Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[EvilNed]

I honestly don't think George's level of thought goes that far when he's making his pictures TBPH. I just can't see him sitting down and wondering about the decomposition time for newspaper. Of course, the paper could have been sitting on a table for ages and then found itself on the street in Ft. lauderdale somehow....damn it, now I'm doin it!!!!!!! I agree with this. I don't think the newspaper is a sign of anything for reasons that it's probably not MEANT to be a sign of anything. But if we're gonna super analyze the film, you would have to take it into consideration - in which case the newspaper would put Day at... Tops a year after the apocalypse. And that's tops. Florida is pretty rainy and storms are frequent so it wouldn't last that long. BUT as I've already stated, let's not even START GOING DOWN THAT ROAD. Just like we shouldn't with the news broadcasts in Land, because they're just there to give exposition.

[JDP]

I'm sorry, but we're not discussing the validity of Land taking place 3 years after the apocalypse. It's clearly states so in the film. It does, and anything else is denial. I love how you can ignore such clearly stated points and at the same time manufacture excuses for everything in Day pointing to them not having been in the bunker that long tho... Where does Land clearly state that it has been 3 years? There's only two mentions of years in the movie, and neither one of them clearly says that it is the amount of time it has passed since the outbreak. The only thing the movie does specifically say about this subject of a time-frame is during the starting sequence: "some time ago" and "today". Couldn't be more vague and imprecise if it tried to! I'd love tp hear some real arguments but this is all just to contrived. You have to bend reality to make ypur arguments work. What's that, no counterarguments for any of the points and observations explained above? I thought so. As for the media at the start of day, thats exposition. It'd be like accusing Day of taking place the same time that newspaper we see in the first scene was published - they both fill the same role in the storytelling; BRINGING US UP TO SPEED. The voices describing what's going on at the beginning of Land are obviously from news broadcasts from all over the world, they are in fact in several languages and by different voices (i.e. the reporters.) What they are describing are things that happened quite before the already devastated world of Day where there no longer is any mass media around. Even before Dawn ends there no longer is any mass media around. By the way, on the subject of the Florida explorations by the people in Day, listen to Miller's sarcastic remark and John's angry response when they are entering the bunker from their latest effort: Miller: Another waste of time, right? John: You got that right, man! These guys have obviously been looking for signs of any other survivors before the exploration we see in the movie. And from such remarks it is clear that all of them have been a total failure. - - - Updated - - - I agree with this. I don't think the newspaper is a sign of anything for reasons that it's probably not MEANT to be a sign of anything. But if we're gonna super analyze the film, you would have to take it into consideration - in which case the newspaper would put Day at... Tops a year after the apocalypse. And that's tops. Florida is pretty rainy and storms are frequent so it wouldn't last that long. BUT as I've already stated, let's not even START GOING DOWN THAT ROAD. Just like we shouldn't with the news broadcasts in Land, because they're just there to give exposition. The difference is that the newspaper is an old printed piece and could easily have been carried by the wind to the streets from some building or car, just like the money from the bank we also see on the streets. All this stuff is old and through chance has found its way to the desolate streets. But the news broadcasts from the beginning of Land could not possibly have happened in the world of Day. They are much earlier. So the human outposts we see in Land must have been established early on during the outbreak. Now explain how in blazes can these privately manned outposts with huge numbers of survivors and still technologically advanced enough to be able to even build armored vehicles with computers, radios, machine guns and rockets have gone totally unnoticed by both Washington and the Florida survivors of Day if they were still around in that desolate devastated world where even what's left of the government itself is hiding in shelters? And it goes without saying that if Washington was still maintaining communications with people all the way down in Florida it would easily have been in communication with people in much nearer Pennsylvania! The idea that the world of Land happened after that of Day is quite unrealistic within the context of these movies. - - - Updated - - - I honestly don't think George's level of thought goes that far when he's making his pictures TBPH. I just can't see him sitting down and wondering about the decomposition time for newspaper. Of course, the paper could have been sitting on a table for ages and then found itself on the street in Ft. lauderdale somehow....damn it, now I'm doin it!!!!!!! Indeed, as fun as they are, Romero's zombie movies are quite packed with all sorts of problems and contradictions precisely because he didn't spend as much time nitpicking his own work as some of us do.

[EvilNed]

What's that, no counterarguments for any of the points and observations explained above? I thought so. Yes. Plenty. You ignored all of them. But just scroll up and you'll read 'em. I'm still waiting for you to explain a few things, like why the characters in Day don't know each other despite spending 3+ years in a bunker together or why they've only just now began exploring... 3+ years into it. The voices describing what's going on at the beginning of Land are obviously from news broadcasts from all over the world, they are in fact in several languages and by different voices (i.e. the reporters.) What they are describing are things that happened quite before the already devastated world of Day where there no longer is any mass media around. Even before Dawn ends there no longer is any mass media around. This is the equivalent of me saying "Day takes place in a time when newspapers are still printed, because there's a newspaper at the very start of it". It's exposition. That's it. Some of them are even news bulletins from what sounds like Day 1 of the zombie outbreak and then CUT TO what is obviously not Day 2... By the way, on the subject of the Florida explorations by the people in Day, listen to Miller's sarcastic remark and John's angry response when they are entering the bunker from their latest effort: Miller: Another waste of time, right? John: You got that right, man! These guys have obviously been looking for signs of any other survivors before the exploration we see in the movie. And from such remarks it is clear that all of them have been a total failure. Absolutely. This isn't their first trip. But two things; They haven't gotten very far. They've only scouted 100 miles each way. They haven't even scouted out all of Florida. Second, the characters in Land don't even bother scouting anymore (this is, by the way, one of the points you never adress). The difference is that the newspaper is an old printed piece and could easily have been carried by the wind to the streets from some building or car, just like the money from the bank we also see on the streets. All this stuff is old and through chance has found its way to the desolate streets. But the news broadcasts from the beginning of Land could not possibly have happened in the world of Day. They are much earlier. So the human outposts we see in Land must have been established early on during the outbreak. Now explain how in blazes can these privately manned outposts with huge numbers of survivors and still technologically advanced enough to be able to even build armored vehicles with computers, radios, machine guns and rockets have gone totally unnoticed by both Washington and the Florida survivors of Day if they were still around in that desolate devastated world where even what's left of the government itself is hiding in shelters? And it goes without saying that if Washington was still maintaining communications with people all the way down in Florida it would easily have been in communication with people in much nearer Pennsylvania! The idea that the world of Land happened after that of Day is quite unrealistic within the context of these movies. Who says Fiddler's Green went unnoticed by Washington? I got the impression that it was a Rescue station that survived the ordeal and bloomed into a community. Also, I don't know how you can expect the Florida team to know about it, considering they don't even know what's in Florida... Occam's Razor states; Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Yours is nothing but assumptions, which is why I find it silly. Let me list them... You assume the newscast at the start of Land is actually taking place within the timeframe of Land, despite some of the reports being obvious "Day 1"-reports. You assume the Florida guys are up-to-date on the entire US situation via days/weeks/months old information from Washington despite not even knowing what's a 101 miles up the coast. You assume that Washington is no longer around in Day, something which not even the characters assume (as per Sarah's dialoge) You assume that Land doesn't take place 3 years into the future, despite expositional dialoge to the contrary. You can say what you want about this but those are not throwaway lines - those lines are there to indiciate a passage of time. Nobody in the audience cares if the car mechanic had a rough 2,5 years prior to the apocalypse and thus did not service a car for that amount of time - upon which there's then 0,5 years of a zombie apocalypse - totalling the 3 years mentioned in his dialoge. But this is what you assume. You assume the newspaper was actually indoors until such a time that dramatic events called for it to appear outside so that we could see it. You assume that the characters spent years in their bunker, despite them not even knowing each other. You assume that just because the Florida guys haven't found any survivors in the direct vicinity surrounding them with their admittedly out-of-date technology - there are None. Some of these assumptions are quite absurd. At the same time you refuse to make the most basic assumptions; Like that when the car mechanic and Cholo refer to some kind of event 3 years ago, they're referring to the apocalypse. A reasonable assumption. It is exposition after all. You also refuse to assume that just as there are survivors in a bunker in Day, totally cut off from the world, that there are survivors elsewhere. Also a reasonable assumption. I could go on, but you get the point. Occam's Razor. The reason I don't bother arguing your points anymore is because all your points are extraordinary assumptions based on nothing more than... Your whims, I think?

[JDP]

Yes. Plenty. You ignored all of them. But just scroll up and you'll read 'em. I'm still waiting for you to explain a few things, like why the characters in Day don't know each other despite spending 3+ years in a bunker together or why they've only just now began exploring... 3+ years into it. It is you who keeps ignoring all the observations, implications and deductions that can be rather easily gathered from all that we see in both movies. This is the equivalent of me saying "Day takes place in a time when newspapers are still printed, because there's a newspaper at the very start of it". It's exposition. That's it. Some of them are even news bulletins from what sounds like Day 1 of the zombie outbreak and then CUT TO what is obviously not Day 2... I already told you that comparing an old newspaper page being swept by the wind from who knows where with TV/radio broadcasts (they do NOT remain on the air forever, you know?) is comparing apples & oranges. Plus there is an obvious progression in the broadcasts, starting from, as you say, the first zombie incidents, but also up to the establishment of the outposts. The point at hand being that this last bit of information was also from around the time when news broadcasts were still around. So the establishment of these outposts even predates the end of Dawn, let alone the fully devastated world of Day. Absolutely. This isn't their first trip. But two things; They haven't gotten very far. They've only scouted 100 miles each way. They haven't even scouted out all of Florida. Second, the characters in Land don't even bother scouting anymore (this is, by the way, one of the points you never adress). Of course I addressed it, you must not be paying attention. They don't bother to look for survivors because they already got TONS of them! The people of Land are quite unconcerned about looking for more mouths to feed and very concerned with doing what the broadcast report very aptly describes as "raiding small rural towns for supplies, like outlaws" (we in fact see Riley's team doing just that a bit after the intro.) They need food, booze, medicines, etc. for the LOADS of survivors the city already has. This is what's in demand, not more people! A whole different situation from the desolate and devastated world of Day, where finding survivors is more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack. Who says Fiddler's Green went unnoticed by Washington? I got the impression that it was a Rescue station that survived the ordeal and bloomed into a community. Also, I don't know how you can expect the Florida team to know about it, considering they don't even know what's in Florida... Do you seriously expect us to believe that if Washington had known what was going on practically next door to them with these huge human outposts they would not have informed their own people down in Florida about it? Instead, what we see is the Florida people arguing and wondering if there is even anyone left in Washington itself anymore. In fact, the very fact that the existence of these outposts was even reported by the mass media when it was still on the air ipso facto means that both Washington and the Florida team must have been aware that they WERE (key word, notice the PAST TENSE) there once upon a time. But now it is a very different world, where finding any survivors is a much more difficult task. Don't you think that if these outposts were still around in the time of Day anyone, specially Rhodes, could very easily have answered Dr. Logan's "where will you go?" poignant little question that shuts up everyone entertaining thoughts of leaving the bunker? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to easily see how Rhodes could easily have laughed in Logan's face and put him in his place instead if these outposts still existed: "Where will I go, egghead? Well, we are going to one of those outposts up north, Frankenstein, and we are leaving you and your high-falutin' asshole friends to rot in this stinking sewer!" However, no such thing happened because such outposts in the devastated world of Day are an unthinkable thing anymore. Survivors are in a much more desperate situation than those gone-by days when you could still find such outposts. The zombies have gained the upper hand in the world of Day. In the world of Land things were still a bit more even and pockets of civilization could still be found. Occam's Razor states; Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Yours is nothing but assumptions, which is why I find it silly. Let me list them... You assume the newscast at the start of Land is actually taking place within the timeframe of Land, despite some of the reports being obvious "Day 1"-reports. There is obviously a natural progression in the reports, from "Day 1 reports" to things CLOSER in time to Land: the establishment of such outposts and raiding towns for supplies. You assume the Florida guys are up-to-date on the entire US situation via days/weeks/months old information from Washington despite not even knowing what's a 101 miles up the coast. You expect us to believe that Washington is not going to inform its very own people down in Florida of what is going on up there? In fact, like I told you further up, the very fact that the existence of such outposts was reported by the mass media already means that the people in Florida must have been aware of their existence. Even if for some bizarre reason Washington had not kept them up to date on the going-ons up there, it is simply inconceivable that those folks down in Florida could have been so oblivious to the existence of such outposts. You assume that Washington is no longer around in Day, something which not even the characters assume (as per Sarah's dialoge) I don't assume it, I simply say that Washington has gone strangely silent. Whether this is because they are all dead, gone or cannot maintain the necessary equipment to establish communications is another thing. But the fact is that the folks down in Florida haven't heard from Washington in a while. And they are very worried about this unnerving silence. You assume that Land doesn't take place 3 years into the future, despite expositional dialoge to the contrary. You can say what you want about this but those are not throwaway lines - those lines are there to indiciate a passage of time. Nobody in the audience cares if the car mechanic had a rough 2,5 years prior to the apocalypse and thus did not service a car for that amount of time - upon which there's then 0,5 years of a zombie apocalypse - totalling the 3 years mentioned in his dialoge. But this is what you assume. I don't assume it, I simply don't see any definitive evidence for it. The mechanic or bum (whatever he is, because not even who this guy actually is is clear at all) just defends himself from Riley's insinuation of theft by making a comment about him not having driven a car out of the city in 3 years. What does this supposedly prove? Maybe he lived all his life in the city, like Slack (who has never been out of the city in her whole life!), and he hasn't driven out in the said period of time. Where is the impossibility in this? You assume the newspaper was actually indoors until such a time that dramatic events called for it to appear outside so that we could see it. I don't assume it, I just offer it as another explanation, just as plausible as the windswept newspaper being there the whole time. Again, where is the supposed impossibility here? You assume that the characters spent years in their bunker, despite them not even knowing each other. I already told you why Sarah does not know McDermott and John very well: she does not like them much to begin with. She thinks they are basically parasites, taking advantage of the shelter and leeching off of its supplies while taking minimal risks themselves. She even tells them what she thinks of them to their faces when she first visits their living quarters. She only starts to like them and take an interest in them AFTER she is nearly shot in cold blood by Rhodes' orders and they save her. Both John and McDermott even had their hands on their guns ready to intervene just in case Rhodes had not called off Steel from executing his order and Sarah had not listened to John telling her to shut up and sit down. Had it not been for them, Sarah would have been shot. Rhodes was not kidding around. As for Rhodes, before Major Cooper died he was a subordinate and not in charge. No one knew how much of a maniac and an a-hole he really was. This only comes to the surface in full after he takes over command. Even his buddy Steel -as much of an a-hole as he himself is- is at first surprised at Rhodes' level ruthlessness (notice his shocked reaction when it becomes clear that Rhodes does mean what he says and is even willing to shoot Steel if he does not carry out his order.) You assume that just because the Florida guys haven't found any survivors in the direct vicinity surrounding them with their admittedly out-of-date technology - there are None. You keep assuming that these people's desperation and sense of doom is only founded on their experience in Florida. But these people were actually in communication with the very government that sent them down there in the first place. For them to be this worried about the situation is because they have very good reasons to. Even their own people in Washington have gone into shelters. Unless you want to think that both Washington and the people in Florida were all deranged and blowing things out of proportion, which is plain silly, it is very easy to perceive how catastrophic the situation is in the world of Day, and why these people in Florida are contemplating things like taking the helicopter and trying to find some other place to go, like for example John's proposal of going to an island and isolating themselves from the mainland. Some of these assumptions are quite absurd. At the same time you refuse to make the most basic assumptions; Like that when the car mechanic and Cholo refer to some kind of event 3 years ago, they're referring to the apocalypse. A reasonable assumption. It is exposition after all. A reasonable assumption, but it can also be explained by other reasonable assumptions. Can you prove that Cholo wasn't already working for Kaufman before the zombie outbreak? Can you prove that the mechanic/bum guy hasn't been living in that city all his life and that he really hasn't driven a car out of the city in that period of time? You also refuse to assume that just as there are survivors in a bunker in Day, totally cut off from the world, that there are survivors elsewhere. Also a reasonable assumption. I don't refuse to assume it, in fact I have been saying all along that in Washington there's evidence of other survivors hiding in bunkers as well, but I refuse to entertain the absurd idea that in a hopeless devastated apocalyptic world like Day there could possibly be sophisticated thriving outposts like the one we see in Land still around, specially considering that even the government itself has been forced into shelters. And even more absurd to consider that both Washington (which is hardly far away from Pennsylvania) and the people down in Florida are somehow miraculously oblivious to the existence of such places, even after news broadcasts had already reported their existence. I could go on, but you get the point. Occam's Razor. The reason I don't bother arguing your points anymore is because all your points are extraordinary assumptions based on nothing more than... Your whims, I think? They are logical deductions based on things shown and implied by the movies.

[EvilNed]

Occam's razor. There, I countered all of your arguments. Stuff like this; I don't assume it, I simply don't see any definitive evidence for it. Is just crazy. It's exposition. Apocalypse was three years ago. That's why that line is there. If you're gonna nitpick this line, I'm gonna nitpick the newspaper. Your assumptions regarding it make no sense. Occam's razor. Your theories are based on wild assumptions that rely on a whole lot of nonsense. They are logical deductions based on... inigo-montoya_that-word.jpg

[shootemindehead]

JFP, You're starting with a conclusion and trying to come up with theories to fit it. You're supposed to do it the other way around.

[JDP]

Occam's razor. There, I countered all of your arguments. That hardly counters anything, as you have barely presented any counterarguments, all of which have been countered in their turn, by the way. In fact, Occam's Razor is on my side, not yours. You have presented few arguments that have been very easily answered, all based on things we can see, imply and/or deduce from these movies. Stuff like this; Is just crazy. It's exposition. Apocalypse was three years ago. That's why that line is there. If you're gonna nitpick this line, I'm gonna nitpick the newspaper. Your assumptions regarding it make no sense. Show us any part of the movie that very clearly, unambiguously and straigthforwardly says "the apocalypse was three years ago"? The two quotes that mention years in the movie are vague enough to allow room for interpretation. The newspaper page in Day is an old printed piece of paper for which we have zero information whatsoever about its whereabouts right before we see it on the streets being swept by the wind. Where did it come from? Prove to us that it has been on the streets all this time as opposed to, say, just a week ago before they payed a visit to the city? Put that "Occam's Razor" mantra to actually work and see if you can come up with any actual answers. While you are at it, try to also apply it to these questions that still remain totally unanswered: 1- If the outposts of Land are still around by the time of Day then explain how come nobody in Washington or Florida seems to be aware of their existence? 2- If you answer that Rhodes & company are aware that the outposts of Land are still around, then explain why didn't they use their existence to stick it to Logan's face when he challenges them to find a safe place to go to, and instead we see them shut up and swallow their pride as if the impertinent doc is actually right? 3- If you try to argue that they were not aware of them, then explain how in blazes all of them failed to notice their existence from the news broadcasts? Are we seriously expected to believe that no one in Washington and Florida heard these public reports from the mass media? 4- If you try to argue that none of them heard the reports, then explain how come Washington has totally failed to notice such outposts on their own? Are we expected to believe that Washington can establish communications with people all the way down in Florida but bizarrely enough can't do the same with right next door Pennsylvania? 5- Explain how come the US government has been forced to go into shelters and can hardly maintain even its own communication networks anymore, yet paradoxically enough private crooks like Kaufman can still maintain cities with veritable armies of mercenaries, high tech weapons and communications, including even being able to build armored vehicles with computers, radio, fireworks, machine guns and long range rockets? 6- Explain why in the world of Land money still very much "talks" and people are even willing to kill for it and all it can still buy, while in the world of Day it is quite unimportant and instead trying to survive is the real priority? Note: Rickles and others JOKING about "not getting paid" does not count; they are all obviously jesting due to Steel's sarcastic remark of "not being paid enough to work in a fucking loony bin" after Logan's seemingly bizarre answer. Cholo, on the other hand, is definitely not "jesting" when he threatens to blast Fiddler's Green if he is not paid the money he thinks he deserves. Kaufman is not "jesting" when he takes bags of money with him while trying to escape the city. None of the rich folks are "jesting" when they pay for luxurious apartments and go on shopping sprees. And so on. The world of Land still is a very much money-influenced place. The survivors in the city are still strongly divided by economic classes. The world of Day is definitely not. Trying to stay alive is the priority now for survivors. 7- Explain why the overrun zombie city in Day looks quite decayed, including rusting cars and totally decomposed corpses down to their bare bones, while in Land the zombie overrun locations look in better shape? 8- Explain why is it that some characters in Land can be so paradoxically ignorant about the zombies, like for example not knowing how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, if they have really been living for 3 years in the same totally apocalyptic world that we see in Day, where no one ignores such a thing anymore? The above list are many of the problems one has to face if one chooses to believe that Land can somehow happen after Day. Occam's razor. Your theories are based on wild assumptions that rely on a whole lot of nonsense. They are based on things plainly seen and implied in the movies. The fact that you can't seem to come up with any solid counterarguments tells me that they are far from nonsense. - - - Updated - - - JFP, You're starting with a conclusion and trying to come up with theories to fit it. You're supposed to do it the other way around. I start with what the movies show, and from there I derive the conclusion, as it should be. The still fairly functional world of Land does not look at all like it could logically come after the totally messed up world of Day. That simple.

[EvilNed]

That hardly counters anything, as you have barely presented any counterarguments, all of which have been countered in their turn, by the way. Bullshit. Here, let me show you several things I've said that you've ignored. Show us any part of the movie that very clearly, unambiguously and straigthforwardly says "the apocalypse was three years ago"? The two quotes that mention years in the movie are vague enough to allow room for interpretation. Occam's razor. Should we assume that the two references to "three years ago" are to the apocalypse, or to two seperate cases of some other irrelevant event that happened three years ago, such as the car mechanic guy going out of business and Cholo working for Kaufman a bit before the apocalypse? Occam's razor says I'm right. The newspaper page in Day is an old printed piece of paper for which we have zero information whatsoever about its whereabouts right before we see it on the streets being swept by the wind. Sorta like we have... you know... Zero information on a bunch of other things you assume? Like the communication between Washington and Florida? 1- If the outposts of Land are still around by the time of Day then explain how come nobody in Washington or Florida seems to be aware of their existence? As I've already stated, the Florida gang doesn't even know what's in their backyard. As for Washington, we as an audience never hear from them or their communication with Florida. We don't know at what time they ended. We know nothing. But you assume that they know everything. Bullshit. 3- If you try to argue that they were not aware of them, then explain how in blazes all of them failed to notice their existence from the news broadcasts? Are we seriously expected to believe that no one in Washington and Florida heard these public reports from the mass media? They probably did, however by then they were labelled as rescue stations. As I said, my take is that Fiddler's Green grew out of rescue stations. Since we don't know when the communication with Washington cut out - or even the details of their content - the rest is up for assumption (which is your forté, not mine...). 5- Explain how come the US government has been forced to go into shelters and can hardly maintain even its own communication networks anymore, yet paradoxically enough private crooks like Kaufman can still maintain cities with veritable armies of mercenaries, high tech weapons and communications, including even being able to build armored vehicles with computers, radio, fireworks, machine guns and long range rockets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia 6- Explain why in the world of Land money still very much "talks" and people are even willing to kill for it and all it can still buy, while in the world of Day it is quite unimportant and instead trying to survive is the real priority? I've never brought up the money issue. The money issue in Land is stupid. But as any catastrophe in history will tell you that money is just as useless in Day 2 as it is in Day 2002. So the presence of money in land is an anachronism no matter where in the timeline you put it. So this point is moot. 7- Explain why the overrun zombie city in Day looks quite decayed, including rusting cars and totally decomposed corpses down to their bare bones, while in Land the zombie overrun locations look in better shape? It's not. In Land the pavement and buildings show sign of neglect, something the buildings in Day do not. A skeleton is a sign of a zombie lunch. EDIT: Actually, upon further thought, I'd like to add that I think both movies feature equal amount of decay. But none more or less than the other. 8- Explain why is it that some characters in Land can be so paradoxically ignorant about the zombies, like for example not knowing how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, if they have really been living for 3 years in the same totally apocalyptic world that we see in Day, where no one ignores such a thing anymore? Did you miss the entire premise of Land, that people have grown accustoumed to the new reality and are living apart from the zombies? If you did, well... That's the premise. They are based on things plainly seen and implied in the movies. The fact that you can't seem to come up with any solid counterarguments tells me that they are far from nonsense. I'm beginning to suspect you've seen nothing more than the trailer to Land at this point... You did notice they were a group of survivors surrounded in a completely dead, desolated and abandoned city, right..?

[shootemindehead]

You did notice they were a group of survivors surrounded in a completely dead, desolated and abandoned city, right..? /\ This. Kauffman and co. control a building and a few streets below. The rest of the city is abandoned and empty. It's clear that they've corralled themselves into an area and spent time securing the outer areas. They've even set up electric fences, monitoring stations and various outposts, not to mention fashioned some bastardised form of a society, albeit a society that is have and have not to a vulgar level. Even the Living and dead have come to terms almost. It's stated that the dead don't bother coming around so much any more. They're happy enough in the outer burbs. Romero is making out that it's the humans that are infringing upon greater and greater areas of dead territory and the dead have had enough of it. The whole bloody film implies that this is a situation that has been built up over a long time.

[facestabber]

Whoa I missed some activity. In a nutshell, if Romero came on here and said Land is after Day, JDP would argue with him?

[JDP]

Bullshit. Here, let me show you several things I've said that you've ignored. Good, that would a be a first. Occam's razor. Should we assume that the two references to "three years ago" are to the apocalypse, or to two seperate cases of some other irrelevant event that happened three years ago, such as the car mechanic guy going out of business and Cholo working for Kaufman a bit before the apocalypse? Occam's razor says I'm right. Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is hardly infallible and is perfectly capable of being wrong: http://scienceblogs.com/developingin...theory-is-alm/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/inn...ams-razor3.htm Plus I can also come up with a reduction to simplicity kind of explanation for this case. Look: Cholo and the mechanic guy both worked for Kaufman 3 years ago quite before the zombie disaster, one was already one of his henchmen and the other was his mechanic. Very simple solution to two apparently separate incidents as being really simply the result of one: both men already worked for Kaufman before. Since neither you nor I have any further evidence on the subject of Cholo and the mechanic guy, neither one can prove which "Occam's Razor" solution is right or wrong here. Sorta like we have... you know... Zero information on a bunch of other things you assume? Like the communication between Washington and Florida? We know that they used to "talk to Washington all the time", that they are desperate to find any survivors, and to find a safe place to go to, don't we? That's a heck of a lot more than we know about a random newspaper that only gets like 5 seconds of screen time and -naturally- no dialogue whatsoever. So this is just another of your apples & oranges comparisons. As I've already stated, the Florida gang doesn't even know what's in their backyard. As for Washington, we as an audience never hear from them or their communication with Florida. We don't know at what time they ended. We know nothing. But you assume that they know everything. Bullshit. "Bullshit", as you say. The Florida gang know quite a lot about their "backyard". To the point that Miller can sarcastically "predict" it's all been yet "another waste of time", and John declare the city they just visited as "another dead place, like ALL THE OTHERS, you know". As for Washington's frequent communication with the Florida team: does it sound very logical to you that they NEVER thought even once to ask Washington how things were in other parts of the country? Does it sound logical to you that Washington would mysteriously neglect to inform them about huge pockets of survivors not that far away from them? So let me get this straight, the Florida team are desperate enough to do their own explorations to try to find any survivors and also to try to maintain communications, but at the same time they are unbelievably neglectful not to ask any of this extremely relevant stuff to their superiors? And their superiors are equally neglectful enough not to have the foresight to let them know about any of this very important information? Is this a Romero zombie film or a The Three Stooges short? They probably did, however by then they were labelled as rescue stations. As I said, my take is that Fiddler's Green grew out of rescue stations. Since we don't know when the communication with Washington cut out - or even the details of their content - the rest is up for assumption (which is your forté, not mine...). The broadcasts clearly describe them as outposts manned by people who are also raiding towns for supplies, "like outlaws". These are quite more than just rescue stations, which would be manned by the government, so they would know it is not their doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia Huh? What are you referring to? The article is quite big. I've never brought up the money issue. The money issue in Land is stupid. But as any catastrophe in history will tell you that money is just as useless in Day 2 as it is in Day 2002. So the presence of money in land is an anachronism no matter where in the timeline you put it. So this point is moot. It is not moot at all. It is very pertinent to the issue. Money "talks" in catastrophes too, as long as the infrastructure that works on and values the money still remains. The two World Wars, for example, were huge human catastrophes where millions upon millions of people lost their lives. Yet money continued to rule supreme all through and after. How can Land, then, take place after the total apocalyptic world of Day, where all form of organized society has collapsed and money no longer means much except for occasional jokes about past times, and yet have so much dependency on it? These are two totally different worlds. Land had to be from a time when money still mattered, despite how bad things were already getting. As we also see in Dawn, despite the quite bad situation that is already developing, money still had value (Peter and Flyboy take some of it from the mall's bank, just in case they might need it, and the bikers later are busy looting the rest.) It's not. In Land the pavement and buildings show sign of neglect, something the buildings in Day do not. A skeleton is a sign of a zombie lunch. EDIT: Actually, upon further thought, I'd like to add that I think both movies feature equal amount of decay. But none more or less than the other. It is. The only neglect shown in the Land buildings are some overgrown plants. That's pretty much it. And it still does not look like 3 years worth of it. The neglect in Day can be seen all over the streets, quite more than in Land: rusty dirty cars, plant debris, corpses, garbage, money & papers flying around, etc. And the skeleton in Day is not torn to pieces, as would be the case had it been the victim of zombies. The zombies are also not so meticulous eaters that they will clean up a whole body. Once they've had their share, they move on. Dr. Rausch in Dawn already points out that they leave quite a lot of "food" untouched in the body of their victims, enough for them to still be mobile when they come back as zombies. Did you miss the entire premise of Land, that people have grown accustoumed to the new reality and are living apart from the zombies? If you did, well... That's the premise. If that's supposedly the premise, then Romero completely missed the mark, as this movie does not succeed at all in conveying any such thing. The fact that even some of the characters can be so ignorant about the zombies actually argues the opposite of becoming "accustomed" to them. The people of Day show way more familiarity with them. Nobody needs to inform anybody what zombie bites do to people in Day. Every single instance of ignorance of this topic in Romero's movies happens in the ones that take place earlier than Day. Even in Dawn there still is ignorance of what exactly is it that a zombie bite does to a person. Just like Riley and his men, who have seen it many times due to their frequent confrontations with the zombies, Peter knows it better too because he has more experience dealing with these creatures and has seen what their bites do. Fran and Flyboy, on the other hand, are just starting to become "accustomed" to the zombies and therefore need to be informed about it. I'm beginning to suspect you've seen nothing more than the trailer to Land at this point... You did notice they were a group of survivors surrounded in a completely dead, desolated and abandoned city, right..? Let's see, I am the one who actually quotes from the dialogue and describes many things that happen in the movie, while not many posts ago you thought I was "making things up", and I am supposed to be the one who has only seen the trailer??? Did you also notice the "group of survivors" was HUGE? It is so big, in fact, that many of them do not even know each other at all despite the fact that some of them have even been living all their lives in this city (and I don't mean like Sarah and McDermott & John not being in very friendly terms with each other until a certain point in the movie, I mean that they have to be even introduced to one another because otherwise they would have no clue who each other were; YES, THAT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS CITY HAS!) This is nowhere even near the low level of survivors in Day. The world of Land looks like it still very well could have a future for humanity. The world of Day looks like anything but. - - - Updated - - - /\ This. Kauffman and co. control a building and a few streets below. The rest of the city is abandoned and empty. It's clear that they've corralled themselves into an area and spent time securing the outer areas. They've even set up electric fences, monitoring stations and various outposts, not to mention fashioned some bastardised form of a society, albeit a society that is have and have not to a vulgar level. Even the Living and dead have come to terms almost. It's stated that the dead don't bother coming around so much any more. They're happy enough in the outer burbs. Romero is making out that it's the humans that are infringing upon greater and greater areas of dead territory and the dead have had enough of it. The whole bloody film implies that this is a situation that has been built up over a long time. No way, watch it again. Riley and Charlie walk through a lot of the city and its checkpoints. This place is quite big, and it has a LOAD of people in it. Such a place is quite unthinkable in the world of Day. Had anything even remotely similar to this city existed in Day, rest assured that we would see Rhodes and his men very quickly flipping the bird at the scientists and leaving them behind in the bunker without any hesitation whatsoever and heading straight towards it. There are no such safe havens left around anymore in Day. - - - Updated - - - Whoa I missed some activity. In a nutshell, if Romero came on here and said Land is after Day, JDP would argue with him? It would be very interesting if he did. I would like to see him try to explain away many of these problems. Yes, I would argue with him. I would, of course, concede that that was his intention, after all he is the creator of both movies, but I would still argue that he did not do a good job trying to convey this idea. PS: Notice that in Romero's "original script" for Day he clearly says that it takes place "five years" after the outbreak: http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/dayofthedead.txt I can very easily believe that. If this is the case, then the 3 years since the outbreak in Land are no longer a problem. The correct chronological order is still maintained. There is no nitpick here.

[EvilNed]

Sorry, but I dont think youre making any sense. You!re also cherrypicking things and twisting every single event to fit your view of this while blatantly ignoring so many things in Land, while assuming to much about Day. (You also dont seem to know what expositional dialoge is) Also, you should read the original Day script. Land is based on it. I was gonna bring it up earlier, but hey. It has the same theme of people "building a new world with rich and poor" as Land and both are set years into the future.

[JDP]

Sorry, but I dont think youre making any sense. You!re also cherrypicking things and twisting every single event to fit your view of this while blatantly ignoring so many things in Land, while assuming to much about Day. Such as? It seems to me that it is you who generally lacks counterarguments and must come to quite mistaken sweeping generalizations like above. (You also dont seem to know what expositional dialoge is) You mean like this?: http://reelauthors.com/screenplay-co...l-dialogue.php Notice this: Always assume your reader is intelligent - they can often work things out for themselves. If you don't, you're doing them and yourself a disservice. If you clearly explain EVERYTHING, you're going to do yourself no favors with prodco readers. Strange, since you often demand just that level of detail, like for example: we must know everything that went on between Washington and the Florida team. You don't want to reach logical conclusions on your own about it from other details, like for example: the idea that they never talked even once about how the situation was in other parts of the country is quite unrealistic for a people so concerned with issues like finding survivors and safe places to go to. Or the fact that Rhodes simply cannot confront Logan about not really having a safe place to go to, which his facial expression and total silence speak louder than any words whenever he is asked the "where will you go, captain?" question. It is not difficult at all to deduce that Rhodes really has no knowledge whatsoever of any safe place to go to. Nor does anyone else in the team. Now, how exactly could they possibly have not known about the outposts of Land if they supposedly were still around? As I showed you, their existence was even reported by the mass media before they went off the air. We don't even need to bring forth the logical conclusion that Washington would also have informed them of such places anyway. Can we seriously entertain the thought that none of the Florida team members knew about these places? Also, you should read the original Day script. Land is based on it. I was gonna bring it up earlier, but hey. It has the same theme of people "building a new world with rich and poor" as Land and both are set years into the future. I already read it years ago. That 5 year since the zombies first appeared premise of the original script could apply to the shortened and modified Day version that was shot.

[facestabber]

The ZA would be much like a war zone. Here today, gone tomorrow. Some strong holds would remain. Some would fall. I'm sure that the Florida team was made aware of other possible "safe zones". The problem our Florida team faces is two fold. First of which is communications. They aren't working. What they knew may not remain accurate. The second is logistics of travel. A helicopter besides capacity has a point of no return. You go too far for a once perceived safe haven and its compromised you are in deep shit. Same goes for ground transport. Rhodes can't answer because they don't know anymore. Land was a steaming pile of crap IMO. But I read it as society trying to make an isolated comeback. Not a before scene of Day. The zombies in land are a part of what Romero wanted for his original Day script. A nuisance. Society was used to it. For crying out loud, people were window shopping. Humans had got past the fear and that would have taken a long time. They found a way to coexist and weren't concerned about fixing the epidemic or saving other people. Im typing this on a damn phone so I will close with I believe Land was considerably after day. But Romero's approach left much to be desired.

[EvilNed]

Such as? It seems to me that it is you who generally lacks counterarguments and must come to quite mistaken sweeping generalizations like above. You take quotes from Day and break them down to suit your theory. Then you do to the same to Land. The thing is, you have to add very long paragraphs to explain what these quotes "actually mean", when to everyone else it's quite obvious what they mean and there's no need to discuss it. The newspaper/TV-spot is another one. You accept a far fetched theory about a newspaper, despite it being nothing but a dramatic tool to get information across, but you dismiss that the TV-spots in Land fill the same dramatic role. Always assume your reader is intelligent - they can often work things out for themselves. If you don't, you're doing them and yourself a disservice. If you clearly explain EVERYTHING, you're going to do yourself no favors with prodco readers. And here you're doing it again. You linked to a site on expositional dialoge and clinged to the one quote that supports you. This is why a discussion with you is impossible. Try this instead; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative) Narrative exposition, or simply exposition, is the insertion of important background information within a story; for example, information about the setting, characters' backstories, prior plot events, historical context, etc. Strange, since you often demand just that level of detail, like for example: we must know everything that went on between Washington and the Florida team. Wrong. I admit and always have, that we know nothing about their communication. But the difference is, since I don't know what they talked about, I make no assumptions from it. You concoct wild theories from it. You think that becuase the characters do not Think there is anywhere to go, there is nowhere to go. This itself is a fallacy, since both you and I know the characters are not omniscient. I already read it years ago. That 5 year since the zombies first appeared premise of the original script could apply to the shortened and modified Day version that was shot. In the original Day script, the survivors have built up a new society, they're not looking for survivors and the higher classes are living comfortable away from the zombies. Just like in Land. - - - Updated - - - Land was a steaming pile of crap IMO. But I read it as society trying to make an isolated comeback. Not a before scene of Day. The zombies in land are a part of what Romero wanted for his original Day script. A nuisance. Society was used to it. For crying out loud, people were window shopping. Humans had got past the fear and that would have taken a long time. They found a way to coexist and weren't concerned about fixing the epidemic or saving other people. Im typing this on a damn phone so I will close with I believe Land was considerably after day. But Romero's approach left much to be desired. That's how it was meant to be read. But many aspect of it are retarded. Like the money.