The plot of 'Land'..

[Andy]

..Makes absolutly no sense to me, and im not talking about big daddy or other "inteligent" zombies.. i mean why does cholo actually want money? surely there are far more valuable things in the world like food or water? that whole idea is beyond me, the way im looking at it.. the one and only place in the world were money has any value is the city and the green, so by demanding money from its owner, he is excluding himself from it becuase no doubt kaufmann will put a price on his head, so no sooner as he sets foot back in the city, he is going to be arrested or killed.

And what is he gonna do with money on the outside? pay big daddy to suck him off?

Nah.. it just dosn't make sense, lastly, if he wants money so badly, why not just walk into a bank and take it? in day there are notes floating about the streets in front of a bank but you dont see sarah or miguel running for it.. sure would be much easier and he would be able to safely re-enter the city to spend it.

[MinionZombie]

*sigh*

All dealt with before.

* Everybody's trying to forget the zombies and get back to normal life - where money is of such importance.
* They're all still 'deluded' enough to focus on money more than they should be.
* Money is of importance in Fiddler's Green, and all other such places across the country, as they're re-established their economy - albeit on a smaller scale, filled with corruption and control (i.e. Kaufman lords it over everybody).
* Also an issue of principle? Cholo had done a lot of work for Kaufman and was promised payment, he didn't get it, so he wants it.
* Money - is where you can hurt Kaufman most - without money he cannot control anybody, and indeed Fiddler's Green.
* Banks - you mean the places surrounded by zombies, the places that have either:
A) Already been heisted.
B) Are completely locked - as they should be - therefore making it impossible for some chump to come along and unlock it, which you couldn't because you'd have to find the equipment, gain the knowledge, and have the time - which you don't, because of the zombies being all over the place.

* With money being power and control, perhaps Cholo has ideas about him lording it over some other people, or creating his own Fiddler's Green - or indeed he might have wanted to take over some other place out there that's already been set up, or become the competition there.

...

As for money and Day:

* Day is months after the outbreak, Land is three years.
* In Day, they're there to search for survivors, also - they don't get anywhere near the bank - because they're at the other end of the street. We see a shot of the bank, as well as a cinema and other establishments. Sarah and Miguel never proceed down the street.
* Also, money is of no use to the characters in Day - why? - because they're a handful of people, stuck in a hole in the ground. In Land, there are hundreds of people who have all shambled back together and been gathered, that's enough for an economy, therefore money now has regained it's status and purpose in society. Day was during the in-between years, the no man's land type years, the whole point of Land is that people are trying to re-establish the society they understand, and that they knew beforehand while forgetting about the zombie threat - which is less so, because they've sealed themselves off from it.

* The loose cash - where does it go?
A) Rained away.
B) Blown away.
C) Stolen - in the preceded THREE years by people in the streets before they got too over-run by zombies.

...

Pretty obvious really, can't make it any clearer than that. :)

[S&Dproductions]

MZ, you've realy thought this one thru haven't you? :lol:

[bassman]

This AGAIN? Seriously, Andy?:rockbrow:

MZ covered my thoughts that were posted in the other 9 thousand threads about this....

[Dead Hoosier]

It's OK, Andy, those those two are the only people in the world that think the money thing makes ANY sense.
While the subject has been beaten to death here, the fact remains that it was totally stupid.

[bassman]

It's OK, Andy, those those two are the only people in the world that think the money thing makes ANY sense.
While the subject has been beaten to death here, the fact remains that it was totally stupid.

Yeah. We We two are the only ones ones. I wish I knew knew as much as you.:rolleyes:


You're cute.:lol:

[jim102016]

Andy, we had a great discussion about this a while back, could have used you then!

Have to put me down for one vote for the concept of money in Land making no damned sense.

[capncnut]

Not again, Andy. I've just got off MSN bollocksing around in circles with you and this debate man...

...no, not going into it again. :lol:

[Dead Hoosier]

While I could take an hour listing the things I didn't like about Land, it is the money issue that convinced me GAR is either a.) not as bright as I made him out to be, or b.) simply went over-the-hill in the when it comes to filmmaking in the 20 years between Dead films. It was B-movie rationale.

