From Romero's films... [Archive]

MagicMoonMonkey

21-Apr-2009, 10:56 PM

One other death from the movies that sends a chill up my spine, isnt actually the death, but what happens after the fact.

It was from Night '90 when young Tom's burned body - complete with creepy contracted joints - is dragged over to a more suitable feasting place by the zombies. Shudder.

Krakenslayer, I struggle with a lot of the killings in Land. I just think too many of the gags were OTT. The de-gloving of the construction worker's kisser was kind of good, but the Predatoresque Head/Spine rip was to use a common MinionZombie phrase, "A bag of wank". I think the young skate boarders limbs were a bit too easily detached also. I understand the need to be inventive, but those killings would have been just as inventive with a couple of additional zombies pulling and biting at whatever appendage was designed to pop off, y'know, in the same manner as the blood pressure machine biker lost his arm.

Max, Torrez's death was a strange one. You would have thought that the minute the zombies had him pinned down then the biting would ensue... A bit weird why they all waited until they had torn his neck and head away before going in for something to eat. Bear in mind that these zombies probably hadn't had a sniff of fresh meat in months. You would assume that getting a couple of bites in would be a priority??? Still, one of my favourite killings of the series.

Yojimbo & Prof... I am not feeling where you are coming from with Barbara's demise. I do get what you say though, it just did nothing for me in terms of shudderbility.

Bassman, I have always maintained - even in the old forums - that if one person did not deserve to die, it was Captain Rhodes. I honestly don't understand why so many people demonise the guy. If your numbers were dwindling and those responsible (by requiring your comrades be put in danger for their experiments) were making next to no progress and basically just fannying around, wouldn't you just think enough is enough and start making things difficult for them? His reaction to finding his men being used as a reward for Bub was perfectly reasonable in my book. I personally would have just shot them all in their face and not arsed around making deals (One armed Miguel) and playing with the others (Zombie holding pen escape by McDermott ans Sarah). He had the right idea when dispatching Ted Fisher.

Nevertheless, Rhodes death was as gruesome as Rickles. I just think the fact that Rhodes died during his slaughter, whereas Rickles was on-going makes Rickles the more horrifc of both very inventive deaths.

SRP76

22-Apr-2009, 01:38 AM

I'll go with the random biker in Dawn (someone on here will pull an actual name out of his ass, but I'm not that hardcore) who got put on his back then got to watch his gut get torn open and clumps of small intestine taken out a handful at a time. Not so much "scary" or whatever, but the gross-out meter definitely went deep into the red the first time I saw it.

3pidemiC

22-Apr-2009, 01:40 AM

It's a toss-up between Rickles and Torrez. I had never seen anything like that up to that point it my life. It actually made me feel kinda squeemish.

SRP76

22-Apr-2009, 01:46 AM

Forgive my ignorance, but who is this Torrez that everyone keeps talking about?

Mike70

22-Apr-2009, 01:52 AM

I always thought that Barbara getting dragged off by her ghoul brother into the crowd of hungry undead while she screamed was a horrible death, though admittedly not especially gruesome.

that always freaked me out when i was younger. i still think it is one of the most effective moments in that film.

both rickles and torrez getting turned into human carpaccio are pretty gruesome.

Forgive my ignorance, but who is this Torrez that everyone keeps talking about?

the dark haired soldier in day that gets ripped apart at the end when rickles does.

this dude:

http://www.hanlon-lees.com/images/hdts3.gif

edit: a hearty fuck off goes out to whoever or whatever was responsible for my first pic going down to internet davy jones.

AcesandEights

22-Apr-2009, 02:10 AM

Forgive my ignorance, but who is this Torrez that everyone keeps talking about?

He was one of the Soldiers, a private, in the bunker in Day.

If he's the one who gets torn apart and lets loose with that ungodly scream, then he is my choice for worst death. Or am I thinking of Pvt. Johnson (played by Nicotero)?

Guess it's time for me to re-watch Day.

Edit: Doooh, late reply.

Moon Knight

22-Apr-2009, 02:42 AM

Forgive my ignorance, but who is this Torrez that everyone keeps talking about?

Who is Torres??

Well, he's this guy

I'll go with the random biker in Dawn (someone on here will pull an actual name out of his ass, but I'm not that hardcore) who got put on his back then got to watch his gut get torn open and clumps of small intestine taken out a handful at a time. Not so much "scary" or whatever, but the gross-out meter definitely went deep into the red the first time I saw it.

Oh yeah!

ProfessorChaos

22-Apr-2009, 02:55 AM

i'd have to say that captain rhodes has one of the best death scenes in any movie, if only for the slight over-acting by mr. pilato.

it's also horribly funny, particularly when he stumbles and bumps his head on the wall, it almost looks like the actor came out of character cuz he actually busted his head against the wall while falling. add that to the stumble and constant screaming of "C"MONNNNNNN!!!!!"....and then "CHOKE ON 'EM!!!" as he's watching the ghouls disembowel him.:lol:

but yeah, he's actually one of my favorite characters from the series, and gets waay too much flak.

Mike70

22-Apr-2009, 02:57 AM

Who is Torres??

Well, he's this guy

Oh yeah!

moon, did you try to put up a pic? i know i did and the fooking thing disappeared. i'll write that one off to the internet gods. i've uploaded another one from a different source and if that one disappears...

MaximusIncredulous

22-Apr-2009, 03:13 AM

Let's try this:

http://xs538.xs.to/xs538/09172/zombieattack4c582.jpg

AcesandEights

22-Apr-2009, 03:22 AM

Let's try this:

http://xs538.xs.to/xs538/09172/zombieattack4c582.jpg

Yup, that's the one I was thinking of. The scream is unreal in that scene. *Shudder*

Thanks MaximusIncredulous!

MaximusIncredulous

22-Apr-2009, 03:23 AM

thanks maximusincreduloud!

You're WELCOME!!!

Moon Knight

22-Apr-2009, 03:24 AM

moon, did you try to put up a pic? i know i did and the fooking thing disappeared. i'll write that one off to the internet gods. i've uploaded another one from a different source and if that one disappears...

I was referring to the same actor who played the biker in Dawn (sledge) played Torres in Day. Also many of the zombie stunts in Dawn and Day. He was the lead zombie who helped rip Rhodes in half.

http://www.hanlon-lees.com/images/tasocon.gif

ProfessorChaos

22-Apr-2009, 03:30 AM

pics aren't working for you guys or something? that's funny...and so is this:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8307/myspacerk1.jpg

Mike70

22-Apr-2009, 03:33 AM

pics aren't working for you guys or something? that's funny...and so is this:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8307/myspacerk1.jpg

egads, is that a floater. the horror of it all.:lol:

you know, i am sometimes tempted to drive the 3 or 4 hours that it would take just to burn a fat one with your magnificent self.

ProfessorChaos

22-Apr-2009, 03:44 AM

Mike70

22-Apr-2009, 03:56 AM

thanks for the compliment dude. i'm actually going to be in ohio for the reds and cardinals game on july 4th, so who knows....i'm thinking of going to the evans city living dead festival this year, as well as a few other spots along the east cost this fall, so if maybe i can swing through then.

oh hang on there just a centon - you're going to be in cincinnati on july 4th? dude that is where i live (okay i live in oxford but it ain't that far and i grew up in cincinnati and drive down there all the time). you and i are gonna smoke the peace pipe and mabye undertake a pub crawl through the university district with a few friends of mine- what do you say to that?

ProfessorChaos

22-Apr-2009, 04:01 AM

wtf is up with this site?

all kinds of problems with pics earlier, now i've got three duplicate posts....fixed 'em, fuck it.

pm sent mike.

SymphonicX

23-Apr-2009, 08:56 PM

Bassman, I have always maintained - even in the old forums - that if one person did not deserve to die, it was Captain Rhodes. I honestly don't understand why so many people demonise the guy. If your numbers were dwindling and those responsible (by requiring your comrades be put in danger for their experiments) were making next to no progress and basically just fannying around, wouldn't you just think enough is enough and start making things difficult for them? His reaction to finding his men being used as a reward for Bub was perfectly reasonable in my book. I personally would have just shot them all in their face and not arsed around making deals (One armed Miguel) and playing with the others (Zombie holding pen escape by McDermott ans Sarah). He had the right idea when dispatching Ted Fisher.
.

Whoa, that's an interesting take on Rhodes!!! Remember though, the scientists weren't "evil" characters, they weren't doing anything they did for their own benefit, they were genuinely trying to make the best of a bad situation with the limited equipment they had - they did not deserve to die for that. Science has historically always challenged our perception of morality and indeed this happened to Rhodes when he discovered the bodies of his men being fed to Bub - but no scientist murdered those solidiers and you certainly don't, in a normally functioning society, go around murdering scientists who you don't agree with. Rhodes theory wasn't to try and deal with the problem, it was to escape it - that was also the idealogy that John took, but ultimately it's that selfish "self preservation" element that will not solve such a problem - Logan and Sarah and Fisher were genuinely trying to do anything they can, with logan resorting to desperate measures - Rhodes wasn't interested in that, or saving humanity, he just wanted to make the best for himself which highlighted him and the soliders as very selfish individuals, that's why they made things difficult for the scientists, because they couldn't be bothered to take the hardest route possible to change things, and made the whole situation political rather than based on reason. Also remember, Fisher and Sarah had no idea what Logan was feeding Bub.

