Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[JDP]

You are making assumptions that not even the characters themselves are making. This is just silly. I disagree not only with your theory but I also think you're making things up that aren't in the film. Things that aren't in the film? Have you been paying attention to what McDermott and Sarah actually say on this topic? Here let me quote it for you: Rickles: How can that be, McDermott? There must be other groups like us. Somebody else must be tryin' to radio. Johnson: Yeah. What the hell is this? Maybe we are the only ones left. McDermott: I'm sure there's others. *this is the part of McDermott's statements that you are selectively trying to use, but you conveniently forget what follows a bit later, showing that he really doubts his own earlier statement* McDermott: ...But the fact is... the fact is, either we are the only ones left, or there's no one within range of my puny Second World War radio signals. After more careful consideration, McDermott now admits that it is very possible there is no one else left. There is no total conviction on his part on either possibility. The fact is that despite all his efforts, he can't establish communication with anyone any more. Now what Sarah says about other survivors in Washington, the ones that they used to communicate with: Sarah: You have to give us however long it takes! Look... there have to be survivors in Washington. They have more sophisticated shelters than this one. There have to be people in those shelters who know about us, who know where we are. With no radio contact, they'll come looking for us... So there you have it. Whatever survivors are left that they expect to establish contact with or who might come looking for them are holed up in shelters, just like them. Do not try to accuse me again of "making up things up that aren't in the film". Just because that other user above made that silly gratuitous accusation doesn't mean it is true. Instead pay attention to what they are saying and the implications of their statements, actions, attitudes, reactions, etc. and apply plenty of logic and common sense to it to derive conclusions. It is possible for different stages of civilization to exist in different parts of the world. The Egyptians cultivated land 3000 years before the Germans did. What you're doing is the equivalent of taking a snapshot of a neolithic german stone age tribe and adamantly stating that "it's obvious all human life is at the same stage of development". Human society doesn't work this way. Just because the people in Day are stuck in a bunker, doesn't mean the people of Fiddler's Green aren't holed up in a skyscraper. Your comparison in fact is very similar to what I said about survival and basic civilization more easily being achieved in hotter climates. Other than that, it is comparing apples and oranges. The people in Day are not stuck in a bunker for the hell of it or because they want to. It is because they haven't got many choices. Sure, they can leave if they want to, but as Logan keeps asking, "where will you go?". Don't you think that if pretty much the whole country had not become like Florida that these people would not be stupid enough to stay in such a danger zone and would actually pack their bags and move to a safer area to continue their work? Give these characters more credit. As Rhodes says, "I'm not down in this cave for my health, I'm down here on orders!" If they are there doing what they are doing is because their bosses in Washington considered it extremely important for this research to go on in an effort to try to stop the desperate zombie situation taking place not just in Florida, but everywhere. Anway; Day = Denial. Land = Acceptance. This is the different outlook on life that Land and Day has that you claim "anyone" can see. Day is a few months in. Maybe a year. They are in the denial phase. Land is several years in. They've rebuilt. They're in the acceptance phase. I'd also like to point out what shootem said, another point for this is that in Day they keep looking for survivors - in Land they don't even bother. They know there aren't any. Case closed. Anyway: Day = few survivors left, one step away from total doom, people in desperate search for how to stop the zombie plague. Land = loads of survivors still left, general complacency in front of the not-yet-as-bad zombie situation, people still try to go on with their normal lives and even hope for a better future. This is the true different outlook that any perceptive person will easily see between both movies. There is nothing in Day that suggests that only a few months or a year has passed. In fact, just by looking at how decayed the city that we see in Day is we can easily discard that possibility right out. People in Day are in the desperately looking for a way to defeat the vastly superior number of zombies that have taken over the land phase. The people in Land are still in a very complacent phase where the zombies have still not totally affected their lives for the worst yet. For them looking for a way to eliminate the zombie problem is still not a priority, as long as they can more or less continue with their lives. Land is still a hopeful world. I'd like to point out that what shootem said is quite wrong, and that the people in Land in fact do know about other human outposts (Kaufman himself is responsible for some of these, which he has established on purpose just in case things get really bad in his turf; once again, pay attention to the movie instead of making gratuitous assertions), and since there still are so many survivors left around, looking for them is hardly any priority, quite unlike Day, where finding any survivors has become quite a task. Case really closed until someone else can actually refute these observations.

[EvilNed]

Uhm, I think you're reading things into McDermott's lines that aren't there. All he admits is that there's nobody they can reach with their out-of-date equipment. That's the only thing he will admit is a fact. Don't you think that if pretty much the whole country had not become like Florida that these people would not be stupid enough to stay in such a danger zone and would actually pack their bags and move to a safer area to continue their work? No. Seeing as they are only just beginning to question their situation, there hasn't been time enough for them to already contemplate moving their base. They're still following orders. Denial-phase... Anyway: Day = few survivors left I'm sorry, but I can't keep this argument going becuase you keep going back to the same arguments which are based on very broad generalizations. I've tried pointing this out several times, but you keep dodging this bullet altogether. So I'm out. Agree to disagree.

[shootemindehead]

Florida would be a.... Sorry lad. This is reams and reams of contradiction and I don't have the time to keep batting back and forth. Bottom line is everything the viewer needs to know about George's Living Dead timeline is in the films. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics and outright denial to ignore it.

[JDP]

Uhm, I think you're reading things into McDermott's lines that aren't there. All he admits is that there's nobody they can reach with their out-of-date equipment. That's the only thing he will admit is a fact. Not only does he plainly refer to the possibility that they might be the only ones left, but listen to the somber tone of voice with which he delivers that line. I am reading exactly what he is trying to convey. Both are likely possibilities. No. Seeing as they are only just beginning to question their situation, there hasn't been time enough for them to already contemplate moving their base. They're still following orders. Also since there isn't any for sure safe place to go to. That's the point. Had there been such a place they could easily have left and headed for there, specially after communications stopped and their superiors in Washington apparently were no longer around. After communications cease, and it doesn't look like they are going to be established again, we see Rhodes getting cocky and threatening to cancel the whole project and leaving. He obviously feels like he no longer has to respond to anyone for his actions. Denial-phase... What you label "denial-phase" = desperation phase. They either find a solution to the zombie problem or humanity will likely go the way of the dodo bird. I'm sorry, but I can't keep this argument going becuase you keep going back to the same arguments which are based on very broad generalizations. I've tried pointing this out several times, but you keep dodging this bullet altogether. So I'm out. Agree to disagree. The arguments are all based on logical consequences and inferences from what we see in both movies. For example, do you seriously think that in all their communications with Washington these people down in Florida did not even once ask something like "hey, how is the situation up there?"? We can very logically conclude that they were being informed of what was going on up there. The fact that they know that what's left of the government itself is hiding in shelters already should have told you that they are informed about going-ons elsewhere. That's why their arguments about how desperate things have gotten and how there aren't much choices left or places to go to take place. Had it been only a local Florida situation they could simply have left. Easy problem, easy solution. Just move to Texas, or Washington, or anywhere out of Florida and presto, zombie problem left behind. But no, it's not that simple. These people know very well that their choices are limited because the zombie crisis is happening everywhere. - - - Updated - - - Sorry lad. This is reams and reams of contradiction and I don't have the time to keep batting back and forth. Contradiction? You might as well ask yourself the question: would it be easier to survive on your own for the rest of your life in a tropical country or in Siberia? Just to use even more extreme scenarios. Somehow I suspect you really know what the right answer is, but simply don't want to concede the point. Bottom line is everything the viewer needs to know about George's Living Dead timeline is in the films. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics and outright denial to ignore it. That's exactly what one would have to do to convince oneself that the relatively careless and still hopeful world of Land with its plethora of survivors and still going on civilization can conceivably happen after the on-the-brink-of-doom world of Day with its scarcity of survivors and almost total collapse of civilization.

[shootemindehead]

Contradiction? You might as well ask yourself the question: would it be easier to survive on your own for the rest of your life in a tropical country or in Siberia? Just to use even more extreme scenarios. Somehow I suspect you really know what the right answer is, but simply don't want to concede the point. This is ridiculous. Pittsburgh is not Siberia.

[JDP]

This is ridiculous. Pittsburgh is not Siberia. That's why I said it is a more extreme scenario. If you had to survive a zombie situation for the rest of your life in either Florida or Pennsylvania, I think you already know which one would be easier too.

[EvilNed]

Sorry lad. This is reams and reams of contradiction and I don't have the time to keep batting back and forth. Bottom line is everything the viewer needs to know about George's Living Dead timeline is in the films. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics and outright denial to ignore it. Agreed with this. I'm not following you at all, JDP. I understand what your conclusions are. But your thought process at how you arrived at them ignore to many aspects and are based on pretty much nothing but guess work. This to me is a case of; "This is how I want it to be. Now I'm going to bend everything to fit that conclusion and ignore everything that contradicts it." I mean, some arguments I can at least understand. Like the pot plant at the beginning of Day. But this is absurd.

[JDP]

Agreed with this. I'm not following you at all, JDP. I understand what your conclusions are. But your thought process at how you arrived at them ignore to many aspects and are based on pretty much nothing but guess work. This to me is a case of; "This is how I want it to be. Now I'm going to bend everything to fit that conclusion and ignore everything that contradicts it." I mean, some arguments I can at least understand. Like the pot plant at the beginning of Day. But this is absurd. Which arguments you are having a problem understanding? You don't really have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out many things which the movies do not specifically show but nonetheless imply for logical reasons. Like I asked you before, do you seriously think that these people in the Florida bunker never even once would have bothered to ask their superiors in Washington what the situation was up there in those parts? Really? Then how can they know that the situation is so bad that they are holing up in shelters just like they are? This is one example where we don't need to have everything spelled out for us in black & white to be able to deduce it. Washington is obviously knee-deep into it, just like Florida and everywhere else is. Again, it is not rocket science to easily deduce this from what the movie shows and implies. In another thread, another user was puzzled as to why would the soldiers know that the silo was back there in the corral caves since it is not specifically mentioned in the movie. It seems he was quite unable to deduce on his own from all that we see in the movie that the soldiers must have been well acquainted with the layout of those caves. I suppose some people are truly puzzled as to how can police detectives deduce that someone is the killer when they did not actually see it happen with their own eyes. There's a couple of wonderful things called "logic" and "deduction" that many times allow them to perform this "magic" of putting two and two together and catch the bad guy nonetheless.

[EvilNed]

Which arguments you are having a problem understanding? You don't really have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out many things which the movies do not specifically show but nonetheless imply for logical reasons. Like I asked you before, do you seriously think that these people in the Florida bunker never even once would have bothered to ask their superiors in Washington what the situation was up there in those parts? Really? Then how can they know that the situation is so bad that they are holing up in shelters just like they are? This is one example where we don't need to have everything spelled out for us in black & white to be able to deduce it. Washington is obviously knee-deep into it, just like Florida and everywhere else is. Again, it is not rocket science to easily deduce this from what the movie shows and implies. Look, the bare bones of my problem with this argument of yours is just that it's based on such extreme assumptions. Of course they asked Washington. You're right about that part. Now here's my counter-argument; The soldiers and scientists were completely unaware that there wasn't anyone around IN THEIR BACKYARD up until Sarah told them they'd gone a 100 miles each way and looked. Up until that point they were oblivious. Had no clue. Steele even retorts, flabbergasted, "how far up the coast'd you go?" suggesting that they were really unaware of how bad it was. But you expect me to believe that somehow weeks or months old reports from Washington are supposed to contain enough information that they can deduce that "Hey, they're all dead up there. No doubt about it. In fact I can deduce from the background noise in the radio chatter that we are the only ones left in the entire US. But heck, there might be someone over there in Fort Meyers!" (by the way, A 200 miles of florida coastline is not even a fifth of Florida's ENTIRE coastline. Yet somehow, they just got around to checking that out NOW, 3+ years into it?) And that's why I don't understand your argument. I just don't get how you come up with the results you do when your arguments are more or less made up from thin air... No offense or anything, I just don't think it makes any sense... At all! - - - Updated - - - Here's another thing I thought off; The characters in Day don't know each other very well. Let's assume that Day takes place after Land, which places is 3+ years after the apocalypse. So during the entire 3 year stay in the bunker, Sarah somehow never visited Flyboy and McDermott out in The Ritz? Despite the fact that there's a total of initially 18 and dwindled down to 12 persons in the entire bunker? In addition, Ted when he talks to Sarah feels the need to give Rhodes a little bit of a character presentation. As if she hasn't really had to do with Rhodes before. A few months in, sure. But 3+ years into it? Holy shit, she'd know every little thing about him!

[JDP]

Look, the bare bones of my problem with this argument of yours is just that it's based on such extreme assumptions. Of course they asked Washington. You're right about that part. Now here's my counter-argument; The soldiers and scientists were completely unaware that there wasn't anyone around IN THEIR BACKYARD up until Sarah told them they'd gone a 100 miles each way and looked. Up until that point they were oblivious. Had no clue. Steele even retorts, flabbergasted, "how far up the coast'd you go?" suggesting that they were really unaware of how bad it was. But you expect me to believe that somehow weeks or months old reports from Washington are supposed to contain enough information that they can deduce that "Hey, they're all dead up there. No doubt about it. In fact I can deduce from the background noise in the radio chatter that we are the only ones left in the entire US. But heck, there might be someone over there in Fort Meyers!" (by the way, A 200 miles of florida coastline is not even a fifth of Florida's ENTIRE coastline. Yet somehow, they just got around to checking that out NOW, 3+ years into it?) And that's why I don't understand your argument. I just don't get how you come up with the results you do when your arguments are more or less made up from thin air... No offense or anything, I just don't think it makes any sense... At all! But here you are making an assumption yourself: what makes you think that they haven't been to other areas of Florida before this particular reconnaissance trip? This is the first time that they go up and down this particular area, yes, but where does it say that they have never scouted other areas? Two things for your consideration: 1- Their fuel supply is not limitless. Obviously they must be careful how they spend it. They can't go on long helicopter rides very often. 2- Sarah says that they have rounded up zombies "on top... in the wild" (she is obviously referring to that bunch of zombies in the corral caves), so that means they have also been making excursions on land. At the point of the events we see in the movie it is too dangerous to do so, as we can see from all the zombies accumulating at the fence, but at some point in the past, when the situation was not as bad yet, they must have gone out there and explored the area on foot or land vehicles in search for zombies, before the zombies were so numerically superior as to be too dangerous to attempt to capture them. So their knowledge of the area is not limited to helicopter reconnaissance. - - - Updated - - - Here's another thing I thought off; The characters in Day don't know each other very well. Let's assume that Day takes place after Land, which places is 3+ years after the apocalypse. I have my doubts that Land really takes place 3 years after the zombie outbreak. There's two references to 3 years in the movie, and both of them are a bit vague and ambiguous: Riley:What did you do to my car? Some guy (mechanic or just a bum living in the garage?): What car? The last car I drove out of this town was three years ago. Maybe the guy has lived all his life in this city, long before the zombie outbreak, and that was really the last time he drove a car out of the city. We have no information whatsoever about this guy so we don't know. The other 3 year reference: Cholo to Kaufman: How long have I been working for you? Three years? Do we know for sure that Cholo wasn't already working for Kaufman before the outbreak? Kaufman is a scumbag crook, not unlikely at all that he already had henchmen working for him quite before the zombie situation. Another thing to consider: during the opening sequence of the film we hear TV/radio reports of these outposts (like Kaufman's) being established: People are said to be establishing outposts in big cities, and raiding small rural towns for supplies, like outlaws. This is very obviously during the early times of the zombie outbreak, while mass media was still on the air.This is all gone by the time of Day. Even by the end of Dawn there no longer is any more mass media on the air. More food for thought for all those wanting to persist in the paradoxical notion that the almost total apocalypse and collapse of civilization of Day supposedly happened before Land. Also, while on the topic of Land: does it sound logical to you that some characters in this movie can be so ignorant about the zombies if they have really lived through at least 3 years of an ordeal like the one we see in Day that has nearly wiped out civilization? Slack has no friggin' clue how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, Riley has to inform her (Riley knows because he is one of the survivors who is in frequent confrontation with the zombies, while the majority of people in the city barely have had any encounters with them.) Can you seriously imagine any survivor in the apocalyptic world of Day being so ignorant about the zombies? The only time we see people being ignorant of what zombie bites do to people are in the series' entries that take place earlier on during the outbreak. By the time of Day no one ignores this. So during the entire 3 year stay in the bunker, Sarah somehow never visited Flyboy and McDermott out in The Ritz? Despite the fact that there's a total of initially 18 and dwindled down to 12 persons in the entire bunker? In addition, Ted when he talks to Sarah feels the need to give Rhodes a little bit of a character presentation. As if she hasn't really had to do with Rhodes before. A few months in, sure. But 3+ years into it? Holy shit, she'd know every little thing about him! Sarah has a pretty low opinion of both McDermott and John, until she gets to know them better. Before that she just sees them as kind of "leeches": two civilians under government contract taking minimal risks but taking full advantage of the facilities and its supplies. So what prompted Sarah to want to get to know them better? Rhodes and his recent dictator-style military take-over of the operation. John basically saves Sarah from getting shot in cold blood by Rhodes' command. Before this take-over, Rhodes is a subordinate to Major Cooper, he can't do what he wants yet. But now that he has taken over command after Major Cooper's death, and there is also no longer any more communications with their superiors in Washington, Rhodes shows his true colors: a total tyrant whose word is the law.

