Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[sandrock74]

JDP, you are making huge assumptions (although that's not surprising) about the zombie apocalypse beginning in PA. Just because the movie happened to take place there doesn't mean is all started there. It was said on the various news reports that the entire eastern seaboard was under virtual siege and it was rapidly spreading west, to the Mississippi river. Pittsburgh in a ways inland from the eastern seaboard, hence it could not have started there and spread east, then come back and continue westward. As Night is presented to us, there is absolutely no proof things began in the area of Pittsburgh; that's just where the movie took place, so we, the viewers, experience the event with the main characters of the film. No one knows where it started or how it began.

[JDP]

As I said, this would of course vary locally. People fleeing to Canada to take a chance and see if it's better there, defecting police planning to go to an island, a scientist proposing to drop atomic bombs on the big cities to get rid of as many zombies as possible, the media going off the air, small armies of gun-toting motorized looters pillaging anything on their path... Dawn already paints a bleak picture of the US on a straight course to collapse. As Roger says: "They got enough in their hands." It is more than just local incidents, it's a national crisis. By the time of Day things have even gotten worse. Dawn showed many police officers defecting, they are also a federal institution. When a relay station in Missouri burns down, how are you gonna repair it if you're in D.C. if all of your Missouri boys have been eaten or fled the coup? Yes, indeed, but that's in fact the point. The government itself is having a heck of a lot of trouble trying to maintain something as relatively simple as this, because as your above example illustrates, the infrastructure that maintained such things before has now been severely affected. So for a private entrepreneur like Kaufman to have an easier time to do such things, and even more complicated ones like maintaining large armies or even building complex war machines sounds a bit too far fetched. Had Kaufman's outpost been something more rudimentary, like Alexandria, Woodbury, or the prison in TWD I would be the first one admitting that there wouldn't be much of a problem here. Again, that would vary from place to place. Some were worse off, some were better off. There is nothing uniform you can apply to the entire spectrum. The only thing that IS certain is that one of the greatest empires ever collapsed and smaller local kingdoms emerged in the power vacuum. As in Land. Yes, but unlike Land the local kingdoms were not better at keeping things running than the collapsed empire. It took several centuries to get back on track. It's a film. All dialogue exists for a purpose. Yes, but unfortunately in the case of the dialogue in question, it is a bit vague. Also, notice that driving a car out of the city is hardly something that the zombie situation has put a stop to. Riley himself wants to do just that, the zombie problem outside notwithstanding. So the "mechanic" saying such a thing as not having driven out of the city in 3 years does not necessarily ring "zombie-situation" bells. That would certainly be the case if going out of the city in a car was out of the question. But I do understand your point, and I have not denied that it very much can be interpreted like you prefer to interpret it (two 3 year references = likely points at the zombie crisis), and it likely makes more sense that way. But it is not the only choice. Had those bits of dialogue been more specific, they would not allow for any other interpretation. Very well and then I will nitpick the decay rate of a newspaper. You could, if you could also prove its whereabouts all this time. Keep in mind it is an inanimate object devoid of any character, personality, mentality, will and emotions. It can't move by itself, it can't take decisions on its own, it can't convey any ideas to anyone except for what is printed on it. It is a heck of a challenge to try to derive any deductions whatsoever about it, other than it is an old newspaper being swept by the wind in a desolate city. Incorrect. The Roman empire could not defend all of it's territory, which is part of the reason it collapsed. Many places improved and stabilized from a security point-of-view when formation of localized kingdoms emerged. For instance, the cementation of a gothic kingdom in Italy put an end to many instances of succession wars within the Roman Empire. In any case, the point is irrelevant since the point is that in a power vacuum other states can emerge. The Goths were notoriously inept rulers when compared to the Romans. They spent a lot of their time fighting each other for power. So were all the other "barbarian" tribes (Vandals, Franks, Huns, etc.) who were largely responsible for the collapse of the empire to begin with. They were great warriors (the Romans in fact had been employing them as mercenaries in their armies), but as rulers and administrators they did not have the talent of the Romans and other more civilized peoples from the Mediterranean world. Under their control such things as aqueducts and roads fell in disrepair and forced the populace to have a harder time to have access to water and transportation routes. This was not an improvement over the more efficient Roman empire. - - - Updated - - - jdp you truly are unique. Even one of your Dumber and I mean truly dumb theories that a complex machine like dead reckoning is impossible to build "later on". So according to your truly dumb theories it is perfectly logical that a private crook like Kaufman can have the resources and manpower at his disposal to maintain cities, armies and build complex machines with computers, radio, fireworks, machine guns and long range rockets, but somehow the US government with its way larger resources is hiding in bunkers and can no longer even keep its communication network going on? I thought that since you were the first to bring up TWD as a comparison that you would have learned something about this by its way more realistic portrayal of such a situation. Mankind just up and quits huh? At first you couldn't handle Land being 3 years in. You got proved wrong by the man that made the movie. No need to address this because I'm sure you saw a piece of cotton in day with some new evidence of decay. Hey cool idea, post your forensics degree with emphasis on clothes decay in the zombie apocalypse. Romero can think what he wants, but the fact is that the way he made these two movies he totally failed in conveying any such thing. And regarding the degree of decay of the zombies of Day when compared to those of all his other zombie movies, including Land, I am not the only one who has easily noticed this detail by any means. A university professor of Film Studies who has written an entire book devoted to George Romero's films has easily pointed out the fact, for example: Following the caption, "Some Time Ago", black and white images appear under the opening credits depicting the beginning of the zombie plague with voice-overs repeating lines from earlier films. Then the screen changes to a blue filter image depicting a world where the zombies control the outer perimeters of civilization. A caption appears, "Today". Since the zombies appear in various stages of decomposition,the suggestion is that this contemporary brave new world OCCUPIES A TIME SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE END OF DAWN OF THE DEAD AND THE BEGINNING OF DAY OF THE DEAD, WHOSE ZOMBIES (with the exception of "Bub") APPEAR IN MORE ADVANCED STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION. Land of the Dead occupies a cinematic parallel world to those of the earlier films, unlike Diary of the Dead, which moves its action back to the very beginning of Night of the Living Dead. Romero has moved away from a linear chronological depiction of events towards a narrative reflecting different movements paralleling the ones he depicted in his earlier zombie trilogy. ---- Tony Williams, The Cinema of George A. Romero: Knight of the Living Dead, page 185. Columbia University Press, 2015. https://books.google.com/books?id=W3...20DEAD&f=false And then we move on to this goofy notion that Romero created Land of Dead with a "fairly" safe world outside Fiddlers. Wtf is the point of anyone staying in Fiddlers under Kaufmans rule. How the hell could a movie that's supposed to terrify us about a world full of zombies work if it's safe? Excuse me "relatively safe". You are not a very good observer, are you? Even one of the major characters in the film persistently WANTS to leave the city in a simple car and try his luck out there to find a better place. Foxy and Cholo don't see any problem whatsoever in cruising all the way to Cleveland in a car without a roof. Kaufman does not seem to be very worried about escaping the zombie invasion of his city in a limo. People are totally free to leave the city whenever they please. Can you really be this unperceptive not to notice any of this? The world of Land does not even come across as dangerous as that of Dawn, where the zombie situation has gotten bad enough that only large groups of armed survivors dare to venture outside anymore. Example: the biker army openly defies the zombies and continues its on-the-road looting rampage quite unimpaired, but these guys are armed to the teeth and there's a bunch of them, otherwise they too would have been dead meat by now. So let alone than the more dangerous, desolate and zombie-infested world of Day. As long as you keep away from zombie towns and cities in Land, the danger is not that great. The characters in the movie venture outside the city in vehicles rather casually as long as they don't have to go into zombie towns. You should seek out Romero and beat him up for failing you. If he just stopped with Day you'd live happily ever after. But it seems you made this revelation of yours at a nerd convention, got challenged and hurt feelings, and now are on a mission of delusion. Romero came back to do Land. Decided not to set it between Night and Day. Gave us a 3 year timeframe of Land. But you will once again ignore that and talk about wardrobe 20 years prior, complex dead reckoning and the safe zombie filled world outside Fiddlers. You need to yell at George for not meeting your wardrobe standards in a world and universe that he created. And berate him over the technology of dead reckoning because as we all know no engineers survived. How dare George have an idea of how society may rebuild in the universe he created. You know what I'm pissed at George now too. I will tell you what. I met Nicotero last year and have an opportunity to in a couple months. I will ask him and report is answer either way. I told you, one thing are Romero's intentions and another one are how his movies actually come across. Sometimes he totally misses the mark and therefore they can be nitpicked. A private crook being able to sustain such an advanced society that can even produce such complex machines as Dead Reckoning would be an anachronism in a post-Day world where even the very government and its infrastructure has collapsed. Again, take notes from the very show (TWD) that you brought up, which handles such a situation much more realistically. That university professor who wrote a whole book on Romero's movies, which I quoted above, points out the obvious difference between the more decayed zombies of Day and the usually "fresher" looking zombies of Land and the other movies. So keep on fantasizing that I am the only one who has noticed such obvious things. You can also read many of that movie's reviews out there that also point out the same. The world of Day looks more decayed than any of the other Romero movies. The fact that you are not very perceptive to notice such things does not mean that others have failed to notice them.

[EvilNed]

By the time of Day things have even gotten worse. Absolutely, but obviously some places would be worse off than others. I'm sure you can understand that. Yes, indeed, but that's in fact the point. The government itself is having a heck of a lot of trouble trying to maintain something as relatively simple as this, because as your above example illustrates, the infrastructure that maintained such things before has now been severely affected. I'm gonna stop you right there, maintaining cross country infrastructure in a deteriorating world is not "simple". People hired to maintain and fix them would defect to protect their families or save their own hides. Where would they go? Why not take up shelter in Kaufman's new rescue station and offer my services to him in exchange for food and protection instead? Yes, but unlike Land the local kingdoms were not better at keeping things running than the collapsed empire. It took several centuries to get back on track. That would of course vary locally and on what you meant by "running things". If you mean by "running things", keeping aqueducts open then I might equate that to "keeping hospitals open", which neither the government OR Kaufman could do. So again, that would vary locally. Some places were better off, some others. If you were a Frankish peasant toiling your land and the roman empire did fuck all to protect you against saxon raids, you'd be quite thankful that Frankish guy stepped in with his army and annexed your county, offering protection in exchange for taxes. Some places were actually better off. Yes, but unfortunately in the case of the dialogue in question, it is a bit vague. Also, notice that driving a car out of the city is hardly something that the zombie situation has put a stop to. Riley himself wants to do just that, the zombie problem outside notwithstanding. So the "mechanic" saying such a thing as not having driven out of the city in 3 years does not necessarily ring "zombie-situation" bells. Stop avoiding the question. Answer it or concede that you can't. What do these two lines mean in the context of the film? They are NOT throwaway lines. They are NOT there by accident. If they don't refer to the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, what do they refer to, that is relevant information to the viewer? You could, if you could also prove its whereabouts all this time. Why? You can't prove the contents of the discussion between Washington and the Scientists - yet you place such high stock on it, so I feel that's an unfair demand from you. The Goths were notoriously inept rulers when compared to the Romans. They spent a lot of their time fighting each other for power. So were all the other "barbarian" tribes (Vandals, Franks, Huns, etc.) who were largely responsible for the collapse of the empire to begin with. They were great warriors (the Romans in fact had been employing them as mercenaries in their armies), but as rulers and administrators they did not have the talent of the Romans and other more civilized peoples from the Mediterranean world. Irrelevant, I pointed out to you that in a power vacuum, smaller states that provide a better local stability can arise. As happened in Land. I'd also argue that you don't seem to know a lot about the dark ages, overall, but that would be veering a bit off topic...

[JDP]

JDP, you are making huge assumptions (although that's not surprising) about the zombie apocalypse beginning in PA. Just because the movie happened to take place there doesn't mean is all started there. It was said on the various news reports that the entire eastern seaboard was under virtual siege and it was rapidly spreading west, to the Mississippi river. Pittsburgh in a ways inland from the eastern seaboard, hence it could not have started there and spread east, then come back and continue westward. As Night is presented to us, there is absolutely no proof things began in the area of Pittsburgh; that's just where the movie took place, so we, the viewers, experience the event with the main characters of the film. No one knows where it started or how it began. The assumption or suspicion is based on the fact that all the early accounts of the zombies we hear about in the movie come from locals, who before these events had not heard about any zombies anywhere: 1- Judy and Tom hear "the first reports" and go to the house to seek shelter 2- The Coopers get attacked and their car is turned over, they escape and find their way to the house 3- Barbara and Johnny encounter the cemetery zombie, resulting in Johnny's death and Barbara's escape to the house 4- Ben encounters zombies at the diner, escapes in the truck and ends up in the house Later on a local TV station gives more reports, including one by Dr. Grimes, being interviewed in person at the station, where he says that at the university cold room a cadaver was observed to come back to life "early this morning". By the time of these night broadcasts the zombie plague seems to have been spreading and is also being reported elsewhere. - - - Updated - - - Absolutely, but obviously some places would be worse off than others. I'm sure you can understand that. The places that would be better off would be those that have lower population density, thus less zombies. Not exactly what we see in Kaufman's case. Kaufman is in fact in the middle of such places as where Dr. Rausch from Dawn wants to drop atomic bombs to try to get rid of as many zombies as possible. I'm gonna stop you right there, maintaining cross country infrastructure in a deteriorating world is not "simple". People hired to maintain and fix them would defect to protect their families or save their own hides. Where would they go? Why not take up shelter in Kaufman's new rescue station and offer my services to him in exchange for food and protection instead? It is a much simpler task than having to maintain armies, droves of survivors, building complex machines, etc. Plus at this time the government would not be simply sending civilians under contract to take care of such problems, but also soldiers. That would of course vary locally and on what you meant by "running things". If you mean by "running things", keeping aqueducts open then I might equate that to "keeping hospitals open", which neither the government OR Kaufman could do. So again, that would vary locally. Some places were better off, some others. If you were a Frankish peasant toiling your land and the roman empire did fuck all to protect you against saxon raids, you'd be quite thankful that Frankish guy stepped in with his army and annexed your county, offering protection in exchange for taxes. Some places were actually better off. Kaufman's men did provide medicines to the citizens, though. The Franks themselves were "barbarian" invaders. Stop avoiding the question. Answer it or concede that you can't. What do these two lines mean in the context of the film? They are NOT throwaway lines. They are NOT there by accident. If they don't refer to the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, what do they refer to, that is relevant information to the viewer? Who is avoiding it? I keep addressing it and you just keep on pretending that it has not. In the case of the "mechanic", seems like an excuse to defend himself from Riley's accusation of theft (he is accusing him of having had something to do with the disappearance of his car.) You could interpret it as also having something to do with the zombie situation, though it's quite unclear how, because other characters seem to have no problem whatsoever driving cars out of the city despite the zombie situation. What is it about the 3 years, then, that could possibly have prevented this guy from taking a car and driving it out of the city? Should we conclude that by force it has to be a reference to the zombies? Really? Then how come the other characters can take cars out of the city? Zombies do NOT necessarily = you can't drive a car out of the city since 3 years ago. In the case of Cholo, it could have to do with how long the zombie thing has been around or it could also have to do with how long Cholo has been working for Kaufman regardless of the zombie thing. Why? You can't prove the contents of the discussion between Washington and the Scientists - yet you place such high stock on it, so I feel that's an unfair demand from you. No, I can't, but it can be easily seen how interested and preoccupied the survivors were about the subject of finding other survivors. Would they have missed such an opportunity to inquire about it to other people they were in contact with? But how does one deduce anything about the newspaper, though? What interests and preoccupations can a newspaper possibly have? It's an inanimate object devoid of any such human traits. It can't even move on its own. Irrelevant, I pointed out to you that in a power vacuum, smaller states that provide a better local stability can arise. As happened in Land. I'd also argue that you don't seem to know a lot about the dark ages, overall, but that would be veering a bit off topic... Most historians do not agree with this. The consensus among them is that the fall of the Roman empire did not make things easier or more stable by any means, but the opposite.

[EvilNed]

