New tidbit about the Day vs. Land timeline discussion

[Philly_SWAT]

There are many people who say something to the effect of "Cholo worked for Kaufman for three years, therefore Land is three years into the outbreak" or "the guy tells Riley that a car hasnt driven out of here in three years, which shows this is three years into the problem". Let us assume for a second that this is in fact correct (even though I can make many arguments to the contrary). According to the book "The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh", which I would think we would all consider an authoritative source, on page 148 it says

Set in Florida some FIVE YEARS after the zombie plague started, it opens with images of a coastal city that appears to be deserted;
Now the caps on FIVE YEARS was added by me and not in caps in the book, but that is what it says. Check your copy if you want verification. Does this add any credence then to the idea that Day takes place after Land? It would seem that if you are going to take one set of quotes into consideration, then you must take the other as well.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Isn't page 148 refering to the original script that was never actually shot?

Either way, i think this whole new deal with altering the timeline and placing Day AFTER Land is pretty unbelievable and i don't buy into it at all.

[Philly_SWAT]

Isn't page 148 refering to the original script that was never actually shot?
No, look for yourself.

Either way, i think this whole new deal with altering the timeline and placing Day AFTER Land is pretty unbelievable and i don't buy into it at all.
If that is the way it is, then it is not altering the timeline at all, it simply is the timeline. Remember the Chuck Norris movie, Missing in Action? The sequel, Missing in Action Part II was a prequel, the events in Part II happened before the events in Part I, even though it was filmed after the first. Same with the Star Wars series, part 4,5 and 6 were filmed over a decade before 1, 2 and 3. Just because they were filmed in a certain order doesnt mean they are in that order within the timeline.

[coma]

Makes sense to me as a possibitiy(though I'm sure it's not the intention).
Thats why McDermitt couldn't reach any outposts on his punyy WWII era radio. because there aren't any for at least a hundred mile + radius. First Cleveland. Then everywhere else.

You could go back and forth endlessly.


Ireally hope theres another sequel. I don't care if its not great. I fell off the wagon and now I want MORE.

[AcesandEights]

Five years?

That makes less sense then evolving zombies, unless the slow outbreak paradigm is pretty strictly held to.

I don't like this one bit :(

[zombiegirl]

I guess that I buy into the premise that in Day we have Bub, the star pupil so to speak, who is much more advanced than his mindless peers. In Land they are all more evolved and more intent of living something shadowing their former lives. In order for them to evolve from the oddity of Bub into what takes place in Land would signify an extended period of time between the two. At least that was my take on the movie.

[Philly_SWAT]

I guess that I buy into the premise that in Day we have Bub, the star pupil so to speak, who is much more advanced than his mindless peers. In Land they are all more evolved and more intent of living something shadowing their former lives. In order for them to evolve from the oddity of Bub into what takes place in Land would signify an extended period of time between the two. At least that was my take on the movie.
The thing is, we do not know what his "mindless peers" are doing out in the wild. We do see hordes pushing up against the fences, but beyond that, they may be Kung Fu Fighting for all we know. Just as in Land, they appear to be trying to break into the compound, and once inside, they go on a killing spree. Yes, Big Daddy uses a gun, but if you recall, he only found out by accident how to fire it. As his finger accidentally squeezes the trigger, he looks at it for a second in consternation, then starts firing it. Remember Bub immediately cocks the gun, points it at Rhodes and pulls the trigger. For all we know, there were many other zombies as capable or more capable than Bub. Maybe the smart ones were too smart to get captured, and only the dumb ones were locked up in the pen. That would make sense.

[Griff]

It would seem that if you are going to take one set of quotes into consideration, then you must take the other as well.

Not when one set of quotes are from the pen of the George A. Romero and the other, well, aren't.

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with your theory. I'm just more interested in the thematic rather than the semantic and, thematically, LAND OF THE DEAD seems to follow on where DAY OF THE DEAD left off.

Oh, and by the by, don't forget that Bub was familiar with firearms whereas Big Daddy pumped gas for a living - and he evidently knew how to do that every bit as instinctively as Bub knew how to cock that pistol...



In order for them to evolve from the oddity of Bub into what takes place in Land would signify an extended period of time between the two. At least that was my take on the movie.

That's a possibility. The zombs in LAND (well, those from Big Daddy's hood, at least) seem to have certainly learnt to develop beyond mere eating machines. Like live humans who are able to satiate that basic desire, they're then free to pursue other endevours. Like starting families and living in communities. Or playing the tamborine.

The other thing to consider, however, is that they also seem very adept at mimicry and the ability to learn upon that. Big Daddy wields a gun because he's seen what it can do. Ultimately, its his influence that spreads across the living dead of Uniontown. You could almost picture Bub, at the end of DAY, wandering out into the dead community with the skills he's developed and becoming the catalyst for a similar situation. This has been hinted at since before Peter led the brigade up the stairs in DAWN, indeed all the way back to when the dead first gravitated to that one particular farmhouse in NIGHT.

The evolution of the zombie may be less gradual and more spontaneous than we think. All it takes is that initial impulsion to motivate progress and then the evolutionary process is off and running at an indeterminable rate. A lack of stimuli, on the other hand, could explain why certain zombie groups seem to stagnate - just like primitive cultures that remain unchanged, even after tens of thousands of years. Then they have their first, small taste of 'civilization' and the next thing you know, they're using steel instead of rock and wearing Nike t-shirts that cover up their genitalia.

In otherwords, the zombie's ability to to develop culturally may have been innate from the very beginning, it just requires a little provocation.

[bassman]

That poor, poor horse.

It must hurt...

[MinionZombie]

And GAR isn't exactly known for his geek-like minor-detail consistency on such matters.

I'm in the "Day came before Land" camp ... *sigh* ... I smell another bloody "let's sort this out" poll coming...

[DjfunkmasterG]

There is no LAND. Day was the last of the real Romero zombie films. LAND is a cookie cutter half assed slap together crap fest that shouldn't be allowed in the holy saga. :D

[Griff]

There is no LAND. Day was the last of the real Romero zombie films. LAND is a cookie cutter half assed slap together crap fest that shouldn't be allowed in the holy saga. :D

Cookie cutter? You mean like DAWN04?

...hey, you started it.

[bassman]

There is no LAND. Day was the last of the real Romero zombie films. LAND is a cookie cutter half assed slap together crap fest that shouldn't be allowed in the holy saga. :D

OPINION.

And in the minority, no less;) .....

[EvilNed]

So, when someone says in Land of the Dead on numerous occasions that something big obviously happened 3 years ago (Zombie outbreak), that holds no merit. But when it's written in the Day of the Dead script that it takes place 5 years after the outbreak, even though this is never mentioned in the film at all, then this holds much merit?

Remember, you were only giving the Land of the Dead quote any value once you found out that you could work around it and place Day of the Dead after Land.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Land comes after Day! So sayeth the Dj! So sayeth the flock! :D

[OddDNA]

I still think of a Trilogy...I dont even add land in there.

It is not the same Universe in my eyes. Land is much to cutesy for me.

(I didnt like Day much when it 1st came out either though to be fair)

[panic]

Land takes place after Day in my book. I don't think you can use off-screen sources to try to establish a timeline -- in my opinion, only what's actually said or shown on-screen can contribute to the debate. Unless, of course, GAR himself stated that he considered Land to come before Day.

[Philly_SWAT]

Here is the thing that everyone needs to keep in mind about the "evolution" of the zombies. I can see why on the surface, some may say that the zombies are more evolved in Land than in Day, because in Day we only have Bub who appears to be learning, yet in Land, we have hundreds that appear to be. The important thing is this.....LAND IS THE FIRST FILM THAT HAS FOCUSED ON THE ZOMBIES. In the first three movies, the only characters that were focused on were humans. The zombies were strictly background characters, with the exception of Bub. He is the one and only zombie that is focused on, and not coincidently I think, shows that he is learning. Also, remember that Sarah says about the zombies in the pen "They're learning. They're actually learning". And this was not a bunch of zombies in the wild, free to do and learn however they want, but zombies locked up in a pen, with no tamporines to play, or guns to fire.

The fact is, we do not know what the thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of zombies were doing that were not shown onscreen. Bub may have been relatively dumb compared to others in the area, he was just the smartest of the ones that were captured. My main point here is that the "evolution" of the zombies can not be accurately used as a main argument point for the timeline in Land vs. Day. We do not know enough about the general zombie population in Day to make these kinds of judgements. I say we do know more about the human populations in both films, and that should be the basis of timeframe judgements.

Sheer Number of People
DAY - There are only 12 living people that are known about, even though those 12 are actively looking for others, they dont find them.
LAND - Hundreds, if not thousands of people, alive and well.
Attitude of People
Day - No moral, running out of hope, constant in-fighting
LAND - Partying in local bars, smoking cigars and drinking champagne, taking target practice at big clown balloons, wishing to "better themselves"
Desires of People
DAY - Military types-scared and wanting to run with no plan
Scientist types-trying desparately to find solutions
LAND - Military types-in league with local businessman, providing goods to
the rich and the poor, still class distinctions
Non-Military types-partying and drinking in bars, live entertainment
provided, food stand on the streets where they sell hot dogs
Living a life of luxery in a high-rise condo complex

Which of these two scenarios seems to take place before the other? A constant theme in GAR's films is how society falls, how man's inability to work with his fellow man is the cause of its downfall. Was there some "magic goodwill juice" that was dropped in the local water supply at the Green that enabled them to work together to block off all access to the city, and agree to live in a society with class distinction, using money as a means of exchange, after the rest of the world had abandoned such ideas due to infighting (or death)? Or does it make more sense that they are closer to the outbreak than those in Day, still trying to desparately hang on to their more recent way of life.

The "three years" comments can not be used as a good judge of timeline either. I have stated that Cholo could have worked for Kaufman prior to the outbreak, and no cars had left that car lot for three years, including time prior to the outbreak, but lets look on the other end. Much evidence points to the contrary, but assume for a second that Land takes place 50 YEARS into the outbreak. If true (which it isnt, but follow with me) it would be possible that cars continued to run here and there for 47 years, and three years ago, the last car left the car lot. Also, Cholo wasnt even born at the start of the outbreak, and grew up, lived in the Green, and worked his way up in society until he started to work for Kaufman three years ago. These are the only two mentions of "three years" that I can think of in the movie....pointing to the start of the outbreak, or simply two instances of things that happen to happen three years ago? I think that this point illustrates what I am saying about the three years thing. I mean, If Cholo and Riley were both born on August 5th, does that mean that they are twins separated at birth, or just two guys with the same birthday? Anyway, I could go on, but this thread is almost getting to point where it is hard to follow the posts in order due to the way they are displayed. Hopefully you are reading this after reading all the other posts.

[DjfunkmasterG]

:D Great post Philly. Well thought out and you almost had me switching my mind. :D

However, Land still comes after Day. I can't change my mind about that.

[AssassinFromHell]

There is no LAND. Day was the last of the real Romero zombie films. LAND is a cookie cutter half assed slap together crap fest that shouldn't be allowed in the holy saga. :D

Nooo, you must be thinking about that half-assed remake of a horror classic directed and written by a bunch of kids...:D

[MinionZombie]

*sigh* my two cents...

1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing?

2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day.

And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.

In the words of that blob-of-poop-looking-thing from Total Recall - "open your mind" ... people. :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

We Need A Poll! :d

Although I have spoken and no poll is needed.

[bassman]

Unless, of course, GAR himself stated that he considered Land to come before Day.

Where/When was this? I only recall him saying that the films ARE NOT DIRECT SEQUELS. That, and how long each film takes place after the "outbreak" had begun. Not since the last movie or any relation to the earlier films....


*sigh* my two cents...

1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing?

2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day.

And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.

In the words of that blob-of-poop-looking-thing from Total Recall - "open your mind" ... people.

You know, I really don't try to connect the films because I don't feel that they should be. Nor do I care to. But you just made the best argument yet, man. And with less text than most on this thread, no less!:p I can agree with that....

[MinionZombie]

Yes Bassman, I am indeed the master. :cool:

I personally like to keep the films in "one timeline", to me, the notion that its four separate outbreaks in four separate timelines is just lame, lol. Besides, GAR keeps changing his mind on these little things, unlike us he has things to do and isn't a zombie geek. :lol:

[bassman]

Yes Bassman, I am indeed the master. :cool:

I personally like to keep the films in "one timeline", to me, the notion that its four separate outbreaks in four separate timelines is just lame, lol. Besides, GAR keeps changing his mind on these little things, unlike us he has things to do and isn't a zombie geek. :lol:

No....I'm not saying that they're four different outbreaks. Just different situations, different places, different everything. They're just four different zombie flicks that all happen to share the "of the Dead" title. That's the way I look at it. It's not like watching the "Back to the Future" films where you basically have to see them in order.....

They're all their own film...

[EvilNed]

In the Land timeline, George said that they weren't tied together in one timeline, but I'm pretty sure he mentioned that each film took place "after" the other. So that, days, weeks, months and years etc. etc. have gone by since the last one.

[panic]

Philly_Swat: You make some interesting points, but it seems like you're comparing apples and oranges.

The folks in Day were isolated and cutoff from everyone -- we have no idea what else is happening in the rest of the world. All we know is that in the area around the military base (i.e. the towns they're able to visit by chopper) there's no one left alive. That doesn't mean that there aren't whole groups of people at places like Fiddler's Green that have managed to hold back the zombie hordes. One could imagine another small group of folks trapped in a similar situation to the soldiers in Day occuring at the same time as the events in Land.

One of the things that argues that Day occurs before Land is that in Day we have the immediate remnants of an organized military unit that is (initially, at least) operating on orders from higher in its chain of command. The presence of civilian scientists suggests that civilian leadership of the military remains intact; otherwise you have to assume that the scientists were kidnapped or whatever, which clearly doesn't fit the circumstances. In contrast, the events in Land clearly take place after any legitimate civilian government has crumbled away. Likewise the armed guards that defend Fiddler's Green are distinct from the military as it operated in Day.

From the above, I conclude that Land takes place AFTER Day in the context of the general breakdown of civilian and military authority which occurred after the events of Dawn.

[Philly_SWAT]

Thanks panic. You make some good points as well. Here is what I say to your points.
The folks in Day were isolated and cutoff from everyone -- we have no idea what else is happening in the rest of the world. All we know is that in the area around the military base (i.e. the towns they're able to visit by chopper) there's no one left alive.
We do have some idea what is happening...they have gone 100 miles in all directions, not just a little ways away, and found no one. They used to be able to communicate with others via radio, now they can not.

That doesn't mean that there aren't whole groups of people at places like Fiddler's Green that have managed to hold back the zombie hordes. One could imagine another small group of folks trapped in a similar situation to the soldiers in Day occuring at the same time as the events in Land.
This is true, however, this does not help either the Land is before Day argument, or the Day is before Land argument. There could be pockets of survivors somewhere even years past the timeframe in both movies.

One of the things that argues that Day occurs before Land is that in Day we have the immediate remnants of an organized military unit that is (initially, at least) operating on orders from higher in its chain of command.I disagree. There is no evidence that they are operating on orders from a higher command. They say they have not talked to anyone on the radio in a long time. The events in Day could be 10 years into the future, and they could still be operating as a military group, acknowledging rank, etc., because there isnt mush else to do except for total anarchy.
The presence of civilian scientists suggests that civilian leadership of the military remains intact; otherwise you have to assume that the scientists were kidnapped or whatever, which clearly doesn't fit the circumstances.I dont think that the presense of civilian scientists suggests in the least that civilian leadership on the military still remains intact. It only suggests that at the time they entered the underground complex, the civilian leadership was still around. In fact, if every other person in the world is dead except for the 12 underground, they would still be civilian scientists, and again, would have nothing else to do except continue their research or embrace anarchy. I mean, they arent likely to be planning any high school reunions.....
In contrast, the events in Land clearly take place after any legitimate civilian government has crumbled away. Likewise the armed guards that defend Fiddler's Green are distinct from the military as it operated in Day.
It is true that the guard in Land are distinct from the military in Day. But again, I say it is not "clearly taking place" after legitimate government has crumbled away. The only evidence of that is in your statement itself. There could be pockets of legitimate government still intact all over the place, including Washington, just not in the Green.

From the above, I conclude that Land takes place AFTER Day in the context of the general breakdown of civilian and military authority which occurred after the events of Dawn.
I say that there is no way to assume any of the points you made, they are all easily refutable. Not to say that this fact automatically makes me correct, just that what you are saying is not backed up.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I guess its all pretty easy to figure out IF you know your ass from your elbow ...

[Philly_SWAT]

I guess its all pretty easy to figure out IF you know your ass from your elbow ...Well, this certainly adds positively to the debate.....

