Romero Hypotheticals

[JDFP]

[QUOTE=SRP76;192843]I don't think it's harsh. Miguel was a fuckup, and he pretty much signed everyone's death warrant when he let the zombies in. And we never had even one scene with Rhodes and Miguel together, so we can't blame any of Miguel's actions on Rhodes. He would have done the same things whether Cooper was still alive or not. And once all those zombies are let in, there's no way to survive. Cooper wouldn't have made a difference.[/QUOTE] I disagree with your last sentence that Major Cooper being around wouldn't have made a difference one way or another -- and this is why. Rhodes was a prick masochist, but he respected Major Cooper. He respected the chain of command. The way that he re-acted with Logan when he found out what Logan was doing with Cooper proves this. You could say that Rhodes just snapped regardless, but as much of a masochist that Rhodes was he must have respected Cooper a great deal in not trying to mutiny against Cooper to take charge of things (of course we don't know how Cooper really died, maybe Rhodes had a hand in it?) If Cooper was an officer of any caliber he would have never let Miguel be in a position where he could have been bitten in the cave by handling the dead. And he must have been an officer of some high degree of caliber because he kept the facility going under all the stress and chaos that later ensued without him in command. The break down of the facility as quickly as it did without Cooper running the place proved his worth in keeping things together. If Miguel had never had an opportunity to be bitten by being the fuckup that he was, then perhaps Cooper would have also been wise enough to keep his eyes on Miguel. What we do know about Cooper is that he kept things going, he kept Rhodes in check, and he did the best he could under the daunting circumstances -- even the scientists respected him to a certain degree by stating that: "Cooper was an ass, but compared to Rhodes he was a sweet-heart." Is it possible that the soldiers would have eventualy broke down and mutineed against him anyway? Possibly. But I don't think the outcome of the film would have been anything like what was presented to us had Cooper not died. j.p.

[Trin]

Yeah!!!! Great post JDFP!!! Tons of great observations in there!! I have long held the opinion that Cooper's death marked the beginning of the end. And had Cooper lived the fate would've been vastly different. Glad to see someone else take that stance.

[sandrock74]

I don't think the troops would have turned on Cooper. Think about it, if they failed, then what? Surely they would have been tossed out...if not outright killed. I think that, while everyone hated the situation they were in, they were not about to do much (like mutiny) if it would do something to endanger the relative security the roof over their head provided. Major Coopers death was the begining of the end, certainly. The place was overrun with zombies like 24-48 hours later!

[SRP76]

If Cooper was an officer of any caliber he would have never let Miguel be in a position where he could have been bitten in the cave by handling the dead. And he must have been an officer of some high degree of caliber because he kept the facility going under all the stress and chaos that later ensued without him in command. The break down of the facility as quickly as it did without Cooper running the place proved his worth in keeping things together. If Miguel had never had an opportunity to be bitten by being the fuckup that he was, then perhaps Cooper would have also been wise enough to keep his eyes on Miguel. He would have been bitten anyway. The whole reason Miguel was there was because everybody was there - there weren't enough people. If Cooper were alive, there would still only be a handful of grunts, and Miguel would still have been at the zombie corral, and everything would still have gone the way it did. The only difference is, if Cooper were alive, Sarah and the others would never have escaped. They only got away because Rhodes had them tossed into the corral before Miguel let the zombies in. If Cooper were around, they wouldn't have been in there; they'd have been hanging around in John and Billy's trailer, and been assaulted by a horde of ghouls that they didn't know was coming, with no way out.

