Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[JDP]

This argument has merit and actually made me pop in the movie for a quick brush-up. What Sarah actually says is, "Isn't there an old silo back there?" It's clear she's never seen it. It's clear McDermott and John have not either. But both know it is "back there". McDermott replies that they "can't go back there without guns." They both know that it is there. That by itself should tell you that more people in the bunker also know about it, specially the soldiers, who are in charge of this base, not the civilians. Otherwise they would never have even heard about it being there. As for the soldiers, I tend to agree that they *should* know it is there. But I think my arguments stand. Regardless as to what you or I might believe about them, they *display* complete and utter ignorance of it. Steele says, in the Lift room, "Stuck ... Rickles, we can't get out of here." That's just damning. Plus, once the soldiers are running around inside the bunker trying to escape NOT ONE of them heads that way. Even Rickles, who is literally right beside the corral when he gets eaten, doesn't even look at it like it's an option. Steel paradoxically seems to ignore it (how could he? Even Sarah and McDermott know it!), but Rickles heads there when the shit hits the fan. He is the only one of the soldiers who does, the others head to the living/working quarters. The nitpick comes from the fact that once he arrives there he strangely turns into an idiot and starts running in circles instead of heading straight for the caves, which he could easily have done, we see that the way to the corral stairs was clear of any zombies, easy for him to climb up and jump to the other side. I won't buy that the soldiers were afraid of entering the zombie corral. They were gung ho to go in there and destroy all the zombies in previous scenes. Why would they feel differently about going through the caves to get to the ladder? Probably because the Miguel matter was more urgent and they prefer to see if they can deal with the elevator problem. What the hell was Miguel doing up there? They had no idea. Rhodes thinks he might be trying to "make a run for it". They want to go up and check out what is going on there (escaping the bunker at this point is out of the question, since they have lost their only pilot.) This is the area where their potential "ride" is (if they can get their hands on John again.) It would be a heck of a detour to get to the top through the silo. By that time who knows what this crazy Miguel dude would have done, maybe even damage the chopper. And I'm not buying that they went through an exhaustive "securing" effort and left that big open gaping hole at the top of the silo. That just completely undermines the idea that they were highly security minded. And don't give me that "the zombies couldn't climb the ladder" stuff. They'd be more worried about threats getting IN, than out. Primarily other humans. The zombies that might have fallen in through the silo would obviously have been killed, there's no way they would survive such a fall. As for other humans... this movie is very different from Dawn and Land, remember? Here other survivors lurking around are NOT the problem, it is in fact finding any other survivors that is a real problem! The last thing they have to worry about is for other survivors to want to climb down the silo. Heck, they would have welcomed any other survivors showing up at their doors with open arms: "Holy shit, finally we have confirmation there is someone else left alive out there!" Needles to say, they would have bombarded any other survivors with questions regarding how they managed to survive out there and if there are any others. These guys were going out of their way to try to find anyone else, not keep people away. As I said before, they only needed to establish a secure perimeter, which they clearly did. The corral served as a single entry/exit point to a much larger unsecured area. Watching the ending sequence made me more convinced than ever that they didn't bother to search it all. It was vast and mostly undeveloped. The corral caves had lighting in several places, which by force had to be hooked to their generators. And, once again, the only way to "establish a secure perimeter" in this case is by going into those caves and making sure that there are no other entries/exits into/out-of the caves that the zombies can use. There is no other way. Unless you want to propose these guys had X-Ray vision or psychic powers and could somehow know all this without even stepping into the caves once! There is a potential "middle ground" scenario I can see ... The soldiers we see are not the ones who originally secured the facility and built the corral. Given that the operation was put together early on and quickly it's entirely possible that the soldiers were dropped in to an already running facility, that was considered secure prior to their arrival. Thus they would've had no reason to search it themselves and would've remained ignorant of the silo, or at least the details of it and that it was a viable escape option. The likelihood of this scenario is quite slim. What are the odds that we would never have heard of these mysterious "other soldiers" even once? How come they are not around? Where did they go? (a very pertinent question, since the soldiers that we see in the movie do not know exactly where in blazes they can go to that isn't pretty much a zombie mess.) And why bring in new soldiers if the base already had soldiers in them in the first place? All it would have taken is to send the civilians in and not bother mobilizing anyone else. It also does not get rid of the fact that even two civilians know that the silo is back there. How come they have heard about it and yet strangely enough the soldiers themselves haven't???

[Thorn]

Who knows where the other soldiers went, perhaps those are the soldiers that were fed to the zombies as a reward. It was established that soldiers died, or perhaps they were called off to another scenario to capture/secure a facility for another such project, they are like the tip of the spear and then other soldiers are brought in to maintain control over the facility and protect the civilian workers. You can imagine a number of scenarios, and while I am not saying any of the above happened it could have happened off screen is what I am saying is possible likely or not.

[JDP]

So now it's down to clothing decay from movies made 20 years apart. Now you have said the state of Land zombies appears similar to Dawn state. Dawn seems to be accepted as early weeks to less than a year based on Frans pregnancy. So we add Romeros statement that Land was set roughly 3 years and was part of a continuing saga. He did say continuing at that time referring to the first 4 films. He didn't say the first 3 films were continuing and the 4th was a Delorean trip back to the future. So you are ok with clothes similarities/deterioration from films 27 years apart with timelines proven completely different. Yet I know you wouldn't accept me using the Zombie that bites Cholo as decayed more than anything seen in Day. Right? Once again, Romero's intentions are one thing and how his movies actually come across not necessarily the same thing. The fact is that pound for pound, the zombies and their clothing look older and more decayed in Day than in Land. And the difference for this look between the zombies and their clothes of Day and the earlier one of Night and Dawn was done on purpose, since Day takes place quite later than those two movies. Plausible explanation for the couple of unusually "bony" zombies in Land: they died of starvation and became zombies. Romero doesn't put a time stamp on when the Day walkers were bit. Or how long Big Daddy has been a zombie. All unknowns. He also never tells us that possibly the virus spread much faster and devastating in Florida than Pa or anywhere for that matter. I believe some communities would fair better thanks others based on a multitude of factors. At the end of the day dirty and worn clothes does not prove 5 years. If Romero said tomorrow that Day was 5 years I accept it no problem at all. But from what we see it can't be proven. The zombie situation started in Pennsylvania. It does not prove five years, but it shows that they have been around for longer. Same thing with how decayed the locations look like.

