Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate

[Philly_SWAT]

OK, 85 posts to sift thru was enough. To continue......


If you are contending that the survivors in Land had yet to face any serious zombie threat then I consider the idea far fetched.
No, I am not contending that. At this point in the discussion I think it is becoming more difficult to express overall ideas when he get down to discussing minute points related to that idea (although I do enjoy discussing the minute points). Let me try to re-explain what I am saying. I am saying that it only makes sense to me that the Green was HELD, not RETAKEN. If that particular area had been overrun, it would not make much sense to try to retake it...there would be many areas that would be much safer to build a stronghold. If the area was overrun...there would have/could have been zombies in every building....room to room search and destroy would have to be done in every skyscraper....every back alley...much danger would be involved. And do you do this room to room, building to building search before or after erecting a safe perimeter? There would be pros or cons either way, but again I suggest anyone would have been better off picking a different location to build a stronghold than an overrun downtown area. So I firmly believe that regardless of "when" Land is, the Green had to have been held, not retaken. So that would be first and foremost to my thought process. Now I would think it obvious that even to HOLD the Green, that would have taken quite a bit of effort, as well as fortification efforts. So those in the safe zone would have 'serious zombie threat' experience, but different than experiences that others in different circumstances would have had.


You are expecting us to believe that the residents of the city allowed themselves to be forced into a shanty town so Kaufman could have a nice quiet area around his shopping and dining mecca. How did he become ruler? With his paid for security force? And why didn't the police or military stop him? And how did he convince the scavengers (who were highly experienced operating in the zombie wasteland) to hand over all their spoils to him? And why did Mulligan have a hard time convincing people to rise against Kaufman? Assumedly, these were all people who were recently screwed by Kaufman, having been displaced from their homes and possessions. And we know that a small untrained group of unarmed stenches could overthrow Kaufman. And the people also never tried to leave? And there were no cars around for them to do so? And no one had guns? They just handed them over to Mr. K in the first couple weeks ("take it out of my cold dead hands" comes to mind). And do we accept that this "ruler" could force women into prostitution, as he did Slack? So civil rights and morality died in the first few weeks? And they just continued to live isolated and without threat even as Dead Reckoning rolls through town after town and never brought back a zombie horde? And all the while money continued to work just fine.
Many of these questions could be answered with some form of "GAR did not do a good job of thinking about things when he wrote the script", however, those answers are no fun on a forum such as this. The biggest problem is the one about money, which has been discussed at length previously, and a problem where the aforementioned quote REALLY applies. But in the spirit of discussing it, as it did appear in the movie, I still say this....that the idea that anyone would still think of "money" as some type of useful means of exchange is ludacris...UNLESS they are still close to a pre-outbreak time (such as right now in real life) where everyone chooses to accept that money has value and wants money. Max Brooks does an excellent job in World War Z describing how in the beginning of the outbreak, people were making a lot of money for smuggling people from place to place, providing security, etc., but as the outbreak continued on and on, how money had no value for anyone anymore. I could talk for hours about money, even non-zombie related money, but all I can say is that if everyone in a static community quit accepting the concept that money had value, it would be impossible that everyone would magically start accepting again after years of non-use. As I am already being long-winded, in regards to all your other points, I would say that no one was FORCING anyone in the Green to do anything. I am sure that if a resident inside the safe perimeter wanted to go outside the perimeter, they would have been allowed to. But I doubt that anyone would. So no matter how shitty things were on the inside for some, it would be better than going outside with no protection against the zeds.


And again, the zombies. Earlier in the outbreak would mean more zombies, not less. Zombie poplulations would be the highest concentrated in high population areas, like cities, so throw up all the electric fences and block all the bridges you want, in the early days you're not escaping the problem by hiding from it.
This depends on how you look at words like "earlier" and "later", which are subjective to the context in which they are used. To me "earlier" in the outbreak, I.E. when there was still a shitload of the living, and the dead had not yet overrun us, THAT is when there would in fact be less zombies, making it easier to HOLD the Green, which again is first and foremost in my thought process. I dont think anyone was attempting to hide from the problem, but specifically to have a safe place where zombie attacks were low/non-existent.


Regarding attitudes and demeanor - Cholo and Riley saw a kid bitten and blow his own head off. Cholo was like "wha-eva" and Riley was sympathetic but business-like. They both shook it off by the time they were back at the motorpool. Riley was more pissed at Cholo's attitude than upset over the death. And no one else even reacted. At the penthouse Cholo saw the guy suicide and beat his head in. The wife and son were horrified but Cholo was not. And we know Riley witnessed his brother bitten and turned. These people were not innocents just seeing it all for the first time.

I'm sorry man, there's just too much contradicting that theory.
I disagree, you are proving my point. Sure CHOLO and RILEY were non-chalant in their attitudes towards things, but they have been in the thick of zombie fighting FROM THE BEGINNING (whenever that was). But the wife and son you mention that were horrified....how did they come to be inside the Green? Had they fought hand to hand against zombie hordes in the wild, and after a few years of miraculous survival stumble upon the Green, were let inside, attained a position of wealth enabling them to live in the highrise, and then forget all they had seen and done in order to be horrified over one zed? Or were they simply lucky enough to be inside the Green when it was HELD, and since they were still relatively close to the start of the outbreak, horrified when actually confronted by something that was happening all over the world?


I think it's less far fetched to contend that they were 10 years post-outbreak. That explains a lot more.
- They'd whittled away the zombies to the point that they really aren't a threat in the immediate area any longer. "They don't much come around anymore," makes a ton of sense.
- The people were still living under the fear and horror of the early outbreak when zombies were prevalent outside. They had become complacent under Kaufman's rule. So much so that they never noticed that the outside world is not so dangerous anymore ("I see those walls as a prison"). Also explains why Mulligan gets no support.
- And look at the new recruits. The kid with Cholo and the girl being introduced to the military at the fences. They both seemed like young people who were getting their first job.
- The military and guards had been years since facing zombies, thus they were relaxed and out of practice. The defenses were minimal and lax, which explains how Big D gets in so easily.
- The scavengers were the experts on zombie killing because they were the only ones still facing the threat week by week.
- No one even tries to look for survivors or contact other cities. No radios or helicopters or anything were in use.

I think that makes a lot more sense while leaving far fewer holes.
I dont want to reply to every one of your ideas above, so I will just say this.....EVEN IF they were 10 years in (which I totally disagree with the concept BTW), I still say then that in Day they would have had to be farther in than that.

[krakenslayer]

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of few zombies around the walls WAS addressed to my satisfaction in the movie:

"They've stopped coming around here [the throat]. It's like they've learned they can't get in."

So once there were many zombies gathered outside the wall, but they gave up and went away.

How did Kaufman get in charge? To me, questions like that are all part of the fun of imagination. I always imagined he was some kind of big businessman with a lot of underworld dealings/connections. He already had a small army of thugs he used for extortion, protection rackets, etc. and owned Fiddler's Green, so he put them to use defending and fortifying his building and gradually added to their numbers with surviving military types and other survivors.

[Andy]

On a side note, how is this "Andy's Thoughts on Land Pt.2" when its nothing like my original topic and not created by me?

A Tad misleading dont you think?

[deadpunk]

On a side note, how is this "Andy's Thoughts on Land Pt.2" when its nothing like my original topic and not created by me?

A Tad misleading dont you think?

Heard. :rockbrow:

[Trin]

I am saying that it only makes sense to me that the Green was HELD, not RETAKEN. If that particular area had been overrun, it would not make much sense to try to retake it...there would be many areas that would be much safer to build a stronghold. If the area was overrun...there would have/could have been zombies in every building....room to room search and destroy would have to be done in every skyscraper....every back alley...much danger would be involved. And do you do this room to room, building to building search before or after erecting a safe perimeter? There would be pros or cons either way, but again I suggest anyone would have been better off picking a different location to build a stronghold than an overrun downtown area. So I firmly believe that regardless of "when" Land is, the Green had to have been held, not retaken. So that would be first and foremost to my thought process. Now I would think it obvious that even to HOLD the Green, that would have taken quite a bit of effort, as well as fortification efforts.
I tend to subscribe to a HELD over RETAKEN stance as well, but a slightly different version than yours.

I tend to believe that the Green (the skyscraper) and perhaps some surrounding area was held throughout. As things began to look like the zombies would win the residents blocked the bridges and put up the electric fences to provide a limited front to defend from the outside. Then the building by building eradication and securing occurred. Kinda like what they did in Dawn to secure the mall. Secure the doors, then hunt down the remaining ones inside. Unlike in Dawn they had to make forays outside, and that required that they eradicate the ones in the surrounding areas as well, which I believe happened over a period of time.

If I had to guess (yes, this is pure speculation) I would guess that Kaufman started out owning/controlling the power plant and that served as the basis for him declaring the safe zone his.


Many of these questions could be answered with some form of "GAR did not do a good job of thinking about things when he wrote the script", however, those answers are no fun on a forum such as this.
Yeah, agreed. I think we're both struggling to reconcile what makes sense vs. what must be discarded as just inconsistent writing.


that the idea that anyone would still think of "money" as some type of useful means of exchange is ludacris...UNLESS they are still close to a pre-outbreak time (such as right now in real life) where everyone chooses to accept that money has value and wants money.
I agree that money is one of those "soooooo doesn't work" topics in Land. I would also agree that the only time where money works as it did pre-outbreak is close to a pre-outbreak time. But where I disagree is that I think the world was far enough post-outbreak to render money valueless. And it's not about 3 months versus 3 years. It's about looking at the world. If you have no contact outside your city, no contact with government, no contact with anyone anywhere that also still uses money, and your own situation is such that food and water and medicine are scarce, then money is done.

Or put another way, if money hadn't failed yet for the residents in Land, when would it? They'd reached a level of sorts, where the food was coming in and the services were being rendered and the money was passing hands. So at what point would their system stop working?


...it would be impossible that everyone would magically start accepting again after years of non-use.Just as point, I'm not suggesting that money went through years of non-use. If fact, I would argue that it continued to be used throughout. But I believe the backing for currency changed. As the free market economy failed Kaufman began backing it, at least for use within the Green.


I would say that no one was FORCING anyone in the Green to do anything. I am sure that if a resident inside the safe perimeter wanted to go outside the perimeter, they would have been allowed to. But I doubt that anyone would. So no matter how shitty things were on the inside for some, it would be better than going outside with no protection against the zeds.
First off, yes, Kaufman was forcing people inside the green to do things as evidenced by Slack being forced to become entertainment for the men. Second, while I agree that ostensibly no one was forcing people to stay, with Kaufman controlling all the guns, ammo, food, medicine, fuel, and transportation it's as good as if he were.

Let's not forget he needed all the people. Not just the scavengers and guards, but the service people to keep those folks happy. No entertainment for the troops and they might start rebelling or leaving. No gambling and women waiting at home and the scavengers might just drive off.


To me "earlier" in the outbreak, I.E. when there was still a shitload of the living, and the dead had not yet overrun us, THAT is when there would in fact be less zombies
I still stumble over the counts. It's a big city. A big EMPTY city. You should have half a million people, half a million zombies, or half a million bodies with destroyed brains. We saw no evidence of the first two, and the last would take a lot longer than a couple months.


Or were they simply lucky enough to be inside the Green when it was HELD, and since they were still relatively close to the start of the outbreak, horrified when actually confronted by something that was happening all over the world?I would agree. They were protected from the whole outbreak from the beginning, whether it was 3 months or 3 years.

But Riley and Cholo and the scavengers were so used to the zombies that they treated it as another day at the job. Compared with Peter who was putting a gun to his head, and he'd been through a lot himself. I just see the attitudes in Land as ones of people who had long ago gotten past the horror of it.



EVEN IF they were 10 years in (which I totally disagree with the concept BTW), I still say then that in Day they would have had to be farther in than that.
That's an interesting statement. What's so important about proving one was before or after the other? And if timeline post-outbreak is not the comparison point, then what? The two situations were so vastly different I think any direct comparison would devolve into speculation or nit-picking.

Perhaps the thread should be "Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate" - :D

[Rancid Carcass]

I'm a little bit late to the party but...

With regards to Kaufman setting up the city and getting it sealed off I don't think it is over the top at all – if you think back to the beginning of DAWN it was one of the things Dr Foster was talking about:

TV Man 2: THERE IS A MARTIAL LAW STATE IN EFFECT IN
PHILADELPHIA...AS IN ALL OTHER MAJOR CITIES IN
THE COUNTRY...
CITIZENS MUST UNDERSTAND THE...DIRE...DIRE
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS PHENOMENON...SHOULD WE
BE UNABLE TO CHECK THE SPREAD... CHECK...
BECAUSE OF THE EMOTIONAL ATTITUDES..OF THE
CITIZENRY...TOWARD...THESE ISSUES OF...
MORALITY... CHECK HOT D PROPERTY...
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE O.E.P. BY COMMAND OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES... CHECK...
CITIZENS MAY NO LONGER OCCUPY PRIVATE RESIDENCES,
NO MATTER HOW SAFELY PROTECTED OR WELL STOCKED...

A murmur in the studio begins to build to an emotional
crescendo. Foster tries to talk over the noise...

TV Man 2: CITIZENS WILL BE MOVED INTO CENTRAL AREAS OF
THE CITY...

It seems that walling off large chunks cities was part of the government strategy for dealing with the crisis, which bears out what Philly_SWAT is saying, that in this instance the city held out, the plan worked. The result of which meant that the people there had not really been exposed to threat to any great extent, hence the complacency. If you look at it this way then the secured zone would have already in place, all Kaufman had to do was throw money at maintaining the defenses etc, that way he was effectively buying his influence and buying his survival.

I think with the money issue, people would be operating in the hope that one day things will return to normal, it would be very hard to exist in a world overrun by zombies without hope. Not just short term hope of immiediate survival but also a long term hope that civilisation might be rebuilt, the hope of one day having a better life. Money is often seen as the key to achieve that - zombie apocalypse or not.

[Philly_SWAT]

On a side note, how is this "Andy's Thoughts on Land Pt.2" when its nothing like my original topic and not created by me?

A Tad misleading dont you think?


Heard. :rockbrow:

OK, I changed the name of the thread. No intention of being misleading, only an accurate description of where the quotes came from. Usually new threads dont start with a bunch of quotes from someone. Sorry if anyone was insulted, confused, or misled.

EDIT: OK, I guess I DIDNT change the title of the thread, only of my post. Feel free to change it Andy if you want. I was trying to change it to "Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate".
RE_EDIT: Or did I change it? I think I will not use my work computer again for HPOTD.

[AcesandEights]

OK, I changed the name of the thread. No intention of being misleading, only an accurate description of where the quotes came from. Usually new threads dont start with a bunch of quotes from someone. Sorry if anyone was insulted, confused, or misled.

I felt betrayed, bewildered and outraged! It was a slap in the face :D

Truth be told, I think I've said all I'm going to on this argument, as I used to find it a very irritating debate, however I will add that I respect the gusto with which you attend your time line theory, Philly. I do not agree with it, but it's a fun take on things.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

And I will further add that this round of debates on the topic between you and Trin (including what had gone on in the previous thread), was actually a damn fun read.

[Philly_SWAT]

I felt betrayed, bewildered and outraged! It was a slap in the face :D

Truth be told, I think I've said all I'm going to on this argument, as I used to find it a very irritating debate, however I will add that I respect the gusto with which you attend your time line theory, Philly. I do not agree with it, but it's a fun take on things.


And I will further add that this round of debates on the topic between you and Trin (including what had gone on in the previous thread), was actually a damn fun read.
Thanks, glad you enjoy it! I am at work, and logged in here, and wrote a time consuming response to Trin's last post, hit Submit Reply......and I WAS LOGGED OUT AND IT DIDNT SUBMIT AND I COULDNT GO BACK AND COPY WHAT I HAD SPENT A LONG TIME TYPING!~!! ARGGH!!!

[AcesandEights]

I am at work, and logged in here, and wrote a time consuming response to Trin's last post, hit Submit Reply......and I WAS LOGGED OUT AND IT DIDNT SUBMIT AND I COULDNT GO BACK AND COPY WHAT I HAD SPENT A LONG TIME TYPING!~!! ARGGH!!!

I feel your pain! That happens to me at work at least once a week it seems and happened to me this last Friday.

[Trin]

I'm laughing. But it's a "know that pain" kinda laugh. I started using notepad to form responses and I don't dare close that doc until the post is posted!!

[ProfessorChaos]

whenever i have the log-out screen come up after trying to post a rather thought-out long response, i simply log back in and my post pops up....this doesn't happen for you guys?:confused:

[Philly_SWAT]

whenever i have the log-out screen come up after trying to post a rather thought-out long response, i simply log back in and my post pops up....this doesn't happen for you guys?:confused:
I never log out at home, so I dont know. Wish I had tried it at work and that it had worked. Oh well, next time I will see.

---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

OK, let's try this again, THIS time from non-logging-out computer at home....


I tend to subscribe to a HELD over RETAKEN stance as well, but a slightly different version than yours.
We are close enough here, we agree.

Yeah, agreed. I think we're both struggling to reconcile what makes sense vs. what must be discarded as just inconsistent writing.
Complete waste of time, or worthwhile endeavour? Up to the reader to decide....

