New tidbit about the Day vs. Land timeline discussion

[panic]

I'd love to respond to each point like you did Philly, but that quote within a quote thing makes everyone crazy -- fine the way you did it, but one more level is too much. From your prior argument about the number, attitudes, and desires of the people I agree that MORE survivors have gathered in Land and that there has been a RETURN to some semblance of normalcy. Day represents the period in the immediate aftermath of the zombie hordes overwhelming civilization -- scattered pockets of survivors remain, clinging to old hierachies of command and patterns of existence. Land on the other hand represents a new equilibirum which takes hold between the living and the dead and remaining survivors gather and regroup, only to be disrupted by the evolution of Big Daddy and his bunch. We could argue about this forever, the fact is that there are elements present to support both of our interpretations. Your thinking based on the numbers, attitudes, and goals of the people in each can easily be interpreted the opposite direction to support Day before Land. One last element which favors the chronology of Land coming last was the original teaser trailer which got pulled for copyright reasons. It included images from Day and the other movies of the original trilogy as a lead up to the events of Land.

[Griff]

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... To me, that kind of thinking is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. At the start of DAWN, Dr. Foster says something like "For two weeks you haven't listened!". Sure, you can say that the zombie epidemic started 2 years ago and they've just been arguing on TV about it for 2 weeks but c'mon... that's just sticking your head in the sand. The dialogue isn't real - it was scripted and designed to provide the audience with information. I think that the 3 years comment (and especially the fact that it is repeated) is an extremely reliable tool for judging the timeline.

[Philly_SWAT]

To me, that kind of thinking is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. At the start of DAWN, Dr. Foster says something like "For two weeks you haven't listened!". Sure, you can say that the zombie epidemic started 2 years ago and they've just been arguing on TV about it for 2 weeks but c'mon... that's just sticking your head in the sand. The dialogue isn't real - it was scripted and designed to provide the audience with information. I think that the 3 years comment (and especially the fact that it is repeated) is an extremely reliable tool for judging the timeline. The difference between the Dawn quote that you mentioned, and the two quotes in Land is this: the Dawn quote is obviously referring to the begining of the outbreak (he says "three weeks", by the way). He is saying that for three weeks people in general have not been listening to what people "in the know" have been saying about burning or destroying the brains of the recently deceased, and that is why the problem is spreading. In Land, the two quote are not obviously referring to the beginning of the outbreak. One comment is referring to the begining of Cholo's employment, the other is referring to the last time a car left a car lot. Now I can see how someone could intrepret this as referring to the beginning of the outbreak, because there is no other mention of a time reference in the movie. But the way I am intrepreting it is just as valid. One big clue....if Land takes place three years into the outbreak, then obviously any adult that is alive in the Green knows what is happening. They would realise that they can not leave the city, all of their friends and relatives outside the Green are dead, or at the least can not be reached, etc. and that anyone who dies will "come back". I dont think that anyone would refute that three years in, any non-mentally challenged person would realise this. Yet, the wife of the guy who hung himself acts shocked when Cholo says "you know whats going to happen". That alone seems to point to a much shorter period into the zombie problem. But a big difference between what you are saying and what I said, if that I said that "it could" mean, not that it does mean. I am acknowledging that it might not. You are not acknowledging that it could in fact be what I am saying. You say I think that the 3 years comment (and especially the fact that it is repeated) is an extremely reliable tool for judging the timeline I say that makes no logical sense. If someone said "we are three years into this outbreak" and that was repeated again, OK appears we are three years in. But when someone says he has worked for three years, and another guy says no car in three years, it is open to intrepretation, they are not specifically referring to the outbreak. As I said elsewhere, the Bucs won the Superbowl three years ago, my grandmother died three years ago. Three years in both statements, yet they are totally coincidentally three years ago and have nothing to do with each other, or the price of tea in China.

[EvilNed]

Dr. Foster could have been referring to something else compelty, by your logic. The quotes are no different from each other, infact, they are very much alike. The timelineterm "Three years" pops up not once, but twice in Land of the Dead and they are obviously referring to something big that happened three years ago. I don't think they're talking about the latest superbowl.

