GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline

[EvilNed]

Tell you what...You go find out how much it would cost to make a film with the same plots/locations as the other Dead films to all take place in the 60's and then you get back to me...Otherwise all you have is an extremely ignorant knowledge of filmmaking. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. I've already offered many films with low budget that managed to take place back in time. And I've already explained to you that costumes, wether set in the now or in the 60's, cost pretty much the same. If anyone here is ignorant about filmmaking, I don't think it's me. No, I didn't say it was just because of budget...Budget is PART of the reason. If his goal and intention is to reflect his view of the socio-political world in it's modern climate then worrying about such things as making the film look like it takes place in the 60's is unimportant...The look of the era is not important to these films so he can free up his budget (which have all been low) to address the issues he wants to address...You haven't crushed anything...In order for that to happen you would need PROOF not your erroneous conjecture and speculation...So you started with nothing and still have nothing. Wrong. Budget had nothing to do with it. But you've got one thing right. His goal is to reflect the now with his own views, and thus he views it unimportant to link this film timeline-wise with the older ones. They were never supposed to be like that, and there is no evidence to support it. And again, you bring the budget back into the fold. The argument which I've already proved wrong. So I guess you have nothing else then. Romero is clearly stating that in Diary we will see a different perspective of the events of START of the outbreak that were covered in Night... Yeah... So? What he's "clearly" stating is that he'll go back to the beginning of the outbreak. Not that it will be the same outbreak as the one in Night. Again, you're just seeing it the way which suits you.

[N2NOther]

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. I've already offered many films with low budget that managed to take place back in time. And I've already explained to you that costumes, wether set in the now or in the 60's, cost pretty much the same. If anyone here is ignorant about filmmaking, I don't think it's me. You offered 2 films that take place in the woods (no technology at all) and a film by an Oscar winning director, his first film, in fact, after he won the Academy award...The 12 minute short I made which has hardly any FX, and used things and locations that we had still cost $6,000... Wrong. Budget had nothing to do with it. Right...Budget had nothing do with it. Because Ravenous was made for less right? But you've got one thing right. His goal is to reflect the now with his own views, and thus he views it unimportant to link this film timeline-wise with the older ones. They were never supposed to be like that, and there is no evidence to support it. And again, you bring the budget back into the fold. The argument which I've already proved wrong. So I guess you have nothing else then. Again, you haven't proved anything...Sorry to break this to you but the only thing that can prove something wrong is actually proof...See how that works? "Proof" and "Prove"? Yeah... So? What he's "clearly" stating is that he'll go back to the beginning of the outbreak. Not that it will be the same outbreak as the one in Night. Are you blind? Do you know to comprehend what you're reading? He says, and I even bolded it for you, that he's getting a different perspective than the one given in Night from the beginning of THE outbreak. There is a difference between the articles "the" and "a". "The" would be specific. "A would be general. He's clearly saying "THE" not "a". Again, you're just seeing it the way which suits you. I could say the same thing about you, only I'd be correct.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

It's still the same timeline...They exist in one timeline Night, then Dawn 3 weeks later, then Day months later and Land 3 years...That's been my whole point on this...For him to make everything fit as if it took place in the 60's is pointless... Look, i am not trying to annoy you, but you do seem to be ignoring the fact that GAR himself has already stated the exact opposite of what you are saying. These movies are not, and were never, intended to be connected via a direct timeline. They do not exist in the same timeline. Why would you totally ignore that? It seems to me that you are still stuck on the common misperception that dawn happens (approx.) three weeks after the events seen in the previous movie, when in reality dawn happens three weeks after the initial outbreaks which that particular "story" is based around. Seperate storys, held together by the creator and a common theme, and taking place within the same "storytelling universe" and thus following the same rules or "guidelines" which define GARs "storytelling universe". The point at which we actually join the characters and storyline for each movie is shortly after seperate outbreaks from within the same storytelling universe, and deffinately not from the events seen in the previous movie! If you still don't belive in what i am saying, then you should at least believe in what GAR has said himself.

