Romero "dead" Timeline

[corpse monger]

Since I STILL see people asking "will everyone be wearing bellbottoms in LAND, cuz it's only 3 years after NIGHT?" :x , I feel the need to clarify the DEAD timeline, as gleaned from the FACTS, in the FILMS themselves.

NIGHT is not-repeat, NOT-set in any specific year. It's perpetually "now"....a "present day" that could be any modern year, decade, or era. It's set during the first few days of the holocaust...it's SUNDAY, the radio states the first reported incident was on FRIDAY.
Yes it was RELEASED in '68...but that doesn't affect the STORY.

DAWN does, absolutely, NOT take place 11 years later. That's when it was RELEASED....but NOT when it takes place. It's roughly a month into the holocaust. During the opening talk-show argument, as the guest argues for the state-mandated destruction of all cadavers, he says that their pleas had been ignored for the last THREE WEEKS....the destruction of cadavers was called for in NIGHT, which was TWO DAYS IN to the situation. Ergo, DAWN occurs within the first month.
Fran carries her child virtually to term, so it goes from the first month, to the first near-year.

DAY most assureadly does not take place in '85.
The project in the bunker was "thrown together in a matter of days", surely close to the beginning of the problem, and THAT was in late fall/early winter (snow on the roof in DAWN, which was first month), and the calendar in DAY puts it at October (if I remember correctly), which would put it at that time the following YEAR at least....but surely NOT 17 years.

...And that brings us back to LAND, which Romero HIMSELF said is about THREE YEARS after NIGHT...which puts it roughly 2/3 years after DAWN, and at least a good year or so after DAY.
NOT 1971, NOT 3 years after the RELEASE of NOTLD, 3 years after those EVENTS, which NEVER took place in any certain year.
So the ENTIRE chain of events goes down over the space of a few years.
Don't believe me? Sorry. Just watch the movies, folks...that's what I did.

so sorry, guys. No bellbottoms.

[Captain Boosh]

Word! Glad someone put this in writing as it's just been in my head, no I have reference to throw at people. Funny how much we read into these things without even trying. And the three weeks in Dawn is easily missed. I remember playing it back a few times the first time I heard it to clarify exactly what he says.

[Zombie Survivor]

Finally! A real timeline, I also tried it, but it failed. Good work!

[Divided Soul]

Nice to put it all down in writing

[corgi37]

Good clarification, but this has been discussed many times.

oh, and 1 thing. In the script for DAY, it 100% DOES SAY IT IS SET IN 1985.

Yet, thankfully, it is not mentioned in the movie.

[Joe_Cool]

which Romero HIMSELF said is about THREE YEARS after NIGHT

Can you source this? I have some jackson on another board who thinks the movies aren't related. :roll: I need proof.

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

According to The Zombies that Ate Pittsburgh, which is really the best book out there, though sorely out of date, the time between Night and Day is five years. Gagne worked closely with Romero on this book, so it's practically coming straight from Romero. As with alot of information regarding the specifics of the Dead Trilogy, it seems to change over time.

[Moonbutterfly7]

Good work I've always kind of assumed it was within that time frame not neccessairly set in the 60's 70's or 80's.

For Night I assumed that happen at least two days within the incident. Dawn I assumed it was with a month to a year or two into the break out. And I guessed the timeline for Day was five years to seven at the very least.

I think your estimation is probably better than mine

[zombiekilling101]

didnt know people were confused about this:lol:

nice and clearly put though corpse

[corpse monger]

...Corgi & GoGo are absolutely right....sort of.
The DAY script sure as hell DOES say '85 & "five years...since the dead began to walk"(or something along those lines). That's the timeline I always went by too, until Romero Himself began saying over & over lately that LAND (the most CURRENT chapter in the saga) takes place about three years after NIGHT. What can I say. The man says "jump", I say "how high?"
So, for right now, three years.
It, again, never actually SAID/SHOWED '85 or 5 years later, so until George changes his mind again....

.....we got a three-year cycle.

[preacher]

surely after the holocaust there would be no more manufacturing of clothes, no more mass fashion or style.

and if its three years later then regardless of what year it was originally set in, the characters in this world would only have the clothes made and produced previous to the holocaust.

thats not to say they wouldnt modify their clothes to their own personal taste but if this actually happened tomorrow all youd have are the clothes in your wardrobe and the clothes in the stores.

so if theyre all in bellbottoms and hippywigs in NOTLD, regardless of which decade its set in thats what id expect them to be wearing in lOTLD

id expect them to be wearing the same outfits and clothing syle as NOTLD. This goes for cars, architecture of buildings etc.

if theyre going to be pedantic and be deadly serious about the continuity of the film then they would have to seriously look at these issues.

but at the end of the day its just a film, nothing to get too beat up about.

[Joe_Cool]

so if theyre all in bellbottoms and hippywigs in NOTLD, regardless of which decade its set in thats what id expect them to be wearing in lOTLD

id expect them to be wearing the same outfits and clothing syle as NOTLD. This goes for cars, architecture of buildings etc.

if theyre going to be pedantic and be deadly serious about the continuity of the film then they would have to seriously look at these issues.

But the thing is, the story isn't set in any particular year. It's set in ANYTIME. It's always NOW. What they're wearing and driving are only coincidental, based on when it was filmed. Land is a year or so after (or possibly simultaneous with!) Day, which was a couple years after Dawn, which was a couple days or weeks after Night.

When the script says '85, it doesn't matter. That was only because NOW happened to be '85 at the time. Besides that, the script also had trained zombie squads executing the dead-at-large. ;)

Either way, none of the story takes place in any particular period of time. Night is NOW. Dawn is shortly after Night, but still NOW. Same with Day and Land.

[corpse monger]

You got it, Joe. You damn well hit the nail on the head. :clap:

[Joe_Cool]

You got it, Joe. You damn well hit the nail on the head. :clap:
Thanks. :)

[preacher]

i can understand that its set in "anytime" but if theyre saying "this film takes place three years after the last" or whatever,then whatever style of clothes, architecture of buildings, style of cars etc are used in the first film (regardless of what year its set in) should be used throughout the series just for continuitys sake.

it would be daft for the survivors to be now armed with mobile phones, lazer sighted machine guns etc etc or have twenty years of technological progression from the first one when only three years of actual time have passed.

if its true that only three years have passed since the first one then it doesnt matter what era its set in, whatever theyre wearing, using living in in the first should be the same throughout the rest of the series.

[Divided Soul]

I think GAR has made a concerted effort to keep his movies timeless, it enables us to identify with the movie a little easier. That is why at the begginning of Land's script it states "Some time Ago" as the initial time and not "July 1st 1959"

[corpse monger]

..."Timeless" is a good way to put it.
There's no reason they SHOULDN'T have cell phones, advanced weapons & 20 years of history on their side because when you watch NOTLD, it takes place now. In ten years, when you watch NOTLD, it'll take place then. The continuity of the series is only situational, not historical. You guys, surely, are ALL intelligent, and your viewpoints all valid, but this business of "Well they should have period clothes", or "They shouldn't have new stuff", is completely missing the point. I'm no #$%*-in' rocket scientist, BELIEVE me, it's just common sense. No set-in-stone historical timeline equals no holds barred in terms of fashion, technological advancement, etc.
As for where GAR says 3 years, I can't totally recall where it saw print, but more than one spot...I'll take a look around & see what I can come up with.

'Course, if we can get GAR in here, it would make things a lot easier...... :pray:

[Divided Soul]

I agree whole heartedly, I think another point about apparel is that the majority of the time people are wearing military (or survival) types of clothing which in itself is timeless. A uniform is a uniform whether in the 60's or 2000. No I know I am inviting the (well military clothing has changed alot in the last 20 years) comment. and I agree but the basics are the same.... There military never wore trendy things like parachute pants or leg warmers..... Hence a times wardrobe :)

[goesaround]

The point is, there is no break, no let up. It's all happening now, right now!

[corpse monger]

Indeed.
I've seen some attempts to apply the "It happened the year it came out" mindset to the series, in comic follow-ups & such, and it's never been pretty.
The Dead Dog Comics NOTLD title employs such a timeline to disasterous effect. I mean, honestly; you think with a world wide plague of nigh-indestructible flesh eating, nature-defying corpses mankind would even LAST 37 years?! The damn things REPRODUCE every time some one dies, for God's sake! This is not a problem you can just weather out...they don't even DECAY nearly as fast as regular corpses.
Zany, zany John Russo, in his various wretched attempts at his own follow-up, even goes so far as to put forward the concept that the redneck posse actually SOLVED THE WHOLE DAMNED PROBLEM, and the zombies return after decades of peace!!!!!

What the F**K!!! The world is ROUND, people, ROUND! :x

[Divided Soul]

Zany, zany John Russo, in his various wretched attempts at his own follow-up, even goes so far as to put forward the concept that the redneck posse actually SOLVED THE WHOLE DAMNED PROBLEM, and the zombies return after decades of peace!!!!!

Wow where did you hear this.... It's interesting! So Russo claims that they squelched the outbreak and then it resurface years later....... Just when you thought it was safe to bury your dead....

[Joe_Cool]

Wow where did you hear this.... It's interesting! So Russo claims that they squelched the outbreak and then it resurface years later....... Just when you thought it was safe to bury your dead....

Russo did Return of the Living Dead. Remember how they said the army stopped the zombie plague and bottled them up in canisters, then he let one out so it started again?

[Bastard Turtle]

Russo did not MAKE ROTLD, he wrote the book.

[goesaround]

Come to think of it in Russos travesty additon to 'Night of the Living Dead' film called the 'millenial' or 'trans millenial' Night of the loving Dead, at it's end the zombies are beaten. The woman reporter visits the minister(Worst possible actor) and he has not turned though he was bitten and the outbreak is over. I wonder if he and Romero talked but this in the beginning of their filming...

[Joe_Cool]

Russo did not MAKE ROTLD, he wrote the book.

Way to miss the point. Don't focus on the wrong part of what I said. I didn't say he filmed the movie. I only said he "did ROTLD". I know that he wrote the book.

But since my goal wasn't to write an unabridged history of ROTLD, I didn't think it was necessary to include all the details.

THE POINT of what I said was that the army contained the zombie plague and locked up the remaining zombies in canisters, leading to the 2nd plague years later.

[Divided Soul]

THE POINT of what I said was that the army contained the zombie plague and locked up the remaining zombies in canisters, leading to the 2nd plague years later. Da da duhhhhhh! thus 2 halfway decent sequals.... :)

[Joe_Cool]

Da da duhhhhhh! thus 2 halfway decent sequals.... :)

Well yeah, I guess. But I meant the storyline of the first one, where Night of the Living Dead was based on true events, and the Army accidentally shipped a zombie canister to the medical supply warehouse. So I guess technically there were 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th plagues. :)

[Divided Soul]

Ahh your right!.... But that throws the whole "Timeless" aspect of GARs movies into a prestated time.... I think in ROLD in the beginning the Older guy state that the canisters were from the (1969 I think?) outbreak.

[Joe_Cool]

Ahh your right!.... But that throws the whole "Timeless" aspect of GARs movies into a prestated time.... I think in ROLD in the beginning the Older guy state that the canisters were from the (1969 I think?) outbreak.

True, but they split off into a different continuity. ROTLD and Romero's dead movies intersect at NOTLD, but they're really in different universes with different types of zombies.

[corpse monger]

Hey hey.

Actually, Russo's nonsensical approach to Romero's DEAD universe goes much deeper than what was ultimately filmed in ROTLD.
Allow me to elaborate.

The ORIGINAL script/novel for ROTLD, which was thankfully completely rewritten by Dan O'Bannon, involved life in the aftermath of Night. The posse has (groan) COMLPETELY taken care of the living dead phenomenon (thank God they had those rifles, or things might REALLY have gotten out of hand!), and the tale picks up 10 years later. No Dawn, no Day, just peace. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, the dead rise again. Uh-huh.
This idiocy was readdressed in the afore-mentioned NOTLD 30th anniversary massacre with, yes, the worst actor on earth essaying the priest.

This whole stupid "Russo-verse" continuity reared it's ugly head once again with Russo's proposed Children Of The Dead project. An aborted script/comic, this involved AGAIN the posse takin' care o' business, but the children of pregnant bite-victims mutating upon puberty, after (sigh) more than a decade of peace. Uh....okay....
This project ultimately took the form of the direct-to-video candidate for Worst Film Ever, Children Of The living Dead.
a supposed non-Dawn sequel to Night(!), this eschews Russo's puberty mutants in favor of the last surviving zombie from the ever-utterly effective posse hanging out in his house for 30-plus years(!!!), then leaving to, uh, make some new zombies. Or something. Oh yeah, and the zombies were only ever in Pittsburgh. And they kept the invasion a secret. And zombies don't attack kids.
Though rightly reviled as an abject abomination by both God and man, Russo's been trying to get a sequel, City Of The Living Dead (oh, okay) off the ground, further cementing his place in Hell.

This all stands as a cautionary tale about what happens when you don't follow the timeline set forth in Geolly George's films.
That's why I started this topic. Dare we let history repeat itself?!?!

[Strongest Redfield]

So the ENTIRE chain of events goes down over the space of a few years.
Don't believe me? Sorry. Just watch the movies, folks...that's what I did.

so sorry, guys. No bellbottoms.
It makes absolute sense man, I like your interpretation of the timeline.

[corpse monger]

Thanks, Redfield!
I find that the more details I get about a fictional story, the more "real" it is for me, greatly increasing it's enjoyability. And a proper timeline is key among those types of details. That's why I'm such a stickler for continuity. I just don't see why people can't just stick to what's gone before, unless there's some kind of irreperable problem with it, and there usually isn't. I'm just hopin' that when people can definatively timeline the DEAD films, they can enjoy 'em that much more.
To this end, I have a slightly off-topic, fun-ish kinda project for anyone into the Evil Dead films...surely you've noticed some GLARING continuity errors in those!
Here's how to solve 'em:
ED2 isn't actually a remake of ED1...the opener is just a severely truncated, wildly inaccurate retelling of the 1st movie's plot. ED2 doesn't actually begin until Ash is getting hurtled through the woods, right where ED leaves off.
The end of ED2 (after the portal) acts as a sort of truncated condensation of AOD....and the beginning of AOD is, of course, a truncated retelling of ED2.
So if you want it all to make sense, fast forward Ed2 until Ash is getting thrown through the woods, and fast forward AOD until just after Ash comes through the portal.
Watch ED 'til the credits.
Pop it out & throw in ED2, at the appropriate point in the film.
Pop THAT out just after Ash careens out of the portal.
Finally, pop in AOD at the appropriate point in THAT film, & BOOM. One continuous story, free of pschotic contradictions in story.
Utterly anal? Sure. Satisfying? Hell yes.

Try it. It's fun!

[Moonbutterfly7]

i can understand that its set in "anytime" but if theyre saying "this film takes place three years after the last" or whatever,then whatever style of clothes, architecture of buildings, style of cars etc are used in the first film (regardless of what year its set in) should be used throughout the series just for continuitys sake.

it would be daft for the survivors to be now armed with mobile phones, lazer sighted machine guns etc etc or have twenty years of technological progression from the first one when only three years of actual time have passed.

if its true that only three years have passed since the first one then it doesnt matter what era its set in, whatever theyre wearing, using living in in the first should be the same throughout the rest of the series.

But they didn't even do that for Day of the dead I didn't see any bell bottoms or anything. I don't think it really matters that much. Besides seeing bell bottoms on a zombie would look a bit much. Well people do still wear them so I shouldn't be too surprised. :)

[Divided Soul]

We have all seen that styles of clothing can come and go in the span of a heartbeat... Just look at grundge... and although I know there is no media to push fad clothing, there would also be no clothing manufacturer's to be making any new clothing... So in the end I think people would be getting clothing from any era... as long as it was still wearable.... :)

[Moonbutterfly7]

We have all seen that styles of clothing can come and go in the span of a heartbeat... Just look at grundge... and although I know there is no media to push fad clothing, there would also be no clothing manufacturer's to be making any new clothing... So in the end I think people would be getting clothing from any era... as long as it was still wearable.... :)

Ahhh good point indeed it would make sense to have all kind of clothes from different eras. As long they don't look too dated and have some sort of modern feel I think that would work.

[Divided Soul]

Also if anyone takes notes from the Zombie survival guide.... it doesn't matter what the clothes look like, as long as they are tight fiting, not cumbersome, and don't attract attention (damn I wanted to wear my Rhinestone elvis suit :) ). This would be the clothing I would recomend

[jackskellington]

Has anyone paused their copy of Day on the calender scene to see what the days of the month are in relation to the days of the week? For instance, if you can see that October 5th is say on a Thursday, well then that will tell you what the year is. I would do it, but my copy of Day is VHS and I'm lazy!!