[panic]

I'd love to respond to each point like you did Philly, but that quote within a quote thing makes everyone crazy -- fine the way you did it, but one more level is too much.

From your prior argument about the number, attitudes, and desires of the people I agree that MORE survivors have gathered in Land and that there has been a RETURN to some semblance of normalcy. Day represents the period in the immediate aftermath of the zombie hordes overwhelming civilization -- scattered pockets of survivors remain, clinging to old hierachies of command and patterns of existence. Land on the other hand represents a new equilibirum which takes hold between the living and the dead and remaining survivors gather and regroup, only to be disrupted by the evolution of Big Daddy and his bunch.

We could argue about this forever, the fact is that there are elements present to support both of our interpretations. Your thinking based on the numbers, attitudes, and goals of the people in each can easily be interpreted the opposite direction to support Day before Land.

One last element which favors the chronology of Land coming last was the original teaser trailer which got pulled for copyright reasons. It included images from Day and the other movies of the original trilogy as a lead up to the events of Land.

[Griff]

The "three years" comments can not be used as a good judge of timeline either. I have stated that Cholo could have worked for Kaufman prior to the outbreak, and no cars had left that car lot for three years, including time prior to the outbreak...

To me, that kind of thinking is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. At the start of DAWN, Dr. Foster says something like "For two weeks you haven't listened!". Sure, you can say that the zombie epidemic started 2 years ago and they've just been arguing on TV about it for 2 weeks but c'mon... that's just sticking your head in the sand. The dialogue isn't real - it was scripted and designed to provide the audience with information.

I think that the 3 years comment (and especially the fact that it is repeated) is an extremely reliable tool for judging the timeline.

[Philly_SWAT]

To me, that kind of thinking is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. At the start of DAWN, Dr. Foster says something like "For two weeks you haven't listened!". Sure, you can say that the zombie epidemic started 2 years ago and they've just been arguing on TV about it for 2 weeks but c'mon... that's just sticking your head in the sand. The dialogue isn't real - it was scripted and designed to provide the audience with information.

I think that the 3 years comment (and especially the fact that it is repeated) is an extremely reliable tool for judging the timeline.
The difference between the Dawn quote that you mentioned, and the two quotes in Land is this: the Dawn quote is obviously referring to the begining of the outbreak (he says "three weeks", by the way). He is saying that for three weeks people in general have not been listening to what people "in the know" have been saying about burning or destroying the brains of the recently deceased, and that is why the problem is spreading. In Land, the two quote are not obviously referring to the beginning of the outbreak. One comment is referring to the begining of Cholo's employment, the other is referring to the last time a car left a car lot. Now I can see how someone could intrepret this as referring to the beginning of the outbreak, because there is no other mention of a time reference in the movie. But the way I am intrepreting it is just as valid. One big clue....if Land takes place three years into the outbreak, then obviously any adult that is alive in the Green knows what is happening. They would realise that they can not leave the city, all of their friends and relatives outside the Green are dead, or at the least can not be reached, etc. and that anyone who dies will "come back". I dont think that anyone would refute that three years in, any non-mentally challenged person would realise this. Yet, the wife of the guy who hung himself acts shocked when Cholo says "you know whats going to happen". That alone seems to point to a much shorter period into the zombie problem.

But a big difference between what you are saying and what I said, if that I said that "it could" mean, not that it does mean. I am acknowledging that it might not. You are not acknowledging that it could in fact be what I am saying. You say
I think that the 3 years comment (and especially the fact that it is repeated) is an extremely reliable tool for judging the timelineI say that makes no logical sense. If someone said "we are three years into this outbreak" and that was repeated again, OK appears we are three years in. But when someone says he has worked for three years, and another guy says no car in three years, it is open to intrepretation, they are not specifically referring to the outbreak. As I said elsewhere, the Bucs won the Superbowl three years ago, my grandmother died three years ago. Three years in both statements, yet they are totally coincidentally three years ago and have nothing to do with each other, or the price of tea in China.

[EvilNed]

Dr. Foster could have been referring to something else compelty, by your logic. The quotes are no different from each other, infact, they are very much alike. The timelineterm "Three years" pops up not once, but twice in Land of the Dead and they are obviously referring to something big that happened three years ago. I don't think they're talking about the latest superbowl.

[Griff]

Firstly, the woman acts shocked because she is obviously IN shock. Her husband hung himself and now some strange man wants to bash his brains in because the unthinkable might happen. These are people living in denial, afterall. Her reaction has no baring on the timeline at all, other than she's obviously been in her little apartment for too long.

Now, once again, you're second-guessing everything when you should have gone with your instincts. Like I said, when dialogue contain information like that it isn't usually throway - its valid information ...and you can bet Romero or whoever isn't trying to tell us that two separate incidents happened at, oh say, the same time for some random reason - especially when they could point to something else. You're not listening in on an actual conversation that's been taken out of context here - these details were CHOSEN to be revealed to us as they are. They don't have to say "...since the outbreak" or whatever because, presumably, some of the audiences might be savvy enough to just put 2 and 2 together, without feeling the need to divide by pi.

You can theorize that "3 years" repeated twice is inconsequential but that's not providing evidence - that's ignoring it. And, quite frankly, it doesn't make for a very compelling argument. But this... but that... but what? What's so bloody hard about accepting the 3 years scenario that you've gotta dance around it with all these non-specifics when the most obvious answer is in your face, plain as day?

You don't wanna subscribe to it so you won't.

I know I'm satisfied.

[Philly_SWAT]

Like I said, when dialogue contain information like that it isn't usually throway - its valid information ...So, I guess you think that the whole outbreak was started by the re-entry of the "Venus Probe", as specifically mentioned in Night?

[EvilNed]

So, I guess you think that the whole outbreak was started by the re-entry of the "Venus Probe", as specifically mentioned in Night?

In Night, maybe it was. In Dawn, the outbreak could have been something else. In Day, something else again.

[Griff]

So, I guess you think that the whole outbreak was started by the re-entry of the "Venus Probe", as specifically mentioned in Night?

Y'know, if NIGHT was the only one in the series and if I hadn't heard otherwise numerous times from Romero, I probably would have. If they (Romero & Russo) didn't want people to come away with that impression then they shouldn't have made as big a thing as they did about it. I'm sure that, perhaps begrudgingly, they felt like they had to give some sorta explanation for the phenomenon and that was it. Romero has since given us 3 films that ignore that theory so I'm happy to forget about it.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Well, this certainly adds positively to the debate.....


It's not a debate ... it's just YOUR OWN personal opinion. It is as interesting as it is misguided and untrue.

I am not saying that you are wrong to think along those lines, or even to argue your case for that particular train of thought ... i am simply stating that your opinion is obviously incorrect.

In regards to a definitive tetralogy timeline, there isn't one. However, it seems to be as clear as crystal to just about everyone except your good self that each story picks up roughly three days, three weeks, three months, three years AFTER the initial outbreaks, in that order!

The only one of those which is even close to being "open to debate" is Day of the Dead, which could be anywhere from two to ten months AFTER the initial outbreaks.

That is a rough guide, and as i have said before ... a rough guide is all you need to enjoy these movies.

[Philly_SWAT]

Y'know, if NIGHT was the only one in the series and if I hadn't heard otherwise numerous times from Romero, I probably would have. If they (Romero & Russo) didn't want people to come away with that impression then they shouldn't have made as big a thing as they did about it. I'm sure that, perhaps begrudgingly, they felt like they had to give some sorta explanation for the phenomenon and that was it. Romero has since given us 3 films that ignore that theory so I'm happy to forget about it.
So basically, in Land when they mention two references of "three years" which are not specifically talking about the outbreak is means that ABSOLUTELY we are three years into the outbreak, but in Night when they do specifically mention that a "Venus probe" has caused the problem, an examination of the entire series is in order and that dialogue can be dismissed.


Day represents the period in the immediate aftermath of the zombie hordes overwhelming civilization -- scattered pockets of survivors remain, clinging to old hierachies of command and patterns of existence.Other than the 12 people in the underground bunker, where are the other pockets of survivors that you speak of? All evidence in the movie points to no other survivors.

[EvilNed]

Other than the 12 people in the underground bunker, where are the other pockets of survivors that you speak of? All evidence in the movie points to no other survivors.

Then again, all of this evidence is collected from an isolated underground bunker out in Florida with WW2 equipment.

[erisi236]

The whole point is moot anyway, as Land is the first part of a different trilogy set in a similar but not the same universe.

There, I made all the pain go away. :)

[Philly_SWAT]

Then again, all of this evidence is collected from an isolated underground bunker out in Florida with WW2 equipment.
Yes, that and a chopper that has flown in 100 miles in each direction.

But by evidence, I mean what the filmmaker has shown us, which was nothing. I dont see how you can point to "the filmmaker shows two instances of a 'three years' comment, so he must want us to know it takes place three years in" but then when the filmmaker shows no evidence at all of other people alive, it doesnt also follow that he is showing us there is no one left alive. Are we taking what the filmmaker is showing us into consideration, or not?

[panic]

OK, just rewatched Day tonight, and there is a BUNCH of stuff in there that suggests it comes before Land.

1. The calendar on Sarah's wall in her room is for October 1985. The movie was released in 1985 and the calendar clearly matches a 1985 calender. For instance, the first day of the month is a Tuesday and the month is clearly labeled OCTOBER. October 1, 1985 was a Tuesday. See picture below. This is clearly BEFORE the events of Land as is evidenced by various elements of technology, cars, etc. seen in Land.

2. The military are, in fact, in the bunker with the scientists on orders from the civilian government in Washington. Washington being in control is referenced several times in the two Mess Hall Scences. One of the soldier's laments the recent loss of radio communication with Washington. Plus this dialoguge:

Rhodes: I'm not down in this cave for my health, I'm down here on orders.
Fisher: Your orders are to fascilitate the job of this scientific team. This is a civilian team captain, and we don't have to be subjected to your tyranny.

3. The zombie apocalypse is recent enough that Sarah, arguably the most rational human in the movie, believes there still to be people alive in Washington who will send help:

Sarah: There have to be survivors in Washington. They have more sophisticated shelters than this one. There have to be people in those shelters who know about us -- who know where we are. With no radio contact they'll come looking for us.

This suggests that radio contact with Washington was lost relatively recently; more evidence that things crumbled in the immediate recent past. Also, Conroy (the radio operator) references that their prior radio contact had been through relays which had failed once the "power went down on the mainland." Hardly an event which would have taken more than weeks to months to occur.

Believe what you want, but Day takes BEFORE Land. In Land, the origianal civilian government and military are gone.

There's also the issue that in Day they still have a working helicopter, while in Land enough time has elapsed that few cars still run. And its not because they are well-supplied with parts in Day. There are constant references to lack of ammunition, lab equipment, chemicals, and spare parts for the radio. Just more evidence that it just hasn't been that long...

Oh yeah, here's the calendar:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5596/daycalendar2wb.jpg

[Griff]

So basically, in Land when they mention two references of "three years" which are not specifically talking about the outbreak is means that ABSOLUTELY we are three years into the outbreak, but in Night when they do specifically mention that a "Venus probe" has caused the problem, an examination of the entire series is in order and that dialogue can be dismissed.

Not at all. I never said ABSOLUTELY anything but if you're looking for evidence - there it is. Its the sngle most compelling piece of information in LAND to tell us how long into the situation we are. And its THERE - everything you've argued for is based on what HASN'T been said. Well, what they haven't said tells us NOTHING because, potentially, they could have said anything at all. Its futile and just plain f*cking arrogant to dismiss it completely without conceding it as being a very strong possibility.

As for the Venus probe thing, I thought I had clearly pointed out that in light of the other films, its obviously supposed to be regarded as (revisionist) misinformation.

Similarly, if a LAND sequel comes along that clearly indicates that the events in the first one took place 1, 5 or 10 years into the outbreak then I'll accept that and shrug off the "3 years" comments. Until then, I'll accept that figure and totally ignore whatever your theories are because they are based on 100% SPECULATION which doesn't impress or convince me one bit.

F*ck, you must be a handful for your parents. "Did your mother say you could set fire to the cat?" "No, but she DIDN'T say I couldn't, either..."

Use your head, goose.

[Philly_SWAT]

1. The calendar on Sarah's wall in her room is for October 1985. The movie was released in 1985 and the calendar clearly matches a 1985 calender. For instance, the first day of the month is a Tuesday and the month is clearly labeled OCTOBER. October 1, 1985 was a Tuesday. See picture below. This is clearly BEFORE the events of Land as is evidenced by various elements of technology, cars, etc. seen in Land.
You can not use the release date of the movie as a time marker. (BTW, October 1st on a Tuesday also could be 1991,1996,2002, and 2013, just to name a few). But regardless, I think that everyone here agrees that the entire series is timeless. You can not point to better technology in Land anymore than you can point to hairstyles and clothing styles in Dawn. Those are 1979 type clothes and hairstyles...(and why not? The movie was made in 1979). Does that mean Dawn takes place 11 years after Night? Of course not. Without question, these types of things were definately not meant to be used as timeline references.

2. The military are, in fact, in the bunker with the scientists on orders from the civilian government in Washington. Washington being in control is referenced several times in the two Mess Hall Scences. One of the soldier's laments the recent loss of radio communication with Washington. Plus this dialoguge:

Rhodes: I'm not down in this cave for my health, I'm down here on orders.
Fisher: Your orders are to fascilitate the job of this scientific team. This is a civilian team captain, and we don't have to be subjected to your tyranny.
I never questioned the fact that the military is in the bunker on orders from the civilain government. That would be obvious, unless the United States had become a military dictatorship or something. But when those orders were made is not mentioned. You made direct quotes from the movie here, but not a direct quote about the soldier lamenting the loss of radio communication. I believe it was "we used to talk to Washington all the time". This does not inherently mean the recent past, just the past. COuld be a distant past. Remember, Rhodes had just taken over because Major Cooper died. The civilians acted like they didnt know why they were having these meetings, so it stand to reason that Cooper didnt have them. And the civilians and miltary do not seem very chummy, I dont think they were sitting around a fire roasting masrchmellows together, talking about how the research was going. Therefore, the soldier probably has not heard about or cared about the last time the radio was used, he was too busy saving his own ass when rounding up Zeds in the wild, and smoking weed. His comment can easily be intrepreted as someone who has not paid attention to these things in a vary long time, and now that he is forced to go to a meeting, he is way behind the state of how things are.
3. The zombie apocalypse is recent enough that Sarah, arguably the most rational human in the movie, believes there still to be people alive in Washington who will send help:

Sarah: There have to be survivors in Washington. They have more sophisticated shelters than this one. There have to be people in those shelters who know about us -- who know where we are. With no radio contact they'll come looking for us.

This suggests that radio contact with Washington was lost relatively recently; more evidence that things crumbled in the immediate recent past. Also, Conroy (the radio operator) references that their prior radio contact had been through relays which had failed once the "power went down on the mainland." Hardly an event which would have taken more than weeks to months to occur.With no hope that there was even a slight chance of solving the problem, why would anybody do anything? John himself had run out of hope, wanting to "spend what time we have left soaking up some sun". He seemed pretty rational, intelligent and thoughtful. Would someone like him give up so quickly, only a few weeks or months into the problem? Sarah has to hang on to hope, without that, her research is useless, her reason for being is nil. She would have no feelings of self-worth. In order to maintain her sanity, she would have to believe that things were gonna be allright. And it would take a long, long time for those types of radio relays to fail. Why would they not work anymore just because there are zombies around? Do the zombies have two desires, one to seek out warm human flesh to eat, and to use their decayed limbs to destroy radio relays? I think not. Remember in the movie "Indepence Day"? The aliens had destroyed most of the major cities around the world. But everyone was still able to communicate with each other using good old fashioned morse code. Surely, those big ships exploding huge major areas of Earth's technoligical centers would do more harm to any relay system than zombies roaming aimlessly about. And by the way, the radio operator you refer to as "Conroy", do you mean the civilain who lives with John in "The Ritz"? If so, his name is Bill McDermott.
There's also the issue that in Day they still have a working helicopter, while in Land enough time has elapsed that few cars still run. And its not because they are well-supplied with parts in Day. There are constant references to lack of ammunition, lab equipment, chemicals, and spare parts for the radio. Just more evidence that it just hasn't been that long...How are references to lack of ammo, equipement, chemicals, etc. evidence that it hasnt been long? That points to the fact that it has been an extremely long time, not a short one. I mean, what, in a few weeks time in Day, all their equipment is used up, but in Land, they have multiple vehicles hauling ass though the countryside, air conditioning, elevators, electricity, etc? Things were so bad after a short time in Day that not even simple radio relays work anymore, but things improve so much by magic before the start of Land?

