Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Chronological Possibilities with all the Spinoffs?

  1. #31
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    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.
    Last edited by JDP; 30-Nov-2020 at 11:09 PM. Reason: ;

  2. #32
    Feeding shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,086
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shootemindehead; 01-Dec-2020 at 12:37 AM. Reason: r
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  3. #33
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,310
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I can't agree because the definitive evidence simply isn't there.
    Well, obviously we're seeing things you aren't.

  4. #34
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    Well, obviously we're seeing things you aren't.
    Things that just aren't really there, mind you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,310
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Things that just aren't really there, mind you.
    Well, that's not for you to say, to be honest.

  6. #36
    Feeding shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,086
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    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.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  7. #37
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Webmaster Neil's Avatar
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    nr London
    Posts
    16,369
    England
    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."
    Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. [click for more]
    -Carl Sagan

  9. #39
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,310
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    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?
    Last edited by EvilNed; 02-Dec-2020 at 04:29 PM. Reason: fdsfds

  10. #40
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,249
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    Feeding shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,086
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    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'.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  12. #42
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    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.

  13. #43
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,310
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    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.......

  14. #44
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,249
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    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.

  15. #45
    Feeding shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,086
    Ireland
    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.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •