the actual film is there to allow one to conclude such a thing.

[EvilNed]

I can't agree because the definitive evidence simply isn't there. Well, obviously we're seeing things you aren't.

[JDP]

Well, obviously we're seeing things you aren't. Things that just aren't really there, mind you. - - - Updated - - - They're not aware of much at all. That's the point. They haven't the capability for such awareness and neither does the viewer, because we are only seeing things from a very narrow scope. The ONLY evidence we have is that Sarah an Co helicoptered 100 miles each way from Fort Myers. Up and down the West coast from Sarasota to the Everglades and they were surprised that they found nothing. If they had been there for any real length of time, they probably would have done that long before we see them doing it in the opening of the movie. All we have is that within the limited perimeter of a Bell Jet Ranger, they haven't found anyone. That doesn't mean that there is nobody left anywhere else in the US, it doesn't even mean that there's nobody left in the state of Florida. Nor that they have been in the bunker for a significant amount of time. The suggestions that you make can be torn down by the actual events in the movie and by the fact that you have to include you own additions to try and make those suggestions work. Personally I don't care whether someone wants to look at 'Day of the Dead' coming after 'Land of the Dead'. I don't think even George would have cared. But, nothing in the actual film is there to allow one to conclude such a thing. Once again, "the devil is in the details", and there's plenty of them (already discussed a bunch of times) in both movies to easily make one more inclined to believe that Day is happening at a later date than Land. Even by the end of Dawn we can clearly see that there's relatively few people left around (on the surface.) Dr. Rausch has no problem whatsoever with a plan for dropping atomic bombs on the major cities, for example. This could only be if by that time there's virtually no people left in them, pretty much just a bunch of dangerous zombies roaming around. The only large group of survivors the protagonists still encounter are the marauding biker gang, and we can easily see why they have managed to survive this long (there's a whole bunch of them and they are armed to the teeth, a rolling army that can still openly defy the zombies.) So, needless to say by the time of Day there's even still less people left around (on the surface.) The movie's gloomy atmosphere of impending doom for humanity at large (not just for our group of survivors) is very clear.

[EvilNed]

Things that just aren't really there, mind you. Well, that's not for you to say, to be honest.

[shootemindehead]

Once again, "the devil is in the details" The details don't lend credence to your conclusions though. You are concluding that 'Land of the Dead' comes before 'Day of the Dead', because you want to. But there is no evidence available in 'Day of the Dead' to support your position. You are extrapolating, based on what you want, rather than what is actually presented.

[JDP]

The details don't lend credence to your conclusions though. You are concluding that 'Land of the Dead' comes before 'Day of the Dead', because you want to. But there is no evidence available in 'Day of the Dead' to support your position. You are extrapolating, based on what you want, rather than what is actually presented. If you consider the details on a case by case basis only, then no, but if you add them all together then the least problematic point of view is the one that places Land before Day.

[Neil]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:- Night of the Living Dead Diary of the Dead Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk" Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night. Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break. Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked."

[EvilNed]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:- Night of the Living Dead Diary of the Dead Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk" Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night. Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break. Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked." Interesting. Especially considering the original Day of the Dead-script is basically Land of the dead... I reread it recently, and apart from the character names it doesn't really bear any resemblance to the finished film. If anything, I would have thought this would more be in favour of Land being set five years after the outbreak?

[MinionZombie]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:- Night of the Living Dead Diary of the Dead Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk" Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night. Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break. Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked." While I understand inserted Diary and Survival in there in terms of 'distance into a zombie apocalypse', I've never considered them to be a part of the same series. Night/Dawn/Day/Land are a quartet ... ... then we have Diary & Survival as their own thing, especially because the films actually share the character of Crockett, and the latter directly references/shows footage from Diary in a flashback context. Survival is a direct sequel to Diary, and Diary was Romero going back to the beginning again - starting over, as it were. Interesting. Especially considering the original Day of the Dead-script is basically Land of the dead... I reread it recently, and apart from the character names it doesn't really bear any resemblance to the finished film. If anything, I would have thought this would more be in favour of Land being set five years after the outbreak? Indeed. Land of the Dead has a lot in common with the original Day script. The actual film that was made of Day of the Dead, from a totally re-written script, has much less to do with it. The scale was drawn in and so, too, was the time scale.