[JDFP]

He would have been bitten anyway. The whole reason Miguel was there was because everybody was there - there weren't enough people. If Cooper were alive, there would still only be a handful of grunts, and Miguel would still have been at the zombie corral, and everything would still have gone the way it did. The only difference is, if Cooper were alive, Sarah and the others would never have escaped. They only got away because Rhodes had them tossed into the corral before Miguel let the zombies in. If Cooper were around, they wouldn't have been in there; they'd have been hanging around in John and Billy's trailer, and been assaulted by a horde of ghouls that they didn't know was coming, with no way out. You are making quite a few assumptions that things would have happened exactly like they did with Cooper still in command -- in assuming that everything went down like it did. One, that Cooper wouldn't have had Miguel shot outright the moment he was bit. Two, that even if Miguel had not been shot outright that they would have allowed him to stay in the trailer and not lock him up somewhere for observation. Rhodes mistake in his anger/fear of not allowing Miguel into the main facility may not have been anywhere near the same approach that Cooper may have taken. And, finally, I don't think that Cooper would have been as foolish as Rhodes in allowing Miguel to not be closely observed around the clock to see if he "changed" -- allowing Miguel virtually free-reign without being locked away/observed would have been too dangerous and a seasoned officer would have been more wary of the danger posed by someone bit and potentially/probably infected. Miguel's ability to use the elevator to unleash the dead was more about piss-poor command leadership on Rhodes behalf as opposed to Miguel's going bat-ass crazy. I certainly appreciate your thoughts, and I can see where you are coming from, but I just don't see a wiser more experienced officer like Cooper was allowing things to go down the way that Rhodes did. Miguel should have been completely supervised if not outright shot from the moment he became bit and his arm became fodder. A more poignant question perhaps would be how Cooper would have possibly reacted to finding out that Logan was almost certainly feeding remains of any of the five soldiers or one scientist that were lost previously as "tar tar" for Bub and his buddies. God, I have watched that movie WAY too many damn times... it's sad when I can turn it on and hit the mute button and still recite almost all the lines... j.p.

[Trin]

Rhodes sent Miguel to the corral with full knowledge that the man was on the edge. Instead of making a command decision to delay bringing back a zombie he decided to thrust his man into a dangerous situation for which he KNEW the man was not prepared. He did it to prove that Miguel was breaking down and to call the man out. What kind of leader does that? Not the Cooper kind of leader. That's what kind. Cooper held them together. I imagine Cooper would've assessed the situation and forced the scientists to wait while his men regrouped. How would Cooper have reacted to finding out what Logan was doing? That's a good question and one I've asked myself many times. It's a tough one. I imagine he would've executed Logan. He almost would've had to in order to keep the troops from mutiny.

[Slain]

Word! I don't know...this seems foolish to me. I mean, if I was always having to worry about being made a snack to a mass of zombies, getting laid would be very low on my totem pole of important things to me! Besides, some of the characters, like Rickles, wore wedding rings, so they may have been clinging to the hope that they would see their spouses/familes again. So, chasing poon tang pie wouldn't be high on their list of priorities either. If the characters in Dawn and Day lived constantly on the run fighting zombies I could believe their lack of desire to find women, but they weren't. If men turned off from women every time our species hit rough spot the human race would have died out a long time ago. I still consider the behavior of men in Dawn and Day to be atypical and something to wonder about. On the other hand, the characters might have been acting as George Romero supposed men would behave in an apocalyptic situation by deciding women were just excess baggage, and not worth the risk of finding or keeping around. ETA Oops, I typed in "Land" by mistaken when I was thinking of Day of the Day. I haven't even seen Land (everybody says it sucks anyway) so I have no idea how the characters in this flick acted.

[sandrock74]

If the characters in Dawn and Land lived constantly on the run fighting zombies I could believe their lack of desire to find women, but they weren't. If men turned off from women every time our species hit rough spot the human race would have died out a long time ago. I still consider the behavior of men in Dawn and Land to be atypical and something to wonder about. On the other hand, the characters might have been acting as George Romero supposed men would behave in an apocalyptic situation by deciding women were just excess baggage, and not worth the risk of finding or keeping around. What was atypical of Peter in Dawn? The only woman around was Fran and she was with Flyboy and pregnant with his kid. With no other female possibilities around, it was a non-issue. In Land, I'm assuming people in the Green had paired up (we know the lesbians did), so what was atypical of that? That Riley showed no interest in Slack? It may have been simply she was not his type. I am not attracted to Slack now. I wouldn't be then, either. Again, it's a non issue. By the way, does anyone know exactly how Cooper died? I just realized that I don't know. Sarah seemed mildly surprised at his death. I was just wondering...

