The "Land" AFTER "Day" debate... an old topic, but some things to consider

[nycbsn]

First off, hello to everyone, I'm not really new here but I just re-signed up, I used to be a member in the late 90s/early 00s but have since gone through various email changes and my original user name (which I don't even remember at this point) got lost in the shuffle. But regardless, hi to all :)

On to the topic... Now, sorry to bring this one back, I know this is a pretty old discussion on here but I just have to comment about this because I was just watching Land of the Dead the other day after quite some time and I've read several older messages about this topic, I think many people are overlooking some key things about the "Land before Day" vs "Day before Land" debate...

First of all, two things (bare with me):

1. Based on what I've learned from all four films (I don't count "Diary" and "Survival", sorry, I feel like they are totally disconnected from the rest in many ways but that's me), I believe it's safe to say that several cities in the United States were able to *hold* the territory and fortify it as they did with Fiddler's Green (formally known as the downtown section of Pittsburgh, PA before all hell broke loose). Meanwhile, the other 99% of cities in the USA got to the point of being overrun (i.e. Philly in "Dawn of the Dead"). With that said, those fortified cities existed during "Dawn of the Dead" AND "Day of the Dead".

2. The biker gang from "Dawn" could very well be from Fiddler's Green since Monroeville isn't very far from there. Also note that the gang doesn't show up until a few months into the outbreak (by a few months, I mean after Peter & co take over the mall and Fran's belly gets bigger), possibly indicating that it took some time and effort for Kaufman to regain control over the downtown section of Pittsburgh and make it his own. Also, in "Land", we see Blades as one of the zombies invading Fiddler's Green, could it be that he went there because he remembered it? It was an important place in his life (ala what Stephen said in "Dawn" about the mall zombies)?

Now with all of that out of way, the fact that the "Day" crew appear to be the only ones left while in "Land" we see fortified cities with survivors should be no reason to disregard that "Land" takes place AFTER "Day". Here's why... The "Day" crew was stuck all the way down in Florida and they were using an old radio. Also note that their helicopter ventures only went 100 miles each way, so since the city in the opening of "Day" is Fort Myers, 100 miles south of Fort Myers would put the bunker towards the end of the Everglades (according to Google Maps). Now could it just be that the "Day" crew were the only survivors left in FLORIDA? Because with that old-ass radio and not much helicopter fuel, there is no way in hell they are going to come into contact with a fortified city on the Northeast coast like Fiddler's Green.

I don't know about everyone else but after taking that into consideration, I have no problem accepting that Kaufman, Riley, and Cholo were living the fortified life in Fiddler's Green during the events of "Day of the Dead".

We don't know how many cities were held and fortified and we don't know how far away they are. In "Land", Cholo mentions Cleveland being one of them but Riley said he hasn't heard from them in months. So there, Cleveland and downtown Pittsburgh were definitely held and fortified. Where else? Who knows, perhaps there was one on the west coast too, but obviously none of those fortified locations were in or around Florida so for all the "Day" crew knew, they were f***ed. As for society's use for money (which I've read some using to help determine the timeline of these films), the "Day" crew had absolutely no use for money given their predicament. The survivors in "Land" had a city while in "Day", it was only a dozen people forced to live in a bunker, what are they gonna do with money down there? Open a store? It served no purpose to their environment.

In relation to Fiddler's Green existing during "Dawn" (or at least being 'in the works'), here's something else to consider: If you listen to the radio broadcasts in the mall (before Peter and Roger go 'shopping'), it mentions (from the script) "REPORTS THAT COMMUNICATIONS WITH DETROIT HAVE BEEN KNOCKED OUT ALONG WITH ATLANTA, BOSTON AND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF PHILADELPHIA AND NEW YORK CITY", it does not mention Pittsburgh at all so it's very possible that they could have had a better handle on the problem than other places.

Sorry if this was too long. Thoughts?

[sandrock74]

I never had a problem with the idea of fortified cities existing during the events of "Day". They were pretty isolated, so a fortified city 101 miles away from the "Day" crew could have existed for all anyone knows!

That said, I can't wait to see Philly chime in on this! That'll make for some fun reading!

[nycbsn]

I never had a problem with the idea of fortified cities existing during the events of "Day". They were pretty isolated, so a fortified city 101 miles away from the "Day" crew could have existed for all anyone knows!

That said, I can't wait to see Philly chime in on this! That'll make for some fun reading!

Exactly. The "Day" survivors could only travel so far from their bunker before running out of fuel. It's not like they could stop at Orlando or some place and refuel to go to Georgia looking for survivors. They were pretty much stuck in Florida. I think the possibility that Florida was entirely lost to the zeds is the reason why we see no fortified cities in "Day" and why those survivors were unable to establish any contact with them. There could have been an outpost in Atlanta, Las Vegas, Houston, Flagstaff for all we know, but none of those cities are anywhere within radio range of the bunker.