[Griff]

Firstly, the woman acts shocked because she is obviously IN shock. Her husband hung himself and now some strange man wants to bash his brains in because the unthinkable might happen. These are people living in denial, afterall. Her reaction has no baring on the timeline at all, other than she's obviously been in her little apartment for too long. Now, once again, you're second-guessing everything when you should have gone with your instincts. Like I said, when dialogue contain information like that it isn't usually throway - its valid information ...and you can bet Romero or whoever isn't trying to tell us that two separate incidents happened at, oh say, the same time for some random reason - especially when they could point to something else. You're not listening in on an actual conversation that's been taken out of context here - these details were CHOSEN to be revealed to us as they are. They don't have to say "...since the outbreak" or whatever because, presumably, some of the audiences might be savvy enough to just put 2 and 2 together, without feeling the need to divide by pi. You can theorize that "3 years" repeated twice is inconsequential but that's not providing evidence - that's ignoring it. And, quite frankly, it doesn't make for a very compelling argument. But this... but that... but what? What's so bloody hard about accepting the 3 years scenario that you've gotta dance around it with all these non-specifics when the most obvious answer is in your face, plain as day? You don't wanna subscribe to it so you won't. I know I'm satisfied.

[Philly_SWAT]

Like I said, when dialogue contain information like that it isn't usually throway - its valid information ... So, I guess you think that the whole outbreak was started by the re-entry of the "Venus Probe", as specifically mentioned in Night?

[EvilNed]

So, I guess you think that the whole outbreak was started by the re-entry of the "Venus Probe", as specifically mentioned in Night? In Night, maybe it was. In Dawn, the outbreak could have been something else. In Day, something else again.

[Griff]

So, I guess you think that the whole outbreak was started by the re-entry of the "Venus Probe", as specifically mentioned in Night? Y'know, if NIGHT was the only one in the series and if I hadn't heard otherwise numerous times from Romero, I probably would have. If they (Romero & Russo) didn't want people to come away with that impression then they shouldn't have made as big a thing as they did about it. I'm sure that, perhaps begrudgingly, they felt like they had to give some sorta explanation for the phenomenon and that was it. Romero has since given us 3 films that ignore that theory so I'm happy to forget about it.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Well, this certainly adds positively to the debate..... It's not a debate ... it's just YOUR OWN personal opinion. It is as interesting as it is misguided and untrue. I am not saying that you are wrong to think along those lines, or even to argue your case for that particular train of thought ... i am simply stating that your opinion is obviously incorrect. In regards to a definitive tetralogy timeline, there isn't one. However, it seems to be as clear as crystal to just about everyone except your good self that each story picks up roughly three days, three weeks, three months, three years AFTER the initial outbreaks, in that order! The only one of those which is even close to being "open to debate" is Day of the Dead, which could be anywhere from two to ten months AFTER the initial outbreaks. That is a rough guide, and as i have said before ... a rough guide is all you need to enjoy these movies.

[Philly_SWAT]

Y'know, if NIGHT was the only one in the series and if I hadn't heard otherwise numerous times from Romero, I probably would have. If they (Romero & Russo) didn't want people to come away with that impression then they shouldn't have made as big a thing as they did about it. I'm sure that, perhaps begrudgingly, they felt like they had to give some sorta explanation for the phenomenon and that was it. Romero has since given us 3 films that ignore that theory so I'm happy to forget about it. So basically, in Land when they mention two references of "three years" which are not specifically talking about the outbreak is means that ABSOLUTELY we are three years into the outbreak, but in Night when they do specifically mention that a "Venus probe" has caused the problem, an examination of the entire series is in order and that dialogue can be dismissed. Day represents the period in the immediate aftermath of the zombie hordes overwhelming civilization -- scattered pockets of survivors remain, clinging to old hierachies of command and patterns of existence. Other than the 12 people in the underground bunker, where are the other pockets of survivors that you speak of? All evidence in the movie points to no other survivors.