The places that would be better off would be those that have lower population density, thus less zombies. Not exactly what we see in Kaufman's case. Kaufman is in fact in the middle of such places as where Dr. Rausch from Dawn wants to drop atomic bombs to try to get rid of as many zombies as possible. That would be a factor to consider (among others), but as I pointed out - that would vary from place to place. Circumstances would vary. It is a much simpler task than having to maintain armies, droves of survivors, building complex machines, etc. Plus at this time the government would not be simply sending civilians under contract to take care of such problems, but also soldiers. Not if you're in D.C., the arrays are in Missouri and everyone has defected. In fact, I'd argue it'd be one of the things you wouldn't prioritize at all when you find yourself with dwindling manpower. Kaufman's men did provide medicines to the citizens, though. Handing out pills does not equal to "Fully functional healthcare facilities." I doubt Kaufman had a pharmacy or a chemist lab... The Franks themselves were "barbarian" invaders. Irrelevant, they still took over the roman infrastructure and managed it quite capably in the dark ages. I'm sure you've heard of Charles Martel, Pippin and Charlemagne. Furthermore, it is also irrelevant because the point I was getting across is that in a power vacuum, other more stabile societies can form. Who is avoiding it? I keep addressing it and you just keep on pretending that it has not. Incorrect. You cannot provide an answer relevant to the story about what those lines mean. I don't want speculation on this guys life story (which is highly irrelevant in the context of the movie), I want a concrete answer to a concrete question and the question is; What do these lines mean within the context of the movie? In the case of Cholo, it could have to do with how long the zombie thing has been around or it could also have to do with how long Cholo has been working for Kaufman regardless of the zombie thing. Highly irrelevant in the context of a post-apocalyptic setting. No further context is provided for Cholo and Kaufman's supposed pre-apocalyptic business deals, we can't assume that they have one. So answer the question or concede that you cannot. No, I can't, but it can be easily seen how interested and preoccupied the survivors were about the subject of finding other survivors. Would they have missed such an opportunity to inquire about it to other people they were in contact with? But how does one deduce anything about the newspaper, though? What interests and preoccupations can a newspaper possibly have? It's an inanimate object devoid of any such human traits. It can't even move on its own. So you admit that your argument is based on nothing but wild speculation, very good. Thank you. I'll drop the newspaper now, I don't care about it at all. Most historians do not agree with this. The consensus among them is that the fall of the Roman empire did not make things easier or more stable by any means, but the opposite. If you want to discuss the dark ages, we can open up a thread about it, but let me just say that you're not being fair in your description about what pre- and post-Roman Europe looked like. To most citizens, the shift was undetecteable. Still gotta pay those god damn taxes.

[sandrock74]

[QUOTE=JDP;314160]The assumption or suspicion is based on the fact that all the early accounts of the zombies we hear about in the movie come from locals, who before these events had not heard about any zombies anywhere: 1- Judy and Tom hear "the first reports" and go to the house to seek shelter 2- The Coopers get attacked and their car is turned over, they escape and find their way to the house 3- Barbara and Johnny encounter the cemetery zombie, resulting in Johnny's death and Barbara's escape to the house 4- Ben encounters zombies at the diner, escapes in the truck and ends up in the house Later on a local TV station gives more reports, including one by Dr. Grimes, being interviewed in person at the station, where he says that at the university cold room a cadaver was observed to come back to life "early this morning". By the time of these night broadcasts the zombie plague seems to have been spreading and is also being reported elsewhere. - - - Updated - - - You're still making huge assumptions. No one said anywhere that things began in/around Pittsburgh, which is what you have decided. Again, we (the viewers) are experiencing this crisis along with the main characters and they just happen to be in rural Pittsburgh. Clearly, to become so widespread in such a fairly short amount of time, it's happening over a wide area all at once. Think of a metaphorical nuke being dropped and the resultant fallout; that's the impression the reports are giving. It's happening all along the eastern seaboard, which covers LOTS of miles! That didn't start in the sticks of Pittsburgh; we're just seeing the results of it happening in that area along with Ben and crew.

[AcesandEights]

Dat confirmation bias, though.

[JDP]

That would be a factor to consider (among others), but as I pointed out - that would vary from place to place. Circumstances would vary. The denser populated areas are consistently portrayed as the most affected in this series, for obvious reasons. Kaufman's outpost is in fact paradoxically located in one of these more troublesome densely populated areas. Not if you're in D.C., the arrays are in Missouri and everyone has defected. In fact, I'd argue it'd be one of the things you wouldn't prioritize at all when you find yourself with dwindling manpower. It is much easier to maintain an already standing infrastructure than have to begin one from scratch. If things got so bad that the government could no longer do this, it goes without saying that a private entrepreneur like Kaufman would have even more trouble achieving anything like it. But it actually goes quite beyond this. He has even manufactured a very complex war machine! Handing out pills does not equal to "Fully functional healthcare facilities." I doubt Kaufman had a pharmacy or a chemist lab... Much better than not supplying any medicines at all. Irrelevant, they still took over the roman infrastructure and managed it quite capably in the dark ages. I'm sure you've heard of Charles Martel, Pippin and Charlemagne. Furthermore, it is also irrelevant because the point I was getting across is that in a power vacuum, other more stabile societies can form. It took centuries for Charlemagne's brief reign to arise. In fact, a very common definition of the "Dark Ages", or "Late Antiquity", or "Early Middle Ages" is the period between the fall of Rome and the reign of Charlemagne. Incorrect. You cannot provide an answer relevant to the story about what those lines mean. I don't want speculation on this guys life story (which is highly irrelevant in the context of the movie), I want a concrete answer to a concrete question and the question is; What do these lines mean within the context of the movie? You are the one trying to argue that this guy and what he says is somehow very relevant to the plot. Even if we accept this possibility, his statement being linked with the rising of the zombies is problematic at best: why would this be an impediment to drive a car out of the city? That is what his words would imply in this context. But we see no such problem throughout the movie. The appearance of zombies has NOT stopped cars from coming in and out of the city. In fact, Riley is looking for this stolen car to be able to drive out of the city. So how is the mechanic's statement very relevant regarding when the zombies first popped up? They could have been there 10 years prior to this scene for all that matters, the fact is that their presence would still not have stopped cars from being driven in and out of the city, since we can plainly see this activity still goes on without any problem. For this argument to really be incriminating, the presence of the zombies would have to be proven to have made driving a car out of the city something out of the question. But we see this is hardly the case. Highly irrelevant in the context of a post-apocalyptic setting. No further context is provided for Cholo and Kaufman's supposed pre-apocalyptic business deals, we can't assume that they have one. The quote is about their employer & employee relationship, which Cholo himself does not seem totally sure how long it's been going on since he mentions the 3 years as a question to Kaufman, and which at this point has tensions going on since Kaufman owes Cholo an undisclosed large amount of money. Kaufman turning Cholo down from Fiddler's Green is just the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Where does it say anywhere that this money issue between them in which the putative 3 year period is mentioned has to do with the zombies or when they first appeared? It is explained in the movie that the money that Kaufman owes Cholo is for being one of his goons and doing dirty work for him. This has to do with disposing of people, some of them even friends of Cholo, that Kaufman wanted out of his way. For all we know this could have been going on well before the zombies showed up, as it has no connection with them. So you admit that your argument is based on nothing but wild speculation, very good. Thank you. I'll drop the newspaper now, I don't care about it at all. It is based on very pertinent behavior we see the characters display. They care about the survivor situation. It is something that very much concerns them. Why wouldn't they be interested in feedback on the subject, then? Does it sound likely and according to their character that these people would never bother to inquire about it? They don't seem to be very concerned about the Democrats vs the Republicans, for example, so here one can easily very strongly doubt that this would be a subject matter that would come up very often to the surface during their frequent talks with Washington. One could very easily see how things like how to stop the zombies, better facilities, supplies, equipment, safe places and survivors would very often come up for discussion between them, though, since that is what they also keep talking and arguing about among themselves. We can easily tell what they are deeply concerned about. Now you tell me what possible logical conclusions can one derive from the "behavior" of an inanimate newspaper being casually swept by the wind, whose screen time is a measly 5 seconds or so, and has no "dialogue" whatsoever to boot? Comparing the behavior of human characters to a newspaper is not a very reasonable thing. If you want to discuss the dark ages, we can open up a thread about it, but let me just say that you're not being fair in your description about what pre- and post-Roman Europe looked like. To most citizens, the shift was undetecteable. Still gotta pay those god damn taxes. No way, in fact it led to more wars and the decline of urban centers: http://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. It took several centuries for the turmoil and instability left by the crumbled empire to subside and get back in better shape. - - - Updated - - - You're still making huge assumptions. No one said anywhere that things began in/around Pittsburgh, which is what you have decided. Again, we (the viewers) are experiencing this crisis along with the main characters and they just happen to be in rural Pittsburgh. Clearly, to become so widespread in such a fairly short amount of time, it's happening over a wide area all at once. Think of a metaphorical nuke being dropped and the resultant fallout; that's the impression the reports are giving. It's happening all along the eastern seaboard, which covers LOTS of miles! That didn't start in the sticks of Pittsburgh; we're just seeing the results of it happening in that area along with Ben and crew. The two earliest reports on the zombies we hear about in the movie come from Pennsylvania: Dr. Grimes' statement of what was observed "early in the morning" with a cadaver, and Judy and Tom's listening to the "first reports" and then going to the house. Not 100% proof, but pretty suspicious. No one seems to have heard of any zombies prior to this. All the other characters we see have encounters with them quite later on. There's also the report about the 7 slain people 2 days earlier, but this one has three fundamental problems that make it very doubtful. It sounds more like the media trying to make a connection between that earlier massacre and the zombies that for sure there's evidence of 2 days later. The sudden appearance of larger numbers of zombies in this movie is somewhat puzzling. They seem to be around only in a few places at first, enough for only a comparatively few number of people to have noticed them, but then later on they just start popping up everywhere all of a sudden. Confining ourselves to what we see in the movie, Barbara and Johnny drive all the way from Pittsburgh 3 hours and do not see anything suspicious until they arrive at the cemetery around eight o'clock PM, and then again it's only one of them they encounter. Yet we know that they were already around quite earlier because Judy, Tom and the Coopers already know of their existence. Dr. Grimes and his colleagues even know about their existence by early in the morning of that day. All of a sudden when the night comes there is an explosion of zombies everywhere being reported. Supposing that Dr. Grimes means something like 7 or 8 AM or so as "early in the morning", then it took like 13 or 14 hours for the zombies to all of a sudden become very visible all over the landscape.

[EvilNed]

The denser populated areas are consistently portrayed as the most affected in this series, for obvious reasons. Kaufman's outpost is in fact paradoxically located in one of these more troublesome densely populated areas. The only real dense population area that Romero ever explores in depth is Philly in Land, so you're wrong. It is much easier to maintain an already standing infrastructure than have to begin one from scratch. If things got so bad that the government could no longer do this, it goes without saying that a private entrepreneur like Kaufman would have even more trouble achieving anything like it. But it actually goes quite beyond this. He has even manufactured a very complex war machine! I'm not really sure what infrastructure you're referring to that he produced. If you watch the film you will see that most of the things they live off are scavenged - not manufactured. The sole exception would be Dead Reckoning and the electrical fence. Much better than not supplying any medicines at all. Uh, yeah, I guess, tho I don't see what that has to do with anything. It took centuries for Charlemagne's brief reign to arise. In fact, a very common definition of the "Dark Ages", or "Late Antiquity", or "Early Middle Ages" is the period between the fall of Rome and the reign of Charlemagne. If you want to discuss the Dark Ages, we can do that in another thread. As I pointed out, the analogy was simply to point out that in a power vacuum, other stabile societies could (and have) form. You are the one trying to argue that this guy and what he says is somehow very relevant to the plot. As I've already pointed out, all lines in films are there for a purpose. The purpose of a line like that is to give exposition. I've given you several chances to answer this question, but you can't - you keep ignoring it. The quote is about their employer & employee relationship, which Cholo himself does not seem totally sure how long it's been going on since he mentions the 3 years as a question to Kaufman, and which at this point has tensions going on since Kaufman owes Cholo an undisclosed large amount of money. As I pointed out, their pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are irrelevant in this post-apocalyptic depiction. It would be the ONLY reference to some pre-apocalyptic business arrangement and would be absurdly out of place.. This is simply not the case. It is based on very pertinent behavior we see the characters display. They care about the survivor situation. It is something that very much concerns them. Why wouldn't they be interested in feedback on the subject, then? Does it sound likely and according to their character that these people would never bother to inquire about it? We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make. Now you tell me what possible logical conclusions can one derive from the "behavior" of an inanimate newspaper being casually swept by the wind, whose screen time is a measly 5 seconds or so, and has no "dialogue" whatsoever to boot? Comparing the behavior of human characters to a newspaper is not a very reasonable thing. That it would decay within 6-9 months outdoors. If you want to discuss the Dark Ages, we can do that in another thread. As I pointed out, the analogy was simply to point out that in a power vacuum, other stabile societies could (and have) form.

[JDP]

The only real dense population area that Romero ever explores in depth is Philly in Land, so you're wrong. Not at all, we have survivors fleeing and avoiding densely populated areas, even a scientist proposing to drop atomic bombs in all major cities as a means of getting rid of the majority of the zombies. Dawn makes it very clear that the densely populated areas are the ones worst affected. I'm not really sure what infrastructure you're referring to that he produced. If you watch the film you will see that most of the things they live off are scavenged - not manufactured. The sole exception would be Dead Reckoning and the electrical fence. The infrastructure he has created can maintain armies of mercenaries, weapons, vehicles, fuel, electricity, workshops (to build Dead Reckoning & maintain it and all the other bunch of vehicles they have), communications, provide food, supplies and medicines for the population. On top of that his infrastructure can also even allow the citizens to still enjoy non-vital entertainment, like gambling, clubs, liquor, tobacco, prostitution. This guy is running at an efficiency level that the US government in Day can't even imagine bringing back at this point. They are already having a load of trouble even to just try to keep communications up and running. Uh, yeah, I guess, tho I don't see what that has to do with anything. That it is just another example of the things Kaufman can pull off, which not even the US government can by the time of Day. The government itself is hiding in bunkers, it is not in a position to be generously maintaining rescue stations that can dispense such things to survivors. If you want to discuss the Dark Ages, we can do that in another thread. As I pointed out, the analogy was simply to point out that in a power vacuum, other stabile societies could (and have) form. None of them as efficient and prosperous as the empire they replaced. It took centuries for things to get back to a better situation. As I've already pointed out, all lines in films are there for a purpose. The purpose of a line like that is to give exposition. I've given you several chances to answer this question, but you can't - you keep ignoring it. No, there's plenty of lines in any movie that are trivial, casual and/or coincidental. I have already answered this a bunch of times. The mechanic's line has its own purpose: he is defending himself from Riley's accusation of theft. He is not making a concise statement regarding anything about the zombies. It's about a car that has "disappeared" and he is being blamed for it. As I pointed out, their pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are irrelevant in this post-apocalyptic depiction. It would be the ONLY reference to some pre-apocalyptic business arrangement and would be absurdly out of place.. This is simply not the case. But how do you know that Kaufman and Cholo were not like this already before? Since their feud has NOTHING to do with the zombies how can you possibly rule out that it goes quite beyond their appearance? You are trying to force their business relationship on the zombies, but there is no proof of this anywhere in the movie. The business that they have at hand and ultimately is at the root of their strife is that of getting rid of PEOPLE (not zombies) that Kaufman wants out of his way. For all we know these guys have always been crooks, have known each other for years and been doing this kind of dirty business since before any zombies showed up. They are simply continuing business as usual regardless of the appearance of the zombie situation. Your request that it somehow has to be relevant to the zombie situation does not hold. Their business has nothing to do with zombies but with other people that they get rid of. We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make. We do know that they talked to Washington "all the time" before the long range communications ceased. We do know that Washington sent them to that facility to try to solve the zombie problem. We do know that the Florida team is concerned about their own safety and future. We do know that they are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any survivors around anymore. We do know that they feel that the equipment and supplies they have down there does not seem to be enough to cope with the task at hand. Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Does it look to you that these people have the time and inclination to be discussing any other things than what deeply worries and affects them? Or should we expect them instead to be very inclined to waste their communication time discussing trivial and irrelevant matters, like, for example, who would have won the Super Bowl if these damn zombies had not shown up? That it would decay within 6-9 months outdoors. But since we know nothing about the whereabouts of this newspaper except for the 5 second screen time it gets we have no idea if it should really still be around or not. Maybe it has only been swept around the streets of the desolate city for a week. Do you see the money in front of the bank as well? At an undetermined point in time it must also not have been there on the streets but somewhere inside. What makes you think the newspaper wasn't also somewhere indoors, or in some car, or in a trashcan and then through any of a large number of possible random events it was carried to the outside? Example of such a random event: one of the many wandering zombies accidentally knocks one of the many city trashcans over and it spills its contents on the streets. This newspaper was inside, protected from the weather all this time. Now it is free to be swept by the wind around the streets of the desolate city. The newspaper in Day is not any "character". It is simply an object. It has no will of its own, no desires, no worries, no personality, no behavior patterns, no emotions, etc.

[EvilNed]

Not at all, we have survivors fleeing and avoiding densely populated areas, even a scientist proposing to drop atomic bombs in all major cities as a means of getting rid of the majority of the zombies. Dawn makes it very clear that the densely populated areas are the ones worst affected. That would of course vary from place to place, as I'm sure you understand. The infrastructure he has created can maintain armies of mercenaries, weapons, vehicles, fuel, electricity, workshops (to build Dead Reckoning & maintain it and all the other bunch of vehicles they have), communications, provide food, supplies and medicines for the population. He scavenged all of those things, tho. The film makes that pretty clear - that they are living off the remains of the old world. So I'm still not really sure what you're referring to... That it is just another example of the things Kaufman can pull off, which not even the US government can by the time of Day. The government itself is hiding in bunkers, it is not in a position to be generously maintaining rescue stations that can dispense such things to survivors. You mean Kaufman can go out, bust open a pharmacy window, grab some pills and give to a kid? Yes, he can do that. So could anyone. None of them as efficient and prosperous as the empire they replaced. It took centuries for things to get back to a better situation. Depends on how and where you look at it. Open up a thread about it and we can discuss it further. But the point is, as I pointed out, that more stabile societies can form in the remnants of old ones. No, there's plenty of lines in any movie that are trivial, casual and/or coincidental. Incorrect, that's not how screenplays work. But how do you know that Kaufman and Cholo were not like this already before? I don't, it's just not relevant to the plot or the context of the film. Thus I can easily deduce that's not what Cholo's talking about. We do know that they talked to Washington "all the time" before the long range communications ceased. I'm just gonna quote myself as you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out all the things that you assume; We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make. But since we know nothing about the whereabouts of this newspaper except for the 5 second screen time it gets we have no idea if it should really still be around or not. You know what else we don't know? We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