[EvilNed]

To me, it's not really a debate.

In Land, it's clearly stated / very heavily implied in dialoge that the outbreak took place 3 years ago. After having recently rewatched Day of the Dead I can say there's no way in hell that film takes place 3 years into the outbreak, judging from where the group is at in their tension and relationships. The scientists, for one, don't seem to know the soldiers that well. Fischer having to explain to Sarah how Rhodes is to deal with.

They've been down there a couple of months, tops.

Still, I much prefer Day as a film. So that doesn't weigh into it.

[Trin]

I agree with the generally accepted timeframes:
Night - the first night, duh
Dawn - 3 weeks to 6-8 months
Day - 9-12 months
Land - 3-5 years

I contend that Day could not have been after Land.

Resources:
In Day the consumables in their confined place are too well intact. They still have medicine in the first aid kit. The lightbulbs all work. They have water and fuel and the liquor is just starting to run out. They still use the helicopter to explore... not to scavenge. They search for survivors, not resources. In Land they have converted to a scavenging based society. They no longer look for survivors. They look for supplies. Medicine is short. Luxuries are scarce and hoarded.

Society:
In Day they are still trying to cure the problem. They have not given up on saving society as it previously existed. That implies it is still recent. In Land they've converted to the new reality of living in a zombie world. It would take a long time to start treating former family members as target practice and side-show fodder.

Direct time-frame acknowledgement:
In Day the statement is made that the research might not show results for months or even years. That statement implies they'd only been down there for months so far, not years. In Land several statements are made that imply that the situation has existed for years. No car has left this garage in 3 years. I've worked for you for 3 years.

There's more on both sides, of course. But those are the most relevant points in my opinion.

[nycbsn]

I agree with the generally accepted timeframes:
Night - the first night, duh
Dawn - 3 weeks to 6-8 months
Day - 9-12 months
Land - 3-5 years

I contend that Day could not have been after Land.

Resources:
In Day the consumables in their confined place are too well intact. They still have medicine in the first aid kit. The lightbulbs all work. They have water and fuel and the liquor is just starting to run out. They still use the helicopter to explore... not to scavenge. They search for survivors, not resources. In Land they have converted to a scavenging based society. They no longer look for survivors. They look for supplies. Medicine is short. Luxuries are scarce and hoarded.

Society:
In Day they are still trying to cure the problem. They have not given up on saving society as it previously existed. That implies it is still recent. In Land they've converted to the new reality of living in a zombie world. It would take a long time to start treating former family members as target practice and side-show fodder.

Direct time-frame acknowledgement:
In Day the statement is made that the research might not show results for months or even years. That statement implies they'd only been down there for months so far, not years. In Land several statements are made that imply that the situation has existed for years. No car has left this garage in 3 years. I've worked for you for 3 years.

There's more on both sides, of course. But those are the most relevant points in my opinion.

You're right, all of that makes sense. Being that Dawn's story ended in March (based on their apartment calendar), I always thought Day was in the same year as Dawn but just a few months later (hence October in the film).

[Philly_SWAT]

That said, I can't wait to see Philly chime in on this! That'll make for some fun reading!
:) Well, I aim to please! I will say something to the original post last, and reply to some others first.


To me, it's not really a debate.

After having recently rewatched Day of the Dead I can say there's no way in hell that film takes place 3 years into the outbreak, judging from where the group is at in their tension and relationships. The scientists, for one, don't seem to know the soldiers that well. Fischer having to explain to Sarah how Rhodes is to deal with.

They've been down there a couple of months, tops.


I have had the same job for about 4 years now, and there are several people IN MY OWN DEPARTMENT that I have NEVER LAID EYES ON. And some of the ones I have met, I am sure I would not recognize them if I saw them at the mall, and I am usually pretty good with faces. It is not outrageous to think that years could pass and people dont know people they work with very well. As the only female there, it is very reasonable to assume that Sarah went out of her way to not go around the testosterone fueled men of the military. It wouldnt take long for all involved to at least consider the possibility of harrassment or worse on their part. Hell, look at all the sexual assault in real life now. It is also reasonable that her friends like Fisher would go out of their way to make sure she doesnt have to interact much if at all with them.

But you talk about the group and their tension and relationships, I say it is much more telling when they come back from their search and say "There's a new grave" and Nicotero replies "Major Cooper died this morning" just as casual as you tell your wife that you are taking out the garbage now. No looks of sadness, not even a look of normal human compassion from anyone upon hearing this news. I would like to think that only a few months into the outbreak, simple civility wouldnt disappear that quickly. And I certainly hope that someone who had risen up the ranks of the military like Rhodes wouldnt turn into a murderer is such short order. I would certainly hope that type of behavior wouldnt manifest itself until after many years of tension and desparation.



