Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[JDP]

Conjecture is not proof. The things you continually contend are logical and obvious aren't very persuasive. I'm not hearing a lot of agreement with your arguments. So just because a few people stubbornly refuse to accept coherent and well reasoned arguments based on what we see in these movies that means they must be wrong, even though these fellows can't actually prove they are wrong or faulty? Hint: history is quite packed with such cases. Agreed. And ... that is conjecture. You assume they had to explore the caves in their entirety. They did not. Strange, you agree with the first premise, yet you want to deny the logical follow up to it. How else can they be sure that keeping the zombies there is going to be safe if they do not explore the whole place? How could they possibly ever be sure that they are not setting themselves up to either: 1- Waste their time and effort by losing the zombies they have worked so hard and risked their lives to capture all because of another exit to the outside that the zombies can use to escape 2- Endanger their very own lives through another entrance to the living/working areas If they valued their time and lives -and there's plenty of evidence throughout the movie that this is an integral part of their character- they would not have left such an important thing to mere chance. Here is MY conjecture. They had to explore a PART of the caves to secure the living area. They explored outwards from the living area as much as they needed to at the time they moved in. Once they realized that they had a single place that they could barricade off to secure the main living areas, they barricade it off and focused on other priorities. The rest of the place was for all intents and purposes considered outside the secured area. It was convenient to use it as a zombie corral so they did. The place was enormous. They were putting together the operation on very short time. They had lots of other priorities. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think they didn't explore every inch of the place once they had secured an area. And once they had a zombie population back there, they'd not be very motivated to explore it. But there is no way of knowing for sure whether there is another entrance back into the living/working areas unless you actually thoroughly explore it. Furthermore, they also do not want to have to go on top and round up zombies every so often. It is a very dangerous activity (Sarah mentions this.) So they also want a place that they know for sure the zombies are not going to find their way out to the outside. So that is two very important things to check before deciding where to build the corral. There is no logical way to try to argue that these people would have been very haphazard and casual regarding such an important matter, where even their very own lives might very well be at stake. If they put the corral there, it is because they were damn sure that the zombies were not going to be able to get out, either to the outside or back into the living/working areas. Interesting statement considering that they left an open hatch to the outside. I would think that if they'd explored it thoroughly they'd have blocked that off somehow. They do not consider the zombies to be intelligent at all. They lack the necessary IQ and hand-to-foot coordination to climb such a tall ladder. It is even pretty demanding in concentration for people to climb those things. John overtly displayed knowledge about the place that no one else had. He was reading all the documentation that was housed in the caves. And you'll notice that Sarah and McDermott didn't beeline for the silo until John caught up with them. They didn't seem to be moving with purpose at all. I'd contend that John was THE ONLY PERSON who knew about the silo exit. He may very well have known about it for some time and chosen not to share it with the military because he wanted to have his own escape route if it came to that. John is reading old records that nobody else down there cares about because he simply doesn't have anything better to do. That does not mean he knows the base better than anyone. Sarah and McDermott definitely know the silo is back there, she says so and McDermott says they can't get back there without guns (there might be too many zombies on the way there), but they are cut off by unexpected obstacles, like a rock slide and wandering zombies, which makes their trip to the silo more difficult than it would otherwise have been. I won't contend that my hypothesis fits ALL the available facts. But it leaves less loose end. Such as: - The soldiers didn't display knowledge of there being an additional exit when it was particularly important that they have one. I think it is a perfectly valid nitpick. Steel should have known better. But explanations for his remark can be offered as well. Maybe Steel was getting a bit "yellow" himself at this point and did not want to consider venturing into the zombie-filled caves to use the other exit that was potentially available. - The soldiers placed Sarah and McDermott in the corral as if it were a death sentence. They did NOT act like they knew there was another exit. If they put you in those caves with no weapons whatsoever to defend yourself, you too would think it is basically a death sentence. McDermott knows about the silo being back there, but he doubts they will be able to make it without any guns to fight back the potential zombies they will encounter on the way. The reason why they make a run for it nonetheless is because they have no other choice but to take a chance. If they stay in the corral they are dead for sure. - The soldiers displayed an abundance of counter-behaviors to the contention that they were highly security minded. They were portrayed as lazy and stupid. For example, they posted no guards. They did no rounds. They had no clue John and McDermott had built a sanctuary outside the living quarters. They brawled. They threatened rape on Sarah. They left the corral gate open as they fled. Like I pointed out in the other thread, they are rude, loud, obnoxious, and not particularly bright when it comes to more complicated matters (like science), but they sure were not suicidal. We never see them playing Russian roulette with their own lives. The corral is always closed when we see it, and we hear of no incidents about any of the zombies there getting out on their own and killing someone (which would very quickly have been brought up by Rhodes had it ever happened, and he would have not hesitated to blame the scientists for it, even if it had been one of the soldier's negligence to close the gate.) Why would they need guards and rounds down in the bunker? The outside area was fenced and the zombies below were behind the corral in a place where they would not be able to find a way into the living/working areas. In any event, we do not know for sure if they actually posted guards when the others were sleeping. - The soldiers clearly did not know the cave layout. When the zombies stream in through the corral gates they make it to the living areas BEFORE the soldiers. Which is in itself impossible. That is in fact a huge gap in logic from Romero's part. Huge nitpick. There is just no way that could have happened, and others around here have been puzzled by this obvious contradiction. They did not even intercept Rickles on his way to the very area the zombies poured out from, and yet these slow, shuffling, dumb creatures somehow miraculously find their way to areas further away before the running soldiers do!!! Your ONLY evidence is an assumption of what you think people like them SHOULD do. To be honest, I agree with that assumption. They SHOULD HAVE explored the caves. But it doesn't fit the facts. Stop acting like you have to explain everything to me when your own hypothesis fails so obviously. Apparently I have to keep doing so, because you either do not fully get it or just want to be obtuse on purpose. None of the soldiers or civilians in this movie are anywhere even near stupid and suicidal enough to have made such a hilariously dumb decision as building a corral for a bunch of potentially deadly zombies without first checking out that it was safe to keep them there. Your excuses that some of these people were rude, lecherous, obnoxious, etc. does not take away from the fact that they were not by any means suicidal and did NOT have any inclination whatsoever to gamble with their lives. Bringing a bunch of zombies to an area of the underground complex without knowing for sure that they would not be able to find another entrance into their living/working quarters is something that only the gone-fully-suicidal Miguel of the latter part of the movie would do, no one else. Even if we assume that Land occurs less than a year into the outbreak I don't see how you can contend that places like Fiddler's Green "simply can't exist anymore," by your assumed 5 year mark of Day. It seems like a setup similar to the Green could go indefinitely. The Green was more capable of securing supplies and building infrastructure. Whereas the Day bunker had limited resources and no means to scavenge. That's because the Green of Land was set in a time when such supplies were still plentiful and still relatively accessible (if you had enough manpower to go get them.) By the time of Day, such things would be more scarce and difficult to procure (less and less people, more and more zombies.) Plus we can clearly see that the Green did not survive. It was overrun by zombies in the end. So was the bunker. Here's an interesting question. If Land was set so early into the outbreak, why didn't Peter pick up transmissions from Fiddler's Green or the scavenging parties listening to the radio in the mall? Maybe he did, we just did not see it. They had a radio there and their ears on, just in case they heard something. Maybe the biker army that assaults the mall actually worked for one of these outposts! They were also very interested in looting the money in the mall's bank, so they still had use for it, just like the people we see at the time of Land. Nothing impossible here. - - - Updated - - - You've offered no reasonable argument to anything, so still; Occams razor. You've offered nothing but the same tired old mantra, so it still does not work. The ball is still on your court until you can actually come up with counterarguments.

