Miller and Johnson

[Doc]

Ok as, we all know Miller and Johnson are the throw-away soldiers of "Day of the Dead" I guess you can say.

Throughout the film their basically, a neutral force on the whole situation in "Day", and pretty laid back guys as, they were growing wacky Tobacky on the surface! :p

In the film they met their fate as, one of the equipment used to captured the zeds malfunctioned, and everything went to hell. Their deaths definitely was what upset the balance of power.

So, I was wondering if say Steele and Rickles bit it instead, of Miller and Johnson. Would events in the rest of the film be drastically different?

I find it hard imagining Miller and Johnson just listening to Rhodes, and pushing Sarah, and Billy into the zombie shaft, and being order to beat John.

I'm sure they might have reacted to Logan feeding soldiers to Bub much the same, but would have probably atleast wait to hear McDermott, Sarah, and Fisher out before lumping in with the Doc. I mean I certainly like to think they would've been open to hearing an explanation from John or Sarah before flying off the handle.

[JDFP]

Interesting thought here, Doc, but I don't think it would have made too much of a difference.

I don't think Miller and Johnson would have argued with Rhodes or his orders at all. They would have done as they were told by their C.O. in the situation. Unless, of course, there turns out to be a missing deleted scene discovered where Miller and Johnson are discussing the overthrow of Captain Rhodes and setting up their own authority. :D

It was Rhodes who drove the rest of the soldiers. He was an impressive personality (i.e. masochistic and had the same cult of personality as Hitler and/or Stalin, he made it appear to others that he had complete control) and the soldiers gladly followed this type of order (more so because of the total chaos surrounding them) so all others around him were pure minions happy to oblige the good ol' captain's orders. The only person (as far as soldiers go) who I think could have changed this power-trip he was on was Steel who would have had the ability but not the guile.

I think there could really have been only two situations to have changed things really:

One: Steel. I think Steel was a much more complicated character than many like to see him (certainly a great deal of this has to do with how wel Gary Klar excellently played the character). I think if Steel had stood up to Rhodes after making the joke of "Bang, you're dead!" and refused to shoot Sarah then we would have seen a much different outcome to the film. I think the other soldiers would have responded to Steel over Rhodes in this type of pressured situation (Rickles definitely would have, no question). I don't think Rhodes would have shot Steel -- not with all the other soldiers around at least. I think there would have been a mutiny if this had taken place. I could see Steel actually turning the gun on Rhodes before shooting the last woman in there (at least, he thought about it). If Steel had had some more balls and realized the true masochistic reach of Rhodes before everything went to shit, me thinks things would have been quite a bit different. Miller and Johnson? Don't see it.

Two: If Major Cooper had not have died, or if Captain Rhodes had died instead of Major Cooper. The film as we know it would have been a much different film (although still interesting, if you ask me, because of the characters which are all screwed up and flawed -- like real humans).

j.p.

[darth los]

Interesting thought here, Doc, but I don't think it would have made too much of a difference.

I don't think Miller and Johnson would have argued with Rhodes or his orders at all. They would have done as they were told by their C.O. in the situation. Unless, of course, there turns out to be a missing deleted scene discovered where Miller and Johnson are discussing the overthrow of Captain Rhodes and setting up their own authority. :D

It was Rhodes who drove the rest of the soldiers. He was an impressive personality (i.e. masochistic and had the same cult of personality as Hitler and/or Stalin, he made it appear to others that he had complete control) and the soldiers gladly followed this type of order (more so because of the total chaos surrounding them) so all others around him were pure minions happy to oblige the good ol' captain's orders. The only person (as far as soldiers go) who I think could have changed this power-trip he was on was Steel who would have had the ability but not the guile.

I think there could really have been only two situations to have changed things really:

One: Steel. I think Steel was a much more complicated character than many like to see him (certainly a great deal of this has to do with how wel Gary Klar excellently played the character). I think if Steel had stood up to Rhodes after making the joke of "Bang, you're dead!" and refused to shoot Sarah then we would have seen a much different outcome to the film. I think the other soldiers would have responded to Steel over Rhodes in this type of pressured situation (Rickles definitely would have, no question). I don't think Rhodes would have shot Steel -- not with all the other soldiers around at least. I think there would have been a mutiny if this had taken place. I could see Steel actually turning the gun on Rhodes before shooting the last woman in there (at least, he thought about it). If Steel had had some more balls and realized the true masochistic reach of Rhodes before everything went to shit, me thinks things would have been quite a bit different. Miller and Johnson? Don't see it.

