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

[ElectricFire169]

Like, which version did George consider to be the definitive version, and which one did he consider to be in the same continuity as all the other films? EDIT: Just in case it wasn't made clear, I am of course referring to the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead and its 1990 remake.

[EvilNed]

Well... None. None of them are in direct continuity to any of the others seeing as they all take place in different decades. While they're considered a trilogy, they are only a trilogy in thematic terms and not narrative terms. None of the films is a narrative sequel to any of the others.

[MinionZombie]

Building on Ned's response, I'd still say "Night" in regards to your question as Night through Land are a quartet of films. Now, that doesn't mean they all necessarily take place in direct succession to one another (especially as they were made in different decades with 7 to 10 to 20 year gaps between them). I've always considered it thus: they're not connected in so far as direct continuity, but they follow on as much as each one shows us the next 'stage' in a zombie apocalypse, if that makes sense? None of them go back over already established ground, because they always show what would be next. I don't recall what the official word from Romero was on this subject. Night 90 on the other hand is of course 'separate' in that it is a remake, so it is its own thing. Similarly, Diary and Survival aren't part of the Night-Land continuity. Diary and Survival, though, are unique in Romero's zombie films in that they are directly connected (Crocket appears in both films as the same character with the meeting at the RV being a consistent event). So: Night Dawn Day Land ... ... ... Night 90 ... ... ... Diary Survival

[EvilNed]

^ Don't you mean Night, Dawn, LAND, Day? Obviously, Day takes place after Land...

[shootemindehead]

There is no "canon" to these films. I would imagine that Romero would have hated that idea.

[JDP]

^ Don't you mean Night, Dawn, LAND, Day? Obviously, Day takes place after Land... Day vs Land timeline is, of course, open to debate (there's several contradictions between both movies regarding this point, as we all know from past discussions in these forums.) But what I think is unquestionable is: Night ---> Dawn ---> Day There is an obvious progression in the original trilogy, from first zombie outbreaks (Night) to practically total collapse of a central organized government (Day.) I don't remember anyone trying to debate this basic and self-evident timeline of the trilogy. - - - Updated - - - Similarly, Diary and Survival aren't part of the Night-Land continuity. Diary and Survival, though, are unique in Romero's zombie films in that they are directly connected (Crocket appears in both films as the same character with the meeting at the RV being a consistent event). According to Romero himself, Diary takes place during the initial zombie outbreaks, so in theory what we see in that film is happening simultaneously as the events we saw in Night. A lot of people have a problem with this, since the world we are shown in Diary is quite different from the one we saw in Night (easy to explain due to the 40 year gap between both films.) But apparently these contradictions did not bother Romero.

[EvilNed]

I was just trying to rile up folks.

[MinionZombie]

^ Don't you mean Night, Dawn, LAND, Day? Obviously, Day takes place after Land... *flashbacks to the Land before Day thread* Day vs Land timeline is, of course, open to debate (there's several contradictions between both movies regarding this point, as we all know from past discussions in these forums.) But what I think is unquestionable is: Night ---> Dawn ---> Day How? In Day of the Dead civilisation is on its arse, they're disconnected from the world at large, the zombies have taken over - bad times, man. In Land, however, mankind has regained some control. They've got pockets of society in various locations (presumably with communications between them) and they're sitting relatively pretty. Clearly Land is a progression from Day, a 'rise from the ashes' kind of thing. I was just trying to rile up folks. Agitator.

[JDP]

How? In Day of the Dead civilisation is on its arse, they're disconnected from the world at large, the zombies have taken over - bad times, man. In Land, however, mankind has regained some control. They've got pockets of society in various locations (presumably with communications between them) and they're sitting relatively pretty. Clearly Land is a progression from Day, a 'rise from the ashes' kind of thing. Internal evidence from the movie itself, and compared to that which we see in Day, does not go very well with such an interpretation. You interpret it as some people having "regained control" when in reality what the movie has all the looks of is that some pockets of survivors have still (notice this "still"; we know that these outposts exist since early in the zombie crisis, this is unquestionable since the movie itself informs us of this. They did not pop up at some point in the distant future) managed to be in more or less control of things by the time of the events we see in the movie, while the world we see in Day is very different and shows a more devastated, decayed, hopeless and chaotic world where the fewer survivors left (now vastly outnumbered by the zombies) have gone "underground" and rarely even dare to venture outside anymore. This is the "natural" progression of things in the Dead universe: things getting worse for humanity, not better!

[EvilNed]

I think Day takes place before Night and Dawn after Land.

[JDP]

I think Day takes place before Night and Dawn after Land. Now try to logically defend that position with what we see in all these movies. Can't be done.

[EvilNed]

Well, I don't think you can logically defend Land taking place before Day either so it's not something I'm gonna break my back doing...

[JDP]

Well, I don't think you can logically defend Land taking place before Day either so it's not something I'm gonna break my back doing... What you think and what can actually be done are two very different things. Plenty of people have no problem seeing that Land does not look at all like it is taking place after the decayed world we saw in Day. The average look of the zombies alone will already put a dent on such a claim. On the other hand, I see no one arguing such absurdities as Day taking place before Night or Dawn after Land. It doesn't work. Too much evidence against such a claim.

[EvilNed]

What you think and what can actually be done are two very different things. Plenty of people have no problem seeing that Land does not look at all like it is taking place after the decayed world we saw in Day. The average look of the zombies alone will already put a dent on such a claim. On the other hand, I see no one arguing such absurdities as Day taking place before Night or Dawn after Land. It doesn't work. Too much evidence against such a claim. Heh, maybe. To me it's bloody obvious Land takes place after Day but I guess my observational skills are a cut above average.

[JDP]

Heh, maybe. To me it's bloody obvious Land takes place after Day but I guess my observational skills are a cut above average. If they really were, you wouldn't be saying that. Plenty of easily spotted discrepancies and contradictions between both movies if you want to see Land as happening after Day. Not so much the other way around, though.