I agree with the generally accepted timeframes:
Night - the first night, duh
Dawn - 3 weeks to 6-8 months
Day - 9-12 months
Land - 3-5 years

I contend that Day could not have been after Land.

Resources:
In Day the consumables in their confined place are too well intact. They still have medicine in the first aid kit. The lightbulbs all work. They have water and fuel and the liquor is just starting to run out. They still use the helicopter to explore... not to scavenge. They search for survivors, not resources. In Land they have converted to a scavenging based society. They no longer look for survivors. They look for supplies. Medicine is short. Luxuries are scarce and hoarded.
Presumably if the shit was hitting the fan, you would send your research teams to the best stocked facilities around so they COULD last for years in comfort instead of wasting precious research time looking for food. The place was HUGE for such a small number of people. We only see a small portion of it, it isnt unreasonable to assume there could be HUGE stores of food, alcohol, smokes, etc. In Land, rather than say they "no longer look for survivors, they look for supplies" I say they do not yet have the luxury to look for survivors, they are barely getting their shit together as they are still close to the time of the outbreak.


Society:
In Day they are still trying to cure the problem. They have not given up on saving society as it previously existed. That implies it is still recent. In Land they've converted to the new reality of living in a zombie world. It would take a long time to start treating former family members as target practice and side-show fodder.
I would say in Land, they are still trying to live in the OLD world, using money to buy goods and services, etc., which to me shows they are not far into the outbreak. There still fresh shock and PTSD could easily cause many brains to look for a way to cope/escape/make sense of the unsenseable/etc to shoot at zombies as fun. In Day, there only reason for existing is to try to find a cure. The scientists are taking that seriously. Again, I would hope they didnt empty the brig and send the worst of the worst to support the research team, and if they sent top notch soldiers, I would hope they wouldnt threaten to kill civilians after only a few months.



Direct time-frame acknowledgement:
In Day the statement is made that the research might not show results for months or even years. That statement implies they'd only been down there for months so far, not years. In Land several statements are made that imply that the situation has existed for years. No car has left this garage in 3 years. I've worked for you for 3 years.
Saying the results might not show for months or years implies nothing as to how long they have been there. "No car in 3 years" is always mentioned. But if I said to you "Hey I had sex with my girlfriend last night. Man, its been like FOREVER since I had sex with her", would you interpret that as I had never had sex with my girlfriend, or would you take it as common every day exaggeration. "worked for 3 years" certainly a powerful man like Kaufman would have had people work for him BEFORE the outbreak, and then continue to use those trusted associates AFTER the outbreak as opposed to looking for all new guys all of a sudden.




Exactly. The "Day" survivors could only travel so far from their bunker before running out of fuel. It's not like they could stop at Orlando or some place and refuel to go to Georgia looking for survivors. They were pretty much stuck in Florida. I think the possibility that Florida was entirely lost to the zeds is the reason why we see no fortified cities in "Day" and why those survivors were unable to establish any contact with them. There could have been an outpost in Atlanta, Las Vegas, Houston, Flagstaff for all we know, but none of those cities are anywhere within radio range of the bunker.
I guess you are not familiar with the great State of Florida, we do have gas stations and stuff all over the place down here, even in Orlando. I have used them! And if they wanted to go to Georgia and for some reason didnt want to take the chopper, they could easily take a bunch of vehicles, there would be empty ones everywhere. I am sure Billy knows how to hotwire a car and cyphon some gas.




We don't know how many cities were held and fortified and we don't know how far away they are. In "Land", Cholo mentions Cleveland being one of them but Riley said he hasn't heard from them in months. So there, Cleveland and downtown Pittsburgh were definitely held and fortified. Where else? Who knows, perhaps there was one on the west coast too, but obviously none of those fortified locations were in or around Florida so for all the "Day" crew knew, they were f***ed. As for society's use for money (which I've read some using to help determine the timeline of these films), the "Day" crew had absolutely no use for money given their predicament. The survivors in "Land" had a city while in "Day", it was only a dozen people forced to live in a bunker, what are they gonna do with money down there? Open a store? It served no purpose to their environment.


I think that the issue of money is an important one suggesting that Day occurs after Land. The establishment of a new currency is something that would take A LONG TIME after all existing currencies lost all their value. It is almost impossible to believe that after 3 years people would STILL BE, or even worse to ponder, REDISCOVERING the idea of just sitting around in the green and being rich and using money to buy tvs and mink coats while poor people barely scrape by right outside the door. The ONLY WAY that makes sense is that there are still close to the beginning of the outbreak, so that many people are still deluding themselves that life can continue as it always had. The shared horror of living in a dead world would bring everyone into the same class I think, no way a privlidged class could last, much last go away and THEN come back, after 3 years. As far as Day goes, it makes perfect sense that the bunker waS designed to be stocked for years worth of survival. Hell, there are private citizens that have bunkers NOW that have 3 years of supplies in them. Their inability to find any survivors shows me that they are FURTHER into the outbreak, certainly not closer to the start. The existence of outposts in LAnd and not in Day points to Land being closer to the beginning of the outbreak, not further out. If anything, since they were so far apart geographically, the best I could say is that it has no bearing on "when" the movies are.

[nycbsn]

:) Well, I aim to please! I will say something to the original post last, and reply to some others first.



I have had the same job for about 4 years now, and there are several people IN MY OWN DEPARTMENT that I have NEVER LAID EYES ON. And some of the ones I have met, I am sure I would not recognize them if I saw them at the mall, and I am usually pretty good with faces. It is not outrageous to think that years could pass and people dont know people they work with very well. As the only female there, it is very reasonable to assume that Sarah went out of her way to not go around the testosterone fueled men of the military. It wouldnt take long for all involved to at least consider the possibility of harrassment or worse on their part. Hell, look at all the sexual assault in real life now. It is also reasonable that her friends like Fisher would go out of their way to make sure she doesnt have to interact much if at all with them.

But you talk about the group and their tension and relationships, I say it is much more telling when they come back from their search and say "There's a new grave" and Nicotero replies "Major Cooper died this morning" just as casual as you tell your wife that you are taking out the garbage now. No looks of sadness, not even a look of normal human compassion from anyone upon hearing this news. I would like to think that only a few months into the outbreak, simple civility wouldnt disappear that quickly. And I certainly hope that someone who had risen up the ranks of the military like Rhodes wouldnt turn into a murderer is such short order. I would certainly hope that type of behavior wouldnt manifest itself until after many years of tension and desparation.



Presumably if the shit was hitting the fan, you would send your research teams to the best stocked facilities around so they COULD last for years in comfort instead of wasting precious research time looking for food. The place was HUGE for such a small number of people. We only see a small portion of it, it isnt unreasonable to assume there could be HUGE stores of food, alcohol, smokes, etc. In Land, rather than say they "no longer look for survivors, they look for supplies" I say they do not yet have the luxury to look for survivors, they are barely getting their shit together as they are still close to the time of the outbreak.


I would say in Land, they are still trying to live in the OLD world, using money to buy goods and services, etc., which to me shows they are not far into the outbreak. There still fresh shock and PTSD could easily cause many brains to look for a way to cope/escape/make sense of the unsenseable/etc to shoot at zombies as fun. In Day, there only reason for existing is to try to find a cure. The scientists are taking that seriously. Again, I would hope they didnt empty the brig and send the worst of the worst to support the research team, and if they sent top notch soldiers, I would hope they wouldnt threaten to kill civilians after only a few months.



Saying the results might not show for months or years implies nothing as to how long they have been there. "No car in 3 years" is always mentioned. But if I said to you "Hey I had sex with my girlfriend last night. Man, its been like FOREVER since I had sex with her", would you interpret that as I had never had sex with my girlfriend, or would you take it as common every day exaggeration. "worked for 3 years" certainly a powerful man like Kaufman would have had people work for him BEFORE the outbreak, and then continue to use those trusted associates AFTER the outbreak as opposed to looking for all new guys all of a sudden.




I guess you are not familiar with the great State of Florida, we do have gas stations and stuff all over the place down here, even in Orlando. I have used them! And if they wanted to go to Georgia and for some reason didnt want to take the chopper, they could easily take a bunch of vehicles, there would be empty ones everywhere. I am sure Billy knows how to hotwire a car and cyphon some gas.



I think that the issue of money is an important one suggesting that Day occurs after Land. The establishment of a new currency is something that would take A LONG TIME after all existing currencies lost all their value. It is almost impossible to believe that after 3 years people would STILL BE, or even worse to ponder, REDISCOVERING the idea of just sitting around in the green and being rich and using money to buy tvs and mink coats while poor people barely scrape by right outside the door. The ONLY WAY that makes sense is that there are still close to the beginning of the outbreak, so that many people are still deluding themselves that life can continue as it always had. The shared horror of living in a dead world would bring everyone into the same class I think, no way a privlidged class could last, much last go away and THEN come back, after 3 years. As far as Day goes, it makes perfect sense that the bunker waS designed to be stocked for years worth of survival. Hell, there are private citizens that have bunkers NOW that have 3 years of supplies in them. Their inability to find any survivors shows me that they are FURTHER into the outbreak, certainly not closer to the start. The existence of outposts in LAnd and not in Day points to Land being closer to the beginning of the outbreak, not further out. If anything, since they were so far apart geographically, the best I could say is that it has no bearing on "when" the movies are.

While your take is interesting, I still don't think we can determine the timeframes of Day and Land simply by paying attention to "the use of money" and "how people are living life in the post-zombie apocalypse". Like I said earlier, the people in "Day" have no use for money whatsoever, they don't have a fortified community like the people in Fiddler's Green, there's no sense of a "society" in the underground bunker, they're stuck all the way in the everglades. If they left the bunker and found a fortified Atlanta or Kissimmee or some place where goods are sold/bought, then I can see the "Day" people putting more emphasis on dollars. They had different problems to worry about, they really thought they were the only ones left.

I would go as far as rephrasing what you said in this respect.... "In Fiddler's Green and Cleveland, they are still trying to live in the OLD world, using money to buy goods and services, etc.", not "in Land", but in "Fiddler's Green and Cleveland". I don't think using the movies themselves as an appropriate factor in judging the timeframe. We're talking about a worldwide epidemic which has killed off AT LEAST 99.9% of the population, right? So who is to say that one or two communities in Puerto Rico had better control over the situation as opposed to New York City which could be completely lost? It's possible that several states were completely lost, including Florida. Fiddler's Green would have no knowledge of Sarah, John, etc.'s existence due to the given circumstances shown in the films.

Just because a dozen exhausted and desperate military/science people trapped in a Florida bunker with poor radio equip are only trying to find a cure does not mean that Mr. Kaufman is living the Fifth Ave lifestyle in a walled off Pittsburgh. That's like saying because the US has iPhones and all these cool gadgets, then North Korea must be living the same way as us, simultaneously. Different environment, different circumstances. No equality.

Regarding helicopter fuel and the state of Florida, it's not that I'm not too familiar with it, it's the fact that what you're proposing that they can do is a high risk for those survivors. For all we know, they'll probably come across more empty gas stations/cars than they will any that have enough fuel in it (remember in "Dawn" when everyone was running from their posts and the survivors were discussing fueling/airports during the helicopter trip?). Sure they could search on the way up north, but it's way too risky. They'll probably run out of fuel just looking for fuel on the way up north. Perhaps, off screen, they had already tried this route within the surrounding area close to them but found no fuel.

Regarding using a car or different vehicle, I agree, but you might run into the same problem regarding finding fuel plus have to deal with the high possibility of blocked off or congested roadways. If anything, I think they should have taken a boat up the northeast coast. Why they don't consider any of these options, I don't know.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
For once I'm not going the hyper-detailed route, so I'll keep it brief:
Everything about Day screams older than Land, but some things in Land strongly imply its further into the future than Day is. Confusing I concede.
However, the points made about Rhodes and the others flipping out like they had ring true with me. I find it difficult to lend credence to the notion the government is going to setup a research team to find a cure, send them to a stocked underground bunker, but send along a bunch of hyper-aggressive/psychologically borderline types who've had more than their fair share of run-ins with the MPs. Just look at Steele's behavior about forcing Miguel into helping corral the test-zombie, then trying to feed him to a zombie when the obviously exhausted man failed in the task. Military esprit de corps DOES NOT BREAK DOWN QUICKLY. There are 85yr old WWII Vets who haven't seen an old Marine Corps buddy since they were shipped back stateside after Okinawa, who 65yrs later would STILL jump on a grenade to save said buddy.

Let's put that aside for a moment though, and even go so far as to classify Miguel as Full Metal Jacket-embellished "blanket party bait" so far as the rest of the unit is concerned. Under COMBAT CONDITIONS the number of made-it-through-boot personnel who would dare to behave that way, in the entirety of a given branch of the military only 6-12 months into a stressful combat posting can be counted in double digits. The chances that MULTIPLE misfits of this sort found their way into the same assignment, at a time when the military is no doubt throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the front-line fighting? Astronomical. YEARS into that Hell? Sure. Not months, no way. If they were going to empty the brig and put them back on duty it would probably be in high-risk, low responsibility functions. Stuff like holding a given intersection, not providing security for the USA's last hope.

Could go into it at length, but I think this argument alone, as alluded to by others previously, holds water without further support. Day has to be further down the timeline than Land, or else Romero really screwed up with the chronological atmosphere-setting.

[nycbsn]

Well,
For once I'm not going the hyper-detailed route, so I'll keep it brief:
Everything about Day screams older than Land, but some things in Land strongly imply its further into the future than Day is. Confusing I concede.

and



Could go into it at length, but I think this argument alone, as alluded to by others previously, holds water without further support. Day has to be further down the timeline than Land, or else Romero really screwed up with the chronological atmosphere-setting.

I agree with you about the tone. That is one of the reasons I don't like "Land" all that much (not as bad as "Diary" and "Survival" but still...), I didn't particularly like the tonal transition between the closing of "Day" and the opening of "Land" specifically. I could think of quite a few ways "Land" could have been done even darker than "Day" but that's another topic.

