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

[EvilNed]

Again, not possible. The events in Night are self-explanatory: we are witnessing the very beginning of a zombie plague. Not at all, this is never explicitly stated. It is if you try to use such arguments as obvious and self-evident impossibilities. Otherwise it is just an exercise in logic and common sense. In Bizarro world, perhaps...

[JDP]

Not at all, this is never explicitly stated. It is self-explanatory and self-evident: we can plainly see that nobody knows anything about zombies in the first movie, unlike in the sequels, where people are well aware of the situation. Ergo, that's the very beginning of the zombie plague in Romero's series. No question about this is possible. In Bizarro world, perhaps... No, just in our normal world. Such discussions about movies and TV shows and the mistakes, contradictions, flops, lack of continuity, etc. they contain go on all the time. There was even a whole website devoted to such things (now basically defunct thanks to the inept new owners who totally mismanaged it) called Nitpickers.com, which collected and discussed thousands of such mistakes.

[EvilNed]

It is self-explanatory and self-evident: we can plainly see that nobody knows anything about zombies in the first movie, unlike in the sequels, where people are well aware of the situation. Ergo, that's the very beginning of the zombie plague in Romero's series. No question about this is possible. Since it is not explicitly stated otherwise, you must admit that it is possible. No, just in our normal world. Such discussions about movies and TV shows and the mistakes, contradictions, flops, lack of continuity, etc. they contain go on all the time. There was even a whole website devoted to such things (now basically defunct thanks to the inept new owners who totally mismanaged it) called Nitpickers.com, which collected and discussed thousands of such mistakes. Irrelevant to this discussion.

[JDP]

Since it is not explicitly stated otherwise, you must admit that it is possible. The only way it is "possible" is if you throw logic, reason and common sense out the window. Romero's movies are not abstract pieces devoid of logic, reason and common sense, though, they are coherent works that show a specific story. So the norms of our logic, reason and common sense apply to them. There must be a sequence of events in his zombie series. So how do we know which one is the first (within the context of the movie series, not the year in which they were made)? Well, it must obviously be the one where none of the human characters know anything about any zombies and these creatures are a total unexpected novelty for everyone, and not the movies where people are already well-acquainted with what the zombies are and what they do. The only one fitting that description is Night. Ergo, that is the first movie in the series. There can be no other logical conclusion here. Irrelevant to this discussion. It is relevant to your strange dismissal of applying logic and common sense to movies and that it only happens in "Bizarro world".

[MinionZombie]

*sigh* Good grief... I think this whole 'X before X' line of conversation is what hell looks like. JDP - why are you trying to seriously argue against Ned's obviously and deliberately sarcastic reductio ad absurdum theories?

[JDP]

*sigh* Good grief... I think this whole 'X before X' line of conversation is what hell looks like. JDP - why are you trying to seriously argue against Ned's obviously and deliberately sarcastic reductio ad absurdum theories? Are they really "sarcastic"? Are you so sure? Because if they are, he keeps misplacing them. He was trying to ridicule Philly_SWAT's well-reasoned arguments. Why? One would understand sarcasm being used against some badly thought up argument. Ned's insistence of comparing what Philly_SWAT said with something as absurd as claiming that Day comes before Night does not serve any constructive purpose whatsoever for the discussion.

[EvilNed]

The only way it is "possible" is if you throw logic, reason and common sense out the window. If it is not explicitly stated otherwise, it is a valid argument - by your own admission. It is relevant to your strange dismissal of applying logic and common sense to movies and that it only happens in "Bizarro world". No it's not. We're not discussing film flaws. Ned's insistence of comparing what Philly_SWAT said with something as absurd as claiming that Day comes before Night does not serve any constructive purpose whatsoever for the discussion. It is as constructive as reasoning that exposition is irrelevant as long as it is not explicit.

[JDP]

If it is not explicitly stated otherwise, it is a valid argument - by your own admission. It is self-explanatory. A filmmaker does not need to explicitly say something to convey a point to the audience, he can just show it to them either without any words or with not so directly explicit words, and they will understand the same point just as well, as long as it is well done. But why would anyone expect any filmmaker to put explicit words like "this is the first movie in this series" in the mouth of any character? That would be ludicrous and totally ruin the movie itself. It is something that no character in any movie would ever say to begin with. But two characters saying that they have known each other and had a business relationship for 3 years is hardly a comparable situation. "As is", the characters can easily say that and still not necessarily imply anything else other than what they just said. So this comparison is hardly valid. The intended (?) "sarcasm" is not well placed. No it's not. We're not discussing film flaws. We are discussing contradictions between some movies if they are seen as happening in a particular sequence.

[EvilNed]

It is self-explanatory. No it's not. Unless it's explicitly stated, it's up for debate. We are discussing contradictions between some movies if they are seen as happening in a particular sequence. There are no contradictions.

[JDP]

No it's not. Unless it's explicitly stated, it's up for debate. Nope, some things cannot be explicitly stated in a movie or you ruin the movie itself. On top of that, some things are also so self-evident that they simply are not up for debate under any circumstance. And people in a series not knowing about something in one movie, but being fully aware of it in the other ones, happens to be one of those very self-evident and self-explanatory things. So better look for something else to try to be "sarcastic" about, because this one does not work at all. There are no contradictions. There are aplenty.

[EvilNed]

Nope, some things cannot be explicitly stated in a movie or you ruin the movie itself. I'm glad we finally agree. So the argument that the 2 "3 years ago"-comments in Land are not referring to the outbreak is absurd.

[JDP]

I'm glad we finally agree. So the argument that the 2 "3 years ago"-comments in Land are not referring to the outbreak is absurd. No, you can say that in a movie and still not be explicit enough to rule out something as impossible, which is the case here. But you CANNOT have your characters say some explicit things, like "this movie we are in now is the first in a movie series". It just isn't done. It would ruin the entire movie. So it is not comparable. There are things in movies which simply cannot be explicit. You have to convey the point in other ways.

[EvilNed]

No, you can say that in a movie and still not be explicit enough to rule out something as impossible, which is the case here. Excluding something which is not explicit, but strongly implicit is ludicrous.

[MoonSylver]

Arguing "Land vs. Day" in 2018?!? Stay classy HPotD!!!

[EvilNed]

This is the most action this board has seen in a long time.