MagicMoonMonkey

23-Apr-2009, 10:22 PM

SymphonicX,

I get where you're coming from, but bear in mind that Rhodes only saw what was going on in front of him. He didn't see Sarah's disgust at the experiments on Major Cooper. He didn't hear John's conversation with McDermott and Sarah about finding an island and starting over.

What he did see was disrespect for his command from the Scientific and Civilian personel. He saw Sarah 'sign off' Miguel by sedating him without Rhodes' authorisation. He saw an achoholic Radio Operator whine about his equipment being useless and trying to be a smartarse with it. He was constantly back-chatted and disrespected at every turn by the Scientists during each and every conversation.

As the movie progressed, his tolerance of the non-military element was stretched to it's limits due to the lack of progress and almost flippant attitude to being nowhere near a scientific solution by suggesting the enemy (which out numbered them 400,000/1) be domesticated and rewarded! Rhodes did ultimately concede and let the scientific element go about their business, but at a price during every single conflict between the groups. A price that would no longer put his men at risk. Think about it... during every conflict prior to finding his fallen men in the cold room, Rhodes conceded the fight and backed down. Even after Miguel was bitten and Johnston and Miller were killed. He still backed down and let them nurse Miguel back to health despite the calls by his men to kill Miguel. A Course of action that would doom them all eventually.

Rhodes proved time and again throughout the course of the movie that he ultimately wants the Scientific element of his charges to succeed by constantly allowing them their freedom to work despite the conflicts of interest and the losses to his troops. Bear in mind also that Rhodes probably served alongside the soldiers for years prior to this assignment. They weren't just his troops, they were his brothers.

Now, think about it from Rhodes' perspective. You have been pushed to your limit but will let the scientific and civilian element go about their business on the understanding that no more threats from the dead will be permitted within the confines of the base. You turn a corner and POW! 3 of the non-military personel are watching the enemy feeding from a bucket. You demand answers, and you are delivered the final act of disrespect. They are feeding your men; your brothers to the enemy. You dont take a moment out to give it some thought and place blame on the sole offender. You saw 2 non military personel watch the lead scientist feed the enemy the best bits of your friends.
At no point did Sarah or McDermott plead their innocence or condemn what Logan had done. Their only action was to tell John that Rhodes had killed Logan in cold blood. Cold blood? The fact that the guy was carrying out unauthorised experiments and feeding the fallen to the enemy was a crime that merited a more gruesome punishment. Logan was the real bad guy in the movie. Rhodes reacted insanely to the crimes that Logan had been committing (and insanely accusing them all of being part of the betrayal) because the act of finding his men butchered drove him insane. I bet at some point in your life, you have acted irrationally due to an event that triggered your anger and I would bet it didn't involve being betrayed to the extent that Rhodes was.

So, now that I have explained my perception of Rhodes and why I believe he didn't deserve his fate or his reputation as the 'bad guy', maybe it will shine the misunderstood soul in a new light with you a little. Next time you watch the movie, try to imagine you were Rhodes and see how differently you would react to each situation without the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of conversations between Scientist and Civilians outwith his earshot.

Rhodes was indeed a better man than me as I personally would have executed them all a lot sooner given the circumstances.

Edit.

Another fact that has not been discussed as to the measure of the man is, despite being underground for god knows how long seeing no results and being constantly abused by the scientific element, he had complete control of his men and himself to allow a woman - possibly the last woman - to roam freely and go about her business without the threat of sexual attack or removal of her status as a member of a prodominately male environment. To another group of people Sarah could easily have been locked in a room and used as a spunk sponge for the males. Rhodes again proved he was a good man.

RustyHicks

23-Apr-2009, 11:26 PM

Rhodes, I always thought his death was the worst and the goriest, to me anyways. Can you imagine watching your lower half being ripped away from you and actually able to see your spine...Makes me shudder

blind2d

24-Apr-2009, 03:51 AM

Right there with ya. Horrible way to go. I do feel bad for him, but everyone had it rough in Day. Rodes was just the most obvious negative act...er.

shootemindehead

24-Apr-2009, 11:25 AM

Regarding the Rhodes character, who's one of my favorite characters in any of the movies, it's hard to identify with the man on a sympathetic level. Here's a guy who is on the verge of a breakdown and what's more, a violent breakdown that would be incredibly harmful for the rest of the group.

The guy is clearly an unsympathetic character, who threatens sexual and murderous violence on the very sympathetic character of Sarah. Remember, he makes the threat about getting "...some lovin'" and orders Steele to shoot Sarah because she wouldn't sit down.

He also orders Steele to "knock some sense..." into John's "Jungle-bunny head". He wants John alive, simply because he can further his own miserable existence.

Rhodes has, quite clearly, lost the plot.

...and as for "caring" about his men, he didn't give two thoughts about running off on Steele and Rickles when the going got tough. He even locks a door and leaves them to their fate, when he runs away from the zombie horde that has entered the complex.

In short, given the choice of who I would rather be stuck down in an underground cave with...the scientist group (with Billy and John) will win every time.

At least Billy and John will look out for you when things got rough...Rhodes would get in a golf cart an fuck off :lol:

Thorn

24-Apr-2009, 12:33 PM

Rhodes is certainly no one worthy of our respect and admiration, and he is no one I would want to follow or work with in any capacity.

While some of his behaviors i am sure are tied to the stress of the situation that is no reason to feel sorry for the man or identify with him. I like to think if I was fraying and becoming undone I would have the sense to be aware of it or at least be approachable enough of a person to take the advice of those around me and step aside and get the help I needed.

Instead he fostered and cultivated a hostile environment that mirrored in many ways the horrors of the outside world, there were already monsters inside the complex before the elevator lowered unleashing the hounds so to speak and the man in charge of them was Rhodes. He then showed himself even further by turning on the monsters he had controlled (or allowed to run free more aptly).

I am sorry I do not see how you can identify with this man or see him as anything more than a monster. It is after all what he was written to be, it was how the actor portrayed him, and I think the end product shows that quite clearly.

MagicMoonMonkey

24-Apr-2009, 10:53 PM

Shooteminthehead & Thorn.

I honestly don't see his character as you perceive him, nor do I believe he was intentionally scripted to be the bad guy. I am sure I am not the only person in the world who felt he was the real victim. I guess we all take something different from movies and you have to admit, the Rhodes character was cleverly written and portrayed if we have different opinions of him.

Shoot... Reckon you are miles out with the context of his "give the rest of us a shot of some lovin'" statement. I read in to that particular comment as a wake up call of how very different things could be for Sarah if it were not for his command. even though it made Ted pee his pants a little, the comment did not phase Sarah at all. Banter aside, she was assured of her safety by Rhodes and his men. Hell, John openly wanted her to make babies with him, so we know where his mind was at when considering his paradise escape.

Again, my outlook is just another example of how we all perceive things and events differently. You guys might very well be right with your interpretation, but I may be equally as right.

Now, I will leave you both to write love letters to your penpals on Death Row, you warped individuals... :p:sneaky:

This little debate has got me thinking a poll might be in order.

Could someone reading this thread please create a poll to judge the split on who was the real villain in Day of the Dead. (I have no idea how to create such a thing on here)

The real villain in Day of the Dead was...

Dr. Logan

Cpt Rhodes

Thank you kind peers.

shootemindehead

25-Apr-2009, 10:27 PM

Shoot... Reckon you are miles out with the context of his "give the rest of us a shot of some lovin'" statement. I read in to that particular comment as a wake up call of how very different things could be for Sarah if it were not for his command. even though it made Ted pee his pants a little, the comment did not phase Sarah at all. Banter aside, she was assured of her safety by Rhodes and his men. Hell, John openly wanted her to make babies with him, so we know where his mind was at when considering his paradise escape.

Eh...no. The line "Maybe I should cut off his extra curricular activities (ie his bollocks) and give the rest of us a shot at some lovin'" means one thing. It's a sexual threat upon Sarah.

Perhaps Rhodes doesn't actually mean what he is saying, but the sentence is definitely designed very much as a threat to the only female member of the group. It's not shrouded, or even that nuanced. It's very clear.

And, as I said earlier, the threat to shoot Sarah for not sitting down when Rhodes told her too, is a very clear statement of intent too.

Make no mistake, Romero wrote Rhodes as the villain of the piece.

Otherwise those lines of dialogue and especially the "shooting threat" scene have no meaning.

AcesandEights

25-Apr-2009, 11:19 PM

Well, there are a good number of people here sympathetic to either Rhodes or, to a larger extent, the plight of the soldiers in the bunker.