However, when you look at it from the bigger picture (i.e. how different survivors from different parts of the WORLD are dealing with the post apocalypse), it makes a little more sense. "Day" was only bleak for the people down in that bunker, that doesn't mean it was bleak for Fiddler's Green. We have to look at it this whole thing within a "As The World Turns..." meets Zombies perspective. This is not "Star Wars" where we are following the same characters throughout the entire trilogy, these films are episodic tales of different survivors from different locations with varying circumstances. In "Star Wars", we followed Luke, Leia, and Han through the same circumstances in all three films. Same with "Alien", it makes sense that things are bleak in "Alien 3" because Ripley is the only central character we've ever known for the entire series.

When you look at it that way, then the idea of Kaufman having a threesome with some Fiddler hookers in his penthouse *while* Sarah is cutting off Miguel's arm and going into an emotional breakdown, suddenly doesn't sound so awkward after all.

[Philly_SWAT]

While your take is interesting, I still don't think we can determine the timeframes of Day and Land simply by paying attention to "the use of money" and "how people are living life in the post-zombie apocalypse". Like I said earlier, the people in "Day" have no use for money whatsoever, they don't have a fortified community like the people in Fiddler's Green, there's no sense of a "society" in the underground bunker, they're stuck all the way in the everglades. If they left the bunker and found a fortified Atlanta or Kissimmee or some place where goods are sold/bought, then I can see the "Day" people putting more emphasis on dollars. They had different problems to worry about, they really thought they were the only ones left.
I guess I do not see how what you are saying indicates that the events in Day happen before the events in Land. True, you can not determine the timeframe "simply" by paying attention to the use of money, that is why I mentioned SEVERAL things to consider. Perhaps if our hero's from Day DID find an outpost that used money they might need/want some money themselves, however, we see no indication they are looking for goods, so that argument seems irrelevant to the timeline. I mean, in real life right now, I would like to have all the money I can get, BUT if I had years worth of food and didnt have to pay electric bills, didnt have to pay ANY bills, could just take anything from anywhere that I wanted and literally did not have to suffer ANY consequences (like jail time, etc), then I would not need any money whatsoever. That is the situation they were in.


I don't think using the movies themselves as an appropriate factor in judging the timeframe.
LOL! :) Not sure what to say to this one!


We're talking about a worldwide epidemic which has killed off AT LEAST 99.9% of the population, right? So who is to say that one or two communities in Puerto Rico had better control over the situation as opposed to New York City which could be completely lost? It's possible that several states were completely lost, including Florida. Fiddler's Green would have no knowledge of Sarah, John, etc.'s existence due to the given circumstances shown in the films.
This is true, however, I fail to see what bearing it has on the topic at hand.



Just because a dozen exhausted and desperate military/science people trapped in a Florida bunker with poor radio equip are only trying to find a cure does not mean that Mr. Kaufman is living the Fifth Ave lifestyle in a walled off Pittsburgh. That's like saying because the US has iPhones and all these cool gadgets, then North Korea must be living the same way as us, simultaneously. Different environment, different circumstances. No equality.
This is not just something I disagree with, it falls more into the category of "doesnt seem to make sense".



Regarding helicopter fuel and the state of Florida, it's not that I'm not too familiar with it, it's the fact that what you're proposing that they can do is a high risk for those survivors. For all we know, they'll probably come across more empty gas stations/cars than they will any that have enough fuel in it (remember in "Dawn" when everyone was running from their posts and the survivors were discussing fueling/airports during the helicopter trip?). Sure they could search on the way up north, but it's way too risky. They'll probably run out of fuel just looking for fuel on the way up north. Perhaps, off screen, they had already tried this route within the surrounding area close to them but found no fuel.
To be clear, I wasnt "proposing" anything, I was only responding sarcastically to what you said, which didnt really make sense. I was trying to be nice by not calling attention to the fact that it didnt make sense, but since you posted a bunch more that doesnt make sense, I have to point it out now. To be clear, someone may disagree TOTALLY with what I am saying, and I may in fact be wrong, but everything I say makes sense within the context of my own arguments. Your arguments are not something I can really say seem "right" or "wrong", they dont make enough sense to judge in that fashion.


Regarding using a car or different vehicle, I agree, but you might run into the same problem regarding finding fuel plus have to deal with the high possibility of blocked off or congested roadways. If anything, I think they should have taken a boat up the northeast coast. Why they don't consider any of these options, I don't know.
We have no idea what they have considered in the time they have been in the bunker. We see only a few days worth of their activities in the movie. Whether they have been there several months or several years, either way we have no clue what plans/ideas/etc have been discussed and/or implemented earlier.



I agree with you about the tone. That is one of the reasons I don't like "Land" all that much (not as bad as "Diary" and "Survival" but still...), I didn't particularly like the tonal transition between the closing of "Day" and the opening of "Land" specifically. I could think of quite a few ways "Land" could have been done even darker than "Day" but that's another topic.
The reason you agree about the tone is one of the main reason I say the events in Day happen after the events in Land.