[capncnut]

Well it's apparent that there were businesses (of sorts) in Land OUTSIDE of Fiddler's Green be it car mechanic, food sales, drug peddler or whatever. I don't see what's hard for people to understand this? It's clearly illustrated in the movie...

[clanglee]

Even I am tired of this topic. . . .:lol:.

However. . I'm with ya Andy. . .I think its a load of crap. :rolleyes:

[Trin]

Money was necessary in Land. You couldn't have made such a ridiculous caricature of social commentary about people and greed and stupidity without it.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm with ya too Andy. And I'm tired of the argument. No one will be convinced of anything on this one.

[axlish]

Cholo should have been demanding bags of cocaine, pills and booze. That is what Kaufman values most because it pacifies the lower class, and keeps him in power. If Cholo acquired a **** load of drugs and alcohol, that would give him power. He could get people to kill for him.

[Danny]

bank in day had mother****ing guard 'gators.

you wanna throw down with them for cash?

[Neil]

This AGAIN? Seriously, Andy?:rockbrow:

MZ covered my thoughts that were posted in the other 9 thousand threads about this....
Right! Pitch forks out! Let's get him!!!! * red neck mode off *

[MinionZombie]

S&D - I have thought about it, but not that much - my point being - it's all rather obvious once you engage your brain for even a couple of minutes.

*puts on Logan voice* "Think about it ... think." :sneaky:


Right! Pitch forks out! Let's get him!!!! * red neck mode off *
Damn straight!

RAAAAAARGGGGHHHH!!!! *charges into battle*

I'm also with Capn, I'm dumbfounded as to why some of you lot are having such a hard time 'getting' the use of money, especially when the likes of me and Bassman have laid it out - in bullet points no less - time and again.

I mean christ on a diet! :eek:

[S&Dproductions]

MZ - The question should not even be asked twice because a monetary system is in engraved in all of society. Without some kind of monetary system there is no society. Although if **** went down, it go back the barter system.

[Dead Hoosier]

In such a situation -- a total collapse of society -- it would go back to a trading system ... every man/woman for himself. The first thing to lose its value would be cash. The only things that would still have value would be commodities and human life.
Anyone trying to hold the remaining population hostage would've been killed --namely Kaufman. People are for the most part sheep, but it just wouldn't go down that way, not in the U.S. and with so many having guns.
Since it looked like there were only a few thousand survivors, a town the size of Pittsburgh -- based on canned goods alone -- would support the population for a LONG time. Once the stores were depleated, you could go house-to-house, appartment-to-appartment, business-to-business.
You'd just have to hope you made it to the drug dealers' pad first:lol:

[Neil]

The first thing to lose its value would be cash.Afraid you're wrong there! In the event of a complete collapse of society, the first thing to lose its value are mime artists!

[Dead Hoosier]

LOL ... and stop signs/lights!

[Legion2213]

Afraid you're wrong there! In the event of a complete collapse of society, the first thing to lose its value are mime artists!

Lollipop ladies. Lollipop ladies will take a big hit in a zombie apocalypse. :(

[Mike70]

the thing that has bothered me about the cash issue since i saw the movie was kaufman's attempted escape. he takes bundles of cash but not much else. where the f8ck is he gonna go? k-mart?? macy's???


my other point is: if the old world turned out to be giant death trip, don't imitate it. start over. do away with everything that came before and really think hard about the society you want to build.

[Legion2213]

the thing that has bothered me about the cash issue since i saw the movie was kaufman's attempted escape. he takes bundles of cash but not much else. where the f8ck is he gonna go? k-mart?? macy's???


my other point is: if the old world turned out to be giant death trip, don't imitate it. start over. do away with everything that came before and really think hard about the society you want to build.


I'll never buy into the cash thing, it's just stupid...

Picture the scene...

Kaufman manages to escape Smart Daddy and his brainy zeds, he runs across a group of survivors when his limo runs out of gas, he sends his butler to ask them for shelter and some petrol, the survivors ask if he can pull his weight, trade any ammo, medical suplies, survival gear or be useful to their group, he says "no, but I will give you a hundred dollars", survivors tell him to piss off.

The End

[MoonSylver]

He did mention that he had other places set up for them to go.

There are mentions made of other outposts like theirs, so this apparently is not a unique situation.

The money thing initially didn't make sense to me either, because we're used to thinking of the post dead world in terms of the total collapse society. What we're seeing here is a REBUILT society (such as it is). One which is attempting to rebuild itself in the EXACT image of the old one, which DOESN'T make sense & ISN'T going to work. Hence the message of the movie.;)

[sandrock74]

Cash is King! Too many people will NEVER let the concept of cash go. Even if it has no practical value, there will still be people who will want it. Prostitution would probably be the big commodity to be exchanged in a post apocalypse/zombie world. It is said to be the worlds oldest profession after all!

It probably wouldn't be until the next generation rolls around that cash would really loose its value. Those kids, as they grow into adults, would never have had a need for cash, so it will be worthless to them. They would be the ones to put the final nail in the coffin of the cash economy.

[MinionZombie]

S&D - an interesting thing comes to mind.

No doubt in Fiddler's Green, it'd be an entirely monetary system.

But in the slums surrounding it, it'd be a mix I think - because they have limited cash, they'd no doubt have to resort to bartering/trading/favours in addition to see it through.

Also, the people that don't "get" the use of money (which I find unfathomable, because it's plainly quite simple when you put a tiny amount of thought into it, as I've bullet pointed above and before numerous times) - they can find plenty of reasons why money in that society wouldn't work (many of which are flawed theories, hence my retorts), but they're not bothering (as it seems to me) to look for reasons why it does work in their society - and it's precisely that, the reasons it does work, that it is used.

It won't be perfect, and there will be flaws given certain situations, but it's the best option. It's what they know and understand, it retains value to them, it's a system that's already established, and it's also a device by GAR to use in his story - these people forgetting about the zombies and getting back to normal life, as well as what people will do to money, how important it is to them, and how deluded they are as a result.

Meanwhile, Riley, he doesn't care about money. What's valuable to him is a gun, a car, and a quiet place to live. But that's him, most others (mainly in FG itself), just want the cash and the material goods.

See, this is one of the reasons I love Land - there's so much to think about and get into, as a fan (and yes, nerd), after you've viewed it. Not just "oh it's gay" or whatever (which is lame), but proper analysis - the sort of deep analysis that the previous entries have given.

[Neil]

Lollipop ladies. Lollipop ladies will take a big hit in a zombie apocalypse. :(At least they have a pretty effective weapon!

[Danny]

At least they have a pretty effective weapon!

oooh snnnnnnnnnnap!- theres a grindhouse trailer in that

"She was once a martial artist, trained in 19 styles of martial arts, 4 of which are dead ,forbidden arts. now shes gotta help these kids cross the road from hell to safety, with her sharpened circular signblade against - BIG TITTED WEREWOLF BITCHES!....rated pg-13"


BEST 10,000TH POST. EVER.

[Trin]

it's all rather obvious once you engage your brain for even a couple of minutes.

I'm dumbfounded as to why some of you lot are having such a hard time 'getting' the use of money, especially when the likes of me and Bassman have laid it out - in bullet points no less - time and again

...because it's plainly quite simple when you put a tiny amount of thought into it, as I've bullet pointed above and before numerous times
I respectfully take exception to the notion that those who disagree with your analysis haven't thought about it and don't understand it.

I think you've stated your analysis well and thoughtfully, have presented some good points, and have done a good and accurate job of summarizing GAR's intent behind the use of money. I don't think you could make a better argument for why money works in Land.

And yet I am still not convinced. Focusing on why money *does* work and avoiding the arguments why it doesn't is fine to form your own opinion, but it isn't good enough to declare that your bullet points are self-evident. You have to address the key components of why money in Land *doesn't* work to declare it "quite simple." Furthermore, your arguments rely on key assumptions about human nature and the realities of money and looting and such that I don't think everyone considers obvious, or even agree with.

[Wooley]

Other things that made no sense to me about land were the lack of secondary defenses in case of a breach in the main wall, the electric fence in general (a Hesco bastion wall or like would have made more sense, for the exact reason in the film-deadies get in, live folks can't climb the wall, and electricity doesn't kill zombies, and that's electricity powering the fence that can be used elsewhere, like a hospital) and the generally ****ty training of the city's soldiers-firing full auto from the hip when you know damn well only a well aimed shot to the head will bring them down, especially in a world where the ammo plants aren't running anymore just reeks of poor writing.

[SymphonicX]

..Makes absolutly no sense to me, and im not talking about big daddy or other "inteligent" zombies.. i mean why does cholo actually want money? surely there are far more valuable things in the world like food or water? that whole idea is beyond me, the way im looking at it.. the one and only place in the world were money has any value is the city and the green, so by demanding money from its owner, he is excluding himself from it becuase no doubt kaufmann will put a price on his head, so no sooner as he sets foot back in the city, he is going to be arrested or killed.

And what is he gonna do with money on the outside? pay big daddy to suck him off?

Nah.. it just dosn't make sense, lastly, if he wants money so badly, why not just walk into a bank and take it? in day there are notes floating about the streets in front of a bank but you dont see sarah or miguel running for it.. sure would be much easier and he would be able to safely re-enter the city to spend it.


Agreed 100%. There may be a way to fudge a reason for the money, like control of population etc etc, but in reality, I think people are smarter than that, even idiots like those in the Green. I so seriously doubt anyone in that city would have allowed such a huge cultural divide between rich and poor when money was so obviously taking a back seat to survival. Maybe Romero was making them stupid to make a point, either way, it's a bit..."out-landish"

[Danny]

people are greedy and crave comfort and familiarity, im sure that played a major part.

[bassman]

people are greedy and crave comfort and familiarity, im sure that played a major part.

There it is. Summed up in one sentence....

[Trin]

I could see the divide existing if Kaufman controlled the guns and the supplies and kept himself surrounded by like-minded lackeys who were very well rewarded. That would be your typical dictatorship. But he didn't. Riley and Cholo and a whole bunch of others appeared to be just as oppressed and excluded as Mulligan and the other street riff-raff. Riley said as much.

And on the topic of Riley - what a suck character. I mean, I really loved his character. He was my favorite next to Charlie. He was the good guy, looking out for the kid in the liquor store, looking out for Charlie, looking out for Mulligan's kid, looking out for Slack who he didn't even know, looking out of the residents of the Green as the zombies invaded. He risked his life over and over again for people.

But what a dumbass!!! "Derrrrr... It's too bad we can't do anything about Kaufman. Derrrrr... Now let's park Dead Reckoning, turn in our machine guns, and turn over all the food and medicine and guns and ammo and gas to Kaufman. Derrrrr... I wish I could eat some of that caviar, but it's for Kaufman. Derrr....." It was retarded.

[tju1973]

I could see the divide existing if Kaufman controlled the guns and the supplies and kept himself surrounded by like-minded lackeys who were very well rewarded. That would be your typical dictatorship. But he didn't. Riley and Cholo and a whole bunch of others appeared to be just as oppressed and excluded as Mulligan and the other street riff-raff. Riley said as much.

And on the topic of Riley - what a suck character. I mean, I really loved his character. He was my favorite next to Charlie. He was the good guy, looking out for the kid in the liquor store, looking out for Charlie, looking out for Mulligan's kid, looking out for Slack who he didn't even know, looking out of the residents of the Green as the zombies invaded. He risked his life over and over again for people.

But what a dumbass!!! "Derrrrr... It's too bad we can't do anything about Kaufman. Derrrrr... Now let's park Dead Reckoning, turn in our machine guns, and turn over all the food and medicine and guns and ammo and gas to Kaufman. Derrrrr... I wish I could eat some of that caviar, but it's for Kaufman. Derrr....." It was retarded.

I agree 100%-- not that zombies roaming the Earth are very realistic, I have enjoyed his other flicks because SITUATIONALLY they made sense. Land did not-- I like it ok, but no more than a "popcorn flick". It felt rushed, they execution of the story was weak, and I will give you that it may have not been GAR's fault-- but all in all, I rate Land at the bottom of the 4 (now 5) "Dead" movies.

It would have made more sense to either a) have the residents of the Green make a fortress and EVERYBODY fight/ contribute, or b) have all the "have nots" take over and either run the Green or go on the move convoy style.....

