Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak: [Archive]

Philly_SWAT

26-Jun-2006, 06:59 PM

No, the universe doesn't have to do with the timelines. Universe only means that the situation is the same(dead rising) and the same rules apply. The timeline of the films was never meant to be joined.
Maybe I am not doing a good job of saying what I am trying to say. I disagree with your definition of "universe". What you say is true, but "universe" also means that it is happening in the same timeline. For example, in our own real universe, there was World War I, World War II, the Viet Nam war, etc. Now, you can discuss any of these wars, and do not necesarily have to mention any of the others to intelligently discuss just one of them. And no world leader ever intended for these wars to be "joined in a timeline", but they existed in real time, and are in fact in the same timeline, the timeline we are living in.

Since you mentioned it, in the James Bond films, they all take place in the same universe, and same timeline. In that series, the discusion of "which film takes place before another within the timeline" is of little importance. There is not a continuing problem that progresses as the series goes on. It is a simple storyline actually, a good guy is fighting bad guys. Here is the next story involving that good guy. There isnt an overriding "bad guy force" that is in a constant state of being, that gets worse, and Bond's overall way of dealing with this must change, etc. A bad guy comes along, Bond defeats him, end of that story. Here is another bad guy, new story, same universe, same timeline. But in the Bond universe, it doesnt matter if he defeated Goldfinger last month and Octopussy two months ago, the timeline questions are not relevant. He defeated them both, now on to the next enemy. It is like how Dennis the Menace never gets older....if he did, the reason for the story ends. If Bond becomes an old man bound to a wheelchair, and can not contribute in any way to fending off the bad guys, then there is no reason for another story. Therefore in that universe, he just kind of continues on, and you have to suspend your disbelief about why he never gets older, just like Dennis the Menace. In the GAR zombie universe, there is a continuing problem that is the same in the movies, the fact that the dead are rising and want to eat the living. The problem progresses thruout the series. The more people die, the more zombies there are. The mindset of the people dealing with the problem changes. There is a definately progression of the timeline, unlike in a Bond movie. If there were 30 GAR zombie films made, it wouldnt make sense that the problem never progresses, unless it were obvious that the various movies were taking place at the same time i.e. if another movie were made that starts three weeks in, but say, set in Cleavland, we would have a new set of characters with new problems and new ways of dealing with them, but it would be taking place at the same time the Dawn folks were in the Mall. Basically, you agree with my points about Bond when you say

About the only things that relate the bond films to each other are Bond himself, his crew(Q, Money Penny, M, Etc.), and a few other random things. Just like the only thing that connects Romero's films are the zombies and rules that come along with them.
however, I do not agree with making the same statement about the GAR zombie universe. There are two different types of universes at play in these two series of films. It is like this....I can remember as a kid reading Spider-Man comic books. But Spider-Man "guest-starred" in other books other than his own, sometimes appearing in Marvel Team-Up, Daredevil, etc. Now, Marvel being far superior to DC imho, realised that some logic problems could exist when in the new edition of "The Amazing Spider-Man" he was fighting the Green Goblin in New York, but in the new "Daredevil" he was fighting the Kingpen in New Jersey. How could he be in two places at the same time? Well, they put little asterics in that would say something like *this takes plave between Spiderman #132 and #133. Logic problem solved. The Bond series decides to ignore the explanation of these possible logic probelms because it is unimportant. The GAR zombie series ignores these problems also, 1) because GAR sometimes did not pay attention to little details and 2) he purposely left things vague to where the viewer could make up his own mind.

To try to further clarify my thoughts on how "timeline" relates to "universe", look at it this way. Take two movies...."As Good As it Gets" and "Bridges of Madison County". Both of these movies basically take place in "our universe", the one we exist in in real life. But within the context of those movies, the slight variations in universe could mean that the Clint Eastwood photographer doesnt have to exist in the same universe as the diner where Jack and Helen duke it out. I say that Ben from Night, Peter from Dawn, Logan from Day and Riley from Land are all existing in the same universe. We may not see them at the same time, they may never meet or interact with each other, their actions may have no effect on each other, but they exist in the same timeline. In other words, after leaving Philly, they could have landed the chopper right at the same farmhouse where Ben was, and where he was killed 3 weeks earlier. They might even see the leftover remains in the former fire. But if Clint Eastwood went to New York City and went to that diner, he might not necesarily see Jack Nicholson sitting there taking plastic forks out of a bag in his pocket. Those two stories exist in an almost identical universe, our own, but all the GAR zombie movies exist in the exact same universe, the one GAR created where the dead walk and the lving try to survive.

I apologize if there are mispelling in this post, it is quite long, but I am sure you will get what I am saying.

bassman

26-Jun-2006, 07:14 PM

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But I'm glad that you brought up the whole comic book thing and how Parker could be in two different situations like that.

First, let me say that I'm not a comic book fan by any means. The only comics I ever had were "TMNT" and "The Real Ghostbusters". But I remember hearing someone(Kevin Smith on the "Donnie Darko" commentary, if I'm not mistaken) speak about alternate universes within comics.

For instance, Batman could be fighting the villians in, let's say issue # 89 of one particular series and he gets killed. That's it.....no more Batman. So what do the comic book people do when they want to make more Batman comics? They make universe #2(I believe this is what he called it). This is how Smith described the whole "universe" thing(which made perfect sense being that it was commentary for "Donnie Darko") and he made it clear that there is always more than one universe, with similar traits and goings on.

I don't know, man. You make a great argument but I just think the films aren't meant to be grouped together at all. Even if they could be grouped together in order to document the progression of the dead rising....do you think we'll ever see a film from Romero that ties all the loose ends and proposes a cure to the dead walking? I seriously doubt it. It just seems to me that if that was something important to the films and something that the creator(Romero) wanted to bring to light....wouldn't it be laid out a bit better for us?

Just as I've read Romero saying, he does not intend for any of the movies to be related other than the fact that they contain "zombies". If that's not enough evidence for you....I don't know what is.

I guess you guys are just bigger fan boys than myself.

You did make a great argument though, man. Reps...

Philly_SWAT

26-Jun-2006, 07:50 PM

You did make a great argument though, man.
I couldnt agree more with you on this point!! :)

Even if they could be grouped together in order to document the progression of the dead rising....do you think we'll ever see a film from Romero that ties all the loose ends and proposes a cure to the dead walking?I wouldnt want to see a film like that. Part of the lure of these films it that there seems to be a conscious effort to not tie up loose ends. Like how Romero realised it was a mistake in Night to act like some "Venus probe" caused the problem, and abandoned that line of thought for future installments. Along those lines....

It just seems to me that if that was something important to the films and something that the creator(Romero) wanted to bring to light....wouldn't it be laid out a bit better for us?
I dont think that it is very important in the films, just that it is. I mean, it isnt overly important that "Grumpier Old Men" takes place after "Grumpy Old Men", it simply is the way it is. Plus, I like the fact that Romero leaves a lot up to us as viewers, rather than spoon feed us everyting like most Hollywood movies do.

Just as I've read Romero saying, he does not intend for any of the movies to be related other than the fact that they contain "zombies". If that's not enough evidence for you....I don't know what is.
I would think that by this he just means, as you have already said, that they are not direct sequels, not that they do not exist in the same timeline. I mean, Abraham Lincoln made the great Gettysburg Address in the same timeline where there was a TV show called Three's Company. They are certainly not related to each other in any way, but certainly exist in the same timeline. PLus, remember, Romero is getting on in years.......

I guess you guys are just bigger fan boys than myself.
As much as I hate that term, I guess I would have to admit that yes, I am a fanboy. (Cripes, did I just say that? :) )

MinionZombie

26-Jun-2006, 09:50 PM

I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not (there was all that thread-bashing a while ago regarding it's time setting ... and how on earth could it ever realistically be BEFORE Day of the Dead? Think outside the box people, lol).

But yeah, I've always thought Land was 3 years after the outbreak kicked off - well initially I had 5 years floating around in my head, don't know why, must have been off on one of those funky muffin trips of giggling back at uni...

hadrian0117

05-Jul-2006, 11:38 PM

Adrenochrome

06-Jul-2006, 12:58 AM

The reason I know? Someone mentioned that they only recall dude working for Kaufman for three years. Okay, but when Riley goes to pick up his car in the beginning of the movie, the guy at the garage says, "What car? The last car drove out of here three years ago."

:dead: Dawg
ok, so,....what about the truck that Riley and Charley rode into town in????? What "year was that made"???? LOL

DEAD BEAT

10-Jul-2006, 09:07 PM

i remember reading somewhere,that true dawn was weeks after night but then day was suppose to be 5 years later!

anyone else read that?:moon:

rikimaru

24-Jul-2006, 03:21 AM

if GAR had it his way day would have been 5 years into the outbreak and the curse was or at least seemed to be over at the end of the original script.

but that wasent used so...

(edit) im reffering to day btw ;)

Dommm

24-Jul-2006, 01:45 PM

This is just my personal view on the progression, NOTLD, DOTD, Day and then Land. First being the initial outbreak second being the full out war, third being the losing side of the war and finally fourth is on regroup when we start figuring out how to live and move forward. But that being said all of these IMHO are for you to take whatever socio-political movement of the time you wish. Disease, consumerism, Human greed and selfishness, etc... I think GAR just put forward the idea that our social values, morals, technology are all based on a very weak thread and would fall apart quite easily. But hay thats just my opinion.

Deadman_Deluxe

24-Jul-2006, 08:07 PM

i remember reading somewhere,that true dawn was weeks after night but then day was suppose to be 5 years later!

anyone else read that?:moon:

Yeah i read that. It was scrawled in human excrement on a toilet wall and signed by "a madman" ;)

rikimaru

24-Jul-2006, 10:05 PM

I think GAR just put forward the idea that our social values, morals, technology are all based on a very weak thread and would fall apart quite easily. But hay thats just my opinion.

i hardly think a world wide zombie outbreak shows that our way of life could fall apart quickly...

you might aswell say that nukes going off everywhere would do the same thing...

i think its more along the lines of if people dont work together to combat disasters well all die. just my .02 ;)

Dommm

25-Jul-2006, 10:00 AM

i think its more along the lines of if people dont work together to combat disasters well all die. just my .02 ;)

I would put that under social implications that we all pretend to get along and work together till somthing really f***ed up happens then we all just look out for ourselves. Its also another reason to love the Movie, Make of it what you will :p

TheWalkingDude

29-Aug-2006, 03:24 PM

Ok my idea on the subject is they both over lap each other. both taking place at aproxamately the same time periods........ They just happen to be hundreds of miles apart and thats why they dont know about each other...Forget make and models of cars drivin because its just the years the movies was made...If they had all been made around the same time then the cars would of all been the same..There is a thing called product placement...You see a newer Ford in Land because they got paid to put it there.....

AssassinFromHell

29-Aug-2006, 03:35 PM

The man himself said LAND came after DAY. Topic ended :D

_liam_

31-Dec-2006, 04:34 PM

Brubaker

02-Jan-2007, 12:12 AM

if all this 3 years business is true, how come at the start it says "some time later", surely if romero knew for sure it was 3 years later he'd clean it up.

i think the truth is romero doesnt concern himself with issues such as canon & timeline, and doesnt really know himself, cause it's not important, like the way the cause of the outbreak is disregarded.

I look at it two ways.

One is that the three years thing is a moot point. You're right about that. "Some time later" does create more questions than it answers. How long was it from the beginning of the scenes or sound bites that we see at the start of the movie, compared to the end? It seemed like quite a bit of "time" was going by during that little introduction we see before the movie kicks off.

Also, is it three years from the start of the outbreak? Three years from when society started to crumble (didn't happen right away) or three years from when the undead finally took over and it became their world? It could be any of those three.

The biggest gripe I have with the timeline is the movie itself. It seems like at least a couple of characters don't understand why the fireworks are called "sky flowers". Isn't this one of the questions Charlie asks Riley? My point is, after three years or even a year, you'd think that they would have already had this conversation about sky flowers by now. There isn't much else to talk about.

You'd also figure that Riley or some of the other characters would have met Slack beforehand, or maybe Cholo would have. When he was walking through town, you get the impression that virtually everyone in the street knew Riley.

The third thing is the military unit. There is one scene where they are showing people the set-up of the Green, discussing strategy and also talking about the fences (when the chick wastes the zombie) as if everybody had just set up shop there in the past few days. Over the course of three years, or even a year, it should have all been second nature by now.

I'm aware some of these things were set up so viewers of the movie had a bit of an idea what was going on, but I'm sure the average moviegoer could have figured out "sky flowers."

As for the remark about a car not having gone out of there for three years, what if nobody had permission to leave unless they were authorized to leave? All of the cars had to be somewhere. It should have been easy enough to leave but there may have been orders to shoot anybody who tried taking off without prior authorization. I could be way off on that one but I don't think that cars hadn't left in three years just because there weren't anymore running. I'd assume it was a safety measure to conserve fuel and to keep the "bad guys" :D out.

Shemp

20-Jan-2007, 11:40 PM

I distinctly recall a quote in Premiere magazine (January 2005, with capsule new items on the year's upcoming movies) wherein Romero was quoted something to the effect that LAND was 3 years after the outbreak.

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 12:20 PM

Day certainly looks more desolate than Land, but they did mention that they lost comunication with other outposts. Zombies in FL would likely decay faster than in PA. The original script for Day was set 5 years after the outbreak, but the only reference to time in the film was Sarah telling Logan he was advancing theories advanced months ago.

This is indeed a key piece of evidence why Day happens after Land. And it is not just the decay seen on the zombies themselves, but the decay and desolation seen in everything! The world in Land is still reasonably in better shape, thus pointing to its closer time to when things were still maintained by humans, while the world of Day looks like a wasteland, thus pointing to its farther away time to when things were still maintained by humans.

The communication issue in Day is also interesting because it shows that even the government itself seems to be "gone", these guys holed up in the bunker can't contact anyone anymore, not even their bosses in Washington. In Land even privately run ventures like that of Kauffman are still going on strong. As bad as it is, there is still obvious hope for humanity in Land. The human population is in fact still quite high, enough to man entire cities, nothing like the proportions calculated by Dr. Logan in Day, where surviving humans are vastly outnumbered by zombies and the future looks quite bleak for humanity indeed.

Additionally, some of the characters in Land seem to be quite ignorant about the zombies and things associated with them that by force anyone who has lived long enough in this nightmare scenario would be very familiar with. For example, Slack has no friggin' idea how long it takes for a bitten person to die and come back as a zombie (the answer to this issue that is clearly implied in Land is in itself a great nitpick, as it contradicts previously established things in Dawn.) Ignorance of this issue is something that only happens very early on during the series, like in Dawn, when Peter has to inform the other characters about it. No one in his right mind will dispute that Dawn happens much earlier than Land. In Day no one is unaware of this issue, though. They are all perfectly familiar with the process.

When you pay attention to all such details, it becomes clearer that Land cannot have taken place after Day. Whether Romero intended the opposite or not is besides the point. The fact is that the way he made both movies it implies that the world of Day has to be further away in time from the early days of the zombie disaster than the world of Land.

As for the people who are trying to argue that "there is no timeline" in Romero's Dead movies, think again. No one in his right mind will dispute that Night happens earlier than Dawn (and I don't mean the chronological order in which the movies themselves were made, I mean within the context of the movies.) No one will try to dispute that Diary and Survival also happen during the early days of the zombie outbreak, also before Dawn. And no one in his right mind will try to dispute that Dawn also happens before both Land and Day. The only problem, then, comes between Day and Land, where things are less clearly deduced as to which one happened earlier.

EvilNed

06-Feb-2016, 12:54 PM

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 01:06 PM

I disagree with some of your points but in the end, I think it can be viewed in both ways. I think it's meant to be viewed as Land taking place after Day. That's how I view it. In Day, it's pretty obvious to me that they're no more than a year at most into it. The key to it is the scene where McDermott tells the soldiers off of how bad it's gotten out there. The soldiers don't seem to have fully realized that the world out there is gone and it won't be coming back.

In Land it seems as if people have realizes this - and a long time ago - and after that realization decided to rebuild. The societal development in Land is a sign to me that they're further into the apocalypse. They've HAD time to rebuild, something that they haven't in Day.

McDermott was just making a wisecrack to the soldiers' "find anything?" simple question. Nothing else can be derived from it. Everyone in that bunker seems quite well aware of how bad things have gotten.

The reason why we see no societal development in Day is simply because most people are in fact actually dead. Dr. Logan gives us his calculation of how uneven the odds are between zombies and humans. This is quite different from the world of Land where there's plenty of people around even to be able to man entire cities. Thus Land happens at an earlier time when the odds between zombies and humans were not as disproportionate.

EvilNed

06-Feb-2016, 02:22 PM

McDermott was just making a wisecrack to the soldiers' "find anything?" simple question. Nothing else can be derived from it. Everyone in that bunker seems quite well aware of how bad things have gotten.

The reason why we see no societal development in Day is simply because most people are in fact actually dead. Dr. Logan gives us his calculation of how uneven the odds are between zombies and humans. This is quite different from the world of Land where there's plenty of people around even to be able to man entire cities. Thus Land happens at an earlier time when the odds between zombies and humans were not as disproportionate.

I disagree on both points. To Logan's knowledge, nobody is alive. But that knowledge is guesswork based on McDermotts unreliable information.

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 02:43 PM

I disagree on both points. To Logan's knowledge, nobody is alive. But that knowledge is guesswork based on McDermotts unreliable information.

Dr. Logan's calculation is the educated guess of a scientist who has been living through this whole situation and who gets further info on it from the soldiers and the other civilians. If anyone is in a position to make an educated guess about how bad the situation has gotten it is him. We can see with our own eyes that he is not far off the mark either, just by looking at the sample of how the big cities are like in the world of Day: nothing but zombies, desolation and decay everywhere! They have been going around with the helicopter and sending communication signals all over the area and get no response from anyone. We see nothing in the movie to contradict that good ol' "Dr. Frankenstein" is right on track. The world of Day looks quite hopeless. Very different from the still fairly organized and populated world of Land.

shootemindehead

06-Feb-2016, 03:39 PM

While Florida may have gone to shit. It doesn't mean that elsewhere in the States couldn't be operating under conditions like the walled city in 'Land of the Dead'.

McDermott points out that they can't talk to Washington "all the time" now because the relays are gone and he's relying on old WWII signals in a hit and hope manner. So, it's possible that while Florida is pretty much a "dead place", two states across could be holding up much better.

You're taking localised situations and extrapolating that to a "world". However, the stories take place in far too small a space to do such a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree with some of your points but in the end, I think it can be viewed in both ways. I think it's meant to be viewed as Land taking place after Day. That's how I view it. In Day, it's pretty obvious to me that they're no more than a year at most into it. The key to it is the scene where McDermott tells the soldiers off of how bad it's gotten out there. The soldiers don't seem to have fully realized that the world out there is gone and it won't be coming back.

In Land it seems as if people have realizes this - and a long time ago - and after that realization decided to rebuild. The societal development in Land is a sign to me that they're further into the apocalypse. They've HAD time to rebuild, something that they haven't in Day.

Yeh. 'Land of the Dead' struck me as a regrouping of people and an attempt to structure something as a sort of enclave after losing the war basically. It's obvious that they operate alone and are not in touch with the outside world, because to them their is no outside world.

The folk in 'Day of the Dead' are still trying to contact other people and are coming to the realisation that "maybe we are the only ones left alive.'

The period problems with the film, though, are technical in nature and that's down to George not being careful enough, or just not caring that much.

EvilNed

06-Feb-2016, 03:52 PM

Dr. Logan's calculation is the educated guess of a scientist who has been living through this whole situation and who gets further info on it from the soldiers and the other civilians. If anyone is in a position to make an educated guess about how bad the situation has gotten it is him.

I disagree. His theory is only guesswork at best. The best of scientists can come up with the most inaccurate calculations if based inadequate or unreliable evidence, which his is. Florida is obviously deserted. That doesn't mean the rest of the US is, we have no idea of what the rest of the world is like. Proto-Fiddler's Green is out there somewhere, gangs forming to create some kind of society.

I agree with shootem's post. The world in Land strikes me as just as dead as the one in Day. The difference is that the people in Land have accepted this, whereas much of the conflict in Day revolves around them not having done so yet. They are still in the "denial" phase.

MinionZombie

06-Feb-2016, 04:19 PM

I agree with Shoot and Ned.

Land is after Day. No doubt.

Plus the very explicit mention of "3 years" in the garage scene when Riley goes to get his motor for his planned exodus from the city to strike out Northwards. Day is blatantly months up to a year into the outbreak.

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 06:12 PM

While Florida may have gone to shit. It doesn't mean that elsewhere in the States couldn't be operating under conditions like the walled city in 'Land of the Dead'.

If a state like Florida has become a wasteland, it goes without saying that states further up north are going to be even worse. It is far easier to survive in more temperate climates than in colder ones. There is a reason why all civilizations started in temperate climates. Even in Dawn, which is not that long after the zombie outbreak, things are so bad in cities like Philadelphia that humans are fleeing and avoiding them like the plague.

McDermott points out that they can't talk to Washington "all the time" now because the relays are gone and he's relying on old WWII signals in a hit and hope manner. So, it's possible that while Florida is pretty much a "dead place", two states across could be holding up much better.

Not only Florida, but Washington itself is regarded in the same breath. When Sarah talks about other survivors in Washington she clearly refers to other people holing up in bunkers, not large cities full of people. It is very obvious that by the time of Day human survival is spoken of in much smaller numbers, not the unthinkable scenario of entire cities populated by thousands of people as seen in Land. No such thing is regarded as possible by the time of Day. The soldiers in fact are very skeptical that even any shelters with any people are left anywhere in Washington. Needles to say let alone any big cities full of people.

You're taking localised situations and extrapolating that to a "world". However, the stories take place in far too small a space to do such a thing.

No, the people in the bunker have been in contact with others up to about the time of the events we see in the movie, and it is clear by the context of doom and desperation of their discussions that the exact same situation seen in Florida is happening elsewhere. The very fact that Logan keeps taunting Rhodes with the "where will you go, captain?" question, and he does not have any answer whatsoever to it, forcing him to swallow his pride in front of his men, also tells us that the situation is virtually the same all over the place: zombies freely roaming everywhere & very few people left hiding in some places.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeh. 'Land of the Dead' struck me as a regrouping of people and an attempt to structure something as a sort of enclave after losing the war basically. It's obvious that they operate alone and are not in touch with the outside world, because to them their is no outside world.

Not quite. To the people in the time of Land zombies are still rather more like a nuisance than a real death sentence for civilization. We don't see them desperately trying to deal with the zombie problem like we see in Day. They are also obviously aware of other survivor groups besides them. Kaufman even has an escape plan to these other populated areas, just in case it gets real bad in his own turf. Totally different scenario from the almost total doom atmosphere of Day, where there are hardly any places left to go anymore to find any other survivors.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. His theory is only guesswork at best. The best of scientists can come up with the most inaccurate calculations if based inadequate or unreliable evidence, which his is. Florida is obviously deserted. That doesn't mean the rest of the US is, we have no idea of what the rest of the world is like. Proto-Fiddler's Green is out there somewhere, gangs forming to create some kind of society.

If Florida has gotten that bad by the time of Day, imagine other areas, like Pennsylvania, for example, where things were getting so bad already by the time of Dawn that people were fleeing the area!

I agree with shootem's post. The world in Land strikes me as just as dead as the one in Day. The difference is that the people in Land have accepted this, whereas much of the conflict in Day revolves around them not having done so yet. They are still in the "denial" phase.

Not at all. The world of Land still has hopes and dreams, unlike the world of Day, where basic survival is the only thing left to people. We see this all over the place in Land. People in that time still can have hopes for something better. The rather "casual" attitude of most citizens towards the zombies is very telling. To them zombies are still more like a "nuisance" than a real problem that spells the doom of humanity. Not the totally doomy scenario of the time of Day by any means.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with Shoot and Ned.

Land is after Day. No doubt.

Plus the very explicit mention of "3 years" in the garage scene when Riley goes to get his motor for his planned exodus from the city to strike out Northwards. Day is blatantly months up to a year into the outbreak.

Hardly. Land is very obviously taking place before Day.

And there is nothing suggesting that Day takes place after only months or a year from the outbreak. Just by looking at how decayed is the city that we see, we can tell that quite a longer time has elapsed. It is in fact quite in contrast to the places we see in Land, which still look in better shape.

EvilNed

06-Feb-2016, 06:17 PM

If Florida has gotten that bad by the time of Day, imagine other areas, like Pennsylvania, for example, where things were getting so bad already by the time of Dawn that people were fleeing the area!

Not at all. The world of Land still has hopes and dreams, unlike the world of Day, where basic survival is the only thing left to people. We see this all over the place in Land. People in that time still can have hopes for something better. The rather "casual" attitude of most citizens towards the zombies is very telling. To them zombies are still more like a "nuisance" than a real problem that spells the doom of humanity. Not the totally doomy scenario of the time of Day by any means.

That's just the thing tho; Imagine. Logan is only guessing. He has no idea. Anything can have happened that Logan wasn't aware of. Fiddler's Green could have sprung up anywhere. Dr. Logan was just observing Florida and then basing his worldwide estimation on that observaton - which leaves a huge margin-of-error.

Anyway, I think the state of the world in Day and Land are on equal levels of decay. In Day tho, the characters haven't even accepted the new state order of things, whereas in Land they have and then rebuilt. But by now we're just repeating the same arguments and I have to say I don't agree with yours at all. If you don't agree with mine I can only say "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 06:44 PM

That's just the thing tho; Imagine. Logan is only guessing. He has no idea. Anything can have happened that Logan wasn't aware of. Fiddler's Green could have sprung up anywhere. Dr. Logan was just observing Florida and then basing his worldwide estimation on that observaton - which leaves a huge margin-of-error.

Anyway, I think the state of the world in Day and Land are on equal levels of decay. In Day tho, the characters haven't even accepted the new state order of things, whereas in Land they have and then rebuilt. But by now we're just repeating the same arguments and I have to say I don't agree with yours at all. If you don't agree with mine I can only say "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

The "imagine" here is rhetorical. Read it as "it goes without saying". If Florida has gotten that bad, it is not difficult at all to deduce that other areas will be as bad, if not even worse. Pennsylvania, for example, is even the very place where the zombie outbreak happened. And even by Dawn it is so bad that those who can simply flee the big cities there. And the people in the bunker were in communication with what was left of the government in Washington. They surely must have known how bad the situation was elsewhere. From their desperation and doom-filled discussions and "where will you goes?" we can easily deduce that what Washington told them about the situation in general, something like cities full of survivors was simply unthinkable. The things we see happening in Land simply could not have happened at the time of or after Day.

Something like "Fiddler's Green" is an unthinkable scenario by the time of Day. Survivors are not in any position to rebuild anything. They are too busy trying to achieve even basic survival.

EvilNed

06-Feb-2016, 06:49 PM

The "imagine" here is rhetorical. Read it as "it goes without saying".

This I do not agree with at all, but I can do nothing but just repeat what I said earlier;

Dr. Logan was just observing Florida and then basing his worldwide estimation on that observaton - which leaves a huge margin-of-error.

The margin-of-error part is the key. It's impossible for him to have made a reasonable survey of the situation from their isolated bunker in Florida. Impossible.

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 07:58 PM

This I do not agree with at all, but I can do nothing but just repeat what I said earlier;

Dr. Logan was just observing Florida and then basing his worldwide estimation on that observaton - which leaves a huge margin-of-error.

The margin-of-error part is the key. It's impossible for him to have made a reasonable survey of the situation from their isolated bunker in Florida. Impossible.

Again, keep in mind that all this time they have been in Florida they have been in communication with other survivors as well, particularly with what's left of the government in Washington. During the events that we see in the movie they have lost contact with other survivors, and are trying to get the communication with anyone else going on again (but without success.) They do have a good idea of how the situation is elsewhere. Logan is not making a wild calculation out of the blue but one based on all the information he has had up to that time about the situation.

shootemindehead

06-Feb-2016, 08:32 PM

If a state like Florida has become a wasteland, it goes without saying that states further up north are going to be even worse. It is far easier to survive in more temperate climates than in colder ones. There is a reason why all civilizations started in temperate climates. Even in Dawn, which is not that long after the zombie outbreak, things are so bad in cities like Philadelphia that humans are fleeing and avoiding them like the plague.

Pennsylvania is hardly the North Pole. It IS a temperate climate. Florida, on the other hand is HOT most of the year around and can be, frankly, unbearable in the Summer. It's actually classed as a sub tropical climate.

However, you're missing the point. It's not about temperate climates. It's about where people find themselves and the situations they find themselves in at a particular time. In a scenario where the world is gone to shit and there are millions of creatures out there that call you dinner, you don't get to just move state as if nothing is going on. That kind of thing has to be planned well in advance and even then the difficulties outweigh the possible benefits. Most people would simply stay put and make do, if the situation was stable enough for them to do so.

There's no mass communication available in George's world, so people would band together and survive as best they can, with the people they happen to find themselves with at the time. Until something better came along.

It's clear from the dialogue in 'Day of the Dead', that Sarah and the crew have been operating a government project, set up "in a matter of weeks" but not too long ago. It was set up when order was still available and relay communication was available with the nations capital. It's all there in the dialogue.

'Land of the Dead' presents a world where the living and dead have normalised their situations to a large degree. The human characters are corralled in a part of Pittsburgh that they've fought to hold onto and that's small enough for them to control and fashioned a sort of society. A society that still clings to old ways. But it's clear that the humans have accepted that they are the minority the LAND of the dead.

Not only Florida, but Washington itself is regarded in the same breath. When Sarah talks about other survivors in Washington she clearly refers to other people holing up in bunkers, not large cities full of people. It is very obvious that by the time of Day human survival is spoken of in much smaller numbers, not the unthinkable scenario of entire cities populated by thousands of people as seen in Land. No such thing is regarded as possible by the time of Day. The soldiers in fact are very skeptical that even any shelters with any people are left anywhere in Washington. Needles to say let alone any big cities full of people.

Sarah's talking about GOVERNMENT officials holding up in Washington as they would have "better facilities". That's all. There's no mention of anybody else. The fact that there's a government at all and that the people in the missile silo "used to talk to Washington all the time" is a clear indication of Day of the Dead's position in the series.

That doesn't mean that something like a Fiddler's Green couldn't exist. It certainly possible that a band of humans could have fought to create a fortress of some sort as it looks like they did. It's also possible that the zombies had moved on en mass to another area, allowing them to fortify the small area of the city that they did. There's watches posted all around the controlled area of the city (most of which is shown abandoned BTW) who keep an eye on the possible entry points into where the humans are holed up. It's not beyond the realms of possibility and it's certainly not "unthinkable" at all.

Also, where are you getting the idea that there are "thousands" of people? There's nothing in 'Land of the Dead' to suggest such a thing.

To me it looks like a few hundred, perhaps bolstered by travelers who find the enclave and they've managed to create some sort of stable society of sorts, as best they can, even if it is clinging onto some bad old ways. Supplies seem woefully low, facilitating the need to go "further and further out" on supply runs. There's clearly nothing left in the city that can be scavenged, hence the need to hit the burbs and the countryside.

No, the people in the bunker have been in contact with others up to about the time of the events we see in the movie, and it is clear by the context of doom and desperation of their discussions that the exact same situation seen in Florida is happening elsewhere.

No it's not. It's not clear at all. It's only suggested that they've been flying up and down the Florida coast, but have found "nothing...nothing at all". They're doing this because they still think that there are people left and that they'll find them. They land in Ft. Lauderdale, which can't be too far from the missile silo location, at the beginning of the film hoping to find people. A Bell Jet Ranger will only get you so far. So, their scouting is very limited.

The people in 'Land of the Dead' aren't even bothering to scout, except for supplies.

The very fact that Logan keeps taunting Rhodes with the "where will you go, captain?" question, and he does not have any answer whatsoever to it, forcing him to swallow his pride in front of his men, also tells us that the situation is virtually the same all over the place: zombies freely roaming everywhere & very few people left hiding in some places.

This is countered by the fact that Rhodes still believes that there are places he can go to. He wouldn't if he absolutely knew the whole country was a busted flush.

However, the simple fact is that the people in 'Day of the Dead' are still searching for other people.

EvilNed

06-Feb-2016, 08:40 PM

Again, keep in mind that all this time they have been in Florida they have been in communication with other survivors as well, particularly with what's left of the government in Washington. During the events that we see in the movie they have lost contact with other survivors, and are trying to get the communication with anyone else going on again (but without success.) They do have a good idea of how the situation is elsewhere. Logan is not making a wild calculation out of the blue but one based on all the information he has had up to that time about the situation.

Both McDermott and Sarah admit that there are probably others out there somewhere. McDermott, the only character really qualified to speak about their communication situation, says that he's sure that there's others but there's nobody operating as old equipment as they are. Logan would be getting his estimates from McDermott. Even with this in mind, I can't remember Logan even saying that there's no other survivors out there. He just says that they're hopelessly outnumbered - which they are even in Fiddler's Green a few years down the road.

The thing is that you can't pick ONE location (I.e. Florida) as an example for the entire world. I'm not going to contest that much of the world is a wasteland - Day is proof of that - but to rule out any other pockets of survivors based nothing more than the local survey's done by Sarah and her team is to me not a very convincing argument. Again, even Sarah admits to this.

Buuut anyway, in the stages of dealing with grief Denial (as in Day) comes way before Acceptance (Land). Only once you accept a situation can you move on, which is what they've done in Land. I've seen no convincing arguments from the "Day takes place after Land"-side of things so far... But I'm all ears, I enjoy the discussion.

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 10:30 PM

Pennsylvania is hardly the North Pole. It IS a temperate climate. Florida, on the other hand is HOT most of the year around and can be, frankly, unbearable in the Summer. It's actually classed as a sub tropical climate.

Florida would be a much better place to survive and even attempt to re-take living areas than places further up north. Yet humans couldn't pull it off there. What makes you think they could be more successful in less forgiving climates?

However, you're missing the point. It's not about temperate climates. It's about where people find themselves and the situations they find themselves in at a particular time. In a scenario where the world is gone to shit and there are millions of creatures out there that call you dinner, you don't get to just move state as if nothing is going on. That kind of thing has to be planned well in advance and even then the difficulties outweigh the possible benefits. Most people would simply stay put and make do, if the situation was stable enough for them to do so.

That would have applied to Washington, Florida and any other place. And yet we see that the situation has gone bad all the same and humans are hardly anywhere to be seen anymore. The point of the more benign climates is that it is one thing less you have to worry about. It makes it easier for you to concentrate on other aspects of survival. Yet we see that in the generally good climate of a place like Florida humans still have quite failed to push the zombies back and retake the living spaces for them. Can you imagine something like this happening any easier in the middle of winter? Not only have you got to worry about not being killed by zombies, you have to worry about not freezing to death. Give me the choice of having to survive on my own all year round for the rest of my life in Florida or in Pennsylvania, and I will chose the first one without thinking it twice, and I am not even taking a zombie situation into account here, just normal survival.

There's no mass communication available in George's world, so people would band together and survive as best they can, with the people they happen to find themselves with at the time. Until something better came along.

At the time of Dawn there still is mass communications available. The characters of that film derive a lot of their information on what's happening almost everywhere through TV broadcasts. And it looks pretty bad already, even at that early stage. By the time of Day the situation is totally desperate. The time of Land occupies an intermediate position between the two.

It's clear from the dialogue in 'Day of the Dead', that Sarah and the crew have been operating a government project, set up "in a matter of weeks" but not too long ago. It was set up when order was still available and relay communication was available with the nations capital. It's all there in the dialogue.

And who better to keep them informed of what is happening at a national level than the government itself! And so you see the pervasive atmosphere of doom and desperation among the survivors in Day.

Sarah's comment is about how long it took to put the project together, not how long it has been going on. There is a big difference. The scientists were complaining that the equipment, working conditions and the supply of chemicals they had at their disposal was not entirely adequate for the task at hand, and this is because not enough time was taken (by their bosses in Washington) to plan things better. That does not mean that they have been down there for just a few days or weeks. The fact that they have even built a corral, have gone out there and gathered a whole bunch of zombies and put them in the corral to have specimens readily at hand for research purposes already implies that these people have been working there for quite a good amount of time.

'Land of the Dead' presents a world where the living and dead have normalised their situations to a large degree. The human characters are corralled in a part of Pittsburgh that they've fought to hold onto and that's small enough for them to control and fashioned a sort of society. A society that still clings to old ways. But it's clear that the humans have accepted that they are the minority the LAND of the dead.

Land presents a world where the zombies still are not seen as total doom. People can still hope for better things to come or better places to go to. This is practically all gone by the time of Day. The situation now is "if we don't do something about the zombies we are all doomed!". Plus Land implies the existence of other survivor enclaves. They are hardly unique or alone. In Day even finding evidence of any other survivors seems like quite a task, one that is never fulfilled.

Sarah's talking about GOVERNMENT officials holding up in Washington as they would have "better facilities". That's all. There's no mention of anybody else. The fact that there's a government at all and that the people in the missile silo "used to talk to Washington all the time" is a clear indication of Day of the Dead's position in the series.

An indication that says that even the government itself has gone into hiding in bunkers and as of now has very disturbingly gone totally silent! So yes, it clearly tells us what Day's position is in the series: just about a step away from total doom. Very different from the still very much hopeful world of Land and its large numbers of survivors and civilization pockets.

That doesn't mean that something like a Fiddler's Green couldn't exist. It certainly possible that a band of humans could have fought to create a fortress of some sort as it looks like they did. It's also possible that the zombies had moved on en mass to another area, allowing them to fortify the small area of the city that they did. There's watches posted all around the controlled area of the city (most of which is shown abandoned BTW) who keep an eye on the possible entry points into where the humans are holed up. It's not beyond the realms of possibility and it's certainly not "unthinkable" at all.

Also, where are you getting the idea that there are "thousands" of people? There's nothing in 'Land of the Dead' to suggest such a thing.

To me it looks like a few hundred, perhaps bolstered by travelers who find the enclave and they've managed to create some sort of stable society of sorts, as best they can, even if it is clinging onto some bad old ways. Supplies seem woefully low, facilitating the need to go "further and further out" on supply runs. There's clearly nothing left in the city that can be scavenged, hence the need to hit the burbs and the countryside.

Not only do we see large crowds of people, many of whom don't even know or have seen each other, but we can easily infer that this city is quite populous from all the things going on in it. They even have the manpower and resources available to not only maintain and run underground railways and all sorts of vehicles, but even build sophisticated armored ones with computers, fireworks, machine guns & rockets!!! Civilization, with all its pros and cons, is very much going on at Fiddler's Green quite undisturbed by the whole zombie situation. This advanced level of civilization needs quite an infrastructure to be able to work as we see in the movie. This city is obviously quite populated, organized and thriving. Even social classes and all their usual problems have been maintained. All of this is a far cry from the desolation and decay of civilization of any kind, even rudimentary ones, in Day, where the most people can hope for is to somehow manage to survive.

No it's not. It's not clear at all. It's only suggested that they've been flying up and down the Florida coast, but have found "nothing...nothing at all". They're doing this because they still think that there are people left and that they'll find them. They land in Ft. Lauderdale, which can't be too far from the missile silo location, at the beginning of the film hoping to find people. A Bell Jet Ranger will only get you so far. So, their scouting is very limited.

Not only have they been scouting the area for miles, but they have also been sending radio signals all over the place in the hope of establishing communication with anyone. But nothing, zero, zilch, niet, nada. Plus you forget that before that they also had been having regular communications with the government itself. If anyone could keep these guys well informed of how desperate the situation was it was their own bosses in Washington. The whole atmosphere of Day is filled with doom for humanity. Once again, very, very, very, very different from the scenario we see in Land, where humans are still quite hopeful and civilization can still go on.

The people in 'Land of the Dead' aren't even bothering to scout, except for supplies.

Because they hardly need to look for survivors when they already have a whole city quite packed with them! To them this is hardly an issue to worry about. Finding booze and food would be something to worry about, though, with such a large demand for them. Survivors are "a plenty" in the world of Land. Plus they also are aware that there are other survivor enclaves in other areas. Kaufman even has an emergency escape route planned to end up in any of these other populated places just in case "the shit hits the fan" in his own turf.

This is countered by the fact that Rhodes still believes that there are places he can go to. He wouldn't if he absolutely knew the whole country was a busted flush.

However, the simple fact is that the people in 'Day of the Dead' are still searching for other people.

Rhodes can't answer Logan's simple question. One of the reasons he resents Logan is because, as John points out, "the old Doc can talk him silly". The fact is that when Rhodes threatens that he and his men will abandon the bunker and leave the scientists behind he really does not know of any place to go to that is safe for sure, and perhaps also has other survivors. Logan knows it, that's why he puts him in his place in front of everyone with that simple question. Once again showing that in Day the situation for survivors is quite desperate. The zombie crisis has spread practically everywhere. There's relatively few places left to try to go to and survive. In fact, if I was them, I would have rather stayed in the bunker until no more supplies made it imperative to find some other place. The longer you can hole up in that place the better and the less risks you would have to take trying to survive out there. They actually had a good thing going in that bunker compared to how the situation was outside!

- - - Updated - - -

Both McDermott and Sarah admit that there are probably others out there somewhere. McDermott, the only character really qualified to speak about their communication situation, says that he's sure that there's others but there's nobody operating as old equipment as they are. Logan would be getting his estimates from McDermott. Even with this in mind, I can't remember Logan even saying that there's no other survivors out there. He just says that they're hopelessly outnumbered - which they are even in Fiddler's Green a few years down the road.

The thing is that you can't pick ONE location (I.e. Florida) as an example for the entire world. I'm not going to contest that much of the world is a wasteland - Day is proof of that - but to rule out any other pockets of survivors based nothing more than the local survey's done by Sarah and her team is to me not a very convincing argument. Again, even Sarah admits to this.

Buuut anyway, in the stages of dealing with grief Denial (as in Day) comes way before Acceptance (Land). Only once you accept a situation can you move on, which is what they've done in Land. I've seen no convincing arguments from the "Day takes place after Land"-side of things so far... But I'm all ears, I enjoy the discussion.

McDermott doubts his own statements regarding survivors, and Sarah even clearly implies that whatever survivors can be expected are going to be holed up in shelters, just like themselves. Nowhere there's even the faintest glimmer of hope for something like Fiddler's Green a few years back the road still being around anywhere in Day. The most they can hope for is to make contact with any survivors anywhere. Quite different from the more hopeful world of Land, where survivors even can afford the luxury of hoping to get their hands on a vehicle and moving out to somewhere else!

But you keep failing to notice that Sarah and the others not only know about how grave the situation is from what they have seen with their own eyes, but also from all the past communications they have had with Washington. Their almost hopeless view of the world is based on all these factors. They know very well that it is not only Florida that has practically become a wasteland. This is not any isolated incident. These guys from Day are working hard to solve the zombie situation in a desperate attempt to save humanity from extinction. On the other hand, the people in the time of Land were mostly busy having sex, drugs, booze, hot-dogs and rock'n'roll instead, and even "worrying" about whether one day they might manage to get a nicer apartment. Oh, you poor babies! You really were having a tough time "surviving", didn't you? Anyone can easily see how totally different both worlds are and the respective attitudes towards life and the future of both groups of survivors. That's because Land happens at an earlier time when the zombie situation had not gotten as bad as in Day. That simple. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Land, with its still quite advanced level of civilization and relative safety, can possibly happen after the practically doomed world of Day.

sandrock74

06-Feb-2016, 10:39 PM

The only way to insist Land is set prior to Day is to be willingly obtuse and/or read things into the spoken dialogue that isn't there. Can't we just bury this tired argument once and for all?

JDP

06-Feb-2016, 11:04 PM

The only way to insist Land is set prior to Day is to be willingly obtuse and/or read things into the spoken dialogue that isn't there.

It's actually the opposite. One has to be very unperceptive and "obtuse" to try to place the world of Land, with all its still prevalent hopes and dreams for the future of mankind, as being later than that of Day, with its gloomy atmosphere of hopelessness for the future of mankind, which can only be reached by trying to deny the evidence plainly seen and/or implied by both movies.

EvilNed

07-Feb-2016, 06:37 AM

McDermott doubts his own statements regarding survivors, and Sarah even clearly implies that whatever survivors can be expected are going to be holed up in shelters, just like themselves. Nowhere there's even the faintest glimmer of hope for something like Fiddler's Green a few years back the road still being around anywhere in Day. The most they can hope for is to make contact with any survivors anywhere. Quite different from the more hopeful world of Land, where survivors even can afford the luxury of hoping to get their hands on a vehicle and moving out to somewhere else!

You are making assumptions that not even the characters themselves are making. This is just silly. I disagree not only with your theory but I also think you're making things up that aren't in the film.

But you keep failing to notice that Sarah and the others not only know about how grave the situation is from what they have seen with their own eyes, but also from all the past communications they have had with Washington. Their almost hopeless view of the world is based on all these factors. They know very well that it is not only Florida that has practically become a wasteland. This is not any isolated incident. These guys from Day are working hard to solve the zombie situation in a desperate attempt to save humanity from extinction. On the other hand, the people in the time of Land were mostly busy having sex, drugs, booze, hot-dogs and rock'n'roll instead, and even "worrying" about whether one day they might manage to get a nicer apartment. Oh, you poor babies! You really were having a tough time "surviving", didn't you? Anyone can easily see how totally different both worlds are and the respective attitudes towards life and the future of both groups of survivors. That's because Land happens at an earlier time when the zombie situation had not gotten as bad as in Day. That simple. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Land, with its still quite advanced level of civilization and relative safety, can possibly happen after the practically doomed world of Day.

It is possible for different stages of civilization to exist in different parts of the world. The Egyptians cultivated land 3000 years before the Germans did. What you're doing is the equivalent of taking a snapshot of a neolithic german stone age tribe and adamantly stating that "it's obvious all human life is at the same stage of development". Human society doesn't work this way. Just because the people in Day are stuck in a bunker, doesn't mean the people of Fiddler's Green aren't holed up in a skyscraper.

Anway; Day = Denial. Land = Acceptance. This is the different outlook on life that Land and Day has that you claim "anyone" can see. Day is a few months in. Maybe a year. They are in the denial phase. Land is several years in. They've rebuilt. They're in the acceptance phase. I'd also like to point out what shootem said, another point for this is that in Day they keep looking for survivors - in Land they don't even bother. They know there aren't any. Case closed.

JDP

07-Feb-2016, 10:36 AM

You are making assumptions that not even the characters themselves are making. This is just silly. I disagree not only with your theory but I also think you're making things up that aren't in the film.

Things that aren't in the film? Have you been paying attention to what McDermott and Sarah actually say on this topic? Here let me quote it for you:

Rickles: How can that be, McDermott? There must be other groups like us. Somebody else must be tryin' to radio.

Johnson: Yeah. What the hell is this? Maybe we are the only ones left.

McDermott: I'm sure there's others.

*this is the part of McDermott's statements that you are selectively trying to use, but you conveniently forget what follows a bit later, showing that he really doubts his own earlier statement*

McDermott: ...But the fact is... the fact is, either we are the only ones left, or there's no one within range of my puny Second World War radio signals.

After more careful consideration, McDermott now admits that it is very possible there is no one else left. There is no total conviction on his part on either possibility. The fact is that despite all his efforts, he can't establish communication with anyone any more.

Now what Sarah says about other survivors in Washington, the ones that they used to communicate with:

Sarah: You have to give us however long it takes! Look... there have to be survivors in Washington. They have more sophisticated shelters than this one. There have to be people in those shelters who know about us, who know where we are. With no radio contact, they'll come looking for us...

So there you have it. Whatever survivors are left that they expect to establish contact with or who might come looking for them are holed up in shelters, just like them. Do not try to accuse me again of "making up things up that aren't in the film". Just because that other user above made that silly gratuitous accusation doesn't mean it is true. Instead pay attention to what they are saying and the implications of their statements, actions, attitudes, reactions, etc. and apply plenty of logic and common sense to it to derive conclusions.

It is possible for different stages of civilization to exist in different parts of the world. The Egyptians cultivated land 3000 years before the Germans did. What you're doing is the equivalent of taking a snapshot of a neolithic german stone age tribe and adamantly stating that "it's obvious all human life is at the same stage of development". Human society doesn't work this way. Just because the people in Day are stuck in a bunker, doesn't mean the people of Fiddler's Green aren't holed up in a skyscraper.

Your comparison in fact is very similar to what I said about survival and basic civilization more easily being achieved in hotter climates. Other than that, it is comparing apples and oranges. The people in Day are not stuck in a bunker for the hell of it or because they want to. It is because they haven't got many choices. Sure, they can leave if they want to, but as Logan keeps asking, "where will you go?". Don't you think that if pretty much the whole country had not become like Florida that these people would not be stupid enough to stay in such a danger zone and would actually pack their bags and move to a safer area to continue their work? Give these characters more credit. As Rhodes says, "I'm not down in this cave for my health, I'm down here on orders!" If they are there doing what they are doing is because their bosses in Washington considered it extremely important for this research to go on in an effort to try to stop the desperate zombie situation taking place not just in Florida, but everywhere.

Anway; Day = Denial. Land = Acceptance. This is the different outlook on life that Land and Day has that you claim "anyone" can see. Day is a few months in. Maybe a year. They are in the denial phase. Land is several years in. They've rebuilt. They're in the acceptance phase. I'd also like to point out what shootem said, another point for this is that in Day they keep looking for survivors - in Land they don't even bother. They know there aren't any. Case closed.

Anyway: Day = few survivors left, one step away from total doom, people in desperate search for how to stop the zombie plague. Land = loads of survivors still left, general complacency in front of the not-yet-as-bad zombie situation, people still try to go on with their normal lives and even hope for a better future. This is the true different outlook that any perceptive person will easily see between both movies. There is nothing in Day that suggests that only a few months or a year has passed. In fact, just by looking at how decayed the city that we see in Day is we can easily discard that possibility right out. People in Day are in the desperately looking for a way to defeat the vastly superior number of zombies that have taken over the land phase. The people in Land are still in a very complacent phase where the zombies have still not totally affected their lives for the worst yet. For them looking for a way to eliminate the zombie problem is still not a priority, as long as they can more or less continue with their lives. Land is still a hopeful world. I'd like to point out that what shootem said is quite wrong, and that the people in Land in fact do know about other human outposts (Kaufman himself is responsible for some of these, which he has established on purpose just in case things get really bad in his turf; once again, pay attention to the movie instead of making gratuitous assertions), and since there still are so many survivors left around, looking for them is hardly any priority, quite unlike Day, where finding any survivors has become quite a task. Case really closed until someone else can actually refute these observations.

EvilNed

07-Feb-2016, 11:21 AM

Uhm, I think you're reading things into McDermott's lines that aren't there. All he admits is that there's nobody they can reach with their out-of-date equipment. That's the only thing he will admit is a fact.

Don't you think that if pretty much the whole country had not become like Florida that these people would not be stupid enough to stay in such a danger zone and would actually pack their bags and move to a safer area to continue their work?

No. Seeing as they are only just beginning to question their situation, there hasn't been time enough for them to already contemplate moving their base. They're still following orders. Denial-phase...

Anyway: Day = few survivors left

I'm sorry, but I can't keep this argument going becuase you keep going back to the same arguments which are based on very broad generalizations. I've tried pointing this out several times, but you keep dodging this bullet altogether. So I'm out. Agree to disagree.

shootemindehead

07-Feb-2016, 02:06 PM

Florida would be a....

Sorry lad. This is reams and reams of contradiction and I don't have the time to keep batting back and forth.

Bottom line is everything the viewer needs to know about George's Living Dead timeline is in the films. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics and outright denial to ignore it.

JDP

07-Feb-2016, 02:31 PM

Uhm, I think you're reading things into McDermott's lines that aren't there. All he admits is that there's nobody they can reach with their out-of-date equipment. That's the only thing he will admit is a fact.

Not only does he plainly refer to the possibility that they might be the only ones left, but listen to the somber tone of voice with which he delivers that line. I am reading exactly what he is trying to convey. Both are likely possibilities.

No. Seeing as they are only just beginning to question their situation, there hasn't been time enough for them to already contemplate moving their base. They're still following orders.

Also since there isn't any for sure safe place to go to. That's the point. Had there been such a place they could easily have left and headed for there, specially after communications stopped and their superiors in Washington apparently were no longer around. After communications cease, and it doesn't look like they are going to be established again, we see Rhodes getting cocky and threatening to cancel the whole project and leaving. He obviously feels like he no longer has to respond to anyone for his actions.

Denial-phase...

What you label "denial-phase" = desperation phase. They either find a solution to the zombie problem or humanity will likely go the way of the dodo bird.

I'm sorry, but I can't keep this argument going becuase you keep going back to the same arguments which are based on very broad generalizations. I've tried pointing this out several times, but you keep dodging this bullet altogether. So I'm out. Agree to disagree.

The arguments are all based on logical consequences and inferences from what we see in both movies. For example, do you seriously think that in all their communications with Washington these people down in Florida did not even once ask something like "hey, how is the situation up there?"? We can very logically conclude that they were being informed of what was going on up there. The fact that they know that what's left of the government itself is hiding in shelters already should have told you that they are informed about going-ons elsewhere. That's why their arguments about how desperate things have gotten and how there aren't much choices left or places to go to take place. Had it been only a local Florida situation they could simply have left. Easy problem, easy solution. Just move to Texas, or Washington, or anywhere out of Florida and presto, zombie problem left behind. But no, it's not that simple. These people know very well that their choices are limited because the zombie crisis is happening everywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry lad. This is reams and reams of contradiction and I don't have the time to keep batting back and forth.

Contradiction? You might as well ask yourself the question: would it be easier to survive on your own for the rest of your life in a tropical country or in Siberia? Just to use even more extreme scenarios. Somehow I suspect you really know what the right answer is, but simply don't want to concede the point.

Bottom line is everything the viewer needs to know about George's Living Dead timeline is in the films. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics and outright denial to ignore it.

That's exactly what one would have to do to convince oneself that the relatively careless and still hopeful world of Land with its plethora of survivors and still going on civilization can conceivably happen after the on-the-brink-of-doom world of Day with its scarcity of survivors and almost total collapse of civilization.

shootemindehead

07-Feb-2016, 02:33 PM

Contradiction? You might as well ask yourself the question: would it be easier to survive on your own for the rest of your life in a tropical country or in Siberia? Just to use even more extreme scenarios. Somehow I suspect you really know what the right answer is, but simply don't want to concede the point.

This is ridiculous.

Pittsburgh is not Siberia.

JDP

07-Feb-2016, 02:43 PM

This is ridiculous.

Pittsburgh is not Siberia.

That's why I said it is a more extreme scenario.

If you had to survive a zombie situation for the rest of your life in either Florida or Pennsylvania, I think you already know which one would be easier too.

EvilNed

07-Feb-2016, 02:48 PM

Sorry lad. This is reams and reams of contradiction and I don't have the time to keep batting back and forth.

Bottom line is everything the viewer needs to know about George's Living Dead timeline is in the films. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics and outright denial to ignore it.

Agreed with this.
I'm not following you at all, JDP.
I understand what your conclusions are. But your thought process at how you arrived at them ignore to many aspects and are based on pretty much nothing but guess work.
This to me is a case of; "This is how I want it to be. Now I'm going to bend everything to fit that conclusion and ignore everything that contradicts it."

I mean, some arguments I can at least understand. Like the pot plant at the beginning of Day. But this is absurd.

JDP

07-Feb-2016, 03:29 PM

Agreed with this.
I'm not following you at all, JDP.
I understand what your conclusions are. But your thought process at how you arrived at them ignore to many aspects and are based on pretty much nothing but guess work.
This to me is a case of; "This is how I want it to be. Now I'm going to bend everything to fit that conclusion and ignore everything that contradicts it."

I mean, some arguments I can at least understand. Like the pot plant at the beginning of Day. But this is absurd.

Which arguments you are having a problem understanding? You don't really have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out many things which the movies do not specifically show but nonetheless imply for logical reasons. Like I asked you before, do you seriously think that these people in the Florida bunker never even once would have bothered to ask their superiors in Washington what the situation was up there in those parts? Really? Then how can they know that the situation is so bad that they are holing up in shelters just like they are? This is one example where we don't need to have everything spelled out for us in black & white to be able to deduce it. Washington is obviously knee-deep into it, just like Florida and everywhere else is. Again, it is not rocket science to easily deduce this from what the movie shows and implies.

In another thread, another user was puzzled as to why would the soldiers know that the silo was back there in the corral caves since it is not specifically mentioned in the movie. It seems he was quite unable to deduce on his own from all that we see in the movie that the soldiers must have been well acquainted with the layout of those caves.

I suppose some people are truly puzzled as to how can police detectives deduce that someone is the killer when they did not actually see it happen with their own eyes. There's a couple of wonderful things called "logic" and "deduction" that many times allow them to perform this "magic" of putting two and two together and catch the bad guy nonetheless.

EvilNed

07-Feb-2016, 05:12 PM

Which arguments you are having a problem understanding? You don't really have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out many things which the movies do not specifically show but nonetheless imply for logical reasons. Like I asked you before, do you seriously think that these people in the Florida bunker never even once would have bothered to ask their superiors in Washington what the situation was up there in those parts? Really? Then how can they know that the situation is so bad that they are holing up in shelters just like they are? This is one example where we don't need to have everything spelled out for us in black & white to be able to deduce it. Washington is obviously knee-deep into it, just like Florida and everywhere else is. Again, it is not rocket science to easily deduce this from what the movie shows and implies.

Look, the bare bones of my problem with this argument of yours is just that it's based on such extreme assumptions. Of course they asked Washington. You're right about that part. Now here's my counter-argument;

The soldiers and scientists were completely unaware that there wasn't anyone around IN THEIR BACKYARD up until Sarah told them they'd gone a 100 miles each way and looked. Up until that point they were oblivious. Had no clue. Steele even retorts, flabbergasted, "how far up the coast'd you go?" suggesting that they were really unaware of how bad it was. But you expect me to believe that somehow weeks or months old reports from Washington are supposed to contain enough information that they can deduce that "Hey, they're all dead up there. No doubt about it. In fact I can deduce from the background noise in the radio chatter that we are the only ones left in the entire US. But heck, there might be someone over there in Fort Meyers!"

(by the way, A 200 miles of florida coastline is not even a fifth of Florida's ENTIRE coastline. Yet somehow, they just got around to checking that out NOW, 3+ years into it?)

And that's why I don't understand your argument. I just don't get how you come up with the results you do when your arguments are more or less made up from thin air... No offense or anything, I just don't think it makes any sense... At all!

- - - Updated - - -

Here's another thing I thought off;

The characters in Day don't know each other very well. Let's assume that Day takes place after Land, which places is 3+ years after the apocalypse.
So during the entire 3 year stay in the bunker, Sarah somehow never visited Flyboy and McDermott out in The Ritz? Despite the fact that there's a total of initially 18 and dwindled down to 12 persons in the entire bunker?
In addition, Ted when he talks to Sarah feels the need to give Rhodes a little bit of a character presentation. As if she hasn't really had to do with Rhodes before. A few months in, sure. But 3+ years into it? Holy shit, she'd know every little thing about him!

JDP

07-Feb-2016, 09:21 PM

Look, the bare bones of my problem with this argument of yours is just that it's based on such extreme assumptions. Of course they asked Washington. You're right about that part. Now here's my counter-argument;

The soldiers and scientists were completely unaware that there wasn't anyone around IN THEIR BACKYARD up until Sarah told them they'd gone a 100 miles each way and looked. Up until that point they were oblivious. Had no clue. Steele even retorts, flabbergasted, "how far up the coast'd you go?" suggesting that they were really unaware of how bad it was. But you expect me to believe that somehow weeks or months old reports from Washington are supposed to contain enough information that they can deduce that "Hey, they're all dead up there. No doubt about it. In fact I can deduce from the background noise in the radio chatter that we are the only ones left in the entire US. But heck, there might be someone over there in Fort Meyers!"

(by the way, A 200 miles of florida coastline is not even a fifth of Florida's ENTIRE coastline. Yet somehow, they just got around to checking that out NOW, 3+ years into it?)

And that's why I don't understand your argument. I just don't get how you come up with the results you do when your arguments are more or less made up from thin air... No offense or anything, I just don't think it makes any sense... At all!

But here you are making an assumption yourself: what makes you think that they haven't been to other areas of Florida before this particular reconnaissance trip? This is the first time that they go up and down this particular area, yes, but where does it say that they have never scouted other areas? Two things for your consideration:

1- Their fuel supply is not limitless. Obviously they must be careful how they spend it. They can't go on long helicopter rides very often.

2- Sarah says that they have rounded up zombies "on top... in the wild" (she is obviously referring to that bunch of zombies in the corral caves), so that means they have also been making excursions on land. At the point of the events we see in the movie it is too dangerous to do so, as we can see from all the zombies accumulating at the fence, but at some point in the past, when the situation was not as bad yet, they must have gone out there and explored the area on foot or land vehicles in search for zombies, before the zombies were so numerically superior as to be too dangerous to attempt to capture them. So their knowledge of the area is not limited to helicopter reconnaissance.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's another thing I thought off;

The characters in Day don't know each other very well. Let's assume that Day takes place after Land, which places is 3+ years after the apocalypse.

I have my doubts that Land really takes place 3 years after the zombie outbreak. There's two references to 3 years in the movie, and both of them are a bit vague and ambiguous:

Riley:What did you do to my car?

Some guy (mechanic or just a bum living in the garage?): What car? The last car I drove out of this town was three years ago.

Maybe the guy has lived all his life in this city, long before the zombie outbreak, and that was really the last time he drove a car out of the city. We have no information whatsoever about this guy so we don't know.

The other 3 year reference:

Cholo to Kaufman: How long have I been working for you? Three years?

Do we know for sure that Cholo wasn't already working for Kaufman before the outbreak? Kaufman is a scumbag crook, not unlikely at all that he already had henchmen working for him quite before the zombie situation.

Another thing to consider: during the opening sequence of the film we hear TV/radio reports of these outposts (like Kaufman's) being established:

People are said to be establishing outposts in big cities, and raiding small rural towns for supplies, like outlaws.

This is very obviously during the early times of the zombie outbreak, while mass media was still on the air.This is all gone by the time of Day. Even by the end of Dawn there no longer is any more mass media on the air. More food for thought for all those wanting to persist in the paradoxical notion that the almost total apocalypse and collapse of civilization of Day supposedly happened before Land.

Also, while on the topic of Land: does it sound logical to you that some characters in this movie can be so ignorant about the zombies if they have really lived through at least 3 years of an ordeal like the one we see in Day that has nearly wiped out civilization? Slack has no friggin' clue how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, Riley has to inform her (Riley knows because he is one of the survivors who is in frequent confrontation with the zombies, while the majority of people in the city barely have had any encounters with them.) Can you seriously imagine any survivor in the apocalyptic world of Day being so ignorant about the zombies? The only time we see people being ignorant of what zombie bites do to people are in the series' entries that take place earlier on during the outbreak. By the time of Day no one ignores this.

So during the entire 3 year stay in the bunker, Sarah somehow never visited Flyboy and McDermott out in The Ritz? Despite the fact that there's a total of initially 18 and dwindled down to 12 persons in the entire bunker?
In addition, Ted when he talks to Sarah feels the need to give Rhodes a little bit of a character presentation. As if she hasn't really had to do with Rhodes before. A few months in, sure. But 3+ years into it? Holy shit, she'd know every little thing about him!

Sarah has a pretty low opinion of both McDermott and John, until she gets to know them better. Before that she just sees them as kind of "leeches": two civilians under government contract taking minimal risks but taking full advantage of the facilities and its supplies. So what prompted Sarah to want to get to know them better? Rhodes and his recent dictator-style military take-over of the operation. John basically saves Sarah from getting shot in cold blood by Rhodes' command. Before this take-over, Rhodes is a subordinate to Major Cooper, he can't do what he wants yet. But now that he has taken over command after Major Cooper's death, and there is also no longer any more communications with their superiors in Washington, Rhodes shows his true colors: a total tyrant whose word is the law.

EvilNed

07-Feb-2016, 10:18 PM

sandrock74

08-Feb-2016, 04:05 AM

EvilNed

08-Feb-2016, 07:40 AM

I had no idea. But now that you mention it, I used to work as a paper boy and I know what rain does to newspapers.
I enjoy the discussion because it's been a long time we had any about Romero's films. But I wish we could move on to some other topic - I've been trying to think of one. Maybe it's time to rewatch the films?

shootemindehead

08-Feb-2016, 03:59 PM

JDP

08-Feb-2016, 05:03 PM

Good point about the newspaper at the start of Day, Ned. Further proof it can't be too far into the zombie apocalypse. I spent six years working at a newspaper and trust me, they don't last so much as six months outdoors, much less 3+ years.

The mental gymnastics JDP is employing to "prove" his theory is rather astounding. I think he's yanking everyone's chain at this point.

You are just assuming that newspaper page was all the time on the streets. That city looks like a mess, with even money flying around, which obviously must have come from inside the bank building at some point. There is nothing preventing newspapers that were being stored in some home, office or car from also eventually having found their way outside, just like the money did. Now, if instead of looking at something as easily moved by the wind as a newspaper page you would take a look at how decayed the cars and the corpses we see on the streets are, you get a much better impression of how long it has really been.

EvilNed

08-Feb-2016, 05:30 PM

I honestly don't think George's level of thought goes that far when he's making his pictures TBPH. I just can't see him sitting down and wondering about the decomposition time for newspaper. Of course, the paper could have been sitting on a table for ages and then found itself on the street in Ft. lauderdale somehow....damn it, now I'm doin it!!!!!!!

I agree with this. I don't think the newspaper is a sign of anything for reasons that it's probably not MEANT to be a sign of anything. But if we're gonna super analyze the film, you would have to take it into consideration - in which case the newspaper would put Day at... Tops a year after the apocalypse. And that's tops. Florida is pretty rainy and storms are frequent so it wouldn't last that long.

BUT as I've already stated, let's not even START GOING DOWN THAT ROAD.
Just like we shouldn't with the news broadcasts in Land, because they're just there to give exposition.

JDP

08-Feb-2016, 06:04 PM

I'm sorry, but we're not discussing the validity of Land taking place 3 years after the apocalypse. It's clearly states so in the film. It does, and anything else is denial. I love how you can ignore such clearly stated points and at the same time manufacture excuses for everything in Day pointing to them not having been in the bunker that long tho...

Where does Land clearly state that it has been 3 years? There's only two mentions of years in the movie, and neither one of them clearly says that it is the amount of time it has passed since the outbreak. The only thing the movie does specifically say about this subject of a time-frame is during the starting sequence: "some time ago" and "today". Couldn't be more vague and imprecise if it tried to!

I'd love tp hear some real arguments but this is all just to contrived. You have to bend reality to make ypur arguments work.

What's that, no counterarguments for any of the points and observations explained above? I thought so.

As for the media at the start of day, thats exposition. It'd be like accusing Day of taking place the same time that newspaper we see in the first scene was published - they both fill the same role in the storytelling; BRINGING US UP TO SPEED.

The voices describing what's going on at the beginning of Land are obviously from news broadcasts from all over the world, they are in fact in several languages and by different voices (i.e. the reporters.) What they are describing are things that happened quite before the already devastated world of Day where there no longer is any mass media around. Even before Dawn ends there no longer is any mass media around.

By the way, on the subject of the Florida explorations by the people in Day, listen to Miller's sarcastic remark and John's angry response when they are entering the bunker from their latest effort:

Miller: Another waste of time, right?

John: You got that right, man!

These guys have obviously been looking for signs of any other survivors before the exploration we see in the movie. And from such remarks it is clear that all of them have been a total failure.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with this. I don't think the newspaper is a sign of anything for reasons that it's probably not MEANT to be a sign of anything. But if we're gonna super analyze the film, you would have to take it into consideration - in which case the newspaper would put Day at... Tops a year after the apocalypse. And that's tops. Florida is pretty rainy and storms are frequent so it wouldn't last that long.

BUT as I've already stated, let's not even START GOING DOWN THAT ROAD.
Just like we shouldn't with the news broadcasts in Land, because they're just there to give exposition.

The difference is that the newspaper is an old printed piece and could easily have been carried by the wind to the streets from some building or car, just like the money from the bank we also see on the streets. All this stuff is old and through chance has found its way to the desolate streets. But the news broadcasts from the beginning of Land could not possibly have happened in the world of Day. They are much earlier. So the human outposts we see in Land must have been established early on during the outbreak. Now explain how in blazes can these privately manned outposts with huge numbers of survivors and still technologically advanced enough to be able to even build armored vehicles with computers, radios, machine guns and rockets have gone totally unnoticed by both Washington and the Florida survivors of Day if they were still around in that desolate devastated world where even what's left of the government itself is hiding in shelters? And it goes without saying that if Washington was still maintaining communications with people all the way down in Florida it would easily have been in communication with people in much nearer Pennsylvania! The idea that the world of Land happened after that of Day is quite unrealistic within the context of these movies.

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't think George's level of thought goes that far when he's making his pictures TBPH. I just can't see him sitting down and wondering about the decomposition time for newspaper. Of course, the paper could have been sitting on a table for ages and then found itself on the street in Ft. lauderdale somehow....damn it, now I'm doin it!!!!!!!

Indeed, as fun as they are, Romero's zombie movies are quite packed with all sorts of problems and contradictions precisely because he didn't spend as much time nitpicking his own work as some of us do.

EvilNed

08-Feb-2016, 08:16 PM

What's that, no counterarguments for any of the points and observations explained above? I thought so.

Yes. Plenty. You ignored all of them. But just scroll up and you'll read 'em. I'm still waiting for you to explain a few things, like why the characters in Day don't know each other despite spending 3+ years in a bunker together or why they've only just now began exploring... 3+ years into it.

The voices describing what's going on at the beginning of Land are obviously from news broadcasts from all over the world, they are in fact in several languages and by different voices (i.e. the reporters.) What they are describing are things that happened quite before the already devastated world of Day where there no longer is any mass media around. Even before Dawn ends there no longer is any mass media around.

This is the equivalent of me saying "Day takes place in a time when newspapers are still printed, because there's a newspaper at the very start of it". It's exposition. That's it. Some of them are even news bulletins from what sounds like Day 1 of the zombie outbreak and then CUT TO what is obviously not Day 2...

By the way, on the subject of the Florida explorations by the people in Day, listen to Miller's sarcastic remark and John's angry response when they are entering the bunker from their latest effort:

Miller: Another waste of time, right?

John: You got that right, man!

These guys have obviously been looking for signs of any other survivors before the exploration we see in the movie. And from such remarks it is clear that all of them have been a total failure.

Absolutely. This isn't their first trip. But two things;
They haven't gotten very far. They've only scouted 100 miles each way. They haven't even scouted out all of Florida.
Second, the characters in Land don't even bother scouting anymore (this is, by the way, one of the points you never adress).

The difference is that the newspaper is an old printed piece and could easily have been carried by the wind to the streets from some building or car, just like the money from the bank we also see on the streets. All this stuff is old and through chance has found its way to the desolate streets. But the news broadcasts from the beginning of Land could not possibly have happened in the world of Day. They are much earlier. So the human outposts we see in Land must have been established early on during the outbreak. Now explain how in blazes can these privately manned outposts with huge numbers of survivors and still technologically advanced enough to be able to even build armored vehicles with computers, radios, machine guns and rockets have gone totally unnoticed by both Washington and the Florida survivors of Day if they were still around in that desolate devastated world where even what's left of the government itself is hiding in shelters? And it goes without saying that if Washington was still maintaining communications with people all the way down in Florida it would easily have been in communication with people in much nearer Pennsylvania! The idea that the world of Land happened after that of Day is quite unrealistic within the context of these movies.

Who says Fiddler's Green went unnoticed by Washington? I got the impression that it was a Rescue station that survived the ordeal and bloomed into a community.
Also, I don't know how you can expect the Florida team to know about it, considering they don't even know what's in Florida...

Occam's Razor states;
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Yours is nothing but assumptions, which is why I find it silly. Let me list them...

You assume the newscast at the start of Land is actually taking place within the timeframe of Land, despite some of the reports being obvious "Day 1"-reports.
You assume the Florida guys are up-to-date on the entire US situation via days/weeks/months old information from Washington despite not even knowing what's a 101 miles up the coast.
You assume that Washington is no longer around in Day, something which not even the characters assume (as per Sarah's dialoge)
You assume that Land doesn't take place 3 years into the future, despite expositional dialoge to the contrary. You can say what you want about this but those are not throwaway lines - those lines are there to indiciate a passage of time. Nobody in the audience cares if the car mechanic had a rough 2,5 years prior to the apocalypse and thus did not service a car for that amount of time - upon which there's then 0,5 years of a zombie apocalypse - totalling the 3 years mentioned in his dialoge. But this is what you assume.
You assume the newspaper was actually indoors until such a time that dramatic events called for it to appear outside so that we could see it.
You assume that the characters spent years in their bunker, despite them not even knowing each other.
You assume that just because the Florida guys haven't found any survivors in the direct vicinity surrounding them with their admittedly out-of-date technology - there are None.

Some of these assumptions are quite absurd.
At the same time you refuse to make the most basic assumptions; Like that when the car mechanic and Cholo refer to some kind of event 3 years ago, they're referring to the apocalypse. A reasonable assumption. It is exposition after all.
You also refuse to assume that just as there are survivors in a bunker in Day, totally cut off from the world, that there are survivors elsewhere. Also a reasonable assumption.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Occam's Razor.

The reason I don't bother arguing your points anymore is because all your points are extraordinary assumptions based on nothing more than... Your whims, I think?

JDP

08-Feb-2016, 11:37 PM

Yes. Plenty. You ignored all of them. But just scroll up and you'll read 'em. I'm still waiting for you to explain a few things, like why the characters in Day don't know each other despite spending 3+ years in a bunker together or why they've only just now began exploring... 3+ years into it.

It is you who keeps ignoring all the observations, implications and deductions that can be rather easily gathered from all that we see in both movies.

This is the equivalent of me saying "Day takes place in a time when newspapers are still printed, because there's a newspaper at the very start of it". It's exposition. That's it. Some of them are even news bulletins from what sounds like Day 1 of the zombie outbreak and then CUT TO what is obviously not Day 2...

I already told you that comparing an old newspaper page being swept by the wind from who knows where with TV/radio broadcasts (they do NOT remain on the air forever, you know?) is comparing apples & oranges. Plus there is an obvious progression in the broadcasts, starting from, as you say, the first zombie incidents, but also up to the establishment of the outposts. The point at hand being that this last bit of information was also from around the time when news broadcasts were still around. So the establishment of these outposts even predates the end of Dawn, let alone the fully devastated world of Day.

Absolutely. This isn't their first trip. But two things;
They haven't gotten very far. They've only scouted 100 miles each way. They haven't even scouted out all of Florida.
Second, the characters in Land don't even bother scouting anymore (this is, by the way, one of the points you never adress).

Of course I addressed it, you must not be paying attention. They don't bother to look for survivors because they already got TONS of them! The people of Land are quite unconcerned about looking for more mouths to feed and very concerned with doing what the broadcast report very aptly describes as "raiding small rural towns for supplies, like outlaws" (we in fact see Riley's team doing just that a bit after the intro.) They need food, booze, medicines, etc. for the LOADS of survivors the city already has. This is what's in demand, not more people! A whole different situation from the desolate and devastated world of Day, where finding survivors is more difficult than finding a needle in a haystack.

Who says Fiddler's Green went unnoticed by Washington? I got the impression that it was a Rescue station that survived the ordeal and bloomed into a community.
Also, I don't know how you can expect the Florida team to know about it, considering they don't even know what's in Florida...

Do you seriously expect us to believe that if Washington had known what was going on practically next door to them with these huge human outposts they would not have informed their own people down in Florida about it? Instead, what we see is the Florida people arguing and wondering if there is even anyone left in Washington itself anymore.

In fact, the very fact that the existence of these outposts was even reported by the mass media when it was still on the air ipso facto means that both Washington and the Florida team must have been aware that they WERE (key word, notice the PAST TENSE) there once upon a time. But now it is a very different world, where finding any survivors is a much more difficult task. Don't you think that if these outposts were still around in the time of Day anyone, specially Rhodes, could very easily have answered Dr. Logan's "where will you go?" poignant little question that shuts up everyone entertaining thoughts of leaving the bunker? It doesn't take a brain surgeon to easily see how Rhodes could easily have laughed in Logan's face and put him in his place instead if these outposts still existed: "Where will I go, egghead? Well, we are going to one of those outposts up north, Frankenstein, and we are leaving you and your high-falutin' asshole friends to rot in this stinking sewer!" However, no such thing happened because such outposts in the devastated world of Day are an unthinkable thing anymore. Survivors are in a much more desperate situation than those gone-by days when you could still find such outposts. The zombies have gained the upper hand in the world of Day. In the world of Land things were still a bit more even and pockets of civilization could still be found.

Occam's Razor states;
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Yours is nothing but assumptions, which is why I find it silly. Let me list them...

You assume the newscast at the start of Land is actually taking place within the timeframe of Land, despite some of the reports being obvious "Day 1"-reports.

There is obviously a natural progression in the reports, from "Day 1 reports" to things CLOSER in time to Land: the establishment of such outposts and raiding towns for supplies.

You assume the Florida guys are up-to-date on the entire US situation via days/weeks/months old information from Washington despite not even knowing what's a 101 miles up the coast.

You expect us to believe that Washington is not going to inform its very own people down in Florida of what is going on up there? In fact, like I told you further up, the very fact that the existence of such outposts was reported by the mass media already means that the people in Florida must have been aware of their existence. Even if for some bizarre reason Washington had not kept them up to date on the going-ons up there, it is simply inconceivable that those folks down in Florida could have been so oblivious to the existence of such outposts.

You assume that Washington is no longer around in Day, something which not even the characters assume (as per Sarah's dialoge)

I don't assume it, I simply say that Washington has gone strangely silent. Whether this is because they are all dead, gone or cannot maintain the necessary equipment to establish communications is another thing. But the fact is that the folks down in Florida haven't heard from Washington in a while. And they are very worried about this unnerving silence.

You assume that Land doesn't take place 3 years into the future, despite expositional dialoge to the contrary. You can say what you want about this but those are not throwaway lines - those lines are there to indiciate a passage of time. Nobody in the audience cares if the car mechanic had a rough 2,5 years prior to the apocalypse and thus did not service a car for that amount of time - upon which there's then 0,5 years of a zombie apocalypse - totalling the 3 years mentioned in his dialoge. But this is what you assume.

I don't assume it, I simply don't see any definitive evidence for it. The mechanic or bum (whatever he is, because not even who this guy actually is is clear at all) just defends himself from Riley's insinuation of theft by making a comment about him not having driven a car out of the city in 3 years. What does this supposedly prove? Maybe he lived all his life in the city, like Slack (who has never been out of the city in her whole life!), and he hasn't driven out in the said period of time. Where is the impossibility in this?

You assume the newspaper was actually indoors until such a time that dramatic events called for it to appear outside so that we could see it.

I don't assume it, I just offer it as another explanation, just as plausible as the windswept newspaper being there the whole time. Again, where is the supposed impossibility here?

You assume that the characters spent years in their bunker, despite them not even knowing each other.

I already told you why Sarah does not know McDermott and John very well: she does not like them much to begin with. She thinks they are basically parasites, taking advantage of the shelter and leeching off of its supplies while taking minimal risks themselves. She even tells them what she thinks of them to their faces when she first visits their living quarters. She only starts to like them and take an interest in them AFTER she is nearly shot in cold blood by Rhodes' orders and they save her. Both John and McDermott even had their hands on their guns ready to intervene just in case Rhodes had not called off Steel from executing his order and Sarah had not listened to John telling her to shut up and sit down. Had it not been for them, Sarah would have been shot. Rhodes was not kidding around.

As for Rhodes, before Major Cooper died he was a subordinate and not in charge. No one knew how much of a maniac and an a-hole he really was. This only comes to the surface in full after he takes over command. Even his buddy Steel -as much of an a-hole as he himself is- is at first surprised at Rhodes' level ruthlessness (notice his shocked reaction when it becomes clear that Rhodes does mean what he says and is even willing to shoot Steel if he does not carry out his order.)

You assume that just because the Florida guys haven't found any survivors in the direct vicinity surrounding them with their admittedly out-of-date technology - there are None.

You keep assuming that these people's desperation and sense of doom is only founded on their experience in Florida. But these people were actually in communication with the very government that sent them down there in the first place. For them to be this worried about the situation is because they have very good reasons to. Even their own people in Washington have gone into shelters. Unless you want to think that both Washington and the people in Florida were all deranged and blowing things out of proportion, which is plain silly, it is very easy to perceive how catastrophic the situation is in the world of Day, and why these people in Florida are contemplating things like taking the helicopter and trying to find some other place to go, like for example John's proposal of going to an island and isolating themselves from the mainland.

Some of these assumptions are quite absurd.
At the same time you refuse to make the most basic assumptions; Like that when the car mechanic and Cholo refer to some kind of event 3 years ago, they're referring to the apocalypse. A reasonable assumption. It is exposition after all.

A reasonable assumption, but it can also be explained by other reasonable assumptions. Can you prove that Cholo wasn't already working for Kaufman before the zombie outbreak? Can you prove that the mechanic/bum guy hasn't been living in that city all his life and that he really hasn't driven a car out of the city in that period of time?

You also refuse to assume that just as there are survivors in a bunker in Day, totally cut off from the world, that there are survivors elsewhere. Also a reasonable assumption.

I don't refuse to assume it, in fact I have been saying all along that in Washington there's evidence of other survivors hiding in bunkers as well, but I refuse to entertain the absurd idea that in a hopeless devastated apocalyptic world like Day there could possibly be sophisticated thriving outposts like the one we see in Land still around, specially considering that even the government itself has been forced into shelters. And even more absurd to consider that both Washington (which is hardly far away from Pennsylvania) and the people down in Florida are somehow miraculously oblivious to the existence of such places, even after news broadcasts had already reported their existence.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Occam's Razor.

The reason I don't bother arguing your points anymore is because all your points are extraordinary assumptions based on nothing more than... Your whims, I think?

They are logical deductions based on things shown and implied by the movies.

EvilNed

09-Feb-2016, 05:45 AM

Occam's razor.

There, I countered all of your arguments.

Stuff like this;

I don't assume it, I simply don't see any definitive evidence for it.

Is just crazy. It's exposition. Apocalypse was three years ago. That's why that line is there. If you're gonna nitpick this line, I'm gonna nitpick the newspaper. Your assumptions regarding it make no sense.

Occam's razor. Your theories are based on wild assumptions that rely on a whole lot of nonsense.

They are logical deductions based on...

1396

shootemindehead

09-Feb-2016, 09:30 AM

JFP,

You're starting with a conclusion and trying to come up with theories to fit it.

You're supposed to do it the other way around.

JDP

09-Feb-2016, 12:32 PM

Occam's razor.

There, I countered all of your arguments.

That hardly counters anything, as you have barely presented any counterarguments, all of which have been countered in their turn, by the way. In fact, Occam's Razor is on my side, not yours. You have presented few arguments that have been very easily answered, all based on things we can see, imply and/or deduce from these movies.

Stuff like this;

Is just crazy. It's exposition. Apocalypse was three years ago. That's why that line is there. If you're gonna nitpick this line, I'm gonna nitpick the newspaper. Your assumptions regarding it make no sense.

Show us any part of the movie that very clearly, unambiguously and straigthforwardly says "the apocalypse was three years ago"? The two quotes that mention years in the movie are vague enough to allow room for interpretation.

The newspaper page in Day is an old printed piece of paper for which we have zero information whatsoever about its whereabouts right before we see it on the streets being swept by the wind. Where did it come from? Prove to us that it has been on the streets all this time as opposed to, say, just a week ago before they payed a visit to the city?

Put that "Occam's Razor" mantra to actually work and see if you can come up with any actual answers. While you are at it, try to also apply it to these questions that still remain totally unanswered:

1- If the outposts of Land are still around by the time of Day then explain how come nobody in Washington or Florida seems to be aware of their existence?

2- If you answer that Rhodes & company are aware that the outposts of Land are still around, then explain why didn't they use their existence to stick it to Logan's face when he challenges them to find a safe place to go to, and instead we see them shut up and swallow their pride as if the impertinent doc is actually right?

3- If you try to argue that they were not aware of them, then explain how in blazes all of them failed to notice their existence from the news broadcasts? Are we seriously expected to believe that no one in Washington and Florida heard these public reports from the mass media?

4- If you try to argue that none of them heard the reports, then explain how come Washington has totally failed to notice such outposts on their own? Are we expected to believe that Washington can establish communications with people all the way down in Florida but bizarrely enough can't do the same with right next door Pennsylvania?

5- Explain how come the US government has been forced to go into shelters and can hardly maintain even its own communication networks anymore, yet paradoxically enough private crooks like Kaufman can still maintain cities with veritable armies of mercenaries, high tech weapons and communications, including even being able to build armored vehicles with computers, radio, fireworks, machine guns and long range rockets?

6- Explain why in the world of Land money still very much "talks" and people are even willing to kill for it and all it can still buy, while in the world of Day it is quite unimportant and instead trying to survive is the real priority?

Note: Rickles and others JOKING about "not getting paid" does not count; they are all obviously jesting due to Steel's sarcastic remark of "not being paid enough to work in a fucking loony bin" after Logan's seemingly bizarre answer. Cholo, on the other hand, is definitely not "jesting" when he threatens to blast Fiddler's Green if he is not paid the money he thinks he deserves. Kaufman is not "jesting" when he takes bags of money with him while trying to escape the city. None of the rich folks are "jesting" when they pay for luxurious apartments and go on shopping sprees. And so on. The world of Land still is a very much money-influenced place. The survivors in the city are still strongly divided by economic classes. The world of Day is definitely not. Trying to stay alive is the priority now for survivors.

7- Explain why the overrun zombie city in Day looks quite decayed, including rusting cars and totally decomposed corpses down to their bare bones, while in Land the zombie overrun locations look in better shape?

8- Explain why is it that some characters in Land can be so paradoxically ignorant about the zombies, like for example not knowing how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, if they have really been living for 3 years in the same totally apocalyptic world that we see in Day, where no one ignores such a thing anymore?

The above list are many of the problems one has to face if one chooses to believe that Land can somehow happen after Day.

Occam's razor. Your theories are based on wild assumptions that rely on a whole lot of nonsense.

They are based on things plainly seen and implied in the movies. The fact that you can't seem to come up with any solid counterarguments tells me that they are far from nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

JFP,

You're starting with a conclusion and trying to come up with theories to fit it.

You're supposed to do it the other way around.

I start with what the movies show, and from there I derive the conclusion, as it should be. The still fairly functional world of Land does not look at all like it could logically come after the totally messed up world of Day. That simple.

EvilNed

09-Feb-2016, 02:27 PM

That hardly counters anything, as you have barely presented any counterarguments, all of which have been countered in their turn, by the way.

Bullshit. Here, let me show you several things I've said that you've ignored.

Show us any part of the movie that very clearly, unambiguously and straigthforwardly says "the apocalypse was three years ago"? The two quotes that mention years in the movie are vague enough to allow room for interpretation.

Occam's razor. Should we assume that the two references to "three years ago" are to the apocalypse, or to two seperate cases of some other irrelevant event that happened three years ago, such as the car mechanic guy going out of business and Cholo working for Kaufman a bit before the apocalypse?
Occam's razor says I'm right.

The newspaper page in Day is an old printed piece of paper for which we have zero information whatsoever about its whereabouts right before we see it on the streets being swept by the wind.

Sorta like we have... you know... Zero information on a bunch of other things you assume? Like the communication between Washington and Florida?

1- If the outposts of Land are still around by the time of Day then explain how come nobody in Washington or Florida seems to be aware of their existence?

As I've already stated, the Florida gang doesn't even know what's in their backyard. As for Washington, we as an audience never hear from them or their communication with Florida. We don't know at what time they ended. We know nothing. But you assume that they know everything. Bullshit.

3- If you try to argue that they were not aware of them, then explain how in blazes all of them failed to notice their existence from the news broadcasts? Are we seriously expected to believe that no one in Washington and Florida heard these public reports from the mass media?

They probably did, however by then they were labelled as rescue stations. As I said, my take is that Fiddler's Green grew out of rescue stations. Since we don't know when the communication with Washington cut out - or even the details of their content - the rest is up for assumption (which is your forté, not mine...).

5- Explain how come the US government has been forced to go into shelters and can hardly maintain even its own communication networks anymore, yet paradoxically enough private crooks like Kaufman can still maintain cities with veritable armies of mercenaries, high tech weapons and communications, including even being able to build armored vehicles with computers, radio, fireworks, machine guns and long range rockets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

6- Explain why in the world of Land money still very much "talks" and people are even willing to kill for it and all it can still buy, while in the world of Day it is quite unimportant and instead trying to survive is the real priority?

I've never brought up the money issue. The money issue in Land is stupid. But as any catastrophe in history will tell you that money is just as useless in Day 2 as it is in Day 2002. So the presence of money in land is an anachronism no matter where in the timeline you put it. So this point is moot.

7- Explain why the overrun zombie city in Day looks quite decayed, including rusting cars and totally decomposed corpses down to their bare bones, while in Land the zombie overrun locations look in better shape?

It's not. In Land the pavement and buildings show sign of neglect, something the buildings in Day do not. A skeleton is a sign of a zombie lunch.
EDIT: Actually, upon further thought, I'd like to add that I think both movies feature equal amount of decay. But none more or less than the other.

8- Explain why is it that some characters in Land can be so paradoxically ignorant about the zombies, like for example not knowing how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, if they have really been living for 3 years in the same totally apocalyptic world that we see in Day, where no one ignores such a thing anymore?

Did you miss the entire premise of Land, that people have grown accustoumed to the new reality and are living apart from the zombies? If you did, well... That's the premise.

They are based on things plainly seen and implied in the movies. The fact that you can't seem to come up with any solid counterarguments tells me that they are far from nonsense.

I'm beginning to suspect you've seen nothing more than the trailer to Land at this point... You did notice they were a group of survivors surrounded in a completely dead, desolated and abandoned city, right..?

shootemindehead

09-Feb-2016, 06:12 PM

You did notice they were a group of survivors surrounded in a completely dead, desolated and abandoned city, right..?

/\

This.

Kauffman and co. control a building and a few streets below. The rest of the city is abandoned and empty. It's clear that they've corralled themselves into an area and spent time securing the outer areas. They've even set up electric fences, monitoring stations and various outposts, not to mention fashioned some bastardised form of a society, albeit a society that is have and have not to a vulgar level.

Even the Living and dead have come to terms almost. It's stated that the dead don't bother coming around so much any more. They're happy enough in the outer burbs.

Romero is making out that it's the humans that are infringing upon greater and greater areas of dead territory and the dead have had enough of it.

The whole bloody film implies that this is a situation that has been built up over a long time.

facestabber

09-Feb-2016, 08:08 PM

Whoa I missed some activity. In a nutshell, if Romero came on here and said Land is after Day, JDP would argue with him?

JDP

09-Feb-2016, 10:19 PM

Bullshit. Here, let me show you several things I've said that you've ignored.

Good, that would a be a first.

Occam's razor. Should we assume that the two references to "three years ago" are to the apocalypse, or to two seperate cases of some other irrelevant event that happened three years ago, such as the car mechanic guy going out of business and Cholo working for Kaufman a bit before the apocalypse?
Occam's razor says I'm right.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is hardly infallible and is perfectly capable of being wrong:

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor3.htm

Plus I can also come up with a reduction to simplicity kind of explanation for this case. Look: Cholo and the mechanic guy both worked for Kaufman 3 years ago quite before the zombie disaster, one was already one of his henchmen and the other was his mechanic. Very simple solution to two apparently separate incidents as being really simply the result of one: both men already worked for Kaufman before. Since neither you nor I have any further evidence on the subject of Cholo and the mechanic guy, neither one can prove which "Occam's Razor" solution is right or wrong here.

Sorta like we have... you know... Zero information on a bunch of other things you assume? Like the communication between Washington and Florida?

We know that they used to "talk to Washington all the time", that they are desperate to find any survivors, and to find a safe place to go to, don't we? That's a heck of a lot more than we know about a random newspaper that only gets like 5 seconds of screen time and -naturally- no dialogue whatsoever. So this is just another of your apples & oranges comparisons.

As I've already stated, the Florida gang doesn't even know what's in their backyard. As for Washington, we as an audience never hear from them or their communication with Florida. We don't know at what time they ended. We know nothing. But you assume that they know everything. Bullshit.

"Bullshit", as you say. The Florida gang know quite a lot about their "backyard". To the point that Miller can sarcastically "predict" it's all been yet "another waste of time", and John declare the city they just visited as "another dead place, like ALL THE OTHERS, you know".

As for Washington's frequent communication with the Florida team: does it sound very logical to you that they NEVER thought even once to ask Washington how things were in other parts of the country? Does it sound logical to you that Washington would mysteriously neglect to inform them about huge pockets of survivors not that far away from them? So let me get this straight, the Florida team are desperate enough to do their own explorations to try to find any survivors and also to try to maintain communications, but at the same time they are unbelievably neglectful not to ask any of this extremely relevant stuff to their superiors? And their superiors are equally neglectful enough not to have the foresight to let them know about any of this very important information? Is this a Romero zombie film or a The Three Stooges short?

They probably did, however by then they were labelled as rescue stations. As I said, my take is that Fiddler's Green grew out of rescue stations. Since we don't know when the communication with Washington cut out - or even the details of their content - the rest is up for assumption (which is your forté, not mine...).

The broadcasts clearly describe them as outposts manned by people who are also raiding towns for supplies, "like outlaws". These are quite more than just rescue stations, which would be manned by the government, so they would know it is not their doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Huh? What are you referring to? The article is quite big.

I've never brought up the money issue. The money issue in Land is stupid. But as any catastrophe in history will tell you that money is just as useless in Day 2 as it is in Day 2002. So the presence of money in land is an anachronism no matter where in the timeline you put it. So this point is moot.

It is not moot at all. It is very pertinent to the issue. Money "talks" in catastrophes too, as long as the infrastructure that works on and values the money still remains. The two World Wars, for example, were huge human catastrophes where millions upon millions of people lost their lives. Yet money continued to rule supreme all through and after. How can Land, then, take place after the total apocalyptic world of Day, where all form of organized society has collapsed and money no longer means much except for occasional jokes about past times, and yet have so much dependency on it? These are two totally different worlds. Land had to be from a time when money still mattered, despite how bad things were already getting. As we also see in Dawn, despite the quite bad situation that is already developing, money still had value (Peter and Flyboy take some of it from the mall's bank, just in case they might need it, and the bikers later are busy looting the rest.)

It's not. In Land the pavement and buildings show sign of neglect, something the buildings in Day do not. A skeleton is a sign of a zombie lunch.
EDIT: Actually, upon further thought, I'd like to add that I think both movies feature equal amount of decay. But none more or less than the other.

It is. The only neglect shown in the Land buildings are some overgrown plants. That's pretty much it. And it still does not look like 3 years worth of it. The neglect in Day can be seen all over the streets, quite more than in Land: rusty dirty cars, plant debris, corpses, garbage, money & papers flying around, etc. And the skeleton in Day is not torn to pieces, as would be the case had it been the victim of zombies. The zombies are also not so meticulous eaters that they will clean up a whole body. Once they've had their share, they move on. Dr. Rausch in Dawn already points out that they leave quite a lot of "food" untouched in the body of their victims, enough for them to still be mobile when they come back as zombies.

Did you miss the entire premise of Land, that people have grown accustoumed to the new reality and are living apart from the zombies? If you did, well... That's the premise.

If that's supposedly the premise, then Romero completely missed the mark, as this movie does not succeed at all in conveying any such thing. The fact that even some of the characters can be so ignorant about the zombies actually argues the opposite of becoming "accustomed" to them. The people of Day show way more familiarity with them. Nobody needs to inform anybody what zombie bites do to people in Day. Every single instance of ignorance of this topic in Romero's movies happens in the ones that take place earlier than Day. Even in Dawn there still is ignorance of what exactly is it that a zombie bite does to a person. Just like Riley and his men, who have seen it many times due to their frequent confrontations with the zombies, Peter knows it better too because he has more experience dealing with these creatures and has seen what their bites do. Fran and Flyboy, on the other hand, are just starting to become "accustomed" to the zombies and therefore need to be informed about it.

I'm beginning to suspect you've seen nothing more than the trailer to Land at this point... You did notice they were a group of survivors surrounded in a completely dead, desolated and abandoned city, right..?

Let's see, I am the one who actually quotes from the dialogue and describes many things that happen in the movie, while not many posts ago you thought I was "making things up", and I am supposed to be the one who has only seen the trailer??? Did you also notice the "group of survivors" was HUGE? It is so big, in fact, that many of them do not even know each other at all despite the fact that some of them have even been living all their lives in this city (and I don't mean like Sarah and McDermott & John not being in very friendly terms with each other until a certain point in the movie, I mean that they have to be even introduced to one another because otherwise they would have no clue who each other were; YES, THAT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE THIS CITY HAS!) This is nowhere even near the low level of survivors in Day. The world of Land looks like it still very well could have a future for humanity. The world of Day looks like anything but.

- - - Updated - - -

/\

This.

Kauffman and co. control a building and a few streets below. The rest of the city is abandoned and empty. It's clear that they've corralled themselves into an area and spent time securing the outer areas. They've even set up electric fences, monitoring stations and various outposts, not to mention fashioned some bastardised form of a society, albeit a society that is have and have not to a vulgar level.

Even the Living and dead have come to terms almost. It's stated that the dead don't bother coming around so much any more. They're happy enough in the outer burbs.

Romero is making out that it's the humans that are infringing upon greater and greater areas of dead territory and the dead have had enough of it.

The whole bloody film implies that this is a situation that has been built up over a long time.

No way, watch it again. Riley and Charlie walk through a lot of the city and its checkpoints. This place is quite big, and it has a LOAD of people in it. Such a place is quite unthinkable in the world of Day. Had anything even remotely similar to this city existed in Day, rest assured that we would see Rhodes and his men very quickly flipping the bird at the scientists and leaving them behind in the bunker without any hesitation whatsoever and heading straight towards it. There are no such safe havens left around anymore in Day.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoa I missed some activity. In a nutshell, if Romero came on here and said Land is after Day, JDP would argue with him?

It would be very interesting if he did. I would like to see him try to explain away many of these problems. Yes, I would argue with him. I would, of course, concede that that was his intention, after all he is the creator of both movies, but I would still argue that he did not do a good job trying to convey this idea.

PS: Notice that in Romero's "original script" for Day he clearly says that it takes place "five years" after the outbreak:

http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/dayofthedead.txt

I can very easily believe that. If this is the case, then the 3 years since the outbreak in Land are no longer a problem. The correct chronological order is still maintained. There is no nitpick here.

EvilNed

09-Feb-2016, 10:30 PM

Sorry, but I dont think youre making any sense. You!re also cherrypicking things and twisting every single event to fit your view of this while blatantly ignoring so many things in Land, while assuming to much about Day. (You also dont seem to know what expositional dialoge is)

Also, you should read the original Day script. Land is based on it. I was gonna bring it up earlier, but hey. It has the same theme of people "building a new world with rich and poor" as Land and both are set years into the future.

JDP

09-Feb-2016, 11:47 PM

Sorry, but I dont think youre making any sense. You!re also cherrypicking things and twisting every single event to fit your view of this while blatantly ignoring so many things in Land, while assuming to much about Day.

Such as? It seems to me that it is you who generally lacks counterarguments and must come to quite mistaken sweeping generalizations like above.

(You also dont seem to know what expositional dialoge is)

You mean like this?:

http://reelauthors.com/screenplay-coverage/expositional-dialogue.php

Notice this:

Always assume your reader is intelligent - they can often work things out for themselves. If you don't, you're doing them and yourself a disservice. If you clearly explain EVERYTHING, you're going to do yourself no favors with prodco readers.

Strange, since you often demand just that level of detail, like for example: we must know everything that went on between Washington and the Florida team. You don't want to reach logical conclusions on your own about it from other details, like for example: the idea that they never talked even once about how the situation was in other parts of the country is quite unrealistic for a people so concerned with issues like finding survivors and safe places to go to. Or the fact that Rhodes simply cannot confront Logan about not really having a safe place to go to, which his facial expression and total silence speak louder than any words whenever he is asked the "where will you go, captain?" question. It is not difficult at all to deduce that Rhodes really has no knowledge whatsoever of any safe place to go to. Nor does anyone else in the team. Now, how exactly could they possibly have not known about the outposts of Land if they supposedly were still around? As I showed you, their existence was even reported by the mass media before they went off the air. We don't even need to bring forth the logical conclusion that Washington would also have informed them of such places anyway. Can we seriously entertain the thought that none of the Florida team members knew about these places?

Also, you should read the original Day script. Land is based on it. I was gonna bring it up earlier, but hey. It has the same theme of people "building a new world with rich and poor" as Land and both are set years into the future.

I already read it years ago. That 5 year since the zombies first appeared premise of the original script could apply to the shortened and modified Day version that was shot.

facestabber

10-Feb-2016, 12:55 AM

The ZA would be much like a war zone. Here today, gone tomorrow. Some strong holds would remain. Some would fall. I'm sure that the Florida team was made aware of other possible "safe zones". The problem our Florida team faces is two fold. First of which is communications. They aren't working. What they knew may not remain accurate. The second is logistics of travel. A helicopter besides capacity has a point of no return. You go too far for a once perceived safe haven and its compromised you are in deep shit. Same goes for ground transport. Rhodes can't answer because they don't know anymore.

Land was a steaming pile of crap IMO. But I read it as society trying to make an isolated comeback. Not a before scene of Day. The zombies in land are a part of what Romero wanted for his original Day script. A nuisance. Society was used to it. For crying out loud, people were window shopping. Humans had got past the fear and that would have taken a long time. They found a way to coexist and weren't concerned about fixing the epidemic or saving other people. Im typing this on a damn phone so I will close with I believe Land was considerably after day. But Romero's approach left much to be desired.

EvilNed

10-Feb-2016, 07:08 AM

Such as? It seems to me that it is you who generally lacks counterarguments and must come to quite mistaken sweeping generalizations like above.

You take quotes from Day and break them down to suit your theory.
Then you do to the same to Land. The thing is, you have to add very long paragraphs to explain what these quotes "actually mean", when to everyone else it's quite obvious what they mean and there's no need to discuss it.
The newspaper/TV-spot is another one. You accept a far fetched theory about a newspaper, despite it being nothing but a dramatic tool to get information across, but you dismiss that the TV-spots in Land fill the same dramatic role.

Always assume your reader is intelligent - they can often work things out for themselves. If you don't, you're doing them and yourself a disservice. If you clearly explain EVERYTHING, you're going to do yourself no favors with prodco readers.

And here you're doing it again. You linked to a site on expositional dialoge and clinged to the one quote that supports you. This is why a discussion with you is impossible.
Try this instead;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative)

Narrative exposition, or simply exposition, is the insertion of important background information within a story; for example, information about the setting, characters' backstories, prior plot events, historical context, etc.

Strange, since you often demand just that level of detail, like for example: we must know everything that went on between Washington and the Florida team.

Wrong. I admit and always have, that we know nothing about their communication. But the difference is, since I don't know what they talked about, I make no assumptions from it. You concoct wild theories from it.
You think that becuase the characters do not Think there is anywhere to go, there is nowhere to go. This itself is a fallacy, since both you and I know the characters are not omniscient.

I already read it years ago. That 5 year since the zombies first appeared premise of the original script could apply to the shortened and modified Day version that was shot.

In the original Day script, the survivors have built up a new society, they're not looking for survivors and the higher classes are living comfortable away from the zombies.
Just like in Land.

- - - Updated - - -

Land was a steaming pile of crap IMO. But I read it as society trying to make an isolated comeback. Not a before scene of Day. The zombies in land are a part of what Romero wanted for his original Day script. A nuisance. Society was used to it. For crying out loud, people were window shopping. Humans had got past the fear and that would have taken a long time. They found a way to coexist and weren't concerned about fixing the epidemic or saving other people. Im typing this on a damn phone so I will close with I believe Land was considerably after day. But Romero's approach left much to be desired.

That's how it was meant to be read. But many aspect of it are retarded. Like the money.

MinionZombie

10-Feb-2016, 09:55 AM

But many aspect of it are retarded. Like the money.

I've never had a problem with the money aspect personally.

They've established their own mini city - and a mini economy to go along with it. Why not use a system that everything in that city already knows? People understand the values attached to the cash ... but it's interesting that there is such a schism between the haves and have nots in Land. The haves are entirely based on splashing the cash on themselves, and promising to splash cash on others (e.g. Cholo has money being kept for him - but he never receives it) ... meanwhile the have nots seem to have a mishmash of a system going on, which partly uses cash for services and goods, but they also combine that with bartering and favours, or just being decent folks (e.g. Riley giving the medication to the old man's son).

So using money in Land has never been a problem for me - if you're establishing a mini economy, why wouldn't those engineering it use a system that they (and everyone else) already knows? It also translates easily for the audience.

EvilNed

10-Feb-2016, 10:00 AM

Yeah, but money would only be of value inside Fiddler's Green. When Cholo pressures Kaufman for millions of dollars, what's he gonna do with it? How does he know that outpost in Cleveland uses money?

shootemindehead

10-Feb-2016, 01:49 PM

I already read it years ago. That 5 year since the zombies first appeared premise of the original script could apply to the shortened and modified Day version that was shot.

Except it doesn't, because Romero didn't have the shillings to make the 'Day of the Dead' he wanted, so instead opted for a paired back film set earlier than the 5 years he originally conceptualised, hoping that it would do well enough at the box office, so that he could make 'Twilight of the Dead' later on.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, but money would only be of value inside Fiddler's Green. When Cholo pressures Kaufman for millions of dollars, what's he gonna do with it? How does he know that outpost in Cleveland uses money?

I think Romero uses money to show that humans have learned nothing in their new world. We still "elevate" ourselves with greed and a currency is an easy way to do that, assuming everyone follows along, which the mini society within Fiddler's Green seems to be doing. Of course there wouldn't much choice. You either get with the program in a situation like that or you can leave and take your chances outside.

We simply cannot let go of our "comfort", regardless of what relevance it does or doesn't have in the real world.

As far as Cholo is concerned, money has been his raison d'etre for so long, he probably doesn't know any better and wants to get money from Kaufmann, which he might be able to use elsewhere...because, as Peter said in 'Dawn of the Dead'..."You never know".

More than likely, money has no use outside of the mini economy in Fiddler's Green though.

JDP

10-Feb-2016, 03:17 PM

You take quotes from Day and break them down to suit your theory.
Then you do to the same to Land. The thing is, you have to add very long paragraphs to explain what these quotes "actually mean", when to everyone else it's quite obvious what they mean and there's no need to discuss it.

They have to be explained because some people seem to have a very hard time coming to logical conclusions from them. For example, in another thread I had to break it down and explain to another user why the soldiers in Day must necessarily have known very well the layout of the corral caves and that the silo was back there, because he apparently could not derive this logical conclusion from what we see and hear in the movie on his own. This is a similar situation, I have to go very much out of the way to explain why fact A is very much pertinent to fact B and so on, because some of my interlocutors apparently have a great deal of trouble making the obvious connections and coming to logical conclusions.

The newspaper/TV-spot is another one. You accept a far fetched theory about a newspaper, despite it being nothing but a dramatic tool to get information across, but you dismiss that the TV-spots in Land fill the same dramatic role.

The newspaper of Day is a physical old piece of information that can remain around for a looooooong time. The news broadcasts of Land are happening while such things being reported were actually going on, and once they are gone, they are gone! Broadcasts do not remain on the air forever. The newspaper was being swept by the wind. How in blazes can you prove its whereabouts prior to when we see it in the movie??? But anyone can easily prove that a broadcast happens only when it is aired by a TV or radio station. We know that what we hear at the start of Land was current stuff going on at the time. The movie even tells you "sometime ago" (follow TV/radio broadcasts) and then "today" (follow Riley's team preparing to raid a town) to make it even clearer that what we are hearing on the air is stuff that happened earlier. You see why I have to go out of my way explaining very basic logic here? You keep comparing apples with oranges. You should already know the huge difference between both situations. Newspaper = physical object that can remain around for a very long time. Broadcast = signals which are only around when a TV/radio station transmits them.

And here you're doing it again. You linked to a site on expositional dialoge and clinged to the one quote that supports you. This is why a discussion with you is impossible.
Try this instead;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative)

Narrative exposition, or simply exposition, is the insertion of important background information within a story; for example, information about the setting, characters' backstories, prior plot events, historical context, etc.

That's not the exactly same as expositional dialogue. And I don't have anything about narrative exposition either.

Wrong. I admit and always have, that we know nothing about their communication. But the difference is, since I don't know what they talked about, I make no assumptions from it. You concoct wild theories from it.
You think that becuase the characters do not Think there is anywhere to go, there is nowhere to go. This itself is a fallacy, since both you and I know the characters are not omniscient.

Is it so difficult to conclude that these communications they had with Washington had to be about the things they are deeply concerned with and not about trivial irrelevant stuff? Why is it that whenever we hear about Washington in Day it is always in two very important contexts?:

1- Are there any survivors anywhere anymore???

2- Communications with other survivors have ceased

Let's see, I am going to go on a limb here and conclude from this context that the frequent radio conversations they were having with Washington must have been about how to make some awesome chicken enchiladas in green sauce, and not about what the hell is happening up there in your neck of the woods, have you heard of any more survivors, are things improving anywhere, we have not found any solution to the zombie problem yet, the situation down here in Florida is really bad, can we go somewhere else since the equipment and supplies in this base are proving to be not up to the task at hand, etc. You know, stuff that is actually very relevant to the movie's plot and that deeply affect the lives of all the characters involved and therefore are their priorities.

- - - Updated - - -

Except it doesn't, because Romero didn't have the shillings to make the 'Day of the Dead' he wanted, so instead opted for a paired back film set earlier than the 5 years he originally conceptualised, hoping that it would do well enough at the box office, so that he could make 'Twilight of the Dead' later on.

A lower budget doesn't mean anything for this subject. The shortened version that was made into the movie could easily be that much into the future.

As far as Cholo is concerned, money has been his raison d'etre for so long, he probably doesn't know any better and wants to get money from Kaufmann, which he might be able to use elsewhere...because, as Peter said in 'Dawn of the Dead'..."You never know".
More than likely, money has no use outside of the mini economy in Fiddler's Green though.

That alone by itself puts a huge dent on the idea that money in Land's world is only valuable in Kaufman's turf. Cholo knows very well that he will never be able to go back to Kaufman's turf, even if he gets the money. He is a wanted man there, if he goes there he is dead. So he is obviously planning to use that money he wants to get his hands on somewhere else. Add to that the fact that when Kaufman is trying to flee the city he takes his money with him. He also plans on using it somewhere else. Very much like in Dawn, money has managed to still retain its value at this point in the zombie crisis in Land. This value is gone by the fully developed apocalypse of Day, where basic survival is now the only concern of survivors.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, but money would only be of value inside Fiddler's Green. When Cholo pressures Kaufman for millions of dollars, what's he gonna do with it? How does he know that outpost in Cleveland uses money?

Not at all. Cholo will never be able to go back to Kaufman's city. He is a wanted man there. The money would be worthless to Cholo if it only had value in Kaufman's city. We can also see that Kaufman takes his money with him when he attempts to flee the zombie invasion of his city. Money very much still "talks" in Land's still relatively functional world. It does not even say a peep in Day's totally messed up world.

- - - Updated - - -

The ZA would be much like a war zone. Here today, gone tomorrow. Some strong holds would remain. Some would fall. I'm sure that the Florida team was made aware of other possible "safe zones". The problem our Florida team faces is two fold. First of which is communications. They aren't working. What they knew may not remain accurate. The second is logistics of travel. A helicopter besides capacity has a point of no return. You go too far for a once perceived safe haven and its compromised you are in deep shit. Same goes for ground transport. Rhodes can't answer because they don't know anymore.

Working on the information they had before communications ceased, they could have taken a calculated risk. We see the survivors in Dawn trying to make their way up north to Canada with a helicopter. While this would obviously be way more difficult to pull off in the fully developed chaos of Day, it would still be possible to find fuel here and there to make it all the way to one of these outposts.

The reason why Rhodes can't answer is because neither he nor anyone else knows of any safe haven anymore. Their world is quite different from the earlier ones of Dawn and Land where you could still find pockets of functional civilization. The best idea that John can come up with is simply to go to an island, thus cutting yourself off from the total chaos of the mainland, and spend the rest of your life there. Back to basic survival.

Land was a steaming pile of crap IMO. But I read it as society trying to make an isolated comeback. Not a before scene of Day. The zombies in land are a part of what Romero wanted for his original Day script. A nuisance. Society was used to it. For crying out loud, people were window shopping. Humans had got past the fear and that would have taken a long time. They found a way to coexist and weren't concerned about fixing the epidemic or saving other people. Im typing this on a damn phone so I will close with I believe Land was considerably after day. But Romero's approach left much to be desired.

If that was Romero's intention, he totally failed in conveying such an idea. All it took for me to easily dismiss the notion that Land can possibly happen after Day is simply the level of functionality that is still around in the world of Land. Big cities with huge numbers of survivors capable of even making complicated machines is something totally alien to the total mess of Day, where there no longer is any organized society going on anywhere. Even the US government is in shelters and quite incapable of keeping its own communication networks going on, so let alone the prospect of maintaining large armies, developing complex war machines, sustain an economy, etc.

EvilNed

10-Feb-2016, 04:53 PM

MinionZombie

10-Feb-2016, 05:22 PM

Yeah, but money would only be of value inside Fiddler's Green. When Cholo pressures Kaufman for millions of dollars, what's he gonna do with it? How does he know that outpost in Cleveland uses money?

Ah, but these other outposts have also been set up by Kaufman / people Kaufman has worked with. It seemed to me from what he said that they'd established other communities - so by that logic they would likewise operate under similar circumstances with their own little mini economies based around the dollar. :) I picture it as it being Kaufman and a select few, with each one of them heading up each community with their own bespoke cabal of board members.

facestabber

10-Feb-2016, 06:23 PM

Trin

10-Feb-2016, 06:58 PM

I agree with Ned and Shootme. Day comes before Land. For all the reasons they mention.

They have to be explained because some people seem to have a very hard time coming to logical conclusions from them. For example, in another thread I had to break it down and explain to another user why the soldiers in Day must necessarily have known very well the layout of the corral caves and that the silo was back there, because he apparently could not derive this logical conclusion from what we see and hear in the movie on his own. This is a similar situation, I have to go very much out of the way to explain why fact A is very much pertinent to fact B and so on, because some of my interlocutors apparently have a great deal of trouble making the obvious connections and coming to logical conclusions.
Which, btw, I still believe you are wrong!

Your "logical conclusions" and "obvious connections" involve a chain of semi-plausible assumptions that involve "must have" logic and ignore equally obvious flaws. The soldiers "must have" searched the caves. Why? Simply because they lived there? Because they built a corral there? There is no direct evidence to support that they actually DID search the caves. It is inference and conjecture. And your conclusion ignores that they very clearly think they are trapped in the cave when the Lift control is topside and the panel is broken. You wrote that off as a nitpick in Steele's dialogue. You can't write off evidence that directly contradicts your conclusion as nitpicks while inferring facts from conjecture.

You're doing the same thing in this thread. Repeatedly.

Example:

...because such outposts in the devastated world of Day are an unthinkable thing anymore. Survivors are in a much more desperate situation than those gone-by days when you could still find such outposts. The zombies have gained the upper hand in the world of Day. In the world of Land things were still a bit more even and pockets of civilization could still be found.
1. The "devastated world of Day" isn't any more devastated looking than the outside areas shown in Land.
2. Who in Day said that outposts were unthinkable? They go looking for survivors. They think outposts must exist.
3. The Day survivors are not necessarily in a more desperate situation. They have food, shelter, a method of transportation and a remote location with relavitely few zombies. The situation is only desperate due to internal conflicts.
4. Land showed no evidence of having more pockets of civilization. Riley specifically says they haven't heard from anyone from the outside recently. They make zero mention of external government. Given their relative state of technology and ability to acquire things it stands to reason that the Land survivors had a longer reach, both physically and electronically.
5. What makes you think the zombies in Day have gained the upper hand in general? In Land the zombies and humans were practically working under a truce. The humans upset the balance and the zombies wiped them out. In Day the zombies only succeeded due to the humans letting them in.

This is just one statement. And none of the assertions (yours or mine) has any direct bearing on the timeline anyway. Two different situations with completely different make-up of survivors in very disparate parts of the country.

For my part, I just have to look at the relaxed attitudes in Land to see that these people have been doing this a LONG time. Riley, Charlie, and Cholo go on scavenging runs in Dead Reckoning as a matter of course. They go outside the secured area to take out the trash. They have adopted new societal roles, new jobs, new living conditions. Which, btw, Cholo thinks he's worked the job long enough he has earned a promotion, and is long overdue. I just don't envision those behaviors solidifying in the first 6 months of the outbreak. People have moved from crisis, to acceptance, to relative comfort, to dissatisfaction. Mulligan even states that he would like Riley to stay so they could make the place what they wanted to originally.

One thing that hasn't been largely touched upon is the one thing that is universally considered common across the movies ... the zombies. In Day they are still acting mostly like they did in Night/Dawn. Little recognition of one another. Limited tool use. View humans as food. Very little evidence of learning - limited to Bub showing us they can be taught and the corral zombies showing a glimmer of learning.

Compare to Land where the zombies are showing societal behaviors. They hold hands and show recognition and empathy for each other. They mass learn skills. They accept and follow a leader. They express higher emotions like sorrow and a need for revenge. They master tool use. They prioritize bringing down the human threat over viewing humans as food. I can't see these being earlier behaviors.

EvilNed

10-Feb-2016, 07:22 PM

JDP

10-Feb-2016, 10:58 PM

Seeing as you're just repeating the same old cherrypicked arguments about Washington, the newspaper and the news flashes which I've already countered I'm gonna assume you've got nothing to come up with.
So anyway,

when you do get around to watching Land of the Dead, approach it from an angle from wherein the survivors might have actually rebuilt their situation. You, see this was the point. Early clues to this can be found in the original Day script. Remember? You read it. In it, the survivors have also rebuilt.

Hence why they have food, electricity, guards, organized raiding parts, oh and..

a fucking specially designed zombie killing tank.

Seeing as you have countered nothing but simply gone back to making gratuitous dismissals of all the coherent arguments that have been presented and comparing apples & oranges all over again, I will have to assume that you really have nothing else to come up with.

Anyway, I have watched Land, several times in fact, and unlike you I am the one actually quoting it and pointing out pertinent scenes which contradict your notions.

The original Day script also has plenty of differences with Land.

If you seriously believe that a crook like Kaufman can somehow maintain armies, cities, economies, make "a fucking specially designed zombie killing tank" equipped with computers, radios, machine guns, long range rockets, etc. in a world where even the government of the most powerful nation on the planet has been forced underground and can't even maintain its own communication networks anymore, then I suspect that no one will make you see this topic in a more realistic manner and you will continue to view these movies more from the perspective of a Twilight Zone episode.

shootemindehead

10-Feb-2016, 11:03 PM

Agreed with all of the above.

A question for everyone, since we're obviously talking about subjective ways to view these films;

Do you consider the films to be linked? We're talking back and forth as if in Day - Fiddler's Green is out there somewhere... Yet this might not have been the case. Riley uses a cellphone and McDermott a ham radio, for instance...

/\

That, I'm afraid, is just Romero not caring about detail and it's one of the things that bugs me the most about 'Land of the Dead'. There are too many "modern" items floating around unnecessarily.

None of which should have been.

But, as I said earlier, I just don't think George gave a damn about such things.

EvilNed

10-Feb-2016, 11:17 PM

Man, I thought I was a socialist, but I dont hold a candle next to JDP... He doesnt think private enterprise can amount to anything - not even housing projects! Or fancy stuff like computers and radios!

Agreed, Shootem. Land is sort of a wasted oppertunity. The money issue irks me the most... What the hell is he gonna do with it?

JDP

10-Feb-2016, 11:30 PM

Cant really see how a person can attach the use or lack of use of money in Day as evidence of anything. We have Govt workers/contractors that were given top notch shelter, provisions(including booze mmmmmm) and protection to do a job. What purpose would they have for money? I don't think they were cruising to local 7/11's for slurpees. They had provisions and a job to do.

The fact that to them the idea of getting paid to be there is nothing but a laughing matter should have already told you how different the situation is from that of Land, where money is no laughing matter by any means and people even are willing to kill others for it. The people from Day no longer give a rat's ass about things like salaries and money, what they care about is making it out alive (the soldiers, the two civilians under government contract) or solving the zombie problem by any means possible (the scientists). Cholo, Kaufman and the like survivors from Land, on the other hand, are very much concerned not only with surviving, but with doing so with a shit-load of money in their hands. Why? Money still "talks" in the still relatively functional world of Land. Money basically means nothing in the desperate apocalyptic world of Day. Romero even strongly hints at the "value" of money in Day when he shows us the streets of the desolate city with money freely flying around with the wind. Nobody cares about it anymore. Survivors are too busy trying to stay alive.

All we see in Day is a short helicopter scene explained as 100 miles up and down the coast. No one responds to Mcdermotts CB. So what. Power is out and batteries are at a premium so how many people are hiding out listening to CB's 24/7. And the rest of the movie is underground. Cut off from communications does not equal the rest of the world as over. Romero gave us a microscopic glimpse of one group. He delivered on a dark and gloomy film. Sure felt hopeless but there are Rick Grimes led groups all over rural America. They gave up on govt long ago and are trying to start over and rebuild communiities. But as we can see it takes time. Now I know its not fair to use TWD world to explain Romeros world. But the view in Day is narrow.

Re-read the thread again. When you take into account all the details presented in the movie, it is very obvious why these survivors are worried as hell about their futures and desperate to find solutions. This is not some Florida-only problem by any means. They know very well "the deep shit we are in", to quote Rhodes characteristically graphic manner of expression. Even their bosses in Washington are holing up in bunkers just like they are.

But I will give everyone the absolute proof that Day is not 5 years or even years in for that matter. Does Rhodes seem like a guy with the patience to last years down there? We all know that answer.....lol.

Unfortunately for him, it was not up to him to decide. Major Copper dies the very same day we see in the movie. Before that Rhodes was not in charge and had to take orders from him. And you are also assuming that they have been in the bunker for 5 years. Says who? The 5 years is how much time has elapsed since the zombies first started popping up. We don't know when exactly during those five years was the team assembled and sent to Florida. But judging by the amount of work they had to go through to before the scientists could even begin investigating the zombie matter, these guys probably have been in that bunker for a couple of years or more. They had to find a suitable place to build the corral, a place where the zombies would not find any way of escaping, then go on top and start searching for them, capture them and bring them back to the base. Look at how many zombies they had captured. Look how unruly and difficult to handle they are. That by itself would have taken months to accomplish. By the time we see in the movie, they have already lost 6 team members. The idea that the survivors in Day have only been some months or just a year in the bunker is ludicrous.