However, when you look at it from the bigger picture (i.e. how different survivors from different parts of the WORLD are dealing with the post apocalypse), it makes a little more sense. "Day" was only bleak for the people down in that bunker, that doesn't mean it was bleak for Fiddler's Green. We have to look at it this whole thing within a "As The World Turns..." meets Zombies perspective. This is not "Star Wars" where we are following the same characters throughout the entire trilogy, these films are episodic tales of different survivors from different locations with varying circumstances. In "Star Wars", we followed Luke, Leia, and Han through the same circumstances in all three films. Same with "Alien", it makes sense that things are bleak in "Alien 3" because Ripley is the only central character we've ever known for the entire series.

When you look at it that way, then the idea of Kaufman having a threesome with some Fiddler hookers in his penthouse *while* Sarah is cutting off Miguel's arm and going into an emotional breakdown, suddenly doesn't sound so awkward after all.
Again, not sure this really makes sense, regardless of whatever the truth is about the timeline. If you are suggesting that the events in the two movies could be happening at the same time, that is a valid argument to make, however, I suggest that THE WAY you are trying to make that argument doesnt seem valid. If things seem bleak in a civil war movie but more happy in a WWII movie, that doesnt suggest that they COULD be occuring at the same timeframe.



Well,
For once I'm not going the hyper-detailed route, so I'll keep it brief:
Everything about Day screams older than Land, but some things in Land strongly imply its further into the future than Day is. Confusing I concede.
However, the points made about Rhodes and the others flipping out like they had ring true with me. I find it difficult to lend credence to the notion the government is going to setup a research team to find a cure, send them to a stocked underground bunker, but send along a bunch of hyper-aggressive/psychologically borderline types who've had more than their fair share of run-ins with the MPs. Just look at Steele's behavior about forcing Miguel into helping corral the test-zombie, then trying to feed him to a zombie when the obviously exhausted man failed in the task. Military esprit de corps DOES NOT BREAK DOWN QUICKLY. There are 85yr old WWII Vets who haven't seen an old Marine Corps buddy since they were shipped back stateside after Okinawa, who 65yrs later would STILL jump on a grenade to save said buddy.
Good point.



Let's put that aside for a moment though, and even go so far as to classify Miguel as Full Metal Jacket-embellished "blanket party bait" so far as the rest of the unit is concerned. Under COMBAT CONDITIONS the number of made-it-through-boot personnel who would dare to behave that way, in the entirety of a given branch of the military only 6-12 months into a stressful combat posting can be counted in double digits. The chances that MULTIPLE misfits of this sort found their way into the same assignment, at a time when the military is no doubt throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the front-line fighting? Astronomical. YEARS into that Hell? Sure. Not months, no way. If they were going to empty the brig and put them back on duty it would probably be in high-risk, low responsibility functions. Stuff like holding a given intersection, not providing security for the USA's last hope.
Well said, imo.



Could go into it at length, but I think this argument alone, as alluded to by others previously, holds water without further support. Day has to be further down the timeline than Land, or else Romero really screwed up with the chronological atmosphere-setting.
To be honest, I dont think Romero thought about it as much as we do whatsoever :)

[EvilNed]

I have had the same job for about 4 years now, and there are several people IN MY OWN DEPARTMENT that I have NEVER LAID EYES ON. And some of the ones I have met, I am sure I would not recognize them if I saw them at the mall, and I am usually pretty good with faces. It is not outrageous to think that years could pass and people dont know people they work with very well. As the only female there, it is very reasonable to assume that Sarah went out of her way to not go around the testosterone fueled men of the military. It wouldnt take long for all involved to at least consider the possibility of harrassment or worse on their part. Hell, look at all the sexual assault in real life now. It is also reasonable that her friends like Fisher would go out of their way to make sure she doesnt have to interact much if at all with them.

Highly unlikely. They have no outside stimulus. There is only this world. There's 18 people (from the start) at the bunker. Only way you'd not know how each of them were after 3 or 4 years is if you were in a coma for the the first 36 months. That coma is omitted in any dialoge as far as I know.


But you talk about the group and their tension and relationships, I say it is much more telling when they come back from their search and say "There's a new grave" and Nicotero replies "Major Cooper died this morning" just as casual as you tell your wife that you are taking out the garbage now. No looks of sadness, not even a look of normal human compassion from anyone upon hearing this news. I would like to think that only a few months into the outbreak, simple civility wouldnt disappear that quickly. And I certainly hope that someone who had risen up the ranks of the military like Rhodes wouldnt turn into a murderer is such short order. I would certainly hope that type of behavior wouldnt manifest itself until after many years of tension and desparation.

3 or 6 months is plenty for all of that. It is sufficent time.