[EvilNed]

You offered 2 films that take place in the woods (no technology at all) and a film by an Oscar winning director, his first film, in fact, after he won the Academy award...The 12 minute short I made which has hardly any FX, and used things and locations that we had still cost $6,000... Right...Budget had nothing do with it. Because Ravenous was made for less right? Tell me this, are you serious or are you just joking with me?! There's a ****LOAD of films out there made for on a shoestring budget that take place somewhere else. I mean look at Whitnail and I that I mentioned earlier. Quadrophenia (made in 79, but takes place in 65) etc. etc. Is it so hard for you to grasp that you're just right out wrong? Again, you haven't proved anything...Sorry to break this to you but the only thing that can prove something wrong is actually proof...See how that works? "Proof" and "Prove"? It's kind of hard to convince someone who blindly refuses to see whatever is offered to them unless it suits their view. No offense, but arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. You've provided nothing but a theory and you don't back it up. When an argument of yours is disproven, you just ignore whatever said. Are you blind? Do you know to comprehend what you're reading? He says, and I even bolded it for you, that he's getting a different perspective than the one given in Night from the beginning of THE outbreak. There is a difference between the articles "the" and "a". "The" would be specific. "A would be general. He's clearly saying "THE" not "a". No, he says there's a different take on THE NIGHT it started. THE NIGHT, he didn't mention it's a different take on THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Seriously man. You need to broaden your horizons. You have no case.

[Danny]

y'know this topics just degenerated into two 30'somethings bitching for around 3 pages now, you cant force people to think the sme way you do, just leave it at that guys, geez

[coma]

y'know this topics just degenerated into two 30'somethings bitching for around 3 pages now, you cant force people to think the sme way you do, just leave it at that guys, geez What does their age have to do with anything? You seem to think people stop arguing after their 20. If you don't want people to be condescending to you, you should not do that to others.

[Danny]

its just more juvenile the older the people are in my opinion when it comes to dumb arguments.

[EvilNed]

y'know this topics just degenerated into two 30'somethings bitching for around 3 pages now, you cant force people to think the sme way you do, just leave it at that guys, geez No offense, but you're not Mahatma Ghandi when it comes to arguing. I'm not attacking you, but there's no need to "step in" and wave a flag around. We know what we're doing.

[Danny]

aye fair point, it just the thread kinda turned into a two man band, like a few others have.

[N2NOther]

Tell me this, are you serious or are you just joking with me?! There's a ****LOAD of films out there made for on a shoestring budget that take place somewhere else. I mean look at Whitnail and I that I mentioned earlier. Quadrophenia (made in 79, but takes place in 65) etc. etc. Is it so hard for you to grasp that you're just right out wrong? If the era in which a film takes place is important enough, budgets can be reworked...But each film has it's own set of obstacles to overcome...Budget is a factor and when it's not important enough to set it in the 60's (which just happens to be when he made Night), then it's not worth it... It's kind of hard to convince someone who blindly refuses to see whatever is offered to them unless it suits their view. No offense, but arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. You've provided nothing but a theory and you don't back it up. When an argument of yours is disproven, you just ignore whatever said. It's not hard to convince me...If you provide proof...You haven't done that...Your "opinion" doesn't qualify. No, he says there's a different take on THE NIGHT it started. THE NIGHT, he didn't mention it's a different take on THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. GR: Well, I’m sort of going back to the roots, basically. I’m going back to the first night, when things started. You know, I’ve done the four films in the series… can’t call it a trilogy anymore, cause there’s four of them… but I wanted to… you know there’s a lot of sort of unanswered questions. People keep saying, “Well, you know, like, can animals come back from the dead?” and a million unanswered questions… So I wanted to go back to the very first night, the first night that it started, and I wanted do it from like a different, completely different perspective… and have characters that learn about it the way… in the original Night, you know the people in the farmhouse learn about it on the news and, you know, not so much from first-hand experience because they’re just locked up in this house. So I wanted a new set of characters… and sort of like, I don’t know, Skip and Spector did those books called Book of the Dead, and so it’s basically going back to the beginning with a different set of character and taking the whole phenomenon as it comes. He does say it's a different perspective on the first night of the outbreak than the perspective he covered in Night...It's right there in "print". Not edited at all. It's from Dread Central and there's audio to accompany the interview... He clearly is comparing how the characters in Night learn about it to how the characters in Diary learn about it...IT being THE outbreak...Not AN outbreak. Seriously man. You need to broaden your horizons. You have no case. I do have a case and I've backed it up with proof-there's that word again-which you haven't done. Look, i am not trying to annoy you, but you do seem to be ignoring the fact that GAR himself has already stated the exact opposite of what you are saying. These movies are not, and were never, intended to be connected via a direct timeline. They do not exist in the same timeline. Why would you totally ignore that? It seems to me that you are still stuck on the common misperception that dawn happens (approx.) three weeks after the events seen in the previous movie, when in reality dawn happens three weeks after the initial outbreaks which that particular "story" is based around. Seperate storys, held together by the creator and a common theme, and taking place within the same "storytelling universe" and thus following the same rules or "guidelines" which define GARs "storytelling universe". The point at which we actually join the characters and storyline for each movie is shortly after seperate outbreaks from within the same storytelling universe, and deffinately not from the events seen in the previous movie! If you still don't belive in what i am saying, then you should at least believe in what GAR has said himself. Ok then...All I ask is for the cite of that quote...Where does he say this? If you can provide that, I'll concede because everything I've read he says differently.

[EvilNed]

If the era in which a film takes place is important enough, budgets can be reworked...But each film has it's own set of obstacles to overcome...Budget is a factor and when it's not important enough to set it in the 60's (which just happens to be when he made Night), then it's not worth it... It's not hard to convince me...If you provide proof...You haven't done that...Your "opinion" doesn't qualify. I have already. You just won't accept it. You still keep to the theory that Land doesn't fit with the others timelinewise because of the budget. But I've already provided films which managed to pull off similar feats with a much lower budget. You just won't accept it. He does say it's a different perspective on the first night of the outbreak than the perspective he covered in Night...It's right there in "print". Not edited at all. It's from Dread Central and there's audio to accompany the interview... He clearly is comparing how the characters in Night learn about it to how the characters in Diary learn about it...IT being THE outbreak...Not AN outbreak. All films start with THE outbreak, wether or not they follow a timeline! Nowhere in that text does it specifically say that THIS FILM FOLLOWS THE SAME OUTBREAK AS IN NIGHT. Infact, you just read it that way. "So I wanted to go back to the very first night, the first night that it started, and I wanted do it from like a different, completely different perspective… and have characters that learn about it the way… in the original Night you know the people in the farmhouse learn about it on the news and, you know, not so much from first-hand experience because they’re just locked up in this house." He's talking about the Original Night of the Living Dead without actually saying it's going to be set that very same night! Did you see any video cameras in the original Night? Any cellphones? Well? Ok then...All I ask is for the cite of that quote...Where does he say this? If you can provide that, I'll concede because everything I've read he says differently. Land commentary. First twenty minutes. Enjoy. Here's some quotes from George A. Romero himself. About 3:30 minutes into the film: "This is not meant to be a sequel..." "I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..." "... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..." He also talks about how the rules were slightly different in Night. How he didn't think of the zombies as zombies, but rather ghouls and flesheaters. And that in later films they only eat flesh, but in the original they eat insects and are afraid of fire. He explains this by saying that he hadn't really fleshed out a set of rules yet. Again, again and again: You have no case. Accepts the proofs and facts thrown at you and stop being such a baby man.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Ok then...All I ask is for the cite of that quote...Where does he say this? If you can provide that, I'll concede because everything I've read he says differently. Like i said before, i am not winding you up, GAR has actually said the exact opposite of what you are saying multiple times during the past few decades, so again, if you do not want to believe what i am saying, then you should at least believe what GAR is saying. I don't have time to "gather evidence" in order to prove my point to you. I know that what i am saying is the truth and i am just trying to save you time, set you straight, and save you further embarrasment, if any. Alternatively, you could just gather your own evidence ... or as suggested in the thread above, just listen to the latest LAND commentary where you will hear it from the man himself. Land commentary. First twenty minutes. Enjoy. Here's some quotes from George A. Romero himself. About 3:30 minutes into the film: "This is not meant to be a sequel..." "I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..." "... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..." So, as we were saying ... this poll ONLY serves to further confuse the already confused Two further points: 1: Hahahah ... Did hellsing just call someone "juvenile"? 2: It all went kinda quiet ... is that a tumbleweed blowing past?

[Chaos]

The series takes place in the same universe and each installment follows its predecessor in chronological order. Although filmed in seperate decades, the films are meant to follow the same timeline. But I will admit that Day felt more like the last in the series than Land did. To be frank, Land didn't even feel like a continuation (the end?) of the same series.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

The series takes place in the same universe and each installment follows its predecessor in chronological order. Although filmed in seperate decades, the films are meant to follow the same timeline. But I will admit that Day felt more like the last in the series than Land did. To be frank, Land didn't even feel like a continuation (the end?) of the same series. *BANG'S HEAD AGAINST BRICK WALL* .... For the love of god ... why can't they understand????????????

[The Alive Man]

"This is not meant to be a sequel..." "I'm not trying to connect the films, even though it's theoretically the same phenomenom; people are just not staying dead..." "... They're not connected, the stories are different, there's different characters..." He also talks about how the rules were slightly different in Night. How he didn't think of the zombies as zombies, but rather ghouls and flesheaters. And that in later films they only eat flesh, but in the original they eat insects and are afraid of fire. He explains this by saying that he hadn't really fleshed out a set of rules yet. Even if I hate to admit this but... four parallel universe, four different timelines, four different "Outbreaks" and following effects. Goodbye, Stretch...