[EvilNed]

Once again, Philly, you ignore the evidence that talks against your argument (Sarah's calender) and simply push it aside, whereas everything that fits your theory, no matter how silly, gets lifted forward.

I mean, I gave up along time ago, but I'm pretty sure people are getting pretty annoyed at what it is you're doing.

[DjfunkmasterG]

We interrupt this program for a special announcement...


Land comes after Day... So Sayeth the Dj!




We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

:D

[panic]

Philly_Swat, you're just making **** up at this point. Taking points out of context and blabbering on. Reading your responses to my last post is hilarious -- its like you didn't even read any of it.

Like the rest of the board, I'm convinced by the evidence that Land comes after Day. Enjoy your fantasy world.

And Conroy is the actor's name -- I couldn't remember the character's name.

[Sir James Forbes]

Coincidentally, I gave Land another go last night in the hope I had come to love it more, but one thought that did strike me was how much 'livelier' the film seemed compared to the 'all hope lost', isolation of Day.

I do believe Land follows Day but one could argue that the continuity in terms of mood / hope seems unnatural.

At the end of the day, if this film had've been named 'Dusk of the Dead' (pun intended :)), we'd have been without doubt and a more ordered pattern.

[Philly_SWAT]

EDIT INFO: The first part of this post is an annoying auto-merge of a post I responded to Sir James Forbes. The bulk of this post was supposed to appear in the post tree below the latest post from Griff.
Coincidentally, I gave Land another go last night in the hope I had come to love it more, but one thought that did strike me was how much 'livelier' the film seemed compared to the 'all hope lost', isolation of Day.
Exactly what I am talking about. This to me is the most compelling argument that Day happens after Land.
___________________________________________


Not at all. I never said ABSOLUTELY anything but if you're looking for evidence - there it is. Its the sngle most compelling piece of information in LAND to tell us how long into the situation we are.It may be true that it is the single most compelling piece of dialogue in Land to tell us how long, but not the most compelling information. The most compelling piece of information if the overall mood of the films. Sir James Forbes knows what I'm talking about when he posted
Coincidentally, I gave Land another go last night in the hope I had come to love it more, but one thought that did strike me was how much 'livelier' the film seemed compared to the 'all hope lost', isolation of Day.
Someone said, I thought it was you Griff, but I cant find the quote, that they were more interested in the overall thematic implications rather than specific lines in the movie. That is what I am talking about, overall thematic implications.
And its THERE - everything you've argued for is based on what HASN'T been said. Well, what they haven't said tells us NOTHING because, potentially, they could have said anything at all.Not true. What I am saying if based upon what we see if the films, and how I think that it can be intrepreted.
Its futile and just plain f*cking arrogant to dismiss it completely without conceding it as being a very strong possibility.
I have never dismissed it completely. I have consistently said things like "it could mean", "it could be intrepreted this way". I even had a post saying to someone that the difference was that I accepted that it is possible that I am wrong, but that poster was not accepting that I may be right. Also, I have enjoyed our discussion thus far Griff, and I hope that a statement such as this is not a degeneration into "flame" type stuff.
As for the Venus probe thing, I thought I had clearly pointed out that in light of the other films, its obviously supposed to be regarded as (revisionist) misinformation.
You didnt even have to point this out, I knew you felt this way, and I assume that everyone feels this way. When I made the statement I did, it was intended as an ironic comment on easily dismissing this piece of information that was specifcally mentioned in a GAR movie, yet refusing to even consider the possibility that the "three years" comments could be seen in the same light. You had posted in an earlier post
and you can bet Romero or whoever isn't trying to tell us that two separate incidents happened at, oh say, the same time for some random reason - especially when they could point to something else.I agree, GAR isnt trying to tell us that two separate incidents happen at the same time, anymore than someone who says "I was born on December 7th, the same day that we were attacked at Pearl Harbour" is trying to tell us that somehow those two events are connected. There are only 7 days a week, 12 months a year, many things happen on the same day, same month, etc. that doesnt mean anything regarding each other. Like I have said before, the Bucs won the Superbowl three years ago, my grandmother died 3 years ago. Both events were memorable things in my life, as a long time Bucs fan, and as a lifelong grandma fan, but by mentioning them, there is no event that ties them together, other than a random fact they occured three years ago. In light as this, I dont see how you cant accept that what I am saying is a possibility, even if you think it is the lowest, most unlikely possibility. I mean, I assume that our universe will continue as normal tomorrow, but I accept a slight possibility that some as-of-today unknown star that went supernova in a neighboring galaxy may start to cause dire consequences to our planet tomorrow. I dont think that is the case, but I dont know enough about the goings-on in the universe to dismiss this out of hand that it is 100% certain that this wont happen.
Until then, I'll accept that figure and totally ignore whatever your theories are because they are based on 100% SPECULATION which doesn't impress or convince me one bit.

Anything in any movie that isnt specifically spelled out is always open to intrepretation. That is part of the fun of talking about a movie. Your assertion that the two three years comments point to the start of the outbreak are just that, speculation. It may be very good speculation, speculation based on strong evidence contained in the movies, but speculation nonetheless.
F*ck, you must be a handful for your parents. "Did your mother say you could set fire to the cat?" "No, but she DIDN'T say I couldn't, either..."

Use your head, gooseThis points even more strongly to your posts degenerating into a flame type, personal attack type, rather than a good non-personal debate. Rather than respond in kind, I will just say that I enjoyed our discussion so far, and if you want to continue, hopefully it will go back on track and not refer to my ethnic heritage and kinky sexual preferences next time.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Philly ... go get a beer or something man.

[OddDNA]

a double shot:lol:

[Griff]

Someone said, I thought it was you Griff, but I cant find the quote, that they were more interested in the overall thematic implications rather than specific lines in the movie. That is what I am talking about, overall thematic implications.

Yeah, that was me. And, from the zombie evolution perspective, LAND follows on thematically from DAY. It all depends on where your attentions lie, I guess. That said, I'm not arguing over the order of the series, just that, in all likelihood, LAND takes place 3 years after 'The Outbreak'.


Iagree, GAR isnt trying to tell us that two separate incidents happen at the same time, anymore than someone who says "I was born on December 7th, the same day that we were attacked at Pearl Harbour" is trying to tell us that somehow those two events are connected. There are only 7 days a week, 12 months a year, many things happen on the same day, same month, etc...

Man, we've gone over this before. I know what you're saying but I just don't find it to be a compelling argument. Once again, its ignoring crucial evidence, not providing any.


Your assertion that the two three years comments point to the start of the outbreak are just that, speculation. It may be very good speculation, speculation based on strong evidence contained in the movies, but speculation nonetheless.

Well, that's my kinda speculation - informed speculation. Not "maybe it was an identicle twin who did it"-type speculation, which is poor.


This points even more strongly to your posts degenerating into a flame type, personal attack type, rather than a good non-personal debate.

Sorry man, but you're a big boy and it feels like your always beating around the bush when it comes to my points with your bizarre logic rather than addressing them with anything solid. The Superbowl thing ain't a good argument and I'm sorry to hear about your grandma but I just don't find that kind of thinking interesting.

Like I've said, just put 2 and 2 together and, like me, be happy.

[Philly_SWAT]

That said, I'm not arguing over the order of the series, just that, in all likelihood, LAND takes place 3 years after 'The Outbreak'.
Maybe that is where our disagreement lies. I dont think that Land takes place three years in, but even if it does, I still say Day is after Land.
Man, we've gone over this before. I know what you're saying but I just don't find it to be a compelling argument. Once again, its ignoring crucial evidence, not providing any.
I dont think that it is ignoring evidence. The arguments that I have made about off-screen happenings (or the lack of showing something on-screen) is in fact providing compelling arguments. For example, if in a movie a man spends the night at a woman's house, and the scene cuts to the morning after with her laying in the bed and him coming out of the bathroom, you can assume that they had sex, even if they dont mention it. Conversely, if the scene cuts to the morning after and you see sheets and pillows on the couch as they are drinking coffee, you can assume that they didnt have sex. Now, in either case, you could say "they slept in the same bed but didnt have sex" or "he slept on the couch, but snuck in and they had sex". To make a case for either of those arguments, which goes against the norm, you would have to have backing from elsewhere in the movie. Perhaps at the end if they shake hands instead of kissing each other goodbye, you could point to that lack of a kiss as evidence that they didnt have sex. I point to the lack of information about the zombies not in captivity in Day to submit that we dont know what they are doing, what they may be learning, etc. This is not ignoring evidence, just trying to logically find some that wasnt shown on screen.
Well, that's my kinda speculation - informed speculation. Not "maybe it was an identicle twin who did it"-type speculation, which is poor.
I agree that "maybe it was an identical twin" speculation is poor. That is not what I am doing. If I were to say that I think aliens came down in Land, and helped the humans secure the Green and provided them with an infinate energy source, OK that is wild and crazy speculation that would have no backing whatsoever (although, no direct evidence exists against that). But when I say that it is possible that two characters in the movie say something about "three years" that it doesnt necessarily refer to the start of the outbreak, I dont think that is wild and crazy speculation. I would be just as plausible as the Bucs/grandmother thing I mention. Someone may not agree with it, but I dont see how they could say it was crazy speculation. It is not way out there and hard to believe, it can easily be true. Just as if there was a big banner at the beginning of the movie that stated "THIS MOVIE STARTS ONE YEAR INTO THE OUTBREAK" the two quotes in question would not seem out of place. You wouldnt sit there and think "why did he say no cars had driven out in three years? We are only one year into the outbreak". You would just assume that in an old P-O-S car lot like that, no cars had driven out even two years prior to the outbreak.
Sorry man, but you're a big boy and it feels like your always beating around the bush when it comes to my points with your bizarre logic rather than addressing them with anything solid. The Superbowl thing ain't a good argument and I'm sorry to hear about your grandma but I just don't find that kind of thinking interesting.
I am not trying to beat around the bush. When I make a statement that to me would stand up to a legal-argument type of scrutiny, but no one seems to understand (not disagree with, but not understand) I attempt to use analogies to further illustrate my point.
Like I've said, just put 2 and 2 together and, like me, be happy.I am very happy. I am putting 2 and 2 together, and coming up with 4 great movies. You are putting 3 and 3 together, and coming up with.... well I cant think of anything clever enough to write.

[general tbag]

i think if this were trial land would win. the evidence is very favorable that land came after day.

also the whole script 5 year mention isnt a debate, how can you compare something that wasnt even written to challenge the time frame . an example of that is stars wars and luke kissing leia. sure it seemed alright as we didnt know that was his sis, but later when lucas wrote return of the jedi, it turned out to incest. and if not mistaken it was cut from the re-release.

the only thing that all 4 movies have in common is the outbreak and zombies. those 2 things give a dead give away , that land is after day.

[DeadCentral]

*sigh* my two cents...

1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing?

2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day.

And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.

In the words of that blob-of-poop-looking-thing from Total Recall - "open your mind" ... people. :D

Great summary Minion...

[radiokill]

That poor, poor horse.

It must hurt...
:lol::lol: :lol: It's dead (not undead), so no matter how you look at it, that horse can't feel it!

[Bubdotd]

wouldent it be cool if it actually started in the 60s were night started and land is our time now.. imagine wow no technology at all wed be living in the 60s while in the 2000's

i mean no technology we have now all 60s technology

[AssassinFromHell]

That would mean Jefferson Airplane would have never evolved into Jefferson Starship. :eek:

That's cold...

[The Alive Man]

So, when someone says in Land of the Dead on numerous occasions that something big obviously happened 3 years ago (Zombie outbreak), that holds no merit. But when it's written in the Day of the Dead script that it takes place 5 years after the outbreak, even though this is never mentioned in the film at all, then this holds much merit?

Remember, you were only giving the Land of the Dead quote any value once you found out that you could work around it and place Day of the Dead after Land.

THE SCRIPT doesn't really count at all - it must be considered as being on the same league of the fan fiction stories me and you like to write. A particular and unique type of fan fiction, of course, written by the director of the movie himself.

In the end, the only valid DOCUMENT is the movie, and only the movie. That's the one and only *CANON* parameter. And the movie is independent from the author's view, it's like a branching entity open to multiple interpretations.
The movie speaks for itself.

LAND is 3/4 years since the Outbreak, while DAY is clearly set some (3/4) months since NIGHT. In-between NIGHT and DAY, wonderfully sandwiched, there's DAWN (3/4 weeks since the Outbreak).

Peace and love to everyone.

[Bubdotd]

thread reserected...

aargh..

about the 3 years ago thing in land... The city fidlers green could of started to be active 3 years ago.(meaning people going to the city for safe haven)
and the outbreak could of started 6 years ago... WE DONT KNOW....

i may belive that land came after day..but at the same time i think day came after land.

Maybe its better not to know.. use your own imagination.:D

[The Alive Man]

thread reserected...

aargh..

about the 3 years ago thing in land... The city fidlers green could of started to be active 3 years ago.(meaning people going to the city for safe haven)
and the outbreak could of started 6 years ago... WE DONT KNOW....

i may belive that land came after day..but at the same time i think day came after land.

Maybe its better not to know.. use your own imagination.:D

The rotting has been slowed down by the cause of the resurrection, but NOT THAT MUCH. I think 4/5 years is a very reasonable amount of time in this sense.

[Brubaker]

thread reserected...

aargh..

about the 3 years ago thing in land... The city fidlers green could of started to be active 3 years ago.(meaning people going to the city for safe haven)
and the outbreak could of started 6 years ago... WE DONT KNOW....

i may belive that land came after day..but at the same time i think day came after land.

Maybe its better not to know.. use your own imagination.:D

Not a bad idea. It is just hard to say what the people would have been doing for three years before Fiddler's Green is set up, if Land takes place 6 years in.

[The Alive Man]

6 years seems a nice estimation, frankly.

It took some time to build a vehicle like the Dead Reckoning, or the area surrounding Fiddler's Grenn, where "poor people" inhabits in.

[Brubaker]

6 years seems a nice estimation, frankly.

It took some time to build a vehicle like the Dead Reckoning, or the area surrounding Fiddler's Grenn, where "poor people" inhabits in.

I don't have a problem with that theory, it may just need a little support. Reason being, Rhodes and his men were having a hard enough time surviving in an underground bunker for a few months. Where on earth would all the people of the Green been able to keep clear of zombies for all this time, before it was established as a community and deemed safe to reside in?

[MinionZombie]

I still say Land takes place 3 years-ish after the outbreak.

Night is the night of (or perhaps 2nd night of, because a lone zombie could have been wandering around undetected for 24 hours, same for even a small few out in the sticks).

Dawn is about a month after the outbreak

Day is several months after the outbreak - clearly in the story of the films (not the plot of Day itself), the characters in Day would have gone down in the bunker while everyone was going apesh*t during the early events of Dawn. But the events we see in Day still take place after those of Dawn.

Land - despite what the original script of Day said (that film was never shot, so it's information that means nothing in actuality), Land seems to make sense to take place 3 years roughly after the outbreak ('last car drove out of here 3 years ago' - that'll be referring to the last people to leave the city and not hang around for Fiddler's Green).

As for building Dead Reckoning, that could easily be done within 3 years, even though it bends in the middle it could just be based on the structure of one of those double length busses. All they did was take a base and modify the hell out of it. With nothing else to do now that civilisation has all-but collapsed, all they'd be doing is building that truck - which they'd need to go out and get supplies with, so it's a matter of urgency. They'd have it all done within the first year, easily.

I've never heard six years thrown into the circle before, that just seems far too long and a much too big of a gap between Day and Land.

[Philly_SWAT]

I don't have a problem with that theory, it may just need a little support. Reason being, Rhodes and his men were having a hard enough time surviving in an underground bunker for a few months. Where on earth would all the people of the Green been able to keep clear of zombies for all this time, before it was established as a community and deemed safe to reside in?
EXACTLY!!!!!!!

Just a valid a question as "Where on earth would all the people of the Green been able to keep clear of zombies for 6 years" would be "Where on earth would all the people of the Green been able to keep clear of zombies for 3 years". Of all the people that think Land is three years in, I have never heard any explanation at all as to how they think those people stayed alive, while at the same time co-operating (which most people in the other films never did) to build a fortress. So it was chaos in Philly, but in Pitt everyone stayed level headed and co-operative? Yeah right.

[bassman]

Maybe Kaufman was some sort of higher power before it all happened and had his soldiers build the fence, raise the bridges, and then go out searching for people(Like the beginning of "Day")?

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I am sure i have said this several times before ... but anyways.

These movies are not intended to be connected via a direct timeline, but that is a whole other thread. In regards to a rough timeline, then A ROUGH GUIDE to the rough timeline is ALL you really need to enjoy each movie.

By far the most established, and IMO, the "correct" guide to the timeline is as follows:

NIGHT = 3 days after the initial outbreaks.
DAWN = 3 weeks after the initial outbreaks.
DAY = 3 months after the initial outbreaks. (Open to debate. Between 3 and 10 months.)
LAND = 3 years after the initial outbreaks.

[bassman]

How could "Night" be three days after it all starts and nobody knows about it yet? Especially Johnny and Barbara because they talk like they were coming from the city....

[MinionZombie]

Except for the "3 nights" (I'd say within the first 48 hours, even 24 hours), that to me seems like the best representation of the over all timeline. It's also a timeline that's been created from a lot of discussion and in-movie evidence. Sorted. :thumbsup:

[The Alive Man]

3 days are *NOT* enough to make everyone knows about that! Plus, governments kept the info secret for quite a time (over one day) in order to not panic people with an uncertified "truth"... (sadly, it was true).

3 weeks = DAWN. I agree.

3/4 months is enough to annihilate Florida, especially if authorities messed-up with the whole place and the Outbreak had been "increased" by heat.

3/4 years for LAND is enough to me. Fiddler's green has been already built-up in the Pre-Outbreak Era, as well as many relationships presented in the movie. Anyway I have to say that the line: 'last car drove out of here 3 years ago' seems to suggest that more years have passed by since the Outbreak, not just three. People didn't drop cars and vehicles so easily, they used them to escape from cities or things like that.

[rawrOTD]

anyone ever think that they happen at the same time?

just an idea

also my friend thinks that the entire series is sort of like the james bond series
in the sense that it just happens in the present no matter what

which has a little bit of merit
because how the hell did the land characters invent new technology like tracking devices and crazy walkytalky doo dads during a zombie invasion
new fangled contraptions are all over dead reckoning and the tower
damn kids and their rock and roll ! we need another war!

anyway
the movies can go
night dawn day land
or night dawn land day
but you know maybe the raiders in dawn are somthing like the supply team in land?
prolly not

but god this thread is long
just trying to make up some new random ideas that generate new discussion instead of attacking one side or the other

lets argue about where zombi 2, the dawn remake and day of the dead 2 fit in!

only kidding

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Except for the "3 nights" (I'd say within the first 48 hours, even 24 hours), that to me seems like the best representation of the over all timeline. It's also a timeline that's been created from a lot of discussion and in-movie evidence. Sorted. :thumbsup:

I think 72 hours (three days) is just about right TBH, not only that, but it is also inkeeping with what can ONLY be described as a "rough timeline" and preserving it in a format which is easy to remember (3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years) ... nice and simple.

Remember, all we need is a rough guideline, so it still works even if it is a day or two out.

There was a documentary on TV just a few weeks back that showed how a global virus of this type would spread. Initially there would be what they call a "Patient Zero" in each country, it would then take roughly about 24 hours JUST to locate, treat, analyse and hospitalise "Patient Zero" ... if possible.

There is no way on earth, now OR in the 60's, that the goverment or "the powers that be" would alert the general public via the media within the first 48 hours of finding "Patient Zero" and/or hearing about a possible "global killer" for fear of sparking mass panic all over the planet.

The fact that the TV/Radio stations in NOTLD were only JUST recieving and broadcasting initial reports and information regarding the outbreaks IMO can only mean that NOTLD takes place "roughly" three days AFTER the initial outbreak ;)

[Adolf Kitler]

This whole discussion is silly. Night took place in 1968. Dawn in 1978. Day in 1985. Land in 2005. Different outbreaks, different versions of earth. I'm sure folks in 1968 had video arcades, shopping malls, Steven King paperbacks, lap top computers and cell phones.:rolleyes:

Geez.

[EvilNed]

This whole discussion is silly. Night took place in 1968. Dawn in 1978. Day in 1985. Land in 2005. Different outbreaks, different versions of earth. I'm sure folks in 1968 had video arcades, shopping malls, Steven King paperbacks, lap top computers and cell phones.:rolleyes:

Geez.

Exactly. But Romero makes a point that each films takes place further into the outbreak each time. He's said so personally on the Land commentary. So while they handle different outbreaks, timelines etc. etc., Dawn is still further into the outbreak than Night.

People like to just wave away the obvious references to the films taking place in different timelines, even though it's bloody obvious that Night takes place in the 60's and Land does not. They explain it with limited budget and whatever. Newsflash, with the budget Romero had for Land, he could very well have set it in the 60s. Or 70s. But he chose to set it NOW. Why? Because it's relation to the other Dead films is not as important as it's relation to current political affairs. Sure, it's a sequel. But Highlader 3 is also a sequel to Highlander 2, and there's a timeline that makes no bloody sense whatsoever!

[The Alive Man]

According to my multi-dimensional convergence scenario, the Dead saga is set in some fictional mid-eighties years (1985-1988 A.C.), where society and pop culture incorporate many elements "resembling" our past decades counterparts (1968; 1978; 1985; 2005 A.C.). I call this alternative dimension 'THE STRETCH', because "trendy" elements last in a period of time longer than how they manage to do in "our" line.
So basically many details, controversial each to other from "our" perspective, co-exist in the set of years depicted by the Dead saga.
This parallel version of society just progressed as such with no specified reasons whatsoever (however we can suppose: different taste, politics, history).

For example, even if Ben and Barbara wear 1968 clothes, both are PLACED in the fictional 1985 A.C. belonging to GAR's alternative dimension. Clothes like those co-exist with 1978-styled clothes, and so on... you can apply the same concept to EVERYTHING you see in each Romero Dead movie, from machinery to televisions, from vehicles to houses.

Samely, a Florida (where DAY takes place) resembling "our" 1985 Florida co-exists with a 1968-like Pittsburgh (where NIGHT takes place) and a 1978-like mall (where DAWN takes place).

In GAR's universe, 1985 A.C. (or A.D. as you prefer) looks like a miscellanea of styles and integrated details; a cauldron of cultures.
NIGHT, DAY and DAWN are set in this fictional 1985 A.C. (the only canonical year we got from the saga), while LAND is, of course, slapped on 1988 A.C. -------> three years later, as stated above.

In my view, this sci-fi attempt to bring the Dead saga chapters into a whole works a lot.

Same timeline, same dimension (The Stretch), different stadiums of the Outbreak.

[joseph1000]

thread reserected...

aargh..

about the 3 years ago thing in land... The city fidlers green could of started to be active 3 years ago.(meaning people going to the city for safe haven)
and the outbreak could of started 6 years ago... WE DONT KNOW....

i may belive that land came after day..but at the same time i think day came after land.

Maybe its better not to know.. use your own imagination.:D

If you watch the very beginning of Land of the Dead,it is stated that peopel are establishing outposts in Cities and raid rural areas,so i would say that that would have been about 3/4 weeks into the plaguge of teh living dead when things started to breakdown.
And as to the debate over where day is set after Land,the original script is set to happen in 1987.But as he could use that script because of the small amount of $ he was giving to produce it,the day of the dead well all know and love so well is set not only months in to the situation,but a few months after the decisive battle(so to speak) that swung the situatiion in favor of the Living dead.

[7734]

i'll add my two cents.

The Venus Probe

The venus probe means absolutely nothing; it's purely coincidental. There were probably a thousand things that happened the world round on the fateful Night of the living Dead. The venus probe just happened to be the most prominent. For all anyone knows, the russians might have been trying to resurect the Manhattan Project.

Foster's Three Weeks comment.

Romero says his Dead movies are not direct sequels; that's obvious. If they were, Dawn would have opened with the rednecks tossing a lifeless Ben into the fire, and Day would have opened with the WGON helicopter landing for fuel. But to think that the movies exist in independent universes and timelines is ridiculous, and even more, totally meaningless (dead horses).

Therefore, since in Night no one knows what's going on, and in Dawn the authorities know what's going on, and in Day everyone knows what's going on, a progressive timeline is formed. Foster's comment solidifies this. Three weeks may as well have been the opening line!

Cholo's Three Years comment.

Again, coincidental. The only thing that means is that Cholo was working for Kauffman for three years, nothing else.

The Wino's Three Years comment.

Meaningless, because we have Woody, Dead Reckoning, the Chevy with railroad attachment (what are those called?), and probably many other vehicles. It only means he hasn't seen that many vehicles lately, except for... duh... the one Riley was going to buy. I mean, c'mon, the guy was a damned drunk.

Organization.

My opinion is that the organization level in Land is complex enough to lead me to believe that it is an impossibility for the whole thing to be set up in three years. Maybe, it had been three years since Kauffman was in charge of the Green.

Day V Land

My opinion is that Land takes place after Day. Long after Day. It's almost historical, when looking at various societies (especially those involved in war).
The attacks start, the population gets panicked and confused, everything falls apart, the long after society has been laid to waste, rebuilding ensues; the attacker or the defendant, the good or the bad, could be doing the rebuilding. But the point is, you need to be knocked down before you pick yourself up. Otherwise you have wings.

Dead Reckoning.

Who remembers blabbering on these forums ten years ago? When Romero was intended to script and Direct Resident Evil? When we all thought the 4th flik would be called Twilight of the Dead:barf: ?

WHEN ROMERO HIMSELF SAID IN INTERVIEWS THAT HE WANTED TO DO A
4th DEAD MOVIE WHERE PEOPLE JUST IGNORED THE PROBLEM, CALL IT "DEAD RECKONING" AND SET IT TEN YEARS IN THE FUTURE?

[EvilNed]

The Wino's Three Years comment.

Meaningless, because we have Woody, Dead Reckoning, the Chevy with railroad attachment (what are those called?), and probably many other vehicles. It only means he hasn't seen that many vehicles lately, except for... duh... the one Riley was going to buy. I mean, c'mon, the guy was a damned drunk.



Dead Reckoning and the Jeeps were stored outside the city. In the military outpost on the other side of the river. So they never "drove out" of the city, because they were never in there to start with.

[DjfunkmasterG]

By far the most established, and IMO, the "correct" guide to the timeline is as follows:

NIGHT = 3 days after the initial outbreaks.
DAWN = 3 weeks after the initial outbreaks.
DAY = 3 months after the initial outbreaks. (Open to debate. Between 3 and 10 months.)
LAND = 3 years after the initial outbreaks.


I would be willing to bet a lot of ZED Heads follow the timeline DD has established. I know I consider DD opinion of the timeline to be the most accurate assumption of the time line of the 4 films.

I have always considered DAWN to start 3 weeks into the outbreak, especially based on the comments of the scientist in the beginning of the film. "You have not listened to the situation for 3 weeks." then by the end at least 2-3 months into the outbreak because they were at the mall for a while. Fran wasn't showing the prego bump, yet they mention she is 3.5 to 4 months into it, and by the time they left the mall she was at least 6-7 possibly 8 months into the pregnancy

DAY I would say a few months, possibly upto 12 months, however, after watching it last night, the rate of decay on the zombies would lead me to believe and even longer period has passed. Also, if going by Decay some of the zombies in LAND are really rotted and therefore would easily show Land follows Day.

[Philly_SWAT]

*sigh* my two cents...

1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing? There is only a limited amount of zombies focused on in both movies. For all know, based on what we see onscreen, Bub could have just been the smartest zombie in the area near the bunker, but dumb overall compared to all zombies throughout the world. Its not like they gave the zeds an IQ test and only took the best and brightest into the corral.


2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.
Why would Romero, after all his movies having a common theme of human beings not being able to co-operate efficiently in times of disaster, all of a sudden have them co-operating enough to secure the Green, no doubt a momumental undertaking? They couldnt co-operate enough in a secure bunker, they couldnt co-operate enough in a defendable mall, they couldnt even co-operate enough to board up a farmhouse, but they could co-operate enough to erect electic fences, barricade bridges, accept living out in the streets while others were living in luxery right next to them? To rephrase your first question, how could human beings capacity to co-operate devolve to the point of obliteration, then evolve into a great co-operative force?

3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day. I dont think the fact that people are "ignoring the problem" clearly demonstartes that it is AFTER day. I say that adds credibility to the argument that it happens BEFORE Day. Being much earlier in the outbreak, people are still plentiful enough, and safe enough, to trick their minds into thinking "everything is normal", even though it clearly isnt. By the time we get to Day, the problem is to the point that even the most optimistic could not delude themselves in this way.


And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.Needless to say, I disagree.

[MinionZombie]

:rolleyes:

*blows brains out*

I thought this thread died out 6 months ago. :eek:

[capncnut]

And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.
Needless to say, I disagree.

Geez, some people just don't get the message even though the director himself has clearly stated that it's set after Day. Can't you just close the damn thread MZ? Pretend there's an error of some kind.

[Philly_SWAT]

Geez, some people just don't get the message even though the director himself has clearly stated that it's set after Day. Can't you just close the damn thread MZ? Pretend there's an error of some kind.
So much for free speech......maybe an "Animal Farm" like re-writing of opinions may be in order as well.......

[MinionZombie]

Geez, some people just don't get the message even though the director himself has clearly stated that it's set after Day. Can't you just close the damn thread MZ? Pretend there's an error of some kind.
lol Capn ... real subtle! :lol:

Like I said before, I thought this thread was naturally closed months ago, that poor dead horse ... so flogged, it is. :(

*additional*

*ahem*, yeah, free speech must be dead cos this thread is still open ... and there's a difference between free speech and dead horse flogging, I think everybody's already aware of your alternative eye on the dead series, Philly.

[Chaos]

Please Delete

[triste realtà]

I thought Asia's character said she's never been out of the city. That would set the movie around 20 yrs after the outbreak. Well, depending on how you take that comment. Plus, do zombies continue to rot or is there some kind of undead metabolism.

[Chaos]

Continuity isn't important to Romero. His dead saga still takes place in one universe and follows the advancement of one zombie outbreak.

I see his dead movies as being more open ended and a lot more personal for him. Each movie adds commentary to a specific chapter in his life and has relevence to real world issues that were on his mind at the time that he filmed it.

I see the advancement of the zombie epedemic as running parallel to Romero's own evolution as a man and a filmmaker. To that extent, I think his zombie movies are somewhat auto-biographical.

If you want your movies to be wrapped up nice and tight with a little yellow ribbon on top, then Romero's films aren't for you.

[Brubaker]

I'm dumbfounded that the characters would still be having a discussion on why fireworks are called sky flowers. Couldn't they have already taken care of this conversation a long time before the movie took place, if it really was three years in? That and Charlie's constant references to his appearance should have worn off by then, that is the type of stuff you'd be doing the first few months behind a fence. I understand some of this dialogue was written into the script for the benefit of the audience but it makes you think they had just gotten there.

[darth los]

No, look for yourself.
If that is the way it is, then it is not altering the timeline at all, it simply is the timeline. Remember the Chuck Norris movie, Missing in Action? The sequel, Missing in Action Part II was a prequel, the events in Part II happened before the events in Part I, even though it was filmed after the first. Same with the Star Wars series, part 4,5 and 6 were filmed over a decade before 1, 2 and 3. Just because they were filmed in a certain order doesnt mean they are in that order within the timeline.

I would definitely agree with you on that point but in the movies you mention they make well known the fact that they are prequels. Even if they didn't expressly mention it there are usually telltale signs that the film we are currently viewing happened before the others.( the texas chainsaw masacre: the beginning is a good example of this.) In NOTLD it is specifically said that the plauge had started 2 days prior. In Dawn it's ecplicitly stated in the beginning that "this has been the situation for 3 weeks.) Now whether deliberately or not an specific timeline is never mentioned in either day or land. All we are doing here is speculating. We can analyze little phrases here or there, but the bottom line is that their meanings are ambiguous and can be interpreted a number of different ways.

[DVW5150]

Deadman Deluxe has it straight.
Most of us realize this resurrected thread from june of '06 is a zed unto itself .
Or maybe , Land is a different take on living after the problem started?
As Diary appears to be a different take on the outbreaks beginning?
This indeed, Bassman, is a carcass of greyish rotted mass.
Not going linear is a way to introduce new plot lines, ways of survival & you can utilize contemporary weapons and tactical defense operations.

I like that.:elol:

[Philly_SWAT]

I thought Asia's character said she's never been out of the city. That would set the movie around 20 yrs after the outbreak. Well, depending on how you take that comment. Plus, do zombies continue to rot or is there some kind of undead metabolism.

She said she had never been out of the city since......

Since the outbreak, I would assume.

[darth los]

I think it was pretty well established by that point that they continue to rot. However at what rate was only theorized upon, most notably by doctor logan, who put it a t 10-12 years at the latest at which they would still be mobile.