[shootemindehead]

In the author commentary of Daniel Kraus' (& Romero's) The Living Dead book, he happens to list the films as he sees them:- Night of the Living Dead Diary of the Dead Survival of the Dead - Title says, "Six days after the dead walk" Dawn of the Dead - One legged priest says, "Many have have died last week..." The novel places it three weeks after night. Land of the Dead - Romero in the commentary says aimed at three years after out break. Day of the Dead (85) - In the original script starts with "Five years since the dead first walked." That list is silly. 'Night of the Living Dead' doesn't even exist in the same universe as 'Diary of the Dead'.

[JDP]

In an interview I read a while back, according to Romero the events of Diary are happening at the same time as those of Night. But why exactly do the worlds shown in both movies are so different does not appear to have bothered him. Go figure.

[EvilNed]

In an interview I read a while back, according to Romero the events of Diary are happening at the same time as those of Night. But why exactly do the worlds shown in both movies are so different does not appear to have bothered him. Go figure. I personally don't have a problem with this, but I think it all boils down to the fact that each film is more of a thematic sequel (or prequel) to the others instead of actually following up on them in a narrative sense. They are all kind of timeless to me. By the way, as time goes I feel myself warming up to most of them. Maybe even Survival... Maybe.......

[MinionZombie]

I personally don't have a problem with this, but I think it all boils down to the fact that each film is more of a thematic sequel (or prequel) to the others instead of actually following up on them in a narrative sense. They are all kind of timeless to me. By the way, as time goes I feel myself warming up to most of them. Maybe even Survival... Maybe....... While not in the same league as Night through Land, "Survival" is one I really quite like. Aside from a few iffy comedy moments, the tone of the film and the central theme of two warring sides (essentially American politics in a zombie island context) has just become more and more relevant. I wrote a piece about just that for issue #8 of Exploitation Nation. Diary of the Dead, on the other hand ... well ... I wanted to love it when I saw it in the cinema, and I even convinced myself that I did, but over the years my opinion on that movie really has dipped considerably, but I've also not seen it in quite a long while now. The other day I did feel a pang of intrigue in sticking it on again some time and seeing how I felt about it now, but nevertheless, Diary is the least of Romero's zombie films for me. Weirdly, it was made too soon for its subject matter. Social media and YouTube etc had really only just got going. Imagine a version of Diary of the Dead made under the current social media climate. I think, maybe, Romero couldn't quite manage to say what he wanted to either, being from a completely different generation. Plus, the tone of the movie is all over the place, and voice over never quite jived with me, and the strictures of 'found footage' filmmaking is always a problem and, I feel, limited what Romero could do. Trying to explain away why there was non-diegetic music used in the film never worked, for example. I always put Night/Dawn/Day/Land together, as they all advance forward - days, weeks & months, months, and finally years into the/a zombie apocalypse - and they also speak to and of the times in which each was made. Diary saw Romero go back to the early days of the ZA again, so I always saw that as him starting over on a new series of films and, indeed, I think that more so because Survival is directly linked in the exact same continuity as Diary. With the original four films it's different characters each time (save for a fan pleasing cameo of Savini as a machete wielding zombie, more a wink to the audience than anything concrete), so you don't have that continuity ... really, the lack of continuity is the continuity with those four films, as well as that each film is further and further into the/a zombie apocalypse.

[shootemindehead]

I've never understood or been comfortable with Romero's decision to reboot the series. He really shouldn't have. It was a dreadful idea. I'd have much, MUCH, preferred if he'd just done another couple of movies about another enclave in the ZA. Ones that allowed him to work within the small budgets that the failure of 'Land of the Dead' meant for him. I suppose that 'Survival of the Dead' is a story about another group. But, frankly, that film was utter crap. One bad decision after another that just makes for a terrible movie. 'Diary of the Dead' which was one of those films that I made excuses for after I'd seen it, was simply tone deaf and way too reliant on the "message" which was pants too. Neither film can even hope to approach the quality of other Romero efforts. It's unfortunate that the last couple of efforts from the man (a guy who's been a major part of my movie watching life for over 30 years) were so bad. Doubly so, cos they were set in the world he was responsible for creating in the first place.