Two: If Major Cooper had not have died, or if Captain Rhodes had died instead of Major Cooper. The film as we know it would have been a much different film (although still interesting, if you ask me, because of the characters which are all screwed up and flawed -- like real humans).

j.p.

I like the Major Cooper angle. We don't know how Cooper died but is it too much of a stretch to think Rhodes had something to do with it? I mean a deteriorating situation and he made a power grab. is that so far fetched?

And i agree with the steel thing. All everyone had to do was refuse to do what rhodes said. What was he gonna do? Shoot them all? He might kill one but I doubt the others would let it get any further.

Think about it. He was aking Steel to commit an unlawful act by executing a civilian woman. He would have been totally within his rights to refuse such an order.

:cool:

[sandrock74]

Think about it. He was aking Steel to commit an unlawful act by executing a civilian woman. He would have been totally within his rights to refuse such an order.


Within his rights, as long as he had a higher ranking officer to go to, like a colonel or a general. Short of Steel starting a mutiny, Rhodes didn't have anyone to hold him accountable for any of his actions/orders.

I mean, what was Steel gonna do, refuse the order and file a request for a military tribunal on Rhodes?

I do think Steel could have usurped Rhodes with the other military guys support...but, he was alive and safe down in the base, so why rock the boat?

[Doc]

I think if Steel had stood up to Rhodes after making the joke of "Bang, you're dead!" and refused to shoot Sarah then we would have seen a much different outcome to the film. I think the other soldiers would have responded to Steel over Rhodes in this type of pressured situation (Rickles definitely would have, no question). I don't think Rhodes would have shot Steel -- not with all the other soldiers around at least. I think there would have been a mutiny if this had taken place.



GAH! I forgot about this thread! :o

Hmm..yeah when Rhodes orders Steele to shoot Sarah. Steele thinks it's a joke, and plays a little. What I actually like about that scene is the other soldiers. Look at them going for their guns, and see them looking down at Rhodes. If Rhodes had shot Steele I have no doubt that they too would've opened up on Rhodes.

[thetallman78]

I have often wondered this as well and find it an interesting observation, but first id like to add some facts ive read about day.

First in the original shooting script miller and torrez were switched, meaning that torrez and johnson died in the corral and miller died after the bunker was overrun. Now this works since it was johnson and torrez who were topside at the beginning when the search party arrived. those two would have been placed together similar to rickles and steel on the corral round-up. also i dont know if this adds a valid point but the fatigues of johnson and torrez are the same, yet different then the fatigues of other soldiers. Also this could be do to their positions (example of a mechanic or clerk) in the unit or that they were added to the unit last minute.

Second it was stated somewhere that major cooper was murdered by dr.logan. this could be proved by the fact the dr had coopers corpse in his lab running tests on a fresh corpse instead of a rotten corpse and show how mad logan had become. (although i do like the rhodes power grab idea)

To answer the original question though i feel that the soldiers were stressed beyond the breaking point due to their dire situation and the constant risk of their lives rounding up the dead for experiments. But of note that from what i could see rhodes was the only officer, all the others were ranked private judging from the insignias on their sleeves, which would also show why they were obedient to rhodes. usually in the military privates are commanded on the lines by a sgt or lt, a captain commands multiple companies and may never work with one unit. of the five men rhodes mentioned dying its a safe bet to say the lt or sgt were included in that count. but if you listen to the background of that meeting all the soldiers believe what rhodes is saying and i think that ultimately it did not matter who would have been killed (besides salazar), each would have followed the lead of rhodes.

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
I think that if Doc Logan had pushed Rhodes far enough at the meeting where he ended up focusing on Sarah to shoot Logan at that point, as opposed to shooting him after discovering his hideous experiments, then Rhodes quite possibly wouldn't have made the deranged leap to lumping the other civilians in with Logan, thus dumping them in with the zombies. I don't doubt that the situation would have continued to degrade due to the unrelenting pressures, but if Logan had been killed as an "example" used by Rhodes to make the other civilians toe his line, and if Sarah and Co. hadn't pushed their way onto Rhodes shitlist by preventing Miguel's execution after he was bitten, Rhodes might very well have had a breakdown that was mostly internalized, instead of going psycho as he blamed the civilians for everything. His breakdown could've been anything from eating a bullet to simply blanking out, Ie: catatonic.

After all, no one argues that the circumstances of Logan's death and Miguel being spared isn't what brought the whole situation down on their heads, so it isn't much of a stretch to say that removing one of these events could very well have lead to a drastically different outcome. I really believe that if the civilians hadn't challenged Rhodes so in-your-face publicly over Miguel's fate, that there's a good chance that the discovery of Doc Logan's feeding the soldiers to his subjects might very well have lead only to his execution. I believe this is so because there's no material link to Logan's hideous actions and the other civilians. Sarah and the others created that association in the mind of Rhodes by bucking his authority. For a control-freak like Rhodes, who's going bonkers because so much of his fate is out of his hands, there had to be a meaningful link to the other civilians and Doc Logan. No such link = He never has them dumped into the zombie-filled mineshaft.

Just my .02, your mileage may vary.

[Philly_SWAT]

It was Rhodes who drove the rest of the soldiers. He was an impressive personality (i.e. masochistic and had the same cult of personality as Hitler and/or Stalin, he made it appear to others that he had complete control) and the soldiers gladly followed this type of order (more so because of the total chaos surrounding them) so all others around him were pure minions happy to oblige the good ol' captain's orders.

I am not so sure about this. I think that unlike the other soldiers, Steele actually had some leadership skills. He may have been promoted to a NCO had the zombie outbreak not taken place. Rickles was his minion, and would have done whatever he said if push came to shove. If the two of them were killed, I think that Miller and Rhodes, although I admit their characters were not fleshed out very much, were slackers, and probably would not have followed orders to send the innocent people into the pen. The crux of the whole situation hinges on the fact that Steele followed Rhodes insanity induced orders for some weird reason. I think that you can tell how dissappointed Steele was when Rhodes abandoned them. "RHOOOOOOOOOOOODES!!" It was like he was saying "I listened to all your bullshit, and you treat me like this?"



Second it was stated somewhere that major cooper was murdered by dr.logan. this could be proved by the fact the dr had coopers corpse in his lab running tests on a fresh corpse instead of a rotten corpse and show how mad logan had become.
I dont think, and I dont think it was ever said or implied, that Logan killed Cooper. Major Cooper died for whatever reason, and Logan used his now reanimated body for experiments. He simply did it because the opportunity presented itself. He was certainly not a killer.



For a control-freak like Rhodes, who's going bonkers because so much of his fate is out of his hands, there had to be a meaningful link to the other civilians and Doc Logan. No such link = He never has them dumped into the zombie-filled mineshaft.
Excellent point.

[Trin]

Cooper was a stabilizing force. One of the subtle points of genius in Day is that the movie is set fairly far into the event, yet there is a plausible explanation for how events take such a drastic negative turn in so short a time after being relatively stable for so long a time. Cooper dies... Rhodes replaces him... That event forms the catalyst for the rest of the plot.

I don't believe Rhodes had anything to do with Cooper's death. I think quite the opposite. Rhodes needed and craved having a strong commanding officer. Rhodes was a good solider. He followed orders. He thrived on discipline. He probably thought Cooper was too soft, but he was adamant in his own strict adherence to chain of command, duty, and discipline.

As a leader all those things hurt him. He is inexperienced and falls into the classic trap of insisting that under his command things are going to run better because he will run a tight ship and there will be no more slacking off. Then he attempts to push the men harder and it backfires.

The other slice of genius was having Logan's atrocities discovered while the other scientists were present. No amount of explanation is going to overcome the circumstantial evidence. In the military's mind the scientists were all doing those things... all aware of them... all a party to it. Even Steele or Rickles... who were acting more reasonably... would absolutely jump to the same conclusion. They might not have acted so quickly and decisively, but they would have assumed the worst.

Would having the other two military guys take those roles from Steele and Rickles have changed things? I think not. They were portrayed as less engaged, which means that any order that didn't tamper with their off-duty activities would be followed. So you want me to kill the scientists? Okay... that's less zombies I have to capture and cart around. No problem.