The "Land" AFTER "Day" debate... an old topic, but some things to consider

[shootemindehead]

I agree Bassy, that's my take on it as well. But what I mean by "lazy" writing is that it's an easier way out than having to write about a barter system, which would require some sort of background or exposition of some sort, which would have been hard to do in a short period.

[Rancid Carcass]

Whether you agree with it or not, this is an interesting read: http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Living_Dead-timeline I also dug this up on IMDb which I think supports the Land before Day argument: Dr. Logan figures that the ratio of the undead to the human survivors is 400,000:1. When the film was made, in 1985, the population of the United States in our universe stood at about 240 million. If Dr. Logan is right, and the US population of this universe stood at roughly the same, and this film took place in 1985, there are 600 living human beings left in the USA. The rest of the article is also highlights the problems of trying to figure out the timeline: However, since the history of the universe in the "of the Dead" movies had radically diverged from real world history even before the ghouls emerged (notice the Venus probe in the first Night of the Living Dead movie), the timeline of the "Dead" movies remains unclear (the Stephen King novel 'Salem's Lot appears in this film, even though in the real world it came out in 1975; note that the first film in this series came out in 1968; Diary of the Dead, set simultaneously with the events of Night of the Living Dead, features technology not available in 1968 in our world), and we do not know how long after the ghouls emerged that this film takes place, one cannot easily presume that this film takes place in 1985 or that the US population would have remained the same. This is one of many continuity series (eg. Superman, Austin Powers, etc.) affected by "timeslip" wherein more time has passed in the real world between entries which take place in less time, yet each is set in the time it was made. (This often happens in superhero comic books where the same characters experience the Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s and the 9/11/01 massacres, but only "one year" has passed in the characters' "lives".) It is one of the suspension-of-disbelief conventions that viewers simply have to accept. Basically - we ain't never gonna figure this shit out... *Land before Day FTW!

[nycbsn]

I guess I do not see how what you are saying indicates that the events in Day happen before the events in Land. True, you can not determine the timeframe "simply" by paying attention to the use of money, that is why I mentioned SEVERAL things to consider. Perhaps if our hero's from Day DID find an outpost that used money they might need/want some money themselves, however, we see no indication they are looking for goods, so that argument seems irrelevant to the timeline. I mean, in real life right now, I would like to have all the money I can get, BUT if I had years worth of food and didnt have to pay electric bills, didnt have to pay ANY bills, could just take anything from anywhere that I wanted and literally did not have to suffer ANY consequences (like jail time, etc), then I would not need any money whatsoever. That is the situation they were in. LOL! Not sure what to say to this one! Sorry, I should have worded what I said differently. What I meant by "movies" was the tone, that's what I should have said. In other words, I don't think using the *tones* of these films themselves is a good enough indicator of the timeline simply due to