[EvilNed]

That what you are describing far from improving the situation in Europe it actually made it worse. Now put two and two together and apply it to the zombie situation that you were trying to compare with that historical case. It's your own analogy, not mine. ... I don't understand your point at all. What? Who says the situation in Land was an improvement? What's worse? The situation in Europe after the collapse of the roman empire? What woud you call Land - prefereable to Obamacare? What are you even saying? No, we are in agreement that the broadcasts go from day 1 to a date CLOSER in time to the events we see in Land. And also that this by necessity implies that the people in Day could hardly not have been aware that such outposts existed at some point. Even the media reported such things. This argument assumes that the scientists and military in Florida were omniscient, which they were not. As Day clearly illustrates they were out looking for survivors in Florida - thus trying to bridge a gap in their own knowledge. Clearly they did not know everything - else such pursuits would have been pointless. This brings us back to the poignant problem of: then why to the survivors of Day such things as thriving human outposts are no longer an option? If they were still around by the time of Day then the soldiers and civilians would have very good options left besides being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies. Yet no such possibility is even entertained by any of the characters, not even those most desirous to find another place to go to. All it takes is for Dr. Logan to remind them "where will you go" for them to be left without any viable answers. The Day survivors were not up to speed with everything that was going on in Florida, the US or the World. This is very evident from the fil The counterargument is that if such thriving outposts still existed by the time of Day the survivors would not have had such problems and dilemmas about whether there were other survivors anywhere or where exactly can they go to so that they will be safe. This argument assumes that the survivors in Florida had absolute knowledge of everything. In a time when there is no cross country communication, or any communication save for short-wave radio, this is an absurd assumption. Like I said, both references are vague enough to be open to interpretation. Let me quote myself and I'm gonna give you one more chance to actually adress my argument; The argument that the characters in Land did not refer to the start of the apocalypse when they twice mention something that happened three years ago ignores the fact that all dialoge exists for a purpose - and the purpose of this dialoge was to convey background information relevant to the viewer. If they do not refer to the start of it all, the question begs; What DO they refer to? To which there is no good answer within the context of this film. Indeed, they could refer to the car mechanics bad streak of luck with customers, or that Cholo and Kaufman had a pre-apocalyptic agreement. However this information is very much useless to the viewer when compared to giving him or her an approximate timeline for when this mess started and would have been cut from the script by any capable or even amateurish scriptwriter at an early stage. Land of the Dead did not go through 1 or 2 revisions, I can promise you that, it went through at least 10... You mean loads of dirty rusting cars, lots of rotting plant debris, garbage, corpses, papers & money flying around in the wind, animals (alligator, crabs, spider, snake) freely roaming the city with the zombies (who don't care one bit about them, that's why the animals have no problem also "taking over" the once human-inhabited place), etc. I mean the cars and the plant debris. The rest is just a sign of an abandoned human settlement and would happen to any place where there was no human activity. Besides, that picture you posted shows signs of actualy structural damage. The building on the left is burnt out and the background buildings has all it's windows trashed. So point Land again, I guess. The newspaper was flying around in the wind. How do you know it was not in, say, one of the garbage cans we see around, for example? How do you know that it did not just turned over with the wind, or some animal or zombie knocked it off, just a few minutes ago and spilled its contents, including the newspaper? I don't. It's just one sign of many that Day doesn't take place that long into the future. I think the newspaper is meaningless. But it brings this circle to an interesting conclusion; You can't accept that I assume things about a newspaper, but when you assume things about the knowledge of the Day of the Dead survivors based on absoutely nothing at all, it's ok? Don't you think this is a little bit... Hypocritical? As I already said, I don't give a shit about the newspaper. It's a way to give the viewer some background information, that's all. The "ramblings about the dark ages" were brought on by your self-defeating analogy. Don't blame me. The fall of the Roman empire actually made things worse for Europe for a number of centuries, not better. As for the rest, I once again have gone into more details to try to make you understand them better. Just read what I wrote again, I'm gonna quote myself. Try to understand the analogy... Washington can't hold it's shit together - thus nobody else can either doesn't take into account dozens of times in history when governments have collapsed yet enclaves and outbreaks of that government have continued on within that societal collapse. From the collapse of the roman empire, dozens of smaller states emerged seemingly untouched. The roman empire was at that time the most powerful political and military organization on the world. To think that the US government could collapse and other localized adhoc gangs or militia's would take up arms and organize instead is not far fetched at all. This is my counter to your argument, JDP. If a post-Roman Empire Europe is the dark ages - so be it. Do you consider the post-United States America depicted in Day and Land to depict a... positive future? Prefereable to what was before? Do you understand the analogy now? Or would you perhaps also call that a "Dark age", considering the lack of cross-country communication and whatnot? The zombies and their clothes in Night and Dawn would not make much sense looking too old and decayed since they would not have been around for very long. So it was a perfect thing for Romero and his more limited budget for those movies that they took place during the earlier days of the outbreak. By the time of Day, however, Romero and his team have obviously invested more of the budget on the look of these more decayed zombies. This was done on purpose, it is not merely a "coincidence" having to do with different wardrobe or what have you. I only pointed out that within the series, there exist vast differences of zombie makeup. The zombies in Dawn are blue. This is because the two films are separate. Thus this point is moot.

[facestabber]

Once again, Romero's intentions are one thing and how his movies actually come across not necessarily the same thing. The fact is that pound for pound, the zombies and their clothing look older and more decayed in Day than in Land. And the difference for this look between the zombies and their clothes of Day and the earlier one of Night and Dawn was done on purpose, since Day takes place quite later than those two movies. Yes yes yes intentions. What was Romero's intentions in 1985? Bleak. Doom. Gloom. End of the world. And Day was his end to a Trilogy. At the time this was his final entry. He didnt want to show humans all over the place throughout the world because his message wouldn't deliver. But what he didn't do, no matter how bad you want it to fit your narrative is provide you with a specific timeline of Days events. He didn't publish Romero's guide to zombie decay timelines. Chapter 1: Empirical guide to clothes decomposition. He gave us white/pale in 68, blue in 78 and green in 85. So we fast forward 20 years. Romero says to Nicotero, we did the color palate so be creative and give me some scary looking zombies with character. Oh but don't forget my guide. The zombies are really a joke in many ways. In Day we see a high school graduate with gown and cap in place. A soldier with his helmet on. And Land is almost criminal with outfits on zombies. Romero didn't care when he made Day that the viewers knew exactly how long into the ZA we are because it didnt matter. He just wanted us to see that it is friggin bad with the glimpse he gave us. Nevada may be doing ok but he didnt want to tell us because it didnt help the story he wanted us to see. Land[/I]: they died of starvation and became zombies. ^ Yes that is absolutely plausible. Thats what your opposition here is saying. There are a million variables in play here. Many avenues to explain each and every scenario. And now my GF is watching me and laughing at me calling me Sheldon for engaging in this conversation. LOL. The zombie situation started in Pennsylvania. I assumed this as its where Night started but I didnt know it was a fact. Cool. It does not prove five years, but it shows that they have been around for longer. Same thing with how decayed the locations look like. Or thats Romero's delivery. New tech. New high res cameras. I doubt he wanted to deliver zombies and settings that mirrored Day as it would date his film. Its as simple as him giving a production crew an idea and telling them to have fun designing. Thumb up or down and tape rolling. I dont see him saying hey guys/gals this has to look more worn/torn than Day. Oh damnit I posted within JDP's quote. My apologies.

[sandrock74]

The zombie situation started in Pennsylvania. What the what?? Where did you get that from? I guess you weren't listening to the radio and tv broadcasts in the background of Night. Nowhere did the newscasts or any featured characters say it all began in PA. You're making a rather huge assumption.

[JDP]

... I don't understand your point at all. What? Who says the situation in Land was an improvement? What's worse? The situation in Europe after the collapse of the roman empire? What woud you call Land - prefereable to Obamacare? What are you even saying? The situation in Land is quite better than the situation in Day. Society is still relatively functional and productive, and despite the zombie problem also being there, it is also safer. People can even leave the outposts and try to look for better places if they so want to. This argument assumes that the scientists and military in Florida were omniscient, which they were not. As Day clearly illustrates they were out looking for survivors in Florida - thus trying to bridge a gap in their own knowledge. Clearly they did not know everything - else such pursuits would have been pointless. You don't have to be omniscient to listen to the TV or radio. What are the odds that NOBODY in the Florida team was listening to the media reports? Furthermore, what are the odds that NOBODY in the same team would have had the initiative to ask Washington what they knew about the survivor situation? It is extremely unrealistic to expect that these people would not have done either of these things when we can plainly see that it is a very important issue for them. It simply goes against their character. And this is on what this type of nitpicks have to be based. Had these characters not cared one bit about the issue of whether there were any other survivors then there would be no nitpick whatsoever here. You could very well point out that they did not care at all about this subject and that's why they would not have paid any attention to it. The Day survivors were not up to speed with everything that was going on in Florida, the US or the World. This is very evident from the fil But they were. They went out of their way to see if there were any survivors around. Once communications ceased they no longer get feedback on what's going on elsewhere and have to wonder if any survivors are still around. But since the outposts had been there before the events of Day (remember: the establishment of outposts was even reported by the media before it went off the air, and this was long before the events in Day) the Florida team has to know about them. But the thing is that they no longer consider this as a viable option. Obviously something must have happened that they do not even consider them an alternative to being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever growing numbers of zombies. Otherwise the soldiers would quickly have brought them up as a choice: "To hell with you and your where-will-you-gos, Frankenstein, we can always try our luck with one of those outposts up north." Look at how different this is from the situation in Land. Cholo, for example, has no problem whatsoever bringing up other options, like an outpost in Cleveland. He would rather try his luck there than go back to Kaufman's turf, where he is a wanted man and knows that he is surely screwed if he goes there. This argument assumes that the survivors in Florida had absolute knowledge of everything. In a time when there is no cross country communication, or any communication save for short-wave radio, this is an absurd assumption. But there were such communications before. So they were informed about the situation until all communications ceased. Then how come they seem to not consider the outposts as an alternative? What happened? If the outposts were still up and running up until the time they lost contact with anyone else, then there is no reason for them not to consider them a possible choice to try their luck rather than stay in a bunker being gradually besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies. Let me quote myself and I'm gonna give you one more chance to actually adress my argument; I already did. Look at the quoted somewhat vague statement about weeks by the priest in Dawn, which can also be interpreted in a couple of ways. I mean the cars and the plant debris. The rest is just a sign of an abandoned human settlement and would happen to any place where there was no human activity. That's the point, and the longer the abandonment the worse such things get. And it shows quite more in Day than in Land. Besides, that picture you posted shows signs of actualy structural damage. The building on the left is burnt out and the background buildings has all it's windows trashed. So point Land again, I guess. What picture are you talking about? The streets in the pictures I showed from Land look in better shape than those of Day. The city of Day looks like a desolate mess. Even animals have moved in and share the city with the zombies! I don't. It's just one sign of many that Day doesn't take place that long into the future. I think the newspaper is meaningless. But it brings this circle to an interesting conclusion; You can't accept that I assume things about a newspaper, but when you assume things about the knowledge of the Day of the Dead survivors based on absoutely nothing at all, it's ok? Don't you think this is a little bit... Hypocritical? But the newspaper is NOT a character! Comparing actual characters, from whose statements and behavior we can deduce many things, with an inanimate object being swept by the wind like a newspaper is hardly fair. Just read what I wrote again, I'm gonna quote myself. Try to understand the analogy... If a post-Roman Empire Europe is the dark ages - so be it. Do you consider the post-United States America depicted in Day and Land to depict a... positive future? Prefereable to what was before? Do you understand the analogy now? Or would you perhaps also call that a "Dark age", considering the lack of cross-country communication and whatnot? The analogy fails because the society that Kaufman runs in Land is paradoxically more advanced and safer than the one that the US government itself can even dream of maintaining in Day. Similarly, the fiefdoms created after the Roman empire collapsed were not as efficient at running things as the Roman empire they replaced. The analogy would work if Kaufman was running a less efficient place than the US government in Day. But it's the opposite. The only way this can logically work out is if what we see Kaufman pull off happened at an earlier time than the total collapse of Day. It would have been possible for him and others to do something like that since the infrastructure (electricity, fuel, transportation, communications, supplies, weapons, manpower) was still widely available and in relatively good shape to still allow such things to be possible. By the time of the situation we see in Day this infrastructure is gone. It can't even maintain basic communications. What survivors can hope for now are much more modest and basic things, like we see in The Walking Dead show, for example, which is concerned with basic survival and trying to form more rudimentary societies. I only pointed out that within the series, there exist vast differences of zombie makeup. The zombies in Dawn are blue. This is because the two films are separate. Thus this point is moot. The differences in makeup between Day and the earlier films are definitely not coincidental. This movie takes place much later than the first two, and therefore the zombies and the landscape are purposefully depicted as more decayed. - - - Updated - - - What the what?? Where did you get that from? I guess you weren't listening to the radio and tv broadcasts in the background of Night. Nowhere did the newscasts or any featured characters say it all began in PA. You're making a rather huge assumption. Well, the movie does take place in Pennsylvania, and no one prior to this day we see in the movie knew anything about any zombies. Had the zombies been popping up somewhere else prior to this it would have been a media sensation and been featured all over the place on the TV and radio, like we see happening in the movie later on that day, and we should also expect that hardly anyone would have been unaware of them by the time of the events in Night. Note: there is mention of an incident "two days ago" where 7 people were killed, but it is not 100% clear if it is really zombie related or if the media is trying to make a connection between the two incidents. Had it been totally clear that the zombies were responsible for that massacre the media would have reported it as such already 2 days ago, and then the public would already have been aware that zombies were popping up by the time of the situation we see developing in Night two days later. - - - Updated - - - Yes yes yes intentions. What was Romero's intentions in 1985? Bleak. Doom. Gloom. End of the world. And Day was his end to a Trilogy. At the time this was his final entry. He didnt want to show humans all over the place throughout the world because his message wouldn't deliver. And that is the real reason why we don't hear anything about any such outposts in Day. Romero had not thought up any such thing yet and Day was -and so far still is- chronologically the last chapter in the series. But what he didn't do, no matter how bad you want it to fit your narrative is provide you with a specific timeline of Days events. He didn't publish Romero's guide to zombie decay timelines. Chapter 1: Empirical guide to clothes decomposition. He gave us white/pale in 68, blue in 78 and green in 85. The more decayed look of the zombies and the landscape is obviously done on purpose. Had it been coincidental we would only see a few zombies like that in Day, the rest more similar to those of the earlier movies. But no, most zombies and their clothes look more decayed than in the earlier movies because this movie, as you yourself recognize, takes place much later. It would have been a lack of foresight and logic by Romero and his team to portray the zombies as exactly the same as in Night and Dawn. So we fast forward 20 years. Romero says to Nicotero, we did the color palate so be creative and give me some scary looking zombies with character. Oh but don't forget my guide. The zombies are really a joke in many ways. In Day we see a high school graduate with gown and cap in place. A soldier with his helmet on. And Land is almost criminal with outfits on zombies. Romero didn't care when he made Day that the viewers knew exactly how long into the ZA we are because it didnt matter. He just wanted us to see that it is friggin bad with the glimpse he gave us. Nevada may be doing ok but he didnt want to tell us because it didnt help the story he wanted us to see. Why wouldn't the zombies wear all sorts of different outfits and head gear? They are dead people who come from all sorts of classes and backgrounds. The unrealistic thing would be if all zombies were dressed the same way. And no, the fact that the zombies and their clothes look very consistently more decayed in Day than in the earlier movies is because it was done on purpose, it is not a "coincidence". Had it been merely a chance thing we would only see a few of them like that, not most. The rate of decay of the zombies is even commented upon by Dr. Logan. Romero is well aware of this issue. ^ Yes that is absolutely plausible. Thats what your opposition here is saying. There are a million variables in play here. Many avenues to explain each and every scenario. And now my GF is watching me and laughing at me calling me Sheldon for engaging in this conversation. LOL. Some things have way less variables than others. The opposition, however, has frequently asked for huge leaps and gaps in faith and logic. Like, for example, expecting us to believe that characters who are so interested in the issue of whether there are any other survivors around would not have had any inclination whatsoever to pay attention to what the media had been reporting on the subject, or ask their superiors in Washington about it during their frequent communications with them. Or that a crook in Pennsylvania can somehow maintain a much more advanced and safe society at a time when the US government itself is underground and can't even maintain its own communication networks anymore. Or thats Romero's delivery. New tech. New high res cameras. I doubt he wanted to deliver zombies and settings that mirrored Day as it would date his film. Its as simple as him giving a production crew an idea and telling them to have fun designing. Thumb up or down and tape rolling. I dont see him saying hey guys/gals this has to look more worn/torn than Day. I don't see why he shouldn't do just that. He had no problem doing it for the zombies of Day to distinguish them from the "fresher" zombies of Night and Dawn. If he really had intended Land to be from about the same time or after Day, then he should have applied the same philosophy and portray the zombies and their clothing as more decayed.

[EvilNed]

The situation in Land is quite better than the situation in Day. Society is still relatively functional and productive, and despite the zombie problem also being there, it is also safer. People can even leave the outposts and try to look for better places if they so want to. Absolutely, I agree. So one could argue that Day is the dark ages and Land is whatever comes after the Dark ages. You don't have to be omniscient to listen to the TV or radio. What are the odds that NOBODY in the Florida team was listening to the media reports? Furthermore, what are the odds that NOBODY in the same team would have had the initiative to ask Washington what they knew about the survivor situation? It is extremely unrealistic to expect that these people would not have done either of these things when we can plainly see that it is a very important issue for them. It simply goes against their character. You assume a lot... It amazes me that you are so unaware of the fact that situations can change over time. Maybe they asked Washington about other places and Washington said "Sure there's plenty but they're falling like flies" and the next day communications cut off. What if Washington didn't have time to talk in detail about other places? Furthermore, it's evident from the situation that communications cut off way before the whole world fell silent. But they were. They went out of their way to see if there were any survivors around. Once communications ceased they no longer get feedback on what's going on elsewhere and have to wonder if any survivors are still around. But since the outposts had been there before the events of Day (remember: the establishment of outposts was even reported by the media before it went off the air, and this was long before the events in Day) the Florida team has to know about them. But the thing is that they no longer consider this as a viable option. Obviously something must have happened that they do not even consider them an alternative to being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever growing numbers of zombies. Otherwise the soldiers would quickly have brought them up as a choice: "To hell with you and your where-will-you-gos, Frankenstein, we can always try our luck with one of those outposts up north." Look at how different this is from the situation in Land. Cholo, for example, has no problem whatsoever bringing up other options, like an outpost in Cleveland. He would rather try his luck there than go back to Kaufman's turf, where he is a wanted man and knows that he is surely screwed if he goes there. You assume that once communications went down, things stopped happening at other places - which is absurd. But there were such communications before. So they were informed about the situation until all communications ceased. Yes, but we have no idea at what stage the situation was at when communications ceased or even what information got to them. Maybe they got a hundred reports each day and then communications just ceased entirely. I already did. Look at the quoted somewhat vague statement about weeks by the priest in Dawn, which can also be interpreted in a couple of ways. No you didn't, you ignored my argument entirely because you couldn't come up with an answer to; "What could it possibly mean - within the context OF THE FILM?" That's the point, and the longer the abandonment the worse such things get. And it shows quite more in Day than in Land. Agree to disagree. Both are on equal levels of decay. What picture are you talking about? The streets in the pictures I showed from Land look in better shape than those of Day. The city of Day looks like a desolate mess. Even animals have moved in and share the city with the zombies! The city in day has palms and abandoned cars. That's it. Land is equally abandoned. To see what picture I'm talking about, check your own posts. But the newspaper is NOT a character! Comparing actual characters, from whose statements and behavior we can deduce many things, with an inanimate object being swept by the wind like a newspaper is hardly fair. Who says characters are fair game for absurd assumptions and newspapers are not? I never signed that agreement, can I see it? The analogy fails because the society that Kaufman runs in Land is paradoxically more advanced and safer than the one that the US government itself can even dream of maintaining in Day. Many of the fiefdoms after the Roman Empire were safer and better organized - locally - than the remnants of the Roman Empire. That's why they sprung up - the roman Empire couldn't protect people anymore. It's not as if the Roman Empire crashed into a wall and then everyone panicked and shouted "EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!". No, it was a gradual process where warlords and kings took a look around and said "Well, fuck this shit I can to a lot better job at running things" then they went to the local magistrate with their private army and said "I'm taking over" and the local magistrate, not having any heard any news from Rome or Ravenna in the last year except that we have a third new emperor the last five months would probably say "Ok, here's the key to the city.". Thus quite organized states could spring up from the remnants of the roman empire, using the exact same infrastructure. The differences in makeup between Day and the earlier films are definitely not coincidental. This movie takes place much later than the first two, and therefore the zombies and the landscape are purposefully depicted as more decayed. No. As already stated.

[shootemindehead]

There is a big difference here which I am not even going to bother to explain in detail to you since as usual you just won't get it. It is clear that applying logic and common sense to nitpick movies does not seem to be your forte. Suffice it to say that clothes are a whole different ball game than something like cell phones, which are not a common feature in all these movies, unlike clothes, something very common and basic to human society since a long time ago. This is just senseless. The people in Diary also use the internet, which was not around in 1968 when Night was made, yet both movies belong to the very early days of the zombie outbreak. No one is nitpicking that. It goes without saying that people understand the two movies were made with a huge gap in years between them and technology has changed. Wearing clothes hasn't. And they still age and decay no matter the changes in fashion. 'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' aren't even part of the same original quad of films. They're an attempt at a modern day reboot of the series by Romero. 'Diary of the Dead' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Night of the Living Dead'. The more you post, the absurd you're becoming.

[facestabber]

The situation in Land is quite better than the situation in Day. Society is still relatively functional and productive, and despite the zombie problem also being there, it is also safer. People can even leave the outposts and try to look for better places if they so want to.. Safer? It's almost painful reading this. Outside the barriers of the Green sure looks like a walk in the park. Puts blinders on, no danger here. Its "safer". Outside of Fiddlers you did not see any other functioning society did you? We heard about an outpost in Cleveland that hasn't been heard of in a while. 100+ miles from the Green. How in your early fantasy of Land where all this great technology is possible due to your timeline is there not a helicopter and a pilot? Because 100 miles by air would be pretty easy for a helicopter crew to report back and forth. Also Jon and McDermott didn't have too much fear of leaving the cave for their island get away. To the extent that they threw out revolvers as they expended the bullets. You don't have to be omniscient to listen to the TV or radio. What are the odds that NOBODY in the Florida team was listening to the media reports? Furthermore, what are the odds that NOBODY in the same team would have had the initiative to ask Washington what they knew about the survivor situation? It is extremely unrealistic to expect that these people would not have done either of these things when we can plainly see that it is a very important issue for them. It simply goes against their character. And this is on what this type of nitpicks have to be based. Had these characters not cared one bit about the issue of whether there were any other survivors then there would be no nitpick whatsoever here. You could very well point out that they did not care at all about this subject and that's why they would not have paid any attention to it.. Completely missing the mark. First of all soldiers are in charge of security. Soldiers will listen to their soldier counterparts, not media. I work for the Gov't. I've been in critical incidents. Do you think I get my intel from the media or the radio on my hip? The power is out in the mainland. Broadcasts aren't happening. Is that because we are 5 years in during Day? Because the easy counter is broadcasts were seen ending in Dawn. But they were. They went out of their way to see if there were any survivors around. Once communications ceased they no longer get feedback on what's going on elsewhere and have to wonder if any survivors are still around. But since the outposts had been there before the events of Day (remember: the establishment of outposts was even reported by the media before it went off the air, and this was long before the events in Day) the Florida team has to know about them. But the thing is that they no longer consider this as a viable option. Obviously something must have happened that they do not even consider them an alternative to being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever growing numbers of zombies. Otherwise the soldiers would quickly have brought them up as a choice: "To hell with you and your where-will-you-gos, Frankenstein, we can always try our luck with one of those outposts up north." Look at how different this is from the situation in Land. Cholo, for example, has no problem whatsoever bringing up other options, like an outpost in Cleveland. He would rather try his luck there than go back to Kaufman's turf, where he is a wanted man and knows that he is surely screwed if he goes there.. Well if they were the greatest informed bunker in history and the world is over, outposts destroyed, zombies own it all, why in the name of Jesus would they be looking for survivors at all? Why? Take into consideration that Rhodes escape was gonna be by ground. Chopper couldn't hold his soldiers until the end of the movie. Vehicles and fuel don't appear to be an issue from what we see in cave. But without having direct commuications with an outpost, is it worth the risk? Are the roads passable? All unknowns. Which makes it a huge risk. Especially considering they are in the ultimate zombie survival bunker. Aside from mankinds stupidity making it dangerous they had food, water medicine and dr care. Complete shelter from zombies except for the ones they brought in. The besieged you speak of consists of 50-75 zombies gathered around a gate. 2-3 mags of an M16 would end that. Realistically Rhodes wanting to leave isn't out of necessity but desire. He saw the waste of time. Jon and Mc saw it. They were in the dark. That's the point of Romero's theme, doom and gloom. But there were such communications before. So they were informed about the situation until all communications ceased. Then how come they seem to not consider the outposts as an alternative? What happened? If the outposts were still up and running up until the time they lost contact with anyone else, then there is no reason for them not to consider them a possible choice to try their luck rather than stay in a bunker being gradually besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies.. Since losing communications thereby adding extreme risk to a travel away from food, water and shelter is a big stretch for you, try this. McDermott says "I'm sure there's others". Since he's living it and says it should we listen too him? Like you he can't prove his statement but that's in the movie. Add Sarah' speech about more sophisticated and secured bunkers else where. Again not factual that they haven't fallen but without comms how can you justify leaving? I already did. Look at the quoted somewhat vague statement about weeks by the priest in Dawn, which can also be interpreted in a couple of ways.. That's the point, and the longer the abandonment the worse such things get. And it shows quite more in Day than in Land.. What picture are you talking about? The streets in the pictures I showed from Land look in better shape than those of Day. The city of Day looks like a desolate mess. Even animals have moved in and share the city with the zombies! But the newspaper is NOT a character! Comparing actual characters, from whose statements and behavior we can deduce many things, with an inanimate object being swept by the wind like a newspaper is hardly fair.. Well if we accept character statements then please submit Mcdermotts and Sarah's from above. The analogy fails because the society that Kaufman runs in Land is paradoxically more advanced and safer than the one that the US government itself can even dream of maintaining in Day. Similarly, the fiefdoms created after the Roman empire collapsed were not as efficient at running things as the Roman empire they replaced. The analogy would work if Kaufman was running a less efficient place than the US government in Day. But it's the opposite. The only way this can logically work out is if what we see Kaufman pull off happened at an earlier time than the total collapse of Day. It would have been possible for him and others to do something like that since the infrastructure (electricity, fuel, transportation, communications, supplies, weapons, manpower) was still widely available and in relatively good shape to still allow such things to be possible. By the time of the situation we see in Day this infrastructure is gone. It can't even maintain basic communications. What survivors can hope for now are much more modest and basic things, like we see in The Walking Dead show, for example, which is concerned with basic survival and trying to form more rudimentary societies.. If TWD is fair game then I hate to break it to you but it's not going to help your case. Because comms, gov't everything is gone according to Rick Grimes when he tells the prisoners. And we are at most 9 months out given Lori's state of pregnancy. And had the Wolves not found Alexandria because of a photo I'd say that was a society that had a legitimate chance at continuing to advance. But alas all we have is a societal glimpse of a couple of counties in Georgia. I will not pretend to know that Billings Montana isn't thriving. I don't know. The differences in makeup between Day and the earlier films are definitely not coincidental. This movie takes place much later than the first two, and therefore the zombies and the landscape are purposefully depicted as more decayed.. And as stated before, had George done the exact same makeup or purposely made an attempt to show more tattered clothes the trailer and appeal to audiences would have fell flat. That's just Hollywood evolving. Would producers be ok with 80's makeup and zombies? Same reason Diary zombies have a modern look to them. If George paraded out 68 style makeup for Diary he would have been crucified. - - - Updated - - - Well, the movie does take place in Pennsylvania, and no one prior to this day we see in the movie knew anything about any zombies. Had the zombies been popping up somewhere else prior to this it would have been a media sensation and been featured all over the place on the TV and radio, like we see happening in the movie later on that day, and we should also expect that hardly anyone would have been unaware of them by the time of the events in Night. Note: there is mention of an incident "two days ago" where 7 people were killed, but it is not 100% clear if it is really zombie related or if the media is trying to make a connection between the two incidents. Had it been totally clear that the zombies were responsible for that massacre the media would have reported it as such already 2 days ago, and then the public would already have been aware that zombies were popping up by the time of the situation we see developing in Night two days later. - - - Updated - - - And that is the real reason why we don't hear anything about any such outposts in Day. Romero had not thought up any such thing yet and Day was -and so far still is- chronologically the last chapter in the series.. Wrong. It was chronologically his end in 1985. Wish I could bold 85. George admitted once he conceived his next chapter his original intent was to put it between Night and Day but then didn't. The man said it. He said continuing saga after the 4 films were made. He wanted to show us that even when surrounded by zombies we would rebuild a society with class systems and power. The threat of extinction wasn't enough of a lesson. The more decayed look of the zombies and the landscape is obviously done on purpose. Had it been coincidental we would only see a few zombies like that in Day, the rest more similar to those of the earlier movies. But no, most zombies and their clothes look more decayed than in the earlier movies because this movie, as you yourself recognize, takes place much later. It would have been a lack of foresight and logic by Romero and his team to portray the zombies as exactly the same as in Night and Dawn. Why wouldn't the zombies wear all sorts of different outfits and head gear? They are dead people who come from all sorts of classes and backgrounds. The unrealistic thing would be if all zombies were dressed the same way. And no, the fact that the zombies and their clothes look very consistently more decayed in Day than in the earlier movies is because it was done on purpose, it is not a "coincidence". Had it been merely a chance thing we would only see a few of them like that, not most. The rate of decay of the zombies is even commented upon by Dr. Logan. Romero is well aware of this issue.. I was only referring to Romero as using the zombies as a vehicle for his story. The helmets, in "reality", would not stay on the head of lumbering zombies. They were costumes that actors brought to break up monotony. But yes lets talk about Dr. Logans statement. Because interesting enough he says roughly, that these creatures could survive for several years. Then he says something like up to 12 years. I think, I'm not quoting. But my friend if we are "years" in, or 5 as you believe, wouldn't our TOTALLY INFORMED AND ALL KNOWING MEDIA WATCHING, gov't supported scientific team already know as a matter of fact that these do exist for years. Because Logan says "could survive". Since your opposition is accused of being unable to apply logic is it a stretch to assume that the gov't would infact be studying these creatures immediately and studying their capabilities and longevity? Some things have way less variables than others. The opposition, however, has frequently asked for huge leaps and gaps in faith and logic. Like, for example, expecting us to believe that characters who are so interested in the issue of whether there are any other survivors around would not have had any inclination whatsoever to pay attention to what the media had been reporting on the subject, or ask their superiors in Washington about it during their frequent communications with them. Or that a crook in Pennsylvania can somehow maintain a much more advanced and safe society at a time when the US government itself is underground and can't even maintain its own communication networks anymore.. Well one statement actually made was that Washington had more sophisticated bunkers than team FL. So its not a stretch of variable to assume that they are surviving and doing much better. What does have a large variable is when one assumes that all gov't is underground because one bunker in FL lost comms. I don't see why he shouldn't do just that. He had no problem doing it for the zombies of Day to distinguish them from the "fresher" zombies of Night and Dawn. If he really had intended Land to be from about the same time or after Day, then he should have applied the same philosophy and portray the zombies and their clothing as more decayed.

[JDP]

Absolutely, I agree. So one could argue that Day is the dark ages and Land is whatever comes after the Dark ages. Only if like several centuries after You assume a lot... It amazes me that you are so unaware of the fact that situations can change over time. Maybe they asked Washington about other places and Washington said "Sure there's plenty but they're falling like flies" and the next day communications cut off. The situations may very well change, but judging by the mess we see in Day they are changing for the worst. What if Washington didn't have time to talk in detail about other places? Furthermore, it's evident from the situation that communications cut off way before the whole world fell silent. The media certainly went off before other means of communication. By the end of Dawn there no longer are any broadcasts. Other radio communications would have continued, though. We see this also still going on at the end of Dawn (the bikers try to communicate with the survivors at the mall via radio.) The problem the Florida team has is that the US government is no longer able to keep up long range communications. You assume that once communications went down, things stopped happening at other places - which is absurd. What I logically conclude is that if things have gotten so bad that not even the US government can keep its own communication network going on, the likelihood that a less resourceful private enterprise like Kaufman's can pull things way more complicated than that is rather nil. The infrastructure just isn't there anymore to support such things. Outposts like Kaufman's, if still around by Day's time, would have had to be more modest sized and rudimentary, like the groups and communities of survivors we see in The Walking Dead show, for example. No you didn't, you ignored my argument entirely because you couldn't come up with an answer to; "What could it possibly mean - within the context OF THE FILM?" Maybe that Kaufman and Cholo already had a business relationship before the outbreak, and therefore a lot of tension between them for any number of reasons could already have been accumulating, which finally, after the last straw of not letting him move to Fiddler's Green, resulted in Cholo making threats against his boss. Agree to disagree. Both are on equal levels of decay. Nope, can't agree with such a claim. Day looks quite worse. The zombie areas in Land look in better shape. And it's not just the zombie towns, the parts of the zombie city that we also see (watch the scene when a zombie gets caught in the electric fence and electrocuted) look quite better than Day. As I showed, even some parts of the human city look in worse shape than the zombie areas of Land, amusingly enough. The city in day has palms and abandoned cars. That's it. Land is equally abandoned. Not quite, it also has decayed corpses, animals roaming around with their zombie pals, garbage, papers & money flying all over the place. Land does not look as bad. Just leaves from the trees around, some overgrown vegetation, and occasional objects around some of the streets/houses. The landscape looks more desolate and abandoned in Day. To see what picture I'm talking about, check your own posts. I already did, but I did not quite see what you describe. Who says characters are fair game for absurd assumptions and newspapers are not? I never signed that agreement, can I see it? It is not an agreement, it is common sense. What possible traits, mentality, character, behavior and personality can a newspaper have? It is an inanimate object. Humans on the other hand have plenty of qualities and traits from which you can derive pertinent conclusions. I guess you have never heard of things like psychology or criminology. Many of the fiefdoms after the Roman Empire were safer and better organized - locally - than the remnants of the Roman Empire. That's why they sprung up - the roman Empire couldn't protect people anymore. It's not as if the Roman Empire crashed into a wall and then everyone panicked and shouted "EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!". No, it was a gradual process where warlords and kings took a look around and said "Well, fuck this shit I can to a lot better job at running things" then they went to the local magistrate with their private army and said "I'm taking over" and the local magistrate, not having any heard any news from Rome or Ravenna in the last year except that we have a third new emperor the last five months would probably say "Ok, here's the key to the city.". Thus quite organized states could spring up from the remnants of the roman empire, using the exact same infrastructure. Those fragmented fiefdoms for many centuries were quite incapable of keeping up the same infrastructure of the Roman empire. Just look at the issue of water supply and roads as an example. The Roman empire established a bunch of aqueducts and roads wherever it established itself, which the coming crisis after its fall (largely instigated by "barbarian" intrusions into many areas of the empire) was quite incapable of maintaining. As a result, access to water and transportation became more difficult for several centuries, not better. No. As already stated. As already stated, no. Even the movie itself touches upon the issue of zombie decay over periods of time, and thus why the zombies in Day reflect this. For the most part, they are no longer the "fresher" looking zombies of Night and Dawn. This obvious difference has been noticed by a bunch of people, BTW. Just read many reviews of Day. - - - Updated - - - This is just senseless. See, I told you you wouldn't get it. Don't quit your day job to be a nitpicker. 'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' aren't even part of the same original quad of films. They're an attempt at a modern day reboot of the series by Romero. 'Diary of the Dead' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Night of the Living Dead'. The more you post, the absurd you're becoming. All these movies take place in the same zombie universe and are thus part of the series. Not that it is really needed, since anyone can plainly deduce it happens during the same first day of the outbreak as Night, but Romero himself explained so: http://www.mtv.com/news/1581440/geor...y-of-the-dead/ Romero: No, because it’s early [in their attack on the living]. In my version of “Dawn of the Dead,” they used that word for the first time in that early series. “Diary of the Dead” goes back to that very first night. Theoretically, it’s a parallel story with “Night of the Living Dead,” and I even used some audio from “Night of the Living Dead” in it. So, nobody knows what they are yet. They’re not calling them zombies yet. And Survival is related to Diary.

