Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 186

Thread: So which Night film is canon to George's series, original or remake?

  1. #106
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    595
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    Excluding something which is not explicit, but strongly implicit is ludicrous.
    Romero could easily have made any time references in Land more explicit so as to leave no other possibility, but unfortunately he did not. Look at what he did in Dawn as an example of a very clear and explicit reference that leaves no doubt regarding when exactly are the events of that movie starting to happen with respect to the events seen in the first movie: "We've had this situation for the last 3 weeks."

  2. #107
    Arcade Master Philly_SWAT's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,954
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    This is the most action this board has seen in a long time.
    To my memory, this topic generated much action years ago as well. A lot of that 'activity' was for the same reason as now, your refusal to accept any argument that in any way casts doubt on what you believe, and your refusal to admit that someone else has a good point. In a discussion on any topic, someone can make a good argument, an argument that neither proves their overall point nor disproves the point they are arguing against. One good point in and of itself doesnt prove anything, that doesnt mean that it isnt a good point. And rather than admit that a good argument has been made, your banter devolves into various levels of ridiculousness.

    For example, your harping on the word 'explicit' None of the films explicitly says that any of the characters AREN'T transgender...is it reasonable then to assume that some, or all, of the characters are actually transgender? Of course not, that is a far cry from the '3 years' comment. If the three years comment was meant as a concrete timestamp as to how long into the outbreak they were, Cholo could have easily said "I have worked for you for three years,ever since the start of this outbreak" (or any other similarly worded statement.) I would have added 2 seconds to the run time, and really wouldnt really have affected the overall movie much if at all. It could be that be sheer coincidence, it was exactly three years to the day that the outbreak started when Land starts. Even if it isnt explicitly stated, it could be very much the case. However, if someone suggests that Cholo may have worked for Kaufman for three years, including time prior to the outbreak, is not crazy, ridiculous, far-fetched, or any other such insult. It does not prove anything, but it is a valid point. Perhaps you are so unconvinced by your own arguments that Day occurs before Land that you are scared to even admit common sense points for fear that admitting anything disproves your overall point, no matter how small or insignificant it may be.

    If it is indeed a fact that the events we see in Land ARE happening three years after the start of the outbreak, (which I admit IS a possibility, even though I dont think it is true) it makes much more sense that the events in Day happen AFTER the events in Land, whenever the events of Land take place. A government facility staffed by scientists, military, and civilian specialists, has lost contact with not only with the government, but EVERYBODY ELSE. They have searched for 150 miles in all directions but can find not one survivor anywhere. Military discipline has broken down to the point where they are openly growing marijuana and threatening to kill scientists. Scientists are literally going crazy. So at a location where highly trained people are on the verge of killing each other, going insane, no contact with anyone other than themselves, and no indication of anything anywhere, AFTER this (within less than three years if you take it that the events in Land happen three years into the outbreak) a location where there is just a rich guy with money trying to rent expensive apartments has people everywhere, zombie combat games in bars, hot dog stands, and the common belief that there are other outposts nearby where if someone had a lot of money they could move there? Mankind was so weak that highly trained people specifically put together to survive and combat the zombie problem wither and destroy themselves quickly, but then mankind is so strong that they have 'rebuilt' society to the point where people 'pay rent' with 'money' and enjoy the nightlife the city has to offer, all within less than three years? It makes much more sense that they are holding on to the past rather than that they have rebuilt from ruins to near normality in a couple of years. Romero himself said that Land of the Dead was showing mankind "ignoring the problem". This in and of itself suggests that people are trying to live as they always have, ignoring a very big problem (zombies) NOT that they have rebuilt to past glory and all of a sudden start ignoring the problem. Day of the Dead does not appear to depict a society that has hit rock bottom and is on the verge or rebuilding, it depicts one of the last vestiges of society, period.

    I admit that I may have used a word choice here or there which someone mind find worthy or ridicule, and I apologize ahead of time for that. If you choose to rebut anything I have said, please use your common sense and reasonable intelligence to see the meat of the points I am trying to make, and rebut that, rather than cherry pick from the dessert menu of personal trigger words that do not add to intelligent discussion.

  3. #108
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,524
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Romero could easily have made any time references in Land more explicit so as to leave no other possibility, but unfortunately he did not.
    He could also have explicitly stated that Day takes place after Night - yet he didn't. Thus, by your own argument, we cannot exclude the possibility. Interesting argument you've got there , hmm...

    We can either deduce that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, or dwelve into absurdist territory. There is no middle ground.