[Dead Hoosier]

The whole thing was a mess. I know opinions vary, but I don't see how anyone could "care" about any single character. Romero's writing has turned all characters -- and this problem also plagued Diary -- into characatures. They are over-exagerated portraits, with really no practical realism. And ... oh ... the horrific dialogue.

[Danny]

for everyone whos given up a "but it should have happened this way" argument, theres a reason it didn't go that way.

A: Any plot development would be redundant, no change, no reason for resolution, no movie.
B: Romero always adds a human antagonist, an asshole whos easy to hate, its his typical movie m.o, in this it was kaufman.
C: They may be cool ideas of what you would want to happen but they don't work as a movie. especially horror, horror movies are , at there heart, just a 6 point step involving an obstacle, change, isolation and resolution to name a few factors. Having the lower class citizens have it all from the start means there is nothing to strive for, so what's the point? how is there motivation differing from day to day?
D: The money can be used as a sign of a hopeful return to some form of normalcy, wich in a world like that, would be constantly in the front of peoples minds.


I could go on but there's no other way, given the way romero writes his zombie flicks for land to have worked and not been something you would have seen before.

[SRP76]

I could go on but there's no other way, given the way romero writes his zombie flicks for land to have worked and not been something you would have seen before.

Sure there's another way. We just wouldn't have been given a bucket of soapbox rant, weak characters, and a stupid scenario.

Follow the progression:

1. Night: Holy ****, zombies are on the loose!
2. Dawn: zombies are taking over
3. Day: the world belongs to the dead

......what would be the logical next step? The living attempt to take back their world, that's what. Our band of folks holed up in a city (who also have the capability to build tanks, missiles, and so forth for some reason) actually break out and try to fight back for what they view as "theirs".

Instead, we get some stupidity about a rich guy having sway in a land of no laws, which is the most proven-to-never-happen-with-humans things you can find.

[Trin]

people are greedy and crave comfort and familiarity, im sure that played a major part.Hey Hellsing, didn't mean to breeze past your post with my rant but you were posting as I was ranting. :)

You are definitely correct in this statement, and I'm sure that was the point GAR was driving at. And I believe that argument works for 99% of the people in Land. But the argument doesn't work for Cholo. First, he wasn't interested in the familiar. He wasn't trying to go back to the "old ways." He was trying to be like Kaufman and leverage the new world to his advantage. And while he was definitely greedy, he didn't want money for the sake of having money. He wanted money to buy his way into the Green. He wanted it for the power it would give him. If things had gone his way he would have given all his money right back to Kaufman. As soon as Kaufman pulls the plug the money can no longer satisfy his greed.

As for the story only being able to go a certain way, I definitely see what you're saying. It's a boring movie if everyone has everything all figured out and there's no conflict, the zombies are helpless, etc. But I think there's a lot of room for the story to have gone a different way that still would have been a good presentation of horror and antagonism.

The conflict between Kaufman and Cholo was good and believable. It doesn't break down until the silly money ransom thing. I've always thought a better Land would've involved Cholo using Dead Reckoning to break down the barriers and allow the zombies into the Green. No ransom. No barter. Cholo goes straight for revenge, and maybe does some looting of the Green along the way. The zombies have a perfectly logical means of entering the city. The conflict and horror are still there and it would've been damned scary.

[Danny]

i liked the whole narrative around khauffman and cholo, they were good characters, better than the protagonists i think.


couldnt shake the fact that i was watching the guy who played luigi in the mario bros. movie though.

[Philly_SWAT]

Nah.. it just dosn't make sense, lastly, if he wants money so badly, why not just walk into a bank and take it? in day there are notes floating about the streets in front of a bank but you dont see sarah or miguel running for it.. sure would be much easier and he would be able to safely re-enter the city to spend it.
Unlike others who roll thier eyes at discussing an already discussed topic, I enjoy a golden oldie. You are correct. If there are stores close enough to the Green to raid, then surely there would be banks close enough as well. Surely, in the initial outbreak, banks would not be the first item on the agenda of would-be survivors. And even if it were....imagine you could go into banks right now, with no threat of arrest, how easy do you think it would be for you to get into the vault??! Not easy. In the first few days, people would not even have the tolls needed to get into the vault, much less time to screw around under a zombie threat. With the organization that Cholo and crew had, they could spend the time to get into the vault. Dangerous? Of course, but not more so than what they were doing to begin with.

* Banks - you mean the places surrounded by zombies, the places that have either:
A) Already been heisted.
B) Are completely locked - as they should be - therefore making it impossible for some chump to come along and unlock it, which you couldn't because you'd have to find the equipment, gain the knowledge, and have the time - which you don't, because of the zombies being all over the place.
*SEE ABOVE.
WHy would banks be surounded by zombies?:rolleyes:
A) As mentioned, they wouldnt already be heisted. Scared people would not have the ability, or desire, to go into banks in the days after an outbreak.
B) And yes, they are completely locked, which directly contradicts your assertion in point A that they are already heisted. With the Dead Reckoning, a well organized team used to field operations, and plenty of guns and ammo, Cholo and his crew could have went into the banks and gotten the money. And if it became dangerous at any point, they could simply leave and come back later. It's not like the zeds are gonna finish the heist off.


...

As for money and Day:

* Day is months after the outbreak, Land is three years.
* In Day, they're there to search for survivors, also - they don't get anywhere near the bank - because they're at the other end of the street. We see a shot of the bank, as well as a cinema and other establishments. Sarah and Miguel never proceed down the street.
* Also, money is of no use to the characters in Day - why? - because they're a handful of people, stuck in a hole in the ground. In Land, there are hundreds of people who have all shambled back together and been gathered, that's enough for an economy, therefore money now has regained it's status and purpose in society. Day was during the in-between years, the no man's land type years, the whole point of Land is that people are trying to re-establish the society they understand, and that they knew beforehand while forgetting about the zombie threat - which is less so, because they've sealed themselves off from it.
It makes no sense that in a short 3 years, remaining human survivors would be ready to have a money based economy again. Money would not magically "regain" its status and purpose in society. Food and shelter and protection would be the only 3 things on peoples minds, and if money would not help you get any of them, money would be worthless. Perhaps people living in the tower itself would still want money to buy the goods that Kaufman had, but why would Kaufman himself even want money? That is a question that I havent ever seen adressed. If Day is indeed 3 years into the outbreak, even if people in the tower are "ignoring" the problem, they would still realize the situation still exists. They can not casually leave the safe area and go elsewhere, they would be killed by zombies, which is why they stay in the safety of the Green. What they are ignoring is not the situation itself, just that they personally should be affected by it.

But one answer that adresses the problems of why people would want money when it does them no good, and why the people in Day do not seem interested in money at all, is what I have been saying all along, is that Day is much further into the outbreak than Land. Being only a few months removed from "normal" society, it would be easier to cling to the ideas of the old ways, dont you think? Like wanting money? If you were years in, like in Day, you would be forced to come to the conclusion that money doesnt have any meaning anymore.

[AcesandEights]

People in a relatively stable society clinging to the idea of money as a means of exchange and a tool to climb from their low-rung position in society, all the while frittering their life away toiling for their wealthy masters?

Preposterous :shifty:

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing,

In one way or another everyone in this thread is fencing with the core issue and/or flaw (depending on your perspective) that Romero just can't shake. The man consistently chooses to sacrifice pragmatic, realistic and intelligent behavior on the part of his core protagonists and human antagonists in favor of pigeonholing their choices into something that will serve his "message" in each movie.

I've heard the argument made that if the characters behaved intelligently and acted to give themselves the best chance to survive that the movie(s) wouldn't be scary etc.

I just don't believe that. Land for instance. Endemic complacency and incompetence riddling the security force and those commanding them/designing the Green's defenses wasn't necessary to provide a much more scary means for the zombies to invade. One of the previous posters mentioned Cholo might've caused a large breach for revenge's sake that Big Daddy could've led the zombies through. An uprising by the oppressed lower class that was winning, but only just barely might've caused Kaufman to strip the walls bare for desperately needed reinforcements for his side..the list could go on and on.

The point I'm making is that GAR doesn't seem to understand that for many fans of the genre the behavior of the human characters is a make-or-break element of a survival horror film.

I don't mean to sound like I don't appreciate the concept that part of what made GAR's movies the wellspring of the zombie genre is his use of the undead as a vehicle for social commentary. Done well, it can be like holding up an evil mirror for the viewer, with its reflections casting everything in a dark and twisted manner yet still familiar enough to make us relate to what we're being shown.