I agree that money is one of those "soooooo doesn't work" topics in Land. I would also agree that the only time where money works as it did pre-outbreak is close to a pre-outbreak time. But where I disagree is that I think the world was far enough post-outbreak to render money valueless. And it's not about 3 months versus 3 years. It's about looking at the world. If you have no contact outside your city, no contact with government, no contact with anyone anywhere that also still uses money, and your own situation is such that food and water and medicine are scarce, then money is done.

Or put another way, if money hadn't failed yet for the residents in Land, when would it? They'd reached a level of sorts, where the food was coming in and the services were being rendered and the money was passing hands. So at what point would their system stop working?

Just as point, I'm not suggesting that money went through years of non-use. If fact, I would argue that it continued to be used throughout. But I believe the backing for currency changed. As the free market economy failed Kaufman began backing it, at least for use within the Green.
OK, I had a very long, very brilliant reply here before it was lost, I cant attempt to duplicate it. Let me just say this...why do you and I and everyone else think that a $100 bill has more value than a $1 bill? They are both made of the same material, same size, etc. Only some ink difference. The reason is that WE ALL CHOOSE TO ACCEPT that it has more value. Kaufman would have nothing of any 'value' to anyone to 'back' money with. No one would choose to accept that paper money had value because "Kaufman says so".

First off, yes, Kaufman was forcing people inside the green to do things as evidenced by Slack being forced to become entertainment for the men. Second, while I agree that ostensibly no one was forcing people to stay, with Kaufman controlling all the guns, ammo, food, medicine, fuel, and transportation it's as good as if he were.
Yes, it may have been " as good as if he were" but he wasnt. A minor point here, but Slack was not forced to do anything, che could have left the city.

Let's not forget he needed all the people. Not just the scavengers and guards, but the service people to keep those folks happy. No entertainment for the troops and they might start rebelling or leaving. No gambling and women waiting at home and the scavengers might just drive off.
Sure he needed the people, but they needed him more. Kaufman would have been inconvenienced if the people left, the people would be more than likely dead if he kicked them out.

I still stumble over the counts. It's a big city. A big EMPTY city. You should have half a million people, half a million zombies, or half a million bodies with destroyed brains. We saw no evidence of the first two, and the last would take a lot longer than a couple months.
That begs the question then...where were the zombies, or all the dead bodies, if they were so far into the outbreak as you suggest?

I would agree. They were protected from the whole outbreak from the beginning, whether it was 3 months or 3 years.

But Riley and Cholo and the scavengers were so used to the zombies that they treated it as another day at the job. Compared with Peter who was putting a gun to his head, and he'd been through a lot himself. I just see the attitudes in Land as ones of people who had long ago gotten past the horror of it.
I say Peter's situation was far different than Cholo and company. Peter had 3 people only to interact with. With both Roger and Flyboy dead (and you could argue dead because of Peter), 66% of all the people Peter knew were dead, so it is understandable he would be dispondent. Cholo and everyone else had hundreds, if not thousands, or people to interact with, and as hardened soldier types, the loss of one casual-aquaintence individual would be far less devestating than the loss of Roger to Peter.

That's an interesting statement. What's so important about proving one was before or after the other? And if timeline post-outbreak is not the comparison point, then what? The two situations were so vastly different I think any direct comparison would devolve into speculation or nit-picking.
Not sure if "important" is the word....but it makes for fun discussion and it seems the only logical thing to me. Regardless of all the side points we argue/speculate on, there is an overriding theme that I can not ignore.
In Day, the tone/atmosphere is desolate. We see 12 living beings the whole movie, thats it. They have actively looked for over 100 miles in each direction and found no one. They have even landed and called out to find survivors, they find none. It is implied that it is possible that these are the last humans on earth. Nicotero even says "maybe we are the only ones left". In Land, there are people all over the place. The tone/atmosphere is far less dark. People are looking for fun entertainment. People want money to buy things. They think that money will do them good to leave with. Just the look/tone/atmosphere of the films themselves make it seem as if Day happens later in the outbreak. As far as the money goes, think about this...do you think that any of the characters in Day, even John, would want a shitload of money to venture out on their own with? No. They all realize that money would be worthless, except maybe to wipe their asses with. I say that it is highly unrealistic to say that the world went from the way it was in Day to the way in was in Land. I realize that took place in different locales, but there is no reason to think that life would be so much better in one area of the United States vs another.

Perhaps the thread should be "Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate" - :D
Done!

[AcesandEights]

whenever i have the log-out screen come up after trying to post a rather thought-out long response, i simply log back in and my post pops up....this doesn't happen for you guys?:confused:

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes I automatically hit my back button and that loses any chance of getting the now-stillborn post back.

[sandrock74]

LOL!

I think I am going to become a zombie from willingly following this arguement. I feel like the lone zombie who electrocutes hiself on the fence at the Green. :eek:

[SRP76]

I
In Day, the tone/atmosphere is desolate. We see 12 living beings the whole movie, thats it. They have actively looked for over 100 miles in each direction and found no one. They have even landed and called out to find survivors, they find none. It is implied that it is possible that these are the last humans on earth. Nicotero even says "maybe we are the only ones left". In Land, there are people all over the place.

Wait.

People in the one - the only - locked-down city left on the planet (for all we know) doesn't constitute "people all over the place". That's "people in one place".

And some dude living in a cave thinking that maybe they're the only ones on Earth means nothing. Any fool that doesn't see anyone else can assume that; doesn't make it true.

Don't know what the number of survivors in a location is supposed to mean, anyway. So what if there were more people in a locked down city than in some cave? Means nothing. Night doesn't come after Dawn, and there were more survivors holed up in that house than at the mall.

[Philly_SWAT]

Wait.
OK, but only for a few seconds.....

People in the one - the only - locked-down city left on the planet (for all we know) doesn't constitute "people all over the place". That's "people in one place".
This is a matter of definition of one "place". People in one building could be considered only one "place". People in a small compound could be considered one "place". Several hundred, if not over one thousand people, inhabiting a major downtown area of a major US city could be considered one "place" I suppose....it all depends on one's defintion.

And some dude living in a cave thinking that maybe they're the only ones on Earth means nothing. Any fool that doesn't see anyone else can assume that; doesn't make it true.
Your statement in a vacuum is true. However, Nicotero was not living in a vacuum making up facts as he went along....he knew the others had searched for 100's of miles while finding no one. He knows (and even said) that more and more zeds were showing up every day. He knows that they can no longer raise anyone on the radio. He can see his superior officer talking about shooting all the specimins in the head and leaving the compound...he has specific reasons to make that statement, not just the single fact that he has seen no others for years. Now, even though he has reasons to think so, like you said, doesnt make it true, same way your not agreeing with it doesnt make it false.

Don't know what the number of survivors in a location is supposed to mean, anyway. So what if there were more people in a locked down city than in some cave? Means nothing. Night doesn't come after Dawn, and there were more survivors holed up in that house than at the mall.
Your Night vs Dawn analogy is looking at two specific buildings. My Land vs Day analogy is looking at the population of the world. Perfect example of apples to oranges. Stands to reason that there would be MORE people in the world earlier into a zombie outbreak, not later into one.

[SRP76]

People being all dead for 100 miles doesn't point to any kind of timeframe. That could have happened in a month (in a real-world setting, I'll bet it would only take a week). So I don't see how that could possibly be taken as more than 3 years passing (established in Land).

Same deal with the radio. All they said was that they used to talk to Washington, now they don't. Well, Peter, Fran and Stephen used to watch tv; now, they don't. And they weren't in that mall anywhere near any 3 years.

In fact, I'd bet that the relays they were using for the radio went down right about the same time the television reception went belly-up. Nowhere near in the Land timeframe.

And Rhodes wanting to shoot the zombies and leave doesn't mean they were there for long either; I'd have wanted to gun-and-run on Day One, myself. John's island would have looked pretty damn good from the start. Wouldn't take years to come up with that particular plan.

In all, I never saw anything in Day that points to it taking place any further into the outbreak than the end of Dawn, much less 3 years in. Yet, there's everything from there still being fuel for the helicopter and compound generators, to newspapers still intact despite being outside in the weather, to there still being the alcohol there for Billy, all pointing to not much time passing at all.

[sandrock74]

And Rhodes wanting to shoot the zombies and leave doesn't mean they were there for long either; I'd have wanted to gun-and-run on Day One, myself. John's island would have looked pretty damn good from the start. Wouldn't take years to come up with that particular plan.

In all, I never saw anything in Day that points to it taking place any further into the outbreak than the end of Dawn, much less 3 years in. Yet, there's everything from there still being fuel for the helicopter and compound generators, to newspapers still intact despite being outside in the weather, to there still being the alcohol there for Billy, all pointing to not much time passing at all.

I agree about the films taking place in order of release (with the sole exception of Diary, for obvious reasons) and these are valid reasons why. Sorry Philly, I like you dude, and I love your posts, but you'll never convince me that Day takes place after Land, especially by a number of years.

[EvilNed]

Land clearly states that it's set several years after the incident. Day clearly states that it isn't set that far after the incident. At least to me (and most others, I'd imagine) so I see little point to debate. If one doesn't accept this, then who are we to judge. View the films as you wish, but that's how Romero intended them.

[Philly_SWAT]

View the films as you wish, but that's how Romero intended them.
?!?!!?!
THIS QUOTE from the "art is personal" guy?

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------


I agree about the films taking place in order of release (with the sole exception of Diary, for obvious reasons)
So, one GAR dead movie is OBVIOUSLY not following a sequential order, yet it is impossible for some to even consider that another might be LESS OBVIOUSLY not following a sequential order?

[krakenslayer]

I think the films take place in order of release. An inconsistencies are easily explained away.

They went 100 miles each way from their location and there's no one using radio equipment within a couple hundred miles, that doesn't mean anything: they were doing their searching from the bell-end of Florida - a peninsula in the Gulf of Mexico for goodness sake - so it's not surprising that they are isolated and far out of range of any settlements in the North where survivors may have been more successful in defending themselves.

Personally I think it goes:

Night: Day 2/3 (because scattered reports of violence are mentioned from the previous day)
Diary: Day 2/3
Dawn: Weeks 3-8 (or thereabouts)
Day: Year 1-2
Land: Year 3-10

[Philly_SWAT]

In all, I never saw anything in Day that points to it taking place any further into the outbreak than the end of Dawn, much less 3 years in. Yet, there's everything from there still being fuel for the helicopter and compound generators, to newspapers still intact despite being outside in the weather, to there still being the alcohol there for Billy, all pointing to not much time passing at all.
Funny how people interpret things sometimes.....fuel for ONE helicopter...fuel for ONE generator...presumably they werent joyriding in the chopper, only missions, and the generator wouldnt be needed much at all during winter seeing as they were in South Florida, and underground means cooler, means no A/C. And alcohol for ONE guy, Billy....somehow these factors point to Land being a short time after the outbreak. But fuel for a heavy vehicle Dead Reckoning, and all the support vehicles for it.....whose purpose was not the occasional recon for survivors but constant recon for supplies.....and alcohol for MANY MANY people to drink in clubs, while looking for hookers....while engaging in casual conversation in their luxury condo....these facts point to it being THREE YEARS after the outbreak? Even if it were a fact that Land was 3 years in and Day was only a few months, this line of supporting argument does not seem to make any logical sense.

Do you know what they had in that underground bunker? They have the books and the records for the top 500 companies, they have the defense department budget down there, they have the negatives for all your favorite movies, they got microfilm with tax returns and newspaper stories, they got immigration records and census reports, they got official reports for all the wars and plane crashes and volcano eruptions and earthquakes and fires and floods and all the other disasters that interrupted the flow of things in the good ole US of A. You have seen with your own eyes how massively big the complex is. They use a golf cart to get around a lot of the time. You dont think they would have some spare room for extra fuel and extra liquor? And take advantage of some of the extra room for that very purpose?

---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------


I think the films take place in order of release.

1968 - Night: Day 2/3 (because scattered reports of violence are mentioned from the previous day)
2007 - Diary: Day 2/3
1979 - Dawn: Weeks 3-8 (or thereabouts)
1985 - Day: Year 1-2
2005 - Land: Year 3-10

It doesnt appear that you think the films take place in order of release....

[krakenslayer]

Funny how people interpret things sometimes.....fuel for ONE helicopter...fuel for ONE generator...presumably they werent joyriding in the chopper, only missions, and the generator wouldnt be needed much at all during winter seeing as they were in South Florida, and underground means cooler, means no A/C. And alcohol for ONE guy, Billy....somehow these factors point to Land being a short time after the outbreak. But fuel for a heavy vehicle Dead Reckoning, and all the support vehicles for it.....whose purpose was not the occasional recon for survivors but constant recon for supplies.....and alcohol for MANY MANY people to drink in clubs, while looking for hookers....while engaging in casual conversation in their luxury condo....these facts point to it being THREE YEARS after the outbreak? Even if it were a fact that Land was 3 years in and Day was only a few months, this line of supporting argument does not seem to make any logical sense.

Simple. The Green had Dead Reckoning and teams of hardened survivors-turned-mercenaries who had gravitated and converged on the Golden Triangle over the years. These teams are able to go out and scavenge in the nearby towns and return with an almost inexhaustable supply of non-perishable luxury goods and meds for the Green.

The bunker had one helicopter with limited capacity, not enough to carry large scavenging teams and certainly not enough for hauling high volumes of goods. They were also severely undermanned and, presumably, far from any pre- or post-apocalypse settlements.



Do you know what they had in that underground bunker? They have the books and the records for the top 500 companies, they have the defense department budget down there, they have the negatives for all your favorite movies, they got microfilm with tax returns and newspaper stories, they got immigration records and census reports, they got official reports for all the wars and plane crashes and volcano eruptions and earthquakes and fires and floods and all the other disasters that interrupted the flow of things in the good ole US of A. You have seen with your own eyes how massively big the complex is. They use a golf cart to get around a lot of the time. You dont think they would have some spare room for extra fuel and extra liquor? And take advantage of some of the extra room for that very purpose?

I just think that's stretching the argument a little thin. Would the government want to sponsor its employees' drinking habits to the extent of MacDermott's? I think the bunker only had a minimal supply of alcohol and the powers that be in the latter days (Cooper and then Rhodes) don't want to waste time and men collecting booze on their trips out.

There really wasn't a lot to suggest that the base was running out of fuel either. The chopper itself was "down to fumes" at the start, but that's because they'd just travelled "100 miles each way" (a 400-mile round trip, almost precisely the fully-laden range of a Bell Jetranger).

Moreover, there's nothing to suggest that the government expected them to be down there more than a few months. Probably the expectation was that if they hadn't cracked it within a year, it's not worth worrying about the continued survival of the workers because the USA would have broken down already. Now, that time has past, stocks are running low because they were never intended to last that long. The records etc. are down there to serve the purpose of a time capsule, so that future post-apoc civilisations will know about what came before in this very eventuality.

That's my take on it, your mileage may differ, I'm just trying to illustrate that these films were almost made for allowing different interpretations - and that the issues that you guys keep throwing up are not the logical brick-walls you're making them out to be, but, with a little imagination, actually add flavour to the scenario.




It doesnt appear that you think the films take place in order of release....

I was referring to the original trilogy initially, then threw in Diary afterwards.

[Thorn]

?!?!!?!
THIS QUOTE from the "art is personal" guy?

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------


So, one GAR dead movie is OBVIOUSLY not following a sequential order, yet it is impossible for some to even consider that another might be LESS OBVIOUSLY not following a sequential order?


Diary is not part of the "series" that started with Night and Thus far ended with Land.

Your point is moot and you know that I think Philly ;)

We have discussed this before, and while I respect your opinion and the passion with which you discuss it I am on record as saying you are wrong and in my opinion you have nothing to base this on other than your own opinion. You can point to things in the movies that YOU feel makes you think as you do. That is still your interpertation and mine leads me elsewhere.

Let's face it Land kind of does it's own thing, it is a long way removed from Day and there are inconsistances. But The state of decay of the towns, and the dead themselves clearly show a passing of time beyond day.

At the end of the day you can not prove out this theory, it is your pet theory that you hammer on over and over again. If you want clarification ask Gar.

[AcesandEights]

At the end of the day you can not prove out this theory, it is your pet theory that you hammer on over and over again. If you want clarification ask Gar.

To be fair, I rather think GAR--after some discussion with Philly--would be as likely to appreciate his different take on the matter, as he might be to dismiss it. Let's not fool ourselves and think GAR attends to his films overarching timelines and internal consistency to the degree that many of his fans will.

[EvilNed]

?!?!!?!
THIS QUOTE from the "art is personal" guy?

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------




Yes? Are you surprised that I told you to view them as you wish? That's sort off what "art is personal" is all about.

[Trin]

We are close enough here, we agree.Woohoo!!


OK, I had a very long, very brilliant reply here before it was lost, I cant attempt to duplicate it. Let me just say this...why do you and I and everyone else think that a $100 bill has more value than a $1 bill? They are both made of the same material, same size, etc. Only some ink difference. The reason is that WE ALL CHOOSE TO ACCEPT that it has more value. Kaufman would have nothing of any 'value' to anyone to 'back' money with. No one would choose to accept that paper money had value because "Kaufman says so".
"Because Kaufman says so," must have some weight in the Green because everyone does everything he says. Which digs into the larger topic, "Where does Kaufman's power derive?"

And the answer to that is the really upsetting thing. I think Romero expects us to believe that everyone would still be using money after the fall of society and still defer to the person with the most as having the power.


Yes, it may have been " as good as if he were" but he wasnt. A minor point here, but Slack was not forced to do anything, che could have left the city.I'm not sure on that one. We really don't know what Kaufman would've done had Mulligan (as an example) organized 20 or so people with baseball bats and tried to venture out to make their own base.


That begs the question then...where were the zombies, or all the dead bodies, if they were so far into the outbreak as you suggest?No. This is YOUR question to answer. In a long timeframe they have plenty of time and options to dispose of bodies, especially with two rivers at their feet, trucks, manpower, etc.


In Day, the tone/atmosphere is desolate. We see 12 living beings the whole movie, thats it. They have actively looked for over 100 miles in each direction and found no one. They have even landed and called out to find survivors, they find none. It is implied that it is possible that these are the last humans on earth. Nicotero even says "maybe we are the only ones left". In Land, there are people all over the place. The tone/atmosphere is far less dark. People are looking for fun entertainment. People want money to buy things. They think that money will do them good to leave with. Just the look/tone/atmosphere of the films themselves make it seem as if Day happens later in the outbreak. As far as the money goes, think about this...do you think that any of the characters in Day, even John, would want a shitload of money to venture out on their own with? No. They all realize that money would be worthless, except maybe to wipe their asses with. I say that it is highly unrealistic to say that the world went from the way it was in Day to the way in was in Land. I realize that took place in different locales, but there is no reason to think that life would be so much better in one area of the United States vs another.
I disagree with "people all over the place." In Day we see one survivor base. In Land we see one survivor base. Both areas were places where people made a stand and succeeded. Both movies implied that they were the last survivors. If I were to assess which group of people had a better chance of knowing for sure they were the last survivors I would say Land. They had far greater resources for communication or to mount a search effort. The very scavenging forays they did into the wild were far more exhaustive searches than anything Day did in the chopper. The chopper could've flown within 15 miles of a Fiddler's Green and not realized it. They could've flown right over a dozen bunkers like their own and not known. The scavengers, on the other hand, would've seen evidence of survivors. Which doesn't prove anything of course. We don't even know if the scavengers would care if they found other survivors.

The people in Land wanted entertainment. I cannot fathom why you think that implies a shorter timeframe. With your whole world recently turned upside down and death all around you I'd think the last thing you'd do is decide to try to find a bar so you could bet on zombie fights or go get your picture taken at the zombie photo stand. The whole society in Land is one indicative of a long time spent living in the situation.

You say that Cholo and Peter cannot be compared because Cholo has lots of people around him and Peter was living in isolation. Then you go on to say that the people in Day were obviously further along the timeframe because they had a darker mood. Well which is it? By your own arguments the people living underground in the bunker had reason to be much more depressed and despondent than the people in Land, regardless of timeframe. We know that prior to the events in Day they'd lost 6 people, which is roughly a third of their initial complement. So the darkness of the mood doesn't prove anything.

And let's not forget that the people in Day wanted entertainment too. John and Bill decorated an RV where they relaxed and read through the records stored there because they were bored and wanted something to do. They were more like the people in Land in attitude than like the scientists or military. They'd moved past trying to save the old world. They were looking at how to make the best of the new one. And they were converting Sarah to that attitude. I think Day was the transition in attitudes between Dawn and Land. The dying of any effort to save the old world and the beginning of acceptance of the new.

Let's look at this another way. What happens to the people in Day once they're living on the island? Let's assume they've moved past trying to find a cure, they have a relatively safe haven, and they have resources to live out their lives in relative comfort. They're "enjoying the time they have left." Do they begin to relax and become comfortable? Or do they sink into a deeper depression?

To support your timeline arguments they can only get worse because people only decline post-outbreak. But I think it's inevitable that eventually people learn to live with the situation and rebound. And I think that's exactly what we see in Land.

I think the tone/atmosphere is the exact reason why Land is further along.

[sandrock74]

Just because Sarah and the boys didn't see anyone within a hundred miles in each direction from their bunker doesn't mean that there wasn't any survivors. Let's take a look at the beginning of Day for a moment. They land the chopper, and Miguel and Sarah get out. Miguel starts yelling into a megaphone, stirring every zombie in earshot. The streets are soon flooded with zombies, going directly towards the racket of the megaphone and chopper.

Query:
If you were a survivor in the vicinity, would YOU have gone running out into the street, ducking and weaving through the zombie horde to get to the man and woman standing by a chopper (already with two people in it) that only has four seats in it?

I sure as hell wouldn't! I would've been pissed at them for riling up all the dormant zombies in the area. All those aggitated zombies wouldn't just disappear once the chopper flew away. Who knows how long it would take for them to "disappear" once again? A day? A week?? A month??? The zombies outside the mall in Dawn were there for months (judging by Frans belly), so there is no reason to think the Florida zombies would just go away once they got all riled up en masse.

Also, Trin raised a good point. There's no telling how many survivor settlements like their own they may have flown over and never realized was there. Or people who are hidden away in fortified buildings. Or people who were 110 miles away. Why did they assume that if there were no survivors advertising themselves in a 100 mile radius, that there were NO survivors anywhere? That's just retarded thinking. :rant:

If they were serious about finding other survivors, they would have had a search pattern in place and done more than land and start yelling through a megaphone. It almost seemed to me that they were just going out and looking at random, just for something to do. Also, what was their plan? If they found a survivor, shuttle them back to the bunker with Sarah sitting on their lap? :lol:

Of all the movies, Day is the one that I would least want to be in! Everyone worked against one another and there wasn't really any plan. :dead:

[darth los]

Of all the movies, Day is the one that I would least want to be in! Everyone worked against one another and there wasn't really any plan. :dead:


Which was the true horror of the situation. And which is why GAr is a genius.

:cool:

[Philly_SWAT]

People being all dead for 100 miles doesn't point to any kind of timeframe. That could have happened in a month (in a real-world setting, I'll bet it would only take a week). So I don't see how that could possibly be taken as more than 3 years passing (established in Land).

Same deal with the radio. All they said was that they used to talk to Washington, now they don't. Well, Peter, Fran and Stephen used to watch tv; now, they don't. And they weren't in that mall anywhere near any 3 years.

In fact, I'd bet that the relays they were using for the radio went down right about the same time the television reception went belly-up. Nowhere near in the Land timeframe.

And Rhodes wanting to shoot the zombies and leave doesn't mean they were there for long either; I'd have wanted to gun-and-run on Day One, myself. John's island would have looked pretty damn good from the start. Wouldn't take years to come up with that particular plan.

In all, I never saw anything in Day that points to it taking place any further into the outbreak than the end of Dawn, much less 3 years in. Yet, there's everything from there still being fuel for the helicopter and compound generators, to newspapers still intact despite being outside in the weather, to there still being the alcohol there for Billy, all pointing to not much time passing at all.

Perhaps Day actually happened before the outbreak? With at least two obvious dream sequences in the movie...maybe more of the movie was a dream than generally accepted? Maybe there was no outbreak to begin with?

We do see Sarah wake up at the end of the movie, just as zombie hands were reaching for her out of the chopper. Maybe her and John and Billy are just 3 people who stole a chopper and wanted to live on a deserted island? There is nothing in the movie to specifically refute this. Maybe the movie was a mixture of reality and delusion. Any scenes with zombies or talking about zombies were just delusions in Sarahs mind.

As far as Land goes, it might actually be a zombie outbreak centuries after the initial outbreak was totally over and forgotten from human memory. There is nothing in the movie to specifically refute this idea. It is possibly set in the year 2407. The initial happenings of Night, Dawn, and Day are centuries old....the zombie problem was quelled, and in the great Data Loss of 2310, when most of the earths history that was stored on computers were lost, and no one born after that even knows that there was a zombie problem in the past.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------


Diary is not part of the "series" that started with Night and Thus far ended with Land.

Your point is moot and you know that I think Philly ;)

We have discussed this before, and while I respect your opinion and the passion with which you discuss it I am on record as saying you are wrong and in my opinion you have nothing to base this on other than your own opinion. You can point to things in the movies that YOU feel makes you think as you do. That is still your interpertation and mine leads me elsewhere.

Let's face it Land kind of does it's own thing, it is a long way removed from Day and there are inconsistances. But The state of decay of the towns, and the dead themselves clearly show a passing of time beyond day.

At the end of the day you can not prove out this theory, it is your pet theory that you hammer on over and over again. If you want clarification ask Gar.
HOLY SHIT, havent seen a post from Thorn in a while. Glad you are alive. I would love to ask GAR if I could.


To be fair, I rather think GAR--after some discussion with Philly--would be as likely to appreciate his different take on the matter, as he might be to dismiss it. Let's not fool ourselves and think GAR attends to his films overarching timelines and internal consistency to the degree that many of his fans will.
Well said.


Yes? Are you surprised that I told you to view them as you wish? That's sort off what "art is personal" is all about.
No, I am surprised after pages and pages of arguments that "the intention of the film maker means nothing" that you now point to Romero's intentions as far as the timeline goes. I guess what ever happens to help your argument at the time.

[sandrock74]

As far as Land goes, it might actually be a zombie outbreak centuries after the initial outbreak was totally over and forgotten from human memory. There is nothing in the movie to specifically refute this idea. It is possibly set in the year 2407. The initial happenings of Night, Dawn, and Day are centuries old....the zombie problem was quelled, and in the great Data Loss of 2310, when most of the earths history that was stored on computers were lost, and no one born after that even knows that there was a zombie problem in the past.

Let's not be silly. None of that can be possible, because we know the events of the Star Trek universe happen in that time frame. :lol:

[Philly_SWAT]

I disagree with "people all over the place." In Day we see one survivor base. In Land we see one survivor base. Both areas were places where people made a stand and succeeded. Both movies implied that they were the last survivors. If I were to assess which group of people had a better chance of knowing for sure they were the last survivors I would say Land. They had far greater resources for communication or to mount a search effort. The very scavenging forays they did into the wild were far more exhaustive searches than anything Day did in the chopper. The chopper could've flown within 15 miles of a Fiddler's Green and not realized it. They could've flown right over a dozen bunkers like their own and not known. The scavengers, on the other hand, would've seen evidence of survivors. Which doesn't prove anything of course. We don't even know if the scavengers would care if they found other survivors.
I am not sure about the way you are comparing bases there....it is like saying that Vatican City is one country (.2 square miles) and Russia is one country (6.5 million square miles). Yes, true facts, however to imply that are close to the same is kinda ridiculous. One big difference in the two movies is that in Day, the characters are actively discussing whether they are alone on Earth, and searching for other survivors. No one in Land seems concerned at all about this. The only thing they are searching for is another bottle of booze. Cholo seems convinced that there is in fact other outposts, outposts where having money will be good for him. Kaufman also seems to think that lugging around big bags of money will do him good as he escapes the Green. So while those in Land may have had more/better resources to search for others, they made no effort to do so. To me, that says they are close to the initial outbreak. No need to search for other "survivors", or course there are survivors. The same way you and me dont go around searching for others all the time...we know others are out there.


The people in Land wanted entertainment. I cannot fathom why you think that implies a shorter timeframe. With your whole world recently turned upside down and death all around you I'd think the last thing you'd do is decide to try to find a bar so you could bet on zombie fights or go get your picture taken at the zombie photo stand. The whole society in Land is one indicative of a long time spent living in the situation.
Perhaps I have a weakness in thinking that human beings actual care about the future of our race, and dont solely think about immediate creature comforts. Perhaps John was the only person to ever think that it was a good idea to find a safe place, have some babies to try to re-populate, and teach them to never try to find all the bullshit things that exist in this world. My analogy would be this.....when a complete asshole is on his deathbed, he prays to God, and asks people around him for forgiveness, reveals long kept secrets, etc. he knows the end is here and is desparate for something, he doenst even know what. He is scared of dying. John seems to be at the beginning of that way of thinking. Society is dead/dying and it is time to start over. The people in Land seem more interested in partying and not giving a shit about anything. Not even Riley seems interested in the fate of the human race....just his own desire to get away from the City. Is Riley such a callous asshole that he cares not at all about the human race, or does he automatically think that the human race will survive, because they are still close to the start of the outbreak, and he doesnt realize yet how bleak it will get?


You say that Cholo and Peter cannot be compared because Cholo has lots of people around him and Peter was living in isolation. Then you go on to say that the people in Day were obviously further along the timeframe because they had a darker mood. Well which is it? By your own arguments the people living underground in the bunker had reason to be much more depressed and despondent than the people in Land, regardless of timeframe. We know that prior to the events in Day they'd lost 6 people, which is roughly a third of their initial complement. So the darkness of the mood doesn't prove anything.
Perhaps. However, Peter was close to the 2 people who died, no one in Land seems particularly close to anyone.


And let's not forget that the people in Day wanted entertainment too. John and Bill decorated an RV where they relaxed and read through the records stored there because they were bored and wanted something to do. They were more like the people in Land in attitude than like the scientists or military. They'd moved past trying to save the old world. They were looking at how to make the best of the new one. And they were converting Sarah to that attitude. I think Day was the transition in attitudes between Dawn and Land. The dying of any effort to save the old world and the beginning of acceptance of the new.
I totally disagree here. If John and Billy were in charge of creating their own new world, it would look NOTHING like the world in Land. They realized that the old world was dead. In Land, they were still living the exact same way as the old world...drinking, partying, hookers, using money, etc.


Let's look at this another way. What happens to the people in Day once they're living on the island? Let's assume they've moved past trying to find a cure, they have a relatively safe haven, and they have resources to live out their lives in relative comfort. They're "enjoying the time they have left." Do they begin to relax and become comfortable? Or do they sink into a deeper depression?
They begin to relax, because they have let go of the last vestage of the Land-and-earlier times.


To support your timeline arguments they can only get worse because people only decline post-outbreak. But I think it's inevitable that eventually people learn to live with the situation and rebound. And I think that's exactly what we see in Land.
Any individual can get worse or better attitudes about a wide variety of things as time goes by. In Day, their attitude gets worse as the continue on the same way of life they are living when the movie starts, when they leave that life behind and start a new life, their attitude gets better. Who knows what happens after the movie ends. Perhaps they were out of fuel and didnt realize there was a shitload of zeds on the island and get ripped to shreads. Perhaps they die a slow horrible death due to slow island disease they have no medicine for. We dont know. In Land, they never leave the old way of life behind.


I think the tone/atmosphere is the exact reason why Land is further along.
Well, we totally disagree here. How 'bout them Cowboys!

[EvilNed]

No, I am surprised after pages and pages of arguments that "the intention of the film maker means nothing" that you now point to Romero's intentions as far as the timeline goes. I guess what ever happens to help your argument at the time.

Notice how I pointed out that you should view the film as you wish. You seem to be forgetting that part... Stop making a hen out of a feather.

[Trin]

however to imply that are close to the same is kinda ridiculous.
The same in one crucial way to this discussion - both outposts give the impression they are the last.


Cholo seems convinced that there is in fact other outposts, outposts where having money will be good for him. Kaufman also seems to think that lugging around big bags of money will do him good as he escapes the Green. So while those in Land may have had more/better resources to search for others, they made no effort to do so. To me, that says they are close to the initial outbreak. No need to search for other "survivors", or course there are survivors. The same way you and me dont go around searching for others all the time...we know others are out there.
Whether or not there are other survivors is a point Land straddles the fence on. The lead-in implies that there are fortified cities here and there to some degree. Kaufman's remark to Riley of "where will you go" implies there's nowhere to go outside. At the same time Kaufman and Cholo both seemed convinced that other places existed to spend their lovely money. And then the remark about "haven't heard from Cleveland in a while" implies that the cities that were out there were gone. Stupid movie.

I don't think you can assume that their lack of interest in finding survivors implies they are early in the outbreak. I believe they made no effort to look because they hadn't found anyone for years. But it could be that they just didn't care about survivors, which could be true in either timeframe.

What I do stand behind is that in Day they wouldn't still be looking for survivors years into it. At some point you just stop. And I think that point comes prior to the end of the first year, especially if it's just wasting fuel and raising tensions.


Not even Riley seems interested in the fate of the human race....just his own desire to get away from the City. Is Riley such a callous asshole that he cares not at all about the human race, or does he automatically think that the human race will survive, because they are still close to the start of the outbreak, and he doesnt realize yet how bleak it will get?
Riley was one of the only people in the movie still attempting to show concern for his fellow man, and that concern had been beaten out of him over the years to the point that he was ready to chuck the whole thing and leave.


Well, we totally disagree here.
I disagree!! No, I agreed!! Ah, hell, I don't know anymore.

I think you happened upon a clever little "what if" that lined up with some observations in the movie and you are having a blast defending it. But I don't know how anyone could take it seriously. There's just too many big holes in the theory.

But it was a fun discussion and it made me think through some things in the movie from a different perspective, and for that my hat's off sir!!


How 'bout them Cowboys
Yes, we'll have pointless debate over Survival of the Dead in early 2011 with any luck!! :P

[SRP76]

Land isn't that hard to figure out. There were no other places left. Kaufman had set up satellite strongholds when the city was getting locked off, in the beginning. He believes they're still operational. That's not "a lot of other survivors" or anything like that. It's just small pockets of Greenies.

And Cholo wasn't going anywhere to "spend his money". He outright tells you that he doesn't have a clue where he's going. It wasn't about "I need money". It was about making the almighty Kaufman bend to his will (or anyone else's, for that matter) for a change. To show Kaufman what it's like to be controlled, and be dictated to, as he did Cholo and so many others. And the one way to do that is to force him to part with the only thing he gives a damn about - money. Why does everyone miss the point?

Not that a group of people living in a hole "not knowing" that there are cities 2,000 miles away makes Day take place during or after Land, in the first place. Thinking you're the last person on Earth doesn't mean you are.

[deadpunk]

All of this and I still have no clue which came first... the chicken or the egg? :p

[SRP76]

All of this and I still have no clue which came first... the chicken or the egg? :p

That one's easy. The egg. Chicken precursors had been laying for countless generations before the first fully-evolved chicken hatched out of one.

[deadpunk]

That one's easy. The egg. Chicken precursors had been laying for countless generations before the first fully-evolved chicken hatched out of one.

You're wrong. After checking with Philly, turns out, Land came before both.

j/k Philly ;)

[Philly_SWAT]

And Cholo wasn't going anywhere to "spend his money". He outright tells you that he doesn't have a clue where he's going. It wasn't about "I need money". It was about making the almighty Kaufman bend to his will (or anyone else's, for that matter) for a change. To show Kaufman what it's like to be controlled, and be dictated to, as he did Cholo and so many others. And the one way to do that is to force him to part with the only thing he gives a damn about - money. Why does everyone miss the point?
They probably miss the point because they are marveling at how by the time of Land how much better the earth has become since the time of Day....more people, more fuel, more food, money, hookers.....

Not that a group of people living in a hole "not knowing" that there are cities 2,000 miles away makes Day take place during or after Land, in the first place. Thinking you're the last person on Earth doesn't mean you are.
That is 100% true. Same way that thinking Day comes before Land doesn't mean that it does.

[Suicycho]

Riley's sidekick in Land, (I forget his name) was burned. His wounds had healed and scarred over. That would take quite a bit of time, making me believe Land took place some time after the outbreak.

[SymphonicX]

you're all such beautiful geeks.

I love it.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------


more people, more fuel, more food, money, hookers......

If all the previously gappy toothed, scarred hookers in a zombie apocalypse look like Asia Argento, I'm up for seeing society get eaten.

[krakenslayer]

For me, SRP has been hitting the nail on the head with every post. As much as I love Philly's in-depth take on the series, I don't agree with him on this aspect.

[Trin]

Riley's sidekick in Land, (I forget his name) was burned. His wounds had healed and scarred over. That would take quite a bit of time, making me believe Land took place some time after the outbreak.
I believe in this argument and I made this same argument way back when this topic first came up.

The problem is, just like you cannot prove that Cholo didn't work for Kaufman prior to the outbreak, and you cannot prove that the garage didn't close down long before the outbreak, you also cannot prove that Charlie wasn't "pulled from the fire" prior to the outbreak by Riley who he has known for a long time.

Adding to the argument we know that Riley saw his brother die from a bite. We also get the impression (weak argument, yes) that Charlies doesn't know anything about that incident.

[Thorn]

I have been lurking around just not posting too much work has been hectic and I do most of my reading and posting from here so... I read more than I post. ;)

Always enjoy reading the threads though, and much love for the forums and you guys as always.

So many good and interesting points on all sides it is a fun topic, like I said though to me personally I just see land as fourth. It came out fourth... I do not know why GAR would go back in time and no call it a prequel or something. It would be too confusing and too inconsistent.

While his movies do not feature the same characters they share a universe and a progressive/chronological order.

While Dawn had abandoned cities they were not overgrown and reclaimed by nature. Compare that to the state of the town in Land and you can see a city in a major state of decay much like Pripyat in Russia (google it for some examples if you like)

I again point to the state of decay in the zombies, their make up progressed from Night, to Dawn, to Day, to Land. They use more prosthetics and exaggerate the decay. They add in more zombies like the lady during the initial fireworks scene who is clearly severely decayed. The make up work shows more patches of no skin in areas or taught skin which screams to me it is beyond the point in day.

Oh and and as has been said before, not being able to communicate with people does not indicate a lack of people just an inability to reach them. There are so many reasons why this might be the case.

I am not trying to convince you, I respect your opinion as I said just some of the reasons why I feel as I do.

[BillyRay]

While his movies do not feature the same characters they share a universe and a progressive/chronological order.

Are you certain about that? I've never seen any indication of a shared universe/timeline in the first 4 films.

There's been a lot of spirited, intelligent debate about where, in a shared timeline, each movie "fits". It's been a stitch lurking on the thread. But apart from the same Director (& the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario) I haven't found any clues that would suggest that these movies do share a world.

(Apart from the Biker Zombie in Land, but to me that's just fan-service, not concrete evidence)

I know that Mr. Romero is connecting the new movies (Franchise reboot? Ugh, let's not use that term) together using reoccuring characters. It'll be neat to see where he goes with the worldbuilding in Survival & beyond.

But don't let my smart/half assed opinions spoil anybody's fun...:D

[krakenslayer]

Are you certain about that? I've never seen any indication of a shared universe/timeline in the first 4 films.

There's been a lot of spirited, intelligent debate about where, in a shared timeline, each movie "fits". It's been a stitch lurking on the thread. But apart from the same Director (& the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario) I haven't found any clues that would suggest that these movies do share a world.

(Apart from the Biker Zombie in Land, but to me that's just fan-service, not concrete evidence)

I know that Mr. Romero is connecting the new movies (Franchise reboot? Ugh, let's not use that term) together using reoccuring characters. It'll be neat to see where he goes with the worldbuilding in Survival & beyond.

But don't let my smart/half assed opinions spoil anybody's fun...:D

Okay, so it's not internal evidence from the films themselves, but Romero has, on numerous occasions, bemoaned the tangled rights situation that prevents him from bringing back old characters. Ages ago, long before Land was released or even written, there was an interview (I'll see if I can find it, if it still exists) where he mentions wanting to show the survivors from Dawn "in the background" somewhere in the new movie, just to tie it to the old films. Does anyone else remember that?

Also, Diary uses audio from the Night of the Living Dead radio broadcasts in some of the news montages.

[BillyRay]

I can see where you're coming from, but is intent the same as continuity?

[Philly_SWAT]

I have been lurking around just not posting too much work has been hectic and I do most of my reading and posting from here so... I read more than I post. ;)Just glad to see you post from time to time so I know you are still alive! Remember, you would be my primary person to want to have with me in a zombie outbreak.

So many good and interesting points on all sides it is a fun topic, like I said though to me personally I just see land as fourth. It came out fourth... I do not know why GAR would go back in time and no call it a prequel or something. It would be too confusing and too inconsistent.Hmm....so many things I could say here,....(like a sarcastic comment about GAR, who is well known for not paying attention to detail, going out of his way to NOT be confusing and/or inconsistent :) ) but I'll sya this...ever see Pulp Fiction? I assume you have. I have had 4 different people ask me some form of "How was John Travolta alive at the end of the movie when we saw him die earlier?" A lot of people in general are not that bright, and easily confused. Tarrentino could have put a big banner on screen that said "SCENES NOT SHOWN IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER", but gave his audience some credit to try to figure that out on their own. Perhaps GAR did the same thing.

I again point to the state of decay in the zombies, their make up progressed from Night, to Dawn, to Day, to Land. They use more prosthetics and exaggerate the decay. They add in more zombies like the lady during the initial fireworks scene who is clearly severely decayed. The make up work shows more patches of no skin in areas or taught skin which screams to me it is beyond the point in day.
I am not sure this points to anything in relation to the timeline. It could be attributed to better make up techniques when Land was filmed. I am not even sure I agree with your premise. Dr Tongue looked pretty decayed to me.

Oh and and as has been said before, not being able to communicate with people does not indicate a lack of people just an inability to reach them. There are so many reasons why this might be the case.
True enough. Although one perfectly valid reason would be that there are less people seen in Day because they are further into the outbreak and therefore less people on Earth.

I am not trying to convince you, I respect your opinion as I said just some of the reasons why I feel as I do.
Understood. Post more often dude!





Are you certain about that? I've never seen any indication of a shared universe/timeline in the first 4 films.
To my way of thinking, there is no reason at all to assume that they do NOT share the same universe/timeline.

There's been a lot of spirited, intelligent debate about where, in a shared timeline, each movie "fits". It's been a stitch lurking on the thread. But apart from the same Director (& the whole Zombie Apocalypse scenario) I haven't found any clues that would suggest that these movies do share a world.