[EvilNed]

So just because a few people stubbornly refuse to accept coherent and well reasoned arguments based on what we see in these movies that means they must be wrong, even though these fellows can't actually prove they are wrong or faulty? Everyone is in agreement that your arguments are not-well reasoned. Everyone except you. Do you think it's because maybe they aren't or that the rest of us are dumb? You've offered nothing but the same tired old mantra, so it still does not work. The ball is still on your court until you can actually come up with counterarguments. Which I did, several times. You either refused to accept them based on your "superior" reasoning or ignored them altogether. You still haven't explained why they look for survivors in Day and not Land... Or why Kaufman has a zombie killing tank... Or comprehended what expositional dialoge is... Blablabla, I cold go on. You're gonna reply to all these replies with lengthy paragraphs that jump to conclusions and assume things that would make Occam take that razor and cut his own ears off.

[facestabber]

Where does Land clearly state that it has been 3 years? There's only two mentions of years in the movie, and neither one of them clearly says that it is the amount of time it has passed since the outbreak. The only thing the movie does specifically say about this subject of a time-frame is during the starting sequence: "some time ago" and "today". Couldn't be more vague and imprecise if it tried to! Going back two days here. I offered you George Romeros own words that Land is 3 years in. Btw that quote was after Land was made so tell me again of the original script of Day saying 5 years still stands? So it proves you were incorrect on your belief that Land happens early on. You dismissed the time statements that were uttered in Land yet Romero has reinforced what the rest of us believe. You're wrong on Land according to Romero so why are you right on Day? You offered a hypothesis on Day. You can't prove it. I can't prove that Day isn't 5 years in. It very well could be. It also could be much less. There are so many maybe's as to how or why communications failed but it doesn't prove 5 years. Maybe one relay station was struck by lightning. Or maybe one burned up because of bandits. Maybe mcdermotts equipment finally dry rotted and the signals are too puny. Heck a couple months into TWD universe shows that communications crashed fast. Doesn't prove that humans can't make a comeback. Woodbury and the prison were close to each other and the Gov had no idea people had taken it over until by chance Merle runs into Glenn. Point is when comms go down you are in the dark and don't know what the heck is going on a couple miles down the road till you physically go there. Based on your beliefs tell us what was happening in places such as Montana/Alaska.