the fact that each film doesn't follow the same characters, settings, or circumstances. It would be easier if it were the same characters throughout the series, which is why I used "Star Wars" and "Alien" as examples. i.e. Star Wars: Movie 1 - Heroes win their first major victory Movie 2 - Villains strike back and chase/hunt down heroes Movie 3 - Heroes recover and rid of the villains once and for all. Using the tone as an indicator of the chronological story makes sense in that case, because we are following the same story of the same characters in each film. That's not so much the case with GAR's films. Does that make more sense now? This is true, however, I fail to see what bearing it has on the topic at hand. This is not just something I disagree with, it falls more into the category of "doesnt seem to make sense". Again, not sure this really makes sense, regardless of whatever the truth is about the timeline. If you are suggesting that the events in the two movies could be happening at the same time, that is a valid argument to make, however, I suggest that THE WAY you are trying to make that argument doesnt seem valid. If things seem bleak in a civil war movie but more happy in a WWII movie, that doesnt suggest that they COULD be occuring at the same timeframe. I don't see how what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. Ok, you think it's possible that "Land" before "Day" because of the tone consistency and the rate at which the characters are clinging to old world concepts, right? All I'm trying to say is just because "Land" seems closer to the old world doesn't mean it is. We don't know what is going on in the rest of the world. Which is why I used the examples that I did. I never said that I think "Land" and "Day" can be happening simultaneously. I'm talking about both sets of characters and environments existing simultaneously, the *set-ups* if you will. In other words, I believe Pittsburgh/Fiddler's Green was *held* not *lost* during the time spanning from the end of "Night" to the end of "Dawn". I believe in that time frame Kaufman was able to successfully barricade that place up and has been reliving the old world ways ever since... yes that means during the events of "Day" too (i.e. while "Day" was taking place, those survivors were moping in despair in their bunker while Kaufman, etc. was living the high life in Fiddler's Green, neither one having any knowledge that the other even exists). On a side note, if the *on-screen* story of "Land" and "Day" were in fact occuring at the same time, the only way I personally can buy that is if nobody in "Land" brought up 'this and this happened 3 years ago', that is the only thing stopping me from agreeing to that. To be clear, I wasnt "proposing" anything, I was only responding sarcastically to what you said, which didnt really make sense. I was trying to be nice by not calling attention to the fact that it didnt make sense, but since you posted a bunch more that doesnt make sense, I have to point it out now. Sorry, I wasn't picking that up at all, then again it can be difficult at times to pick things like that up over a computer. Either way, no need to be sarcastic, you could just simply say I don't quite understand, could you please elaborate a little? And I would be more than happy to. The reason you agree about the tone is one of the main reason I say the events in Day happen after the events in Land. I always wrote off the transitional tone between "Day" and "Land" as GAR *losing his touch* so to speak, therefore I personally never counted that as an issue pertaining to this discussion. But that's just me.

[shootemindehead]

The rest of the article is also highlights the problems of trying to figure out the timeline: The problem with that article though, is that it's talking bollocks. 'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' are not part of Romero's original series of pictures. They're a reboot of it. They just don't belong in the same bracket. They're a completely different series. There is no continuity at all. As for Dr Logan, he was as mad as a box of frogs. Who give a fiddlers what he says. And a Stephen King book proves nothing. I have books on my shelf from the 20's and 30's

[sandrock74]

The problem with that article though, is that it's talking bollocks. 'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' are not part of Romero's original series of pictures. They're a reboot of it. They just don't belong in the same bracket. They're a completely different series. There is no continuity at all. As for Dr Logan, he was as mad as a box of frogs. Who give a fiddlers what he says. And a Stephen King book proves nothing. I have books on my shelf from the 20's and 30's Yeah, that write up was all full of plot holes you could drive Optimus Prime thru! Nothing was "proven" at all.

[Philly_SWAT]

Yeah, that write up was all full of plot holes you could drive Optimus Prime thru! Nothing was "proven" at all. I say that it is totally inaccurate. I dont feel like making a nice graphic with all the GAR zed movies right this second, but I would say this about the original trilogy+Land, or the original quadrilogy if you prefer. The only thing that I need to say other than the timeline is that technological difference have to be ignored. It is just like when watching an episode of the original Star Trek tv show. When the computers look like cardboard boxes with flashing lights, you must suspend your disbelieve and accept that it is set in the future. NOTLD is set in the perpetual NOW. Ignore the 60's clothes, hairstyles, technology, etc, and just accept that filmmakers had to use what was available at the time. That being said, I say this is the timeline... Night - Occurs NOW, the perpetual present, most precisely either later today or tomorrow. I say this because as you are reading this there is no such thing as a zombie outbreak, so obviously the events in the movie can not have happened in the past. But for a horror movie, the most horrifying thing is that the events you see could happen to you, right now or asap. Dawn - Occurs approx. three weeks after the events in Night. This is based on Dr Foster saying in the beginning that no one has listened "for three weeks", a direct comment about the current situation. When a Dr was on TV discussing this very terrifying topic of the dead rising and attacking the living, he would obviously try to use facts and avoid misleading, inaccurate comments, and would refrain from using slang and common sayings that could be misunderstood. Land - Unclear as the exactly when, it appears to be happening right after the events in Dawn, or perhaps simultaneously. Life in the Green is much as it is now...blue collar guys doing the dirty work(Riley and crew), being denied entry into the upper class(Cholo), using money to buy good and services, the sheer number of survivors, most of whom are doing nothing to contribute to the well being of the group. Both the rich and the poor are not defending the Green or foraging for goods. When someone says "No car has driven out of here for 3 years", that isnt a Dr on tv but some half-homeless drunk guy talking shit. It is a common saying. "I havent been laid in forever" does not mean I am a virgin, just that I am conveying it had been a while since I had sex. Same with Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years, it isnt obvious that kaufman would use guys who already worked for him PRIOR to the outbreak? Why would he get a new crew of guys? Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years must mean for sure they are NOT three years into the outbreak. Day - Five years after the outbreak. This is based on notes in the original script (which said 5 years, although that info is not in the movie) and the overall tone of the movie. There are apparently no other survivors. Military guys and scientists are to the point of murdering each other. Pot is being grown in the open with no fear of repurcusion. Not hidden, right up top in the choperr landing area. YOu think soldiers would do this if they thought there was ANY chance of some superior landing there anytime soon. There USED to be radio contact with Washington, now there is none. That old equipment would still work pretty good TODAY,...not dependent on satelites in space or anything to work. The tone is bleak as if it is the end of the world, unlike the tone in Land which is people laughing and going to bars and taking pictures in the bar, selling hotdogs on the streets, etc.

[EvilNed]

@Philly_Swat I hate to say this, but I think you want Day to take place after Land more than actually having any logical conclusion to deduce it. I think most of your arguments are rather thin, especially the ones regarding Land of the Dead not taking place 3 years after the outbreak. That's even mentioned in dialoge. There's noway to get around that. As for Day taking place 5 years after the outbreak? Not impossible, just highly improbable. It would require all characters to have undergone a coma the first 4 years of the outbreak. They still refer to months as a great period of time, they don't know each other very well and they haven't even explored that far around their base. If it's 5 years after the outbreak, they sure aren't acting like it... The original Day script was adapted into Land. So that's not really a valid "source" in this instance. It is a great script tho. Better than Lands...

[paranoid101]

The timeline to me feels like that the outbreak in Night is a few day's, Dawn is weeks to a few months and Day is a months to nearly a year.

[Rancid Carcass]

I think this pretty much sums up this thread, (and probably a few others around here too!): Sarah: Maybe if we tried working together we could ease some of the tensions. We're all pulling in different directions. John: That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life.

[Christopher Jon]

I don't think you can used the mental state of the military in Day as a good reference for how much time had passed. Romero has never been kind to the military and usually presents them as the bad guys. He essentially needed the military in Day to be a bunch of nuts to move his story along. If they weren't nuts, events wouldn't have unfolded like they did. However, as shooteminthehead pointed out, they were reservists so they could have been complete shit-bags from the beginning.

[Wyldwraith]