    To reiterate; You can make the case that Day takes place more than 3 years after the Outbreak. But you cannot make the case that Land takes place less than 3 years into the outbreak - because it's in the film.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Philly_SWAT View Post
    If it is indeed a fact that the events we see in Land ARE happening three years after the start of the outbreak, (which I admit IS a possibility, even though I dont think it is true) it makes much more sense that the events in Day happen AFTER the events in Land, whenever the events of Land take place. A government facility staffed by scientists, military, and civilian specialists, has lost contact with not only with the government, but EVERYBODY ELSE. They have searched for 150 miles in all directions but can find not one survivor anywhere.
    It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.

  4. #109
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    595
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    He could also have explicitly stated that Day takes place after Night - yet he didn't. Thus, by your own argument, we cannot exclude the possibility. Interesting argument you've got there , hmm...

    We can either deduce that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, or dwelve into absurdist territory. There is no middle ground.

    To reiterate; You can make the case that Day takes place more than 3 years after the Outbreak. But you cannot make the case that Land takes place less than 3 years into the outbreak - because it's in the film.

    - - - Updated - - -


    It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.
    Romero makes no specific statements regarding time in Day, but that doesn't mean it is possible for it to take place before Night, as you strangely tried to argue. The things we see in both movies totally preclude that possibility. There is an obvious chronological sequence in place between both movies that totally precludes such an idea:


    humanity has no clue about zombies & is caught by surprise by their sudden appearance ----> humanity is now close to the brink of extinction because of those zombies

    But what exactly is shown in Land that precludes the possibility that Cholo and Kaufman have known each other and had a business relationship since before the zombie outbreak??? There is NOTHING shown in the movie to suggest that this is "impossible", while the things shown in Night and Day plainly preclude what you are suggesting. They are not comparable situations.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.
    You can't possibly know that since Day gives no specific time references. How long have those people been down there in the bunker? Where were they before that, and what were they doing, and for how long?
    Last edited by JDP; 1 Week Ago at 09:49 AM. Reason: ;

  5. #110
    Arcade Master Philly_SWAT's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,954
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    He could also have explicitly stated that Day takes place after Night - yet he didn't. Thus, by your own argument, we cannot exclude the possibility. Interesting argument you've got there , hmm...
    I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are either trolling or enjoy devil's advocate positions regardless of worth. But I can play along with you. There is no need to explicitly state Day takes place after Night, it is obvious. When is Land in relation to Night? Less obvious. 2 seconds of dialogue to make clear. Dialogue not there. Other reasonable possibilities exist. REASONABLE. A key word to learn here. I have a difference of interpretation of things than you that are reasonable (i.e. cholo worked for kaufman prior to the outbreak). You disagree. But then you bring something totally UNREASONABLE up (i.e. perhaps Day happens before Night) and then act as if both examples are the same. One is reasonable, one not.



    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    We can either deduce that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, or dwelve into absurdist territory. There is no middle ground.
    For absolutists.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    To reiterate; You can make the case that Day takes place more than 3 years after the Outbreak. But you cannot make the case that Land takes place less than 3 years into the outbreak - because it's in the film.
    If we see a cameraman's reflection in a film, does that mean you would make the case that the characters in the movie are oblivious to the fact that a cameraman is 3 feet in front of them? Plus, as I stated years ago, a generic mention of 'three years ago' may or MAY NOT refer to any particular thing that happened three years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.
    So I guess you went thru my long post and picked out the one thing that best suites your theory? Guess all of my other points were pretty convincing. We have no idea what they have been doing, what their priorities were, when they did what since they have been there, etc. They may have only recently started searching for other survivors, after years and years or research that was bearing no fruit, and now that after years and years of contact with Washington, there has been no recent contact. There mission was to look figure out why the outbreak was happening and find a way to stop/reverse it. Finding other survivors wouldnt be a priority, (or very hard if the world was still as populated with fun loving people, many living out in the open, as we see in Land).
    Last edited by Philly_SWAT; 1 Week Ago at 09:51 AM. Reason: correct typo

  6. #111
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    21,556
    UK
    *throws an entirely different cat amongst the pigeons*

    http://livingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline



    ...

    I recall at the time of Land's release that Romero stated on several occasions that Land takes place after Day as he was exploring the next step in his zombie saga.

    Conversely, not once do I recall Romero saying 'Land before Day'.
    Last edited by MinionZombie; 1 Week Ago at 10:28 AM.

  7. #112
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,524
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You can't possibly know that since Day gives no specific time references. How long have those people been down there in the bunker? Where were they before that, and what were they doing, and for how long?
    True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.