Rancid Carcass

10-Feb-2016, 11:48 PM

I'm pretty sure I've read/heard somewhere that Romero has said that each film takes place at a different point in time during the same catastrophe. I think what confuses people is that the first three took place in chronological order and the others mixed it up a bit.

The real spanner in the works in terms of chronology is Land and its bloody phones! There are two ways of looking at that I guess. Either the fact that they're using phones means that the network is still up, which would place it before Day – or that Kaufman and his cronies have managed set up and maintain a localized network (based on surviving infrastructure), in and around the Green as an extra security measure. I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.

I think by and large you have to ignore the technological aspect simply as being a by-product of making a series of films over such a long period of time, and assume that each one takes place in the 'present' or 'near future' from whenever the viewer happens to be watching.

Or you could take the easy way out and proclaim Land to be an alternate universe Marvel type cross-over thing!

The original Day script also has plenty of differences with Land.

Actually that brings up an interesting point - wasn't the original Day script set towards the end of the apocalypse just as it was beginning to burn itself out? The big question is, did the time-frame of the story change with the re-write of the script?

JDP

11-Feb-2016, 01:16 AM

I agree with Ned and Shootme. Day comes before Land. For all the reasons they mention.

Which have been addressed and shown to be faulty.

Which, btw, I still believe you are wrong!

Your "logical conclusions" and "obvious connections" involve a chain of semi-plausible assumptions that involve "must have" logic and ignore equally obvious flaws. The soldiers "must have" searched the caves. Why? Simply because they lived there? Because they built a corral there? There is no direct evidence to support that they actually DID search the caves. It is inference and conjecture. And your conclusion ignores that they very clearly think they are trapped in the cave when the Lift control is topside and the panel is broken. You wrote that off as a nitpick in Steele's dialogue. You can't write off evidence that directly contradicts your conclusion as nitpicks while inferring facts from conjecture.

Does it have to be explained to you again? Unless you make the assumption that the Florida team are utter suicidal morons -all of them!- your question marks on the subject are simply impossible. Not only have they been living there for who knows how long, they had to find a suitable place to keep zombies in, without them being able to escape or make it back into the living areas. That by itself means having to explore the caves. Can you imagine these people who are so concerned about their own safety and survival just haphazardly going about the complex:

"Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, that's it, we will build the corral here! Don't bother checking out the place, who cares if these caves lead to another exit outside and we lose all the zombies that are going to cost us a lot of work and risk to bring in, or even worse, have another entrance back into the bunker complex so they have a nice chance to kill us all, we don't give a rat's ass about our lives, so let's be as careless as possible about this!"

Use your head, please. If they put them in those caves it must be concluded that they did it because they knew the place well and it did not have any exits or entrances that the zombies could use either to escape to the outside or find their way back to the bunker area where they lived and worked. Plus on top of that we have two civilians who know the silo is there. Exactly through what miracle these two could have been aware of this but the soldiers, who are in charge of the facility, paradoxically know nothing about it you have never cared to explain.

You're doing the same thing in this thread. Repeatedly.

Example:

1. The "devastated world of Day" isn't any more devastated looking than the outside areas shown in Land.

Yes it is. Look at the zombie overrun areas of Land. They don't look as bad as the desolate city of Day. Heck, in Land even some of the poor areas of the human city look in worse shape than the zombie areas!

2. Who in Day said that outposts were unthinkable? They go looking for survivors. They think outposts must exist.

The outposts are not mentioned in Day because such a thing simply can't exist anymore. Even what's left of the government itself is holing up in bunkers just like they are. They go looking for survivors anywhere they can! They of course find none. Miller even sarcastically remarks "another waste of time, right?" after their latest effort to find anyone.

3. The Day survivors are not necessarily in a more desperate situation. They have food, shelter, a method of transportation and a remote location with relavitely few zombies. The situation is only desperate due to internal conflicts.

The internal conflicts are in fact due to how bad things are! And of course they are in a way more desperate situation than the plethora of survivors in Land. The survivors of Day care either about solving the zombie problem by any means (the scientists) or making it out of this mess alive (the soldiers and the two government contracted civilians.) The survivors of Land among other things are also very busy trying to find booze, buy cars so they can leave the city (!), eat hot dogs, go to clubs, get enough money to be able to be "movin' on up, To the east side, To a deluxe apartment in the sky, Movin' on up, To the east side, We finally got a piece of the pieeeeeeeeeeeeieeeeieee!", etc. Please, there is no comparison between the level of desperation of the survivors of both movies.

4. Land showed no evidence of having more pockets of civilization. Riley specifically says they haven't heard from anyone from the outside recently. They make zero mention of external government. Given their relative state of technology and ability to acquire things it stands to reason that the Land survivors had a longer reach, both physically and electronically.

Wrong. Cholo talks about going to an outpost in Cleveland, Foxy does not seem very worried that he will not find a safe place to go to after he drops off bitten Cholo (Foxy does not go back to Kaufman's turf, he also is a wanted man there), and Kaufman himself refers to other outposts that he himself has had a hand in establishing, just in case things get real bad in his own turf he and his cronies have safe places to go to. Where do you think he was trying to go when he only takes a limousine, a chauffeur, a hand gun and loads of money? To take a nice little tour of a zombie infested town to give charity to the zombies? Nope. Kaufman had his escape all planned already. He made quite sure there would be other safe places to go to. He is not the kind of fellow who would leave anything to chance.

5. What makes you think the zombies in Day have gained the upper hand in general? In Land the zombies and humans were practically working under a truce. The humans upset the balance and the zombies wiped them out. In Day the zombies only succeeded due to the humans letting them in.

Just look at what desperate situation the ever increasing numbers of zombies have put the few survivors left in Day, with hardly any safe places left to go to, and compare it to the relatively safe situation of the huge numbers of survivors in Land, who can even afford the luxury of leaving the city to seek better places on their own if they so want to.

In Land there was no "truce" with any zombies. It was the still working infrastructure of the outpost, with its rivers, electric fences and loads of armed mercenaries, that kept the zombies at bay. What messed them up was that one zombie "got smart" and started leading the dumber ones against the survivors, something they did not expect, just like Steel and Rhodes in Day did not expect something similar and ended up paying dearly for it (if it wasn't for "Bub" shooting at them maybe they would have been able to fight their way out of the bunker and make it out alive, who knows.)

This is just one statement. And none of the assertions (yours or mine) has any direct bearing on the timeline anyway. Two different situations with completely different make-up of survivors in very disparate parts of the country.

Do you seriously think that if the Pennsylvania and Ohio outposts we see or hear about in Land had still existed by the time of Day that Washington would not have known about them, and informed their own people in other parts of the country about them too? In fact, we know that the existence of such outposts was even reported by the mass media when it was still around on the air. There would be hardly anyone in the world of Day who would have ignored their existence just from this fact. But they are no longer an option. Such things are unthinkable in the wholly devastated world of Day, where the best plan one can find is simply to go to an island, thus cutting yourself off from the mainland, and survive there for as long as you can.

For my part, I just have to look at the relaxed attitudes in Land to see that these people have been doing this a LONG time. Riley, Charlie, and Cholo go on scavenging runs in Dead Reckoning as a matter of course. They go outside the secured area to take out the trash. They have adopted new societal roles, new jobs, new living conditions. Which, btw, Cholo thinks he's worked the job long enough he has earned a promotion, and is long overdue. I just don't envision those behaviors solidifying in the first 6 months of the outbreak. People have moved from crisis, to acceptance, to relative comfort, to dissatisfaction. Mulligan even states that he would like Riley to stay so they could make the place what they wanted to originally.

There's so many problems with such an interpretation, they have been brought up a bunch of times already. Riley even wants to leave the city in a friggin' car! Slack doesn't even have a clue about how long does it take a bitten person to die and become a zombie. Foxy looks quite unworried by the fact that he will have to venture out there alone in car without a roof. Such things alone should tell you how relatively safe the world of Land really is. Such things, I repeat, are unthinkable in the world of Day where zombies rule the land quite indisputably. Such things were still very much possible in the world of Dawn, though, which happens earlier during the zombie crisis, when the zombies still have not completely gained the upper hand by their eventual huge numerical superiority.

One thing that hasn't been largely touched upon is the one thing that is universally considered common across the movies ... the zombies. In Day they are still acting mostly like they did in Night/Dawn. Little recognition of one another. Limited tool use. View humans as food. Very little evidence of learning - limited to Bub showing us they can be taught and the corral zombies showing a glimmer of learning.

Compare to Land where the zombies are showing societal behaviors. They hold hands and show recognition and empathy for each other. They mass learn skills. They accept and follow a leader. They express higher emotions like sorrow and a need for revenge. They master tool use. They prioritize bringing down the human threat over viewing humans as food. I can't see these being earlier behaviors.

Only one zombie shows unusual intelligence in Land, just like in Day. "Big Daddy" in Land had a chance to organize the others, Bub did not. And the use of tools is already seen even in Night. Doctor Rausch in Dawn also mentions that the zombies can use tools in a primitive manner.

AcesandEights

11-Feb-2016, 01:29 AM

This is indeed a key piece of evidence why Day happens after Land.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/how%20do%20I%20put%20this_zpshj0shcuz.jpg

facestabber

11-Feb-2016, 02:26 AM

JDP

11-Feb-2016, 03:50 AM

What you are given in Day is a small little window of one group. A group that has lost communications. And by that fact alone you extrapolate that the world has to be over and Washington DC knows of civilian established Fiddlers Green and other outposts etc. The US is kind of big you know. I can't imagine DC being able to keep current on every civilian stronghold let alone make sure our Day group is kept up to speed on a shelter in friggin Pennsylvania. Buts lets say the Gov't was aware of Fiddlers and this is early on as you believe. Do you believe the gov't would allow a money hungry civilian run the show or would they immediately place it under military order? But maybe since the title is LAND of the dead, that is Romero telling us that the land belongs to the dead. Sure a few city blocks in Pittsburg has proved a safe haven but the dead have taken over. I see gov't soldiers/scientists in Day working on a problem but I dont see them running Fiddlers.(granted some of the armed soldiers may have been military but if they are following a civilian thats a sign that society is long gone). Never saw scientists working day and night for Kaufman to solve the zombie epidemic, which if in its early stages, would be a worthwhile effort.

Please, read the thread again. A lot of what you are repeating here has already been addressed to death: these people are not desperately looking for solutions, survivors or any safe place to go to just for the hell of it. It is not their "hobby" to do such things, you know. And their desperation is not based just on how bad things have gotten in Florida. They have been in communication with others up until things got so bad that they no longer can establish contact. They have little other choices, otherwise the soldiers would have abandoned the shelter and the scientists quite a while back and moved to greener pastures. I find it incredibly naive that some people are trying to argue that "it's only about what's happening in Florida". If that was true, all they have to do is simply move to another place out of Florida, and presto! easy problem, easy solution. The problem is, as Dr. Logan poignantly points out, that there hardly are any places left to go to anymore. This is NOT the still relatively safe world of Dawn or Land anymore.

As I have shown, even the media knew about the outposts. And yes, the US is a pretty big place, but the government in Washington was still able to maintain communications all the way down to Florida, yet you apparently expect me to believe that they would not have been able to do such a thing with next door Pennsylvania? And since the topic of finding survivors is such a prevalent one in Day, what makes you think that our Florida team did not care one bit to inquire about the subject to their superiors in Washington? Not that is really needed, mind you, the existence of the outposts was already even reported by the mass media! The bizarre thing would be if no one down in Florida was already aware that such places existed once upon a time. And if you want to try to argue that they still must have existed during the time of Day, then it begs the question of how can they be so unbelievably stupid and self-defeating not to take advantage of their existence and just abandon Florida and head towards the outposts? Yet this thought does not even cross their minds, specially Rhodes', who has to swallow his pride in front of his men because he can't answer the very simple "where will you go, captain?" taunt that Dr. Logan keeps rubbing all over his face.

The humans of Land don't care that much about the zombie problem because they are still relatively safe in their outposts. Kaufman is not the US government, he is a scumbag crook who only cares about getting richer and more powerful, he doesn't care one bit about solving the zombie problem. As long as the status quo with him on top running things remains, he is perfectly happy about the whole situation! His money is going to be invested in what interests him (controlling the booze, tobacco, hookers, gambling, mercenaries, etc.) not in paying any scientists to find a solution to a problem that does not affect him much.

Further, you believe that because the scientists were given military protection under ground that all of our military has been forced into hiding? If thats your belief then you have the same grave ideas about our military as Romero.

Funny, even Washington itself is underground by Day. And we can see how "effective" the military has been in handling the situation in the other movies. They have stopped jack-squat! In Diary and Survival we see what some of them have been up to, in fact: trying to make it on their own.

"zombies rule the land in Day" is very disputable. You saw one street in one FL city. One. And nobody answered Mcdermott up and down the coast. No doubt that looks bleak just as Romero intended. But it doesnt prove your time line.

See above. These people are better informed about the situation. And they obviously have tried finding survivors in more places than we see in the movie. We could see how bad the situation was already getting everywhere in Dawn, so let alone by the time of Day.

The effort to build the corral in the mine sure looked less time consuming than designing and constructing dead reckoning. My guess is a person would need the military to start to deteriorate before getting access to miniguns and missle batteries.

Building the corral was not the hard part, bringing that bunch of zombies in from the outside is what would have been difficult and risky. Yet they pulled it off.

The construction of Dead Reckoning itself is yet another piece of evidence that Land happens before Day. The US government can't even keep up its own communications network up and running anymore in Day, and you expect me to believe that a crook up in Pennsylvania somehow is able to build this armored vehicle with computers, radio communications, machine guns and long range rockets? Not to mention maintain armies of mercenaries armed to the teeth, all manner of vehicles, electric power, all manner of communications, maintain a huge workforce that would be required to keep these things going, etc. Once again, such level of progress and stability is unthinkable in Day. Even trying to communicate with others has become quite a task in the world of Day. People there are hoping to make it out alive, period. Nothing else matters. Just manage to survive.

One other quick thing. In Land you belief its "relatively" safe to travel around because? Correct me if I'm wrong but is it that in LAND of the Dead, you believe the dead haven't really taken over the LAND even though Romero is telling us its LAND of the Dead? And Kaufmann was taking a car to a boat. Not to cruise the desolate Ohio countryside. He built Dead Reckoning for a reason and thats because its pretty damn dangerous to venture out da Green. I really rambled on and for that I apologize. At the end of the day we are gonna disagree. I dont think you're dumb, we just interpret the movies different. Regardless I love seeing activity back on this sight and come Sunday shit is going to get real.

Land of the Dead is just a title. You don't really think that zombies really own the "Night", "Dawn" and "Day" just because some of these movies have these words in the title, do you?

Kaufman was obviously heading to one of the safe places he refers to when he is talking to one of his associates.

Riley wants to leave the city in search for a better place with a car. Foxy drops off Cholo and leaves to find another place on his own in a car. Most of the mercenaries that raid the towns are in fact in vehicles and bikes, not inside Dead Reckoning.

EvilNed

11-Feb-2016, 06:18 AM

Actually that brings up an interesting point - wasn't the original Day script set towards the end of the apocalypse just as it was beginning to burn itself out? The big question is, did the time-frame of the story change with the re-write of the script?

Well, I'm pretty sure it was reworked somehow of course. But ask yourself this question; Had the original Day of the Dead been produced do you think George woud've recycled the Fiddler's Green idea for Land? Both Day and Land somehow feature "end of the apocalypse" events at the end of them. In Day, it's that the zombies no longer come back. In Land, it's that we now have to learn how to share this world with each other. Both of them signal a change in the post-apocalypse order and in ways an end to the plague. What would be interesting to see is a film set even further ahead in timeline than Land - What happens after this event?

Would the humans and zombies co-exist? Obviously not co-habit... But anyone see the french mini-series Les Revenants? Maybe something like that.

As for the cell phones - it's obvious that Kaufman got a lot of things working that weren't before. Dead Reckoning itself, for instance. He somehow manufactured a tank. No easy feat.

- - - Updated - - -

Please, read the thread again. A lot of what you are repeating here has already been addressed to death

Actually, no. Everyone has pointed out exactly what @facestabber is reacting to. Nobody is really disputing the idea that Day takes place after Land - at least I'm not (even though it's obvious it doesn't) - but the way you arrive at your conclusions are ridiculous extrapolations and outright denial. Like the decay in Day - and the communciation with Washington. You're just repeating the same old story despite several people pointing out the flaws in it. If you want to see where, just read the thread again, I can't be bothered to.

Trin

11-Feb-2016, 07:05 AM

Which have been addressed and shown to be faulty.Conjecture is not proof. The things you continually contend are logical and obvious aren't very persuasive. I'm not hearing a lot of agreement with your arguments.

Not only have they been living there for who knows how long, they had to find a suitable place to keep zombies in, without them being able to escape or make it back into the living areas.Agreed.

That by itself means having to explore the caves.And ... that is conjecture. You assume they had to explore the caves in their entirety. They did not.

Here is MY conjecture. They had to explore a PART of the caves to secure the living area. They explored outwards from the living area as much as they needed to at the time they moved in. Once they realized that they had a single place that they could barricade off to secure the main living areas, they barricade it off and focused on other priorities. The rest of the place was for all intents and purposes considered outside the secured area. It was convenient to use it as a zombie corral so they did. The place was enormous. They were putting together the operation on very short time. They had lots of other priorities. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think they didn't explore every inch of the place once they had secured an area. And once they had a zombie population back there, they'd not be very motivated to explore it.

"Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, that's it, we will build the corral here! Don't bother checking out the place, who cares if these caves lead to another exit outside and we lose all the zombies that are going to cost us a lot of work and risk to bring in, or even worse, have another entrance back into the bunker complex so they have a nice chance to kill us all, we don't give a rat's ass about our lives, so let's be as careless as possible about this!" Interesting statement considering that they left an open hatch to the outside. I would think that if they'd explored it thoroughly they'd have blocked that off somehow.

Plus on top of that we have two civilians who know the silo is there. Exactly through what miracle these two could have been aware of this but the soldiers, who are in charge of the facility, paradoxically know nothing about it you have never cared to explain.John overtly displayed knowledge about the place that no one else had. He was reading all the documentation that was housed in the caves. And you'll notice that Sarah and McDermott didn't beeline for the silo until John caught up with them. They didn't seem to be moving with purpose at all. I'd contend that John was THE ONLY PERSON who knew about the silo exit. He may very well have known about it for some time and chosen not to share it with the military because he wanted to have his own escape route if it came to that.

I won't contend that my hypothesis fits ALL the available facts. But it leaves less loose end. Such as:
- The soldiers didn't display knowledge of there being an additional exit when it was particularly important that they have one.
- The soldiers placed Sarah and McDermott in the corral as if it were a death sentence. They did NOT act like they knew there was another exit.
- The soldiers displayed an abundance of counter-behaviors to the contention that they were highly security minded. They were portrayed as lazy and stupid. For example, they posted no guards. They did no rounds. They had no clue John and McDermott had built a sanctuary outside the living quarters. They brawled. They threatened rape on Sarah. They left the corral gate open as they fled.
- The soldiers clearly did not know the cave layout. When the zombies stream in through the corral gates they make it to the living areas BEFORE the soldiers.

Your ONLY evidence is an assumption of what you think people like them SHOULD do. To be honest, I agree with that assumption. They SHOULD HAVE explored the caves. But it doesn't fit the facts. Stop acting like you have to explain everything to me when your own hypothesis fails so obviously.

The outposts are not mentioned in Day because such a thing simply can't exist anymore. Even what's left of the government itself is holing up in bunkers just like they are.Even if we assume that Land occurs less than a year into the outbreak I don't see how you can contend that places like Fiddler's Green "simply can't exist anymore," by your assumed 5 year mark of Day. It seems like a setup similar to the Green could go indefinitely. The Green was more capable of securing supplies and building infrastructure. Whereas the Day bunker had limited resources and no means to scavenge.

Here's an interesting question. If Land was set so early into the outbreak, why didn't Peter pick up transmissions from Fiddler's Green or the scavenging parties listening to the radio in the mall?

MinionZombie

11-Feb-2016, 09:36 AM

Cant really see how a person can attach the use or lack of use of money in Day as evidence of anything. We have Govt workers/contractors that were given top notch shelter, provisions(including booze mmmmmm) and protection to do a job. What purpose would they have for money? I don't think they were cruising to local 7/11's for slurpees. They had provisions and a job to do.

I'm not sure if someone else was talking about money in Day of the Dead ... but I was specifically referencing the use of money in Land.

The soldiers "must have" searched the caves. Why? Simply because they lived there? Because they built a corral there? There is no direct evidence to support that they actually DID search the caves. It is inference and conjecture. And your conclusion ignores that they very clearly think they are trapped in the cave when the Lift control is topside and the panel is broken.

Aye, and when Rhodes et al stick our heroes into the coral it's with the sole intention of condemning them to death - that's it. The soldiers don't know what's down there in those caves, and nor do the scientists. It's just a big hole, and the only thing they know about it is that where they have the coral is the only 'access' point to that part of the cave system (i.e. so they'd be safe in knowing the zombies couldn't stumble around and accidentally find themselves on the non-zombie side of the coral via some roundabout route).

Sarah & Co have no idea where they're going - McDermott drags her along as they need to be anywhere but at the coral (because of the soldiers blocking them from just climbing back over, and because of the encroaching zombies while they have no weapons bar a 2x4) - it's a shot in the dark, they have to move somewhere. They have no knowledge of what lies ahead, but they have no choice but to run into the depths - it's by luck that they find those lights and arrows pointing the way. If it wasn't for the gunshots and them calling out afterwards, John would have quite possibly found himself lost down there. They didn't know that cave system at all.

Do you consider the films to be linked? We're talking back and forth as if in Day - Fiddler's Green is out there somewhere... Yet this might not have been the case. Riley uses a cellphone and McDermott a ham radio, for instance...

I've not necessarily thought of them as all being in the same zombie apocalypse, rather a zombie apocalypse - but that they all take place at different amounts of time into their respective zombie apocalypses. Or, I can also think of them as all being the same apocalypse, but that the difference in technology is just something to ignore as the films, as GAR has regularly stated, have been his way of commenting on different periods in times - the 60s, 70s, 80s, 00s.

It does make the links between the films a bit awkward, but on the other hand - being that each film is all about representing a particular decade - they are thematically linked. You just have to throw aside the inconsistency of the technology, the fashions, the sexual politics, the socio-political elements etc.

Also, Diary and Survival are linked directly - but they're another zombie apocalypse entirely ... or they simply rewind time back to the beginning ... however, I've never considered Diary and Survival to be linked to Night/Dawn/Day/Land. It's four movies linked, and then two movies linked together but separate from the first four.

shootemindehead

11-Feb-2016, 10:58 AM

Which have been addressed and shown to be faulty.

Not even in the slightest lad.

facestabber

11-Feb-2016, 11:42 AM

"Well in the beginning I had this conceit between Night and Day. In this instance the movie is roughly THREE years after the zombie phenomenon has started. Of course the movies themselves are four decades apart. I like the idea that this is a CONTINUING saga but nothing period wise, like the cars or clothes, dates them. Yet I like to reflect a little bit about the decade. That's why I originally set Land in the nineties". Any guesses who may have said that?

MinionZombie

11-Feb-2016, 01:15 PM

EvilNed

11-Feb-2016, 01:56 PM

hehe ... I think that answers that particular question quite well. :)

Thats not evidence of anything! It's obvious Kaufman's tank can travel through time and arrived from the future - the so called 3 years he's talking about! In fact, Land takes place PRIOR to the apocalypse in a post-Trump presidancy America!

JDP

11-Feb-2016, 03:18 PM

Not even in the slightest lad.

One only has to review the thread to see that it plainly has. It is you "Land has to happen after Day" fellows that still have to bring up any counterarguments that have not been answered yet. The ball is still on your court.

EvilNed

11-Feb-2016, 03:26 PM

JDP

11-Feb-2016, 04:12 PM

Actually, no. Everyone has pointed out exactly what @facestabber is reacting to. Nobody is really disputing the idea that Day takes place after Land - at least I'm not (even though it's obvious it doesn't) - but the way you arrive at your conclusions are ridiculous extrapolations and outright denial. Like the decay in Day - and the communciation with Washington. You're just repeating the same old story despite several people pointing out the flaws in it. If you want to see where, just read the thread again, I can't be bothered to.

Is it my fault that you and a couple of others apparently don't understand simple common sense and logic and can't make the connections between all that has been quoted, pointed out, and reasoned? Don't think so. I suggest you take your own advice and re-read the thread. It is you who have failed to provide any solid counterarguments. If we had to believe in your way of "arguing" we would have to come to such ridiculous assumptions as the survivors in Day being total self-defeating masochist morons who are putting themselves willingly in a desperate dangerous situation and blowing things out of proportion for no reason other than the fact that their "backyard" has no survivors anywhere and plenty of zombies in it. Of course, the fact that this is in total contradiction to their character does not seem to bother you in the least.

- - - Updated - - -

Occam's razor.

There, back in your court.

That was already bounced back at your court. Your little mantra does not work.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure if someone else was talking about money in Day of the Dead ... but I was specifically referencing the use of money in Land.

Both movies feature money, and both of them have quite a different outlook on it.

Aye, and when Rhodes et al stick our heroes into the coral it's with the sole intention of condemning them to death - that's it. The soldiers don't know what's down there in those caves, and nor do the scientists. It's just a big hole, and the only thing they know about it is that where they have the coral is the only 'access' point to that part of the cave system (i.e. so they'd be safe in knowing the zombies couldn't stumble around and accidentally find themselves on the non-zombie side of the coral via some roundabout route).

Self-defeating argument and conclusion. There is no way of knowing whether the zombies that they are going to work very hard and risk their lives to round up and bring down there are going to escape to the outside or get back into the living/working areas without exploring the caves first and knowing their layout. Unless one hilariously wants to argue that these people are psychics and already know the answer and therefore do not need to check it out. In which case they obviously would also know about the silo as well, so even such an outlandish argument would still not work.

The reason why sticking the civilians in the cave is basically a death sentence is because they had no weapons to fight with. The caves have a bunch of zombies in them. The likelihood of them making it out alive is quite slim. Rhodes only cares to freak out John and coerce him into cooperating with them, he doesn't care about the fate of the civilians anyway. Even if they manage to make it out alive, they are still pretty much screwed in the long run. They have no weapons and are going to have to survive out there on their own. Of course, Rhodes did not count on the fact that John was going to screw his plans.

Sarah & Co have no idea where they're going - McDermott drags her along as they need to be anywhere but at the coral (because of the soldiers blocking them from just climbing back over, and because of the encroaching zombies while they have no weapons bar a 2x4) - it's a shot in the dark, they have to move somewhere. They have no knowledge of what lies ahead, but they have no choice but to run into the depths - it's by luck that they find those lights and arrows pointing the way. If it wasn't for the gunshots and them calling out afterwards, John would have quite possibly found himself lost down there. They didn't know that cave system at all.

False. Sarah mentions the silo being back there before they even start making a run for it, and McDermott says that they can't make it back there without weapons. They knew very well where they were going. Unfortunately, they did not count on things like a rock slide cutting them off, or zombies getting on their way, and so on. The silo even has red lights and arrows clearly pointing to it. It is not like it is very difficult to follow its trail otherwise. Trying to argue that the soldiers would not have known about this when even two civilians are well aware of it is about as absurd and unsustainable as claiming that they would build the corral without first making sure that it was safe to keep the zombies in those caves in the first place.

Also, Diary and Survival are linked directly - but they're another zombie apocalypse entirely ... or they simply rewind time back to the beginning ... however, I've never considered Diary and Survival to be linked to Night/Dawn/Day/Land. It's four movies linked, and then two movies linked together but separate from the first four.

As far as I can tell, Romero meant all these movies to be part of the same series. If that is the case, Diary and Survival are obviously also from early on during the zombie crisis.

- - - Updated - - -

"Well in the beginning I had this conceit between Night and Day. In this instance the movie is roughly THREE years after the zombie phenomenon has started. Of course the movies themselves are four decades apart. I like the idea that this is a CONTINUING saga but nothing period wise, like the cars or clothes, dates them. Yet I like to reflect a little bit about the decade. That's why I originally set Land in the nineties". Any guesses who may have said that?

Probably the same guy who in the original script also said that Day takes place five years after the phenomenon started.

EvilNed

11-Feb-2016, 05:05 PM

You've offered no reasonable argument to anything, so still; Occams razor.

MinionZombie

11-Feb-2016, 05:25 PM

Thats not evidence of anything! It's obvious Kaufman's tank can travel through time and arrived from the future - the so called 3 years he's talking about! In fact, Land takes place PRIOR to the apocalypse in a post-Trump presidancy America!

Dear God! :stunned:

:lol::lol::lol:

JDP

11-Feb-2016, 05:28 PM

Conjecture is not proof. The things you continually contend are logical and obvious aren't very persuasive. I'm not hearing a lot of agreement with your arguments.

So just because a few people stubbornly refuse to accept coherent and well reasoned arguments based on what we see in these movies that means they must be wrong, even though these fellows can't actually prove they are wrong or faulty? Hint: history is quite packed with such cases.

Agreed.

And ... that is conjecture. You assume they had to explore the caves in their entirety. They did not.

Strange, you agree with the first premise, yet you want to deny the logical follow up to it. How else can they be sure that keeping the zombies there is going to be safe if they do not explore the whole place? How could they possibly ever be sure that they are not setting themselves up to either:

1- Waste their time and effort by losing the zombies they have worked so hard and risked their lives to capture all because of another exit to the outside that the zombies can use to escape

2- Endanger their very own lives through another entrance to the living/working areas

If they valued their time and lives -and there's plenty of evidence throughout the movie that this is an integral part of their character- they would not have left such an important thing to mere chance.

Here is MY conjecture. They had to explore a PART of the caves to secure the living area. They explored outwards from the living area as much as they needed to at the time they moved in. Once they realized that they had a single place that they could barricade off to secure the main living areas, they barricade it off and focused on other priorities. The rest of the place was for all intents and purposes considered outside the secured area. It was convenient to use it as a zombie corral so they did. The place was enormous. They were putting together the operation on very short time. They had lots of other priorities. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think they didn't explore every inch of the place once they had secured an area. And once they had a zombie population back there, they'd not be very motivated to explore it.

But there is no way of knowing for sure whether there is another entrance back into the living/working areas unless you actually thoroughly explore it. Furthermore, they also do not want to have to go on top and round up zombies every so often. It is a very dangerous activity (Sarah mentions this.) So they also want a place that they know for sure the zombies are not going to find their way out to the outside. So that is two very important things to check before deciding where to build the corral. There is no logical way to try to argue that these people would have been very haphazard and casual regarding such an important matter, where even their very own lives might very well be at stake. If they put the corral there, it is because they were damn sure that the zombies were not going to be able to get out, either to the outside or back into the living/working areas.

Interesting statement considering that they left an open hatch to the outside. I would think that if they'd explored it thoroughly they'd have blocked that off somehow.

They do not consider the zombies to be intelligent at all. They lack the necessary IQ and hand-to-foot coordination to climb such a tall ladder. It is even pretty demanding in concentration for people to climb those things.

John overtly displayed knowledge about the place that no one else had. He was reading all the documentation that was housed in the caves. And you'll notice that Sarah and McDermott didn't beeline for the silo until John caught up with them. They didn't seem to be moving with purpose at all. I'd contend that John was THE ONLY PERSON who knew about the silo exit. He may very well have known about it for some time and chosen not to share it with the military because he wanted to have his own escape route if it came to that.

John is reading old records that nobody else down there cares about because he simply doesn't have anything better to do. That does not mean he knows the base better than anyone.

Sarah and McDermott definitely know the silo is back there, she says so and McDermott says they can't get back there without guns (there might be too many zombies on the way there), but they are cut off by unexpected obstacles, like a rock slide and wandering zombies, which makes their trip to the silo more difficult than it would otherwise have been.

I won't contend that my hypothesis fits ALL the available facts. But it leaves less loose end. Such as:
- The soldiers didn't display knowledge of there being an additional exit when it was particularly important that they have one.

I think it is a perfectly valid nitpick. Steel should have known better. But explanations for his remark can be offered as well. Maybe Steel was getting a bit "yellow" himself at this point and did not want to consider venturing into the zombie-filled caves to use the other exit that was potentially available.

- The soldiers placed Sarah and McDermott in the corral as if it were a death sentence. They did NOT act like they knew there was another exit.

If they put you in those caves with no weapons whatsoever to defend yourself, you too would think it is basically a death sentence. McDermott knows about the silo being back there, but he doubts they will be able to make it without any guns to fight back the potential zombies they will encounter on the way. The reason why they make a run for it nonetheless is because they have no other choice but to take a chance. If they stay in the corral they are dead for sure.

- The soldiers displayed an abundance of counter-behaviors to the contention that they were highly security minded. They were portrayed as lazy and stupid. For example, they posted no guards. They did no rounds. They had no clue John and McDermott had built a sanctuary outside the living quarters. They brawled. They threatened rape on Sarah. They left the corral gate open as they fled.

Like I pointed out in the other thread, they are rude, loud, obnoxious, and not particularly bright when it comes to more complicated matters (like science), but they sure were not suicidal. We never see them playing Russian roulette with their own lives. The corral is always closed when we see it, and we hear of no incidents about any of the zombies there getting out on their own and killing someone (which would very quickly have been brought up by Rhodes had it ever happened, and he would have not hesitated to blame the scientists for it, even if it had been one of the soldier's negligence to close the gate.)

Why would they need guards and rounds down in the bunker? The outside area was fenced and the zombies below were behind the corral in a place where they would not be able to find a way into the living/working areas. In any event, we do not know for sure if they actually posted guards when the others were sleeping.

- The soldiers clearly did not know the cave layout. When the zombies stream in through the corral gates they make it to the living areas BEFORE the soldiers.

Which is in itself impossible. That is in fact a huge gap in logic from Romero's part. Huge nitpick. There is just no way that could have happened, and others around here have been puzzled by this obvious contradiction. They did not even intercept Rickles on his way to the very area the zombies poured out from, and yet these slow, shuffling, dumb creatures somehow miraculously find their way to areas further away before the running soldiers do!!!

Your ONLY evidence is an assumption of what you think people like them SHOULD do. To be honest, I agree with that assumption. They SHOULD HAVE explored the caves. But it doesn't fit the facts. Stop acting like you have to explain everything to me when your own hypothesis fails so obviously.

Apparently I have to keep doing so, because you either do not fully get it or just want to be obtuse on purpose. None of the soldiers or civilians in this movie are anywhere even near stupid and suicidal enough to have made such a hilariously dumb decision as building a corral for a bunch of potentially deadly zombies without first checking out that it was safe to keep them there. Your excuses that some of these people were rude, lecherous, obnoxious, etc. does not take away from the fact that they were not by any means suicidal and did NOT have any inclination whatsoever to gamble with their lives. Bringing a bunch of zombies to an area of the underground complex without knowing for sure that they would not be able to find another entrance into their living/working quarters is something that only the gone-fully-suicidal Miguel of the latter part of the movie would do, no one else.

Even if we assume that Land occurs less than a year into the outbreak I don't see how you can contend that places like Fiddler's Green "simply can't exist anymore," by your assumed 5 year mark of Day. It seems like a setup similar to the Green could go indefinitely. The Green was more capable of securing supplies and building infrastructure. Whereas the Day bunker had limited resources and no means to scavenge.

That's because the Green of Land was set in a time when such supplies were still plentiful and still relatively accessible (if you had enough manpower to go get them.) By the time of Day, such things would be more scarce and difficult to procure (less and less people, more and more zombies.) Plus we can clearly see that the Green did not survive. It was overrun by zombies in the end. So was the bunker.

Here's an interesting question. If Land was set so early into the outbreak, why didn't Peter pick up transmissions from Fiddler's Green or the scavenging parties listening to the radio in the mall?

Maybe he did, we just did not see it. They had a radio there and their ears on, just in case they heard something. Maybe the biker army that assaults the mall actually worked for one of these outposts! They were also very interested in looting the money in the mall's bank, so they still had use for it, just like the people we see at the time of Land. Nothing impossible here.

- - - Updated - - -

You've offered no reasonable argument to anything, so still; Occams razor.

You've offered nothing but the same tired old mantra, so it still does not work. The ball is still on your court until you can actually come up with counterarguments.

EvilNed

11-Feb-2016, 06:06 PM

So just because a few people stubbornly refuse to accept coherent and well reasoned arguments based on what we see in these movies that means they must be wrong, even though these fellows can't actually prove they are wrong or faulty?

Everyone is in agreement that your arguments are not-well reasoned. Everyone except you. Do you think it's because maybe they aren't or that the rest of us are dumb?

You've offered nothing but the same tired old mantra, so it still does not work. The ball is still on your court until you can actually come up with counterarguments.

Which I did, several times. You either refused to accept them based on your "superior" reasoning or ignored them altogether. You still haven't explained why they look for survivors in Day and not Land...
Or why Kaufman has a zombie killing tank...
Or comprehended what expositional dialoge is...

Blablabla, I cold go on. You're gonna reply to all these replies with lengthy paragraphs that jump to conclusions and assume things that would make Occam take that razor and cut his own ears off.

facestabber

11-Feb-2016, 06:08 PM

Where does Land clearly state that it has been 3 years? There's only two mentions of years in the movie, and neither one of them clearly says that it is the amount of time it has passed since the outbreak. The only thing the movie does specifically say about this subject of a time-frame is during the starting sequence: "some time ago" and "today". Couldn't be more vague and imprecise if it tried to!

Going back two days here. I offered you George Romeros own words that Land is 3 years in. Btw that quote was after Land was made so tell me again of the original script of Day saying 5 years still stands? So it proves you were incorrect on your belief that Land happens early on. You dismissed the time statements that were uttered in Land yet Romero has reinforced what the rest of us believe. You're wrong on Land according to Romero so why are you right on Day?

You offered a hypothesis on Day. You can't prove it. I can't prove that Day isn't 5 years in. It very well could be. It also could be much less. There are so many maybe's as to how or why communications failed but it doesn't prove 5 years. Maybe one relay station was struck by lightning. Or maybe one burned up because of bandits. Maybe mcdermotts equipment finally dry rotted and the signals are too puny. Heck a couple months into TWD universe shows that communications crashed fast. Doesn't prove that humans can't make a comeback. Woodbury and the prison were close to each other and the Gov had no idea people had taken it over until by chance Merle runs into Glenn. Point is when comms go down you are in the dark and don't know what the heck is going on a couple miles down the road till you physically go there.

Based on your beliefs tell us what was happening in places such as Montana/Alaska.

Trin

11-Feb-2016, 06:27 PM

Land is sort of a wasted opportunity.
I'd like to go back to this point because I really think this could be an interesting topic.

I felt like Land was a wasted opportunity as well. Romero was given a chance to make his zombie masterpiece. And ... as much as I love the man all he did for my movie watching lifetime ... I think he kinda blew it. And with it he condemned the franchise to low-budget indies as follow-up.

And it could've been GREAT! The opening 15 minutes are some of the best zombie pr0n available. The setup they had, the characters, the way they approached the world, the many glimpses we get into the post-apocalyptic world ... it was all freakin awesome.

Land's Problems:
- There weren't enough zombies around the city to be a threat. For casual forays outside the city they were a nuisance at best.
- Yet the populace acted as if they were trapped and the situation was dire.
- Kaufman had little basis for control given the relative safety outside. A small group could've just walked out and made their own way without much trouble. It's implausible that Riley and Charlie hadn't left long ago.
- The money issue. I agree that money was a viable Kaufman backed currency inside the Green. But Cholo ransoming the city for money was insane. And even if you assume Cholo was too stupid or revenge driven to care that money was useless to him ... you still have Kaufman grabbing bags of money to flee the city. With the Green fallen that money is just as useless to him. To (probably mis)quote Clanglee, "It's an odd place to pin your primary plot point."
- Big Daddy. I'm not against the "learning zombie" or the idea that Romero wanted to show zombie evolution. But the execution was off.
- Walking under the river. Which was unguarded. And has no current. And trying to convince us that the zombies only did this now becuase they'd gotten smart. As if half a million zombies walking blindly forward wouldn't have accomplished this years prior. Let's face it... we all knew the zombies will penetrate the defenses - half the fun is seeing how it happens. But in the grand scheme of "how did your perfect zombie base get breached" this was the ultimate cop-out.

So... how would I fix those things? I'm glad you asked:
- Have the secured area be surrounded by zombies. As many as you could manage. It would provide a huge sense of dread and immediately establish a grandeur over the prior movies. It would justify the dread inside the city and the control Kaufman exerted as their "savior."
- Make the scavengers have to work to get into and out of the city. Make Dead Reckoning an absolute necessity to survive scavenging. And make the entire exchange very well planned and executed. That would elevate the main characters in importance and capability, justify why Dead Reckoning was considered a pivotal asset, while giving us zombie geeks some incredible survivalist material to chew on. How do they get in? How do they get out? How do they survive?
- Have Cholo threaten to blow up a section of the walls, not the tower. That would be more dreadful and a more interesting character twist.
- Have Cholo ransom the city for money AND resources (fuel, ammunition, food, medicine). Money to hurt Kaufman by bringing down his empire and resources for plausibility sake knowing Cholo can't go back.
- Have the zombies begin to learn as a group, rather than through a specific leader. Show the same aptitude for learned behavior we saw in Day in the corral, except on a grander scale. Add them learning from one another (as a twist) and show how a small bit of learning sweeping across a HUGE mass of zombies makes them incredibly threatening.
- And then have some twist to how the zombies breach the defenses that is less of a cop-out. Maybe the zombies figure out to attack Dead Reckoning instead of the city directly, forcing Cholo to blow the walls up just to get them off himself. Or maybe they see the humans using fire or tools in some way that they can emulate in attacks on the walls. There's gotta be something better than "walk under the river."

In the Hollywood reboot-fest can we please have this movie??

EvilNed

11-Feb-2016, 06:38 PM

The argument that
Washington can't hold it's shit together - thus nobody else can either doesn't take into account dozens of times in history when governments have collapsed yet enclaves and outbreaks of that government have continued on within that societal collapse. From the collapse of the roman empire, dozens of smaller states emerged seemingly untouched. The roman empire was at that time the most powerful political and military organization on the world. To think that the US government could collapse and other localized adhoc gangs or militia's would take up arms and organize instead is not far fetched at all. This is my counter to your argument, JDP.

The argument that the newsflashes at the start of Land seem to indicate that Land is mere weeks into it rather than years doesn't take into account the fact that the newsflashes themselves seem to range from a wider span. The first reports seem to be of a person describing the first time he sees a dead come back to life - i.e., the very first days, and subsequent newsflashes cover the societal collapse that followed. Thus to suggest that anyone of these newscasts pinpoint Land's place in the chronological order of Romero's dead trilogy ignores the fact that the newsflashes themselves have a very wide range - From what appears to be Day 1 to what could very well be Day 60. (I could go on that they are finished off by a fade - which in the language of film means; A passage of time.)

The argument that Florida would have gotten information on the existance (or lack thereof) of other survivors in the US ignores the fact that we have no idea that they DIDN'T. Washington could very well - and probably would have - have discussed dozens of situational reps throughout the US. But when the relays went down, from lack of maintenance - or way more likely - a fire that was simply not put out - there's just no way for the Florida personell to keep in touch with Washington anymore. Conclusion; Lack of information does not mean that there isn't any and no amount of assumption will change this, JDP.

The argument that the characters in Land did not refer to the start of the apocalypse when they twice mention something that happened three years ago ignores the fact that all dialoge exists for a purpose - and the purpose of this dialoge was to convey background information relevant to the viewer. If they do not refer to the start of it all, the question begs; What DO they refer to? To which there is no good answer within the context of this film. Indeed, they could refer to the car mechanics bad streak of luck with customers, or that Cholo and Kaufman had a pre-apocalyptic agreement. However this information is very much useless to the viewer when compared to giving him or her an approximate timeline for when this mess started and would have been cut from the script by any capable or even amateurish scriptwriter at an early stage. Land of the Dead did not go through 1 or 2 revisions, I can promise you that, it went through at least 10...

The argument that Day displays more decay than Land is just silly and cannot be empirically proved. Both display decay at an advanced level. Leave it at that. I believe this is the very definition of "grasping for straws".

I just took these five examples, JDP, to point out how and where your arguments fall short - what facts they ignore and what pieces of information they either overlook or make wild assumptions about.

shootemindehead

11-Feb-2016, 08:54 PM

One only has to review the thread to see that it plainly has. It is you "Land has to happen after Day" fellows that still have to bring up any counterarguments that have not been answered yet. The ball is still on your court.

The ball never left our court. The match never started. You haven't even arrived with a working tennis racket.

You haven't shown, NOT ONCE, anything to support your conclusion. A conclusion that you have obviously started with because it suits you and into which you've tried to jam in a whole manner of items, which have been torn apart time and again.

You can continuously ignore this if you wish. It makes no difference to me. But you have not been, in any way, convincing in your argument. I cannot stress that enough.

Personally, I couldn't give a tinkers cuss if 'Land of the Dead' DID come before 'Day of the Dead'. There are plenty of film series that have stories that are out of their timeline. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' takes place after 'Temple of Doom' despite the fact that Raiders was made before temple and it doesn't diminish those films one bit..

But, the simple fact is, is that 'Land of the Dead' takes place after the events in 'Day of the Dead', whether you like it or not and no amount of "yeh, but no...but yeh..." will change that.

Thats not evidence of anything! It's obvious Kaufman's tank can travel through time and arrived from the future - the so called 3 years he's talking about! In fact, Land takes place PRIOR to the apocalypse in a post-Trump presidancy America!

I'm going to blame YOU if that shows up in Romero's next picture.

JDP

12-Feb-2016, 02:59 AM

The ball never left our court. The match never started. You haven't even arrived with a working tennis racket.

You haven't shown, NOT ONCE, anything to support your conclusion. A conclusion that you have obviously started with because it suits you and into which you've tried to jam in a whole manner of items, which have been torn apart time and again.

You can continuously ignore this if you wish. It makes no difference to me. But you have not been, in any way, convincing in your argument. I cannot stress that enough.

Personally, I couldn't give a tinkers cuss if 'Land of the Dead' DID come before 'Day of the Dead'. There are plenty of film series that have stories that are out of their timeline. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' takes place after 'Temple of Doom' despite the fact that Raiders was made before temple and it doesn't diminish those films one bit..

But, the simple fact is, is that 'Land of the Dead' takes place after the events in 'Day of the Dead', whether you like it or not and no amount of "yeh, but no...but yeh..." will change that.

Your amusing little denials are not going to change the fact that the ball still is very much in your court and you have yet to hit it back. It was served to you in style, and you still can't simply hit it back, all you can do is go into deep denial and hilarious "arguments": "Noooo, these people in Florida must all be morons and masochists, that's why they remain down in that bunker blowing things out of proportion for no reason at all other than they don't know anything except what goes on in their backyard!", "Yes, Kaufman can somehow manage to maintain an advanced civilization going on while the government of the most powerful nation in the world, which has more resources and capital at its disposal than a crook like Kaufman could even dream of in his wildest fantasies, has been forced to go underground and can't even maintain its communication networks anymore. It sounds perfectly logical!", "Rhodes can't answer Logan's "where will you go" taunts because... because... because... he is a masochist and wants to look like a total idiot in front of his men, yes, that must be it!", "The frequent talks that the Florida team had with Washington before communications ceased must have been about anything but the desperate zombie situation and survivors, like for example, Democrats vs Republicans, or what's for dinner over there at the White House, here we are having sardines and saltine crackers yet again! Really, it makes perfect sense!", etc. Keep trying. My challenges -every single one of them based on either things clearly stated or logically implied by the movies- to you and your mates about this strange claim that the still functional and still relatively safe world of Land can somehow logically take place after the total chaos and impending doom of Day still stand, and anxiously await real counterarguments, not puerile stubborn denials or easily rebutted arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone is in agreement that your arguments are not-well reasoned. Everyone except you. Do you think it's because maybe they aren't or that the rest of us are dumb?

Everyone meaning you and a couple of your friends. Gee, really, I am amazed. I am still waiting for you or any of your friends to come up with any valid counterarguments.

Which I did, several times. You either refused to accept them based on your "superior" reasoning or ignored them altogether. You still haven't explained why they look for survivors in Day and not Land...
Or why Kaufman has a zombie killing tank...

You did so in your imagination, I guess.

I already answered this faulty argument: In Land they already have TONS of survivors. Why in blazes would they want to go out of their way to find more mouths to feed??? They already got their hands full. What they need is medicine and food for all these people that they already have, or didn't you notice that's why they go on raiding other places to find these things? In fact, these survivors are even free to leave Kaufman's city if they so wish to. In Day, it is exactly the opposite: they can't seem to find survivors anywhere!

Kaufman has an armored vehicle because it makes the job of going around looting zombie areas easier and safer. That simple. It is not absolutely necessary either to do such jobs, by the way. The bikers in Dawn were doing quite well looting for supplies without any sophisticated armored vehicle.

Or comprehended what expositional dialoge is...

You mean like I had to show you what that is, because you were confusing it with something else (narrative.) Again, go back in the thread and read it. It's all there in plain sight.

Blablabla, I cold go on. You're gonna reply to all these replies with lengthy paragraphs that jump to conclusions and assume things that would make Occam take that razor and cut his own ears off.

Of course, because that's how you actually refute your interlocutor's "arguments", by providing coherent and well thought explanations, not by stubborn denials and repeating the same tired old refuted "arguments" and excuses over and over again, such as you do.

- - - Updated - - -

Going back two days here. I offered you George Romeros own words that Land is 3 years in. Btw that quote was after Land was made so tell me again of the original script of Day saying 5 years still stands? So it proves you were incorrect on your belief that Land happens early on. You dismissed the time statements that were uttered in Land yet Romero has reinforced what the rest of us believe. You're wrong on Land according to Romero so why are you right on Day?

You offered a hypothesis on Day. You can't prove it. I can't prove that Day isn't 5 years in. It very well could be. It also could be much less. There are so many maybe's as to how or why communications failed but it doesn't prove 5 years. Maybe one relay station was struck by lightning. Or maybe one burned up because of bandits. Maybe mcdermotts equipment finally dry rotted and the signals are too puny. Heck a couple months into TWD universe shows that communications crashed fast. Doesn't prove that humans can't make a comeback. Woodbury and the prison were close to each other and the Gov had no idea people had taken it over until by chance Merle runs into Glenn. Point is when comms go down you are in the dark and don't know what the heck is going on a couple miles down the road till you physically go there.

Based on your beliefs tell us what was happening in places such as Montana/Alaska.

One thing is Romero's intentions, and another different thing is how his movies really come across. The years issue in Land was not precise enough and left room for interpretation.

Romero envisioned Day to be 5 years after the zombies first popped up. Now he says that Land is only 3. Unless he has gone on record saying that Day takes place at some other time earlier than Land, I see no problem here. I already told you that there is no nitpick if Land happens about 3 years from the early days of the zombie disaster as long as Day happens after it. The nitpick only comes if it is claimed that Day happens before Land.

The Walking Dead is another matter altogether. And it often makes more sense than some of the strange problems and contradictions that can creep in some of Romero's movies. For example, you don't find the survivors of that show making super-armored vehicles with computers, machine guns, rockets, etc. and maintaining huge numbers of mercenaries, workers, citizens, etc. in a world where even the very government itself has basically collapsed and organized society at large has gone to hell. These people are having a tough time just surviving. They don't have the time, manpower or resources to establish very advanced societies. In this sense, TWD is a lot like Day.

- - - Updated - - -

The argument that
Washington can't hold it's shit together - thus nobody else can either doesn't take into account dozens of times in history when governments have collapsed yet enclaves and outbreaks of that government have continued on within that societal collapse. From the collapse of the roman empire, dozens of smaller states emerged seemingly untouched. The roman empire was at that time the most powerful political and military organization on the world. To think that the US government could collapse and other localized adhoc gangs or militia's would take up arms and organize instead is not far fetched at all. This is my counter to your argument, JDP.

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Guess what brought it? Yep, precisely what you are describing. For roughly some five hundred years most of Europe was in much worse shape than when the Roman empire was still around. Notice that the Byzantine and Muslim empires, which did not go through the same crisis and collapse as the Western Roman empire, at this period were in much better shape than Christian Europe. Ask any historian and they will tell you that most preservation and advancement of human knowledge (science, philosophy, math, medicine, literature, poetry, etc.) at this time came mostly from such places, not from Christian Europe. It is only during the so-called Middle Ages, some five hundred or so years after the collapse of the Western Roman empire, that Christian Europe finally catched up to these other civilizations.

The argument that the newsflashes at the start of Land seem to indicate that Land is mere weeks into it rather than years doesn't take into account the fact that the newsflashes themselves seem to range from a wider span. The first reports seem to be of a person describing the first time he sees a dead come back to life - i.e., the very first days, and subsequent newsflashes cover the societal collapse that followed. Thus to suggest that anyone of these newscasts pinpoint Land's place in the chronological order of Romero's dead trilogy ignores the fact that the newsflashes themselves have a very wide range - From what appears to be Day 1 to what could very well be Day 60. (I could go on that they are finished off by a fade - which in the language of film means; A passage of time.)

Where did I deny that the broadcasts also cover the very early days of the zombie crisis? But that still does not mean that what the broadcasts also report later on is not actually closer to what we see happening in Land: people establishing outposts and looting towns for supplies.

The argument that Florida would have gotten information on the existance (or lack thereof) of other survivors in the US ignores the fact that we have no idea that they DIDN'T. Washington could very well - and probably would have - have discussed dozens of situational reps throughout the US. But when the relays went down, from lack of maintenance - or way more likely - a fire that was simply not put out - there's just no way for the Florida personell to keep in touch with Washington anymore. Conclusion; Lack of information does not mean that there isn't any and no amount of assumption will change this, JDP.

OK, but having logically had such discussions with Washington we have to conclude that our Florida survivors' very pessimistic attitude is founded not just on what is going on on their own turf, but also from the not very encouraging information coming from elsewhere. Now, does it look to you that our survivors in Florida are really entertaining much hope of really finding a safe place to go at this point? Dr. Logan's estimate of the situation looks very bleak. People are vastly outnumbered by the zombies. And Rhodes and his men, the people most anxious and interested in leaving the bunker, can hardly put up any counterarguments against him. They know how dangerous is going to be for them to try to survive out there. So does Logan.

The argument that the characters in Land did not refer to the start of the apocalypse when they twice mention something that happened three years ago ignores the fact that all dialoge exists for a purpose - and the purpose of this dialoge was to convey background information relevant to the viewer. If they do not refer to the start of it all, the question begs; What DO they refer to? To which there is no good answer within the context of this film. Indeed, they could refer to the car mechanics bad streak of luck with customers, or that Cholo and Kaufman had a pre-apocalyptic agreement. However this information is very much useless to the viewer when compared to giving him or her an approximate timeline for when this mess started and would have been cut from the script by any capable or even amateurish scriptwriter at an early stage. Land of the Dead did not go through 1 or 2 revisions, I can promise you that, it went through at least 10...

The problem is that Romero loves to be vague about certain things, and specific times seems to be one of them. None of his zombie movies seem to be very specific about when exactly are the things we see developing on the screen happening. You have to go around trying to see if it is possible to deduce anything on the subject from other things. In the case of the guy at the garage, the 3 year bit would appear to be inconsequential (who is this character anyway? it is never clear who exactly this fellow in the garage is), but in the case of Cholo, one of Kaufman's main henchmen, the inference that he might have been already working for him even before any of this zombie stuff was going on might have significance.

The argument that Day displays more decay than Land is just silly and cannot be empirically proved. Both display decay at an advanced level. Leave it at that. I believe this is the very definition of "grasping for straws".

That is not difficult at all to be challenged. Here, look, this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6ojVCQplAMA/VPI7PB_q_CI/AAAAAAAAAE4/PTVwd-UqakU/s1600/vlcsnap-2015-02-28-21h35m08s180.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JYejwTLpqNQ/UI3dLP8MbrI/AAAAAAAAAy0/7EUmUo-5Knc/s1600/dayofthedead.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HQfOjoYHSXU/UWOi-jwoqQI/AAAAAAAAEfQ/Tyt_3YZxo6k/s1600/DAY+OF+THE+DEAD+-+v1+-+Silver+Ferox+Design.jpg

Looks quite more "abandoned" and decayed than this:

http://www.heyuguys.com/images/2014/02/Land-of-the-Dead.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AhDLM24k3Ko/Tnn91X97RsI/AAAAAAAAA8s/gs3tqw52Qww/s1600/land-of-the-dead-big-dead-reckoning.jpg

http://cdn.movieweb.com/video.img/VIquZtvvzJCvuv_1_hd.jpg

Another thing: also notice the clothes of the zombies in both movies. The zombies in Land for the most part have clothes that are still in better shape than those of the zombies in Day:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2_E36wZJzE8/UgolVA6AGeI/AAAAAAAACPw/QTxA7Gwwupo/s1600/land-of-the-dead-2005-internal-dvdrip-xvid-failed-2.jpg

They look more like the state of preservation of the clothes of the zombies in Dawn, which are still relatively recent. The clothes of the zombies in Day look like they have been decaying for longer:

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/editorial/screenshot/2006/7/cap004_copy0.jpg

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Day_Of_The_Dead_8_dead.jpg

I just took these five examples, JDP, to point out how and where your arguments fall short - what facts they ignore and what pieces of information they either overlook or make wild assumptions about.

All of them addressed.

EvilNed

12-Feb-2016, 04:30 AM

Have you ever heard of the Dark Ages? Guess what brought it? Yep, precisely what you are describing. For roughly some five hundred years most of Europe was in much worse shape than when the Roman empire was still around. Notice that the Byzantine and Muslim empires, which did not go through the same crisis and collapse as the Western Roman empire, at this period were in much better shape than Christian Europe. Ask any historian and they will tell you that most preservation and advancement of human knowledge (science, philosophy, math, medicine, literature, poetry, etc.) at this time came mostly from such places, not from Christian Europe. It is only during the so-called Middle Ages, some five hundred or so years after the collapse of the Western Roman empire, that Christian Europe finally catched up to these other civilizations.

So? I fail to see a counter-argument here.
Just like the Lombard, Frankish and Gothic kingdoms emerged from the ashes of the roman empire, so could Fiddler's Green.

Where did I deny that the broadcasts also cover the very early days of the zombie crisis? But that still does not mean that what the broadcasts also report later on is not actually closer to what we see happening in Land: people establishing outposts and looting towns for supplies.

Good, so we are in agreement that the broadcasts have no bearing on when Land is set.

OK, but having logically had such discussions with Washington we have to conclude that our Florida survivors' very pessimistic attitude is founded not just on what is going on on their own turf, but also from the not very encouraging information coming from elsewhere. Now, does it look to you that our survivors in Florida are really entertaining much hope of really finding a safe place to go at this point? Dr. Logan's estimate of the situation looks very bleak. People are vastly outnumbered by the zombies. And Rhodes and his men, the people most anxious and interested in leaving the bunker, can hardly put up any counterarguments against him. They know how dangerous is going to be for them to try to survive out there. So does Logan.

So? I'm not denying that they don't know... In fact, that's exactly what I've been telling you all along. There might be something out there, there might not be, as far as they're concerned. That's why they are looking. Yet again, I fail to see a counter argument here.

The problem is that Romero loves to be vague about certain things, and specific times seems to be one of them. None of his zombie movies seem to be very specific about when exactly are the things we see developing on the screen happening. You have to go around trying to see if it is possible to deduce anything on the subject from other things. In the case of the guy at the garage, the 3 year bit would appear to be inconsequential (who is this character anyway? it is never clear who exactly this fellow in the garage is), but in the case of Cholo, one of Kaufman's main henchmen, the inference that he might have been already working for him even before any of this zombie stuff was going on might have significance.

It's only a problem if you make it one. They are only inconsequential if you want them to be, which you clearly do. Two three-years-ago references. You can't simply dismiss them the way you do without good grounds and you don't seem like you even know.

That is not difficult at all to be challenged. Here, look, this:

*Pictures*

Another thing: also notice the clothes of the zombies in both movies. The zombies in Land for the most part have clothes that are still in better shape than those of the zombies in Day:

Both instances look perfectly fine to be honest. The only thing that's off in Day is that there are dead palm trees and leaves thrown everywhere and a few off-parked cars. That's all there is. The same thing seems to have happened in Land - but on a city wide scale. The clothes I would agree with but they are also two films with two different costumers. Or that one, Florida, is a stormy coastal climate. Even so, the Florida scene features newspapers flying around so again, if we're gonna nitpick the clothes I want to bring that in htere. A newspaper would not survive 3+ years in stormy weather. Let's assume it's been outside the whole time since - it's outside when we see it.

All of them addressed.

After reading your post, I don't even understand what points you were trying to get across. Ramblings about the dark ages, conceeding the TV-spots, agreement on the washington discussion, no clear answer on the three-year issue and some pictures of Day and Land next to each other that don't really show anything?

Trin

12-Feb-2016, 07:20 AM

Sarah and McDermott definitely know the silo is back there, she says so and McDermott says they can't get back there without guns (there might be too many zombies on the way there), but they are cut off by unexpected obstacles, like a rock slide and wandering zombies, which makes their trip to the silo more difficult than it would otherwise have been.
This argument has merit and actually made me pop in the movie for a quick brush-up. What Sarah actually says is, "Isn't there an old silo back there?" It's clear she's never seen it. It's clear McDermott and John have not either.

As for the soldiers, I tend to agree that they *should* know it is there. But I think my arguments stand. Regardless as to what you or I might believe about them, they *display* complete and utter ignorance of it. Steele says, in the Lift room, "Stuck ... Rickles, we can't get out of here." That's just damning. Plus, once the soldiers are running around inside the bunker trying to escape NOT ONE of them heads that way. Even Rickles, who is literally right beside the corral when he gets eaten, doesn't even look at it like it's an option.

I won't buy that the soldiers were afraid of entering the zombie corral. They were gung ho to go in there and destroy all the zombies in previous scenes. Why would they feel differently about going through the caves to get to the ladder?

And I'm not buying that they went through an exhaustive "securing" effort and left that big open gaping hole at the top of the silo. That just completely undermines the idea that they were highly security minded. And don't give me that "the zombies couldn't climb the ladder" stuff. They'd be more worried about threats getting IN, than out. Primarily other humans.

But there is no way of knowing for sure whether there is another entrance back into the living/working areas unless you actually thoroughly explore it.
As I said before, they only needed to establish a secure perimeter, which they clearly did. The corral served as a single entry/exit point to a much larger unsecured area. Watching the ending sequence made me more convinced than ever that they didn't bother to search it all. It was vast and mostly undeveloped.

There is a potential "middle ground" scenario I can see ... The soldiers we see are not the ones who originally secured the facility and built the corral. Given that the operation was put together early on and quickly it's entirely possible that the soldiers were dropped in to an already running facility, that was considered secure prior to their arrival. Thus they would've had no reason to search it themselves and would've remained ignorant of the silo, or at least the details of it and that it was a viable escape option.

shootemindehead

12-Feb-2016, 12:19 PM

Your amusing little denials are not going to change the fact that the ball still is very much in your court and you have yet to hit it back. It was served to you in style, and you still can't simply hit it back, all you can do is go into deep denial and hilarious "arguments": "Noooo, these people in Florida must all be morons and masochists, that's why they remain down in that bunker blowing things out of proportion for no reason at all other than they don't know anything except what goes on in their backyard!", "Yes, Kaufman can somehow manage to maintain an advanced civilization going on while the government of the most powerful nation in the world, which has more resources and capital at its disposal than a crook like Kaufman could even dream of in his wildest fantasies, has been forced to go underground and can't even maintain its communication networks anymore. It sounds perfectly logical!", "Rhodes can't answer Logan's "where will you go" taunts because... because... because... he is a masochist and wants to look like a total idiot in front of his men, yes, that must be it!", "The frequent talks that the Florida team had with Washington before communications ceased must have been about anything but the desperate zombie situation and survivors, like for example, Democrats vs Republicans, or what's for dinner over there at the White House, here we are having sardines and saltine crackers yet again! Really, it makes perfect sense!", etc. Keep trying. My challenges -every single one of them based on either things clearly stated or logically implied by the movies- to you and your mates about this strange claim that the still functional and still relatively safe world of Land can somehow logically take place after the total chaos and impending doom of Day still stand, and anxiously await real counterarguments, not puerile stubborn denials or easily rebutted arguments.

I don't know what to say to the above other than it's an absurd blurt of nonsense that STILL does nothing to support your wishes. You keep batting the ball against the net.

In addition, the only thing your selected screenshots prove is that 'Day of the Dead' and 'Land of the Dead' are two separately made films, with a 20 year time gap, created by completely different people and therefore subject to all the issues that such parameters will inevitably spawn.

It's akin to saying that because Kaufmann uses a mobile phone in 'Land of the Dead', it MUST therefore take place after 'Day of the Dead', because there were no mobile phones in 1985.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the soldiers...

Rhodes uniform arm patch shows that his unit is the 99th Army Reserves. It's therefore not beyond reason that these part time soldiers wouldn't have the first clue how to go about securing their own house, never mind a "14 mile tombstone".

JDP

12-Feb-2016, 03:38 PM

I don't know what to say to the above other than it's an absurd blurt of nonsense that STILL does nothing to support your wishes. You keep batting the ball against the net.

Hint: it's a description of your type of "logic" and "arguments".

In addition, the only thing your selected screenshots prove is that 'Day of the Dead' and 'Land of the Dead' are two separately made films, with a 20 year time gap, created by completely different people and therefore subject to all the issues that such parameters will inevitably spawn.

Yeah, right. What a "coincidence" that the world of Day looks more consistently decayed than that of Land, and both movies are made by the same guy and are supposed to be part of the same series.

It's akin to saying that because Kaufmann uses a mobile phone in 'Land of the Dead', it MUST therefore take place after 'Day of the Dead', because there were no mobile phones in 1985.

There is a big difference here which I am not even going to bother to explain in detail to you since as usual you just won't get it. It is clear that applying logic and common sense to nitpick movies does not seem to be your forte. Suffice it to say that clothes are a whole different ball game than something like cell phones, which are not a common feature in all these movies, unlike clothes, something very common and basic to human society since a long time ago. The people in Diary also use the internet, which was not around in 1968 when Night was made, yet both movies belong to the very early days of the zombie outbreak. No one is nitpicking that. It goes without saying that people understand the two movies were made with a huge gap in years between them and technology has changed. Wearing clothes hasn't. And they still age and decay no matter the changes in fashion.

EvilNed

12-Feb-2016, 03:44 PM

Yeah, right. What a "coincidence" that the world of Day looks more consistently decayed than that of Land, and both movies are made by the same guy and are supposed to be part of the same series.

First off, as I already pointed out, this statement is false. All Day has are abandoned cars and palm residue lying all over the place. That's it. That's all they did.
Second off, apart from a Director, a film also has a production designer, a cinematographer/director of photography, a costume designer and a makeup designer. For instance look at the makeup in Day and then compare that with Dawn. Dawn, being on a tighter budget, has considereably cheaper makeup than Day - yet these are also made by "the same guy". If you accept that Dawn and Day take place in the same series and accept those differences, then you must also accept the different appearances in Day and Land.

MinionZombie

12-Feb-2016, 04:59 PM

Plus - different budgets - and different technologies.

No CGI in Day of the Dead's time, but it was around for Land.

However, it should also be noted that there's only so much time - and so much money - to achieve what ends up on film. There's significant practical factors that weigh in on the production/art design, as well as who is actually running that department (some designers are better and more detailed than others, or they can have grand and elaborate plans - but not enough money to do them, so corners get cut).

JDP

12-Feb-2016, 05:09 PM

So? I fail to see a counter-argument here.
Just like the Lombard, Frankish and Gothic kingdoms emerged from the ashes of the roman empire, so could Fiddler's Green.

That what you are describing far from improving the situation in Europe it actually made it worse. Now put two and two together and apply it to the zombie situation that you were trying to compare with that historical case. It's your own analogy, not mine.

Good, so we are in agreement that the broadcasts have no bearing on when Land is set.

No, we are in agreement that the broadcasts go from day 1 to a date CLOSER in time to the events we see in Land. And also that this by necessity implies that the people in Day could hardly not have been aware that such outposts existed at some point. Even the media reported such things. This brings us back to the poignant problem of: then why to the survivors of Day such things as thriving human outposts are no longer an option? If they were still around by the time of Day then the soldiers and civilians would have very good options left besides being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies. Yet no such possibility is even entertained by any of the characters, not even those most desirous to find another place to go to. All it takes is for Dr. Logan to remind them "where will you go" for them to be left without any viable answers.

So? I'm not denying that they don't know... In fact, that's exactly what I've been telling you all along. There might be something out there, there might not be, as far as they're concerned. That's why they are looking. Yet again, I fail to see a counter argument here.

The counterargument is that if such thriving outposts still existed by the time of Day the survivors would not have had such problems and dilemmas about whether there were other survivors anywhere or where exactly can they go to so that they will be safe. They would still have had plenty of options left besides the bunker, yet they clearly do not consider this to be the case. It takes a major pissing-off contest between the civilians and soldiers, which results in Logan and Fisher getting court martialed and executed on the spot, for Rhodes to finally decide that enough is enough and want to take the risk of leaving the security of the bunker and try his luck out there (but with a handy helicopter, of course.) Why so much complication, indecision and conflicts if they can simply go to one of these still functional outposts with tons of armed mercenaries, vehicles, electric fences, loads of survivors, etc.? Like I said, it does not take a brain surgeon to see such flagrant contradictions.

It's only a problem if you make it one. They are only inconsequential if you want them to be, which you clearly do. Two three-years-ago references. You can't simply dismiss them the way you do without good grounds and you don't seem like you even know.

Like I said, both references are vague enough to be open to interpretation. You can also find vague references to time in other Romero movies which can be interpreted more than one way. For example, the priest in Dawn tells Peter and Roger that: "Many have died on these streets in the last weeks. In the basement of this building you will find them." Hmmm, OK. Let me see, I can interpret this like either the zombie problem has been going on for several weeks already, or maybe the old man is also referring to deaths that already happened before the zombie outbreak, in which case it is now less clear how long ago has the zombie problem started. This type of very general and rather vague statements about periods of time leave themselves open to interpretation. On the other hand, one of the bikers in the same movie unambiguously saying that they will assault the mall "tonight" leaves no room whatsoever for interpretation. This is a very precise and clear statement.

Both instances look perfectly fine to be honest. The only thing that's off in Day is that there are dead palm trees and leaves thrown everywhere and a few off-parked cars. That's all there is. The same thing seems to have happened in Land - but on a city wide scale. The clothes I would agree with but they are also two films with two different costumers. Or that one, Florida, is a stormy coastal climate. Even so, the Florida scene features newspapers flying around so again, if we're gonna nitpick the clothes I want to bring that in htere. A newspaper would not survive 3+ years in stormy weather. Let's assume it's been outside the whole time since - it's outside when we see it.

You mean loads of dirty rusting cars, lots of rotting plant debris, garbage, corpses, papers & money flying around in the wind, animals (alligator, crabs, spider, snake) freely roaming the city with the zombies (who don't care one bit about them, that's why the animals have no problem also "taking over" the once human-inhabited place), etc. The situation is a pretty different one in the zombie areas we see in Land. They are less messy, they don't look as "abandoned" and decayed. We see some leaves from the trees in the area on the streets, and some overgrown vegetation, and some occasional objects, but that's pretty much it. The overall look is quite better preserved than that of Day. There's even parts of the human city which, amusingly enough, look quite worse than the zombie areas, like this one:

http://zombietastic.fosterity.com/brains/sitebuilder/images/002012-501x282.jpg

The newspaper was flying around in the wind. How do you know it was not in, say, one of the garbage cans we see around, for example? How do you know that it did not just turned over with the wind, or some animal or zombie knocked it off, just a few minutes ago and spilled its contents, including the newspaper? I already explained why the newspaper can be very easily dismissed. Other than when we see it on screen, it is a total unknown element. It only gets like 5 seconds of screen time. Further than this, it is just a very ordinary newspaper whose whereabouts before these 5 seconds can't be ascertained. The zombies' clothes, on the other hand, are not something that they change, ever. They carry the same clothes since they died and became these creatures. And we can see they have been shuffling and wandering around in them for a long time by how dirty, tattered and decayed most of them are. The majority of zombies in Day have more decayed clothes than those of Land. And if you ask me, the zombies themselves in general also look more decayed in Day than in Land.

After reading your post, I don't even understand what points you were trying to get across. Ramblings about the dark ages, conceeding the TV-spots, agreement on the washington discussion, no clear answer on the three-year issue and some pictures of Day and Land next to each other that don't really show anything?

The "ramblings about the dark ages" were brought on by your self-defeating analogy. Don't blame me. The fall of the Roman empire actually made things worse for Europe for a number of centuries, not better. As for the rest, I once again have gone into more details to try to make you understand them better.

- - - Updated - - -

First off, as I already pointed out, this statement is false. All Day has are abandoned cars and palm residue lying all over the place. That's it. That's all they did.
Second off, apart from a Director, a film also has a production designer, a cinematographer/director of photography, a costume designer and a makeup designer. For instance look at the makeup in Day and then compare that with Dawn. Dawn, being on a tighter budget, has considereably cheaper makeup than Day - yet these are also made by "the same guy". If you accept that Dawn and Day take place in the same series and accept those differences, then you must also accept the different appearances in Day and Land.

The differences are quite more than that.

The zombies and their clothes in Night and Dawn would not make much sense looking too old and decayed since they would not have been around for very long. So it was a perfect thing for Romero and his more limited budget for those movies that they took place during the earlier days of the outbreak. By the time of Day, however, Romero and his team have obviously invested more of the budget on the look of these more decayed zombies. This was done on purpose, it is not merely a "coincidence" having to do with different wardrobe or what have you.

facestabber

12-Feb-2016, 05:12 PM

JDP

12-Feb-2016, 06:27 PM

This argument has merit and actually made me pop in the movie for a quick brush-up. What Sarah actually says is, "Isn't there an old silo back there?" It's clear she's never seen it. It's clear McDermott and John have not either.

But both know it is "back there". McDermott replies that they "can't go back there without guns." They both know that it is there. That by itself should tell you that more people in the bunker also know about it, specially the soldiers, who are in charge of this base, not the civilians. Otherwise they would never have even heard about it being there.

As for the soldiers, I tend to agree that they *should* know it is there. But I think my arguments stand. Regardless as to what you or I might believe about them, they *display* complete and utter ignorance of it. Steele says, in the Lift room, "Stuck ... Rickles, we can't get out of here." That's just damning. Plus, once the soldiers are running around inside the bunker trying to escape NOT ONE of them heads that way. Even Rickles, who is literally right beside the corral when he gets eaten, doesn't even look at it like it's an option.

Steel paradoxically seems to ignore it (how could he? Even Sarah and McDermott know it!), but Rickles heads there when the shit hits the fan. He is the only one of the soldiers who does, the others head to the living/working quarters. The nitpick comes from the fact that once he arrives there he strangely turns into an idiot and starts running in circles instead of heading straight for the caves, which he could easily have done, we see that the way to the corral stairs was clear of any zombies, easy for him to climb up and jump to the other side.

I won't buy that the soldiers were afraid of entering the zombie corral. They were gung ho to go in there and destroy all the zombies in previous scenes. Why would they feel differently about going through the caves to get to the ladder?

Probably because the Miguel matter was more urgent and they prefer to see if they can deal with the elevator problem. What the hell was Miguel doing up there? They had no idea. Rhodes thinks he might be trying to "make a run for it". They want to go up and check out what is going on there (escaping the bunker at this point is out of the question, since they have lost their only pilot.) This is the area where their potential "ride" is (if they can get their hands on John again.) It would be a heck of a detour to get to the top through the silo. By that time who knows what this crazy Miguel dude would have done, maybe even damage the chopper.

And I'm not buying that they went through an exhaustive "securing" effort and left that big open gaping hole at the top of the silo. That just completely undermines the idea that they were highly security minded. And don't give me that "the zombies couldn't climb the ladder" stuff. They'd be more worried about threats getting IN, than out. Primarily other humans.

The zombies that might have fallen in through the silo would obviously have been killed, there's no way they would survive such a fall. As for other humans... this movie is very different from Dawn and Land, remember? Here other survivors lurking around are NOT the problem, it is in fact finding any other survivors that is a real problem! The last thing they have to worry about is for other survivors to want to climb down the silo. Heck, they would have welcomed any other survivors showing up at their doors with open arms: "Holy shit, finally we have confirmation there is someone else left alive out there!" Needles to say, they would have bombarded any other survivors with questions regarding how they managed to survive out there and if there are any others. These guys were going out of their way to try to find anyone else, not keep people away.

As I said before, they only needed to establish a secure perimeter, which they clearly did. The corral served as a single entry/exit point to a much larger unsecured area. Watching the ending sequence made me more convinced than ever that they didn't bother to search it all. It was vast and mostly undeveloped.

The corral caves had lighting in several places, which by force had to be hooked to their generators. And, once again, the only way to "establish a secure perimeter" in this case is by going into those caves and making sure that there are no other entries/exits into/out-of the caves that the zombies can use. There is no other way. Unless you want to propose these guys had X-Ray vision or psychic powers and could somehow know all this without even stepping into the caves once!

There is a potential "middle ground" scenario I can see ... The soldiers we see are not the ones who originally secured the facility and built the corral. Given that the operation was put together early on and quickly it's entirely possible that the soldiers were dropped in to an already running facility, that was considered secure prior to their arrival. Thus they would've had no reason to search it themselves and would've remained ignorant of the silo, or at least the details of it and that it was a viable escape option.

The likelihood of this scenario is quite slim. What are the odds that we would never have heard of these mysterious "other soldiers" even once? How come they are not around? Where did they go? (a very pertinent question, since the soldiers that we see in the movie do not know exactly where in blazes they can go to that isn't pretty much a zombie mess.) And why bring in new soldiers if the base already had soldiers in them in the first place? All it would have taken is to send the civilians in and not bother mobilizing anyone else. It also does not get rid of the fact that even two civilians know that the silo is back there. How come they have heard about it and yet strangely enough the soldiers themselves haven't???

Thorn

12-Feb-2016, 06:57 PM

Who knows where the other soldiers went, perhaps those are the soldiers that were fed to the zombies as a reward. It was established that soldiers died, or perhaps they were called off to another scenario to capture/secure a facility for another such project, they are like the tip of the spear and then other soldiers are brought in to maintain control over the facility and protect the civilian workers.

You can imagine a number of scenarios, and while I am not saying any of the above happened it could have happened off screen is what I am saying is possible likely or not.

JDP

12-Feb-2016, 07:10 PM

So now it's down to clothing decay from movies made 20 years apart. Now you have said the state of Land zombies appears similar to Dawn state. Dawn seems to be accepted as early weeks to less than a year based on Frans pregnancy. So we add Romeros statement that Land was set roughly 3 years and was part of a continuing saga. He did say continuing at that time referring to the first 4 films. He didn't say the first 3 films were continuing and the 4th was a Delorean trip back to the future. So you are ok with clothes similarities/deterioration from films 27 years apart with timelines proven completely different. Yet I know you wouldn't accept me using the Zombie that bites Cholo as decayed more than anything seen in Day. Right?

Once again, Romero's intentions are one thing and how his movies actually come across not necessarily the same thing. The fact is that pound for pound, the zombies and their clothing look older and more decayed in Day than in Land. And the difference for this look between the zombies and their clothes of Day and the earlier one of Night and Dawn was done on purpose, since Day takes place quite later than those two movies.

Plausible explanation for the couple of unusually "bony" zombies in Land: they died of starvation and became zombies.

Romero doesn't put a time stamp on when the Day walkers were bit. Or how long Big Daddy has been a zombie. All unknowns. He also never tells us that possibly the virus spread much faster and devastating in Florida than Pa or anywhere for that matter. I believe some communities would fair better thanks others based on a multitude of factors. At the end of the day dirty and worn clothes does not prove 5 years. If Romero said tomorrow that Day was 5 years I accept it no problem at all. But from what we see it can't be proven.

The zombie situation started in Pennsylvania.

It does not prove five years, but it shows that they have been around for longer. Same thing with how decayed the locations look like.

EvilNed

12-Feb-2016, 08:29 PM

That what you are describing far from improving the situation in Europe it actually made it worse. Now put two and two together and apply it to the zombie situation that you were trying to compare with that historical case. It's your own analogy, not mine.

... I don't understand your point at all. What? Who says the situation in Land was an improvement?
What's worse? The situation in Europe after the collapse of the roman empire? What woud you call Land - prefereable to Obamacare? What are you even saying?

No, we are in agreement that the broadcasts go from day 1 to a date CLOSER in time to the events we see in Land. And also that this by necessity implies that the people in Day could hardly not have been aware that such outposts existed at some point. Even the media reported such things.

This argument assumes that the scientists and military in Florida were omniscient, which they were not. As Day clearly illustrates they were out looking for survivors in Florida - thus trying to bridge a gap in their own knowledge. Clearly they did not know everything - else such pursuits would have been pointless.

This brings us back to the poignant problem of: then why to the survivors of Day such things as thriving human outposts are no longer an option? If they were still around by the time of Day then the soldiers and civilians would have very good options left besides being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies. Yet no such possibility is even entertained by any of the characters, not even those most desirous to find another place to go to. All it takes is for Dr. Logan to remind them "where will you go" for them to be left without any viable answers.

The Day survivors were not up to speed with everything that was going on in Florida, the US or the World. This is very evident from the fil

The counterargument is that if such thriving outposts still existed by the time of Day the survivors would not have had such problems and dilemmas about whether there were other survivors anywhere or where exactly can they go to so that they will be safe.

This argument assumes that the survivors in Florida had absolute knowledge of everything. In a time when there is no cross country communication, or any communication save for short-wave radio, this is an absurd assumption.

Like I said, both references are vague enough to be open to interpretation.

Let me quote myself and I'm gonna give you one more chance to actually adress my argument;

The argument that the characters in Land did not refer to the start of the apocalypse when they twice mention something that happened three years ago ignores the fact that all dialoge exists for a purpose - and the purpose of this dialoge was to convey background information relevant to the viewer. If they do not refer to the start of it all, the question begs; What DO they refer to? To which there is no good answer within the context of this film. Indeed, they could refer to the car mechanics bad streak of luck with customers, or that Cholo and Kaufman had a pre-apocalyptic agreement. However this information is very much useless to the viewer when compared to giving him or her an approximate timeline for when this mess started and would have been cut from the script by any capable or even amateurish scriptwriter at an early stage. Land of the Dead did not go through 1 or 2 revisions, I can promise you that, it went through at least 10...

You mean loads of dirty rusting cars, lots of rotting plant debris, garbage, corpses, papers & money flying around in the wind, animals (alligator, crabs, spider, snake) freely roaming the city with the zombies (who don't care one bit about them, that's why the animals have no problem also "taking over" the once human-inhabited place), etc.

I mean the cars and the plant debris. The rest is just a sign of an abandoned human settlement and would happen to any place where there was no human activity.
Besides, that picture you posted shows signs of actualy structural damage. The building on the left is burnt out and the background buildings has all it's windows trashed. So point Land again, I guess.

The newspaper was flying around in the wind. How do you know it was not in, say, one of the garbage cans we see around, for example? How do you know that it did not just turned over with the wind, or some animal or zombie knocked it off, just a few minutes ago and spilled its contents, including the newspaper?

I don't. It's just one sign of many that Day doesn't take place that long into the future. I think the newspaper is meaningless. But it brings this circle to an interesting conclusion;
You can't accept that I assume things about a newspaper,
but when you assume things about the knowledge of the Day of the Dead survivors based on absoutely nothing at all, it's ok? Don't you think this is a little bit... Hypocritical?
As I already said, I don't give a shit about the newspaper. It's a way to give the viewer some background information, that's all.

The "ramblings about the dark ages" were brought on by your self-defeating analogy. Don't blame me. The fall of the Roman empire actually made things worse for Europe for a number of centuries, not better. As for the rest, I once again have gone into more details to try to make you understand them better.

Just read what I wrote again, I'm gonna quote myself. Try to understand the analogy...

Washington can't hold it's shit together - thus nobody else can either doesn't take into account dozens of times in history when governments have collapsed yet enclaves and outbreaks of that government have continued on within that societal collapse. From the collapse of the roman empire, dozens of smaller states emerged seemingly untouched. The roman empire was at that time the most powerful political and military organization on the world. To think that the US government could collapse and other localized adhoc gangs or militia's would take up arms and organize instead is not far fetched at all. This is my counter to your argument, JDP.

If a post-Roman Empire Europe is the dark ages - so be it. Do you consider the post-United States America depicted in Day and Land to depict a... positive future? Prefereable to what was before? Do you understand the analogy now? Or would you perhaps also call that a "Dark age", considering the lack of cross-country communication and whatnot?

The zombies and their clothes in Night and Dawn would not make much sense looking too old and decayed since they would not have been around for very long. So it was a perfect thing for Romero and his more limited budget for those movies that they took place during the earlier days of the outbreak. By the time of Day, however, Romero and his team have obviously invested more of the budget on the look of these more decayed zombies. This was done on purpose, it is not merely a "coincidence" having to do with different wardrobe or what have you.

I only pointed out that within the series, there exist vast differences of zombie makeup. The zombies in Dawn are blue. This is because the two films are separate. Thus this point is moot.

facestabber

12-Feb-2016, 08:52 PM

Once again, Romero's intentions are one thing and how his movies actually come across not necessarily the same thing. The fact is that pound for pound, the zombies and their clothing look older and more decayed in Day than in Land. And the difference for this look between the zombies and their clothes of Day and the earlier one of Night and Dawn was done on purpose, since Day takes place quite later than those two movies.

Yes yes yes intentions. What was Romero's intentions in 1985? Bleak. Doom. Gloom. End of the world. And Day was his end to a Trilogy. At the time this was his final entry. He didnt want to show humans all over the place throughout the world because his message wouldn't deliver. But what he didn't do, no matter how bad you want it to fit your narrative is provide you with a specific timeline of Days events. He didn't publish Romero's guide to zombie decay timelines. Chapter 1: Empirical guide to clothes decomposition. He gave us white/pale in 68, blue in 78 and green in 85. So we fast forward 20 years. Romero says to Nicotero, we did the color palate so be creative and give me some scary looking zombies with character. Oh but don't forget my guide. The zombies are really a joke in many ways. In Day we see a high school graduate with gown and cap in place. A soldier with his helmet on. And Land is almost criminal with outfits on zombies. Romero didn't care when he made Day that the viewers knew exactly how long into the ZA we are because it didnt matter. He just wanted us to see that it is friggin bad with the glimpse he gave us. Nevada may be doing ok but he didnt want to tell us because it didnt help the story he wanted us to see.

Land[/I]: they died of starvation and became zombies.

^ Yes that is absolutely plausible. Thats what your opposition here is saying. There are a million variables in play here. Many avenues to explain each and every scenario. And now my GF is watching me and laughing at me calling me Sheldon for engaging in this conversation. LOL.

The zombie situation started in Pennsylvania.

I assumed this as its where Night started but I didnt know it was a fact. Cool.

It does not prove five years, but it shows that they have been around for longer. Same thing with how decayed the locations look like.

Or thats Romero's delivery. New tech. New high res cameras. I doubt he wanted to deliver zombies and settings that mirrored Day as it would date his film. Its as simple as him giving a production crew an idea and telling them to have fun designing. Thumb up or down and tape rolling. I dont see him saying hey guys/gals this has to look more worn/torn than Day.

Oh damnit I posted within JDP's quote. My apologies.

sandrock74

13-Feb-2016, 12:38 AM

The zombie situation started in Pennsylvania.

What the what?? Where did you get that from? I guess you weren't listening to the radio and tv broadcasts in the background of Night. Nowhere did the newscasts or any featured characters say it all began in PA. You're making a rather huge assumption.

JDP

13-Feb-2016, 05:43 AM

... I don't understand your point at all. What? Who says the situation in Land was an improvement?
What's worse? The situation in Europe after the collapse of the roman empire? What woud you call Land - prefereable to Obamacare? What are you even saying?

The situation in Land is quite better than the situation in Day. Society is still relatively functional and productive, and despite the zombie problem also being there, it is also safer. People can even leave the outposts and try to look for better places if they so want to.

This argument assumes that the scientists and military in Florida were omniscient, which they were not. As Day clearly illustrates they were out looking for survivors in Florida - thus trying to bridge a gap in their own knowledge. Clearly they did not know everything - else such pursuits would have been pointless.

You don't have to be omniscient to listen to the TV or radio. What are the odds that NOBODY in the Florida team was listening to the media reports? Furthermore, what are the odds that NOBODY in the same team would have had the initiative to ask Washington what they knew about the survivor situation? It is extremely unrealistic to expect that these people would not have done either of these things when we can plainly see that it is a very important issue for them. It simply goes against their character. And this is on what this type of nitpicks have to be based. Had these characters not cared one bit about the issue of whether there were any other survivors then there would be no nitpick whatsoever here. You could very well point out that they did not care at all about this subject and that's why they would not have paid any attention to it.

The Day survivors were not up to speed with everything that was going on in Florida, the US or the World. This is very evident from the fil

But they were. They went out of their way to see if there were any survivors around. Once communications ceased they no longer get feedback on what's going on elsewhere and have to wonder if any survivors are still around. But since the outposts had been there before the events of Day (remember: the establishment of outposts was even reported by the media before it went off the air, and this was long before the events in Day) the Florida team has to know about them. But the thing is that they no longer consider this as a viable option. Obviously something must have happened that they do not even consider them an alternative to being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever growing numbers of zombies. Otherwise the soldiers would quickly have brought them up as a choice: "To hell with you and your where-will-you-gos, Frankenstein, we can always try our luck with one of those outposts up north." Look at how different this is from the situation in Land. Cholo, for example, has no problem whatsoever bringing up other options, like an outpost in Cleveland. He would rather try his luck there than go back to Kaufman's turf, where he is a wanted man and knows that he is surely screwed if he goes there.

This argument assumes that the survivors in Florida had absolute knowledge of everything. In a time when there is no cross country communication, or any communication save for short-wave radio, this is an absurd assumption.

But there were such communications before. So they were informed about the situation until all communications ceased. Then how come they seem to not consider the outposts as an alternative? What happened? If the outposts were still up and running up until the time they lost contact with anyone else, then there is no reason for them not to consider them a possible choice to try their luck rather than stay in a bunker being gradually besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies.

Let me quote myself and I'm gonna give you one more chance to actually adress my argument;

I already did. Look at the quoted somewhat vague statement about weeks by the priest in Dawn, which can also be interpreted in a couple of ways.

I mean the cars and the plant debris. The rest is just a sign of an abandoned human settlement and would happen to any place where there was no human activity.

That's the point, and the longer the abandonment the worse such things get. And it shows quite more in Day than in Land.

Besides, that picture you posted shows signs of actualy structural damage. The building on the left is burnt out and the background buildings has all it's windows trashed. So point Land again, I guess.

What picture are you talking about? The streets in the pictures I showed from Land look in better shape than those of Day. The city of Day looks like a desolate mess. Even animals have moved in and share the city with the zombies!

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/zombie/images/f/fc/Dead_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140820001621

I don't. It's just one sign of many that Day doesn't take place that long into the future. I think the newspaper is meaningless. But it brings this circle to an interesting conclusion;
You can't accept that I assume things about a newspaper,
but when you assume things about the knowledge of the Day of the Dead survivors based on absoutely nothing at all, it's ok? Don't you think this is a little bit... Hypocritical?

But the newspaper is NOT a character! Comparing actual characters, from whose statements and behavior we can deduce many things, with an inanimate object being swept by the wind like a newspaper is hardly fair.

Just read what I wrote again, I'm gonna quote myself. Try to understand the analogy...

If a post-Roman Empire Europe is the dark ages - so be it. Do you consider the post-United States America depicted in Day and Land to depict a... positive future? Prefereable to what was before? Do you understand the analogy now? Or would you perhaps also call that a "Dark age", considering the lack of cross-country communication and whatnot?

The analogy fails because the society that Kaufman runs in Land is paradoxically more advanced and safer than the one that the US government itself can even dream of maintaining in Day. Similarly, the fiefdoms created after the Roman empire collapsed were not as efficient at running things as the Roman empire they replaced. The analogy would work if Kaufman was running a less efficient place than the US government in Day. But it's the opposite. The only way this can logically work out is if what we see Kaufman pull off happened at an earlier time than the total collapse of Day. It would have been possible for him and others to do something like that since the infrastructure (electricity, fuel, transportation, communications, supplies, weapons, manpower) was still widely available and in relatively good shape to still allow such things to be possible. By the time of the situation we see in Day this infrastructure is gone. It can't even maintain basic communications. What survivors can hope for now are much more modest and basic things, like we see in The Walking Dead show, for example, which is concerned with basic survival and trying to form more rudimentary societies.

I only pointed out that within the series, there exist vast differences of zombie makeup. The zombies in Dawn are blue. This is because the two films are separate. Thus this point is moot.

The differences in makeup between Day and the earlier films are definitely not coincidental. This movie takes place much later than the first two, and therefore the zombies and the landscape are purposefully depicted as more decayed.

- - - Updated - - -

What the what?? Where did you get that from? I guess you weren't listening to the radio and tv broadcasts in the background of Night. Nowhere did the newscasts or any featured characters say it all began in PA. You're making a rather huge assumption.

Well, the movie does take place in Pennsylvania, and no one prior to this day we see in the movie knew anything about any zombies. Had the zombies been popping up somewhere else prior to this it would have been a media sensation and been featured all over the place on the TV and radio, like we see happening in the movie later on that day, and we should also expect that hardly anyone would have been unaware of them by the time of the events in Night.

Note: there is mention of an incident "two days ago" where 7 people were killed, but it is not 100% clear if it is really zombie related or if the media is trying to make a connection between the two incidents. Had it been totally clear that the zombies were responsible for that massacre the media would have reported it as such already 2 days ago, and then the public would already have been aware that zombies were popping up by the time of the situation we see developing in Night two days later.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes yes yes intentions. What was Romero's intentions in 1985? Bleak. Doom. Gloom. End of the world. And Day was his end to a Trilogy. At the time this was his final entry. He didnt want to show humans all over the place throughout the world because his message wouldn't deliver.

And that is the real reason why we don't hear anything about any such outposts in Day. Romero had not thought up any such thing yet and Day was -and so far still is- chronologically the last chapter in the series.

But what he didn't do, no matter how bad you want it to fit your narrative is provide you with a specific timeline of Days events. He didn't publish Romero's guide to zombie decay timelines. Chapter 1: Empirical guide to clothes decomposition. He gave us white/pale in 68, blue in 78 and green in 85.

The more decayed look of the zombies and the landscape is obviously done on purpose. Had it been coincidental we would only see a few zombies like that in Day, the rest more similar to those of the earlier movies. But no, most zombies and their clothes look more decayed than in the earlier movies because this movie, as you yourself recognize, takes place much later. It would have been a lack of foresight and logic by Romero and his team to portray the zombies as exactly the same as in Night and Dawn.

So we fast forward 20 years. Romero says to Nicotero, we did the color palate so be creative and give me some scary looking zombies with character. Oh but don't forget my guide. The zombies are really a joke in many ways. In Day we see a high school graduate with gown and cap in place. A soldier with his helmet on. And Land is almost criminal with outfits on zombies. Romero didn't care when he made Day that the viewers knew exactly how long into the ZA we are because it didnt matter. He just wanted us to see that it is friggin bad with the glimpse he gave us. Nevada may be doing ok but he didnt want to tell us because it didnt help the story he wanted us to see.

Why wouldn't the zombies wear all sorts of different outfits and head gear? They are dead people who come from all sorts of classes and backgrounds. The unrealistic thing would be if all zombies were dressed the same way. And no, the fact that the zombies and their clothes look very consistently more decayed in Day than in the earlier movies is because it was done on purpose, it is not a "coincidence". Had it been merely a chance thing we would only see a few of them like that, not most. The rate of decay of the zombies is even commented upon by Dr. Logan. Romero is well aware of this issue.

^ Yes that is absolutely plausible. Thats what your opposition here is saying. There are a million variables in play here. Many avenues to explain each and every scenario. And now my GF is watching me and laughing at me calling me Sheldon for engaging in this conversation. LOL.

Some things have way less variables than others. The opposition, however, has frequently asked for huge leaps and gaps in faith and logic. Like, for example, expecting us to believe that characters who are so interested in the issue of whether there are any other survivors around would not have had any inclination whatsoever to pay attention to what the media had been reporting on the subject, or ask their superiors in Washington about it during their frequent communications with them. Or that a crook in Pennsylvania can somehow maintain a much more advanced and safe society at a time when the US government itself is underground and can't even maintain its own communication networks anymore.

Or thats Romero's delivery. New tech. New high res cameras. I doubt he wanted to deliver zombies and settings that mirrored Day as it would date his film. Its as simple as him giving a production crew an idea and telling them to have fun designing. Thumb up or down and tape rolling. I dont see him saying hey guys/gals this has to look more worn/torn than Day.

I don't see why he shouldn't do just that. He had no problem doing it for the zombies of Day to distinguish them from the "fresher" zombies of Night and Dawn. If he really had intended Land to be from about the same time or after Day, then he should have applied the same philosophy and portray the zombies and their clothing as more decayed.

EvilNed

13-Feb-2016, 07:58 AM

shootemindehead

13-Feb-2016, 03:46 PM

There is a big difference here which I am not even going to bother to explain in detail to you since as usual you just won't get it. It is clear that applying logic and common sense to nitpick movies does not seem to be your forte. Suffice it to say that clothes are a whole different ball game than something like cell phones, which are not a common feature in all these movies, unlike clothes, something very common and basic to human society since a long time ago.

This is just senseless.

The people in Diary also use the internet, which was not around in 1968 when Night was made, yet both movies belong to the very early days of the zombie outbreak. No one is nitpicking that. It goes without saying that people understand the two movies were made with a huge gap in years between them and technology has changed. Wearing clothes hasn't. And they still age and decay no matter the changes in fashion.

'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' aren't even part of the same original quad of films. They're an attempt at a modern day reboot of the series by Romero. 'Diary of the Dead' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Night of the Living Dead'.

The more you post, the absurd you're becoming.

facestabber

13-Feb-2016, 05:01 PM

The situation in Land is quite better than the situation in Day. Society is still relatively functional and productive, and despite the zombie problem also being there, it is also safer. People can even leave the outposts and try to look for better places if they so want to..

Safer? It's almost painful reading this. Outside the barriers of the Green sure looks like a walk in the park. Puts blinders on, no danger here. Its "safer". Outside of Fiddlers you did not see any other functioning society did you? We heard about an outpost in Cleveland that hasn't been heard of in a while. 100+ miles from the Green. How in your early fantasy of Land where all this great technology is possible due to your timeline is there not a helicopter and a pilot? Because 100 miles by air would be pretty easy for a helicopter crew to report back and forth. Also Jon and McDermott didn't have too much fear of leaving the cave for their island get away. To the extent that they threw out revolvers as they expended the bullets.

You don't have to be omniscient to listen to the TV or radio. What are the odds that NOBODY in the Florida team was listening to the media reports? Furthermore, what are the odds that NOBODY in the same team would have had the initiative to ask Washington what they knew about the survivor situation? It is extremely unrealistic to expect that these people would not have done either of these things when we can plainly see that it is a very important issue for them. It simply goes against their character. And this is on what this type of nitpicks have to be based. Had these characters not cared one bit about the issue of whether there were any other survivors then there would be no nitpick whatsoever here. You could very well point out that they did not care at all about this subject and that's why they would not have paid any attention to it..

Completely missing the mark. First of all soldiers are in charge of security. Soldiers will listen to their soldier counterparts, not media. I work for the Gov't. I've been in critical incidents. Do you think I get my intel from the media or the radio on my hip? The power is out in the mainland. Broadcasts aren't happening. Is that because we are 5 years in during Day?:) Because the easy counter is broadcasts were seen ending in Dawn.

But they were. They went out of their way to see if there were any survivors around. Once communications ceased they no longer get feedback on what's going on elsewhere and have to wonder if any survivors are still around. But since the outposts had been there before the events of Day (remember: the establishment of outposts was even reported by the media before it went off the air, and this was long before the events in Day) the Florida team has to know about them. But the thing is that they no longer consider this as a viable option. Obviously something must have happened that they do not even consider them an alternative to being stuck in a bunker besieged by ever growing numbers of zombies. Otherwise the soldiers would quickly have brought them up as a choice: "To hell with you and your where-will-you-gos, Frankenstein, we can always try our luck with one of those outposts up north." Look at how different this is from the situation in Land. Cholo, for example, has no problem whatsoever bringing up other options, like an outpost in Cleveland. He would rather try his luck there than go back to Kaufman's turf, where he is a wanted man and knows that he is surely screwed if he goes there..

Well if they were the greatest informed bunker in history and the world is over, outposts destroyed, zombies own it all, why in the name of Jesus would they be looking for survivors at all? Why? Take into consideration that Rhodes escape was gonna be by ground. Chopper couldn't hold his soldiers until the end of the movie. Vehicles and fuel don't appear to be an issue from what we see in cave. But without having direct commuications with an outpost, is it worth the risk? Are the roads passable? All unknowns. Which makes it a huge risk. Especially considering they are in the ultimate zombie survival bunker. Aside from mankinds stupidity making it dangerous they had food, water medicine and dr care. Complete shelter from zombies except for the ones they brought in. The besieged you speak of consists of 50-75 zombies gathered around a gate. 2-3 mags of an M16 would end that. Realistically Rhodes wanting to leave isn't out of necessity but desire. He saw the waste of time. Jon and Mc saw it. They were in the dark. That's the point of Romero's theme, doom and gloom.

But there were such communications before. So they were informed about the situation until all communications ceased. Then how come they seem to not consider the outposts as an alternative? What happened? If the outposts were still up and running up until the time they lost contact with anyone else, then there is no reason for them not to consider them a possible choice to try their luck rather than stay in a bunker being gradually besieged by ever increasing numbers of zombies..

Since losing communications thereby adding extreme risk to a travel away from food, water and shelter is a big stretch for you, try this. McDermott says "I'm sure there's others". Since he's living it and says it should we listen too him? Like you he can't prove his statement but that's in the movie. Add Sarah' speech about more sophisticated and secured bunkers else where. Again not factual that they haven't fallen but without comms how can you justify leaving?

I already did. Look at the quoted somewhat vague statement about weeks by the priest in Dawn, which can also be interpreted in a couple of ways..

That's the point, and the longer the abandonment the worse such things get. And it shows quite more in Day than in Land..

What picture are you talking about? The streets in the pictures I showed from Land look in better shape than those of Day. The city of Day looks like a desolate mess. Even animals have moved in and share the city with the zombies!

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/zombie/images/f/fc/Dead_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140820001621

But the newspaper is NOT a character! Comparing actual characters, from whose statements and behavior we can deduce many things, with an inanimate object being swept by the wind like a newspaper is hardly fair..

Well if we accept character statements then please submit Mcdermotts and Sarah's from above.

The analogy fails because the society that Kaufman runs in Land is paradoxically more advanced and safer than the one that the US government itself can even dream of maintaining in Day. Similarly, the fiefdoms created after the Roman empire collapsed were not as efficient at running things as the Roman empire they replaced. The analogy would work if Kaufman was running a less efficient place than the US government in Day. But it's the opposite. The only way this can logically work out is if what we see Kaufman pull off happened at an earlier time than the total collapse of Day. It would have been possible for him and others to do something like that since the infrastructure (electricity, fuel, transportation, communications, supplies, weapons, manpower) was still widely available and in relatively good shape to still allow such things to be possible. By the time of the situation we see in Day this infrastructure is gone. It can't even maintain basic communications. What survivors can hope for now are much more modest and basic things, like we see in The Walking Dead show, for example, which is concerned with basic survival and trying to form more rudimentary societies..

If TWD is fair game then I hate to break it to you but it's not going to help your case. Because comms, gov't everything is gone according to Rick Grimes when he tells the prisoners. And we are at most 9 months out given Lori's state of pregnancy. And had the Wolves not found Alexandria because of a photo I'd say that was a society that had a legitimate chance at continuing to advance. But alas all we have is a societal glimpse of a couple of counties in Georgia. I will not pretend to know that Billings Montana isn't thriving. I don't know.

The differences in makeup between Day and the earlier films are definitely not coincidental. This movie takes place much later than the first two, and therefore the zombies and the landscape are purposefully depicted as more decayed..

And as stated before, had George done the exact same makeup or purposely made an attempt to show more tattered clothes the trailer and appeal to audiences would have fell flat. That's just Hollywood evolving. Would producers be ok with 80's makeup and zombies? Same reason Diary zombies have a modern look to them. If George paraded out 68 style makeup for Diary he would have been crucified.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the movie does take place in Pennsylvania, and no one prior to this day we see in the movie knew anything about any zombies. Had the zombies been popping up somewhere else prior to this it would have been a media sensation and been featured all over the place on the TV and radio, like we see happening in the movie later on that day, and we should also expect that hardly anyone would have been unaware of them by the time of the events in Night.

Note: there is mention of an incident "two days ago" where 7 people were killed, but it is not 100% clear if it is really zombie related or if the media is trying to make a connection between the two incidents. Had it been totally clear that the zombies were responsible for that massacre the media would have reported it as such already 2 days ago, and then the public would already have been aware that zombies were popping up by the time of the situation we see developing in Night two days later.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is the real reason why we don't hear anything about any such outposts in Day. Romero had not thought up any such thing yet and Day was -and so far still is- chronologically the last chapter in the series..

Wrong. It was chronologically his end in 1985. Wish I could bold 85. George admitted once he conceived his next chapter his original intent was to put it between Night and Day but then didn't. The man said it. He said continuing saga after the 4 films were made. He wanted to show us that even when surrounded by zombies we would rebuild a society with class systems and power. The threat of extinction wasn't enough of a lesson.

The more decayed look of the zombies and the landscape is obviously done on purpose. Had it been coincidental we would only see a few zombies like that in Day, the rest more similar to those of the earlier movies. But no, most zombies and their clothes look more decayed than in the earlier movies because this movie, as you yourself recognize, takes place much later. It would have been a lack of foresight and logic by Romero and his team to portray the zombies as exactly the same as in Night and Dawn.

Why wouldn't the zombies wear all sorts of different outfits and head gear? They are dead people who come from all sorts of classes and backgrounds. The unrealistic thing would be if all zombies were dressed the same way. And no, the fact that the zombies and their clothes look very consistently more decayed in Day than in the earlier movies is because it was done on purpose, it is not a "coincidence". Had it been merely a chance thing we would only see a few of them like that, not most. The rate of decay of the zombies is even commented upon by Dr. Logan. Romero is well aware of this issue..

I was only referring to Romero as using the zombies as a vehicle for his story. The helmets, in "reality", would not stay on the head of lumbering zombies. They were costumes that actors brought to break up monotony. But yes lets talk about Dr. Logans statement. Because interesting enough he says roughly, that these creatures could survive for several years. Then he says something like up to 12 years. I think, I'm not quoting. But my friend if we are "years" in, or 5 as you believe, wouldn't our TOTALLY INFORMED AND ALL KNOWING MEDIA WATCHING, gov't supported scientific team already know as a matter of fact that these do exist for years. Because Logan says "could survive". Since your opposition is accused of being unable to apply logic is it a stretch to assume that the gov't would infact be studying these creatures immediately and studying their capabilities and longevity?

Some things have way less variables than others. The opposition, however, has frequently asked for huge leaps and gaps in faith and logic. Like, for example, expecting us to believe that characters who are so interested in the issue of whether there are any other survivors around would not have had any inclination whatsoever to pay attention to what the media had been reporting on the subject, or ask their superiors in Washington about it during their frequent communications with them. Or that a crook in Pennsylvania can somehow maintain a much more advanced and safe society at a time when the US government itself is underground and can't even maintain its own communication networks anymore..

Well one statement actually made was that Washington had more sophisticated bunkers than team FL. So its not a stretch of variable to assume that they are surviving and doing much better. What does have a large variable is when one assumes that all gov't is underground because one bunker in FL lost comms.

I don't see why he shouldn't do just that. He had no problem doing it for the zombies of Day to distinguish them from the "fresher" zombies of Night and Dawn. If he really had intended Land to be from about the same time or after Day, then he should have applied the same philosophy and portray the zombies and their clothing as more decayed.

JDP

13-Feb-2016, 06:55 PM

Absolutely, I agree. So one could argue that Day is the dark ages and Land is whatever comes after the Dark ages. :)

Only if like several centuries after :)

You assume a lot...
It amazes me that you are so unaware of the fact that situations can change over time. Maybe they asked Washington about other places and Washington said "Sure there's plenty but they're falling like flies" and the next day communications cut off.

The situations may very well change, but judging by the mess we see in Day they are changing for the worst.

What if Washington didn't have time to talk in detail about other places?
Furthermore, it's evident from the situation that communications cut off way before the whole world fell silent.

The media certainly went off before other means of communication. By the end of Dawn there no longer are any broadcasts. Other radio communications would have continued, though. We see this also still going on at the end of Dawn (the bikers try to communicate with the survivors at the mall via radio.) The problem the Florida team has is that the US government is no longer able to keep up long range communications.

You assume that once communications went down, things stopped happening at other places - which is absurd.

What I logically conclude is that if things have gotten so bad that not even the US government can keep its own communication network going on, the likelihood that a less resourceful private enterprise like Kaufman's can pull things way more complicated than that is rather nil. The infrastructure just isn't there anymore to support such things. Outposts like Kaufman's, if still around by Day's time, would have had to be more modest sized and rudimentary, like the groups and communities of survivors we see in The Walking Dead show, for example.

No you didn't, you ignored my argument entirely because you couldn't come up with an answer to;
"What could it possibly mean - within the context OF THE FILM?"

Maybe that Kaufman and Cholo already had a business relationship before the outbreak, and therefore a lot of tension between them for any number of reasons could already have been accumulating, which finally, after the last straw of not letting him move to Fiddler's Green, resulted in Cholo making threats against his boss.

Agree to disagree. Both are on equal levels of decay.

Nope, can't agree with such a claim. Day looks quite worse. The zombie areas in Land look in better shape. And it's not just the zombie towns, the parts of the zombie city that we also see (watch the scene when a zombie gets caught in the electric fence and electrocuted) look quite better than Day. As I showed, even some parts of the human city look in worse shape than the zombie areas of Land, amusingly enough.

The city in day has palms and abandoned cars. That's it.
Land is equally abandoned.

Not quite, it also has decayed corpses, animals roaming around with their zombie pals, garbage, papers & money flying all over the place. Land does not look as bad. Just leaves from the trees around, some overgrown vegetation, and occasional objects around some of the streets/houses. The landscape looks more desolate and abandoned in Day.

To see what picture I'm talking about, check your own posts.

I already did, but I did not quite see what you describe.

Who says characters are fair game for absurd assumptions and newspapers are not? I never signed that agreement, can I see it?

It is not an agreement, it is common sense. What possible traits, mentality, character, behavior and personality can a newspaper have? It is an inanimate object. Humans on the other hand have plenty of qualities and traits from which you can derive pertinent conclusions. I guess you have never heard of things like psychology or criminology.

Many of the fiefdoms after the Roman Empire were safer and better organized - locally - than the remnants of the Roman Empire. That's why they sprung up - the roman Empire couldn't protect people anymore.
It's not as if the Roman Empire crashed into a wall and then everyone panicked and shouted "EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!". No, it was a gradual process where warlords and kings took a look around and said "Well, fuck this shit I can to a lot better job at running things" then they went to the local magistrate with their private army and said "I'm taking over" and the local magistrate, not having any heard any news from Rome or Ravenna in the last year except that we have a third new emperor the last five months would probably say "Ok, here's the key to the city.".
Thus quite organized states could spring up from the remnants of the roman empire, using the exact same infrastructure.

Those fragmented fiefdoms for many centuries were quite incapable of keeping up the same infrastructure of the Roman empire. Just look at the issue of water supply and roads as an example. The Roman empire established a bunch of aqueducts and roads wherever it established itself, which the coming crisis after its fall (largely instigated by "barbarian" intrusions into many areas of the empire) was quite incapable of maintaining. As a result, access to water and transportation became more difficult for several centuries, not better.

No. As already stated.

As already stated, no. Even the movie itself touches upon the issue of zombie decay over periods of time, and thus why the zombies in Day reflect this. For the most part, they are no longer the "fresher" looking zombies of Night and Dawn. This obvious difference has been noticed by a bunch of people, BTW. Just read many reviews of Day.

- - - Updated - - -

This is just senseless.

See, I told you you wouldn't get it. Don't quit your day job to be a nitpicker.

'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' aren't even part of the same original quad of films. They're an attempt at a modern day reboot of the series by Romero. 'Diary of the Dead' has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Night of the Living Dead'.

The more you post, the absurd you're becoming.

All these movies take place in the same zombie universe and are thus part of the series. Not that it is really needed, since anyone can plainly deduce it happens during the same first day of the outbreak as Night, but Romero himself explained so:

http://www.mtv.com/news/1581440/george-a-romero-fights-zombies-with-youtube-in-diary-of-the-dead/

Romero: No, because it’s early [in their attack on the living]. In my version of “Dawn of the Dead,” they used that word for the first time in that early series. “Diary of the Dead” goes back to that very first night. Theoretically, it’s a parallel story with “Night of the Living Dead,” and I even used some audio from “Night of the Living Dead” in it. So, nobody knows what they are yet. They’re not calling them zombies yet.

And Survival is related to Diary.

EvilNed

13-Feb-2016, 07:30 PM

The situations may very well change, but judging by the mess we see in Day they are changing for the worst.

That would of course vary locally.

The media certainly went off before other means of communication. By the end of Dawn there no longer are any broadcasts. Other radio communications would have continued, though. We see this also still going on at the end of Dawn (the bikers try to communicate with the survivors at the mall via radio.) The problem the Florida team has is that the US government is no longer able to keep up long range communications.

Exactly my point. Communication would be unrelieable across the board.

What I logically conclude is that if things have gotten so bad that not even the US government can keep its own communication network going on, the likelihood that a less resourceful private enterprise like Kaufman's can pull things way more complicated than that is rather nil. The infrastructure just isn't there anymore to support such things. Outposts like Kaufman's, if still around by Day's time, would have had to be more modest sized and rudimentary, like the groups and communities of survivors we see in The Walking Dead show, for example

Your conclusion doesn't take into consideration local situations at all, but rather paints a very broad picture and assumes it is the same everywhere. In any case, you may draw any conclusion you want, I already pointed out to you that there is a historical precedent for this kind of thing.

Maybe that Kaufman and Cholo already had a business relationship before the outbreak, and therefore a lot of tension between them for any number of reasons could already have been accumulating, which finally, after the last straw of not letting him move to Fiddler's Green, resulted in Cholo making threats against his boss.

How is that and the car mechanics line relevant to the context of the film?
Try again.

Nope, can't agree with such a claim.

Then don't.

It is not an agreement, it is common sense. What possible traits, mentality, character, behavior and personality can a newspaper have? It is an inanimate object. Humans on the other hand have plenty of qualities and traits from which you can derive pertinent conclusions. I guess you have never heard of things like psychology or criminology.

Who says we are only nitpicking character, behavior and personality? I never agreed to that.

Those fragmented fiefdoms for many centuries were quite incapable of keeping up the same infrastructure of the Roman empire.

Irrelevant to this discussion since I was merely pointing out that localized states can form and maintain order and cohesion in a power vacuum left by a larger one. It happened in Europe, it happened in Land.

JDP

13-Feb-2016, 09:48 PM

Safer? It's almost painful reading this. Outside the barriers of the Green sure looks like a walk in the park. Puts blinders on, no danger here. Its "safer". Outside of Fiddlers you did not see any other functioning society did you? We heard about an outpost in Cleveland that hasn't been heard of in a while. 100+ miles from the Green. How in your early fantasy of Land where all this great technology is possible due to your timeline is there not a helicopter and a pilot? Because 100 miles by air would be pretty easy for a helicopter crew to report back and forth. Also Jon and McDermott didn't have too much fear of leaving the cave for their island get away. To the extent that they threw out revolvers as they expended the bullets.

This is almost painful to read, indeed. Does it look to you that Riley, Cholo, Foxy and Kaufman take armies with them to venture outside the city? Riley just wants a car so he can leave the city, Foxy and Cholo are going to try their luck in Cleveland in a car without a roof, Kaufman takes a chauffeur, a limo and all his dough to escape to a boat so he can go to one of the other outposts he has had a hand in establishing. Do you seriously need more evidence that this world is still relatively safe? Of course, you are not going to be stupid enough to venture out there for long distances on foot and alone, but with back-up and some means of transportation you can obviously easily make it. It does not look like the characters are very worried that with a vehicle at their disposal they are not going to make it.

Who says they did not have helicopters? Maybe they did and they ran out of fuel. Or maybe Kaufman and whoever runs the Cleveland outpost are not in good terms anymore. Or maybe they really just did not happen to have any helicopters. However, we know for sure that they were able to build a complex machine like Dead Reckoning. This is not open to questions.

John and McDermott want to go to an island, which is actually a good plan considering how bad the situation on the mainland has gotten, and they have a handy helicopter around to be able to implement this plan. And the problem is???

The revolvers were no longer useful to John. Out of ammo! He should have also taken all the ammo that Rhodes had.

Completely missing the mark. First of all soldiers are in charge of security. Soldiers will listen to their soldier counterparts, not media. I work for the Gov't. I've been in critical incidents. Do you think I get my intel from the media or the radio on my hip? The power is out in the mainland. Broadcasts aren't happening. Is that because we are 5 years in during Day?:) Because the easy counter is broadcasts were seen ending in Dawn.

It seems like you are having a wee bit of trouble keeping up with what is being said: the media broadcasts happened much earlier than the events we see in Day. Communications were still on. Even the mass media was still around until about the end of the events we see in Dawn. And the outposts of Land were already being established at this relatively early stage of the crisis. So it goes without saying that the odds that NOBODY -civilians or soldiers- from the Florida team heard these media reports is quite slim. These people worked for the government and were very interested in the topic of survivors. Something like the existence of survivor outposts would not have gone unnoticed.

Well if they were the greatest informed bunker in history and the world is over, outposts destroyed, zombies own it all, why in the name of Jesus would they be looking for survivors at all? Why? Take into consideration that Rhodes escape was gonna be by ground. Chopper couldn't hold his soldiers until the end of the movie. Vehicles and fuel don't appear to be an issue from what we see in cave. But without having direct commuications with an outpost, is it worth the risk? Are the roads passable? All unknowns. Which makes it a huge risk. Especially considering they are in the ultimate zombie survival bunker. Aside from mankinds stupidity making it dangerous they had food, water medicine and dr care. Complete shelter from zombies except for the ones they brought in. The besieged you speak of consists of 50-75 zombies gathered around a gate. 2-3 mags of an M16 would end that. Realistically Rhodes wanting to leave isn't out of necessity but desire. He saw the waste of time. Jon and Mc saw it. They were in the dark. That's the point of Romero's theme, doom and gloom.

The fact that Rhodes can't answer Logan's "where will you go" taunts and that he doesn't really decide to leave the bunker for good until later on (after a huge confrontation with the civilians that results in two people being shot in cold blood) should tell you that he really had no idea where to go to. The good doc knew it, that's why he teases him. And the fact that later on he will do whatever it takes to coerce John into being their pilot also should tell you that he is not very thrilled at the prospect of having to go out there on foot or even with a vehicle. He knows how dangerous that would be. They even have an ever growing number of zombies accumulating at their door (the very ones that suicidal Miguel brings into the bunker and end up making a meal out of everyone down there.)

Pay attention to the dialogue: the number of zombies gathered at the fence was so preoccupying that it is the subject of an exchange between Sarah and two of the soldiers, resulting in the comment by one of them that there's "more and more of them everyday". And they obviously did not want to waste too much ammo on zombies that, for the moment being, are not able to break through the fence. It does not mean that it will remain so forever. Sarah wants everyone to remain out of sight, hoping that this will stop attracting zombies to the base.

And I agree, the best thing any of them could have done is simply to remain in the bunker and take advantage of the food and water that they still had until it was all gone and there would be no choice left but find some other place. But that's us, we do not have to do the same dangerous job they did down there! These soldiers do not like at all having to be close to and handle the zombies, exposing their lives to danger just so that the scientists can continue their research, which to them is hardly clear at all if it will ever give any positive results. They see the whole thing as an unnecessary risk.

Since losing communications thereby adding extreme risk to a travel away from food, water and shelter is a big stretch for you, try this. McDermott says "I'm sure there's others". Since he's living it and says it should we listen too him? Like you he can't prove his statement but that's in the movie. Add Sarah' speech about more sophisticated and secured bunkers else where. Again not factual that they haven't fallen but without comms how can you justify leaving?

Well if we accept character statements then please submit Mcdermotts and Sarah's from above.

Again, read the thread, all of this has been brought up. McDermott actually a bit later on doubts his own statement and very somberly also considers the likely possibility that they are "the only ones left". And Sarah is in fact talking about what their superiors in Washington have been forced to do: go into shelters, just like they are! Yet another indication of how bad things have gotten.

If TWD is fair game then I hate to break it to you but it's not going to help your case. Because comms, gov't everything is gone according to Rick Grimes when he tells the prisoners. And we are at most 9 months out given Lori's state of pregnancy. And had the Wolves not found Alexandria because of a photo I'd say that was a society that had a legitimate chance at continuing to advance. But alas all we have is a societal glimpse of a couple of counties in Georgia. I will not pretend to know that Billings Montana isn't thriving. I don't know.

The level of sophistication of any of the societies we have seen in TWD show is nowhere even near that of Kauffman's outpost. The survivors of that show are too busy trying to achieve basic survival, and at most reestablishing some sort of rudimentary societies, as it is very logical to expect considering the gravity of the disaster that has upset the country's infrastructure.

And as stated before, had George done the exact same makeup or purposely made an attempt to show more tattered clothes the trailer and appeal to audiences would have fell flat. That's just Hollywood evolving. Would producers be ok with 80's makeup and zombies? Same reason Diary zombies have a modern look to them. If George paraded out 68 style makeup for Diary he would have been crucified.

What does this have to do with make-up and clothes that give the appearance of more decay? Are you suggesting that modern make-up cannot emulate this?

And by the way, those old 70s and 80s special effects and make-up are often quite better than a lot of the cartoonish CGI stuff that passes as such nowadays in many horror movies. For example, I have yet to see modern movies with better and more "believable" looking werewolves and man-to-wolf transformations than 1981's The Howling and An American Werewolf in London, or better looking demon-possessed humans than 1988's Night of the Demons, or better looking and disgusting alien creatures than 1982's The Thing, or better and more "believable" dragons than 1981's Dragonslayer. Similarly with zombies. I find Romero's Day of the Dead and Fulci's Zombie to have quite more effective and repulsive looking zombies than many a modern zombie movie. So by all means, please bring back many of those old fashioned special effects and make-up!

Wrong. It was chronologically his end in 1985. Wish I could bold 85. George admitted once he conceived his next chapter his original intent was to put it between Night and Day but then didn't. The man said it. He said continuing saga after the 4 films were made. He wanted to show us that even when surrounded by zombies we would rebuild a society with class systems and power. The threat of extinction wasn't enough of a lesson.

Well, like I said, sometimes Romero fails in conveying some of his intentions to the movie he is making.

I was only referring to Romero as using the zombies as a vehicle for his story. The helmets, in "reality", would not stay on the head of lumbering zombies. They were costumes that actors brought to break up monotony.

Depends: what if the helmet is strapped? I could easily see how a zombified soldier would keep it on for a long time.

But yes lets talk about Dr. Logans statement. Because interesting enough he says roughly, that these creatures could survive for several years. Then he says something like up to 12 years. I think, I'm not quoting. But my friend if we are "years" in, or 5 as you believe, wouldn't our TOTALLY INFORMED AND ALL KNOWING MEDIA WATCHING, gov't supported scientific team already know as a matter of fact that these do exist for years. Because Logan says "could survive". Since your opposition is accused of being unable to apply logic is it a stretch to assume that the gov't would infact be studying these creatures immediately and studying their capabilities and longevity?

Even if we take the five years possibility, that still leaves the question open of just how long exactly will these creatures last before decay damages them enough to no longer be functional? It is a perfectly valid question that Logan is looking into, among other things of importance.

Well one statement actually made was that Washington had more sophisticated bunkers than team FL. So its not a stretch of variable to assume that they are surviving and doing much better. What does have a large variable is when one assumes that all gov't is underground because one bunker in FL lost comms.

Why wouldn't they have more sophisticated shelters? They are their superiors in Washington, we should expect them to have access to better facilities. The interesting thing is that they too have gone underground. And also that they can no longer keep long range communications going. And that all this is worrying the hell out of the survivors in Florida.

- - - Updated - - -

That would of course vary locally.

When even the very turf of the government itself is knee-deep into it, you know that other places won't be faring much better. Plus you forget that even in Dawn the situation was already getting quite bad pretty much everywhere in the country. That's why that group of survivors wants to see if maybe Canada is faring better.

Exactly my point. Communication would be unrelieable across the board.

On the contrary, communications are extremely important. That's why they are so desperate to try to raise someone... anyone! But the problem is that the government can no longer maintain long range communications going. Not a good sign at all.

Your conclusion doesn't take into consideration local situations at all, but rather paints a very broad picture and assumes it is the same everywhere. In any case, you may draw any conclusion you want, I already pointed out to you that there is a historical precedent for this kind of thing.

A historical precedent which in fact made things worse, not better! Quite contrary to what we see in the case of Kaufman's outpost vs US government collapsing.

How is that and the car mechanics line relevant to the context of the film?
Try again.

Who says that what the "mechanic" says is relevant to anything? Who is this guy anyway? He himself is totally irrelevant to the plot. He is there only to provide a bit of comedy ("You got fucked!"). His remark is simply in self-defense of Riley's accusation that he has had something to do with the disappearance of his car. Cholo is a relevant character who says something about 3 years that could be relevant to the plot, not this guy claiming he has not driven a car in 3 years.

Then don't.

Of course I don't, and so does anyone with a fully working pair of eyes.

Who says we are only nitpicking character, behavior and personality? I never agreed to that.

The nitpick itself is partly based on the character, behavior and personality of the survivors. Do they look to you like they would take the subject of noticing or requesting information about survivors very casually? They are even willing to put their lives at risk and go out of their way to see if they can find anyone out there. Their concern with and interest in the subject is unquestionable. Now how in blazes can such things that can be easily deduced from their character and behavior compare with a friggin' newspaper being swept by the wind, and that only gets like 5 seconds of screen time to boot? Apples & oranges.

Irrelevant to this discussion since I was merely pointing out that localized states can form and maintain order and cohesion in a power vacuum left by a larger one. It happened in Europe, it happened in Land.

What happened in Europe is in fact the opposite: things got worse for quite a while after the empire fell. In Land things would actually have gotten better while the government itself had collapsed. For this analogy to really work Kaufman's post would have had to be more modest sized, less safe and less sophisticated. The infrastructure that would be required to maintain what we see going on at Kaufman's is simply out of the question in the apocalypse scenario of Day. The government itself, with its much larger resources and capital, would not be able to pull off such things. They can't even maintain long range communications anymore.

EvilNed

13-Feb-2016, 10:15 PM

When even the very turf of the government itself is knee-deep into it, you know that other places won't be faring much better. Plus you forget that even in Dawn the situation was already getting quite bad pretty much everywhere in the country. That's why that group of survivors wants to see if maybe Canada is faring better.

As I said, this would of course vary locally.

On the contrary, communications are extremely important. That's why they are so desperate to try to raise someone... anyone! But the problem is that the government can no longer maintain long range communications going. Not a good sign at all.

Dawn showed many police officers defecting, they are also a federal institution.
When a relay station in Missouri burns down, how are you gonna repair it if you're in D.C. if all of your Missouri boys have been eaten or fled the coup?

A historical precedent which in fact made things worse, not better! Quite contrary to what we see in the case of Kaufman's outpost vs US government collapsing.

Again, that would vary from place to place. Some were worse off, some were better off. There is nothing uniform you can apply to the entire spectrum. The only thing that IS certain is that one of the greatest empires ever collapsed and smaller local kingdoms emerged in the power vacuum. As in Land.

Who says that what the "mechanic" says is relevant to anything?

It's a film. All dialogue exists for a purpose.

The nitpick itself is partly based on the character, behavior and personality of the survivors.

Very well and then I will nitpick the decayrate of a newspaper.

What happened in Europe is in fact the opposite: things got worse for quite a while after the empire fell. In Land things would actually have gotten better while the government itself had collapsed.

Incorrect. The Roman empire could not defend all of it's territory, which is part of the reason it collapsed. Many places improved and stabilized from a security point-of-view when formation of localized kingdoms emerged. For instance, the cementation of a gothic kingdom in Italy put an end to many instances of succession wars within the Roman Empire.
In any case, the point is irrelevant since the point is that in a power vacuum other states can emerge.

facestabber

13-Feb-2016, 11:09 PM

jdp you truly are unique. Even one of your Dumber and I mean truly dumb theories that a complex machine like dead reckoning is impossible to build "later on". Mankind just up and quits huh? At first you couldn't handle Land being 3 years in. You got proved wrong by the man that made the movie. No need to address this because I'm sure you saw a piece of cotton in day with some new evidence of decay. Hey cool idea, post your forensics degree with emphasis on clothes decay in the zombie apocalypse.

And then we move on to this goofy notion that Romero created Land of Dead with a "fairly" safe world outside Fiddlers. Wtf is the point of anyone staying in Fiddlers under Kaufmans rule. How the hell could a movie that's supposed to terrify us about a world full of zombies work if it's safe? Excuse me "relatively safe".

You should seek out Romero and beat him up for failing you. If he just stopped with Day you'd live happily ever after. But it seems you made this revelation of yours at a nerd convention, got challenged and hurt feelings, and now are on a mission of delusion. Romero came back to do Land. Decided not to set it between Night and Day. Gave us a 3 year timeframe of Land. But you will once again ignore that and talk about wardrobe 20 years prior, complex dead reckoning and the safe zombie filled world outside Fiddlers. You need to yell at George for not meeting your wardrobe standards in a world and universe that he created. And berate him over the technology of dead reckoning because as we all know no engineers survived. How dare George have an idea of how society may rebuild in the universe he created. You know what I'm pissed at George now too.

I will tell you what. I met Nicotero last year and have an opportunity to in a couple months. I will ask him and report is answer either way.

sandrock74

14-Feb-2016, 12:48 AM

JDP

14-Feb-2016, 07:24 AM

As I said, this would of course vary locally.

People fleeing to Canada to take a chance and see if it's better there, defecting police planning to go to an island, a scientist proposing to drop atomic bombs on the big cities to get rid of as many zombies as possible, the media going off the air, small armies of gun-toting motorized looters pillaging anything on their path... Dawn already paints a bleak picture of the US on a straight course to collapse. As Roger says: "They got enough in their hands." It is more than just local incidents, it's a national crisis. By the time of Day things have even gotten worse.

Dawn showed many police officers defecting, they are also a federal institution.
When a relay station in Missouri burns down, how are you gonna repair it if you're in D.C. if all of your Missouri boys have been eaten or fled the coup?

Yes, indeed, but that's in fact the point. The government itself is having a heck of a lot of trouble trying to maintain something as relatively simple as this, because as your above example illustrates, the infrastructure that maintained such things before has now been severely affected. So for a private entrepreneur like Kaufman to have an easier time to do such things, and even more complicated ones like maintaining large armies or even building complex war machines sounds a bit too far fetched. Had Kaufman's outpost been something more rudimentary, like Alexandria, Woodbury, or the prison in TWD I would be the first one admitting that there wouldn't be much of a problem here.

Again, that would vary from place to place. Some were worse off, some were better off. There is nothing uniform you can apply to the entire spectrum. The only thing that IS certain is that one of the greatest empires ever collapsed and smaller local kingdoms emerged in the power vacuum. As in Land.

Yes, but unlike Land the local kingdoms were not better at keeping things running than the collapsed empire. It took several centuries to get back on track.

It's a film. All dialogue exists for a purpose.

Yes, but unfortunately in the case of the dialogue in question, it is a bit vague. Also, notice that driving a car out of the city is hardly something that the zombie situation has put a stop to. Riley himself wants to do just that, the zombie problem outside notwithstanding. So the "mechanic" saying such a thing as not having driven out of the city in 3 years does not necessarily ring "zombie-situation" bells. That would certainly be the case if going out of the city in a car was out of the question. But I do understand your point, and I have not denied that it very much can be interpreted like you prefer to interpret it (two 3 year references = likely points at the zombie crisis), and it likely makes more sense that way. But it is not the only choice. Had those bits of dialogue been more specific, they would not allow for any other interpretation.

Very well and then I will nitpick the decay rate of a newspaper.

You could, if you could also prove its whereabouts all this time. Keep in mind it is an inanimate object devoid of any character, personality, mentality, will and emotions. It can't move by itself, it can't take decisions on its own, it can't convey any ideas to anyone except for what is printed on it. It is a heck of a challenge to try to derive any deductions whatsoever about it, other than it is an old newspaper being swept by the wind in a desolate city.

Incorrect. The Roman empire could not defend all of it's territory, which is part of the reason it collapsed. Many places improved and stabilized from a security point-of-view when formation of localized kingdoms emerged. For instance, the cementation of a gothic kingdom in Italy put an end to many instances of succession wars within the Roman Empire.
In any case, the point is irrelevant since the point is that in a power vacuum other states can emerge.

The Goths were notoriously inept rulers when compared to the Romans. They spent a lot of their time fighting each other for power. So were all the other "barbarian" tribes (Vandals, Franks, Huns, etc.) who were largely responsible for the collapse of the empire to begin with. They were great warriors (the Romans in fact had been employing them as mercenaries in their armies), but as rulers and administrators they did not have the talent of the Romans and other more civilized peoples from the Mediterranean world. Under their control such things as aqueducts and roads fell in disrepair and forced the populace to have a harder time to have access to water and transportation routes. This was not an improvement over the more efficient Roman empire.

- - - Updated - - -

jdp you truly are unique. Even one of your Dumber and I mean truly dumb theories that a complex machine like dead reckoning is impossible to build "later on".

So according to your truly dumb theories it is perfectly logical that a private crook like Kaufman can have the resources and manpower at his disposal to maintain cities, armies and build complex machines with computers, radio, fireworks, machine guns and long range rockets, but somehow the US government with its way larger resources is hiding in bunkers and can no longer even keep its communication network going on? I thought that since you were the first to bring up TWD as a comparison that you would have learned something about this by its way more realistic portrayal of such a situation.

Mankind just up and quits huh? At first you couldn't handle Land being 3 years in. You got proved wrong by the man that made the movie. No need to address this because I'm sure you saw a piece of cotton in day with some new evidence of decay. Hey cool idea, post your forensics degree with emphasis on clothes decay in the zombie apocalypse.

Romero can think what he wants, but the fact is that the way he made these two movies he totally failed in conveying any such thing. And regarding the degree of decay of the zombies of Day when compared to those of all his other zombie movies, including Land, I am not the only one who has easily noticed this detail by any means. A university professor of Film Studies who has written an entire book devoted to George Romero's films has easily pointed out the fact, for example:

Following the caption, "Some Time Ago", black and white images appear under the opening credits depicting the beginning of the zombie plague with voice-overs repeating lines from earlier films. Then the screen changes to a blue filter image depicting a world where the zombies control the outer perimeters of civilization. A caption appears, "Today". Since the zombies appear in various stages of decomposition,the suggestion is that this contemporary brave new world OCCUPIES A TIME SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE END OF DAWN OF THE DEAD AND THE BEGINNING OF DAY OF THE DEAD, WHOSE ZOMBIES (with the exception of "Bub") APPEAR IN MORE ADVANCED STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION. Land of the Dead occupies a cinematic parallel world to those of the earlier films, unlike Diary of the Dead, which moves its action back to the very beginning of Night of the Living Dead. Romero has moved away from a linear chronological depiction of events towards a narrative reflecting different movements paralleling the ones he depicted in his earlier zombie trilogy. ---- Tony Williams, The Cinema of George A. Romero: Knight of the Living Dead, page 185. Columbia University Press, 2015.

https://books.google.com/books?id=W34yBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA185&dq=OCCUPIES+A+TIME+SOMEWHERE+BETWEEN+THE+END+OF+DA WN+OF+THE+DEAD+AND+THE+BEGINNING+OF+DAY+OF+THE+DEA D&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikoKuv5fbKAhXF7SYKHQDwCdUQ6AEIHTAA#v=on epage&q=OCCUPIES%20A%20TIME%20SOMEWHERE%20BETWEEN%20THE% 20END%20OF%20DAWN%20OF%20THE%20DEAD%20AND%20THE%20 BEGINNING%20OF%20DAY%20OF%20THE%20DEAD&f=false

And then we move on to this goofy notion that Romero created Land of Dead with a "fairly" safe world outside Fiddlers. Wtf is the point of anyone staying in Fiddlers under Kaufmans rule. How the hell could a movie that's supposed to terrify us about a world full of zombies work if it's safe? Excuse me "relatively safe".

You are not a very good observer, are you? Even one of the major characters in the film persistently WANTS to leave the city in a simple car and try his luck out there to find a better place. Foxy and Cholo don't see any problem whatsoever in cruising all the way to Cleveland in a car without a roof. Kaufman does not seem to be very worried about escaping the zombie invasion of his city in a limo. People are totally free to leave the city whenever they please. Can you really be this unperceptive not to notice any of this? The world of Land does not even come across as dangerous as that of Dawn, where the zombie situation has gotten bad enough that only large groups of armed survivors dare to venture outside anymore. Example: the biker army openly defies the zombies and continues its on-the-road looting rampage quite unimpaired, but these guys are armed to the teeth and there's a bunch of them, otherwise they too would have been dead meat by now. So let alone than the more dangerous, desolate and zombie-infested world of Day. As long as you keep away from zombie towns and cities in Land, the danger is not that great. The characters in the movie venture outside the city in vehicles rather casually as long as they don't have to go into zombie towns.

You should seek out Romero and beat him up for failing you. If he just stopped with Day you'd live happily ever after. But it seems you made this revelation of yours at a nerd convention, got challenged and hurt feelings, and now are on a mission of delusion. Romero came back to do Land. Decided not to set it between Night and Day. Gave us a 3 year timeframe of Land. But you will once again ignore that and talk about wardrobe 20 years prior, complex dead reckoning and the safe zombie filled world outside Fiddlers. You need to yell at George for not meeting your wardrobe standards in a world and universe that he created. And berate him over the technology of dead reckoning because as we all know no engineers survived. How dare George have an idea of how society may rebuild in the universe he created. You know what I'm pissed at George now too.

I will tell you what. I met Nicotero last year and have an opportunity to in a couple months. I will ask him and report is answer either way.

I told you, one thing are Romero's intentions and another one are how his movies actually come across. Sometimes he totally misses the mark and therefore they can be nitpicked. A private crook being able to sustain such an advanced society that can even produce such complex machines as Dead Reckoning would be an anachronism in a post-Day world where even the very government and its infrastructure has collapsed. Again, take notes from the very show (TWD) that you brought up, which handles such a situation much more realistically.

That university professor who wrote a whole book on Romero's movies, which I quoted above, points out the obvious difference between the more decayed zombies of Day and the usually "fresher" looking zombies of Land and the other movies. So keep on fantasizing that I am the only one who has noticed such obvious things. You can also read many of that movie's reviews out there that also point out the same. The world of Day looks more decayed than any of the other Romero movies. The fact that you are not very perceptive to notice such things does not mean that others have failed to notice them.

EvilNed

14-Feb-2016, 08:09 AM

By the time of Day things have even gotten worse.

Absolutely, but obviously some places would be worse off than others. I'm sure you can understand that.

Yes, indeed, but that's in fact the point. The government itself is having a heck of a lot of trouble trying to maintain something as relatively simple as this, because as your above example illustrates, the infrastructure that maintained such things before has now been severely affected.

I'm gonna stop you right there,
maintaining cross country infrastructure in a deteriorating world is not "simple". People hired to maintain and fix them would defect to protect their families or save their own hides. Where would they go?
Why not take up shelter in Kaufman's new rescue station and offer my services to him in exchange for food and protection instead?

Yes, but unlike Land the local kingdoms were not better at keeping things running than the collapsed empire. It took several centuries to get back on track.

That would of course vary locally and on what you meant by "running things".
If you mean by "running things", keeping aqueducts open then I might equate that to "keeping hospitals open", which neither the government OR Kaufman could do. So again, that would vary locally. Some places were better off, some others. If you were a Frankish peasant toiling your land and the roman empire did fuck all to protect you against saxon raids, you'd be quite thankful that Frankish guy stepped in with his army and annexed your county, offering protection in exchange for taxes.
Some places were actually better off.

Yes, but unfortunately in the case of the dialogue in question, it is a bit vague. Also, notice that driving a car out of the city is hardly something that the zombie situation has put a stop to. Riley himself wants to do just that, the zombie problem outside notwithstanding. So the "mechanic" saying such a thing as not having driven out of the city in 3 years does not necessarily ring "zombie-situation" bells.

Stop avoiding the question. Answer it or concede that you can't.
What do these two lines mean in the context of the film?
They are NOT throwaway lines. They are NOT there by accident. If they don't refer to the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, what do they refer to, that is relevant information to the viewer?

You could, if you could also prove its whereabouts all this time.

Why? You can't prove the contents of the discussion between Washington and the Scientists - yet you place such high stock on it, so I feel that's an unfair demand from you.

The Goths were notoriously inept rulers when compared to the Romans. They spent a lot of their time fighting each other for power. So were all the other "barbarian" tribes (Vandals, Franks, Huns, etc.) who were largely responsible for the collapse of the empire to begin with. They were great warriors (the Romans in fact had been employing them as mercenaries in their armies), but as rulers and administrators they did not have the talent of the Romans and other more civilized peoples from the Mediterranean world.

Irrelevant, I pointed out to you that in a power vacuum, smaller states that provide a better local stability can arise. As happened in Land.
I'd also argue that you don't seem to know a lot about the dark ages, overall, but that would be veering a bit off topic...

JDP

14-Feb-2016, 09:13 AM

JDP, you are making huge assumptions (although that's not surprising) about the zombie apocalypse beginning in PA. Just because the movie happened to take place there doesn't mean is all started there. It was said on the various news reports that the entire eastern seaboard was under virtual siege and it was rapidly spreading west, to the Mississippi river. Pittsburgh in a ways inland from the eastern seaboard, hence it could not have started there and spread east, then come back and continue westward. As Night is presented to us, there is absolutely no proof things began in the area of Pittsburgh; that's just where the movie took place, so we, the viewers, experience the event with the main characters of the film.

No one knows where it started or how it began.

The assumption or suspicion is based on the fact that all the early accounts of the zombies we hear about in the movie come from locals, who before these events had not heard about any zombies anywhere:

1- Judy and Tom hear "the first reports" and go to the house to seek shelter

2- The Coopers get attacked and their car is turned over, they escape and find their way to the house

3- Barbara and Johnny encounter the cemetery zombie, resulting in Johnny's death and Barbara's escape to the house

4- Ben encounters zombies at the diner, escapes in the truck and ends up in the house

Later on a local TV station gives more reports, including one by Dr. Grimes, being interviewed in person at the station, where he says that at the university cold room a cadaver was observed to come back to life "early this morning". By the time of these night broadcasts the zombie plague seems to have been spreading and is also being reported elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely, but obviously some places would be worse off than others. I'm sure you can understand that.

The places that would be better off would be those that have lower population density, thus less zombies. Not exactly what we see in Kaufman's case. Kaufman is in fact in the middle of such places as where Dr. Rausch from Dawn wants to drop atomic bombs to try to get rid of as many zombies as possible.

I'm gonna stop you right there,
maintaining cross country infrastructure in a deteriorating world is not "simple". People hired to maintain and fix them would defect to protect their families or save their own hides. Where would they go?
Why not take up shelter in Kaufman's new rescue station and offer my services to him in exchange for food and protection instead?

It is a much simpler task than having to maintain armies, droves of survivors, building complex machines, etc. Plus at this time the government would not be simply sending civilians under contract to take care of such problems, but also soldiers.

That would of course vary locally and on what you meant by "running things".
If you mean by "running things", keeping aqueducts open then I might equate that to "keeping hospitals open", which neither the government OR Kaufman could do. So again, that would vary locally. Some places were better off, some others. If you were a Frankish peasant toiling your land and the roman empire did fuck all to protect you against saxon raids, you'd be quite thankful that Frankish guy stepped in with his army and annexed your county, offering protection in exchange for taxes.
Some places were actually better off.

Kaufman's men did provide medicines to the citizens, though.

The Franks themselves were "barbarian" invaders.

Stop avoiding the question. Answer it or concede that you can't.
What do these two lines mean in the context of the film?
They are NOT throwaway lines. They are NOT there by accident. If they don't refer to the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, what do they refer to, that is relevant information to the viewer?

Who is avoiding it? I keep addressing it and you just keep on pretending that it has not. In the case of the "mechanic", seems like an excuse to defend himself from Riley's accusation of theft (he is accusing him of having had something to do with the disappearance of his car.) You could interpret it as also having something to do with the zombie situation, though it's quite unclear how, because other characters seem to have no problem whatsoever driving cars out of the city despite the zombie situation. What is it about the 3 years, then, that could possibly have prevented this guy from taking a car and driving it out of the city? Should we conclude that by force it has to be a reference to the zombies? Really? Then how come the other characters can take cars out of the city? Zombies do NOT necessarily = you can't drive a car out of the city since 3 years ago.

In the case of Cholo, it could have to do with how long the zombie thing has been around or it could also have to do with how long Cholo has been working for Kaufman regardless of the zombie thing.

Why? You can't prove the contents of the discussion between Washington and the Scientists - yet you place such high stock on it, so I feel that's an unfair demand from you.

No, I can't, but it can be easily seen how interested and preoccupied the survivors were about the subject of finding other survivors. Would they have missed such an opportunity to inquire about it to other people they were in contact with? But how does one deduce anything about the newspaper, though? What interests and preoccupations can a newspaper possibly have? It's an inanimate object devoid of any such human traits. It can't even move on its own.

Irrelevant, I pointed out to you that in a power vacuum, smaller states that provide a better local stability can arise. As happened in Land.
I'd also argue that you don't seem to know a lot about the dark ages, overall, but that would be veering a bit off topic...

Most historians do not agree with this. The consensus among them is that the fall of the Roman empire did not make things easier or more stable by any means, but the opposite.

EvilNed

14-Feb-2016, 09:58 AM

The places that would be better off would be those that have lower population density, thus less zombies. Not exactly what we see in Kaufman's case. Kaufman is in fact in the middle of such places as where Dr. Rausch from Dawn wants to drop atomic bombs to try to get rid of as many zombies as possible.

That would be a factor to consider (among others), but as I pointed out - that would vary from place to place. Circumstances would vary.

It is a much simpler task than having to maintain armies, droves of survivors, building complex machines, etc. Plus at this time the government would not be simply sending civilians under contract to take care of such problems, but also soldiers.

Not if you're in D.C., the arrays are in Missouri and everyone has defected. In fact, I'd argue it'd be one of the things you wouldn't prioritize at all when you find yourself with dwindling manpower.

Kaufman's men did provide medicines to the citizens, though.

Handing out pills does not equal to "Fully functional healthcare facilities."
I doubt Kaufman had a pharmacy or a chemist lab...

The Franks themselves were "barbarian" invaders.
Irrelevant, they still took over the roman infrastructure and managed it quite capably in the dark ages. I'm sure you've heard of Charles Martel, Pippin and Charlemagne.
Furthermore, it is also irrelevant because the point I was getting across is that in a power vacuum, other more stabile societies can form.

Who is avoiding it? I keep addressing it and you just keep on pretending that it has not.

Incorrect. You cannot provide an answer relevant to the story about what those lines mean.
I don't want speculation on this guys life story (which is highly irrelevant in the context of the movie), I want a concrete answer to a concrete question and the question is;
What do these lines mean within the context of the movie?

In the case of Cholo, it could have to do with how long the zombie thing has been around or it could also have to do with how long Cholo has been working for Kaufman regardless of the zombie thing.

Highly irrelevant in the context of a post-apocalyptic setting. No further context is provided for Cholo and Kaufman's supposed pre-apocalyptic business deals, we can't assume that they have one.

So answer the question or concede that you cannot.

No, I can't, but it can be easily seen how interested and preoccupied the survivors were about the subject of finding other survivors. Would they have missed such an opportunity to inquire about it to other people they were in contact with? But how does one deduce anything about the newspaper, though? What interests and preoccupations can a newspaper possibly have? It's an inanimate object devoid of any such human traits. It can't even move on its own.

So you admit that your argument is based on nothing but wild speculation, very good. Thank you. I'll drop the newspaper now, I don't care about it at all.

Most historians do not agree with this. The consensus among them is that the fall of the Roman empire did not make things easier or more stable by any means, but the opposite.

If you want to discuss the dark ages, we can open up a thread about it, but let me just say that you're not being fair in your description about what pre- and post-Roman Europe looked like. To most citizens, the shift was undetecteable. Still gotta pay those god damn taxes.

sandrock74

14-Feb-2016, 02:58 PM

[QUOTE=JDP;314160]The assumption or suspicion is based on the fact that all the early accounts of the zombies we hear about in the movie come from locals, who before these events had not heard about any zombies anywhere:

1- Judy and Tom hear "the first reports" and go to the house to seek shelter

2- The Coopers get attacked and their car is turned over, they escape and find their way to the house

3- Barbara and Johnny encounter the cemetery zombie, resulting in Johnny's death and Barbara's escape to the house

4- Ben encounters zombies at the diner, escapes in the truck and ends up in the house

Later on a local TV station gives more reports, including one by Dr. Grimes, being interviewed in person at the station, where he says that at the university cold room a cadaver was observed to come back to life "early this morning". By the time of these night broadcasts the zombie plague seems to have been spreading and is also being reported elsewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still making huge assumptions. No one said anywhere that things began in/around Pittsburgh, which is what you have decided. Again, we (the viewers) are experiencing this crisis along with the main characters and they just happen to be in rural Pittsburgh.

Clearly, to become so widespread in such a fairly short amount of time, it's happening over a wide area all at once. Think of a metaphorical nuke being dropped and the resultant fallout; that's the impression the reports are giving. It's happening all along the eastern seaboard, which covers LOTS of miles! That didn't start in the sticks of Pittsburgh; we're just seeing the results of it happening in that area along with Ben and crew.

AcesandEights

14-Feb-2016, 04:53 PM

Dat confirmation bias, though.

JDP

14-Feb-2016, 11:37 PM

That would be a factor to consider (among others), but as I pointed out - that would vary from place to place. Circumstances would vary.

The denser populated areas are consistently portrayed as the most affected in this series, for obvious reasons. Kaufman's outpost is in fact paradoxically located in one of these more troublesome densely populated areas.

Not if you're in D.C., the arrays are in Missouri and everyone has defected. In fact, I'd argue it'd be one of the things you wouldn't prioritize at all when you find yourself with dwindling manpower.

It is much easier to maintain an already standing infrastructure than have to begin one from scratch. If things got so bad that the government could no longer do this, it goes without saying that a private entrepreneur like Kaufman would have even more trouble achieving anything like it. But it actually goes quite beyond this. He has even manufactured a very complex war machine!

Handing out pills does not equal to "Fully functional healthcare facilities."
I doubt Kaufman had a pharmacy or a chemist lab...

Much better than not supplying any medicines at all.

Irrelevant, they still took over the roman infrastructure and managed it quite capably in the dark ages. I'm sure you've heard of Charles Martel, Pippin and Charlemagne.
Furthermore, it is also irrelevant because the point I was getting across is that in a power vacuum, other more stabile societies can form.

It took centuries for Charlemagne's brief reign to arise. In fact, a very common definition of the "Dark Ages", or "Late Antiquity", or "Early Middle Ages" is the period between the fall of Rome and the reign of Charlemagne.

Incorrect. You cannot provide an answer relevant to the story about what those lines mean.
I don't want speculation on this guys life story (which is highly irrelevant in the context of the movie), I want a concrete answer to a concrete question and the question is;
What do these lines mean within the context of the movie?

You are the one trying to argue that this guy and what he says is somehow very relevant to the plot. Even if we accept this possibility, his statement being linked with the rising of the zombies is problematic at best: why would this be an impediment to drive a car out of the city? That is what his words would imply in this context. But we see no such problem throughout the movie. The appearance of zombies has NOT stopped cars from coming in and out of the city. In fact, Riley is looking for this stolen car to be able to drive out of the city. So how is the mechanic's statement very relevant regarding when the zombies first popped up? They could have been there 10 years prior to this scene for all that matters, the fact is that their presence would still not have stopped cars from being driven in and out of the city, since we can plainly see this activity still goes on without any problem. For this argument to really be incriminating, the presence of the zombies would have to be proven to have made driving a car out of the city something out of the question. But we see this is hardly the case.

Highly irrelevant in the context of a post-apocalyptic setting. No further context is provided for Cholo and Kaufman's supposed pre-apocalyptic business deals, we can't assume that they have one.

The quote is about their employer & employee relationship, which Cholo himself does not seem totally sure how long it's been going on since he mentions the 3 years as a question to Kaufman, and which at this point has tensions going on since Kaufman owes Cholo an undisclosed large amount of money. Kaufman turning Cholo down from Fiddler's Green is just the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Where does it say anywhere that this money issue between them in which the putative 3 year period is mentioned has to do with the zombies or when they first appeared? It is explained in the movie that the money that Kaufman owes Cholo is for being one of his goons and doing dirty work for him. This has to do with disposing of people, some of them even friends of Cholo, that Kaufman wanted out of his way. For all we know this could have been going on well before the zombies showed up, as it has no connection with them.

So you admit that your argument is based on nothing but wild speculation, very good. Thank you. I'll drop the newspaper now, I don't care about it at all.

It is based on very pertinent behavior we see the characters display. They care about the survivor situation. It is something that very much concerns them. Why wouldn't they be interested in feedback on the subject, then? Does it sound likely and according to their character that these people would never bother to inquire about it? They don't seem to be very concerned about the Democrats vs the Republicans, for example, so here one can easily very strongly doubt that this would be a subject matter that would come up very often to the surface during their frequent talks with Washington. One could very easily see how things like how to stop the zombies, better facilities, supplies, equipment, safe places and survivors would very often come up for discussion between them, though, since that is what they also keep talking and arguing about among themselves. We can easily tell what they are deeply concerned about.

Now you tell me what possible logical conclusions can one derive from the "behavior" of an inanimate newspaper being casually swept by the wind, whose screen time is a measly 5 seconds or so, and has no "dialogue" whatsoever to boot? Comparing the behavior of human characters to a newspaper is not a very reasonable thing.

If you want to discuss the dark ages, we can open up a thread about it, but let me just say that you're not being fair in your description about what pre- and post-Roman Europe looked like. To most citizens, the shift was undetecteable. Still gotta pay those god damn taxes.

No way, in fact it led to more wars and the decline of urban centers:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages

Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life.

It took several centuries for the turmoil and instability left by the crumbled empire to subside and get back in better shape.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still making huge assumptions. No one said anywhere that things began in/around Pittsburgh, which is what you have decided. Again, we (the viewers) are experiencing this crisis along with the main characters and they just happen to be in rural Pittsburgh.

Clearly, to become so widespread in such a fairly short amount of time, it's happening over a wide area all at once. Think of a metaphorical nuke being dropped and the resultant fallout; that's the impression the reports are giving. It's happening all along the eastern seaboard, which covers LOTS of miles! That didn't start in the sticks of Pittsburgh; we're just seeing the results of it happening in that area along with Ben and crew.

The two earliest reports on the zombies we hear about in the movie come from Pennsylvania: Dr. Grimes' statement of what was observed "early in the morning" with a cadaver, and Judy and Tom's listening to the "first reports" and then going to the house. Not 100% proof, but pretty suspicious. No one seems to have heard of any zombies prior to this. All the other characters we see have encounters with them quite later on.

There's also the report about the 7 slain people 2 days earlier, but this one has three fundamental problems that make it very doubtful. It sounds more like the media trying to make a connection between that earlier massacre and the zombies that for sure there's evidence of 2 days later.

The sudden appearance of larger numbers of zombies in this movie is somewhat puzzling. They seem to be around only in a few places at first, enough for only a comparatively few number of people to have noticed them, but then later on they just start popping up everywhere all of a sudden. Confining ourselves to what we see in the movie, Barbara and Johnny drive all the way from Pittsburgh 3 hours and do not see anything suspicious until they arrive at the cemetery around eight o'clock PM, and then again it's only one of them they encounter. Yet we know that they were already around quite earlier because Judy, Tom and the Coopers already know of their existence. Dr. Grimes and his colleagues even know about their existence by early in the morning of that day. All of a sudden when the night comes there is an explosion of zombies everywhere being reported. Supposing that Dr. Grimes means something like 7 or 8 AM or so as "early in the morning", then it took like 13 or 14 hours for the zombies to all of a sudden become very visible all over the landscape.

EvilNed

15-Feb-2016, 06:32 AM

The denser populated areas are consistently portrayed as the most affected in this series, for obvious reasons. Kaufman's outpost is in fact paradoxically located in one of these more troublesome densely populated areas.

The only real dense population area that Romero ever explores in depth is Philly in Land, so you're wrong.

It is much easier to maintain an already standing infrastructure than have to begin one from scratch. If things got so bad that the government could no longer do this, it goes without saying that a private entrepreneur like Kaufman would have even more trouble achieving anything like it. But it actually goes quite beyond this. He has even manufactured a very complex war machine!

I'm not really sure what infrastructure you're referring to that he produced. If you watch the film you will see that most of the things they live off are scavenged - not manufactured. The sole exception would be Dead Reckoning and the electrical fence.

Much better than not supplying any medicines at all.

Uh, yeah, I guess, tho I don't see what that has to do with anything.

It took centuries for Charlemagne's brief reign to arise. In fact, a very common definition of the "Dark Ages", or "Late Antiquity", or "Early Middle Ages" is the period between the fall of Rome and the reign of Charlemagne.

If you want to discuss the Dark Ages, we can do that in another thread.
As I pointed out, the analogy was simply to point out that in a power vacuum, other stabile societies could (and have) form.

You are the one trying to argue that this guy and what he says is somehow very relevant to the plot.

As I've already pointed out, all lines in films are there for a purpose. The purpose of a line like that is to give exposition. I've given you several chances to answer this question, but you can't - you keep ignoring it.

The quote is about their employer & employee relationship, which Cholo himself does not seem totally sure how long it's been going on since he mentions the 3 years as a question to Kaufman, and which at this point has tensions going on since Kaufman owes Cholo an undisclosed large amount of money.

As I pointed out, their pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are irrelevant in this post-apocalyptic depiction. It would be the ONLY reference to some pre-apocalyptic business arrangement and would be absurdly out of place.. This is simply not the case.

It is based on very pertinent behavior we see the characters display. They care about the survivor situation. It is something that very much concerns them. Why wouldn't they be interested in feedback on the subject, then? Does it sound likely and according to their character that these people would never bother to inquire about it?

We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

Now you tell me what possible logical conclusions can one derive from the "behavior" of an inanimate newspaper being casually swept by the wind, whose screen time is a measly 5 seconds or so, and has no "dialogue" whatsoever to boot? Comparing the behavior of human characters to a newspaper is not a very reasonable thing.

That it would decay within 6-9 months outdoors.

If you want to discuss the Dark Ages, we can do that in another thread.
As I pointed out, the analogy was simply to point out that in a power vacuum, other stabile societies could (and have) form.

JDP

15-Feb-2016, 10:07 AM

The only real dense population area that Romero ever explores in depth is Philly in Land, so you're wrong.

Not at all, we have survivors fleeing and avoiding densely populated areas, even a scientist proposing to drop atomic bombs in all major cities as a means of getting rid of the majority of the zombies. Dawn makes it very clear that the densely populated areas are the ones worst affected.

I'm not really sure what infrastructure you're referring to that he produced. If you watch the film you will see that most of the things they live off are scavenged - not manufactured. The sole exception would be Dead Reckoning and the electrical fence.

The infrastructure he has created can maintain armies of mercenaries, weapons, vehicles, fuel, electricity, workshops (to build Dead Reckoning & maintain it and all the other bunch of vehicles they have), communications, provide food, supplies and medicines for the population. On top of that his infrastructure can also even allow the citizens to still enjoy non-vital entertainment, like gambling, clubs, liquor, tobacco, prostitution. This guy is running at an efficiency level that the US government in Day can't even imagine bringing back at this point. They are already having a load of trouble even to just try to keep communications up and running.

Uh, yeah, I guess, tho I don't see what that has to do with anything.

That it is just another example of the things Kaufman can pull off, which not even the US government can by the time of Day. The government itself is hiding in bunkers, it is not in a position to be generously maintaining rescue stations that can dispense such things to survivors.

If you want to discuss the Dark Ages, we can do that in another thread.
As I pointed out, the analogy was simply to point out that in a power vacuum, other stabile societies could (and have) form.

None of them as efficient and prosperous as the empire they replaced. It took centuries for things to get back to a better situation.

As I've already pointed out, all lines in films are there for a purpose. The purpose of a line like that is to give exposition. I've given you several chances to answer this question, but you can't - you keep ignoring it.

No, there's plenty of lines in any movie that are trivial, casual and/or coincidental. I have already answered this a bunch of times. The mechanic's line has its own purpose: he is defending himself from Riley's accusation of theft. He is not making a concise statement regarding anything about the zombies. It's about a car that has "disappeared" and he is being blamed for it.

As I pointed out, their pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are irrelevant in this post-apocalyptic depiction. It would be the ONLY reference to some pre-apocalyptic business arrangement and would be absurdly out of place.. This is simply not the case.

But how do you know that Kaufman and Cholo were not like this already before? Since their feud has NOTHING to do with the zombies how can you possibly rule out that it goes quite beyond their appearance? You are trying to force their business relationship on the zombies, but there is no proof of this anywhere in the movie. The business that they have at hand and ultimately is at the root of their strife is that of getting rid of PEOPLE (not zombies) that Kaufman wants out of his way. For all we know these guys have always been crooks, have known each other for years and been doing this kind of dirty business since before any zombies showed up. They are simply continuing business as usual regardless of the appearance of the zombie situation. Your request that it somehow has to be relevant to the zombie situation does not hold. Their business has nothing to do with zombies but with other people that they get rid of.

We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

We do know that they talked to Washington "all the time" before the long range communications ceased. We do know that Washington sent them to that facility to try to solve the zombie problem. We do know that the Florida team is concerned about their own safety and future. We do know that they are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any survivors around anymore. We do know that they feel that the equipment and supplies they have down there does not seem to be enough to cope with the task at hand. Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Does it look to you that these people have the time and inclination to be discussing any other things than what deeply worries and affects them? Or should we expect them instead to be very inclined to waste their communication time discussing trivial and irrelevant matters, like, for example, who would have won the Super Bowl if these damn zombies had not shown up?

That it would decay within 6-9 months outdoors.

But since we know nothing about the whereabouts of this newspaper except for the 5 second screen time it gets we have no idea if it should really still be around or not. Maybe it has only been swept around the streets of the desolate city for a week. Do you see the money in front of the bank as well? At an undetermined point in time it must also not have been there on the streets but somewhere inside. What makes you think the newspaper wasn't also somewhere indoors, or in some car, or in a trashcan and then through any of a large number of possible random events it was carried to the outside? Example of such a random event: one of the many wandering zombies accidentally knocks one of the many city trashcans over and it spills its contents on the streets. This newspaper was inside, protected from the weather all this time. Now it is free to be swept by the wind around the streets of the desolate city. The newspaper in Day is not any "character". It is simply an object. It has no will of its own, no desires, no worries, no personality, no behavior patterns, no emotions, etc.

EvilNed

15-Feb-2016, 10:25 AM

Not at all, we have survivors fleeing and avoiding densely populated areas, even a scientist proposing to drop atomic bombs in all major cities as a means of getting rid of the majority of the zombies. Dawn makes it very clear that the densely populated areas are the ones worst affected.

That would of course vary from place to place, as I'm sure you understand.

The infrastructure he has created can maintain armies of mercenaries, weapons, vehicles, fuel, electricity, workshops (to build Dead Reckoning & maintain it and all the other bunch of vehicles they have), communications, provide food, supplies and medicines for the population.

He scavenged all of those things, tho. The film makes that pretty clear - that they are living off the remains of the old world. So I'm still not really sure what you're referring to...

That it is just another example of the things Kaufman can pull off, which not even the US government can by the time of Day. The government itself is hiding in bunkers, it is not in a position to be generously maintaining rescue stations that can dispense such things to survivors.

You mean Kaufman can go out, bust open a pharmacy window, grab some pills and give to a kid?
Yes, he can do that. So could anyone.

None of them as efficient and prosperous as the empire they replaced. It took centuries for things to get back to a better situation.

Depends on how and where you look at it. Open up a thread about it and we can discuss it further. But the point is, as I pointed out, that more stabile societies can form in the remnants of old ones.

No, there's plenty of lines in any movie that are trivial, casual and/or coincidental.

Incorrect, that's not how screenplays work.

But how do you know that Kaufman and Cholo were not like this already before?

I don't, it's just not relevant to the plot or the context of the film. Thus I can easily deduce that's not what Cholo's talking about.

We do know that they talked to Washington "all the time" before the long range communications ceased.

I'm just gonna quote myself as you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out all the things that you assume;

We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

But since we know nothing about the whereabouts of this newspaper except for the 5 second screen time it gets we have no idea if it should really still be around or not.

You know what else we don't know?
We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

:)

JDP

15-Feb-2016, 10:56 AM

That would of course vary from place to place, as I'm sure you understand.

That's not how it is portrayed in the movie, as I'm sure you understand.

He scavenged all of those things, tho. The film makes that pretty clear - that they are living off the remains of the old world. So I'm still not really sure what you're referring to...

That not even the US government can do such things anymore.

You mean Kaufman can go out, bust open a pharmacy window, grab some pills and give to a kid?
Yes, he can do that. So could anyone.

It's obviously not as simple as that, otherwise everyone would be doing it and would not need Kaufman for anything. Kaufman's outpost serves a purpose. The problem is that it can do this and so much more when not even the government can pull off so many of these things anymore.

Depends on how and where you look at it. Open up a thread about it and we can discuss it further. But the point is, as I pointed out, that more stabile societies can form in the remnants of old ones.

No, I am talking about what the consensus among historians is regarding this period in history. I already quoted it. This change was hardly for the better and in fact it ironically led to the decline of urban life, quite deadly for your intended analogy. It took centuries for things to improve again. Here, let me again quote it:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages

Dark Ages, the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life.

Incorrect, that's not how screenplays work.

Incorrect, screenplays have lots of less relevant matter. Not everything is vital. For example, Charlie saying "nice shooting" and Riley correcting him. Very trivial stuff, and it is there in the script nonetheless. Not everything that is written in a screenplay is relevant.

I don't, it's just not relevant to the plot or the context of the film. Thus I can easily deduce that's not what Cholo's talking about.

And how are the zombies relevant here? They aren't talking about anything that concerns them. They are talking about their business relationship, which regards getting rid of people that Kaufman deems undesirable.

I'm just gonna quote myself as you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out all the things that you assume;

We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

I am going to quote myself as you seem to have missed the part where I pointed out all the things that we do know:

We do know that they talked to Washington "ALL THE TIME" before the long range communications ceased. We do know that Washington sent them to that facility to try to solve the zombie problem. We do know that the Florida team is concerned about their own safety and future. We do know that they are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any survivors around anymore. We do know that they feel that the equipment and supplies they have down there does not seem to be enough to cope with the task at hand. Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Does it look to you that these people have the time and inclination to be discussing any other things than what deeply worries and affects them? Or should we expect them instead to be very inclined to waste their communication time discussing trivial and irrelevant matters, like, for example, who would have won the Super Bowl if these damn zombies had not shown up?

You know what else we don't know?
We don't know how much they talked, what they talked about, if they were talking to scientists, radio operators, politicans, military personell. We have no idea of what priorities the person on the other side had, or how much time. We have no idea of what information that person had either - or how out of date it would be. We don't know how OFTEN they talked or if they had time for chitchat when they talked. All these are assumptions you make.

You know what else we do know?:
We do know that they talked to Washington "ALL THE TIME" before the long range communications ceased. We do know that Washington sent them to that facility to try to solve the zombie problem. We do know that the Florida team is concerned about their own safety and future. We do know that they are concerned that there doesn't seem to be any survivors around anymore. We do know that they feel that the equipment and supplies they have down there does not seem to be enough to cope with the task at hand. Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about? Does it look to you that these people have the time and inclination to be discussing any other things than what deeply worries and affects them? Or should we expect them instead to be very inclined to waste their communication time discussing trivial and irrelevant matters, like, for example, who would have won the Super Bowl if these damn zombies had not shown up?

:)

EvilNed

15-Feb-2016, 11:48 AM

That's not how it is portrayed in the movie, as I'm sure you understand.

The movies don't portray the whole picture, nor do they aim to. In fact, the only post-apocalyptic cities we ever see are Fort Meyers in Day and Philly in Land.

That not even the US government can do such things anymore.

Considering that the US government probably doesn't even exist by the time of Land, it'd be a tall order to try to get them to do anything...

It's obviously not as simple as that, otherwise everyone would be doing it and would not need Kaufman for anything. Kaufman's outpost serves a purpose. The problem is that it can do this and so much more when not even the government can pull off so many of these things anymore.

The lack of a government is not proof of anything. The collapse of a functioning government will always precede the collapse of organized society, and the former doesn't guarantee the latter at all - in fact I can't think of a single historical event where a government collapsed and nothing came after it.

No, I am talking about what the consensus among historians is regarding this period in history. I already quoted it. This change was hardly for the better and in fact it ironically led to the decline of urban life, quite deadly for your intended analogy. It took centuries for things to improve again. Here, let me again quote it:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Dark-Ages

Dark Ages, the early medieval period of western European history. Specifically, the term refers to the time (476–800) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West; or, more generally, to the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life.

If you start a thread on the dark ages, I will be right there with you to discuss that topic. The analogy I was making is that stabile societies formed in the remnants of the Roman Empire. No quote from a textbook will change the fact that there was a Frankish Kingdom and that it had cities. One of these cities was called Aachen, you can google it if you like. But if you want to discuss details on the dark ages; Start a new thread.

Incorrect, screenplays have lots of less relevant matter. Not everything is vital. For example, Charlie saying "nice shooting" and Riley correcting him. Very trivial stuff, and it is there in the script nonetheless. Not everything that is written in a screenplay is relevant.

Incorrect, that line tells us what Riley's views on violence are. It acts as a way to introduce his character. It's not trivial at all.

And how are the zombies relevant here?

It's a post-apocalyptic zombie film.

... Now, knowing all this, is it really so difficult to get a very good idea of what the conversations between them and Washington would be usually about?

Yes. From all of that, you cannot draw extensive conclusions considering that there is a lot we do NOT know. As I pointed out.

JDP

15-Feb-2016, 07:03 PM

The movies don't portray the whole picture, nor do they aim to. In fact, the only post-apocalyptic cities we ever see are Fort Meyers in Day and Philly in Land.

They do give a general idea of how bad the densely populated areas have become. To the point that even dropping atomic bombs on the big cities is proposed by a scientist in Dawn to get rid of most of them. Even the less populated areas have gotten quite bad, since the zombies do not seem to stay in the same places forever and eventually move around. The shopping mall area, for example, is not in the middle of a big city but in a more outlier area, yet more and more zombies make their way there every day. The bunker in Day is also not in the middle of a city but in a rural area, yet more and more zombies find their way there every day.

Considering that the US government probably doesn't even exist by the time of Land, it'd be a tall order to try to get them to do anything...

That's quite likely even worse. If they, with all the resources and capital at their disposal, have not been able to survive as a coherent, functional unit, what makes you think that privately manned outposts with much more limited resources and capital are going to fare so much better?

The lack of a government is not proof of anything. The collapse of a functioning government will always precede the collapse of organized society, and the former doesn't guarantee the latter at all - in fact I can't think of a single historical event where a government collapsed and nothing came after it.

Not "nothing", but obviously less efficient and advanced forms of organized society. We have a good example of this in TWD. These people are indeed able to survive and even form organized communities despite the government collapse, but they surely are not able to create something as powerful, advanced and efficient as that gone unified centralized government. They hope and aim for more basic survival and establishing more rudimentary societies, which are indeed quite possible. But Land goes a lot beyond this.

If you start a thread on the dark ages, I will be right there with you to discuss that topic. The analogy I was making is that stabile societies formed in the remnants of the Roman Empire. No quote from a textbook will change the fact that there was a Frankish Kingdom and that it had cities. One of these cities was called Aachen, you can google it if you like. But if you want to discuss details on the dark ages; Start a new thread.

No one is denying this, what is being pointed out is that for a good period of time following the collapse, these societies were not able to function at the same level as the now gone unified empire. It took several centuries for the new emerging societies and forms of government to get back on track.

Incorrect, that line tells us what Riley's views on violence are. It acts as a way to introduce his character. It's not trivial at all.

Why should it tells us that? So "nice shooting" is somehow "violent" but "good shooting" is not? "Nice shooting" means the exact same thing as "good shooting". Both words, "nice" and "good", in this context mean "skillful", "well executed". Riley's remark do not really make sense in this context, and it comes across more like him trying to pull Charlie's leg.

It's a post-apocalyptic zombie film.

The scriptwriter himself sees the zombies in his films as pretty much incidental, that they can be replaced with other dangerous things, like hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes, for example, and the gist remains.

Yes. From all of that, you cannot draw extensive conclusions considering that there is a lot we do NOT know. As I pointed out.

We can't derive exact detailed conclusions, but we do get a good idea that they must have talked about such relevant matters. It is quite unrealistic to think that they would have spent most of their communication time with Washington on more trivial matters than what deeply concerns them. If the characters did not care at all about any of these issues, I certainly would understand dismissing it as not being likely that they would talk about such matters.

EvilNed

15-Feb-2016, 07:49 PM

They do give a general idea of how bad the densely populated areas have become.

I'm not arguing that they give a general idea, but the leap from general idea to "everyone is dead everywhere" is a quite big one. The world is huge, for there not to spring up a outpost of human survivors here and there is quite unlikely. To go from 7 billion to absolute zero in a relatively short timespan is more probable than what you see in Land - money included. Humans are adept at adapting to enviroments - in fact it's what's gotten us this far. So yes, a general idea indeed, but situations would vary from place to place and from time to time even.

That's quite likely even worse. If they, with all the resources and capital at their disposal, have not been able to survive as a coherent, functional unit, what makes you think that privately manned outposts with much more limited resources and capital are going to fare so much better?

I don't put as much stock in the government as I think you are. I think a lot of people would abandon ship when they realized their families, loved ones or very own lives were at stake. Just take a look at the police officers in Dawn. For a government to function you need people who are willing to give up everything in order to service it - even people who might in such a situation compromise their loved ones. There might be remnants of the government here and there - the unit in Day surely is one - but I highly doubt the government by the time of Day - or Land - would be anything like you imagine it is.
So when it comes down to it, I don't find it unlikely at all that the government would cease to exist within a short amount of time.

Not "nothing", but obviously less efficient and advanced forms of organized society. We have a good example of this in TWD. These people are indeed able to survive and even form organized communities despite the government collapse, but they surely are not able to create something as powerful, advanced and efficient as that gone unified centralized government. They hope and aim for more basic survival and establishing more rudimentary societies, which are indeed quite possible. But Land goes a lot beyond this.

All of these points are things that would vary from place to place and time to time.

No one is denying this, what is being pointed out is that for a good period of time following the collapse, these societies were not able to function at the same level as the now gone unified empire. It took several centuries for the new emerging societies and forms of government to get back on track.

My point is that stabile societies can form in a power vacuum, I've illustrated this point now so I will no drop it.

Why should it tells us that? So "nice shooting" is somehow "violent" but "good shooting" is not?

You have to include the context. This is how films and dialogue work.

The scriptwriter himself sees the zombies in his films as pretty much incidental, that they can be replaced with other dangerous things, like hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes, for example, and the gist remains.

But he didn't make a film about hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes.

We can't derive exact detailed conclusions, but we do get a good idea that they must have talked about such relevant matters. It is quite unrealistic to think that they would have spent most of their communication time with Washington on more trivial matters than what deeply concerns them. If the characters did not care at all about any of these issues, I certainly would understand dismissing it as not being likely that they would talk about such matters.

As I said, you do not know these things. We don't even know how much they talked, to whom or about what.
We deduce what they'd LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, but we have no idea if there was time for off-the-record chitchat or even if the person on the other side knew anything. Maybe it was a scientist, stressed out of his ass, pulling 20 hour a day shifts and was wholly out of touch with what happened outside whatever complex he was in? This is just one of many scenarios that would prohibit any valuable transformation of off-the-record information.

JDP

16-Feb-2016, 06:05 AM

I'm not arguing that they give a general idea, but the leap from general idea to "everyone is dead everywhere" is a quite big one. The world is huge, for there not to spring up a outpost of human survivors here and there is quite unlikely. To go from 7 billion to absolute zero in a relatively short timespan is more probable than what you see in Land - money included. Humans are adept at adapting to enviroments - in fact it's what's gotten us this far. So yes, a general idea indeed, but situations would vary from place to place and from time to time even.

By the time of Dawn that is not the idea conveyed. The big populated areas are to be avoided because the zombies concentrate there, but there even still are gangs of looters roaming the land elsewhere defying the zombies. But by the time of Day the idea conveyed is that what's left of survivors have gone into hiding. Even the government itself has, which in Dawn's time was still more active and capable to still be trying to keep things up and running (there still was electrical power and emergency networks in Dawn, for example.) The zombies now have a firm grip of most of the land. This is because of sheer numerical superiority, as Logan explains. It is much more dangerous for survivors to venture outside now.

I don't put as much stock in the government as I think you are. I think a lot of people would abandon ship when they realized their families, loved ones or very own lives were at stake. Just take a look at the police officers in Dawn. For a government to function you need people who are willing to give up everything in order to service it - even people who might in such a situation compromise their loved ones. There might be remnants of the government here and there - the unit in Day surely is one - but I highly doubt the government by the time of Day - or Land - would be anything like you imagine it is.
So when it comes down to it, I don't find it unlikely at all that the government would cease to exist within a short amount of time.

The government does not look like it has ceased to exist by the time of Day, it seems to still be around, but it is hiding in shelters, just like the Florida team is, as Sarah explains. Notice that those who defect the government in Dawn do so at their own risk. The reason why it might be desirable to do so in some cases is because the increasing inability of the government to be able to handle the situation, like rescue stations and emergency networks being knocked off and so, not because things are easier on your own. That the government itself is having a hard time keeping things up is a sure sign of how bad things are getting by the time of Dawn.

All of these points are things that would vary from place to place and time to time.

No smaller fragmented society is going to have it easier to run things efficiently than a strong unified centralized government.

My point is that stabile societies can form in a power vacuum, I've illustrated this point now so I will no drop it.

They can, but they are not going to be as efficient and advanced. No matter how stable a society you manage to establish, it will never have the same manpower, capital and resources at its disposal as the central government.

You have to include the context. This is how films and dialogue work.

The context is just Riley shooting a zombie in the head and Charlie congratulating him for the accurate shot.

But he didn't make a film about hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes.

But he says that you could eliminate the zombies altogether and the gist of his films remains intact. He uses the zombies as nothing but a grotesque tool. He does not even consider the zombies to be the main thing in his movies. Of course, many disagree with him. I only agree partially. For some things the zombies in his movies are just incidental. But for others they are crucial. In the case of the business relationship between Cholo and Kaufman, the zombies are indeed just an incidental element of no consequence. The nature of their business has to do with the elimination of other humans deemed as undesirable by Kaufman, not with the zombies. A common activity of a gangster for which the zombies have no bearing whatsoever.

As I said, you do not know these things. We don't even know how much they talked, to whom or about what.
We deduce what they'd LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, but we have no idea if there was time for off-the-record chitchat or even if the person on the other side knew anything. Maybe it was a scientist, stressed out of his ass, pulling 20 hour a day shifts and was wholly out of touch with what happened outside whatever complex he was in? This is just one of many scenarios that would prohibit any valuable transformation of off-the-record information.

Considering that they talked to Washington "all the time" (a figure of speech that means "frequently"), it does not seem unlikely at all that they would have had plenty of chances to request feedback on the type of information that most concerned them. Plus we have already seen that even the mass media reported that the survivor outposts were being established. That both Washington and the Florida team could somehow have ignored this is quite an unlikely conclusion.

EvilNed

16-Feb-2016, 07:31 AM

By the time of Dawn that is not the idea conveyed.

It is not inconcievable that a small pocket of survivors survived, thrived and grew. We do not see anything that excludes this possibility. Land implies that's just what happened.

The government does not look like it has ceased to exist by the time of Day, it seems to still be around, but it is hiding in shelters, just like the Florida team is, as Sarah explains.

I'd say that Day depicts the remnants of government breaking down. A non-functioning government might as well be a non-existant one.

No smaller fragmented society is going to have it easier to run things efficiently than a strong unified centralized government.

That's not true, though. You are simplifying it. A smaller state can run a local area more efficiently if it has more sway there than a federal state can from afar.

They can, but they are not going to be as efficient and advanced. No matter how stable a society you manage to establish, it will never have the same manpower, capital and resources at its disposal as the central government.

Yes, of course, but Kaufman isn't trying to run the country - he's trying to run Fiddler's Green. The two are very separate things.

The context is just Riley shooting a zombie in the head and Charlie congratulating him for the accurate shot.

I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna debate screenwriting 101 with you.
It's Riley's character introduction. That's the context.
There is no trivial dialogue. That's just not how screenwriting works. I studied it for a few years - I should know (I hate to bring up that card, but you're really quite ignorant in regards to the subject matter).
The examples you have provided I have refuted. There are no two ways around this - You are wrong. You don't have to debate every point and you don't have a case here.
You may wish to read Robert McKee's Story and Syd Field's Screenwriting if you want to dwelve deeper into the subject. God knows you could need it, if you wanna keep nitpicking dialogue the way you do.

But he says that you could eliminate the zombies altogether and the gist of his films remains intact.

"The gist of the films" =/= Minutae details of the films.

Considering that they talked to Washington "all the time" (a figure of speech that means "frequently"), it does not seem unlikely at all that they would have had plenty of chances to request feedback on the type of information that most concerned them. Plus we have already seen that even the mass media reported that the survivor outposts were being established. That both Washington and the Florida team could somehow have ignored this is quite an unlikely conclusion.

I take it more as that they had regular contact with Washington, not that they were on the phone with them 24/7. My example still stands. The media does not report everything correctly - not even today in this functioning society. A lot of misinformation get's thrown around - and much of it doesn't get thrown around at all. I'm sorry, but as I pointed out there are too many holes in this argument of yours.

JDP

16-Feb-2016, 10:34 PM

It is not inconcievable that a small pocket of survivors survived, thrived and grew. We do not see anything that excludes this possibility. Land implies that's just what happened.

Yes, but to pretend that they can pull so many things that not even the government can anymore is rather stretching it.

I'd say that Day depicts the remnants of government breaking down. A non-functioning government might as well be a non-existant one.

Now imagine how much tougher it will be for private entrepreneurs to be functioning at levels that the government itself is very hard pressed to try to bring back.

That's not true, though. You are simplifying it. A smaller state can run a local area more efficiently if it has more sway there than a federal state can from afar.

A smaller city-state has not the same manpower and resources at its disposal as a federal state. If Land supposedly happens about the same time or after Day then it is extremely puzzling how could the outpost be faring so much better than the government itself. They were maintaining large numbers of survivors, mercenaries, machines, communications, etc.

Yes, of course, but Kaufman isn't trying to run the country - he's trying to run Fiddler's Green. The two are very separate things.

But his outpost was big, very much populated, and right in a danger zone like a big city. Even the government itself has pretty much lost a grip of the big cities by the time of Dawn. That's why Dr. Rausch has no second thoughts proposing to drop atomic bombs on them. There's basically nothing left there but zombies. Everyone else there has either fled or died.

I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna debate screenwriting 101 with you.
It's Riley's character introduction. That's the context.
There is no trivial dialogue. That's just not how screenwriting works. I studied it for a few years - I should know (I hate to bring up that card, but you're really quite ignorant in regards to the subject matter).
The examples you have provided I have refuted. There are no two ways around this - You are wrong. You don't have to debate every point and you don't have a case here.
You may wish to read Robert McKee's Story and Syd Field's Screenwriting if you want to dwelve deeper into the subject. God knows you could need it, if you wanna keep nitpicking dialogue the way you do.

This coming from someone who confused expositional dialogue with narrative exposition? The fact is that scripts have incidental and non-essential matter in them that are not crucial to the plot. They are there simply to do such things as build atmosphere, lighten the mood, transition to another scene, etc. Similar things happen with other forms of narrative, like novels. Romero even considers the zombies themselves to be basically incidental for his stories, and you expect me to believe that something as ludicrous as "nice shooting" vs "good shooting" (both actually mean the same thing) has some very profound meaning for the plot? You have "refuted" nothing. You even totally missed the fact that the root of the problem between Cholo and Kaufman has nothing to do with the zombies. You can lift this Cholo vs Kaufman part of the plot and drop it on a story exclusively having to do with mobsters and their quarrels and it would fit right in. No zombies needed anywhere.

Introduction to Riley? By the time this scene happens Riley has already been more than introduced. We already know what type of fellow he is. You could easily eliminate this rather silly and corny bit of dialogue and the story would not be affected one bit. In fact, if anything it would actually improve.

"The gist of the films" =/= Minutae details of the films.

Gist = the substantial/essential part

I take it more as that they had regular contact with Washington, not that they were on the phone with them 24/7. My example still stands. The media does not report everything correctly - not even today in this functioning society. A lot of misinformation get's thrown around - and much of it doesn't get thrown around at all. I'm sorry, but as I pointed out there are too many holes in this argument of yours.

Even more reason then to inquire about what was being reported by the media from another source. And what better one than Washington itself!

Too many holes? The real hole is proposing that this topic could somehow have been overlooked by a group of people so deeply concerned about it. I can see them overlooking trivial things that would have no important meaning for their situation, but not something they keep showing an interest in and could have significance for their situation. This also explains why they are very pessimistic about the whole situation. Things are not only bad in their "backyard", things are bad pretty much everywhere else, judging by what they would have been able to gather from other sources. Otherwise the dilemma of where to go to if they decide to leave the security of the bunker would hardly have been necessary.

EvilNed

17-Feb-2016, 03:17 PM

Yes, but to pretend that they can pull so many things that not even the government can anymore is rather stretching it.

Now imagine how much tougher it will be for private entrepreneurs to be functioning at levels that the government itself is very hard pressed to try to bring back.

A smaller city-state has not the same manpower and resources at its disposal as a federal state. If Land supposedly happens about the same time or after Day then it is extremely puzzling how could the outpost be faring so much better than the government itself. They were maintaining large numbers of survivors, mercenaries, machines, communications, etc.

I already pointed out the defections from the state pictured in Dawn. I already provided you with historical precedent of smaller more stabile states emerging in the remnants of earlier more powerful ones. You also totally disregard the exceptionalism presented in Land in your argument - It's not as if Land is implying that there's crawling of settlements like Fiddler's Green but there might be a few. As would be expected a few years after the apocalypse when people start to rebuild. But the story George wanted to tell necessitated a society like Fiddler's Green and he wanted to set it in Philly.

But his outpost was big, very much populated, and right in a danger zone like a big city. Even the government itself has pretty much lost a grip of the big cities by the time of Dawn. That's why Dr. Rausch has no second thoughts proposing to drop atomic bombs on them. There's basically nothing left there but zombies. Everyone else there has either fled or died.

Dr Rausch was not talking about Philadelphia specifically, he was talking about cities in general. You cannot determine from his dialogue that there is no proto-Fiddler's green, that logical conclusion is nonsense and requires to many specific assumptions.

This coming from someone who confused expositional dialogue with narrative exposition?

I never did that. I've already pointed out to you that no lines of dialogue are trivial. If you won't accept that, despite all the numerous points, hints and rebuttals I've thrown at you I can only assume you're either trolling me or simply not that knowledgeable. Either way, this discussion of scripting is over because it's like an adult talking to a child at this point... And you're not the adult.

Gist = the substantial/essential part

This started as an argument regarding details, not the "substantial part". You couldn't take Land, replace all the zombies digitially with tornadoes and leave the dialogue and specific actions intact and not have it been a completely nonsensical film. The dialogue refers to the specific type of catastrophe that the characters are dealing with, because that is the context. Romero could easily have told a very similar story in a post-apocalyptic world beset by other disasters than Zombies, but it would have required substantial alterations to the details. So just drop this point, you don't have to argue every specific point that makes your blood boil. Quite frankly, when I think of your nonsensical cherrypicking, this is the image I see in front of me;

1399

Too many holes? The real hole is proposing that this topic could somehow have been overlooked by a group of people so deeply concerned about it. I can see them overlooking trivial things that would have no important meaning for their situation, but not something they keep showing an interest in and could have significance for their situation. This also explains why they are very pessimistic about the whole situation. Things are not only bad in their "backyard", things are bad pretty much everywhere else, judging by what they would have been able to gather from other sources. Otherwise the dilemma of where to go to if they decide to leave the security of the bunker would hardly have been necessary.

Yes, holes. I already pointed them out to you. If you really can't figure out why everyone in this thread has accused you of absurd assumptions at this point, despite everyone giving logical, step-by-step rebuttals to your astronomical guesses (and subsequent very specific conclusions) then there is nothing I can do further. I can only assume you're like 14 or something, or that you're trolling me. Either way, this discussion is over.

- - - Updated - - -

On the last episode of the podcast the Biggest Problem in the Universe they talk a lot about "Confirmation Bias" and bring up a number of psychological fallacies that influence our mind's decision making process;
One of them that stuck with me was how the mind stopped looking for possible problems to a conclusion once the mind has reached a conclusion that fitted neatly in with a pre-determined opinion.

http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com/

Give it a listen, I think it might shed some light on some things that a lot of us have been trying to point out that is faulty with your conclusions. Specifically, you don't seem to accept any other possible (and more probable) explanations for many of your lines of thought than the ones that fit your theory. You outright dismiss them without even entertaining them for a second; despite the alternative conclusions less reliance on advanced and unfounded assumptions than those conclusions which you have arrived at and support.

In the end, all arguments should be about teaching the other person a thing or two (i.e., trying to convince them) but also growing as a person. I try to learn something from all arguments I get into until I reach a point where I deem that the potential rewards of an argument do not outweigh the headache they generate.

JDP

17-Feb-2016, 06:20 PM

I already pointed out the defections from the state pictured in Dawn. I already provided you with historical precedent of smaller more stabile states emerging in the remnants of earlier more powerful ones. You also totally disregard the exceptionalism presented in Land in your argument - It's not as if Land is implying that there's crawling of settlements like Fiddler's Green but there might be a few. As would be expected a few years after the apocalypse when people start to rebuild. But the story George wanted to tell necessitated a society like Fiddler's Green and he wanted to set it in Philly.

The defections were made by people escaping the big cities, and they did so at their own risk.

I already showed you how your historical analogy is faulty, and the events you talk about in fact made the situation worse for a number of centuries, not better. Trying to pretend otherwise is what is truly untenable. For your analogy to truly be fitting to the example seen in Land vs Day things would have had to get better through the fall of the Roman empire, not worse. It is amazing how many times this has had to be pointed out to you and yet you still continue trying to push this fallacy.

The world of Land looks safer than that of Day. The survivors still have choices to go to if they so decide to leave Kaufman's city. If you want more real exceptionalism, look at the situation of the survivors in Day. Now those guys really have very few choices left!

Dr Rausch was not talking about Philadelphia specifically, he was talking about cities in general. You cannot determine from his dialogue that there is no proto-Fiddler's green, that logical conclusion is nonsense and requires to many specific assumptions.

Dr. Rausch clearly says the big cities. Unless you think that Philadelphia doesn't qualify as such a thing, I don't see what kind of your usually faulty type of arguments is it that you are trying to defend here. And the reason why Dr. Rausch or any of the other characters in the movies before Land have no idea whatsoever about the city outposts is because this contradictory nonsense had not yet crossed Romero's mind when he made them. That simple. But instead of dismissing Land as not being proper "canon" and truly belonging to the world of the original Dead trilogy, as many have done and criticized Romero so much for this movie, I in fact have no problem at all giving it a chance to fit in. I don't see too much problem with it as long as it takes place before Day. Other people are not this open minded about it and entirely blast it as nothing but a sign of Romero having lost his "touch" when it comes to making zombie movies.

I never did that. I've already pointed out to you that no lines of dialogue are trivial. If you won't accept that, despite all the numerous points, hints and rebuttals I've thrown at you I can only assume you're either trolling me or simply not that knowledgeable. Either way, this discussion of scripting is over because it's like an adult talking to a child at this point... And you're not the adult.

Yes, you did, it is in page 5, post #72 of the thread:

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=1523&page=5

Ironically, I had to show you what that actually is in post #73, and then in post #75 you posted what you actually had in mind, which was not the same thing. Hilarious how you are trying to deny this, which is in plain sight, and yet you have the brazenness of implying others of "trolling" or being "a child". Hint: this is a PUBLIC forum, the posts remain, anyone can check them by going back the thread.

I've already pointed out to you that not all dialogue in a movie is essential. Can you imagine how "cardboard", artificial and dull would a movie be if everything in it was strictly down to the essential plot? The "rebuttals" exist in your imagination, nowhere else. I can keep on pointing out more examples for you, which you will still totally fail to show how they are supposedly relevant to the plot all the same, but I am starting to suspect that this will only be an exercise in futility, as you probably will only keep on stubbornly trying to argue that they are very important. In good faith, though, I will simply point out another example for you, maybe hoping that this time you will get the point. This bit of dialogue, for example:

Motown: What the fuck does a Samoan know about hot-wiring a fucking car?

Pillsbury: Fifty thousand cars stolen in Samoa every year.

Motown: Yeah? Well, a million in Detroit.

Pillsbury: Detroit's got 50 million cars. Samoa, 50,000. Every one stolen.

I suppose you would hilariously want us to believe that this obvious joke, introduced as comic relief to lighten the mood, is really very crucial to the story and the script can't do without it, because as you say "there is no trivial dialogue", but it is quite absurd to pretend such a thing. Anyone can easily see it is not the case by any means. Scripts also have this type of dialogue in them that is non-essential to the story. It is part of building an atmosphere, otherwise the story would be too "dry", too "cardboard", people would not come across as real people. The difference between this bit of dialogue and the equally silly "good shooting" vs "nice shooting" one is that this one is actually funny. Both could be easily eliminated from the script, though, and replaced with something else and nothing pertaining to the plot would be affected.

This started as an argument regarding details, not the "substantial part". You couldn't take Land, replace all the zombies digitially with tornadoes and leave the dialogue and specific actions intact and not have it been a completely nonsensical film. The dialogue refers to the specific type of catastrophe that the characters are dealing with, because that is the context. Romero could easily have told a very similar story in a post-apocalyptic world beset by other disasters than Zombies, but it would have required substantial alterations to the details.

That is how the filmmaker himself basically sees it:

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/culture/interview-george-romero-film-director-1-793342

And of course you would have to eliminate the zombies from the script, not just digitally alter them from an already made movie with plenty of references to them, duh! That is very evident. What kind of "argument" is it that you are trying to pull now with such obvious remarks that anyone already easily deduced from the context of the discussion? The point that Romero tries to make is that the zombies are not really the center of the stories, they are rather incidental and can be replaced with other things. The more relevant parts of the story would still remain.

So just drop this point, you don't have to argue every specific point that makes your blood boil. Quite frankly, when I think of your nonsensical cherrypicking, this is the image I see in front of me;

1399

What you are trying to do here has a very clear name:projecting. It does not work, kid.

Yes, holes. I already pointed them out to you. If you really can't figure out why everyone in this thread has accused you of absurd assumptions at this point, despite everyone giving logical, step-by-step rebuttals to your astronomical guesses (and subsequent very specific conclusions) then there is nothing I can do further. I can only assume you're like 14 or something, or that you're trolling me.

"Everyone" once again meaning you and a couple or so of other people who don't want to accept that the idea of Land taking place after Day is quite contradictory and implausible, based entirely on what we see and can deduce from both movies. And in fact I am hardly alone in concluding this, others around here have also concluded the same all on their own, without any help from me:

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=10361

Either way, this discussion is over.

This is in fact what I should have said about it quite a while back when I already started suspecting you might be trying to be purposefully obtuse, arguing just for arguing's sake, and not because you were really presenting very solid counterarguments.

- - - Updated - - -

On the last episode of the podcast the Biggest Problem in the Universe they talk a lot about "Confirmation Bias" and bring up a number of psychological fallacies that influence our mind's decision making process;
One of them that stuck with me was how the mind stopped looking for possible problems to a conclusion once the mind has reached a conclusion that fitted neatly in with a pre-determined opinion.

http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com/

Give it a listen, I think it might shed some light on some things that a lot of us have been trying to point out that is faulty with your conclusions. Specifically, you don't seem to accept any other possible (and more probable) explanations for many of your lines of thought than the ones that fit your theory. You outright dismiss them without even entertaining them for a second; despite the alternative conclusions less reliance on advanced and unfounded assumptions than those conclusions which you have arrived at and support.

In the end, all arguments should be about teaching the other person a thing or two (i.e., trying to convince them) but also growing as a person. I try to learn something from all arguments I get into until I reach a point where I deem that the potential rewards of an argument do not outweigh the headache they generate.

The alternative conclusions just aren't as satisfactory, that simple. They fail to explain or account for many things: how could the Florida survivors be so paradoxical and contradictory in their behavior as to be so worried about the issue of survivors yet they could somehow not care at all to request feedback on the subject from their superiors in Washington during their frequent communications, how could those outposts have been ignored by BOTH the Dawn and Day survivors when they were already being established before the media went off the air, how can Kaufman maintain so many things going on that not even the US government can anymore, why does the landscape, the zombies and their clothing look more consistently abandoned/decayed in Day than in Land, why is the world of Land still relatively safe compared to that of Day and even to that of Dawn, how can the survivors of Land be still so optimistic about the future when the ones in Day and even Dawn are very pessimistic about it, why is it such a huge dilemma in Day to find a safe place to go to, as opposed to Land, where alternatives to Kaufman's city still exist, why is it that in Dawn the big cities are already a lost cause, to the point that the prospect of nuking them is being seriously proposed as a solution, yet in Land thriving outposts still exist in some of them, how can some of the survivors in Land still be so ignorant regarding some very fundamental things about the zombies which would be unthinkable that any survivor by the time of Day could possibly ignore, etc. When you carefully weigh everything that has been pointed out by me and others before me, the most logical conclusion is that Day has to be later than Land.

EvilNed

17-Feb-2016, 09:02 PM

Not gonna bite. Sorry.

Except to say that the dialogue you quote serves to give us more character information on the character of Pillsbury (he's samoan and used to be a car thief) and that the chick is from Detroit. The dialogue always serves a purpose.

JDP

17-Feb-2016, 10:27 PM

EvilNed

18-Feb-2016, 06:06 AM

Wow, I am amazed how important and crucial all this is for the plot. Really. :rolleyes:

I never said all dialogue is important or crucial to the plot, all I said is that all dialogue is relevant to the context.
Which it is. Zombies and the apocalypse are relevant. Pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are not.

JDP

18-Feb-2016, 06:56 PM

I never said all dialogue is important or crucial to the plot, all I said is that all dialogue is relevant to the context.
Which it is. Zombies and the apocalypse are relevant. Pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are not.

A joke about car thefts in Samoa is hardly relevant to the context of the movie. This is just comic relief, nothing else.

Hardly so, some of the characters in this movie also refer to things that happened before the zombie problem. There is nothing that prevents any of these characters from referring to things that happened before or have nothing to do with the zombies. Cholo and Kaufman's business problems in fact have nothing to do with them. We don't see Cholo complaining about Kaufman having exploited him as a zombie-killer, but in turning him into a goon to do Kaufman's dirty work in getting rid of people that were a nuisance to him, some of whom were in fact Cholo's friends. None of this prevents Cholo from having worked for Kaufman for a longer time than the zombies have been around.

EvilNed

18-Feb-2016, 09:24 PM

A joke about car thefts in Samoa is hardly relevant to the context of the movie. This is just comic relief, nothing else.

Dont move the goalpost. Your gripe was with it not being crucial to the plot - something I have never claimed that dialogue was required to be.

Also, As I pointed out, it also serves as telling us a bit about their characters - which is always relevant to the context. If you deny this, you must be trolling.
The comic relief part is the deliverance. One does not exclude the other. It's better way of telling us a bit about Pillsbury than having Pillsbury say "Hi, my name is Pillsbury and I used to be a car thief in Samoa." which would just be awkward dialogue.

There is nothing that prevents any of these characters from referring to things that happened before or have nothing to do with the zombies.

You're right. There isn't. It's just highly irrelevant - in the context - and would be the only reference of it's kind to any such pre-apocalyptic business arrangement.
So when one possibility is highly likely (that it refers to the start of the apocalypse, or at least the start of Fiddler's Green) and the other is highly unlikely (that it refers to some imagined pre-apocalyptic business arrangement between Cholo and Kaufman), the answer is right in front of you.

Cue clueless denial. I'm out, this thing is getting nowhere.

JDP

19-Feb-2016, 03:02 AM

Dont move the goalpost. Your gripe was with it not being crucial to the plot - something I have never claimed that dialogue was required to be.

We need to look no further back than earlier in this very page of the thread, where you very assuredly said "there is no trivial dialogue" on post #152. Trivial = of little value or importance. And I have shown you that there is, not once, but twice. Both bits of dialogue are in fact so trivial that they can be eliminated altogether from the movie and it would not alter the plot one bit. And yes, in relation to what else would they be considered "trivial" if not to the movie's very own plot??? There is nothing else to be "trivial" in comparison to in this context. A movie's plot is its core, its most important part, the very reason why people watch it in the first place. Everything else that is not pertinent to it falls under "trivial". It is either of less or no importance.

Also, As I pointed out, it also serves as telling us a bit about their characters - which is always relevant to the context. If you deny this, you must be trolling.
The comic relief part is the deliverance. One does not exclude the other. It's better way of telling us a bit about Pillsbury than having Pillsbury say "Hi, my name is Pillsbury and I used to be a car thief in Samoa." which would just be awkward dialogue.

The character could easily have used other lines that have nothing to do with a joke about the number of car thefts in Samoa. You can even eliminate the whole bit without any problem. But it does serve a less important purpose, thus why it is "trivial", which you quite incorrectly said it supposedly does not exist in scripts (post #152 of this very page.)

You're right. There isn't. It's just highly irrelevant - in the context - and would be the only reference of it's kind to any such pre-apocalyptic business arrangement.
So when one possibility is highly likely (that it refers to the start of the apocalypse, or at least the start of Fiddler's Green) and the other is highly unlikely (that it refers to some imagined pre-apocalyptic business arrangement between Cholo and Kaufman), the answer is right in front of you.

Cue clueless denial. I'm out, this thing is getting nowhere.

Is it less highly relevant or irrelevant than Cholo letting us know that his father was a loser all his life, or that Slack has spent her whole life in the city, both of which necessarily imply events from long before the zombies appeared? The way you try to argue is almost as if there was some sort of "rule" that characters in a zombie movie cannot make any type of references whatsoever to events that go back to a time when the zombies were not around. This is hardly the case. There is nothing intrinsically implied in the reference given by Cholo to Kaufman about their business relationship. It carries no necessary connotation to the zombies. You are the one who wants to by force make it look like it has. The fact is that it may or it may not have. Had Cholo specifically referred to a business directly touching upon the zombies themselves then you would have a totally solid point and there would be no other way to interpret the reference. The business relationship would by force have to have been directly connected to the appearance of the zombies.