New tidbit about the Day vs. Land timeline discussion

**OddDNA** · 27-Jun-2006

I still think of a Trilogy...I dont even add land in there.

It is not the same Universe in my eyes. Land is much to cutesy for me.

(I didnt like Day much when it 1st came out either though to be fair)

**panic** · 27-Jun-2006

Land takes place after Day in my book. I don't think you can use off-screen sources to try to establish a timeline -- in my opinion, only what's actually said or shown on-screen can contribute to the debate. Unless, of course, GAR himself stated that he considered Land to come before Day.

**Philly_SWAT** · 27-Jun-2006

Here is the thing that everyone needs to keep in mind about the "evolution" of the zombies. I can see why on the surface, some may say that the zombies are more evolved in Land than in Day, because in Day we only have Bub who appears to be learning, yet in Land, we have hundreds that appear to be. The important thing is this.....LAND IS THE FIRST FILM THAT HAS FOCUSED ON THE ZOMBIES. In the first three movies, the only characters that were focused on were humans. The zombies were strictly background characters, with the exception of Bub. He is the one and only zombie that is focused on, and not coincidently I think, shows that he is learning. Also, remember that Sarah says about the zombies in the pen "They're learning. They're actually learning". And this was not a bunch of zombies in the wild, free to do and learn however they want, but zombies locked up in a pen, with no tamporines to play, or guns to fire.

The fact is, we do not know what the thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of zombies were doing that were not shown onscreen. Bub may have been relatively dumb compared to others in the area, he was just the smartest of the ones that were captured. My main point here is that the "evolution" of the zombies can not be accurately used as a main argument point for the timeline in Land vs. Day. We do not know enough about the general zombie population in Day to make these kinds of judgements. I say we do know more about the human populations in both films, and that should be the basis of timeframe judgements.

Sheer Number of People
DAY - There are only 12 living people that are known about, even though those 12 are actively looking for others, they dont find them.
LAND - Hundreds, if not thousands of people, alive and well.
Attitude of People
Day - No moral, running out of hope, constant in-fighting
LAND - Partying in local bars, smoking cigars and drinking champagne, taking target practice at big clown balloons, wishing to "better themselves"
Desires of People
DAY - Military types-scared and wanting to run with no plan
Scientist types-trying desparately to find solutions
LAND - Military types-in league with local businessman, providing goods to
the rich and the poor, still class distinctions
Non-Military types-partying and drinking in bars, live entertainment
provided, food stand on the streets where they sell hot dogs
Living a life of luxery in a high-rise condo complex

Which of these two scenarios seems to take place before the other? A constant theme in GAR's films is how society falls, how man's inability to work with his fellow man is the cause of its downfall. Was there some "magic goodwill juice" that was dropped in the local water supply at the Green that enabled them to work together to block off all access to the city, and agree to live in a society with class distinction, using money as a means of exchange, after the rest of the world had abandoned such ideas due to infighting (or death)? Or does it make more sense that they are closer to the outbreak than those in Day, still trying to desparately hang on to their more recent way of life.

The "three years" comments can not be used as a good judge of timeline either. I have stated that Cholo could have worked for Kaufman prior to the outbreak, and no cars had left that car lot for three years, including time prior to the outbreak, but lets look on the other end. Much evidence points to the contrary, but assume for a second that Land takes place 50 YEARS into the outbreak. If true (which it isnt, but follow with me) it would be possible that cars continued to run here and there for 47 years, and three years ago, the last car left the car lot. Also, Cholo wasnt even born at the start of the outbreak, and grew up, lived in the Green, and worked his way up in society until he started to work for Kaufman three years ago. These are the only two mentions of "three years" that I can think of in the movie....pointing to the start of the outbreak, or simply two instances of things that happen to happen three years ago? I think that this point illustrates what I am saying about the three years thing. I mean, If Cholo and Riley were both born on August 5th, does that mean that they are twins separated at birth, or just two guys with the same birthday? Anyway, I could go on, but this thread is almost getting to point where it is hard to follow the posts in order due to the way they are displayed. Hopefully you are reading this after reading all the other posts.

**DjfunkmasterG** · 27-Jun-2006

Great post Philly. Well thought out and you almost had me switching my mind.

However, Land still comes after Day. I can't change my mind about that.

**AssassinFromHell** · 27-Jun-2006

Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG

There is no LAND. Day was the last of the real Romero zombie films. LAND is a cookie cutter half assed slap together crap fest that shouldn't be allowed in the holy saga.

Nooo, you must be thinking about that half-assed remake of a horror classic directed and written by a bunch of kids...

**MinionZombie** · 27-Jun-2006

*sigh* my two cents...

1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing?

2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day.

And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.

In the words of that blob-of-poop-looking-thing from Total Recall - "open your mind" ... people.

**DjfunkmasterG** · 27-Jun-2006

We Need A Poll! :d

Although I have spoken and no poll is needed.

**bassman** · 27-Jun-2006

Originally Posted by panic

Unless, of course, GAR himself stated that he considered Land to come before Day.

Where/When was this? I only recall him saying that the films ARE NOT DIRECT SEQUELS. That, and how long each film takes place after the "outbreak" had begun. Not since the last movie or any relation to the earlier films....

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

*sigh* my two cents...

1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing?

2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day.

And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.

In the words of that blob-of-poop-looking-thing from Total Recall - "open your mind" ... people.

You know, I really don't try to connect the films because I don't feel that they should be. Nor do I care to. But you just made the best argument yet, man. And with less text than most on this thread, no less!

I can agree with that....

**MinionZombie** · 27-Jun-2006

Yes Bassman, I am indeed the master.

I personally like to keep the films in "one timeline", to me, the notion that its four separate outbreaks in four separate timelines is just lame, lol. Besides, GAR keeps changing his mind on these little things, unlike us he has things to do and isn't a zombie geek.

**bassman** · 27-Jun-2006

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

Yes Bassman, I am indeed the master.

I personally like to keep the films in "one timeline", to me, the notion that its four separate outbreaks in four separate timelines is just lame, lol. Besides, GAR keeps changing his mind on these little things, unlike us he has things to do and isn't a zombie geek.

No....I'm not saying that they're four different outbreaks. Just different situations, different places, different everything. They're just four different zombie flicks that all happen to share the "of the Dead" title. That's the way I look at it. It's not like watching the "Back to the Future" films where you basically have to see them in order.....

They're all their own film...

**EvilNed** · 27-Jun-2006

In the Land timeline, George said that they weren't tied together in one timeline, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned that each film took place "after" the other. So that, days, weeks, months and years etc. etc. have gone by since the last one.

**panic** · 27-Jun-2006

Philly_Swat: You make some interesting points, but it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges.

The folks in Day were isolated and cutoff from everyone -- we have no idea what else is happening in the rest of the world. All we know is that in the area around the military base (i.e. the towns they're able to visit by chopper) there's no one left alive. That doesn't mean that there aren't whole groups of people at places like Fiddler's Green that have managed to hold back the zombie hordes. One could imagine another small group of folks trapped in a similar situation to the soldiers in Day occuring at the same time as the events in Land.

One of the things that argues that Day occurs before Land is that in Day we have the immediate remnants of an organized military unit that is (initially, at least) operating on orders from higher in its chain of command. The presence of civilian scientists suggests that civilian leadership of the military remains intact; otherwise you have to assume that the scientists were kidnapped or whatever, which clearly doesn't fit the circumstances. In contrast, the events in Land clearly take place after any legitimate civilian government has crumbled away. Likewise the armed guards that defend Fiddler's Green are distinct from the military as it operated in Day.

From the above, I conclude that Land takes place AFTER Day in the context of the general breakdown of civilian and military authority which occurred after the events of Dawn.

**Philly_SWAT** · 27-Jun-2006

Thanks panic. You make some good points as well. Here is what I say to your points.

The folks in Day were isolated and cutoff from everyone -- we have no idea what else is happening in the rest of the world. All we know is that in the area around the military base (i.e. the towns they're able to visit by chopper) there's no one left alive.

We do have some idea what is happening...they have gone 100 miles in all directions, not just a little ways away, and found no one. They used to be able to communicate with others via radio, now they can not.

That doesn't mean that there aren't whole groups of people at places like Fiddler's Green that have managed to hold back the zombie hordes. One could imagine another small group of folks trapped in a similar situation to the soldiers in Day occuring at the same time as the events in Land.

This is true, however, this does not help either the Land is before Day argument, or the Day is before Land argument. There could be pockets of survivors somewhere even years past the timeframe in both movies.

One of the things that argues that Day occurs before Land is that in Day we have the immediate remnants of an organized military unit that is (initially, at least) operating on orders from higher in its chain of command.

I disagree. There is no evidence that they are operating on orders from a higher command. They say they have not talked to anyone on the radio in a long time. The events in Day could be 10 years into the future, and they could still be operating as a military group, acknowledging rank, etc., because there isnt mush else to do except for total anarchy.

The presence of civilian scientists suggests that civilian leadership of the military remains intact; otherwise you have to assume that the scientists were kidnapped or whatever, which clearly doesn't fit the circumstances.

I dont think that the presense of civilian scientists suggests in the least that civilian leadership on the military still remains intact. It only suggests that at the time they entered the underground complex, the civilian leadership was still around. In fact, if every other person in the world is dead except for the 12 underground, they would still be civilian scientists, and again, would have nothing else to do except continue their research or embrace anarchy. I mean, they arent likely to be planning any high school reunions.....

In contrast, the events in Land clearly take place after any legitimate civilian government has crumbled away. Likewise the armed guards that defend Fiddler's Green are distinct from the military as it operated in Day.

It is true that the guard in Land are distinct from the military in Day. But again, I say it is not "clearly taking place" after legitimate government has crumbled away. The only evidence of that is in your statement itself. There could be pockets of legitimate government still intact all over the place, including Washington, just not in the Green.

From the above, I conclude that Land takes place AFTER Day in the context of the general breakdown of civilian and military authority which occurred after the events of Dawn.

I say that there is no way to assume any of the points you made, they are all easily refutable. Not to say that this fact automatically makes me correct, just that what you are saying is not backed up.