    In any case, I'm still on the fence wether or not Night takes place prior to or post-Day of the Dead. After all, it's not explicitly mentioned in either film where in time they take place - thus it can easily be argued (should we dismiss all but the explicit references, which is your argument) that Night takes place after Day.

  8. #113
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    21,556
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.
    IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

    I'd also say that, judging by various other factors - such as how well the characters know each other (or don't know each other) suggests a matter of months at most, as well as tensions being extraordinarily high as the chaos has escalated to a doom-laden scenario. In Night we saw confusion (what they hell is going on?) as well as small-scale effective resistance (the good 'ole boys roaming the countryside gunning down ghouls), then in Dawn we saw early panic but numerous instances of society breaking down from still operational to defunct (the most obvious being television - at the start of Dawn we're somewhere less than a month into proceedings, probably 2 or 3 weeks, and various rescue stations etc are operational, travel is still possible so they can have guests on to discuss the phenomena, and there's still a relatively effective police and military force attempting to sort shit out).

    Dawn is the clearest indication of passing time - Fran's pregnancy - so we can wager that the film itself takes place over a period of months (I forget how far along she was in Dawn, but the conception was pre-zombies) and she's still able to scamper to the helicopter and climb a ladder, so I'd figure 7 to 8 months pregnant at the climax of the film.

    There was talk a while back on the forum suggesting that Dawn and Day somewhat overlap, or that the ending of Dawn is about when the events of Day take place (i.e. a matter of several months into proceedings).

    The fact that we see a crumbling of society over the course of Dawn of the Dead clearly shows a downwards trajectory for mankind, which bottoms out with Day of the Dead (clusters of desperate, warring people stuck in holes in the ground with an abject sense of hopelessness and a lack of understanding of how the zombie virus works).

    Now, Land of the Dead shows the sickly phoenix rising from the smouldering wreck of humanity's former world. Romero explicitly talked about how Land was about society regrouping and repeating the mistakes of the past (the rich/poor divide, petty squabbles etc) and, being that a huge part of that film was about mankind being in a place where they had gotten used to the zombies very clearly shows that a lot of time has passed in the ZA - you know, like three years as referenced in the script at the garage where Riley's car went missing.

    No writer would put that time reference in for no reason or just at random - Romero was very purposeful in putting that time reference in - no writer worth their salt just tosses in random shite with no thought.

    Ergo Land after Day, blatantly. If you can't accept the word of the creator himself, whose can you accept?
    Last edited by MinionZombie; 1 Week Ago at 04:58 PM.

  9. #114
    Just been bitten Monrozombi's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hershey PA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    227
    United States
    wow i can't even with this conversation right now

    As far as i can remember and who am i to recall anything about this film *wink* but i remember George saying that Big Daddy was the next step in zombie evolution after Bub, such as a natural progression. So that would make Land take place after Day.

    I'm also trying to figure out why this is a thing all of a sudden.

  10. #115
    Arcade Master Philly_SWAT's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,954
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie View Post

    Ergo Land after Day, blatantly. If you can't accept the word of the creator himself, whose can you accept?
    You have offered no proof that Romero said anythings of the sort, other than to say 'your memory'? Whose word would be accepting?

    Also, as I believe I asked years ago,if the greatest comedic film maker of all time made what he called 'the funniest movie ever', and the cast was made up of all academy award winners known primarily for comedy, and in their interviews leading up to the premier they all bragged about how uproarously funny it was, and then after it was released the public overwhelming found it not funny, but depressing, and it made them cry with sadness, would you say that this movie was a funny movie or not? What someone intends to create is sometimes different than what they actually end up creating.

    Your assessment of events has society totally collapse, then 'rebuild' to a basically identical state, in three years. It makes much more sense that they were holding on to the past, not that they have rebuilt to it. The entire thousands of years of human history brought us to the point right prior to the outbreak, then society collapsed, then was rebuilt, less than three years after the outbreak? One of the points that goes through all of Romero's dead films is that human beings do not get along well with human beings in a time of crisis, yet they miraculously cooperate to rebuild to a point where they are selling hot dogs in the streets and watching zombie fights in bars, in three years?

    Maybe since these are zombie movies people have trouble grasping the concept of making movies out of chronological order. Maybe thinking of the Star Wars franchise would make it easier? The first three made were parts 4, 5 and 6. The year of release had nothing to do as to when they were set.

  11. #116
    Chasing Prey MoonSylver's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Oh
    Age
    48
    Posts
    3,471
    United States

  12. #117
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    595
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.
    No, because Land does not clearly specify it, and we also don't know how long have the people in Day been in that bunker. For all we know, they were busy working on other projects before being sent to that bunker to have a crack at solving the zombie problem (and we know for sure that at least one of them was doing other things before being sent to the bunker: Fisher was in Washington, and we also know the zombie plague was already around since he says he saw a zombie trying to drive a car.)

    In any case, I'm still on the fence wether or not Night takes place prior to or post-Day of the Dead. After all, it's not explicitly mentioned in either film where in time they take place - thus it can easily be argued (should we dismiss all but the explicit references, which is your argument) that Night takes place after Day.
    You are comparing apples with oranges... again! You are trying to absurdly demand that Romero inserted a totally ludicrous dialogue line stating something like "this is the first movie in a zombie series". It just would never happen. No filmmaker is going to do such nonsense. But in Dawn he did insert a very clear and explicit reference to time with respect to the events in the first movie: "We've had this situation for the last 3 weeks." See how this is a case where you CAN be very specific and not ruin the movie at all, unlike the absurd demand that you keep going on in circles about? Now apply the same to Land. But he did not do it there. Instead we get a vague "3 years" and no specific reference to the zombie situation in connection to these 3 years.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Monrozombi View Post
    wow i can't even with this conversation right now

    As far as i can remember and who am i to recall anything about this film *wink* but i remember George saying that Big Daddy was the next step in zombie evolution after Bub, such as a natural progression. So that would make Land take place after Day.

    I'm also trying to figure out why this is a thing all of a sudden.
    How was he "the next step in zombie evolution after Bub", though? He pretty much is the same as Bub: a zombie with a somewhat higher IQ than the average zombie. If Big Daddy started solving math problems or writing poetry, then that would certainly drive the point across. But making odd noises, getting pissed off when he sees something he does not like, growling and rather clumsily firing guns doesn't quite cut it as being "the next step in zombie evolution after Bub", but more like "Bub II".

  13. #118
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    21,556
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Monrozombi View Post
    As far as i can remember and who am i to recall anything about this film *wink* but i remember George saying that Big Daddy was the next step in zombie evolution after Bub, such as a natural progression. So that would make Land take place after Day.

    I'm also trying to figure out why this is a thing all of a sudden.
    Aye, Romero talked about Big Daddy being the next step of zombie evolution a lot at the time of the film's release. The very fact that in the film the dead have been walking for so long that the living have devised ways to distract them so they can loot carefree (carefree to the point of a complete lack of care, as witnessed by the likes of Cholo), and are - in Romero's own estimation - more like a 'problem to be stepped over', clearly shows a Night-Dawn-Day-Land progression. Hell, in Day you've got Bub who is being taught by a human - in Land you've got a smart zombie teaching other zombies. Bub was just discovering his surroundings and gaining an understanding - Big Daddy leads an attack on a city - that alone makes it painfully obvious that Land follows Day.

    Diary and Survival, on the other hand, are obviously at the beginning of the ZA ... whether it's the same ZA as N/D/D/L or not is another debate entirely ... but Land clearly shows a thematic progression (the evolution of the zombies themselves clearly shows what the trajectory is - why would they de-evolve going from Land to Day?!) Romero's artistic direction is very clear.

    Even on a casual conversational level between artists, if you go to about 4 minutes into this video - www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyjC09Hqogs&t=1s - Savini speaks of his character from Dawn making a cameo appearance in Land, and mentions "a year and a half". So at the very least you've got over two years (maybe something like 2 years and 3 months) - however I'm not suggesting this is an accurate statement of the time lapsed by the time Land shows up in the narrative, but it is an obvious suggestion that this is quite a long time into the ZA and what Romero's intentions with the film were.

    At 5 minutes in that video you see the clip where the garage owner states "the last car drove out of this town three years ago".

    At about 17:45 an interviewee talks about the script being "so much about the evolution of the species". Evolution isn't particularly known for leaping forward, then deciding to hop backwards again just for the hell of it.

    There's not been much in the way of interviews regarding Land uploaded to YouTube, but the man's intentions regarding the movie will be all over the DVD extras and commentary. However, I've wasted enough time on this bizarre topic as it is. Go and find it for yourself.
    Last edited by MinionZombie; 1 Week Ago at 10:21 AM.

  14. #119
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5,524
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    No, because Land does not clearly specify it
    Yes it does.

    There, that's all it took for me to crush your argument.