[SRP76]

Let me do this one next: NOTLD: If Tom hadn't been a complete dumb ass (I still shake my head at his stupidity) and they had managed to refuel and get back to the house -- then what? Would have been pretty shitty for the "survivors". Only a couple (three at most) will fit in the cab, and the dying/dead girl would have to be loaded into the back. The Coopers probably both back there with her. Since the headlights were smashed out, they would have to drive very slowly through the darkness, which would allow the dead to constantly be groping over the sides of the truck, into the bed. The people riding in the back would have to constantly be battling these ghouls. And then when Karen revives, we've got a big problem back there. But assuming the people in the cab itself remain protected from dead hands, they at least will make it to Willard, meeting up with the posse. Then they live happily ever after.

[Wyldwraith]

One of my favorites: What if during the siege of the mall by the bikers in Dawn, ALL of the survivors had stuck to the plan and remained concealed instead of Stephen beginning a hopeless shoot-out? Coupled with this What If: What if the mall survivors had built an ACTUAL wall instead of a weak-as-rice paper facade of one to conceal their hideout? The logical outcome of the first part is that everything happens as depicted until Stephen chooses to remain hidden. The bikers go about their slapstick antics with the zombies and senseless looting, during which several of them are infected or killed outright. The remaining bikers withdraw, Stephen doesn't die, and there's nothing to trigger the hasty escape attempt or Peter flirting with suicide. The survivors then begin the arduous but not terribly difficult per se process of re-securing the mall, which they eventually do. Yes, the remaining bikers might well choose to return, but then again they might not. Several of their number died for little more gain than a few watches and necklaces to the rest of the gang. Should they return in their lessened strength they could in all likelihood be repelled by rooftop gunfire before they managed to reach the re-secured doors. The second part is just as simple. Even if Stephen had still died/reanimated, and then led the zombies towards the hideout, the zombies would've been unable to break through a well-constructed wall. Fran and Peter would probably still have chosen to flee, but it would've been a considered deliberate action, rather than a desperate lunge to survive. To me, Dawn '78 is one of the scenarios that Romero had to inject maximum human error into his characters in order to reduce them to the desperate straits seen at the end of the movie, and thus beat us over the head with his brute-force delivery of the anti-materialism/anti-superconsumer message. It took a combination of minimal foresight, suicidal recklessness by two of the four characters, and serious tactical/strategic errors related to the biker invasion to doom the mall inhabitants. That many poor decisions/suicidal behavior traits & decisions leaves Dawn '78 the most open to What If-ing. All you have to do is imagine the survivors had acted intelligently and you get a dozen possible positive scenarios. Imagine that either Roger or Stephen don't get themselves killed and there's another double handful of diverging results. Only in Dawn does each character individually have such a profound effect on the overall outcome. Thoughts?

[Yojimbo]

I haven't even seen Land (everybody says it sucks anyway) so I have no idea how the characters in this flick acted. Don't take everyone's word on this, go check it out asap. You might actually like Land, like me! Rhodes sent Miguel to the corral with full knowledge that the man was on the edge. Instead of making a command decision to delay bringing back a zombie he decided to thrust his man into a dangerous situation for which he KNEW the man was not prepared. He did it to prove that Miguel was breaking down and to call the man out. What kind of leader does that? Actually, wasn't this a decision made by Steele and not necessarily by Rhodes? I am not attracted to Slack now. I wouldn't be then, either. Again, it's a non issue. I don't know, (if I wasn't married) I wouldn't dismiss Slack as a potential date. She wasn't all that bad. Would have been pretty shitty for the "survivors". Only a couple (three at most) will fit in the cab Back when I was in High School I had a Datsun B210, a small ass 2-door economy car with very little room inside, and we once fit 11 people in it. Granted it was crowded, and there weren't ghouls trying to grab for us, though! But still, I think they might have been able to squeeze 5, including the driver, onto the bench seat inside the cab of that truck. If the characters in Dawn and Day lived constantly on the run fighting zombies I could believe their lack of desire to find women, but they weren't. If men turned off from women every time our species hit rough spot the human race would have died out a long time ago. I still consider the behavior of men in Dawn and Day to be atypical and something to wonder about. On the other hand, the characters might have been acting as George Romero supposed men would behave in an apocalyptic situation by deciding women were just excess baggage, and not worth the risk of finding or keeping around. Or maybe, like "hetrosexual" prisoners in lockup, maybe it was so lonely down there in the bunker that they men paired up together in secret? You gotta love these hypothetical trains of thought since they can go anywhere! What if we threw all the characters from NOLD/DAY/DAWN/DIARY into the mix over at Fiddlers Green? Who would have kicked ass, who would have dated who, etc? Personally, I think the Blade character in Land would have been a bit more standoffish and uncommunicative, and Bub would have gotten so annoyed at Big Daddy that he likely would have shot him in the head and made off with his girlfriend, but that's just me.

[Trin]

@Wyldwraith - I agree with all your what-ifs on Dawn. And the idea that Romero injected maximum human flaw. But I also think he had to inject maximum human flaw just to create the scenario in the first place. I don't agree that Dawn had the most what-if scenarios. Day had plenty as well. In addition to the ones we've already explored - What if Logan wasn't using soldiers - or hid it better? What if John had stayed with Miguel? What if Miguel had gone homicidal instead of suicidal - would he have killed Rhodes? What then? Lots of possibilities. Night was limited by their scenario and the timeframe. Land has too many setup/systemic problems to breed what-ifs. The what-ifs tend to center around things in the setup, not the actions. Diary was too linear for what-ifs. It should've been called Zombie Vignettes. @Yojimbo - You're right about Steele forcing Miguel to the corral. But I still think it is Rhodes pushing them to the point Miguel cannot say no. I get that sense later when Sarah is confronted by Rhodes about drugging his man. Rhodes didn't care about the man's mental or physical state. He was more concerned that Miguel was getting some.

[JDFP]

Another thing about NOTLD, that was clearly expressed in NOTLD '90, the thought that maybe they could have just sent a few of the people (say, Ben and Tom) out with flashlights to simply "walk" past the ghouls and be damned careful in doing so to go get help. These were dead ghouls that could barely walk much less keep up with people speed-walking (unlike ghouls from other films that magically have super-human strength and the ability to sprint) -- if they had simply walked past the ghouls they probably could have made it to some other survivors and said: "Hey, we have some folks and a girl locked in the cellar of a house a few miles back. Can you help?" I find it hard to believe no one thought to look for a flashlight or two and just simply walk away from being barricaded together. Fear paralyzes, and I'd say no one wanted to leave from the house, but they would have probably fared much better had they done this simple thing. j.p.

[Yojimbo]

Another thing about NOTLD, that was clearly expressed in NOTLD '90, the thought that maybe they could have just sent a few of the people (say, Ben and Tom) out with flashlights to simply "walk" past the ghouls and be damned careful in doing so to go get help. These were dead ghouls that could barely walk much less keep up with people speed-walking (unlike ghouls from other films that magically have super-human strength and the ability to sprint) -- if they had simply walked past the ghouls they probably could have made it to some other survivors and said: "Hey, we have some folks and a girl locked in the cellar of a house a few miles back. Can you help?" I find it hard to believe no one thought to look for a flashlight or two and just simply walk away from being barricaded together. Fear paralyzes, and I'd say no one wanted to leave from the house, but they would have probably fared much better had they done this simple thing. j.p. This, of course, assumes that there were actually flashlights in the farmhouse, and that those flashlights had batteries that were working. My family always kept flashlights around the house for emergencies when I was growing up. One night during a power outage we realized that flashlights are no good if the batteries are dead and you have no spares. Not the best time to find out your flashlight doesn't work, but I have heard that what my family had experienced was not an unusual event. In NOLD, both versions, I think that they were looking all over that house for junk to survive with, and if there were working flashlights discovered it would have been scrounged and added to the scavanged supplies.

[Monrozombi]

Plus in both films it was night time and they were all in a semi-unfamiliar location with the exception of Tom. So staying put until daylight would make sense, at least you can see the zombies in the day light and stand a better chance of survival