[Trin]

Land is sort of a wasted opportunity. I'd like to go back to this point because I really think this could be an interesting topic. I felt like Land was a wasted opportunity as well. Romero was given a chance to make his zombie masterpiece. And ... as much as I love the man all he did for my movie watching lifetime ... I think he kinda blew it. And with it he condemned the franchise to low-budget indies as follow-up. And it could've been GREAT! The opening 15 minutes are some of the best zombie pr0n available. The setup they had, the characters, the way they approached the world, the many glimpses we get into the post-apocalyptic world ... it was all freakin awesome. Land's Problems: - There weren't enough zombies around the city to be a threat. For casual forays outside the city they were a nuisance at best. - Yet the populace acted as if they were trapped and the situation was dire. - Kaufman had little basis for control given the relative safety outside. A small group could've just walked out and made their own way without much trouble. It's implausible that Riley and Charlie hadn't left long ago. - The money issue. I agree that money was a viable Kaufman backed currency inside the Green. But Cholo ransoming the city for money was insane. And even if you assume Cholo was too stupid or revenge driven to care that money was useless to him ... you still have Kaufman grabbing bags of money to flee the city. With the Green fallen that money is just as useless to him. To (probably mis)quote Clanglee, "It's an odd place to pin your primary plot point." - Big Daddy. I'm not against the "learning zombie" or the idea that Romero wanted to show zombie evolution. But the execution was off. - Walking under the river. Which was unguarded. And has no current. And trying to convince us that the zombies only did this now becuase they'd gotten smart. As if half a million zombies walking blindly forward wouldn't have accomplished this years prior. Let's face it... we all knew the zombies will penetrate the defenses - half the fun is seeing how it happens. But in the grand scheme of "how did your perfect zombie base get breached" this was the ultimate cop-out. So... how would I fix those things? I'm glad you asked: - Have the secured area be surrounded by zombies. As many as you could manage. It would provide a huge sense of dread and immediately establish a grandeur over the prior movies. It would justify the dread inside the city and the control Kaufman exerted as their "savior." - Make the scavengers have to work to get into and out of the city. Make Dead Reckoning an absolute necessity to survive scavenging. And make the entire exchange very well planned and executed. That would elevate the main characters in importance and capability, justify why Dead Reckoning was considered a pivotal asset, while giving us zombie geeks some incredible survivalist material to chew on. How do they get in? How do they get out? How do they survive? - Have Cholo threaten to blow up a section of the walls, not the tower. That would be more dreadful and a more interesting character twist. - Have Cholo ransom the city for money AND resources (fuel, ammunition, food, medicine). Money to hurt Kaufman by bringing down his empire and resources for plausibility sake knowing Cholo can't go back. - Have the zombies begin to learn as a group, rather than through a specific leader. Show the same aptitude for learned behavior we saw in Day in the corral, except on a grander scale. Add them learning from one another (as a twist) and show how a small bit of learning sweeping across a HUGE mass of zombies makes them incredibly threatening. - And then have some twist to how the zombies breach the defenses that is less of a cop-out. Maybe the zombies figure out to attack Dead Reckoning instead of the city directly, forcing Cholo to blow the walls up just to get them off himself. Or maybe they see the humans using fire or tools in some way that they can emulate in attacks on the walls. There's gotta be something better than "walk under the river." In the Hollywood reboot-fest can we please have this movie??

[EvilNed]

The argument that 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. The argument that the newsflashes at the start of Land seem to indicate that Land is mere weeks into it rather than years doesn't take into account the fact that the newsflashes themselves seem to range from a wider span. The first reports seem to be of a person describing the first time he sees a dead come back to life - i.e., the very first days, and subsequent newsflashes cover the societal collapse that followed. Thus to suggest that anyone of these newscasts pinpoint Land's place in the chronological order of Romero's dead trilogy ignores the fact that the newsflashes themselves have a very wide range - From what appears to be Day 1 to what could very well be Day 60. (I could go on that they are finished off by a fade - which in the language of film means; A passage of time.) The argument that Florida would have gotten information on the existance (or lack thereof) of other survivors in the US ignores the fact that we have no idea that they DIDN'T. Washington could very well - and probably would have - have discussed dozens of situational reps throughout the US. But when the relays went down, from lack of maintenance - or way more likely - a fire that was simply not put out - there's just no way for the Florida personell to keep in touch with Washington anymore. Conclusion; Lack of information does not mean that there isn't any and no amount of assumption will change this, JDP. 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... The argument that Day displays more decay than Land is just silly and cannot be empirically proved. Both display decay at an advanced level. Leave it at that. I believe this is the very definition of "grasping for straws". I just took these five examples, JDP, to point out how and where your arguments fall short - what facts they ignore and what pieces of information they either overlook or make wild assumptions about.