  15. #120
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    595
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie View Post
    IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.
    That reference is about how long it took to put that operation together, certainly not about how long has the zombie crisis been going on. There is no specific reference to that in Day. But we can easily deduce that they have spent quite a while in that place doing a number of things, and certainly not sitting on their assess doing nothing, as someone around here seems to think. For example, just look at how many zombies they have already captured and brought down to the blocked caves. There's quite a bunch of those creeps trapped in there (we can better appreciate their large numbers later on in the film, when they escape the corral and start inundating the main part of the bunker.) That by itself would be a heck of an arduous time-consuming task. Just look at how many problems they have just to be able to handle a couple of these unruly zombies from the corral and take them to the scientists' labs, and that's within the more limited space of the bunker itself. Now imagine this constant and dangerous struggle to try to control them for the whole bunch of zombies they brought down there from on top! That by itself must have taken them a very substantial amount of time to accomplish. The whole thing was in fact so difficult and dangerous that Sarah suspects the soldiers simply will refuse to do such a thing again once they run out of specimens.

    I'd also say that, judging by various other factors - such as how well the characters know each other (or don't know each other) suggests a matter of months at most, as well as tensions being extraordinarily high as the chaos has escalated to a doom-laden scenario. In Night we saw confusion (what they hell is going on?) as well as small-scale effective resistance (the good 'ole boys roaming the countryside gunning down ghouls), then in Dawn we saw early panic but numerous instances of society breaking down from still operational to defunct (the most obvious being television - at the start of Dawn we're somewhere less than a month into proceedings, probably 2 or 3 weeks, and various rescue stations etc are operational, travel is still possible so they can have guests on to discuss the phenomena, and there's still a relatively effective police and military force attempting to sort shit out).

    Dawn is the clearest indication of passing time - Fran's pregnancy - so we can wager that the film itself takes place over a period of months (I forget how far along she was in Dawn, but the conception was pre-zombies) and she's still able to scamper to the helicopter and climb a ladder, so I'd figure 7 to 8 months pregnant at the climax of the film.

    There was talk a while back on the forum suggesting that Dawn and Day somewhat overlap, or that the ending of Dawn is about when the events of Day take place (i.e. a matter of several months into proceedings).
    Whether you like it or not, the outposts in Land must overlap with Dawn. This is not speculation, like saying that Day may overlap with Dawn. These outposts are not any "phoenix rising from the ashes" of some distant future, but in fact surviving relics from a not too distant past. How do we know that they have existed since early on in the zombie crisis? Easy: the media itself reported their existence (and this by itself again brings more problems, like how could the people in Dawn and Day, both of whom were very interested in knowing about other survivors, ignore the existence of such large populous outposts??? Like I said, Romero did not think deep enough about all these details that would bring up several contradictions & discrepancies with his previous two movies.) By the end of Dawn there is in fact no media around anymore, let alone in Day, when even long distance radio communications are down.

    The fact that we see a crumbling of society over the course of Dawn of the Dead clearly shows a downwards trajectory for mankind, which bottoms out with Day of the Dead (clusters of desperate, warring people stuck in holes in the ground with an abject sense of hopelessness and a lack of understanding of how the zombie virus works).
    And what makes you think that the people in Land actually know better about this than those of Day? In fact, it is one of the main characters in Land who shows an incriminating paradoxical ignorance about what exactly zombie bites do to people, definitely not any character in Day, all of whom are more than well aware of this important detail. This incriminating paradoxical ignorance about an important phenomenon regarding the zombies and their bites belongs wholly to Land, not to Day.

    Now, Land of the Dead shows the sickly phoenix rising from the smouldering wreck of humanity's former world. Romero explicitly talked about how Land was about society regrouping and repeating the mistakes of the past (the rich/poor divide, petty squabbles etc) and, being that a huge part of that film was about mankind being in a place where they had gotten used to the zombies very clearly shows that a lot of time has passed in the ZA - you know, like three years as referenced in the script at the garage where Riley's car went missing.

    No writer would put that time reference in for no reason or just at random - Romero was very purposeful in putting that time reference in - no writer worth their salt just tosses in random shite with no thought.

    Ergo Land after Day, blatantly. If you can't accept the word of the creator himself, whose can you accept?
    Even if Romero intended such a thing, the way the movie actually comes across is a totally different issue. If Romero intended Land to happen after Day, then he pretty much screwed up trying to convey such an idea. The movie has plenty of contradictions and discrepancies with Day (and even with Dawn!) if you want to see it in that order. If you reverse the order, on the other hand, most of these contradictions and discrepancies vanish.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilNed View Post
    Yes it does.

    There, that's all it took for me to crush your argument.
    Nope, you still have to cite anything in the movie that unequivocally says or implies those 3 years refers specifically to the time the zombie crisis began. Keep on looking. It isn't there. It is not like the very specific time reference in Dawn.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •