I Have A Question

[ipotts85]

IPOTTS it took 3 months to film the movie!! for a pregnnant woman to begin showing as much as Fran was at the end is a minimum of 6 months! I have 2 kids..... it's common knowledge, wake up bud .... Stephen actually says, she's only along a couple of months, the first night they holed up in the mall, when Peter offers to abort it ... maybe you shold just rewatch that scene and try your math again, before being such an assh*le. look at the calendars, how many there are and what month it is, you'll see that they are only in the mall for between 3-4 months before the end of the film. i'm not even saying the pregnancy necessarily correctly fits within this timeline, i'm simply saying that this is what was depicted in the film...besides, we don't know for sure how far along fran is - stephen may not know exactly (his guess sounded like an estimate more than exact knowledge anyways)...if she was already around three months, plus three or four months...well, that works doesn't it? and that isn't including taking into account error on behalf of the filmmakers (or they may have just exagerrated it to make a dramatic point). I think maybe you should watch it again, and then maybe you should google preganancy... maybe you should google how to not be a douchebag, dude.

[MinionZombie]

As for Fran's pregnancy, if she's already 'gone' a month or so then that's some time already taken off. She develops a significant baby bump, but then she is still capable of climbing a ladder and running to the chopper - yes it could be Gaylen Ross not 'acting pregnant' enough, but it could very well also mean she isn't into the 'final trimester' or whatever one of those is Damn pregnancy and it's weird 'n' wonderful ways...hmmm. So indeed, you'd think they're there for around 4 months, maybe 5, couldn't really be anymore than that.

[ipotts85]

As for Fran's pregnancy, if she's already 'gone' a month or so then that's some time already taken off. She develops a significant baby bump, but then she is still capable of climbing a ladder and running to the chopper - yes it could be Gaylen Ross not 'acting pregnant' enough, but it could very well also mean she isn't into the 'final trimester' or whatever one of those is Damn pregnancy and it's weird 'n' wonderful ways...hmmm. So indeed, you'd think they're there for around 4 months, maybe 5, couldn't really be anymore than that. thank you! deadcentral seemed to be under the impression that it was an impossible feat for them to have onl been there for around 4 months...

[DeadCentral]

Well if either of you had lived with a woman whose been pregnant, by the ages under you names I'd say that it's a fair assumtion you haven't, you'd know... in the scene that the bikers first make contacton the radio , Fran is as big as a house...She has major difficulties getting off the bed ...I've been there at that point with a pregnant woman.... which means , she's ready to pop... nine months along maybe 8 1/2 to play it safe... which in turn means, that even if she was 3 months along at the start in the mall, they'd have to have been there a minimum of 6 months... no two ways about it ... As far as the name calling... act your ages, huh??

[Adrenochrome]

Well if either of you had lived with a woman whose been pregnant, by the ages under you names I'd say that it's a fair assumtion you haven't, you'd know... in the scene that the bikers first make contacton the radio , Fran is as big as a house...She has major difficulties getting off the bed ...I've been there at that point with a pregnant woman.... which means , she's ready to pop... nine months along maybe 8 1/2 to play it safe... which in turn means, that even if she was 3 months along at the start in the mall, they'd have to have been there a minimum of 6 months... no two ways about it ... As far as the name calling... act your ages, huh?? ......that's what I'm talking about.....

[DeadCentral]

...one more detail, my two doubters... Being Ken Forees webmaster has it's perks, I can go to the source for back up...which I did when I spoke to him this evening... the timespan that the characters inhabited the mall was indeed 6 to 8 months , the stage of Frans "pregnancy" was Georges way of showing the passed time... so we can lay your theories to rest... I do, however like the idea that Andy mentioned, that perhaps the group from DAY had been dropped at the bunker in the meantime so their adenture could have begun simultaneously as the DAWN group, or within the timeframe that they inhabited the mall... I think his theory is more than likely closer to the truth and highly likely....

[Philly_SWAT]

I have no problem accepting that they were in the Mall for 6-8 months. What I have a problem with is that Day was only a short time after Dawn. Everything that the people in Day say gives the impression that they were there for a long time. As for perhaps the group from DAY had been dropped at the bunker in the meantime so their adenture could have begun simultaneously as the DAWN group, or within the timeframe that they inhabited the mall... I dont think that this could be true. Night and Dawn take place within three weeks of each other. At the end of Dawn, which as you say is 6-8 months later, there is still people out and roaming around. The biker gang does not seem overly concerned with the inherent danger of zombies all around. They laugh and act like a bunch of kids as they enter and loot the mall. Apparently even with this foolhardy behavior, they have been able to survive on the road for 6-8 months. To be able to survive with this seeming lack of concern, wouldnt people who were taking a lot more precautions be alive somewhere also? Maybe waiting for a chopper to land nearby and yell out "HeellllOOOOOO!" But in Day, there is no one anywhere around. They went "100 miles in both directions" in order to find someone. This comment was made at the beginning of Day. Therefore, it seems at the end of Dawn that human survivors could still be found simply roaming around in the open, but at the beginning of Day, no survivor could be found, even when flying a chopper and yelling on a bullhorn and broadcasting over the air that they were there looking for survivors to help. These facts seem to strongly indicate that Day was a long time after Dawn, not during the same time span, or soon after.

[ipotts85]

...one more detail, my two doubters... Being Ken Forees webmaster has it's perks, I can go to the source for back up...which I did when I spoke to him this evening... the timespan that the characters inhabited the mall was indeed 6 to 8 months , the stage of Frans "pregnancy" was Georges way of showing the passed time... so we can lay your theories to rest... I do, however like the idea that Andy mentioned, that perhaps the group from DAY had been dropped at the bunker in the meantime so their adenture could have begun simultaneously as the DAWN group, or within the timeframe that they inhabited the mall... I think his theory is more than likely closer to the truth and highly likely.... did you by any chance re-watch the scene i mentioned? and unfortunately ken foree didn't write or film dawn of the dead - he was just an actor. Well if either of you had lived with a woman whose been pregnant, by the ages under you names I'd say that it's a fair assumtion you haven't, you'd know... in the scene that the bikers first make contacton the radio , Fran is as big as a house...She has major difficulties getting off the bed ...I've been there at that point with a pregnant woman.... which means , she's ready to pop... nine months along maybe 8 1/2 to play it safe... which in turn means, that even if she was 3 months along at the start in the mall, they'd have to have been there a minimum of 6 months... no two ways about it ... As far as the name calling... act your ages, huh?? actually, i have been around pregnant women before... and act your ages? did you by any chance read your first post? it was confrontational as hell...one can make an argument without being an ass about it...so perhaps you should take your own advice. and once again (!) - i never said that fran's pregnancy fit in the timeframe...i already said this twice (!) - it could have easily been an oversight or continuity error (as the calendars could have been as well), and if you re-read the post i made, you would see that i based the ENTIRE argument on the scene when you see the calendars on the wall. from the start month until the current month they are in when they abandon the mall, is only around 3 - 4 months...(can anyone else confirm that scene? i don't have the film on hand...) deadcentral, do me a favor, pop in the movie and check out that scene, and lets just put this argument to rest. and the only way to put this entire timeline argument to rest would be to ask george romero (which someone should try doing) - unfortunately ken foree isn't exactly the definative source (no offense to ken foree)... These facts seem to strongly indicate that Day was a long time after Dawn, not during the same time span, or soon after. i still can't even believe this is an argument...like philly_swat states above: i think it's pretty obvious the timeline...

[DeadCentral]

did you by any chance re-watch the scene i mentioned? and unfortunately ken foree didn't write or film dawn of the dead - he was just an actor. Hmm yes an actor, who worked the script that we seem to be debating the very film you are theorizing about, but he's not? the type of source you're willing to accept being proven wrong by ? is that what you're saying ?? and as far as being "around" pregnant women ..is that what I asked ?? no it wasn't ...it was if you could do simple math... a woman at three months(assuming as you say) enters a safe haven , not showing of course, which can only imply 2 months to perhaps 3 month along from watching both of MY children conceived and progressig in my wifes womb, ( at 4 months along ANY woman starts to show), the we skip forward to the point that this same woman is now as large as can be and can barely move without help ( as the scene with Fran stepping up from the bed) implies very late in the third tri-mester or...the 9 month mark which if you have any simple math skills makes it incredibly evident ... 9 minus 3 equals ????? 6 ...hmmm and boy .. I'm not even a rocket scientist .... think that could sink into your brain even slightly ??? The calenders were probably an oversite. Think that makes sense ?? And as far as watching the scene ... my friend Ipotts, I was watching the movie in the theaters back in '78 , through the 80's on VHS & 90's on DVD up to date...long before you even saw the outside of you mothers womb ... I don't need to re-watch it to clarify my position . As far as being confrontational... not even close buddy, sarcastic yes , rude sometimes , confrontational..... only young people like yourself think in that fashion on a forum board... You just refuse to accept a logical timeframe and defended your statements by name calling...especially when someone comes along and points out simple flaws in your theory with common logic.

[ipotts85]

Hmm yes an actor, who worked the script that we seem to be debating the very film you are theorizing about, but he's not? the type of source you're willing to accept being proven wrong by ? is that what you're saying ?? and as far as being "around" pregnant women ..is that what I asked ?? no it wasn't ...it was if you could do simple math... a woman at three months(assuming as you say) enters a safe haven , not showing of course, which can only imply 2 months to perhaps 3 month along from watching both of MY children conceived and progressig in my wifes womb, ( at 4 months along ANY woman starts to show), the we skip forward to the point that this same woman is now as large as can be and can barely move without help ( as the scene with Fran stepping up from the bed) implies very late in the third tri-mester or...the 9 month mark which if you have any simple math skills makes it incredibly evident ... 9 minus 3 equals ????? 6 ...hmmm and boy .. I'm not even a rocket scientist .... think that could sink into your brain even slightly ??? The calenders were probably an oversite. Think that makes sense ?? And as far as watching the scene ... my friend Ipotts, I was watching the movie in the theaters back in '78 , through the 80's on VHS & 90's on DVD up to date...long before you even saw the outside of you mothers womb ... I don't need to re-watch it to clarify my position . As far as being confrontational... not even close buddy, sarcastic yes , rude sometimes , confrontational..... only young people like yourself think in that fashion on a forum board... You just refuse to accept a logical timeframe and defended your statements by name calling...especially when someone comes along and points out simple flaws in your theory with common logic. you are getting ridiculous bro. re-read your posts - you started with the confrontation (sarcasm, whatever the hell you want to call it)...i made an argument based on a section of the film, backed it up, and in fact never argued the points you are making, and actually provided that both sides could be an equal oversight... and yes, i am not willing to accept the opinion of the actor, who acted - he didn't write it bro. i know you and ken are like superfriends or something, but sorry if i don't take his opinion as gospel... and no offense but i you are so old, aren't you a little past arguing on a forum board? (just wondering)...besides: what are you even arguing about?! i'm not even arguing that you are WRONG!!!!!!!!!! i'm simply stating that - based on evidence from the film - there might be another answer. either way of this argument may be continuity error. i bow down to you, master of all things pregnancy, but i am not arguing with you on that!!

[DeadCentral]

LOL M.O.P. I like that....heh heh heh...

[Marie]

But in Day, there is no one anywhere around. They went "100 miles in both directions" in order to find someone. This comment was made at the beginning of Day. Therefore, it seems at the end of Dawn that human survivors could still be found simply roaming around in the open, but at the beginning of Day, no survivor could be found, even when flying a chopper and yelling on a bullhorn and broadcasting over the air that they were there looking for survivors to help. These facts seem to strongly indicate that Day was a long time after Dawn, not during the same time span, or soon after. There were no EVIDENT survivors in a section of the Florida coast. First and most importantly, I know I wouldn't just walk out when there was an army of zombies in the street attracted to any noise, even if there WERE a helicopter out there. Maybe BECAUSE there was a helicopter out there and some simpleton shouting I'd take the chance to nip out and find some food and water or maybe just run while the zombies were tracking that noise. By that time it would be evident to most survivors that the "safety" promised was at best transitory. M_

[Andy]

i would seriously put the events of day a couple of weeks AT MOST after the end of the events in dawn. as for the city being in the state its in, before when there where living people there, zombies would of been congregating in the cities, there would of been mass murder, people panicking, looting... the city would of been in a state a couple of weeks into the plague.

[ipotts85]

LOL M.O.P. I like that....heh heh heh... it's your new nickname!

[Philly_SWAT]

Hmm yes an actor, who worked the script that we seem to be debating the very film you are theorizing about, but he's not? the type of source you're willing to accept being proven wrong by ? is that what you're saying ?? I dont want to stop the ..... enlightened discussion..... that you and ipotts85are engaged in, but I must make a comment on this point. When I first got the Ultimate Edition, 4-disc DOTD set, I was very much looking forward to the commentary with the 4 stars of the film. I was disappointed after listening to it. The 4 of them seemed to be lacking in knowledge about some of the fundamental aspects of the film. The same held true when I was at the Comicon, personally talking to people who were both in the film and worked behind the scenes. The thing is, they have not watched and rewatched and rewatched the movie 100 times. That was a part of their life, they made the movie, and thats it. They still enjoy the popularity they still have because of it, and go to conventions and stuff, but its not like they watch the movie over and over in order to have 100% backup of whatever they might happen to say. I respect both you DeadCentral, and Ken Foree, but just because he may say something does not mean it is 100% correct. I dare say that almost everyone on this board has seen Dawn many more times more than he. I am not even disputing that they were in the Mall for 6-8 months, just that a lot of the actors and stage people involved with the production of the movie put a lot less thought about the plot lines, meanings, etc. than we do. Now, one could say "but who would know more than those that were involved with it?" Well, a movie, like a book, or any other work of art, means what it means to the end "user", in our case, movie viewers. Many of us engage in discussion on these boards as a means to have fun, and talk about movies that we love. Ken Foree's memories of events that happened almost 30 years ago have less relevance in my opinion than those of us that devote far more (and perhaps far too much) time debating the issues right here on HPOTD.