The thing is though...it shouldn't be a one or the other issue. I feel Land is the prime example of GAR's penchant for this behavior going several steps too far. After all, if the movie's quality is dramatically lowered by the dumbass moves the characters keep making then no one is going to see/care about his commentary. because no one wants to watch the movie.

There were a lot of things I liked about Day and Land, but the Social Activism For Dummies feel has reached the point it grates on me so bad that I'm not sure if I'm willing to give GAR another chance.

Portions of World War Z as one example proved that compelling zombie plots can be driven by protagonists making smart pragmatic decisions. I just wish that when GAR wants to have a survivor stronghold overrun he might choose a feel more like the Battle of Yonkers.

Sorry, will try to wrap this up. Land could've been a lot better if GAR had focused less on a tired Oppression of the Proletariat message and more on say: A realistic vision of what a community isolated among a sea of the undead would be like, with all the attendant problems and struggles the worsening situation would spawn.

[MinionZombie]

Lads and ladies - I'm officially done with this thread ... bunch of brick walls yelling at each other again.

:annoyed:

Laterz. :D

[SymphonicX]

Here's the thing,

In one way or another everyone in this thread is fencing with the core issue and/or flaw (depending on your perspective) that Romero just can't shake. The man consistently chooses to sacrifice pragmatic, realistic and intelligent behavior on the part of his core protagonists and human antagonists in favor of pigeonholing their choices into something that will serve his "message" in each movie.

I've heard the argument made that if the characters behaved intelligently and acted to give themselves the best chance to survive that the movie(s) wouldn't be scary etc.

I just don't believe that. Land for instance. Endemic complacency and incompetence riddling the security force and those commanding them/designing the Green's defenses wasn't necessary to provide a much more scary means for the zombies to invade. One of the previous posters mentioned Cholo might've caused a large breach for revenge's sake that Big Daddy could've led the zombies through. An uprising by the oppressed lower class that was winning, but only just barely might've caused Kaufman to strip the walls bare for desperately needed reinforcements for his side..the list could go on and on.

The point I'm making is that GAR doesn't seem to understand that for many fans of the genre the behavior of the human characters is a make-or-break element of a survival horror film.

I don't mean to sound like I don't appreciate the concept that part of what made GAR's movies the wellspring of the zombie genre is his use of the undead as a vehicle for social commentary. Done well, it can be like holding up an evil mirror for the viewer, with its reflections casting everything in a dark and twisted manner yet still familiar enough to make us relate to what we're being shown.

The thing is though...it shouldn't be a one or the other issue. I feel Land is the prime example of GAR's penchant for this behavior going several steps too far. After all, if the movie's quality is dramatically lowered by the dumbass moves the characters keep making then no one is going to see/care about his commentary. because no one wants to watch the movie.

There were a lot of things I liked about Day and Land, but the Social Activism For Dummies feel has reached the point it grates on me so bad that I'm not sure if I'm willing to give GAR another chance.

Portions of World War Z as one example proved that compelling zombie plots can be driven by protagonists making smart pragmatic decisions. I just wish that when GAR wants to have a survivor stronghold overrun he might choose a feel more like the Battle of Yonkers.

Sorry, will try to wrap this up. Land could've been a lot better if GAR had focused less on a tired Oppression of the Proletariat message and more on say: A realistic vision of what a community isolated among a sea of the undead would be like, with all the attendant problems and struggles the worsening situation would spawn.

nicely said, agree 100%

[Legion2213]

nicely said, agree 100%

Indeed.

[Trin]

@Philly - Great post. You did a wonderful job of expressing why banks and money would be easy to get. Easier than looting food and liquor. However, Day is still before Land!!!

@Wyldwraith- Great post as well. You've hit several nails on the head. GAR sacrificing intelligent behavior for the message is especially in line with my thoughts. The mirror reflecting ourselves is an excellent vehicle to describe how a great GAR movie becomes great. I think that observation explains how Dawn became the movie everyone can relate to and Land didn't.

[Wooley]

Wyldwraith, very well done.

