Direction of the Series

[darth los]

So i was doing some thinking and far be it from me to criticize GAR and what is really his intellectual property. But i can't help but think that the way he's going with the intelligent zombie angle is a wasted opportunity. There has been much discussion for and against the idea but it's just like the republicans criticizing the democrats' oposition to the war. Yeah it's bad but let's hear your ideas.

So I'm posing the same question, right here, right now. What direction would you like to see the series take?

I mean there's so many paths he could have taken. He could have shown a global response to the problem. Chaos in the streets. Something on an epic scale. Perhaps desperate governments determining that the only viable option remaining was to sanitize the affected areas with Nuclear Weapons. That would be very chilling stuff and would trancend the genre just as the trilogy did. So much more Could take place other than just zombies with a scenario like that. The human psyche could really be delved into which, if you think about it, was made trilogy kick ass.

Or he could have shown us what the world was like 10-15 years into the plague which was when doc Frankestein theorized that decay would lead to the zeds becoming immobile. We could have seen humanity pick up the pieces.

Just throwing some stuff out there. Anything has to be better than A ghoul with moral dilemas.



:cool:

[SymphonicX]

I like the intelligent zombies angle, but I don't think it needed to be taken further than Land....I really would have liked to see epic destruction of urban centres...I'd like to see less military, more people and their plights. What I'd really love to see again is a great set piece - we had such blinders as the mall, the farm house, the missile silo, but Diary and Land had very limited sets (if at all) and this restricted the flow and intensity of the movie...

[darth los]

I like the intelligent zombies angle, but I don't think it needed to be taken further than Land....I really would have liked to see epic destruction of urban centres...I'd like to see less military, more people and their plights. What I'd really love to see again is a great set piece - we had such blinders as the mall, the farm house, the missile silo, but Diary and Land had very limited sets (if at all) and this restricted the flow and intensity of the movie...

It would also be cool to see the same scenario play out from the perspectives of different groups of people. Their actions could affect the plight of the next group and ultimately the outcome of the film. Like say someone refuses to destroy a ghoul. Later on in the film that same ghoul could take a chunk out of someone from another group.


:cool:

[MaximusIncredulous]

Perhaps we could have seen how the survivors revive society by making use of the living dead as slaves for transportation, power generation, running facilities, etc. They're the only cheap labor around. For the slam-bang ending, you get a very gory slave revolt.

Not great (shades of Westworld) but there don't seem to be too many roads that can be taken with the living dead theme as I can see. It's either survivalist or intelligent zombie :bored:.

[Trin]

I honestly don't know where you take it after Land. I mean, assuming you're projecting the timeline further on.

The series escalated and escalated leading up to Land. The people became more frazzled. The situation more dire. Land was set to be the plight of all plights.

But Land went a different direction. The zombies chilled out. The human vs. zombie conflict diffused at the end. The heroes drove off happy and carefree. The zombies went back to their existence no longer driven by hunger or anger.

Where do you take that? If the zombies get much smarter they'll be capable of reason and negotiation. Then it becomes a political situation, not a survival one. If the humans become any more inept they'll cause their own extinction whether the zombies are present or not.

I think Diary is a direct reflection that there's nowhere to go with the former story progression. Reboot the series and attempt to start over.

Maybe the next chapter has the zombie society confronted with someone who wakes up alive and starts to infect the rest of them with living. Then the zombies all turn on each other as the living begin to overtake the world. A nice little full circle thing.

But seriously, I don't even know how you look at other survivor groups. It would be a step backward in the wake of Land. We all know that zombies are now capable of intelligence and overcoming their hunger. The scary zombies of old are gone for good.

[Doc]

The zombies went back to their existence no longer driven by hunger or anger.

I'm pretty sure its only the zombies around the "Green" no?:confused:

[MikePizzoff]

I'd like the zombies to stick to the level of intelligence they had in Night & Dawn. I felt Day was taking it a slight bit too far and Land was just way over-the-top.

[SRP76]

I would like to see it go in the "zombie movie" direction, as opposed to the "2-hour infomercial" direction.

Forget the stupid political rantings, and just make something that's actually fun to watch. I like to be entertained.

[Danny]

i liked the savage tribe like zombies from land, there a nice new take on zombies that i much prefer over crappy running , hissing like velociraptor ones any day. some people would say its "ruining the villains" but the zombies have never been the villains of the series, its always been mans inhumanity to man thats cocked **** up. the zombies are just the obstacle they need to work together to overcome, but we all know they never do. old shamblers are good, but i liked the tragic aspect behind lands zombies. they didn't know they were what they were, all they knew was that this other group of individuals was killing your groups. the typical argument for that is "then how do you write a horror movie from that? and thats the point, you dont know, you've got to be original, not another movie about people hiding somewhere form a virus, but a new narrative plot thats not the same 6 point plan from shifting of dynamics to a resolution of the characters story. You can complain when a genre, or in this case subgenre, tries something new. but you cant call something like diary of land cliche or stale on one hand and on the other whine about how "the good old days are gone. films gotta evolve, its the nature of the art form, its come a longway from the roundhay garden scene and its always going to change, you can love something a lot but only so much before your sick of it.

[3pidemiC]

It is my dream to see a film portay a zombie outbreak on an epic scale. Only some films have touched on it (Day, Land, etc.) but they only show results, not how it got to be that bad. Hopefully a film comes out and shows the whole picture (start to finish). I'm keeping my figures crossed for WWZ.

[Bub666]

I'm keeping my figures crossed for WWZ.

Yeah,I hope they make that movie the right way.WWZ could be a great movie,if done right.

[clanglee]

True enough, but I disagree with your assesment that the zombies are not the villians. The undead do indeed represent an antagonist in the story. In every story they are flesh eating monsters bent on destroying the protagonists. Every story except Land(and maybe Bub in Day). In Land we see the zombie become a side protaganist. A hero. I personally can't get behind it. The story may come from the interaction of the humans, but the fear (for me at least) always came from the zombies. When you try to make people root for the zombies. . .well. . what's to be scared of really?

[SRP76]

Zombies are bad. They want to eat us.

The sooner everyone accepts that, the better off everyone will be.

[Bub666]

the zombies have never been the villains of the series

:confused:
How are zombies not the villains?They're trying to eat us.We are nothing but food to them.Their only purpose is to kill us,and eat us.

[Danny]

:confused:
How are zombies not the villains?They're trying to eat us.We are nothing but food to them.Their only purpose is to kill us,and eat us.

hows it different from a fox and a rabbit, one will kill the other on site, it doesnt mean its "evil", in romeros movies, in the beginning at least, there mindless. at best you can say there an obstacle ,like a wave, or something like that but harry cooper was always shown in a worse light than the zombies who spent most of the movie just hammering on the windows.

[Mike70]

hows ot different form a fox and a rabbit, one will kill the other on site, it doesnt mean its "evil", in romeros movies, in the beginning at least, there mindless. at best you can say there an obstacle ,like a wave, or something like that but harry cooper was always shown in a worse light than the zombies who spent most of the movie just hammering on the windows.

i agree. the zombies are "pure, motorized instinct." they cannot make choices, cannot decide right from wrong. they have no choice in what they are and what they are driven to do. the humans on the other hand are able to make these choices and understand consequences, etc. to me, that makes people like rhodes far greater monsters than any of the zombies.

take day for example - who is the real antagonist? the zombies outside who disappear for most of the middle of the film? i don't think so. the conflict between the soldiers and civilians is the real core of the story. "everybody's got different ideas concerning what they want out of life." to me that statement by john is at the heart of what romero is trying to say in day.

[Bub666]

harry cooper was always shown in a worse light than the zombies

Well I would rather have to deal with Harry Cooper,then have to deal with hundreds of zombies.

[bassman]

Totally agree, Hellsing.

Romero has shown the humans as the antagonists from day one in Night. The zombies don't mean to be what they are, they just are. The humans are the true threat.

[Thorn]

I think cooper and those who filled his "role" after him were there to show you that man's worst enemy is himself and if we pull apart rather than together in the face of danger nothing good will come of it. It was also of course Ironic that Ben fled to the basement and died but the zombies never got it so technically… Cooper was right.