[EvilNed]

The situations may very well change, but judging by the mess we see in Day they are changing for the worst. That would of course vary locally. The media certainly went off before other means of communication. By the end of Dawn there no longer are any broadcasts. Other radio communications would have continued, though. We see this also still going on at the end of Dawn (the bikers try to communicate with the survivors at the mall via radio.) The problem the Florida team has is that the US government is no longer able to keep up long range communications. Exactly my point. Communication would be unrelieable across the board. What I logically conclude is that if things have gotten so bad that not even the US government can keep its own communication network going on, the likelihood that a less resourceful private enterprise like Kaufman's can pull things way more complicated than that is rather nil. The infrastructure just isn't there anymore to support such things. Outposts like Kaufman's, if still around by Day's time, would have had to be more modest sized and rudimentary, like the groups and communities of survivors we see in The Walking Dead show, for example Your conclusion doesn't take into consideration local situations at all, but rather paints a very broad picture and assumes it is the same everywhere. In any case, you may draw any conclusion you want, I already pointed out to you that there is a historical precedent for this kind of thing. Maybe that Kaufman and Cholo already had a business relationship before the outbreak, and therefore a lot of tension between them for any number of reasons could already have been accumulating, which finally, after the last straw of not letting him move to Fiddler's Green, resulted in Cholo making threats against his boss. How is that and the car mechanics line relevant to the context of the film? Try again. Nope, can't agree with such a claim. Then don't. It is not an agreement, it is common sense. What possible traits, mentality, character, behavior and personality can a newspaper have? It is an inanimate object. Humans on the other hand have plenty of qualities and traits from which you can derive pertinent conclusions. I guess you have never heard of things like psychology or criminology. Who says we are only nitpicking character, behavior and personality? I never agreed to that. Those fragmented fiefdoms for many centuries were quite incapable of keeping up the same infrastructure of the Roman empire. Irrelevant to this discussion since I was merely pointing out that localized states can form and maintain order and cohesion in a power vacuum left by a larger one. It happened in Europe, it happened in Land.

[JDP]