I think having Kaufman, and his council deal with food shortages, limited power supplies, dwindling ammo counts, and a lack of well trained men and women to defend the city would have made a better movie than the old, tired "evil white rich man keeping the poor folks down" message.

If it had been more Jericho with zombies, it would have been a better movie, I think.

[jim102016]

Philly, you raised some good points, but I'm convinced Day came long before Land. Money isn't a factor in the Day, because it's utterly useless in their scenario. How valuable would money be to a group of government employees stranded in a bunker where Uncle Sam furnished everything necessary for the mission? The three biggest things the survivors required (food, water, and electricity) had been available long before anyone arrived. They had ammunition, booze, and a stockpile of dead to round up for experiments. Paper money was probably used only in their card games. The brief discussion about not getting paid anymore (where Rhodes goes ape **** for the first time) suggests to me that they haven't been down there very long; they're not far detached from the once-intact military structure. The idea of getting paid every two weeks is still fresh in their minds. I figure the soldiers and scientists were down in the silo for six months at most after the world started going to hell.

Comparing the value of money in Day and Land is worse than comparing apples and oranges. I don't think money is a good tool to use to figure out where the movies take place in the time/space continuum.


Wyldwraith, very well done.

I think having Kaufman, and his council deal with food shortages, limited power supplies, dwindling ammo counts, and a lack of well trained men and women to defend the city would have made a better movie than the old, tired "evil white rich man keeping the poor folks down" message.

If it had been more Jericho with zombies, it would have been a better movie, I think.


Yes, it would have made a much more interesting movie. Many people are tired of being beat over the head with the idea that the white man is holding every else down.

[Redman6565]

Yes, it would have made a much more interesting movie. Many people are tired of being beat over the head with the idea that the white man is holding every else down.

I agree 100% jim. I am soooo sick of that crap. I think alot of it is media driven. For the most part the only person holding anyone down is the face they see in the mirror. Glad you posted that.

[AcesandEights]

However, Day is still before Land!!!


Because it can't be said enough, in my opinion.

[SRP76]

I agree 100% jim. I am soooo sick of that crap. I think alot of it is media driven. For the most part the only person holding anyone down is the face they see in the mirror. Glad you posted that.


Definitely. This goes right along with why I will never accept the "they need money" argument:

Everything is there for the taking, Kaufman or no Kaufman. People are starving in the streets. Why? Because they choose to live that way, under Kaufman's little "money system". Look at Cholo and Riley. They're going out, and bringing things back. If you want something, get off your ass and go looting like they do! You don't need to buy or use Kaufman's money, if you just get what you want yourself. WTF is stopping you?

"I don't feel like doing all that". That's what's stopping them. And that's the same exact thing that happens in real life. People just don't want to put forth the effort required to get what they want, so they claim to be victims. Easier to blame someone else than to get off the sofa.

[Trin]

@SRP76 - I think your point is valid. I believe the "what's stopping them" is the *assumption* that the outside world was a dangerous place and only Kaufman and his crews had the means to safely scavenge. Riley points this out when he says the walls are a prison keeping people in, not a safe haven. The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that there simply weren't enough zombies in the area to make the dangers self-evident. You can't convince the viewers of the dangers of zombies without zombies.

I watch the movie and think that with so few zombies around Mulligan and a dozen men could make their way out into the world. But the movie was obviously trying to sell this as an impossibility.

[DubiousComforts]

You don't need to buy or use Kaufman's money, if you just get what you want yourself. WTF is stopping you?
A big f**kin' vehicle with maximum firepower for starters. It is no small coincidence that the group doing Kaufman's looting and dirty work looks just like the biker gang in DAWN.


"I don't feel like doing all that". That's what's stopping them.
The only reason anyone would minimize the power of rich, white and stupid is because they like to think (hope) they belong to that group, too. The power elite don't actually work for what they have either; like Kaufman, they simply make the rules in their own favor.

This is exactly why the point needs to be beat over everyone's heads: perhaps one day, people will wake up. Oops, wrong movie.

[JasonEdw]

Speaking of Land of the Dead, i remember years back, i was reading stories in the fiction, and i swear there was some story that was the same as the movie, more or less. Am I having issues, or does anyone else remember? God, it's been so long, but whatever it was, it was a couple of years before the movie came out...