[EvilNed]

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... 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. 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.

[sandrock74]

Good point about the newspaper at the start of Day, Ned. Further proof it can't be too far into the zombie apocalypse. I spent six years working at a newspaper and trust me, they don't last so much as six months outdoors, much less 3+ years. The mental gymnastics JDP is employing to "prove" his theory is rather astounding. I think he's yanking everyone's chain at this point.

[EvilNed]

I had no idea. But now that you mention it, I used to work as a paper boy and I know what rain does to newspapers. I enjoy the discussion because it's been a long time we had any about Romero's films. But I wish we could move on to some other topic - I've been trying to think of one. Maybe it's time to rewatch the films?

[shootemindehead]

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!!!!!!!

[JDP]

Good point about the newspaper at the start of Day, Ned. Further proof it can't be too far into the zombie apocalypse. I spent six years working at a newspaper and trust me, they don't last so much as six months outdoors, much less 3+ years. The mental gymnastics JDP is employing to "prove" his theory is rather astounding. I think he's yanking everyone's chain at this point. You are just assuming that newspaper page was all the time on the streets. That city looks like a mess, with even money flying around, which obviously must have come from inside the bank building at some point. There is nothing preventing newspapers that were being stored in some home, office or car from also eventually having found their way outside, just like the money did. Now, if instead of looking at something as easily moved by the wind as a newspaper page you would take a look at how decayed the cars and the corpses we see on the streets are, you get a much better impression of how long it has really been.