Safer? It's almost painful reading this. Outside the barriers of the Green sure looks like a walk in the park. Puts blinders on, no danger here. Its "safer". Outside of Fiddlers you did not see any other functioning society did you? We heard about an outpost in Cleveland that hasn't been heard of in a while. 100+ miles from the Green. How in your early fantasy of Land where all this great technology is possible due to your timeline is there not a helicopter and a pilot? Because 100 miles by air would be pretty easy for a helicopter crew to report back and forth. Also Jon and McDermott didn't have too much fear of leaving the cave for their island get away. To the extent that they threw out revolvers as they expended the bullets. This is almost painful to read, indeed. Does it look to you that Riley, Cholo, Foxy and Kaufman take armies with them to venture outside the city? Riley just wants a car so he can leave the city, Foxy and Cholo are going to try their luck in Cleveland in a car without a roof, Kaufman takes a chauffeur, a limo and all his dough to escape to a boat so he can go to one of the other outposts he has had a hand in establishing. Do you seriously need more evidence that this world is still relatively safe? Of course, you are not going to be stupid enough to venture out there for long distances on foot and alone, but with back-up and some means of transportation you can obviously easily make it. It does not look like the characters are very worried that with a vehicle at their disposal they are not going to make it. Who says they did not have helicopters? Maybe they did and they ran out of fuel. Or maybe Kaufman and whoever runs the Cleveland outpost are not in good terms anymore. Or maybe they really just did not happen to have any helicopters. However, we know for sure that they were able to build a complex machine like Dead Reckoning. This is not open to questions. John and McDermott want to go to an island, which is actually a good plan considering how bad the situation on the mainland has gotten, and they have a handy helicopter around to be able to implement this plan. And the problem is??? The revolvers were no longer useful to John. Out of ammo! He should have also taken all the ammo that Rhodes had. Completely missing the mark. First of all soldiers are in charge of security. Soldiers will listen to their soldier counterparts, not media. I work for the Gov't. I've been in critical incidents. Do you think I get my intel from the media or the radio on my hip? The power is out in the mainland. Broadcasts aren't happening. Is that because we are 5 years in during Day? Because the easy counter is broadcasts were seen ending in Dawn. It seems like you are having a wee bit of trouble keeping up with what is being said: the media broadcasts happened much earlier than the events we see in Day. Communications were still on. Even the mass media was still around until about the end of the events we see in Dawn. And the outposts of Land were already being established at this relatively early stage of the crisis. So it goes without saying that the odds that NOBODY -civilians or soldiers- from the Florida team heard these media reports is quite slim. These people worked for the government and were very interested in the topic of survivors. Something like the existence of survivor outposts would not have gone unnoticed. Well if they were the greatest informed bunker in history and the world is over, outposts destroyed, zombies own it all, why in the name of Jesus would they be looking for survivors at all? Why? Take into consideration that Rhodes escape was gonna be by ground. Chopper couldn't hold his soldiers until the end of the movie. Vehicles and fuel don't appear to be an issue from what we see in cave. But without having direct commuications with an outpost, is it worth the risk? Are the roads passable? All unknowns. Which makes it a huge risk. Especially considering they are in the ultimate zombie survival bunker. Aside from mankinds stupidity making it dangerous they had food, water medicine and dr care. Complete shelter from zombies except for the ones they brought in. The besieged you speak of consists of 50-75 zombies gathered around a gate. 2-3 mags of an M16 would end that. Realistically Rhodes wanting to leave isn't out of necessity but desire. He saw the waste of time. Jon and Mc saw it. They were in the dark. That's the point of Romero's theme, doom and gloom. The fact that Rhodes can't answer Logan's "where will you go" taunts and that he doesn't really decide to leave the bunker for good until later on (after a huge confrontation with the civilians that results in two people being shot in cold blood) should tell you that he really had no idea where to go to. The good doc knew it, that's why he teases him. And the fact that later on he will do whatever it takes to coerce John into being their pilot also should tell you that he is not very thrilled at the prospect of having to go out there on foot or even with a vehicle. He knows how dangerous that would be. They even have an ever growing number of zombies accumulating at their door (the very ones that suicidal Miguel brings into the bunker and end up making a meal out of everyone down there.) Pay attention to the dialogue: the number of zombies gathered at the fence was so preoccupying that it is the subject of an exchange between Sarah and two of the soldiers, resulting in the comment by one of them that there's "more and more of them everyday". And they obviously did not want to waste too much ammo on zombies that, for the moment being, are not able to break through the fence. It does not mean that it will remain so forever. Sarah wants everyone to remain out of sight, hoping that this will stop attracting zombies to the base. And I agree, the best thing any of them could have done is simply to remain in the bunker and take advantage of the food and water that they still had until it was all gone and there would be no choice left but find some other place. But that's us, we do not have to do the same dangerous job they did down there! These soldiers do not like at all having to be close to and handle the zombies, exposing their lives to danger just so that the scientists can continue their research, which to them is hardly clear at all if it will ever give any positive results. They see the whole thing as an unnecessary risk. Since losing communications thereby adding extreme risk to a travel away from food, water and shelter is a big stretch for you, try this. McDermott says "I'm sure there's others". Since he's living it and says it should we listen too him? Like you he can't prove his statement but that's in the movie. Add Sarah' speech about more sophisticated and secured bunkers else where. Again not factual that they haven't fallen but without comms how can you justify leaving? Well if we accept character statements then please submit Mcdermotts and Sarah's from above. Again, read the thread, all of this has been brought up. McDermott actually a bit later on doubts his own statement and very somberly also considers the likely possibility that they are "the only ones left". And Sarah is in fact talking about what their superiors in Washington have been forced to do: go into shelters, just like they are! Yet another indication of how bad things have gotten. If TWD is fair game then I hate to break it to you but it's not going to help your case. Because comms, gov't everything is gone according to Rick Grimes when he tells the prisoners. And we are at most 9 months out given Lori's state of pregnancy. And had the Wolves not found Alexandria because of a photo I'd say that was a society that had a legitimate chance at continuing to advance. But alas all we have is a societal glimpse of a couple of counties in Georgia. I will not pretend to know that Billings Montana isn't thriving. I don't know. The level of sophistication of any of the societies we have seen in TWD show is nowhere even near that of Kauffman's outpost. The survivors of that show are too busy trying to achieve basic survival, and at most reestablishing some sort of rudimentary societies, as it is very logical to expect considering the gravity of the disaster that has upset the country's infrastructure. And as stated before, had George done the exact same makeup or purposely made an attempt to show more tattered clothes the trailer and appeal to audiences would have fell flat. That's just Hollywood evolving. Would producers be ok with 80's makeup and zombies? Same reason Diary zombies have a modern look to them. If George paraded out 68 style makeup for Diary he would have been crucified. What does this have to do with make-up and clothes that give the appearance of more decay? Are you suggesting that modern make-up cannot emulate this? And by the way, those old 70s and 80s special effects and make-up are often quite better than a lot of the cartoonish CGI stuff that passes as such nowadays in many horror movies. For example, I have yet to see modern movies with better and more "believable" looking werewolves and man-to-wolf transformations than 1981's The Howling and An American Werewolf in London, or better looking demon-possessed humans than 1988's Night of the Demons, or better looking and disgusting alien creatures than 1982's The Thing, or better and more "believable" dragons than 1981's Dragonslayer. Similarly with zombies. I find Romero's Day of the Dead and Fulci's Zombie to have quite more effective and repulsive looking zombies than many a modern zombie movie. So by all means, please bring back many of those old fashioned special effects and make-up! Wrong. It was chronologically his end in 1985. Wish I could bold 85. George admitted once he conceived his next chapter his original intent was to put it between Night and Day but then didn't. The man said it. He said continuing saga after the 4 films were made. He wanted to show us that even when surrounded by zombies we would rebuild a society with class systems and power. The threat of extinction wasn't enough of a lesson. Well, like I said, sometimes Romero fails in conveying some of his intentions to the movie he is making. I was only referring to Romero as using the zombies as a vehicle for his story. The helmets, in "reality", would not stay on the head of lumbering zombies. They were costumes that actors brought to break up monotony. Depends: what if the helmet is strapped? I could easily see how a zombified soldier would keep it on for a long time. But yes lets talk about Dr. Logans statement. Because interesting enough he says roughly, that these creatures could survive for several years. Then he says something like up to 12 years. I think, I'm not quoting. But my friend if we are "years" in, or 5 as you believe, wouldn't our TOTALLY INFORMED AND ALL KNOWING MEDIA WATCHING, gov't supported scientific team already know as a matter of fact that these do exist for years. Because Logan says "could survive". Since your opposition is accused of being unable to apply logic is it a stretch to assume that the gov't would infact be studying these creatures immediately and studying their capabilities and longevity? Even if we take the five years possibility, that still leaves the question open of just how long exactly will these creatures last before decay damages them enough to no longer be functional? It is a perfectly valid question that Logan is looking into, among other things of importance. Well one statement actually made was that Washington had more sophisticated bunkers than team FL. So its not a stretch of variable to assume that they are surviving and doing much better. What does have a large variable is when one assumes that all gov't is underground because one bunker in FL lost comms. Why wouldn't they have more sophisticated shelters? They are their superiors in Washington, we should expect them to have access to better facilities. The interesting thing is that they too have gone underground. And also that they can no longer keep long range communications going. And that all this is worrying the hell out of the survivors in Florida. - - - Updated - - - That would of course vary locally. When even the very turf of the government itself is knee-deep into it, you know that other places won't be faring much better. Plus you forget that even in Dawn the situation was already getting quite bad pretty much everywhere in the country. That's why that group of survivors wants to see if maybe Canada is faring better. Exactly my point. Communication would be unrelieable across the board. On the contrary, communications are extremely important. That's why they are so desperate to try to raise someone... anyone! But the problem is that the government can no longer maintain long range communications going. Not a good sign at all. Your conclusion doesn't take into consideration local situations at all, but rather paints a very broad picture and assumes it is the same everywhere. In any case, you may draw any conclusion you want, I already pointed out to you that there is a historical precedent for this kind of thing. A historical precedent which in fact made things worse, not better! Quite contrary to what we see in the case of Kaufman's outpost vs US government collapsing. How is that and the car mechanics line relevant to the context of the film? Try again. Who says that what the "mechanic" says is relevant to anything? Who is this guy anyway? He himself is totally irrelevant to the plot. He is there only to provide a bit of comedy ("You got fucked!"). His remark is simply in self-defense of Riley's accusation that he has had something to do with the disappearance of his car. Cholo is a relevant character who says something about 3 years that could be relevant to the plot, not this guy claiming he has not driven a car in 3 years. Then don't. Of course I don't, and so does anyone with a fully working pair of eyes. Who says we are only nitpicking character, behavior and personality? I never agreed to that. The nitpick itself is partly based on the character, behavior and personality of the survivors. Do they look to you like they would take the subject of noticing or requesting information about survivors very casually? They are even willing to put their lives at risk and go out of their way to see if they can find anyone out there. Their concern with and interest in the subject is unquestionable. Now how in blazes can such things that can be easily deduced from their character and behavior compare with a friggin' newspaper being swept by the wind, and that only gets like 5 seconds of screen time to boot? Apples & oranges. Irrelevant to this discussion since I was merely pointing out that localized states can form and maintain order and cohesion in a power vacuum left by a larger one. It happened in Europe, it happened in Land. What happened in Europe is in fact the opposite: things got worse for quite a while after the empire fell. In Land things would actually have gotten better while the government itself had collapsed. For this analogy to really work Kaufman's post would have had to be more modest sized, less safe and less sophisticated. The infrastructure that would be required to maintain what we see going on at Kaufman's is simply out of the question in the apocalypse scenario of Day. The government itself, with its much larger resources and capital, would not be able to pull off such things. They can't even maintain long range communications anymore.

[EvilNed]

When even the very turf of the government itself is knee-deep into it, you know that other places won't be faring much better. Plus you forget that even in Dawn the situation was already getting quite bad pretty much everywhere in the country. That's why that group of survivors wants to see if maybe Canada is faring better. As I said, this would of course vary locally. On the contrary, communications are extremely important. That's why they are so desperate to try to raise someone... anyone! But the problem is that the government can no longer maintain long range communications going. Not a good sign at all. 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? A historical precedent which in fact made things worse, not better! Quite contrary to what we see in the case of Kaufman's outpost vs US government collapsing. 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. Who says that what the "mechanic" says is relevant to anything? It's a film. All dialogue exists for a purpose. The nitpick itself is partly based on the character, behavior and personality of the survivors. Very well and then I will nitpick the decayrate of a newspaper. What happened in Europe is in fact the opposite: things got worse for quite a while after the empire fell. In Land things would actually have gotten better while the government itself had collapsed. 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.

[facestabber]

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". 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. 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 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.