(Apart from the Biker Zombie in Land, but to me that's just fan-service, not concrete evidence)
Having recurring characters is not a requirement to have movies set in the same universe. Take two movies...."Gettysburg" and "Saving Private Ryan". They have no characters in common, no actors, different director, different setting, different everything. The only thing they have in common is war, but two totally different styles of fighting. Are these two movies set in the same universe, along the same timeline? Of course, they are set in our own "real" universe, the one we live in. They are looking at historical events in the past. Tom Hanks character never mentions the battle of Gettysburg in his movie, yet you have to assume that a high ranking officer in World War II would know of a very important battle in the US Civil War. Sure, Savini's Biker zombie was just "fan-service" as you call it, however, either you assume that GAR created a universe that was very similar to our own universe with the major difference being that the dead rise and wish to attack the living, or that he created FOUR SEPARATE story-telling universes that are not related to each other. That would seem to be ludacris.

But don't let my smart/half assed opinions spoil anybody's fun...:D
Your half assed opinions ADD to the fun! :)






Okay, so it's not internal evidence from the films themselves, but Romero has, on numerous occasions, bemoaned the tangled rights situation that prevents him from bringing back old characters. Ages ago, long before Land was released or even written, there was an interview (I'll see if I can find it, if it still exists) where he mentions wanting to show the survivors from Dawn "in the background" somewhere in the new movie, just to tie it to the old films. Does anyone else remember that?

I seem to remember that, but I cant recall where/if I saw/heard it. Although, as I mentioned above, I dont think it is necessary to have blatant evidence in one movie to show that the next movie is set in the same universe.


I can see where you're coming from, but is intent the same as continuity?
Ummm......I would say that intent is not the same as continuity, however, I think you use those words inappropriately here.

If GAR 'intended' to have characters from Dawn in the background to tie-into the old films, but didnt, that doesnt have anything to do one way or the other with whether the "dead films" are set in the same universe. There was some super long thread about this in the past that you could search for if you so wished. But just like Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan doesnt have to say "Boy I really feel like Robert E. Lee at the battle of Gettysburg, a very difficult task ahead of me finding this Private Ryan" in order for the two films to be set in the same universe, neither do the characters from Dawn need to be seen in Land or Day to in order for all the films to be set in the same universe.

[BillyRay]

Having recurring characters is not a requirement to have movies set in the same universe.

I thought that a shared universe was just that: reoccurring characters, reoccurring locations. Like Marvel or DC Comics have a shared universe. But I'll quibble more below..:)


Take two movies...."Gettysburg" and "Saving Private Ryan". They have no characters in common, no actors, different director, different setting, different everything. The only thing they have in common is war, but two totally different styles of fighting. Are these two movies set in the same universe, along the same timeline?

Technically, if that were true, that would make "Star Wars" part of that same universe too. It also has war, and a different style of fighting.:D

But...you did argue that your examples are set in a "real" universe. (Just wanted to play Devil's Advocate.) So does every movie taking place during wartime (at least the ones attempting some kind of historical accuracy) belong to that same universe? Or, for that matter, any movie taking place in the "real" world? Do "Schindler's List" and the latest Romantic Comedy drek out of Hollywood share a universe, then?


Sure, Savini's Biker zombie was just "fan-service" as you call it, however, either you assume that GAR created a universe that was very similar to our own universe with the major difference being that the dead rise and wish to attack the living, or that he created FOUR SEPARATE story-telling universes that are not related to each other. That would seem to be ludacris.

Not as much as you might think. Thematicly, they're all quite distinct. That doesn't necessarilly mean seperate Universes (universii?), but GAR tends to write his zombie stories as metaphors, so a continuity between films is unnecessary, and not implied. That's been my impression.


I dont think it is necessary to have blatant evidence in one movie to show that the next movie is set in the same universe.

If GAR 'intended' to have characters from Dawn in the background to tie-into the old films, but didnt, that doesnt have anything to do one way or the other with whether the "dead films" are set in the same universe.

But, if you only have the 'Zombie Apocalypse' as a through-line tying those films together, in theory any zombie film would qualify as part of Continuity (but not necesarilly Canon)

It's the individual storylines we would be following that would build the Shared Universe.


Your half assed opinions ADD to the fun! :)

Can I use that as a sig? :lol::lol::lol:

[Philly_SWAT]

I thought that a shared universe was just that: reoccurring characters, reoccurring locations. Like Marvel or DC Comics have a shared universe. But I'll quibble more below..:)
I am not sure if you are saying there is a difference between a "shared universe" and "the same universe". But yes, most Marvel comics are in the same story telling universe. Except for titles like the "What If" series. Depending on your age you may or may not remember that series, but each comic asked a different question, like "What is DareDevil never went blind?" and then the whole comic was dedicated to examining that. Another example...if you read a single Spider-Man comic, and in that comic there was NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the Fantastic Four, that wouldnt mean that somehow it was set in a different universe.

Technically, if that were true, that would make "Star Wars" part of that same universe too. It also has war, and a different style of fighting.:D
Not sure if you are just being funny, or missing the point. In case it is the latter and not the former, the fact that both movies involved war was irrelevant, just thought they would be easy examples to see that they were in the same universe, the 'real' one.

But...you did argue that your examples are set in a "real" universe. (Just wanted to play Devil's Advocate.) So does every movie taking place during wartime (at least the ones attempting some kind of historical accuracy) belong to that same universe? Or, for that matter, any movie taking place in the "real" world? Do "Schindler's List" and the latest Romantic Comedy drek out of Hollywood share a universe, then?
If the latest Romantic Comedy did nothing to imply it wasnt set in the real universe, then yes, it would be in the same universe as Schindlers List. Same way that in real life, Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Palin both existed in the same universe, just at different times.

Not as much as you might think. Thematicly, they're all quite distinct. That doesn't necessarilly mean seperate Universes (universii?), but GAR tends to write his zombie stories as metaphors, so a continuity between films is unnecessary, and not implied. That's been my impression.
Yes, thematically GAR's dead movies are quite different. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not they are set in the same universe.

But, if you only have the 'Zombie Apocalypse' as a through-line tying those films together, in theory any zombie film would qualify as part of Continuity (but not necesarilly Canon)
Not true. But if a non-GAR zombie movie followed the same 'rules' (as inconsistent as they may be) as a GAR film, then you could argue that they exist in the same universe. Dawn04 would not be in the same universe, as the zeds run and not shamble.

Can I use that as a sig? :lol::lol::lol:
Of course! Feel free!

[BillyRay]

I guess the telling thing about your last post (imho) was the 'yes' on "Schindlers List" and "Romantic Comedy Taking Place in the Real World #287" taking place in the same universe.

Really?

Is a continuity between films with a similar grasp of 'reality' really that necessary, then?

In zombie and non-zombie films?

Not that I'm not enjoying the mental exercise, but I'm trying to figure why they would have to be. After all, they're all 'imaginary stories'; to take a phrase from the comics lexicon. Do the Dead movies need to be part of a larger narrative? Even if there isn't any concrete evidence supporting the existence of that shared/same universe?

[Philly_SWAT]

I guess the telling thing about your last post (imho) was the 'yes' on "Schindlers List" and "Romantic Comedy Taking Place in the Real World #287" taking place in the same universe.

Really?

Is a continuity between films with a similar grasp of 'reality' really that necessary, then?

In zombie and non-zombie films?

Not that I'm not enjoying the mental exercise, but I'm trying to figure why they would have to be. After all, they're all 'imaginary stories'; to take a phrase from the comics lexicon. Do the Dead movies need to be part of a larger narrative? Even if there isn't any concrete evidence supporting the existence of that shared/same universe?
I think you must be mis-interpreting "continuity" and "same universe" as the same thing. I re-paste a good example from my last post

If the latest Romantic Comedy did nothing to imply it wasnt set in the real universe, then yes, it would be in the same universe as Schindlers List. Same way that in real life, Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Palin both existed in the same universe, just at different times.
Abraham Lincoln and Sarah Palin have very little to do with each other (both Republican, but thats about it). To learn about, read about, try to understand, etc. anything about one of them, you dont NEED to know anything about the other. They are not really related to each other in any way. However, they both exist in the same universe. The "real universe', for lack of a better term. Schlindlers List is also set in the "real universe", it is based on true events. The lastest dumbass romantic comedy, unless specifically identified as NOT being in this universe (for example, "My Ex-Girlfriend is a Superhero" is a romantic comedy, but Uma Thurman can fly, etc), then it is implied that it IS set in the real universe. Take the movie "Love Happens". The same way that you dont SEE Jennifer Aniston taking a shit...you dont see the shit coming out of her ass...you still assume that her character does in fact take a shit. It just makes for boring movies to focus on irrelevant stuff like that (OK I know some people WOULD like to see whole movies of that, but that is porn, and not part of this discussion). So you also assume that Jennifer Aniston's character breathes air (not water) that she has red blood (not green) there is a President in charge of the United States (not a king) etc, even though those things arent directly said to the audience. So "Love Happens" is set in the "real universe" even though it is a fictional story. Schindlers List is also set in the "real universe", but it is a true story.