Personally, I think the Rhodes character was utterly repellent. But hell, they're both vile, whackos who are dangerous to others...this is not a good choice to be stuck between.

I guess I have to choose Rhodes, though. I mean, if you're going to try and be in control of the situation and use your power (ie. armed henchmen and firearms) to do so, then you have to at least try and keep your shit screwed on tight and he couldn't do that.

MagicMoonMonkey

25-Apr-2009, 11:38 PM

Shoot,

Why would he waste his time designing a threat during an exchange of disrespectful banter when he lives in a world where he could pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted? I believe the perceived threat was an undermining of her status on a more basic level. Bear in mind, Sarah is the brains, Rhodes the braun in this personality battle.

As for the threat to shoot her for not sitting in her chair. He is the commanding officer of the group as a whole and he was chairing a meeting of all personnel. He was forced to excerpt his authority because Sarah blatantly undermined his command in front of everyone. Order must be maintained if Rhodes is to ensure the safety of everyone in his group. No sexual threats, just a plain ol' shooting.

While you are giving my view a bit more thought, I need to point out another of your misconceptions about the movie.

Eh...no. The line "Maybe I should cut off his extra curricular activities (ie his bollocks) and give the rest of us a shot at some lovin'"...
When Rhodes stated he would cut off Miguel's Extra Curricular Activities, he meant he would no longer permit Miguel and Sarah to have a sexual relationship. (i.e. the act of sex), it didn't mean he'd lop off Miguel's manhood.

Aces,

I personally think under the circumstances witnessed through the movie, Rhodes did a Sterling job of keeping 'his shit screwed on tight' for the most part. Even after the loss of Johnston and Miller, Rhodes didn't lose the plot entirely. He even let those that would undermine his authority keep and care for their wounded, even though it was made clear that Miguel was partially responsible for the deaths due to his failure to act after the worn strap broke from the neck of the zombie. Granted, Rhodes harboured a desire for Miguel to turn on his saviours.

Rhodes finally lost the plot when he bore witness to what was actually going on within his charges. I believe in Rhodes' mind, when he saw his men lying in the freezer and the realisation of what Logan was "...giving him in there", he blamed the whole scientific element. Sarah herself did defend Logan by stating that there had "been some progress" at the earlier meeting. Rhodes believed that the scientists were working as a team. Even after the discovery of the crimes committed by Logan, neither Ted or Sarah tried to distance themselves from Logan, or McDermotts rant of "He killed Logan in cold blood.

He executed Logan for being a criminal. A butchering, lunatic, criminal. Logan was the cause of Rhodes' breakdown and his subsequent acts of violence.
Logan was the villain of the movie and Rhodes' mind was Logan's victim.

ProfessorChaos

26-Apr-2009, 06:38 AM

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/18/interested_cat.jpg
3M, that's quite a theory you've formed. think i'll be sitting down for a viewing of day sometime soon taking this into consideration....

EDIT: i'd like to add that this "who's the real villain" discussion has pretty much become a
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/4/thread-hijack.jpg
and could be debated enough
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/fryetakayama.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=1634)
that it warrants its own thread, including the poll.

shootemindehead

26-Apr-2009, 04:07 PM

Shoot,

Why would he waste his time designing a threat during an exchange of disrespectful banter when he lives in a world where he could pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted? I believe the perceived threat was an undermining of her status on a more basic level. Bear in mind, Sarah is the brains, Rhodes the braun in this personality battle.

Rhodes wasn't really in a position where he could "...pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted" though. He only became the commanding officer of the unit that morning, after Major Cooper died. So, he was still pretty new to the position of command and clearly way out of his depth. I read somewhere that the military unit in 'Day of the Dead' was a National Guard unit, so god knows what Rhodes was in real life. He certainly didn't possess good leadership skills, that's for sure.

Yes, you're correct that Rhodes is "undermining" Sarah's status, but it's still a violent sexual threat (whether he means to actually carry it out or not) and is un-necessarily issued too.

The scene is written to show that Rhodes is an unsavory character and is portentous of the events to come.

As for the threat to shoot her for not sitting in her chair. He is the commanding officer of the group as a whole and he was chairing a meeting of all personnel. He was forced to excerpt his authority because Sarah blatantly undermined his command in front of everyone. Order must be maintained if Rhodes is to ensure the safety of everyone in his group. No sexual threats, just a plain ol' shooting.

Sorry Monkey, but that's neither here nor there. Rhodes is the leader (since that morning) of the MILITARY unit, not the CIVILIAN one. As Fisher points out, the orders of the military unit was to "...facilitate the job of this scientific team". Rhodes has no "authority" over the civilian team in the bunker, except for the one he has designed for himself.

Another point is that he threatens to shoot Steele, if Steele doesn't shoot Sarah. One of his own men that you say he "cares" about.

Again, everything in the script points to Rhodes as being a tyrant. Even the music is dramatic for a reason. It's letting you know that Rhodes is a dangerous character. One that everyone in the compound, including his own men is afraid of. Sure, his situation is an extremely harsh one, with very little hope for the future. But that can be said for every character in the film. Rhodes actions, however, are unhelpful and incredibly dangerous to everyone involved, including the military personnel he is in charge of.

Just because Romero hasn't drawn a one dimensional, cardboard cutout, nazi badguy for his script, doesn't mean that Rhodes isn't the villain of piece.

While you are giving my view a bit more thought, I need to point out another of your misconceptions about the movie.

When Rhodes stated he would cut off Miguel's Extra Curricular Activities, he meant he would no longer permit Miguel and Sarah to have a sexual relationship. (i.e. the act of sex), it didn't mean he'd lop off Miguel's manhood.

Ok, he probably doesn't mean he's going to cut off Miguel Salazar's meat and two veg (I may have been a little too facetious about that), but when he looks Sarah up and down and says his "lovin'" line, it's very clear what's going on in his head. Rhodes, as a character, is part of the "non-co-operation" shtick that Romero has been pushing since 'Night of the Living Dead'.

Yojimbo

26-Apr-2009, 04:33 PM

As for the threat to shoot her for not sitting in her chair. He is the commanding officer of the group as a whole and he was chairing a meeting of all personnel. He was forced to excerpt his authority because Sarah blatantly undermined his command in front of everyone. Order must be maintained if Rhodes is to ensure the safety of everyone in his group. No sexual threats, just a plain ol' shooting.

Have you ever worked for a manager or boss that keeps his folks "in line" by threats and intimidation? The kind of boss who says things to his staff like "Because I'm the boss and I say so, that's why!" or "You better do what I order you to do, or you are fired! My way or the highway!" Worst working situation ever, and fosters a toxic environment. This is the little napoleon who was Rhodes.

A good commander who was doing his best in a tough situation to protect his men? Far from it, IMO. Rhodes was a man drunk on power, a man who threatened to shoot a civilian and then one of his own soldiers not to ensure his authority in front of everyone but simply because he could and wanted to show everyone that it was his command, proving to everyone in his kingdom that they live or die at his discretion. He was a sexist - who threatened to punatively rape a civilian- a racist - who not only used racist terms himself, but also allowed his men to do so - an overbearing control freak - practically everything he did labels him thus - AND a fucking coward - any decent soldier, let alone a commander, would not have abandoned his fellow soldiers, leaving them to fend for themselves, while fleeing alone in a golf cart in total panic.

(I have never served in the millitary, so I am not certain, but is not cowardice considered to be a crime in the millitary? Perhaps one of our resident veteran brothers would be kind enough to clarify what happens to cowards in the Army or the Marine Corp)

Dr. Logan was a nutcase in his own right, to be sure, and not a guy I would want to hang out with in a cave either. But compared to Rhodes, he was relatively harmless, albeit out of touch with reality.

A good commander does not let his station get to his head, leads his team not through fear and intimidation but through communication and respect, and a good commander always looks out for his men. Rhodes failed to be a good leader, and therefore he gets my vote for lead asshole.

krakenslayer

26-Apr-2009, 05:20 PM

Yojimbo - spot on.

Rhodes was a first rate asshole. Yes, his assholishness was understandable under the circumstances, but he was an asshole nonetheless. He tried to get his way through bullying tactics and when the shit hit the fan, he let his rage do the thinking and became a murderer. Was he a villain? No, but he was dangerously unstable. Did he deserve to go out the way he did? Probably not. But neither did Fisher...

SRP76

26-Apr-2009, 05:55 PM

krakenslayer

26-Apr-2009, 06:23 PM

Yeah, Logan and Rhodes were the whole problem. The flesh-eating dead are really a great bunch of people once you get to know them.

Fuck the stupid "message" Romero wants to drill into us. Zombies aren't fun-loving, wonderful folks that just need a hug. Zombies are BAD. Without hordes of freaks trying to eat these people every second of every day, none of this shit would have happened.

I don't really think that's what Romero was trying to say, at least in Day. Yeah, the zombies are bad, in the sense that a shark or a hungry alligator is - they're dangerous but that's their nature, they're not morally bad, eating people is just what they do and they just don't really know any better. However, Bub aside, you are right that the zombies certainly are the villains of the film and no one is saying that they should not be put down in the same fashion as you would a rabid dog.