[JDP]

That would of course vary from place to place, as I'm sure you understand. That's not how it is portrayed in the movie, as I'm sure you understand. He scavenged all of those things, tho. The film makes that pretty clear - that they are living off the remains of the old world. So I'm still not really sure what you're referring to... That not even the US government can do such things anymore. You mean Kaufman can go out, bust open a pharmacy window, grab some pills and give to a kid? Yes, he can do that. So could anyone. It's obviously not as simple as that, otherwise everyone would be doing it and would not need Kaufman for anything. Kaufman's outpost serves a purpose. The problem is that it can do this and so much more when not even the government can pull off so many of these things anymore. Depends on how and where you look at it. Open up a thread about it and we can discuss it further. But the point is, as I pointed out, that more stabile societies can form in the remnants of old ones. No, I am talking about what the consensus among historians is regarding this period in history. I already quoted it. This change was hardly for the better and in fact it ironically led to the decline of urban life, quite deadly for your intended analogy. It took centuries for things to improve again. Here, let me again quote it: http://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages Dark Ages, the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. Incorrect, that's not how screenplays work. Incorrect, screenplays have lots of less relevant matter. Not everything is vital. For example, Charlie saying "nice shooting" and Riley correcting him. Very trivial stuff, and it is there in the script nonetheless. Not everything that is written in a screenplay is relevant. I don't, it's just not relevant to the plot or the context of the film. Thus I can easily deduce that's not what Cholo's talking about. And how are the zombies relevant here? They aren't talking about anything that concerns them. They are talking about their business relationship, which regards getting rid of people that Kaufman deems undesirable. I'm just gonna quote myself as you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out all the things that you assume; We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make. I am going to quote myself as you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out all the things that we do know: We do know that they talked to Washington "ALL THE TIME" before the long range communications ceased. We do know that Washington sent them to that facility to try to solve the zombie problem. We do know that the Florida team is concerned about their own safety and future. We do know that they are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any survivors around anymore. We do know that they feel that the equipment and supplies they have down there does not seem to be enough to cope with the task at hand. Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Does it look to you that these people have the time and inclination to be discussing any other things than what deeply worries and affects them? Or should we expect them instead to be very inclined to waste their communication time discussing trivial and irrelevant matters, like, for example, who would have won the Super Bowl if these damn zombies had not shown up? You know what else we don't know? We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make. You know what else we do know?: We do know that they talked to Washington "ALL THE TIME" before the long range communications ceased. We do know that Washington sent them to that facility to try to solve the zombie problem. We do know that the Florida team is concerned about their own safety and future. We do know that they are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any survivors around anymore. We do know that they feel that the equipment and supplies they have down there does not seem to be enough to cope with the task at hand. Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Does it look to you that these people have the time and inclination to be discussing any other things than what deeply worries and affects them? Or should we expect them instead to be very inclined to waste their communication time discussing trivial and irrelevant matters, like, for example, who would have won the Super Bowl if these damn zombies had not shown up?

[EvilNed]

That's not how it is portrayed in the movie, as I'm sure you understand. The movies don't portray the whole picture, nor do they aim to. In fact, the only post-apocalyptic cities we ever see are Fort Meyers in Day and Philly in Land. That not even the US government can do such things anymore. Considering that the US government probably doesn't even exist by the time of Land, it'd be a tall order to try to get them to do anything... It's obviously not as simple as that, otherwise everyone would be doing it and would not need Kaufman for anything. Kaufman's outpost serves a purpose. The problem is that it can do this and so much more when not even the government can pull off so many of these things anymore. The lack of a government is not proof of anything. The collapse of a functioning government will always precede the collapse of organized society, and the former doesn't guarantee the latter at all - in fact I can't think of a single historical event where a government collapsed and nothing came after it. No, I am talking about what the consensus among historians is regarding this period in history. I already quoted it. This change was hardly for the better and in fact it ironically led to the decline of urban life, quite deadly for your intended analogy. It took centuries for things to improve again. Here, let me again quote it: http://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages Dark Ages, the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. If you start a thread on the dark ages, I will be right there with you to discuss that topic. The analogy I was making is that stabile societies formed in the remnants of the Roman Empire. No quote from a textbook will change the fact that there was a Frankish Kingdom and that it had cities. One of these cities was called Aachen, you can google it if you like. But if you want to discuss details on the dark ages; Start a new thread. Incorrect, screenplays have lots of less relevant matter. Not everything is vital. For example, Charlie saying "nice shooting" and Riley correcting him. Very trivial stuff, and it is there in the script nonetheless. Not everything that is written in a screenplay is relevant. Incorrect, that line tells us what Riley's views on violence are. It acts as a way to introduce his character. It's not trivial at all. And how are the zombies relevant here? It's a post-apocalyptic zombie film. ... Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Yes. From all of that, you cannot draw extensive conclusions considering that there is a lot we do NOT know. As I pointed out.

