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

[JDP]

Ya know what I’d like to see? An explanation for Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. If Rufus is from an advanced society in the future, why would they use a phone booth, if phone booths are currently obsolete? We’ve been lied to... Maybe they love Dr. Who and want to emulate it.

[Moon Knight]

Ya know what I’d like to see? An explanation for Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. If Rufus is from an advanced society in the future, why would they use a phone booth, if phone booths are currently obsolete? We’ve been lied to... Whoaaaaaa... mind blown.

[EvilNed]

It clearly opens with a very explicit and unambiguous statement that it is 932 AD. So, I am afraid that yes, there is. Even if you wanted to purposefully totally misinterpret the obvious "simultaneous modern-day ongoing murder investigation at the filming locations" gag, this strange society where cops and knights co-exist could not be from any other time than what the movie explicitly says. There is no explicit reference in the film that AD refers to Anno Domini. That’s just conjecture on your part.

[JDP]

There is no explicit reference in the film that AD refers to Anno Domini. That’s just conjecture on your part. Context & conventions. When preceded or followed by a number, "AD" is well known to mean just that, nothing else. So, there is only one other possibility when it comes to this context & convention regarding dates: "BC" (Before Christ.) And the movie plainly does not use that one. So yes, we can easily see that Holy Grail takes place after Life of Brian. Also, the fact that the knights in Holy Grail are actively searching for that long lost artifact directly related to the Last Supper, or the fact that churches are referred to, or that Joseph of Arimathea is referred to as being dead -just to name a few details- should also have allowed you to reach the exact same conclusion, even without the explicit date.

[bassman]

Whoaaaaaa... mind blown. I find it funny that my meaningless and goofy post about Holy Grail has sparked some back-and-forth debate. You’s guys are a hoot!

[JDP]

I find it funny that my meaningless and goofy post about Holy Grail has sparked some back-and-forth debate. You’s guys are a hoot! Oh, it is not "meaningless", not to him. There is an obvious ulterior motive for the "reductions to absurdity" he keeps "innocently" dropping here and there. No doubts about that. Rest assured it all goes back to his desperate "the 3 years references in Land MUST refer to the start of the zombie apocalypse, and there is no other possible alternative explanation!" mantra that he so deeply cares about, no matter how many "I don't really cares!" he pretends afterwards. Again, about 12 years of similar routines on the exact same subject do not lie and totally betray him. There isn't one "3 years in Land" discussion that he hasn't been deeply involved in. Anyone can easily tell how much he really cares.

[bassman]

Even so....I don’t see why anyone would care so much. Debate can be fun and is the whole point of forums, but eventually you just gotta let it go and move on to other discussions. Much like our discussion of the line in Dawn. I personally still believe there’s no proof that it’s a reference to the exact timeline of the dead phenomenon, but you and others feel that it is. We went back and forth, didn’t really get anywhere, then moved on. No harm no foul. Everyone has their own, different opinions, we can’t expect to change them, and that’s what keeps places like this fun. We’re all here for an escape and fun, anyway. And this concludes my Doctor Phil assessment.

[JDP]

Even so....I don’t see why anyone would care so much. Debate can be fun and is the whole point of forums, but eventually you just gotta let it go and move on to other discussions. Much like our discussion of the line in Dawn. I personally still believe there’s no proof that it’s a reference to the exact timeline of the dead phenomenon, but you and others feel that it is. We went back and forth, didn’t really get anywhere, then moved on. No harm no foul. Everyone has their own, different opinions, we can’t expect to change them, and that’s what keeps places like this fun. We’re all here for an escape and fun, anyway. And this concludes my Doctor Phil assessment. Allow me to remind you how that discussion ended: Philly_SWAT, myself, and I strongly suspect a whole bunch of other people, still don't see how you could not reach the conclusion that 3 weeks or thereabouts have passed since the zombies first appeared in Dawn. Even if you want to separate both Night and Dawn as stand-alone movies, that still does not invalidate the 3 weeks reference. The zombies at the beginning of Dawn can't possibly have been around for longer than about 3 weeks, otherwise the reference does not make sense. It is clearly referring to them, not to something else. Your attempt at claiming that he is referring to how long he has been at the TV station trying to convince the interviewer, the staff and the millions of viewers, and not to how long the zombies have been around, does not make sense since that would imply that the zombies have been around for longer than that and that some bizarre and utterly ridiculous case of "mass amnesia" has also afflicted a large segment of the population. So, people understood what was the proper procedure to deal with dead bodies before this, but all of a sudden they mysteriously no longer remember and have to be reminded again, which prompts the doctor to have to go to the TV station and remain there for 3 weeks arguing about it??? LOL! Sorry, dude, but it just doesn't make an iota of sense. The 3 week reference in Dawn is quite clearly and unambiguously about the zombies, what they do and how long they have been around.

[bassman]

Dude....seriously? It’s okay for people to interpret things in different ways and have different opinions. Life would be boring if we all thought the same. You believe it’s undeniable proof and that’s okay. I personally feel differently and that’s okay. Not looking to repeat the stuff all over again.

[JDP]

Dude....seriously? It’s okay for people to interpret things in different ways and have different opinions. Life would be boring if we all thought the same. You believe it’s undeniable proof and that’s okay. I personally feel differently and that’s okay. Not looking to repeat the stuff all over again.

[Philly_SWAT]

Dude....seriously? It’s okay for people to interpret things in different ways and have different opinions. Life would be boring if we all thought the same. You believe it’s undeniable proof and that’s okay. I personally feel differently and that’s okay. Not looking to repeat the stuff all over again. The intent of this post is with all respect, totally serious, and with no sarcastic intent. It is out of sincere curiosity about your opinion that I ask for clarification. If, as you think, Dr. Foster was not referring to the start of the outbreak when he refers to 'three weeks' but was referring to something else when he says three weeks, then my question to you is, in your opinion, how long after the start of the outbreak are we at the start of the movie? It would have to be longer than three weeks...less would make no sense at all. Now I figure you dont have a specific number of days in mind, but generally speaking and with as much precision as you can, do you figure it is four or five weeks? Four of five months? Four or five years? My thoughts are that when he says three weeks, he is referring to the start of the outbreak, but since you disagree, what are your thoughts on the matter?

[MinionZombie]

Jesus ... the irony.

[EvilNed]

The intent of this post is with all respect, totally serious, and with no sarcastic intent. It is out of sincere curiosity about your opinion that I ask for clarification. If, as you think, Dr. Foster was not referring to the start of the outbreak when he refers to 'three weeks' but was referring to something else when he says three weeks, then my question to you is, in your opinion, how long after the start of the outbreak are we at the start of the movie? It would have to be longer than three weeks...less would make no sense at all. Now I figure you dont have a specific number of days in mind, but generally speaking and with as much precision as you can, do you figure it is four or five weeks? Four of five months? Four or five years? My thoughts are that when he says three weeks, he is referring to the start of the outbreak, but since you disagree, what are your thoughts on the matter? Jesus ... the irony. Textbook example of it.

[bassman]

The intent of this post is with all respect, totally serious, and with no sarcastic intent. It is out of sincere curiosity about your opinion that I ask for clarification. If, as you think, Dr. Foster was not referring to the start of the outbreak when he refers to 'three weeks' but was referring to something else when he says three weeks, then my question to you is, in your opinion, how long after the start of the outbreak are we at the start of the movie? It would have to be longer than three weeks...less would make no sense at all. Now I figure you dont have a specific number of days in mind, but generally speaking and with as much precision as you can, do you figure it is four or five weeks? Four of five months? Four or five years? My thoughts are that when he says three weeks, he is referring to the start of the outbreak, but since you disagree, what are your thoughts on the matter? As I said, I don’t really want to get into it again, as there’s nowhere to go. But sense you asked so nicely, the shortest way to put it now is this: I don’t think it was ever intended as some kind of big line to signify anything. If it were of any importance, it would be done in a prominent scene rather than a line said off screen and completely muddled with other dialogue/noises. By all means, interpret the line as gospel if you wish, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with that opinion. With Romero now gone, there won’t ever be a definite answer.

[JDP]

As I said, I don’t really want to get into it again, as there’s nowhere to go. But since you asked so nicely, the shortest way to put it now is this: I don’t think it was ever intended as some kind of big line to signify anything. If it were of any importance, it would be done in a prominent scene rather than a line said off screen and completely muddled with other dialogue/noises. By all means, interpret the line as gospel if you wish, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree with that opinion. With Romero now gone, there won’t ever be a definite answer. The problem is that it is not a question of choice here, unlike the ambiguous and truly open to interpretation "3 years" bit of Land. The context and what the dialogue literally says cannot lead to any other plausible conclusion. Your proposal is implausible because it cannot give a satisfactory explanation for why people now strangely need to be reminded for three weeks about what the zombies are, what they do, and what has to be done in order to stop them from proliferating. Your proposal necessarily implies two things: 1- The zombies have been around for more than 3 weeks 2- For some mysterious reason a large segment of the population has forgotten what the zombies are, what they do, and what has to be done in order to stop them from multiplying, that's why the doctor has had to go to the TV station to remind all these people about all this, and he has spent 3 friggin' weeks there trying to re-educate this bunch of amnesia-afflicted stubborn idiots