I don't think you can used the mental state of the military in Day as a good reference for how much time had passed. Romero has never been kind to the military and usually presents them as the bad guys. He essentially needed the military in Day to be a bunch of nuts to move his story along. If they weren't nuts, events wouldn't have unfolded like they did. However, as shooteminthehead pointed out, they were reservists so they could have been complete shit-bags from the beginning. Even this explanation bothers me, Enlisted guys, sure. Officers, especially a Captain or Higher (the late Major Cooper) have made a SUBSTANTIAL commitment to the notion of SERVING their country. I'll even grant you that, so long as it isn't habitual and was a terrible heat-of-the-moment thing, even Steele's behavior towards the beginning of the movie where he's threatening to feed Miguel to the zombie in the chute for dropping the catch-pole and endangering Steele's buddy is POSSIBLE. As an enlisted Reservist, Steele might be a blue-collar high-functioning alcoholic puke prior to the outbreak. Where I go right off the deep end is Rhodes, beginning of the movie, threatening to have Sarah SHOT for something as trivial as meeting protocol. This is the behavior of a sociopath, or at the very least a high-function psychotic individual. Borderline Personality at BEST. This sort of individual simply would NOT have made Captain, reservist or no. That's GAR's rabid anti-military prejudice there. Nothing resembling reality remotely. Sarah didn't actively antagonize Rhodes, she wasn't overtly challenging him, and they were all still quite safe while down below in the bunker. There's no IMMEDIACY of danger to excuse this deep-end behavior. Chronic stress and PTSD or no. If this was how the military behaved, the National Guard would've joined the looters during the L.A Riots and Katrina. They didn't. Edit/Note: Further, had Rhodes deteriorated THIS far, this completely, Cooper would've relieved him of duty and had him confined long before Cooper's own death. The idea that Rhodes inherits the C.O position and PROMPTLY begins as one of his first acts to order Steele to gun down the ONLY WOMAN IN THE BUNKER isn't just immoral, insane, ITS STUPID.

[EvilNed]

To be honest, Ww, I think the world they are facing in Day might turn anyone into a psychopath if they're not disciplined enough. You can't compare this to the LA Riots or Katrina, because that wasn't the end of the world. This was. Just imagine all the lonely moments these guys have had, sitting in their bunks, staring into the wall and thinking how everything they know, and everyone they knew, is gone. Dead. Devoured. Death is all around them, but even death itself has switched meanings. Death doesn't mean "the end" anymore. It means "transition". From being a healthy human being to a mindless automaton that wants to eat you alive. That right there is enough to give me shivers. To live through that could drive anyone insane.

[Philly_SWAT]

To be honest, Ww, I think the world they are facing in Day might turn anyone into a psychopath if they're not disciplined enough. You can't compare this to the LA Riots or Katrina, because that wasn't the end of the world. This was. Just imagine all the lonely moments these guys have had, sitting in their bunks, staring into the wall and thinking how everything they know, and everyone they knew, is gone. Dead. Devoured. Death is all around them, but even death itself has switched meanings. Death doesn't mean "the end" anymore. It means "transition". From being a healthy human being to a mindless automaton that wants to eat you alive. That right there is enough to give me shivers. To live through that could drive anyone insane. So let me ask you EvilNed. You seem reasonably smart, well adjusted, capable, etc. Are you saying that you think after only a few weeks/months, when faced with the possible (not certain) "end", that you would turn into a maniacal killer? For sure none of us knows what we would do in any situation until we are actually in it, but I tend to think that I would not be ready to kill people over being late to a meeting after only a couple of months of bleakness, and I am not an army officer, but just a regular dude.

[babomb]