[JDP]

The movies don't portray the whole picture, nor do they aim to. In fact, the only post-apocalyptic cities we ever see are Fort Meyers in Day and Philly in Land. They do give a general idea of how bad the densely populated areas have become. To the point that even dropping atomic bombs on the big cities is proposed by a scientist in Dawn to get rid of most of them. Even the less populated areas have gotten quite bad, since the zombies do not seem to stay in the same places forever and eventually move around. The shopping mall area, for example, is not in the middle of a big city but in a more outlier area, yet more and more zombies make their way there every day. The bunker in Day is also not in the middle of a city but in a rural area, yet more and more zombies find their way there every day. Considering that the US government probably doesn't even exist by the time of Land, it'd be a tall order to try to get them to do anything... That's quite likely even worse. If they, with all the resources and capital at their disposal, have not been able to survive as a coherent, functional unit, what makes you think that privately manned outposts with much more limited resources and capital are going to fare so much better? The lack of a government is not proof of anything. The collapse of a functioning government will always precede the collapse of organized society, and the former doesn't guarantee the latter at all - in fact I can't think of a single historical event where a government collapsed and nothing came after it. Not "nothing", but obviously less efficient and advanced forms of organized society. We have a good example of this in TWD. These people are indeed able to survive and even form organized communities despite the government collapse, but they surely are not able to create something as powerful, advanced and efficient as that gone unified centralized government. They hope and aim for more basic survival and establishing more rudimentary societies, which are indeed quite possible. But Land goes a lot beyond this. If you start a thread on the dark ages, I will be right there with you to discuss that topic. The analogy I was making is that stabile societies formed in the remnants of the Roman Empire. No quote from a textbook will change the fact that there was a Frankish Kingdom and that it had cities. One of these cities was called Aachen, you can google it if you like. But if you want to discuss details on the dark ages; Start a new thread. No one is denying this, what is being pointed out is that for a good period of time following the collapse, these societies were not able to function at the same level as the now gone unified empire. It took several centuries for the new emerging societies and forms of government to get back on track. Incorrect, that line tells us what Riley's views on violence are. It acts as a way to introduce his character. It's not trivial at all. Why should it tells us that? So "nice shooting" is somehow "violent" but "good shooting" is not? "Nice shooting" means the exact same thing as "good shooting". Both words, "nice" and "good", in this context mean "skillful", "well executed". Riley's remark do not really make sense in this context, and it comes across more like him trying to pull Charlie's leg. It's a post-apocalyptic zombie film. The scriptwriter himself sees the zombies in his films as pretty much incidental, that they can be replaced with other dangerous things, like hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes, for example, and the gist remains. Yes. From all of that, you cannot draw extensive conclusions considering that there is a lot we do NOT know. As I pointed out. We can't derive exact detailed conclusions, but we do get a good idea that they must have talked about such relevant matters. It is quite unrealistic to think that they would have spent most of their communication time with Washington on more trivial matters than what deeply concerns them. If the characters did not care at all about any of these issues, I certainly would understand dismissing it as not being likely that they would talk about such matters.

[EvilNed]

They do give a general idea of how bad the densely populated areas have become. I'm not arguing that they give a general idea, but the leap from general idea to "everyone is dead everywhere" is a quite big one. The world is huge, for there not to spring up a outpost of human survivors here and there is quite unlikely. To go from 7 billion to absolute zero in a relatively short timespan is more probable than what you see in Land - money included. Humans are adept at adapting to enviroments - in fact it's what's gotten us this far. So yes, a general idea indeed, but situations would vary from place to place and from time to time even. That's quite likely even worse. If they, with all the resources and capital at their disposal, have not been able to survive as a coherent, functional unit, what makes you think that privately manned outposts with much more limited resources and capital are going to fare so much better? I don't put as much stock in the government as I think you are. I think a lot of people would abandon ship when they realized their families, loved ones or very own lives were at stake. Just take a look at the police officers in Dawn. For a government to function you need people who are willing to give up everything in order to service it - even people who might in such a situation compromise their loved ones. There might be remnants of the government here and there - the unit in Day surely is one - but I highly doubt the government by the time of Day - or Land - would be anything like you imagine it is. So when it comes down to it, I don't find it unlikely at all that the government would cease to exist within a short amount of time. Not "nothing", but obviously less efficient and advanced forms of organized society. We have a good example of this in TWD. These people are indeed able to survive and even form organized communities despite the government collapse, but they surely are not able to create something as powerful, advanced and efficient as that gone unified centralized government. They hope and aim for more basic survival and establishing more rudimentary societies, which are indeed quite possible. But Land goes a lot beyond this. All of these points are things that would vary from place to place and time to time. No one is denying this, what is being pointed out is that for a good period of time following the collapse, these societies were not able to function at the same level as the now gone unified empire. It took several centuries for the new emerging societies and forms of government to get back on track. My point is that stabile societies can form in a power vacuum, I've illustrated this point now so I will no drop it. Why should it tells us that? So "nice shooting" is somehow "violent" but "good shooting" is not? You have to include the context. This is how films and dialogue work. The scriptwriter himself sees the zombies in his films as pretty much incidental, that they can be replaced with other dangerous things, like hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes, for example, and the gist remains. But he didn't make a film about hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes. We can't derive exact detailed conclusions, but we do get a good idea that they must have talked about such relevant matters. It is quite unrealistic to think that they would have spent most of their communication time with Washington on more trivial matters than what deeply concerns them. If the characters did not care at all about any of these issues, I certainly would understand dismissing it as not being likely that they would talk about such matters. As I said, you do not know these things. We don't even know how much they talked, to whom or about what. We deduce what they'd LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, but we have no idea if there was time for off-the-record chitchat or even if the person on the other side knew anything. Maybe it was a scientist, stressed out of his ass, pulling 20 hour a day shifts and was wholly out of touch with what happened outside whatever complex he was in? This is just one of many scenarios that would prohibit any valuable transformation of off-the-record information.