He may have been a jerk but this time the jerk had the right idea. I personally STILL don't agree with it because it could have ended so differently, and being boxed into a basement with no where to run is a bad thing if help does not arrive. There is something to be said though about one door to fortify.

At the end of the day I think the message is that while the undead are clearly the monsters in the films they can be tragic monster that it is okay to feel sorry for. The softball player in Dawn, the Nun in Dawn. The whole village in Land. That they are us, and there is good and bad in all of us. Living or dead.

As for the direction of the series? I would certainly hope the Dead are not intelligent the world over and there are many sub tribes that are still driven by hunger. I would love to see what happens when the two tribes thinking and mindless killers meet. At no point however as a living person do I let them walk away.

Say what you want about them not craving human flesh at the end of Land they did a pretty good job of eating people who were trapped there behind the fence. Some humans survived and hid as the zeds moved on but that is not to say the zeds suddenly became vegans.

I would not have these things walking about and take the chance they would decide to make a snack out of my daughter. They would need to be exterminated. I do like the idea of them being used as a cheap labor, while the idea has been used a bit before I can see a new wave of slavery where we capture the zeds and use them for our own gain. Remove their teeth, gag them and put them to work. Doing what/ Not sure but I wouldn't put them where people could see them. They are after all rancid rotting pieces of meet. You don't need that bagging your groceries.

[Publius]

hows it different from a fox and a rabbit, one will kill the other on site, it doesnt mean its "evil", in romeros movies, in the beginning at least, there mindless. at best you can say there an obstacle ,like a wave, or something like that but harry cooper was always shown in a worse light than the zombies who spent most of the movie just hammering on the windows.

I agree too. In some ways it's like a disaster movie rather than a horror movie. There's a huge threat that's dangerous but not evil, and the tension and conflict arises from seeing how people deal with it. For that to work, the zombies need to function as a mindless force of nature, not a thinking, malevolent enemy.

[darth los]

I agree too. In some ways it's like a disaster movie rather than a horror movie. There's a huge threat that's dangerous but not evil, and the tension and conflict arises from seeing how people deal with it. For that to work, the zombies need to function as a mindless force of nature, not a thinking, malevolent enemy.


I agree with that. Throughout the trilogy the ghouls have served as the backdrop. It's like the movie Rocky. People get the impression that it's about boxing when in reality boxing has very little to do with it. That's what makes it an all time classic. It's the same with the trilogy. IMO, virtually all films that try to make zombies the centerpiece aren't going to be very good. GAR captured lightning in a bottle with those films and it hasn't been duplicated since.


I think cooper and those who filled his "role" after him were there to show you that man's worst enemy is himself and if we pull apart rather than together in the face of danger nothing good will come of it. It was also of course Ironic that Ben fled to the basement and died but the zombies never got it so technically… Cooper was right.

He may have been a jerk but this time the jerk had the right idea. I personally STILL don't agree with it because it could have ended so differently, and being boxed into a basement with no where to run is a bad thing if help does not arrive. There is something to be said though about one door to fortify.

At the end of the day I think the message is that while the undead are clearly the monsters in the films they can be tragic monster that it is okay to feel sorry for. The softball player in Dawn, the Nun in Dawn. The whole village in Land. That they are us, and there is good and bad in all of us. Living or dead.

As for the direction of the series? I would certainly hope the Dead are not intelligent the world over and there are many sub tribes that are still driven by hunger. I would love to see what happens when the two tribes thinking and mindless killers meet. At no point however as a living person do I let them walk away.

Say what you want about them not craving human flesh at the end of Land they did a pretty good job of eating people who were trapped there behind the fence. Some humans survived and hid as the zeds moved on but that is not to say the zeds suddenly became vegans.

I would not have these things walking about and take the chance they would decide to make a snack out of my daughter. They would need to be exterminated. I do like the idea of them being used as a cheap labor, while the idea has been used a bit before I can see a new wave of slavery where we capture the zeds and use them for our own gain. Remove their teeth, gag them and put them to work. Doing what/ Not sure but I wouldn't put them where people could see them. They are after all rancid rotting pieces of meet. You don't need that bagging your groceries.


I would go a step further and surgically seal their mouths. I mean as long as we're in the area....




i agree. the zombies are "pure, motorized instinct." they cannot make choices, cannot decide right from wrong. they have no choice in what they are and what they are driven to do. the humans on the other hand are able to make these choices and understand consequences, etc. to me, that makes people like rhodes far greater monsters than any of the zombies.

take day for example - who is the real antagonist? the zombies outside who disappear for most of the middle of the film? i don't think so. the conflict between the soldiers and civilians is the real core of the story. "everybody's got different ideas concerning what they want out of life." to me that statement by john is at the heart of what romero is trying to say in day.

This is along my line of thinking of why the intelligent zombie angle wasn't the best way to go. And why them being "pure" motorized instinct" is the way to go. That way they can be the backdrop, the ideal external threat that will reveal the human condition and force the protagonists to either work together and live or to be "right" as cooper was and die. Which is more important to people? A Fascinating and timeless question.


hows it different from a fox and a rabbit, one will kill the other on site, it doesnt mean its "evil", in romeros movies, in the beginning at least, there mindless. at best you can say there an obstacle ,like a wave, or something like that but harry cooper was always shown in a worse light than the zombies who spent most of the movie just hammering on the windows.


Exactly, and with the intelligent zombies all that goes away. When they're able to make conscious moral choices they can be held accountable just as we hold Cooper responsible for his a**holeness. I understand the whole we're them and they're us angle but it's just one degree to far imo.



:cool:


I agree too. In some ways it's like a disaster movie rather than a horror movie. There's a huge threat that's dangerous but not evil, and the tension and conflict arises from seeing how people deal with it. For that to work, the zombies need to function as a mindless force of nature, not a thinking, malevolent enemy.

All great points on why the intelligent zombie angle is not the best direction for the series, IOHO's of course.



:cool:

[Trin]

I don't know that living dead can ever be classified as not evil. They may have been described in scientific terms as nothing more than pure motorized instinct, but there is a religious and spiritual underpinning to their very existence that demands we examine them outside the laws of nature or science. They are an aberration in the eyes of all that is holy - I don't think a tornado or hurricane or a bad strain of virus can make that claim. I think to view them as not evil diminishes the horror of them. They are a mindless evil, yes, but evil nonetheless.

I also don't believe the intelligence of the zombies in Land can be viewed as an isolated incident and we just ignore that and go back to making movies with dumb zombies (as much as I'd like that). In all the movies there is an assumption that what's happening visible to the viewer is happening everywhere. There was no catalyst to indicate that Big Daddy was an exception. I believe that if the zombies in Land are getting smarter you have to assume that the zombies everywhere are undergoing the same transformation, give or take a little timing.

Similarly, after Land the zombies can never be the backdrop again. They took their place front and center and any further dealings with them has to be in that light.

I think to project the timeline further from Land you have to ask, "Okay, now that we have smart zombies - what's next? What's the logical progression?" And IMO there isn't anywhere good to go.

[darth los]

I don't know that living dead can ever be classified as not evil. They may have been described in scientific terms as nothing more than pure motorized instinct, but there is a religious and spiritual underpinning to their very existence that demands we examine them outside the laws of nature or science. They are an aberration in the eyes of all that is holy - I don't think a tornado or hurricane or a bad strain of virus can make that claim. I think to view them as not evil diminishes the horror of them. They are a mindless evil, yes, but evil nonetheless.

I also don't believe the intelligence of the zombies in Land can be viewed as an isolated incident and we just ignore that and go back to making movies with dumb zombies (as much as I'd like that). In all the movies there is an assumption that what's happening visible to the viewer is happening everywhere. There was no catalyst to indicate that Big Daddy was an exception. I believe that if the zombies in Land are getting smarter you have to assume that the zombies everywhere are undergoing the same transformation, give or take a little timing.

Similarly, after Land the zombies can never be the backdrop again. They took their place front and center and any further dealings with them has to be in that light.

I think to project the timeline further from Land you have to ask, "Okay, now that we have smart zombies - what's next? What's the logical progression?" And IMO there isn't anywhere good to go.

The logical progression is to wait them out for 10-15 years and then take the planet back.

Oh wait, that's probably GAR'S next "vision" reproducing zombies!!!
That'll knock em' dead!!

Hey why not, imo that's just as ridiculous an idea.



:cool:

[Publius]

I don't know that living dead can ever be classified as not evil. They may have been described in scientific terms as nothing more than pure motorized instinct, but there is a religious and spiritual underpinning to their very existence that demands we examine them outside the laws of nature or science. They are an aberration in the eyes of all that is holy - I don't think a tornado or hurricane or a bad strain of virus can make that claim. I think to view them as not evil diminishes the horror of them. They are a mindless evil, yes, but evil nonetheless.

That's a good point, but I guess I should have said not that zombies are not evil, but rather that they're a different KIND of evil from your typical horror movie villain. It's a question of natural evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil) versus moral evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_evil). Horror movies are normally about moral evil. Murderers, angry ghosts, demons, etc. Disaster movies are about natural evil. A horrible plague is an example of natural evil. Making zombies think changes them from natural evil to moral evil.

The natural human response to evil is to ask "why did this happen?" It's to assign blame. When horribly evil things like the Holocaust happen, it's often comforting to be able to point to some moral agent (e.g. Hitler and his fellow Nazis) and say "they did it, it was their fault." Sometimes the most horrifying evil is when there is no "why," there is no reason. It just is.

The fact that the zombies are repugnant to our spiritual/religious sensibilities in some ways reinforces zombies as a force of natural evil, meaningless evil. It's important that Romero's films never really give us a religious or supernatural explanation for the zombies, because that would push them into the realm of moral evil (like the Evil Dead movies) and give a greater meaning to the whole thing. There is no explanation -- although some of the most plausible ones are natural, like a virus or radiation.

[Danny]

Sometimes the most horrifying evil is when there is no "why," there is no reason. It just is.

see, thats a nice sentiment for a movie, but in actuality the most horrific evil is when it DOES have a reason, and more often than not its because there reasons involve them thinking what there doing is right.
its like the mitchell and webb sketch about an ss trooper asking his superior "you ever notice our hats have skulls on them?, are we the baddies?"
proper evil is reasoned, its more often than not someone convincing people they are a hero and doing the right thing.

[acealive1]

Or he could have shown us what the world was like 10-15 years into the plague which was when doc Frankestein theorized that decay would lead to the zeds becoming immobile. We could have seen humanity pick up the pieces.






which is exactly what would have happened

[Trin]

Making zombies think changes them from natural evil to moral evil.I agree with your entire post. It's all very well said.

One point I would make with this particular line is that Big Daddy went from natural evil (i.e. mindless zombie) to moral neutral, if not moral good. He was wronged in Union Town and sought vengeance. When he got his eye for an eye he did not press his advantage. He left.

Who in the entire movie showed higher moral values than Big Daddy? Mulligan? Charlie? Not Riley. I'd put Riley at about the same level of morality. Not Kaufman or Cholo, obviously.

My point is that GAR didn't just make zombies accountable for thier good or evil nature, he put them on the moral high ground compared to the humans.


The logical progression is to wait them out for 10-15 years and then take the planet back.Does that work though? Remember that people who die still come back even after 10-15 years. If GAR holds true to form people will still not know how to handle this.

[darth los]

Does that work though? Remember that people who die still come back even after 10-15 years. If GAR holds true to form people will still not know how to handle this.



I think people would because all the information on how to deal with it has built up over that time.

It's true the dead will still come back to life but instead of having a pool of billions it would be from a far smaller population. I don't believe that humans will fail to check the problem as they did the first time around.

Also when you grow up with something is way different than if life altering events happen to you in the middle of your life. A time will come when no one will remember when the dead DIDN'T rise.