The human characters, on the other hand, are more interesting to examine because they still possess moral reason so we can assess why they do things and if they were right or wrong to do them.

Andy

26-Apr-2009, 06:42 PM

MagicMoonMonkey

26-Apr-2009, 07:19 PM

Have you ever worked for a manager or boss that keeps his folks "in line" by threats and intimidation? The kind of boss who says things to his staff like "Because I'm the boss and I say so, that's why!" or "You better do what I order you to do, or you are fired! My way or the highway!" Worst working situation ever, and fosters a toxic environment. This is the little napoleon who was Rhodes .
I understand what you are saying, but I have never personally worked in an environment where the living dead waited hungrily at the gates of my place of work and everything & everyone I once knew appeared to be gone. We don't know how Rhodes would act in a normal working environment. I feel his command style was justified for the situation in which he was ultimately placed

A good commander who was doing his best in a tough situation to protect his men? Far from it, IMO. Rhodes was a man drunk on power, a man who threatened to shoot a civilian and then one of his own soldiers not to ensure his authority in front of everyone but simply because he could and wanted to show everyone that it was his command, proving to everyone in his kingdom that they live or die at his discretion. He was a sexist - who threatened to punatively rape a civilian- a racist - who not only used racist terms himself, but also allowed his men to do so - an overbearing control freak - practically everything he did labels him thus - AND a fucking coward - any decent soldier, let alone a commander, would not have abandoned his fellow soldiers, leaving them to fend for themselves, while fleeing alone in a golf cart in total panic.
Yojimbo, he was hardly a coward. He had broken down and was terrified. God knows what was swirling through his mind. Terror drove him to flee, not cowardice, IMO.

Dr. Logan was a nutcase in his own right, to be sure, and not a guy I would want to hang out with in a cave either. But compared to Rhodes, he was relatively harmless, albeit out of touch with reality .
Relatively harmless? He was feeding the enemy and taught him the re-use of firearms along with a newly instilled loathing of the military. Who in their right mind would return a salute from a zombie??? He was also more insane than a whole psychi ward at Carstairs!!. Rhodes did not commit any act of actual physical violence until he jumped to his trauma induced conclusion that the entire scientific team were involved in the butchering of his dead men to feed the enemy.

Yojimbo, bear in mind that I am not trying to make you alter your actual perspective of the character, I am just trying to let you know why I see what I do in him.

Rhodes wasn't really in a position where he could "...pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted" though. He only became the commanding officer of the unit that morning, after Major Cooper died.
Hmm, I suppose you are right with regards to his term of command, but bear in mind the whole sexual threat was used whilst they both fought over the status of Miguel's mental health. I still think it was just a typical comeback - perhaps fuelled by some resentment of the fact that Miguel was getting some lovin' - by someone losing a fight with the only girl in class.

So, he was still pretty new to the position of command and clearly way out of his depth. I read somewhere that the military unit in 'Day of the Dead' was a National Guard unit, so god knows what Rhodes was in real life. He certainly didn't possess good leadership skills, that's for sure.
As I mentioned in my response to Yojimbo, He has command of a group that live and work underground with an enemy at the gates that wants to devour them. I don't think the power had gone to his head, I think he wanted to use his new power to stop the scientific element pissing around and producing nothing in way of an answer to the problem that is decaying and hungry outside the base (and within).

Another point is that he threatens to shoot Steele, if Steele doesn't shoot Sarah. One of his own men that you say he "cares" about.

Again, everything in the script points to Rhodes as being a tyrant. Even the music is dramatic for a reason. It's letting you know that Rhodes is a dangerous character. One that everyone in the compound, including his own men is afraid of. Sure, his situation is an extremely harsh one, with very little hope for the future. But that can be said for every character in the film. Rhodes actions, however, are unhelpful and incredibly dangerous to everyone involved, including the military personnel he is in charge of..
Rhodes gave an order to Steele and Steele mistook that order for banter. He couldn't very well threaten to execute one member of the team for undermining his command without threatening to execute the other.

Just because Romero hasn't drawn a one dimensional, cardboard cutout, nazi badguy for his script, doesn't mean that Rhodes isn't the villain of piece.
I dont understand what that statment has to do with how I perceive Rhodes.
You perceive him as a bad guy, I don't. I think the fact we both have entirely different opinions of the character's motivations and mindset proves his design was unique, whether that was intentional or not. As I explained to Yojimbo, I am not trying to force you to see the character from my perspective, I am just trying to let you understand why I see what I do in the character.

3M, that's quite a theory you've formed. think i'll be sitting down for a viewing of day sometime soon taking this into consideration...

Prof, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on your viewing whilst using the character mindset I have presented. I would urge those that disagree with my assessment to give it a shot also.

Yojimbo

26-Apr-2009, 08:02 PM

I understand what you are saying, but I have never personally worked in an environment where the living dead waited hungrily at the gates of my place of work and everything & everyone I once knew appeared to be gone. We don't know how Rhodes would act in a normal working environment. I feel his command style was justified for the situation in which he was ultimately placed

Yojimbo, he was hardly a coward. He had broken down and was terrified. God knows what was swirling through his mind. Terror drove him to flee, not cowardice, IMO.

Relatively harmless? He was feeding the enemy and taught him the re-use of firearms along with a newly instilled loathing of the military. Who in their right mind would return a salute from a zombie??? He was also more insane than a whole psychi ward at Carstairs!!. Rhodes did not commit any act of actual physical violence until he jumped to his trauma induced conclusion that the entire scientific team were involved in the butchering of his dead men to feed the enemy.

Yojimbo, bear in mind that I am not trying to make you alter your actual perspective of the character, I am just trying to let you know why I see what I do in him.

Your comments are welcome, well written and understandable, and I respect you for speaking your mind, even in the face of those of us who disagree.

As you say, it is true that the circumstances presented to Rhodes were very unusual. In my mind stress is always simply stress to varying degrees, be it from worrying about Jihadists blowing up your men using IEDs strapped to the backs of pregnant women, or hungry and angry looters in the aftermath of a natural disaster, or snipers firing across the no-man's land at your entrenched position. A good commander is a good commander in spite of the hardships their particular situation presents to them, just as a bad commander will be a bad commander be it a life threatening situation or a sunny, beautiful 72 degree weather day.

In my mind, if you point a gun at me and threaten to shoot me, however, this alone is an act of violence. But I do hear what you are saying, and it is true, that Rhodes did not shoot anyone until he discovered that Dr. Frankenstein was feeding Bub body parts from his dead soldiers.

Obviously, I agree that Logan was insane. But he was not teaching Bub how to use a firearm - Bub already knew how to do this, and Logan handing Bub an unloaded firearm in the interests of science is an understandable move. Asking Rhodes to salute Bub was also reasonable in this context - he was exploring how much memory of his past life in the millitary Bub had retained. Whether or not this research was, in the final analysis actually useful is a moot point, mind you, but the actions that Logan took with Bub were understandable, though dangerous and distasteful considering the circumstances.

You infer that Logan was not harmless, and I can also understand where you are coming from, especially considering that it was Logan's actions (feeding dead soldiers to Bub) which inevitably pushed Rhodes over the edge. In my mind, however, Rhodes was in car, pushing the accelerator pedal headed for the cliff in a roadtrip which would have inevitably led him to take the plunge into the deep all the same. Had it not been the bodies Logan was feeding to Bub, it would have been the useless research that Logan was doing, or Sarah's snotty comments and the way her ass looked, or Billy's alcohol fueled humor, or, Rickle's annoying laugh, or simply a boredom fueled desire to show everyone who is in control of the monkey farm.

Left to his own devices, Logan would have gone on and on with his misguded experiments and attempts to rehumanize Bub. By way of contrast, I believe Rhodes would have imploded eventually, with or without a push from someone else.

Was Rhodes a coward? You say it was terror that made him run, however I say terrified or not, he is still a coward for running. Sure, it would really be scary to face a crowd of ghouls coming at you, but I heave read enough of your posts to get a sense of the dude that you are, and you certainly do not seem the type of person who would abandon your cohorts leaving them to fend for themselves against the oncoming hordes simply out of a sense of terror and self preservation. Terror is a normal emotion, it is understandable and can happen to everyone -- but what you do when you experience sheer terror defines whether or not you are a coward. For this, I say Rhodes was defintely not only a coward, but a big sissy, yellow-belly, pantywaist of a coward, and a disgrace to the memory of soldiers who have served in the armed forces.

MagicMoonMonkey

26-Apr-2009, 08:23 PM

Your comments are welcome, well written and understandable, and I respect you for speaking your mind, even in the face of those of us who disagree.

As you say, it is true that the circumstances presented to Rhodes were very unusual. In my mind stress is always simply stress to varying degrees, be it from worring about Jihadists blowing up your men using IEDs strapped to the backs of pregnant women, or hungry and angry looters in the aftermath of a natrual disaster, or snipers firing across the no-man's land at your entrenched position. A good commander is a good commander in spite of the hardships their particular situation presents to them, just as a bad commander will be a bad commander be it a life threatening situation or a sunny, beautiful 72 degree weather day.

In my mind, if you point a gun at me and threaten to shoot me, however, this alone is an act of violence. But I do hear what you are saying, and it is true, that Rhodes did not shoot anyone until he discovered that Dr. Frankenstein was feeding Bub body parts from his dead soldiers.

Obviously, I agree that Logan was insane. But he was not teaching Bub how to use a firearm - Bub already knew how to do this, and Logan handing Bub an unloaded firearm in the interests of science is an understandable move. Asking Rhodes to salute Bub was also reasonable in this context - he was exploring how much memory of his past life in the millitary Bub had retained. Whether or not this research was, in the final analysis actually useful is a moot point, mind you, but the actions that Logan took with Bub were understandable, though dangerous and distasteful considering the circumstances.

You infer that Logan was not harmless, and I can also understand where you are coming from, especially considering that it was Logan's actions (feeding dead soldiers to Bub) which inevitably pushed Rhodes over the edge. In my mind, however, Rhodes was in car, pushing the accelerator pedal headed for the cliff in a roadtrip which would have inevitably led him to take the plunge into the deep all the same. Had it not been the bodies Logan was feeding to Bub, it would have been the useless research that Logan was doing, or Sarah's snotty comments and the way her ass looked, or Billy's alcohol fueled humor, or, Rickle's annoying laugh, or simply a boredom fueled desire to show everyone who is in control of the monkey farm.

Left to his own devices, Logan would have gone on and on with his misguded experiments and attempts to rehumanize Bub. By way of contrast, I believe Rhodes would have imploded eventually, with or without a push from someone else.

Was Rhodes a coward? You say it was terror that made him run, however I say terrified or not, he is still a coward for running. Sure, it would really be scary to face a crowd of ghouls coming at you, but I heave read enough of your posts to get a sense of the dude that you are, and you certainly do not seem the type of person who would abandon your cohorts leaving them to fend for themselves against the oncoming hordes simply out of a sense of terror and self preservation. Terror is a normal emotion, it is understandable and can happen to everyone -- but what you do when you experience sheer terror defines whether or not you are a coward. For this, I say Rhodes was defintely not only a coward, but a big sissy, yellow-belly, pantywaist of a coward, and a disgrace to the memory of soldiers who have served in the armed forces.

Yojimbo,
Totally agree that had Rhodes not witnessed his men in the freezer, some other event would have triggered him eventually. I think everone within that base danced in the mouth of madness from time to time. Who wouldn't in an undead world though?
Hmm, I kind of agree with your assessment of the cowardly element in Rhodes to an extent now that you spell it out in the fashion quoted. Terrified or not, perhaps Rhodes should have regrouped along with his men within the tight corridors of the inner complex. (Imagine the beginning of Starwars and the rebel soldiers in the corridors of the blockade runner).
I will compromise my initial stance and declare he was a mentally broken, terror fuelled coward from the moment he saw the lift decend with hundreds of undead onboard only.:sneaky:;)

ProfessorChaos

28-Apr-2009, 11:41 PM

rhodes is a character that's hard to sympathize with. i'd never really tried to put myself in his boots (which is odd given my military background), but after 3M's (MagicMoonMonkey) post, i decided to sit back for a viewing and try to put myself into rhode's situation and consider the points made by 3M.

rhodes was the new commanding officer of what remained of his military unit, which had seen significant casualties while gathering specimens for the scientist's research. usually when a new CO comes in, they will evaluate and inspect their troops, equipment and facilites, then shake things up so that things are more to their liking. rhodes was in charge of a handful of men who were getting fed up with their mission, becoming complacent, and most likely losing discipline and willingness to follow orders. rhodes also had began to feel that the mission was fucked, the scientists had been giving major cooper the run-around and not producing any results, and the results they were coming up with were quite different that what rhodes and the men expected. add a daily-increasing threat from the "enemy at the gates" and it's no wonder rhodes was a bit more than stessed and irritable about his situation.

having said all this, rhodes is still a dick. instead of trying to talk sensibly with the sarah and the other scientists (who were probably also hip to the notion that frankenstein was having some issues) and helping mend the rift between soldiers and scientists, he seized upon his new authority to make things worse by ruining any remaining relations between the two groups with his dictator-like approach to leadership. while he may have began to see the scientists as sympathetic to the ghouls, he still could have at least listened to someone other than the crazy-looking guy who walked around in blood-spattered scrubs and spent all his time playing telephone with his pet dead guy. in addition to this, his men were out of shape, lazy, and had nothing to do but sit around and bitch, fight, and get fucked up when not out bringing in specimens. he could have tried to get his troops in order somewhat and gained their trust a bit more, instead of just pointing guns at them and being a bitter hard-ass.

rhodes was a piss-poor leader who inherited a bad situation and made it worse. once the shit began to hit the fan and the cards were all on the table, he captialized upon his authority while it lasted and tried to get he and his men out of the base, so he was still looking out for his men, but most likely only because they were looking up to him. once miguel fucked the entire group over and opened the base to the zeds, rhodes's true colors showed when he screamed like a bitch and left his few loyal followers.

3M, you made a strong argument, and it certainly is a new perspective on the character and events...but rhodes is ultimately just a chump who had more rank than his cronies, who had been skating along stoned-to-the-max and probably didn't give a fuck anymore. logan certainly wasn't a villain, but i will agree that he was a large part of the problem. had the scientists been more unified and stood up to logan and not gone along with his crazy ideas about domestication, perhaps things could have turned out differently.

but then we wouldn't have such a great film to discuss in such nerdy detail 20+ years after its release.

EvilNed

29-Apr-2009, 11:55 AM

The villain is usually the guy who opposes the main character and likes to fuck things up.

Logan didn't do this. But Rhodes did... An awful lot!

Of course he's not a one-dimensional villain. I can see he was probably stressed out, but I can't think of a single scene where I sympathized with him. He never ever once did try to contribute to ANYTHING. Unlike Logan, who actually did believe he could make things better... Even though he was a nutcase!

Put it this way: Logan made more positive progress towards a solution than Rhodes did.

AcesandEights

29-Apr-2009, 01:27 PM

The villain is usually the guy who opposes the main character and likes to fuck things up.

Logan didn't do this. But Rhodes did... An awful lot!
Damned good point, Ned.

I can see he was probably stressed out, but I can't think of a single scene where I sympathized with him. He never ever once did try to contribute to ANYTHING. Unlike Logan, who actually did believe he could make things better... Even though he was a nutcase!

Another good point and one I agree with.

Put it this way: Logan made more positive progress towards a solution than Rhodes did.

That's a sad epitaph for Rhodes :dead:

Trin

30-Apr-2009, 09:06 PM

There are certainly some good and interesting points coming out of this discussion.

I've always said that the real villain of Day was Dr. Logan. He's the one who was ultimately responsible for the friction between the soldiers and the scientists. Not only with his obvious feeding of soldiers to the zombies, but he was also the one hacking up specimens and causing the soldiers to further risk themselves. He's the one pursuing ridiculous alternatives rather than using his brainpower to help Sarah and the others.

In a broader horror sense he's the one who showed us hope that the zombies could ignore humans, then we find out it's a lie - he's feeding them human body parts. The man is an absolute monster - it's horror genius.

Rhodes on the other hand is a petty tyrant who is only a villain by virtue of situation and plot twist. I think MagicMoonMonkey has a ton of good arguments for why Rhodes is not the bad guy. I'll add a few thoughts. Rhodes was not a leader by choice or by training - he was simply next in line (and there were apparently 5 people in front of him). We can't expect him to step into the role with poise and leadership.

I think Rhodes was pretty accomodating. During the meeting the scientists offered him NOTHING beyond excuses, and they admitted things were unlikely to get better, and still Rhodes gave them more time (albeit begrudgingly). His concerns were pretty rational. Given how many people had died (including his superior officer whose role he now has) I think he had every right to push the scientists to justify the risks to his men. And he was open to any progress or arguments that justified further risks.

I believe the threats toward Sarah and others were stress induced reactions with a slight influence of newly acquired power gone to his head. However, my pure personal opinion is that Rhodes would not have done anything crazy if he'd not been pushed to it. If he felt there was progress being made and everyone was following his orders I think he would've been fine.

I think the crucial counter-argument is what shootme said - Rhodes was not in command for any period of time, and so we don't know whether he would've taken rash actions in the absense of Logan's crimes.

In any case, none of that in my mind rivals the villainy of Logan. I vote Logan.

shootemindehead

01-May-2009, 12:11 AM

I dunno. I think Logan, as away with the faeries as he was, was actually on to a winner. Albeit, on a miniscule scale and probably far too late into the outbreak to have an overall effect.

Logan had successfully diverted a zombie's attention from wanting to eat a live human being in favor of chowing down on heated up dead frozen flesh.

Bub had been domesticated and he looked to be rewarded with his food of choice, much like a pet dog.

As Sarah pointed out, it wasn't what Bub did...but what he didn't do that was important. Bub was completelt turned from living flesh. In the end Bub wasn't even interested in having a nibble on Rhodes. He just blew him away.

Now, obviously, that method of control isn't going to be appealing to the vast majority. But the alternative (zombies eating you) is even less so.

Even though his reward method was abhorent, Logan hadn't killed anyone. He simply nicked the dead soldiers and put them on ice.

At least he was working towards a solution and I think one of the egg-heads in 'Dawn of the Dead' touches upon the same idea too. Given the timeline, that would certainly have been a better time to try that method of control. If carried out on a large enough scale, it might have been possible to "farm" the living dead as it were into ghettos and exterminate them at leisure... (Now there's a script!!!!!) I'll call it 'Holocaust of the Living Dead' :D

Rhodes on the other hand, had no alternative but getting into the chopper ..."and leavin' you and your high falutin' friends to rot in this stinkin' sewer."

Not exactly filling the room with a sense of co-operation or even the slightest hint of a helpful decision.

As it turned out though, Rhodes actually had the right idea, if only because the alternatives were non-negotiable at the time though. Just like Cooper in 'Night of the Living Dead' with his ultimately sensible basement idea, getting in the chopper and flying away from the facility didn't turn out to be a bad move after all. Whether taking the civies was in his gameplan is another thing though.

sandrock74

01-May-2009, 10:41 PM

Yojimbo

02-May-2009, 11:57 PM

One thing that I always wondered about the flying everyone out of the bunker plan...there were too many people (even just military personel) to go anywhere in one ride. I didn't really see everyone as willing to stand in line and wait their flight out.
Maybe a well disciplined group of soliders would have been willing to stand in line and wait to bug out - my guess is that if Rhodes was a good leader he would have insisted to be in the last group out. Likely, in most cirumstances the civilains would have been allowed to get out on the first run, but since you really could only fit three folks in the chopper (not including the pilot) and there would have been a well-placed bit of concern on the part of the soldiers about whether the civilian pilot would return, my thought is the fairest way to go would have been to mix the evac groups, each flight out having a balance of soldiers and civilans. (This then allows the civilians to be protected at the touchdown site while the rest of the group is shuttled out) The civilian group would have then had to choose amongst themselves who would go in what order, but my guess is Frankenstein would have elected to stay and refused to leave his research - crazy freaking guy that he was.

MagicMoonMonkey

03-May-2009, 12:37 AM

5 people share my opinion. For a while I was beginning to wonder if there was something wrong with me as so many of you saw a different Rhodes from myself.
I am going to try to find the time to sit down and view the movie from your perspectives to see what it is you see. Logan was still the villain though :p

sandrock74

03-May-2009, 03:31 AM

Maybe a well disciplined group of soliders would have been willing to stand in line and wait to bug out - my guess is that if Rhodes was a good leader he would have insisted to be in the last group out. Likely, in most cirumstances the civilains would have been allowed to get out on the first run, but since you really could only fit three folks in the chopper (not including the pilot) and there would have been a well-placed bit of concern on the part of the soldiers about whether the civilian pilot would return, my thought is the fairest way to go would have been to mix the evac groups, each flight out having a balance of soldiers and civilans. (This then allows the civilians to be protected at the touchdown site while the rest of the group is shuttled out) The civilian group would have then had to choose amongst themselves who would go in what order, but my guess is Frankenstein would have elected to stay and refused to leave his research - crazy freaking guy that he was.

Yeah, I always saw Frankenstein as refusing to leave too. He was too whacked out to know any better. Unfortunately, I don't see the rest of them being rational for figuring out who goes and when. Not to mention, where would they go?? When Frankenstein point blank asked Rhodes that very question, Rhodes didn't have an answer...none of them did.

But that's a whole other can of worms.

JDP

19-Jan-2016, 09:56 AM

Who did you think had the most gruesome death?

I have always thought that Rickles' prolonged death was a bit brutal. Even as the scene faded out he was still screaming away as bits 'n' bobs were being bitten or torn off him. I would go so far as to say that his death would be the most realistic in the sense that no single zombie easily tore limbs from his body or removed his head and spine as witnessed in LotD. You could imagine Rickles still screaming away for several more minutes until he died.

Rickles died quite unnecessarily, by the way. He is the only one of the soldiers who had the right idea after seeing the bunker get invaded by the mob of zombies: find another way out! The others either stupidly stayed around trying to hide behind boxes, pallets and such (Torres) or headed towards the headquarters part of the bunker (Rhodes & Steel). Rhodes pretty much had no choice because he had no weapons to try to fight his way out so he had to get some first, but Steel was already armed and could have gone with Rickles towards the corral area, which was the right idea, as you could try to fight your way out through those caves just like the civilians were doing. I always thought that this splitting up of Torres, Steel and Rickles was unrealistic, to say the least. One would think that they would have tried to stick together and try to make it out by joining forces, but instead they foolishly split up. Perfectly calculated to make it easier for the zombies to get them.

Strangely enough, once Rickles gets to the corral area, instead of heading straight to the stairs and jumping down into the caves from there, stupidly starts to go around in circles and allows the slowly approaching zombies to trap him. So he is intelligent enough to head to the right area to try to escape the bunker, but once he gets there he turns into a total idiot and neglects the obvious choice of climbing up those clear-of-any-zombies stairs right behind him.

Even more difficult to digest than all this is the fact that both Rhodes and Torres somehow manage to miss the very important fact that when John escaped through the caves he left the corral gate open! It is simply impossible that they could not have noticed this, since both of them are pissed off that John managed to overpower them and to add insult to injury also stole their guns. They must obviously have seen where he exited the bunker, but mysteriously neglect to close the corral gate. How convenient for even more zombies to make it into the bunker!

Neil

19-Jan-2016, 01:38 PM

Rickles died quite unnecessarily, by the way. He is the only one of the soldiers who had the right idea after seeing the bunker get invaded by the mob of zombies: find another way out! The others either stupidly stayed around trying to hide behind boxes, pallets and such (Torres) or headed towards the headquarters part of the bunker (Rhodes & Steel). Rhodes pretty much had no choice because he had no weapons to try to fight his way out so he had to get some first, but Steel was already armed and could have gone with Rickles towards the corral area, which was the right idea, as you could try to fight your way out through those caves just like the civilians were doing. I always thought that this splitting up of Torres, Steel and Rickles was unrealistic, to say the least. One would think that they would have tried to stick together and try to make it out by joining forces, but instead they foolishly split up. Perfectly calculated to make it easier for the zombies to get them.

Strangely enough, once Rickles gets to the corral area, instead of heading straight to the stairs and jumping down into the caves from there, stupidly starts to go around in circles and allows the slowly approaching zombies to trap him. So he is intelligent enough to head to the right area to try to escape the bunker, but once he gets there he turns into a total idiot and neglects the obvious choice of climbing up those clear-of-any-zombies stairs right behind him.

Even more difficult to digest than all this is the fact that both Rhodes and Torres somehow manage to miss the very important fact that when John escaped through the caves he left the corral gate open! It is simply impossible that they could not have noticed this, since both of them are pissed off that John managed to overpower them and to add insult to injury also stole their guns. They must obviously have seen where he exited the bunker, but mysteriously neglect to close the corral gate. How convenient for even more zombies to make it into the bunker!

I never did quite understand how the zombies seemed to get ahead/around them in the caverns? I guess the explanation is there was an exit say at the other end of the "lift room" which had a short route back to the caverns. In effect our humans had to take a longer route there?!

JDP

19-Jan-2016, 01:52 PM

I never did quite understand how the zombies seemed to get ahead/around them in the caverns? I guess the explanation is there was an exit say at the other end of the "lift room" which had a short route back to the caverns. In effect our humans had to take a longer route there?!

I also did not understand this in the case of Rhodes, Steel and Torrez. In the case of Rickles the obvious explanation is that the zombies he encountered ahead of him are the ones that entered from the caves via the open corral gate. The most puzzling one was Torrez. What the hell was he doing that all those zombies got ahead of him??? All the other soldiers left the zombie mob behind them, but he somehow managed to be in the thick of it.

EvilNed

19-Jan-2016, 07:00 PM

I never did quite understand how the zombies seemed to get ahead/around them in the caverns? I guess the explanation is there was an exit say at the other end of the "lift room" which had a short route back to the caverns. In effect our humans had to take a longer route there?!

McDermott grabs the wooden stop when he's locked out of the corrall with Sarah to knock around zombies with. Shortly after this, Steele and Rickles run off to the lift that Miguel's activated - leaving John to knock Rhodes down. Nobody fixes the stop in the corral and zombies get in that way. The zombies that seem to "out run" the soldiers have actually just come in from the corrall.

JDP

19-Jan-2016, 07:45 PM

McDermott grabs the wooden stop when he's locked out of the corrall with Sarah to knock around zombies with. Shortly after this, Steele and Rickles run off to the lift that Miguel's activated - leaving John to knock Rhodes down. Nobody fixes the stop in the corral and zombies get in that way.

The gate does not need any wooden stop. It has its own metal bolt. The wooden board is for extra-security. Also, there is yet another gate that drops down and prevents the zombies from entering. Later on one of the zombies in fact accidentally closes this corral gate. All it would have taken is for either Torrez or Rhodes to lower that gate, or close the other gate with the bolt, or both. No zombies could have gotten in that way. It is inconceivable that neither one of them did so and very casually left them wide open. Everyone in that bunker knew very well that there were zombies roaming those caves so the corral gates always had to be closed down when not in use to trap zombies.

The zombies that seem to "out run" the soldiers have actually just come in from the corrall.

I thought about that possibility, but from the fact that Rickles is able to get to the corral area without being intercepted by any zombies until he is right there, it seems a bit unlikely that the other zombies we see getting ahead of the other soldiers are the ones that came in through the corral.

EvilNed

20-Jan-2016, 01:52 AM

Well, that's how I see it anyway. Makes the most sense to me. Bolt or no bolt - they forgot about shutting that gate.

JDP

20-Jan-2016, 10:48 AM

Well, that's how I see it anyway. Makes the most sense to me. Bolt or no bolt - they forgot about shutting that gate.

Pretty difficult to accept that such a thing could possibly have happened, considering that even one of the main complaints of the soldiers was that they did not want to have those zombies around the caves, too dangerous for comfort. But they had to put up with it since the scientists wanted to capture specimens. When things finally blow up between them, Rhodes clearly tells Sarah & company that he and his men will go into the caves and wipe out "every one of those rotten piles of garbage". Does it sound logical to you that people who are so concerned about this issue would so casually just "forget" to close the damn gates and leave an entrance wide open for the very creatures they hate & fear to waltz right in at their leisure?

EvilNed

20-Jan-2016, 10:51 AM

Pretty difficult to accept that such a thing could possibly have happened, considering that even one of the main complaints of the soldiers was that they did not want to have those zombies around the caves, too dangerous for comfort. But they had to put up with it since the scientists wanted to capture specimens. When things finally blow up between them, Rhodes clearly tells Sarah & company that he and his men will go into the caves and wipe out "every one of those rotten piles of garbage". Does it sound logical to you that people who are so concerned about this issue would so casually just "forget" to close the damn gates and leave an entrance wide open for the very creatures they hate & fear to waltz right in at their leisure?

Actually, what I think happened is that John left the stop off when he ran out. The soldiers, distracted by tge events, just didn't check.

JDP

20-Jan-2016, 11:13 AM

Actually, what I think happened is that John left the stop off when he ran out. The soldiers, distracted by tge events, just didn't check.

If you were either Torrez or Rhodes, would you forget to check out what happened to John, the very guy who overpowered you and stole your guns? I don't think you would. They must have checked to see where he went. Since the only other exit out of the bunker was through the corral (the other one was being guarded by Rickles and Steel, who were checking out what the problem was there) it goes without saying that you would take a look at the corral, maybe even hope to see if one of the zombies in the visible part of the caves got the SOB before he could escape. Very difficult not to notice the raised gate and the other gate not closed.

EvilNed

20-Jan-2016, 02:20 PM

I think you're putting to much thought into what rational humans would do.
In the situation they were in, I could easily see Torrez and Rickles overlooking doublechecking the corral gate. People make mistakes all the time.

I can't think of another way the zombies got there.

EDIT:

I just checked the film. There's even a shot of the zombies coming in through the corral gate, so the case is closed. It appears right after Rhodes takes off in the golf cart.

JDP

20-Jan-2016, 03:20 PM

I think you're putting to much thought into what rational humans would do.
In the situation they were in, I could easily see Torrez and Rickles overlooking doublechecking the corral gate. People make mistakes all the time.

Watch the movie again, these soldiers were majorly pissed and freaked out that those zombies were roaming around those caves, it was one of the main issues of confrontation between the soldiers and the scientists who wanted them around so they could collect specimens for their experiments. There just is no way that the soldiers would be so stupidly suicidal as to leave the corral gates wide open to invite them in. This is a major plot contradiction. Someone like Rhodes would not have permitted those gates to be left open by any means as this would have been a major breach of security for all the remaining people inside the bunker. At this point in the movie Rhodes and the rest of the soldiers have no idea what Miguel is preparing for them, so as far as they are concerned the bunker was still secure, so there is no reason for no longer upholding security measures.

I can't think of another way the zombies got there.

EDIT:

I just checked the film. There's even a shot of the zombies coming in through the corral gate, so the case is closed. It appears right after Rhodes takes off in the golf cart.

These are the zombies that Rickles encountered when he gets to the corral area. There was a pretty long way from there to the elevator area and the area where the soldiers and scientists lived (watch the scene when Rickles, Steel, Sarah and Miguel go all the way from the elevator area to the corral to capture some specimens.) If they were the zombies that kept getting ahead of Rhodes, Torrez and Steel, then how come they did not intercept Rickles long before he arrived at the corral? Case hardly "closed".

EvilNed

20-Jan-2016, 04:24 PM

I don't understand what you're aiming at really. Are you suggesting that the zombies opened the corral gates by themselves, from the other side?

JDP

20-Jan-2016, 05:05 PM

I don't understand what you're aiming at really. Are you suggesting that the zombies opened the corral gates by themselves, from the other side?

No, that John left the corral gate open when he left to join Sarah and McDermott in the caves, and then for some very bizarre reason Rhodes and Torrez decided to leave it like that. This would make sense only if for some reason these soldiers had become suicidal and no longer cared about their lives, but we can plainly see that this is not the case by any means. None of them wanted the bunker to get invaded by zombies, as is plainly seen by how they run like hell and try to avoid getting caught & killed once the bunker does get invaded. So why leave one point of entry wide open for the zombies to come in? It is totally in contradiction with the character of the soldiers. These people are obviously not devoid of a sense of self-preservation. It makes no sense whatsoever for them to not care at all whether the corral gate is open or closed.

EvilNed

20-Jan-2016, 05:20 PM

JDP

21-Jan-2016, 07:43 AM

There's a thousand thoughts that could be running through their minds that we don't know about. Maybe the gate looked closed but wasn't and they decided to run off. We don't know. One could also argue that Rhodes' comments earlier about feeling uneasy about keeping them next door are foreshadowing of the highest degree. Don't be to hard on them. I personally do not find it so far fetched considering I make small slip-ups all the time. Stress will do that to you - and if they're anything they're stressed! :)

We all make slip-ups, but rarely when it comes to something that could cost us our lives. It is very much unlike the character of these soldiers to just forget to check whether John during his escape left the gate closed or open.

The soldiers' stress is in fact largely due to the "zombies in the caves" issue. They do not want to put up with this anymore just so that the scientists can collect specimens for their experiments. Any way you look at it the likelihood that any of these soldiers would casually forget to check if the corral gate was closed is quite slim. They are not the kind of people who like to gamble with their lives. The only one who developed suicidal tendencies in that group is Miguel.

shootemindehead

21-Jan-2016, 11:34 AM

I think it's just bad editing lads.

:D

EvilNed

21-Jan-2016, 02:32 PM

We all make slip-ups, but rarely when it comes to something that could cost us our lives. It is very much unlike the character of these soldiers to just forget to check whether John during his escape left the gate closed or open.

I disagree. I think it's plausible. Besides, I don't even know what we're debating at this point... The corral gate is opened, the film shows this clearly.

Rancid Carcass

21-Jan-2016, 03:48 PM

Speculation time!

Just imagine if Rhodes and Torrez had closed the corral gate - how would events have played out...?

JDP

21-Jan-2016, 04:33 PM

I disagree. I think it's plausible. Besides, I don't even know what we're debating at this point... The corral gate is opened, the film shows this clearly.

What we are discussing is that it should not have been left open by the two characters who obviously must have seen it was open. It is in contradiction to the characters' behavior throughout the whole movie. None of the characters in this movie -except Miguel- are feeling particularly suicidal enough to leave an open entrance for zombies to walk right in into the bunker.

- - - Updated - - -

Speculation time!

Just imagine if Rhodes and Torrez had closed the corral gate - how would events have played out...?

Very likely outcome of such an action: Rickles arrives at the corral area, catches his breath a bit since there are no zombies roaming this area of the bunker yet. Goes up the corral stairs and checks out if there are too many zombies nearby on the other side. If it is pretty clear, he jumps into the caves and starts doing the same thing that the civilians did and heads towards the missile silo, his way to freedom. Since he is armed he can dispatch whatever zombies he encounters on the way. He likely makes it out alive, just like the civilians did. Then he can either:

A- Survive on his own out there

B- Head for the helicopter to see if it's still there

If he takes option B, then he will have to confront Sarah, McDermott and John, who are probably not going to be very happy to see him. A shootout between them very likely will take place. It is anyone's guess who will win. Rickles will obviously do his best not to kill John, since he is the only one who knows how to fly the helicopter, but he certainly will shoot to kill on the other two if they oppose him taking over command of the helicopter.

EvilNed

21-Jan-2016, 05:30 PM

What we are discussing is that it should not have been left open by the two characters who obviously must have seen it was open. It is in contradiction to the characters' behavior throughout the whole movie. None of the characters in this movie -except Miguel- are feeling particularly suicidal enough to leave an open entrance for zombies to walk right in into the bunker.

Well, the best laid plans of mice and men...

Trin

21-Jan-2016, 06:01 PM

JDP

21-Jan-2016, 06:55 PM

I have several thoughts on the matter of the soldiers leaving the corral gates open.

First, the soldiers simply didn't care that the gate was open since they were fully planning to leave at that moment. It'd be like turning around to make sure the stove was off before fleeing the burning house. In fact, they might've decided to leave the gate open so that the remaining civilians would be extra-screwed after they were gone.

As long as they were inside the bunker, no way they would have taken such a chance. Plus both Torrez and Rhodes were unarmed, totally unprepared to go out there and survive. None of them had any supplies prepared either. It is obvious that they were not ready to leave yet.

And there were no civilians left in the bunker at that point either. All of them had either been killed (Logan & Fisher) or were trying to make it to the missile silo. The only ones who would have been in deep trouble by leaving the corral gate open were the soldiers still inside, including the very two men who would mysteriously have decided not to close the gate. Totally suicidal decision and very opposed to their character to do such a thing. Leaving the corral gate open sounds like something that only Miguel would have done, no one else.

Second, I don't think the soldiers considered the zombies in the pen much of a threat. They didn't like them being there, granted. But they put them there. And they were completely confident that they could walk in at any time and destroy them.

Sure, four of them loaded with ammo and weapons, they could do that. But that does not mean they liked the situation. It was too dangerous to keep those zombies there and trap them for the scientists. It is very clear from their "risking our asses" complaints that the soldiers did not like the situation one bit.

Third, it really can't even be argued that they were security minded or disciplined such that their training wouldn't have allowed them to make such mistakes. They showed no evidence of having any such security mindset in how they dealt with other security matters. And they were completely undisciplined.

When it comes to their own safety, I don't see any evidence that these guys felt like playing Russian roulette with their lives. The corral is always closed when we see it. And we never hear of any incident of zombies accidentally getting inside the bunker via the corral. They seem to understand this security measure very well. Yet they mysteriously forget it after John escapes.

Wrap it all up and they were portrayed throughout the movie as stupid, cavalier, and undisciplined. Why would that one stupid act stand out?

Because unlike other acts of stupidity, this one could end up costing everyone's lives, including that of whoever would "forget" to close the corral gate.

I am confused on one point - did everyone know there was an exit through the caves? My assumption was that everyone believed the caves were closed off. They kept the specimen count as if none could get in/out. They put Sarah and McDermott in there as if they assumed it was a dead end. Why would we believe that the soldiers would see the caves as an avenue for escape? Didn't Steele so much as say that without the elevator they were trapped?

Steel's reaction is in fact a nitpick by itself. He should be well aware that there is another exit. Of course everyone must have known that there was a missile silo in the caves. First of all, because as you said so yourself, it was the soldiers who put the zombies in the caves in the first place. They must have known the layout well. And second, if nobody knew about the silo, then how could Sarah and McDermott have known? What kind of special privileges they had to know such information that yet everyone else ignored? It doesn't make much sense that these two should know more about the layout of a military base than the soldiers themselves.

None of the zombies could get in or out of the caves because they do not seem to have the necessary IQ and leg & arm coordination to be able to go up such a tall ladder. It is the only exit out of the silo.

They put Sarah and McDermott there without any weapons, not even a knife, nothing, thinking that the likelihood of them surviving the caves would be next to impossible. They did not know that John was going to overpower them, take their guns and catch up with Sarah and McDermott to help them out.

As for the zombies from the corral cutting off the soldiers near the bunker... when I was map-making the Day of the Dead map for the computer game "Road to Fiddler's Green" I tried to study the bunker layout. The fact is, it simply doesn't make complete sense. The zombies from the corral found a faster ... and different ... path through the secured caves area to get to the research area than the soldiers were using via the golf carts.

Yes, that does not make any sense. There's just no way that those corral zombies could have gotten to those other areas so fast, and on top of that did not intercept Rickles on his way to the corral either.

Trin

21-Jan-2016, 09:12 PM

EvilNed

21-Jan-2016, 09:19 PM

I agree with Trin completely, but I am enjoying the discussion. It's been awhile since we we're nitpicking the films like this.

JDP

22-Jan-2016, 09:01 AM

I can't really attribute that much IQ or discipline to these guys. They let zombies mass around the entrance gates. They got drunk and brawled with chained up zombies a few rooms away. They taunted the zombies at the corral even as Sarah is saying that they're learning. And, worst of all, they lost 5 men using the security precautions they'd established. Yeah, leaving the corral open wasn't something I think they'd do under normal circumstances, but I don't find it that odd under those circumstances.

They had little choice about the zombies outside the fence. They did not want to waste ammo on zombies that for the moment being were not a threat. Sarah tells the soldiers that if more of them come, then shoot some of them, obviously to keep their numbers down to a less dangerous level.

One thing is what the soldiers were doing while they were not on duty, and a very different one is when they were active around the danger zone. We never see them doing something as crazy as leaving the corral gate open after they stop using it for collecting specimens. They were rude, obnoxious, loud, and not particularly bright, but they sure as heck were not suicidal.

Sarah says that if what Rickles is saying is right (viz. that the zombies were scared of what Dr. Logan was going to do to them), then it is a sign that they are learning. Rickles was, of course, just kidding with that remark. Just look at his "yeah, right" facial expression after Sarah's reply. At that point in the movie nobody in the group, except Logan, really knew that the zombies were in fact capable of learning some things.

The scientists also were getting slowly killed, it wasn't just the soldiers. They all agree that handling zombies was not a safe thing, but it had to be done, according to the scientists. The soldiers of course did not agree with this last point. To them it is never entirely clear what exactly is it that these scientists are trying to do with the captured zombies, so to them the whole thing looks like an unnecessary risk.

I got the distinct impression that the plan was to leave asap. If they thought John was in the process of taking the helicopter and leaving without them I'd expect they'd literally drop everything to go stop that activity. Screw the corral.

Rhodes clearly tells John to "get your shit together, whatever you need", so they obviously were getting prepared to leave, but not quite yet. If they are going to survive out there, they will need weapons, ammo and supplies, as much as they can carry. After they lose their only pilot, it is even more clear that they are even less ready to leave now. So even more reason now why NOT to compromise the bunker's security by leaving an open entrance for the zombies. The priority now is not leaving, but making sure that nobody else takes the helicopter. Plus they do not know for sure what exactly is Miguel doing up there. They think he might be "making a run for it". They want to go up there and check out what is going on. But they cannot leave yet, they have no pilot or any supplies prepared. Leaving the corral gate open at this stage when they are in fact still very much in need of the bunker facilities is absolutely counterproductive. They would be inviting nothing but further trouble. It makes no sense whatsoever for Rhodes or Torrez to even contemplate doing such a crazy thing, unless they both had become as suicidal as Miguel. But judging by how both of them react and run like hell when they see the zombies invade the bunker we can clearly tell that the last thing either one of them wanted was for the bunker's security to be compromised.

If everyone knew that the caves had an exit I have to wonder what they were thinking putting Sarah and McDermott in them. You'd have to think that anyone would have a fair chance of getting past the zombies in that scenario. There weren't *that* many specimens in there. We know that because they were already saying they were running out. It's a wide open area. I dunno. I never got the impression that they'd explored it thoroughly. I don't recall... was there a hatch or cover on the exit at the top of the ladder?

Because the likelihood of them making it out alive from the caves was quite slim. They had no weapons to fight with. It is an unusually cruel thing to do, and it was done to freak out John and coerce him into agreeing to fly them out. Rhodes already tried the "I will shoot the scientists if you don't do what I say" tactic, and it did not work. John doesn't budge. Rhodes now wants to try something even more frightening than getting shot in cold blood. The prospect of getting torn to pieces by zombies might just do the trick.

Since the soldiers built the corral and put the zombies there, it goes without saying that they knew the area in question. They knew the zombies would not be able to get out from there, that's why they chose that area to keep them. They also installed lights in some parts of the corral caves, which were hooked up to their bunker generators (obviously all this was done before the zombies were brought in.) The silo itself has its own set of red lights and arrows clearly pointing the way to it. Even Sarah and McDermott, two civilians, know about the silo being back there. Everything indicates that the soldiers must have known about this other exit.

The top of the silo is open. We never actually see this location, but when we see them climbing to the top of the ladder we can see light at the end, so the silo exit is not closed.