[shootemindehead]

One only has to review the thread to see that it plainly has. It is you "Land has to happen after Day" fellows that still have to bring up any counterarguments that have not been answered yet. The ball is still on your court. The ball never left our court. The match never started. You haven't even arrived with a working tennis racket. You haven't shown, NOT ONCE, anything to support your conclusion. A conclusion that you have obviously started with because it suits you and into which you've tried to jam in a whole manner of items, which have been torn apart time and again. You can continuously ignore this if you wish. It makes no difference to me. But you have not been, in any way, convincing in your argument. I cannot stress that enough. Personally, I couldn't give a tinkers cuss if 'Land of the Dead' DID come before 'Day of the Dead'. There are plenty of film series that have stories that are out of their timeline. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' takes place after 'Temple of Doom' despite the fact that Raiders was made before temple and it doesn't diminish those films one bit.. But, the simple fact is, is that 'Land of the Dead' takes place after the events in 'Day of the Dead', whether you like it or not and no amount of "yeh, but no...but yeh..." will change that. Thats not evidence of anything! It's obvious Kaufman's tank can travel through time and arrived from the future - the so called 3 years he's talking about! In fact, Land takes place PRIOR to the apocalypse in a post-Trump presidancy America! I'm going to blame YOU if that shows up in Romero's next picture.

[JDP]

The ball never left our court. The match never started. You haven't even arrived with a working tennis racket. You haven't shown, NOT ONCE, anything to support your conclusion. A conclusion that you have obviously started with because it suits you and into which you've tried to jam in a whole manner of items, which have been torn apart time and again. You can continuously ignore this if you wish. It makes no difference to me. But you have not been, in any way, convincing in your argument. I cannot stress that enough. Personally, I couldn't give a tinkers cuss if 'Land of the Dead' DID come before 'Day of the Dead'. There are plenty of film series that have stories that are out of their timeline. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' takes place after 'Temple of Doom' despite the fact that Raiders was made before temple and it doesn't diminish those films one bit.. But, the simple fact is, is that 'Land of the Dead' takes place after the events in 'Day of the Dead', whether you like it or not and no amount of "yeh, but no...but yeh..." will change that. Your amusing little denials are not going to change the fact that the ball still is very much in your court and you have yet to hit it back. It was served to you in style, and you still can't simply hit it back, all you can do is go into deep denial and hilarious "arguments": "Noooo, these people in Florida must all be morons and masochists, that's why they remain down in that bunker blowing things out of proportion for no reason at all other than they don't know anything except what goes on in their backyard!", "Yes, Kaufman can somehow manage to maintain an advanced civilization going on while the government of the most powerful nation in the world, which has more resources and capital at its disposal than a crook like Kaufman could even dream of in his wildest fantasies, has been forced to go underground and can't even maintain its communication networks anymore. It sounds perfectly logical!", "Rhodes can't answer Logan's "where will you go" taunts because... because... because... he is a masochist and wants to look like a total idiot in front of his men, yes, that must be it!", "The frequent talks that the Florida team had with Washington before communications ceased must have been about anything but the desperate zombie situation and survivors, like for example, Democrats vs Republicans, or what's for dinner over there at the White House, here we are having sardines and saltine crackers yet again! Really, it makes perfect sense!", etc. Keep trying. My challenges -every single one of them based on either things clearly stated or logically implied by the movies- to you and your mates about this strange claim that the still functional and still relatively safe world of Land can somehow logically take place after the total chaos and impending doom of Day still stand, and anxiously await real counterarguments, not puerile stubborn denials or easily rebutted arguments. - - - Updated - - - Everyone is in agreement that your arguments are not-well reasoned. Everyone except you. Do you think it's because maybe they aren't or that the rest of us are dumb? Everyone meaning you and a couple of your friends. Gee, really, I am amazed. I am still waiting for you or any of your friends to come up with any valid counterarguments. Which I did, several times. You either refused to accept them based on your "superior" reasoning or ignored them altogether. You still haven't explained why they look for survivors in Day and not Land... Or why Kaufman has a zombie killing tank... You did so in your imagination, I guess. I already answered this faulty argument: In Land they already have TONS of survivors. Why in blazes would they want to go out of their way to find more mouths to feed??? They already got their hands full. What they need is medicine and food for all these people that they already have, or didn't you notice that's why they go on raiding other places to find these things? In fact, these survivors are even free to leave Kaufman's city if they so wish to. In Day, it is exactly the opposite: they can't seem to find survivors anywhere! Kaufman has an armored vehicle because it makes the job of going around looting zombie areas easier and safer. That simple. It is not absolutely necessary either to do such jobs, by the way. The bikers in Dawn were doing quite well looting for supplies without any sophisticated armored vehicle. Or comprehended what expositional dialoge is... You mean like I had to show you what that is, because you were confusing it with something else (narrative.) Again, go back in the thread and read it. It's all there in plain sight. Blablabla, I cold go on. You're gonna reply to all these replies with lengthy paragraphs that jump to conclusions and assume things that would make Occam take that razor and cut his own ears off. Of course, because that's how you actually refute your interlocutor's "arguments", by providing coherent and well thought explanations, not by stubborn denials and repeating the same tired old refuted "arguments" and excuses over and over again, such as you do. - - - Updated - - - Going back two days here. I offered you George Romeros own words that Land is 3 years in. Btw that quote was after Land was made so tell me again of the original script of Day saying 5 years still stands? So it proves you were incorrect on your belief that Land happens early on. You dismissed the time statements that were uttered in Land yet Romero has reinforced what the rest of us believe. You're wrong on Land according to Romero so why are you right on Day? You offered a hypothesis on Day. You can't prove it. I can't prove that Day isn't 5 years in. It very well could be. It also could be much less. There are so many maybe's as to how or why communications failed but it doesn't prove 5 years. Maybe one relay station was struck by lightning. Or maybe one burned up because of bandits. Maybe mcdermotts equipment finally dry rotted and the signals are too puny. Heck a couple months into TWD universe shows that communications crashed fast. Doesn't prove that humans can't make a comeback. Woodbury and the prison were close to each other and the Gov had no idea people had taken it over until by chance Merle runs into Glenn. Point is when comms go down you are in the dark and don't know what the heck is going on a couple miles down the road till you physically go there. Based on your beliefs tell us what was happening in places such as Montana/Alaska. One thing is Romero's intentions, and another different thing is how his movies really come across. The years issue in Land was not precise enough and left room for interpretation. Romero envisioned Day to be 5 years after the zombies first popped up. Now he says that Land is only 3. Unless he has gone on record saying that Day takes place at some other time earlier than Land, I see no problem here. I already told you that there is no nitpick if Land happens about 3 years from the early days of the zombie disaster as long as Day happens after it. The nitpick only comes if it is claimed that Day happens before Land. The Walking Dead is another matter altogether. And it often makes more sense than some of the strange problems and contradictions that can creep in some of Romero's movies. For example, you don't find the survivors of that show making super-armored vehicles with computers, machine guns, rockets, etc. and maintaining huge numbers of mercenaries, workers, citizens, etc. in a world where even the very government itself has basically collapsed and organized society at large has gone to hell. These people are having a tough time just surviving. They don't have the time, manpower or resources to establish very advanced societies. In this sense, TWD is a lot like Day. - - - Updated - - - The argument that 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. Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Guess what brought it? Yep, precisely what you are describing. For roughly some five hundred years most of Europe was in much worse shape than when the Roman empire was still around. Notice that the Byzantine and Muslim empires, which did not go through the same crisis and collapse as the Western Roman empire, at this period were in much better shape than Christian Europe. Ask any historian and they will tell you that most preservation and advancement of human knowledge (science, philosophy, math, medicine, literature, poetry, etc.) at this time came mostly from such places, not from Christian Europe. It is only during the so-called Middle Ages, some five hundred or so years after the collapse of the Western Roman empire, that Christian Europe finally catched up to these other civilizations. The argument that the newsflashes at the start of Land seem to indicate that Land is mere weeks into it rather than years doesn't take into account the fact that the newsflashes themselves seem to range from a wider span. The first reports seem to be of a person describing the first time he sees a dead come back to life - i.e., the very first days, and subsequent newsflashes cover the societal collapse that followed. Thus to suggest that anyone of these newscasts pinpoint Land's place in the chronological order of Romero's dead trilogy ignores the fact that the newsflashes themselves have a very wide range - From what appears to be Day 1 to what could very well be Day 60. (I could go on that they are finished off by a fade - which in the language of film means; A passage of time.) Where did I deny that the broadcasts also cover the very early days of the zombie crisis? But that still does not mean that what the broadcasts also report later on is not actually closer to what we see happening in Land: people establishing outposts and looting towns for supplies. The argument that Florida would have gotten information on the existance (or lack thereof) of other survivors in the US ignores the fact that we have no idea that they DIDN'T. Washington could very well - and probably would have - have discussed dozens of situational reps throughout the US. But when the relays went down, from lack of maintenance - or way more likely - a fire that was simply not put out - there's just no way for the Florida personell to keep in touch with Washington anymore. Conclusion; Lack of information does not mean that there isn't any and no amount of assumption will change this, JDP. OK, but having logically had such discussions with Washington we have to conclude that our Florida survivors' very pessimistic attitude is founded not just on what is going on on their own turf, but also from the not very encouraging information coming from elsewhere. Now, does it look to you that our survivors in Florida are really entertaining much hope of really finding a safe place to go at this point? Dr. Logan's estimate of the situation looks very bleak. People are vastly outnumbered by the zombies. And Rhodes and his men, the people most anxious and interested in leaving the bunker, can hardly put up any counterarguments against him. They know how dangerous is going to be for them to try to survive out there. So does Logan. 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... The problem is that Romero loves to be vague about certain things, and specific times seems to be one of them. None of his zombie movies seem to be very specific about when exactly are the things we see developing on the screen happening. You have to go around trying to see if it is possible to deduce anything on the subject from other things. In the case of the guy at the garage, the 3 year bit would appear to be inconsequential (who is this character anyway? it is never clear who exactly this fellow in the garage is), but in the case of Cholo, one of Kaufman's main henchmen, the inference that he might have been already working for him even before any of this zombie stuff was going on might have significance. The argument that Day displays more decay than Land is just silly and cannot be empirically proved. Both display decay at an advanced level. Leave it at that. I believe this is the very definition of "grasping for straws". That is not difficult at all to be challenged. Here, look, this: Looks quite more "abandoned" and decayed than this: Another thing: also notice the clothes of the zombies in both movies. The zombies in Land for the most part have clothes that are still in better shape than those of the zombies in Day: They look more like the state of preservation of the clothes of the zombies in Dawn, which are still relatively recent. The clothes of the zombies in Day look like they have been decaying for longer: I just took these five examples, JDP, to point out how and where your arguments fall short - what facts they ignore and what pieces of information they either overlook or make wild assumptions about. All of them addressed.

[EvilNed]

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Guess what brought it? Yep, precisely what you are describing. For roughly some five hundred years most of Europe was in much worse shape than when the Roman empire was still around. Notice that the Byzantine and Muslim empires, which did not go through the same crisis and collapse as the Western Roman empire, at this period were in much better shape than Christian Europe. Ask any historian and they will tell you that most preservation and advancement of human knowledge (science, philosophy, math, medicine, literature, poetry, etc.) at this time came mostly from such places, not from Christian Europe. It is only during the so-called Middle Ages, some five hundred or so years after the collapse of the Western Roman empire, that Christian Europe finally catched up to these other civilizations. So? I fail to see a counter-argument here. Just like the Lombard, Frankish and Gothic kingdoms emerged from the ashes of the roman empire, so could Fiddler's Green. Where did I deny that the broadcasts also cover the very early days of the zombie crisis? But that still does not mean that what the broadcasts also report later on is not actually closer to what we see happening in Land: people establishing outposts and looting towns for supplies. Good, so we are in agreement that the broadcasts have no bearing on when Land is set. OK, but having logically had such discussions with Washington we have to conclude that our Florida survivors' very pessimistic attitude is founded not just on what is going on on their own turf, but also from the not very encouraging information coming from elsewhere. Now, does it look to you that our survivors in Florida are really entertaining much hope of really finding a safe place to go at this point? Dr. Logan's estimate of the situation looks very bleak. People are vastly outnumbered by the zombies. And Rhodes and his men, the people most anxious and interested in leaving the bunker, can hardly put up any counterarguments against him. They know how dangerous is going to be for them to try to survive out there. So does Logan. So? I'm not denying that they don't know... In fact, that's exactly what I've been telling you all along. There might be something out there, there might not be, as far as they're concerned. That's why they are looking. Yet again, I fail to see a counter argument here. The problem is that Romero loves to be vague about certain things, and specific times seems to be one of them. None of his zombie movies seem to be very specific about when exactly are the things we see developing on the screen happening. You have to go around trying to see if it is possible to deduce anything on the subject from other things. In the case of the guy at the garage, the 3 year bit would appear to be inconsequential (who is this character anyway? it is never clear who exactly this fellow in the garage is), but in the case of Cholo, one of Kaufman's main henchmen, the inference that he might have been already working for him even before any of this zombie stuff was going on might have significance. It's only a problem if you make it one. They are only inconsequential if you want them to be, which you clearly do. Two three-years-ago references. You can't simply dismiss them the way you do without good grounds and you don't seem like you even know. That is not difficult at all to be challenged. Here, look, this: *Pictures* Another thing: also notice the clothes of the zombies in both movies. The zombies in Land for the most part have clothes that are still in better shape than those of the zombies in Day: Both instances look perfectly fine to be honest. The only thing that's off in Day is that there are dead palm trees and leaves thrown everywhere and a few off-parked cars. That's all there is. The same thing seems to have happened in Land - but on a city wide scale. The clothes I would agree with but they are also two films with two different costumers. Or that one, Florida, is a stormy coastal climate. Even so, the Florida scene features newspapers flying around so again, if we're gonna nitpick the clothes I want to bring that in htere. A newspaper would not survive 3+ years in stormy weather. Let's assume it's been outside the whole time since - it's outside when we see it. All of them addressed. After reading your post, I don't even understand what points you were trying to get across. Ramblings about the dark ages, conceeding the TV-spots, agreement on the washington discussion, no clear answer on the three-year issue and some pictures of Day and Land next to each other that don't really show anything?