:cool:

[Thorn]

Great points all around. To assume that there would be other intelligent zombies out there to be found is proper, much like with people however I think there would be varying degrees. You had Big Daddy who was leading his army of undead, there was a catalyst there (the invasion of his town) that drove him on to seek revenge. We went on that ride with him and along the way they picked up knowledge, learned to use tools, throw Molotov cocktails and the like.

So you had a group of zombies with basic memory who were "forced: into action, and then driven, taught, and lead by Big Daddy.

Actually I am sure that there would be these varying degrees of learning all over the world, you would have some zombies who were smarter than others. You would have zombies who adapted based on their surroundings, and in some cases individual zombies with a greater propensity for learning.

As I said I think it would make for an interesting story to see a thinking group of zombies, or a more highly "evolved" (if you want to look at it that way) encounter zombies that do not think and are in fact still just motorized instinct. You could then craft a tale where there is in fighting between the dead, the same way we see between the living. Maybe even compassion from one side. Not what I want to see mind you, but it would be a natural evolution of Romero's story I think.

[darth los]

Some things just go too far for my taste. Like the two ghoul holding hands. I would like to know if they are doing it just to "go through the motions" or if they really love each other. If it's the latter it would be mind blowing and put them in a whole different light.

I would expect them to control their need to feed if that were the case. It's already known that they don't need to feed and that they derive no nutrition from what they ingest. It's just instictual. So it would stand to reason that if their brain function operated on a higher level they wouldn't feed.



:cool:

[Danny]

Some things just go too far for my taste. Like the two ghoul holding hands. I would like to know if they are doing it just to "go through the motions" or if they really love each other. If it's the latter it would be mind blowing and put them in a whole different light.



:cool:

what about bub and frankenstein?

[Trin]

Some things just go too far for my taste. Like the two ghoul holding hands. I would like to know if they are doing it just to "go through the motions" or if they really love each other. If it's the latter it would be mind blowing and put them in a whole different light.Up to this point we've never seen a zombie *eat* another zombie.

Bom-chicka-wow-wow... :D:p

Or did I go too far for your taste? :eek:

But seriously, I agree. It would be too far if they were doing more than just going through the motions. Given their utter lack of comprehension of anything else about their situation (at that point in the movie at least) I think it was going through the motions and not higher level emotions. But I also think that at the end of the movie, after the zombies have had their little intellect epiphany, those kinds of emotions are probable. The same scene shown at the end of the movie I think demands a completely different interpretation.

[darth los]

what about bub and frankenstein?

They were definitely in love. To what level i'm not sure. Perhaps it was a master/pet thing. Bub probably reactedthe way a dog reacts when he finds his master dead.


Up to this point we've never seen a zombie *eat* another zombie.

Bom-chicka-wow-wow... :D:p

Or did I go too far for your taste? :eek:

But seriously, I agree. It would be too far if they were doing more than just going through the motions. Given their utter lack of comprehension of anything else about their situation (at that point in the movie at least) I think it was going through the motions and not higher level emotions. But I also think that at the end of the movie, after the zombies have had their little intellect epiphany, those kinds of emotions are probable. The same scene shown at the end of the movie I think demands a completely different interpretation.


Dude, you should do stand up, seriously! :p


It's definitely possible for them to do so. It's like when man saw how to create fire. Nothing was ever the same. Sometimes all it takes is a fleeting moment to elevate the entire race.


Along that line of logic it's possible. I'm just not a fan of it.



:cool:

[Thorn]

Some things just go too far for my taste. Like the two ghoul holding hands. I would like to know if they are doing it just to "go through the motions" or if they really love each other. If it's the latter it would be mind blowing and put them in a whole different light.

I would expect them to control their need to feed if that were the case. It's already known that they don't need to feed and that they derive no nutrition from what they ingest. It's just instictual. So it would stand to reason that if their brain function operated on a higher level they wouldn't feed.



:cool:

I have really been giving your post a lot of thought today. Here is te question I would ask.

Isn't Big Daddy essentially "caring" for the other undead from his town when he is pushing them out of the way of gunfire? Trying to get them to ignore the sky flowers, and when he moans and howls as they die?