[EvilNed]

Other than the 12 people in the underground bunker, where are the other pockets of survivors that you speak of? All evidence in the movie points to no other survivors. Then again, all of this evidence is collected from an isolated underground bunker out in Florida with WW2 equipment.

[erisi236]

The whole point is moot anyway, as Land is the first part of a different trilogy set in a similar but not the same universe. There, I made all the pain go away.

[Philly_SWAT]

Then again, all of this evidence is collected from an isolated underground bunker out in Florida with WW2 equipment. Yes, that and a chopper that has flown in 100 miles in each direction. But by evidence, I mean what the filmmaker has shown us, which was nothing. I dont see how you can point to "the filmmaker shows two instances of a 'three years' comment, so he must want us to know it takes place three years in" but then when the filmmaker shows no evidence at all of other people alive, it doesnt also follow that he is showing us there is no one left alive. Are we taking what the filmmaker is showing us into consideration, or not?

[panic]

OK, just rewatched Day tonight, and there is a BUNCH of stuff in there that suggests it comes before Land. 1. The calendar on Sarah's wall in her room is for October 1985. The movie was released in 1985 and the calendar clearly matches a 1985 calender. For instance, the first day of the month is a Tuesday and the month is clearly labeled OCTOBER. October 1, 1985 was a Tuesday. See picture below. This is clearly BEFORE the events of Land as is evidenced by various elements of technology, cars, etc. seen in Land. 2. The military are, in fact, in the bunker with the scientists on orders from the civilian government in Washington. Washington being in control is referenced several times in the two Mess Hall Scences. One of the soldier's laments the recent loss of radio communication with Washington. Plus this dialoguge: Rhodes: I'm not down in this cave for my health, I'm down here on orders. Fisher: Your orders are to fascilitate the job of this scientific team. This is a civilian team captain, and we don't have to be subjected to your tyranny. 3. The zombie apocalypse is recent enough that Sarah, arguably the most rational human in the movie, believes there still to be people alive in Washington who will send help: Sarah: There have to be survivors in Washington. They have more sophisticated shelters than this one. There have to be people in those shelters who know about us -- who know where we are. With no radio contact they'll come looking for us. This suggests that radio contact with Washington was lost relatively recently; more evidence that things crumbled in the immediate recent past. Also, Conroy (the radio operator) references that their prior radio contact had been through relays which had failed once the "power went down on the mainland." Hardly an event which would have taken more than weeks to months to occur. Believe what you want, but Day takes BEFORE Land. In Land, the origianal civilian government and military are gone. There's also the issue that in Day they still have a working helicopter, while in Land enough time has elapsed that few cars still run. And its not because they are well-supplied with parts in Day. There are constant references to lack of ammunition, lab equipment, chemicals, and spare parts for the radio. Just more evidence that it just hasn't been that long... Oh yeah, here's the calendar:

[Griff]

So basically, in Land when they mention two references of "three years" which are not specifically talking about the outbreak is means that ABSOLUTELY we are three years into the outbreak, but in Night when they do specifically mention that a "Venus probe" has caused the problem, an examination of the entire series is in order and that dialogue can be dismissed. Not at all. I never said ABSOLUTELY anything but if you're looking for evidence - there it is. Its the sngle most compelling piece of information in LAND to tell us how long into the situation we are. And its THERE - everything you've argued for is based on what HASN'T been said. Well, what they haven't said tells us NOTHING because, potentially, they could have said anything at all. Its futile and just plain f*cking arrogant to dismiss it completely without conceding it as being a very strong possibility. As for the Venus probe thing, I thought I had clearly pointed out that in light of the other films, its obviously supposed to be regarded as (revisionist) misinformation. Similarly, if a LAND sequel comes along that clearly indicates that the events in the first one took place 1, 5 or 10 years into the outbreak then I'll accept that and shrug off the "3 years" comments. Until then, I'll accept that figure and totally ignore whatever your theories are because they are based on 100% SPECULATION which doesn't impress or convince me one bit. F*ck, you must be a handful for your parents. "Did your mother say you could set fire to the cat?" "No, but she DIDN'T say I couldn't, either..." Use your head, goose.