When someone says "No car has driven out of here for 3 years", that isnt a Dr on tv but some half-homeless drunk guy talking shit. It is a common saying. "I havent been laid in forever" does not mean I am a virgin, just that I am conveying it had been a while since I had sex. Same with Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years, it isnt obvious that kaufman would use guys who already worked for him PRIOR to the outbreak? Why would he get a new crew of guys? Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years must mean for sure they are NOT three years into the outbreak. Take into consideration that both of these comments state the 3 year mark. I think it's likely that it means something, rather than mere coincidence that both refer to a 3 year time span. Also, if the comment of a "car not driving out of there in 3 years" was not meant to illustrate anything, and was just a exaggeration, why put a number on it? Why not just say "no car has driven out of there in years"? Most films and writers wouldn't do that, and most people in real life wouldn't do that. Like you said-"I haven't been laid in forever", this is intentionally vague in terms of the time span to illustrate a point. If you said-"I haven't been laid in 3 years", most logical people would assume that to be more of a general approximated time span. Not an exaggeration that really means a few months. Most exaggerations that refer to time spans are normally expressed in vague terms such as years or months or days, or extremely long time spans like 20 years or more or with terms like forever. So it seems much more likely that both comments that refer to the 3 year mark are approximated time spans that actually are meant to illustrate a literal time frame within the storyline. It just doesn't seem likely that the script writer/s just happened to use "3 years', one meant as an exaggeration, and the other meant to include time before the outbreak. That's an over complication of intent and dialogue that isn't normally seen in films or in real life. I always got the impression that the group in Day were just people who happened to be around the right place to come in contact with each other. Sarah was what, a medical Dr? The only real scientist was Dr. Frankenstein. It doesn't seem like the group is in any way trained, or even familiar with governmental procedures on research and development methods for finding solutions of any kind for anything. All indications point to them being an ad-hoc group that came together by circumstance. The helicopter guy doesn't seem like a military pilot, he seems like a commercial pilot that happened to have access to a chopper, much like Steven from Dawn. Who happened to come across the bunker, possibly because it just seemed like a good place to land, or maybe he saw Rhodes' team in the vicinity. Speaking of Rhodes, my impression of his demeanor was never that he was once a normal person who was just pushed to his limits due to the circumstances of the apocalypse(lending to the idea that Day took place years into the outbreak when civility had time to break down). It was that he was a control freak military leader that felt forced to resort to psychopathic methods to control the situation in the bunker due to the fact that the civilians in the group were individualists not used to or concerned with militant discipline. So Rhodes felt that control over the situation was getting away from him, so he had to resort to extreme methods to try to regain a sense of control. Based on his demeanor, he could've resorted to murder and tyranny days or weeks into the outbreak. As soon as the situation triggers his controlling nature. So this itself does not support the theory that Day took place long into the outbreak. I'm not saying that it didn't, or that Day was before Land or vice versa. I'm just saying that the behavior of Rhodes or the other soldiers doesn't support the long timeline theory. Unless I'm missing something in dialogue, nothing about the situation suggests that they were put there to operate as a cohesive unit to find a cure. Seems more like they were operating independently, where the civilians did not know each other previously. Hence the lack of cooperation and absence of any real organized R&D protocol. The idea that they were a government sanctioned group, even chosen out of desperation because of a lack of options, seems like the least likely scenario. The radio would've already been there, and they would've been scanning to find any existing elements still alive and functional within range. So the fact that they were in radio contact at one point with some type of command and control doesn't indicate them being a government sanctioned group. The soldiers were government sanctioned originally. But ultimately, I don't think this specific issue can be resolved by analyzing the events in the films themselves. I think it's implied more in the chronological order of the films as they were released. Is Land ever officially referred to as a prequel to Day? You'd think it would be if it were meant to be. Since it came out so many years later, if it were specifically written as being before Day, I think that would be something that George would want people to understand.

[MoonSylver]

Unless I'm missing something in dialogue, nothing about the situation suggests that they were put there to operate as a cohesive unit to find a cure. Captain Rhodes: "McDermott doesn't have decent radio gear. And now, you're telling me that you don't have the shit you need? We're running low on ammunition. I'm running low on men for Christ's sake! Who in Washington DC put this loony farm together like this?" Sarah: "It was very rushed. This whole operation was put together in a matter of days." Captain Rhodes: "Yeah? Well it can all be taken apart in a matter of minutes, lady! I'm ready to tell you that I'm ready to do just that! I'm ready to shut this whole thing down and take the next train out of here!" It was an "organized" effort, put together hurriedly, to find a solution. There may have even been who-knows-how many more out there, slapped together in a hurry & stashed away somewhere "safe" at the last minute, as society fell. We know they used to be in contact w/ DC via satellite relays as well, which has now gone silent... Johnson: "We used to talk to Washington all the time. They could hear us then." McDermott: "We were on relays then. We weren't over the air. The power is off on the mainland now in case you haven't heard, and all the shopping malls are closed!"