Isn't that kind of concern a form of love, or a deeper emotion?

So has Romero already "gone there" in a sense? Or do you think it was just self preservation, or a base response to threat as if they were less than primates?

[Trin]

I think you're right Thorn about Big Daddy already having crossed that line. But the question is different for Big Daddy than for the two zombies holding hands. Big Daddy had alread made the leap of intellect, and had already overcome the desire to feed. He's on the other side of the epiphany, so to speak. The other two were still shambling around in the darkness. If they were doing more than just going through the motions that would be quite meaningful. It would imply that other zombies were already undergoing a transformation. But I stick to my original statement - it appeared to me they were just going through the motions. Similar to trombone zombie.

And as for being a stand-up comedian. "I just shambled in from Union Town and boy is my screaming voice tired." Ba-dum-dum... :lol:

[darth los]

I have really been giving your post a lot of thought today. Here is te question I would ask.

Isn't Big Daddy essentially "caring" for the other undead from his town when he is pushing them out of the way of gunfire? Trying to get them to ignore the sky flowers, and when he moans and howls as they die?

Isn't that kind of concern a form of love, or a deeper emotion?

So has Romero already "gone there" in a sense? Or do you think it was just self preservation, or a base response to threat as if they were less than primates?

What deeper emotion is there than love? Hate? Anyway, I don't think it was love. But there was a concern there for his people. He didn't was them to suffer and to be, what he thought, persecuted.



:cool:

[Thorn]

What deeper emotion is there than love? Hate? Anyway, I don't think it was love. But there was a concern there for his people. He didn't was them to suffer and to be, what he thought, persecuted.



:cool:

I missed this before I think. Yes fear and hate are deeper and more "real" emotions than "love". Love is just lust, concern, and jealousy all mixed into one. ;)

Unless you count love of a child or family member.

[darth los]

I missed this before I think. Yes fear and hate are deeper and more "real" emotions than "love". Love is just lust, concern, and jealousy all mixed into one. ;)

Unless you count love of a child or family member.


I never thought about it like that. There are other emotions involved as well but those two are defintely there.



:cool:

[DawnGirl27]

Nice thread, darth. I've always wanted to see how the remnants of human kind pick up the pieces and start over again, and what kinds of things they might do differently (government-wise, for example). I mean, if we had the chance to do things from scratch, the possibilities are infinite, knowing from hindsight what worked well, and what didn't. Adjustments could be made to improve once problematic situations, or perhaps bypass them all together. I know it may just be wishful thinking, but it would be interesting to see how that kind of scenario plays out...

[darth los]

Nice thread, darth. I've always wanted to see how the remnants of human kind pick up the pieces and start over again, and what kinds of things they might do differently (government-wise, for example). I mean, if we had the chance to do things from scratch, the possibilities are infinite, knowing from hindsight what worked well, and what didn't. Adjustments could be made to improve once problematic situations, or perhaps bypass them all together. I know it may just be wishful thinking, but it would be interesting to see how that kind of scenario plays out...


Ah.... Who amongst us has not wondered to ourselves "if i could just go back and do it all over again, knowing what i know now." :confused:

It seems as if it would take a catastrophic event such as this one to topple world governments. They're not just going to give their power up. It's a shame too. If we're not happy with our gov't it's our right....nay, our duty to overthrow it. Hey, the founding fathers said it, not me.

But i doubt today's lazy Americans lack the will or passion to do such a thing.

American idol anyone?



:cool:

[DawnGirl27]

You asked for what we wanted, and even though it's not a mind blowing or original concept, right now with our government in chaos, that's what I'd like to do - chuck it all and start over.
If you get confused again, let me know and I'll try to clarify, whether it be big words, abstract concepts, whatever. I'm here to help. :p;)

[darth los]

You asked for what we wanted, and even though it's not a mind blowing or original concept, right now with our government in chaos, that's what I'd like to do - chuck it all and start over.
If you get confused again, let me know and I'll try to clarify, whether it be big words, abstract concepts, whatever. I'm here to help. :p;)

My wife supervises me already. But thanks for the offer. ;)



:cool: