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

[Philly_SWAT]

I’m only joking. In fact Big Daddy has traveled a lot. When the film starts he’s just come back from the Canarys. There is a prequel in the works! AHHH now it makes perfect sense!

[JDP]

True dat. OK. How do you figure that in three years, a super evolved zombie like Big Daddy (I say evolved because others say it, not cuz I agree with it, evolution takes thousands or years, not three) never left the immediately vicinity of his little garage? Or how come after supposedly three years of abandonment his little garage still looks this remarkably fine: All it needs is to just sweep away those maybe couple of months worth of fallen leaves and it looks like just a regular functioning small town garage.

[EvilNed]

AHHH now it makes perfect sense! Yeah, because without that piece of the puzzle there is just such a glaring plot-hole that asks for clarification - I agree!

[bassman]

Even bassman's very implausible "alternative interpretation" still cannot avoid the obvious and necessary connection of the 3 weeks with the zombies (he thinks that it could mean that Dr.Foster has been butting heads with those stubborn people for 3 weeks... but he would still be doing so because of the zombies. There just is no way to eliminate the zombies out of the equation here, they are very obviously the subject matter of the 3 weeks.) You seem to stick to certain things and ignore others. My point was that it’s far less important than you seem to believe and could even be interpreted in different ways. But my whole thing is that it’s not important to the film at all, anyway. And was never intended to be.

[JDP]

You seem to stick to certain things and ignore others. My point was that it’s far less important than you seem to believe and could even be interpreted in different ways. But my whole thing is that it’s not important to the film at all, anyway. And was never intended to be. You only offered one supposed alternative explanation (very implausible, mind you), and it too has to do with the zombies. The good doc has supposedly been at the station for three weeks arguing with all those stubborn people. And what has he been arguing about? Well, the zombies, of course, what else! No matter how many "spins" you want to give to that clear dialogue, it always revolves around the zombies. Why? Isn't it obvious and self-explanatory? The whole dialogue is about them and what they do. Nothing else. That is 100% unlike the "3 years" dialogue in Land, which has no self-evident, self-explanatory connection with the zombies. Now that's a thing to which you can truly give other plausible interpretations that do not necessarily involve the zombies, and the movie's story is not affected one bit by it. Why did the bum/wino/hobo at the mechanic's shop not drive a car in three years? Well, it could be the zombies, sure, but it could also be that he is a friggin' drunk and the authorities revoked his license years ago. Each is as plausible as the other since the scanty dialogue does not preclude either possibility. Was Cholo's seedy 3 year working relationship with Kaufman due to the zombies? Well, maybe, but it could just as well easily not be so, and that these two in fact have been engaged in dirty business since quite before the zombies had even showed up. They just adapted to the new zombie situation and continued their business relationship as usual. There's nothing in the scanty dialogue anywhere to make us conclude that this is not the case. This is what happens when you have insufficient exposition in your script. Your audience can start coming up with their own arbitrary plausible explanations, which are not necessarily the ones you had in mind when you wrote the story, but your plot is still not affected one bit by it. You are not compelling your audience to formulate the same conclusions that you have. You are leaving it up to them to decide.

[EvilNed]

You seem to stick to certain things and ignore others. My point was that it’s far less important than you seem to believe and could even be interpreted in different ways. But my whole thing is that it’s not important to the film at all, anyway. And was never intended to be. Do not reply to it. I've ran countless experiments and believe me; It cannot be bargained or reasoned with.

[JDP]

Do not reply to it. I've ran countless experiments and believe me; It cannot be bargained or reasoned with.

[MoonSylver]

This thread, man, this thread...

[Moon Knight]

This thread, man, this thread... Peter motherf*ckin' Washington! - - - Updated - - - Do not reply to it. I've ran countless experiments and believe me; It cannot be bargained or reasoned with. Pretty much.

[Philly_SWAT]

Then let's discuss something else. Here is something else. In Dawn, after they have taken over the mall, at first we see our protagonists going throughout the mall with glee, "shopping" in the stores, robbing the bank, ice skating, playing games in the arcade, etc, having unfettered fun that most of us would have if we had free reign in a mall with no need to pay and no negative consequences for not doing so. But later, we see them dragging ass around, as solemn music plays, the fun has gone as they realize that life sucks when there is nothing other than being in that mall. This realization hits them after only a few months. Why are the residents of the tower Fiddler's Green so happy and content with their very similar situation after three years?

[EvilNed]

Here is something else. In Dawn, after they have taken over the mall, at first we see our protagonists going throughout the mall with glee, "shopping" in the stores, robbing the bank, ice skating, playing games in the arcade, etc, having unfettered fun that most of us would have if we had free reign in a mall with no need to pay and no negative consequences for not doing so. But later, we see them dragging ass around, as solemn music plays, the fun has gone as they realize that life sucks when there is nothing other than being in that mall. This realization hits them after only a few months. Why are the residents of the tower Fiddler's Green so happy and content with their very similar situation after three years? Acceptance comes after Depression. So I don’t see a problem here.