[Trin]

Sarah and McDermott definitely know the silo is back there, she says so and McDermott says they can't get back there without guns (there might be too many zombies on the way there), but they are cut off by unexpected obstacles, like a rock slide and wandering zombies, which makes their trip to the silo more difficult than it would otherwise have been. 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. 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. 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? 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. But there is no way of knowing for sure whether there is another entrance back into the living/working areas unless you actually thoroughly explore it. 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. 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.

[shootemindehead]

Your amusing little denials are not going to change the fact that the ball still is very much in your court and you have yet to hit it back. It was served to you in style, and you still can't simply hit it back, all you can do is go into deep denial and hilarious "arguments": "Noooo, these people in Florida must all be morons and masochists, that's why they remain down in that bunker blowing things out of proportion for no reason at all other than they don't know anything except what goes on in their backyard!", "Yes, Kaufman can somehow manage to maintain an advanced civilization going on while the government of the most powerful nation in the world, which has more resources and capital at its disposal than a crook like Kaufman could even dream of in his wildest fantasies, has been forced to go underground and can't even maintain its communication networks anymore. It sounds perfectly logical!", "Rhodes can't answer Logan's "where will you go" taunts because... because... because... he is a masochist and wants to look like a total idiot in front of his men, yes, that must be it!", "The frequent talks that the Florida team had with Washington before communications ceased must have been about anything but the desperate zombie situation and survivors, like for example, Democrats vs Republicans, or what's for dinner over there at the White House, here we are having sardines and saltine crackers yet again! Really, it makes perfect sense!", etc. Keep trying. My challenges -every single one of them based on either things clearly stated or logically implied by the movies- to you and your mates about this strange claim that the still functional and still relatively safe world of Land can somehow logically take place after the total chaos and impending doom of Day still stand, and anxiously await real counterarguments, not puerile stubborn denials or easily rebutted arguments. I don't know what to say to the above other than it's an absurd blurt of nonsense that STILL does nothing to support your wishes. You keep batting the ball against the net. In addition, the only thing your selected screenshots prove is that 'Day of the Dead' and 'Land of the Dead' are two separately made films, with a 20 year time gap, created by completely different people and therefore subject to all the issues that such parameters will inevitably spawn. It's akin to saying that because Kaufmann uses a mobile phone in 'Land of the Dead', it MUST therefore take place after 'Day of the Dead', because there were no mobile phones in 1985. - - - Updated - - - As for the soldiers... Rhodes uniform arm patch shows that his unit is the 99th Army Reserves. It's therefore not beyond reason that these part time soldiers wouldn't have the first clue how to go about securing their own house, never mind a "14 mile tombstone".

[JDP]

I don't know what to say to the above other than it's an absurd blurt of nonsense that STILL does nothing to support your wishes. You keep batting the ball against the net. Hint: it's a description of your type of "logic" and "arguments". In addition, the only thing your selected screenshots prove is that 'Day of the Dead' and 'Land of the Dead' are two separately made films, with a 20 year time gap, created by completely different people and therefore subject to all the issues that such parameters will inevitably spawn. Yeah, right. What a "coincidence" that the world of Day looks more consistently decayed than that of Land, and both movies are made by the same guy and are supposed to be part of the same series. It's akin to saying that because Kaufmann uses a mobile phone in 'Land of the Dead', it MUST therefore take place after 'Day of the Dead', because there were no mobile phones in 1985. 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. 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.

[EvilNed]

Yeah, right. What a "coincidence" that the world of Day looks more consistently decayed than that of Land, and both movies are made by the same guy and are supposed to be part of the same series. First off, as I already pointed out, this statement is false. All Day has are abandoned cars and palm residue lying all over the place. That's it. That's all they did. Second off, apart from a Director, a film also has a production designer, a cinematographer/director of photography, a costume designer and a makeup designer. For instance look at the makeup in Day and then compare that with Dawn. Dawn, being on a tighter budget, has considereably cheaper makeup than Day - yet these are also made by "the same guy". If you accept that Dawn and Day take place in the same series and accept those differences, then you must also accept the different appearances in Day and Land.

[MinionZombie]

Plus - different budgets - and different technologies. No CGI in Day of the Dead's time, but it was around for Land. However, it should also be noted that there's only so much time - and so much money - to achieve what ends up on film. There's significant practical factors that weigh in on the production/art design, as well as who is actually running that department (some designers are better and more detailed than others, or they can have grand and elaborate plans - but not enough money to do them, so corners get cut).

[JDP]

So? I fail to see a counter-argument here. Just like the Lombard, Frankish and Gothic kingdoms emerged from the ashes of the roman empire, so could Fiddler's Green. 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. Good, so we are in agreement that the broadcasts have no bearing on when Land is set. 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 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. So? I'm not denying that they don't know... In fact, that's exactly what I've been telling you all along. There might be something out there, there might not be, as far as they're concerned. That's why they are looking. Yet again, I fail to see a counter argument here. 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. They would still have had plenty of options left besides the bunker, yet they clearly do not consider this to be the case. It takes a major pissing-off contest between the civilians and soldiers, which results in Logan and Fisher getting court martialed and executed on the spot, for Rhodes to finally decide that enough is enough and want to take the risk of leaving the security of the bunker and try his luck out there (but with a handy helicopter, of course.) Why so much complication, indecision and conflicts if they can simply go to one of these still functional outposts with tons of armed mercenaries, vehicles, electric fences, loads of survivors, etc.? Like I said, it does not take a brain surgeon to see such flagrant contradictions. It's only a problem if you make it one. They are only inconsequential if you want them to be, which you clearly do. Two three-years-ago references. You can't simply dismiss them the way you do without good grounds and you don't seem like you even know. Like I said, both references are vague enough to be open to interpretation. You can also find vague references to time in other Romero movies which can be interpreted more than one way. For example, the priest in Dawn tells Peter and Roger that: "Many have died on these streets in the last weeks. In the basement of this building you will find them." Hmmm, OK. Let me see, I can interpret this like either the zombie problem has been going on for several weeks already, or maybe the old man is also referring to deaths that already happened before the zombie outbreak, in which case it is now less clear how long ago has the zombie problem started. This type of very general and rather vague statements about periods of time leave themselves open to interpretation. On the other hand, one of the bikers in the same movie unambiguously saying that they will assault the mall "tonight" leaves no room whatsoever for interpretation. This is a very precise and clear statement. Both instances look perfectly fine to be honest. The only thing that's off in Day is that there are dead palm trees and leaves thrown everywhere and a few off-parked cars. That's all there is. The same thing seems to have happened in Land - but on a city wide scale. The clothes I would agree with but they are also two films with two different costumers. Or that one, Florida, is a stormy coastal climate. Even so, the Florida scene features newspapers flying around so again, if we're gonna nitpick the clothes I want to bring that in htere. A newspaper would not survive 3+ years in stormy weather. Let's assume it's been outside the whole time since - it's outside when we see it. 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. The situation is a pretty different one in the zombie areas we see in Land. They are less messy, they don't look as "abandoned" and decayed. We see some leaves from the trees in the area on the streets, and some overgrown vegetation, and some occasional objects, but that's pretty much it. The overall look is quite better preserved than that of Day. There's even parts of the human city which, amusingly enough, look quite worse than the zombie areas, like this one: 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 already explained why the newspaper can be very easily dismissed. Other than when we see it on screen, it is a total unknown element. It only gets like 5 seconds of screen time. Further than this, it is just a very ordinary newspaper whose whereabouts before these 5 seconds can't be ascertained. The zombies' clothes, on the other hand, are not something that they change, ever. They carry the same clothes since they died and became these creatures. And we can see they have been shuffling and wandering around in them for a long time by how dirty, tattered and decayed most of them are. The majority of zombies in Day have more decayed clothes than those of Land. And if you ask me, the zombies themselves in general also look more decayed in Day than in Land. After reading your post, I don't even understand what points you were trying to get across. Ramblings about the dark ages, conceeding the TV-spots, agreement on the washington discussion, no clear answer on the three-year issue and some pictures of Day and Land next to each other that don't really show anything? 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. - - - Updated - - - First off, as I already pointed out, this statement is false. All Day has are abandoned cars and palm residue lying all over the place. That's it. That's all they did. Second off, apart from a Director, a film also has a production designer, a cinematographer/director of photography, a costume designer and a makeup designer. For instance look at the makeup in Day and then compare that with Dawn. Dawn, being on a tighter budget, has considereably cheaper makeup than Day - yet these are also made by "the same guy". If you accept that Dawn and Day take place in the same series and accept those differences, then you must also accept the different appearances in Day and Land. The differences are quite more than that. 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.

[facestabber]

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? 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.