[Philly_SWAT]

Acceptance comes after Depression. So I don’t see a problem here. If there are three things in life that are certain, they are death, taxes, and the fact that you wouldn't see any problem with any thought you had, regardless of evidence to the contrary. You do play devil's advocate well, if illogically and dishonestly.

[MinionZombie]

Here is something else. In Dawn, after they have taken over the mall, at first we see our protagonists going throughout the mall with glee, "shopping" in the stores, robbing the bank, ice skating, playing games in the arcade, etc, having unfettered fun that most of us would have if we had free reign in a mall with no need to pay and no negative consequences for not doing so. But later, we see them dragging ass around, as solemn music plays, the fun has gone as they realize that life sucks when there is nothing other than being in that mall. This realization hits them after only a few months. Why are the residents of the tower Fiddler's Green so happy and content with their very similar situation after three years? Different people, different scenario, different point in time in the ZA. In Dawn society is crumbling, they're on the run, absolute chaos is consuming the world - so to get a little hideaway in the fantasy land of a mall is naturally going to be fun. However, the likes of Fran begin to see it as a prison. They're trapped inside by the zombies and it's all an illusion - flagged up by Stephen taking a picture, but Fran points out they have no way of processing it. Similarly, he proposes but she rejects him because it "wouldn't be real". There's an interesting contrast there, though, because you could argue that Fran is holding onto the old world stronger than the others. For Stephen it's the gesture of wanting to marry Fran and do the right thing as a man of the 1970s, but if it's not going to involve a traditional ceremony and be enshrined in old world law ('old world' as in a few weeks/months ago) then it's not real to Fran. She hasn't found her place yet. Conversely, Stephen might just be viewing it on the surface, it's more about the intent or the gesture rather than anything bigger or more practical - "we took it, it's ours" - dazzled by the shiny things they've attained. In Land, on the other hand, society has fallen and then re-assembled in small enclaves. The Phoenix rising from the ashes is one of the main themes of the film - but it's rising battered and bruised. We see a return to mankind's old ways for certain people - those in the tower - they can go back to their old life, indeed with even more power than they had before, and that's intoxicating. They have the consumerist dream back again and they're forgotten about the dead (again, one of the key themes of Land, and one of the very first driving ideas that Romero had in writing Land as a sequel to Day, something he spoke of on multiple occasions). However, all is not so rosy - one of the residents of the tower hangs themself - they've become dispirited with the whole charade and end it all, which then rudely brings reality crashing down (the wife and son also perish), but Kaufman & Co want to keep it covered up quietly to maintain the illusion. The poor folks on the street (Riley and company) are the ones who are on the front line dealing with the zombies when they go out to get supplies, but even the zombies have opted to steer clear of the area now, having mostly learned to avoid it save for the odd straggler. When it inevitably collapses, you see the powerful folks of Fiddler's Green fleeing with their possessions and fur coats - Kaufman takes his money as money is power in his own mini economies that he's set up in various locations - and they're faced with the harsh reality. They require leadership and protection. The people who are really going to survive are those who can adapt to the new world, the Rileys of the world, although even Riley doesn't want to play along with that - he wants to go off alone to Canada and forget everyone else, so he's just as bad in different ways. Charlie is more adept, but he's a tagalong in mentality. Cholo sees an opportunity to attain the wealth and power in this new world as the rules have changed, but can't see how Kaufman is lying to him and using him.

[EvilNed]

If there are three things in life that are certain, they are death, taxes, and the fact that you wouldn't see any problem with any thought you had, regardless of evidence to the contrary. You do play devil's advocate well, if illogically and dishonestly. Not an argument. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model Don’t try to argue things you don’t understand.

[Philly_SWAT]

Different people, different scenario, different point in time in the ZA. Different people for sure, not that different of a scenario to me (normal life is over, trapped in a prison i.e mall/the Green), and a very similar point in time in the ZA. But I must say I appreciate and admire logical, passionate, honest thoughts as opposed to sarcasm, insults and ridiculousness. Thoughtful and intelligent posts such as yours are what attracted me to hpotd many years ago. In Dawn society is crumbling, they're on the run, absolute chaos is consuming the world - so to get a little hideaway in the fantasy land of a mall is naturally going to be fun. However, the likes of Fran begin to see it as a prison. They're trapped inside by the zombies and it's all an illusion - flagged up by Stephen taking a picture, but Fran points out they have no way of processing it. Similarly, he proposes but she rejects him because it "wouldn't be real". There's an interesting contrast there, though, because you could argue that Fran is holding onto the old world stronger than the others. For Stephen it's the gesture of wanting to marry Fran and do the right thing as a man of the 1970s, but if it's not going to involve a traditional ceremony and be enshrined in old world law ('old world' as in a few weeks/months ago) then it's not real to Fran. She hasn't found her place yet. Conversely, Stephen might just be viewing it on the surface, it's more about the intent or the gesture rather than anything bigger or more practical - "we took it, it's ours" - dazzled by the shiny things they've attained. You are correct, it is an interesting contrast there. I kind of took it the opposite of the way you did. It seems to me that Fran was more accepting of the new world than the others, and the scenes you point out are what made me think so. Stephen was holding on to the 'old world'...I love you lets get married, I knocked you up, lets get married. Fran realized that that type of thinking had no meaning in the new world. She had found her place, unfortunately, it was a place that totally sucked because everything she thought of as meaningful her whole life was now meaningless. In Land, on the other hand, society has fallen and then re-assembled in small enclaves. The Phoenix rising from the ashes is one of the main themes of the film - but it's rising battered and bruised. We see a return to mankind's old ways for certain people - those in the tower - they can go back to their old life, indeed with even more power than they had before, and that's intoxicating. They have the consumerist dream back again and they're forgotten about the dead (again, one of the key themes of Land, and one of the very first driving ideas that Romero had in writing Land as a sequel to Day, something he spoke of on multiple occasions). Here is where I totally disagree with you, with all respect. Civilizations dont rise and fall in a matter of months (or three years). Those in the tower...I cant believe that they "went back" to their old life. Does it make sense to you that they were on the road, fighting zombies, getting blood and brains all over their clothes and skin, maybe even killing zeds that they new from the pre-ZA, having to fight,and perhaps kill, living human beings, scavenge through countless scary building to come up with an old can of boiled peanuts, etc. and then just think 'oh i can live in opulence in a huge tower now' as if their previous experience didnt change them or their view of the world? I wont even bring up the concept of paper money having value in such a world. The only way it makes sense to me is that they were trying to hold on to the recent past, not having rebuilt after society had fallen. However, all is not so rosy - one of the residents of the tower hangs themself - they've become dispirited with the whole charade and end it all, which then rudely brings reality crashing down (the wife and son also perish), but Kaufman & Co want to keep it covered up quietly to maintain the illusion. The poor folks on the street (Riley and company) are the ones who are on the front line dealing with the zombies when they go out to get supplies, but even the zombies have opted to steer clear of the area now, having mostly learned to avoid it save for the odd straggler. When it inevitably collapses, you see the powerful folks of Fiddler's Green fleeing with their possessions and fur coats - Kaufman takes his money as money is power in his own mini economies that he's set up in various locations - and they're faced with the harsh reality. They require leadership and protection. The people who are really going to survive are those who can adapt to the new world, the Rileys of the world, although even Riley doesn't want to play along with that - he wants to go off alone to Canada and forget everyone else, so he's just as bad in different ways. Charlie is more adept, but he's a tagalong in mentality. Cholo sees an opportunity to attain the wealth and power in this new world as the rules have changed, but can't see how Kaufman is lying to him and using him. A lot of good and interesting thoughts here. Just two things...1) the powerful folk fleeing with fur coats is just silly (not your fault, you didnt write the script), but again to me indicates a fruitless 'holding on' to the economic concepts of the recent past, not some kind of new economy, and 2) everything you said, to me, doesnt seem to indicate anything at all about 3 years into the ZA, the comments are just as valid, if not more so, in a time frame much less than three years into the ZA. Thanks for a meaty worthwhile post, in any event. - - - Updated - - - Not an argument. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model Don’t try to argue things you don’t understand. Do you try hard to be an asshole, or does it just come naturally to you? Dont answer that, either way it doesnt matter. The five stages of grief were not handed down by God on stone tablets, they are just a model created by a Swedish woman in 1969. While well known, that doesnt mean it is the end all be all of anything, just a well known book/idea posited by one individual. The mere fact that many people in life commit suicide illustrates that they never reach the 'acceptance' part of her theory. It is a well intentioned construct designed to help people cope with loss/grief. However, the entire premise of her assertions are based on "life as we know it", i.e, a world not engulfed in a ZA (not that she was thinking about that at all). It is true that according to one woman's book, acceptance does come after depression in her 5 steps. However, to take that as having any meaning in a world where society has collapsed and is overrun by flesh eating zombies is laughable. The page you linked to says Step 5 Acceptance – "It's going to be okay." What did those people in the Green think was going to be Ok? Its ok that the entire planet has gone to shit but hey, its ok, I live in nice building? I dont know if you even bothered to look at the page you linked to, or if you just googled it real quick to give yourself an air of superiority, but that very page you use as background has the 'criticism' section as longer than the 5 stages section. One of the best criticisms from the page you posted a link to is : The resources, pressures, and characteristics of the immediate environment, which can make a tremendous difference, are not taken into account. But your original post of Acceptance comes after Depression. So I don’t see a problem here. is a good example of hubris, smugness, and false argument. You state acceptance comes after depression, a well known if not factual allusion to the 5 stages of grief, and then act as is somehow by stating that it means something other than what it is. I suggest you shouldnt argue things you dont understand, however, I do understand well that you dont really care about understanding anything anyway.