[Trin]

You guys are focused on the military in Day assuming they were hand-picked for this highly critical job. Did you ever consider that they were just the misfits who happened to be stationed at this crappy post in the Florida everglades minding the shop on a stack of government records in a decommissioned missile silo? There is no portraying this place out to be a state of the art research facility that is stocked and prepared for this kind of emergency. They had no military vehicles, no support staff, no modern radio equipment, etc. The impression I get is that the government hastily dropped some scientists into a hole.

Looking at the military situation... I'm surprised they stayed disciplined for a year. They've lost contact with the government and their superiors. They have suffered roughly 50% casualties and rising. Their military situation is characterized as hopelessly outnumbered. They conduct dangerous operations daily. They are low on men and ammunition and they have no indication that resupply, reinforcements, or relief is coming. Oh, and they discovered evidence that the scientists they were risking their lives for every day were FEEDING their fallen comrades to the enemy.

On the opposing side, it doesn't make sense to conclude that Land is early outbreak when they have instated a heirarchy of paid jobs for scavengers, military, police, and security forces. They use a vehicle specially built for scavenging, they have to have requisition papers to take vehicles out, and they have id badges to move throughout the city. They have electricity back on in the city, electric fences erected to keep the zombies out, and the military is stating, regarding the zombies, "They don't much come around anymore." It's absurd to imagine that they couldn't mount a search for survivors when we see them romp recklessly through Union town with a dozen vehicles and we know that Kaufman has set up outposts outside the city.

Another angle to look at is Cholo's financial standings.

The scavengers do runs once a week per the comment, "Whole lotta trash this week."
We know that a run is worth $20K to Cholo per the statement, "With the 20 grand from last night..."
We know that Cholo has compiled all his money together to get a place in the Green per the statement, "...and all the other nights together."
We know that Cholo has ~$5 Million in the bank of Kaufman when he states he wants to withdraw it.

That's.... $5 Million at $20K/run... with 1 run/week ... or 250 weeks... ~5 years!!

Even if you start whittling away at the math (more runs per week, more money per run, other income sources) there's no way Cholo managed to make that kind of money in 3 months.

[shootemindehead]

Regarding the personnel setup, the "military" in 'Day of the Dead' are reservists. They aren't regulars. In fact, they wear the patch of the U.S. Army Reserve 99th on their sleves, I believe. So they aren't the cream of the US military. In addition, Sarah mentions that the operation the scientists are involved in was put together in a matter of days. That and their relatively tiny number, indicates that the scientific team in 'Day of the Dead' are a very small scale situation, set up in extreme haste and probably soon enough after everything went to shit.

In my opinion they've probably been operatng in the silo for some months, the better part of a year perhaps, while a lot of things continued to go downhill, including communication with Washington.

The events in 'Land of the Dead' are years after the outbreak, as stated in the actual film. To me "Fiddler's Green" is a bit on an anomaly, that has been an effective enclave during the apocalypse. It certainly isn't beyong the realms of reality that such a set-up could be possible, if the approaches can be defended successfully. The money issue I can let go as Kauffman's way of controlling the people that are left in the parts of the city and whom are still trying to cling to their old ways. It can suffice as a means of exchange, albeit on a small scale. However, the money thing is simply a Romero oversight and a lazy script mechanisation. Aother bartering tool could have been used, but that would have required a more rigourious explanation as to how that all worked.

There's no real debate to me on the timeline. 'Land' definitely comes after 'Day'.

[bassman]

Regarding the personnel setup, the "military" in 'Day of the Dead' are reservists. They aren't regulars. In fact, they wear the patch of the U.S. Army Reserve 99th on their sleves, I believe. So they aren't the cream of the US military. In addition, Sarah mentions that the operation the scientists are involved in was put together in a matter of days. That and their relatively tiny number, indicates that the scientific team in 'Day of the Dead' are a very small scale situation, set up in extreme haste and probably soon enough after everything went to shit.

In my opinion they've probably been operatng in the silo for some months, the better part of a year perhaps, while a lot of things continued to go downhill, including communication with Washington.

The events in 'Land of the Dead' are years after the outbreak, as stated in the actual film. To me "Fiddler's Green" is a bit on an anomaly, that has been an effective enclave during the apocalypse. It certainly isn't beyong the realms of reality that such a set-up could be possible, if the approaches can be defended successfully. The money issue I can let go as Kauffman's way of controlling the people that are left in the parts of the city and whom are still trying to cling to their old ways. It can suffice as a means of exchange, albeit on a small scale. However, the money thing is simply a Romero oversight and a lazy script mechanisation. Aother bartering tool could have been used, but that would have required a more rigourious explanation as to how that all worked.

There's no real debate to me on the timeline. 'Land' definitely comes after 'Day'.

I agree with just about all of this. With the exception that I don't really see the money issue as lazy script writing. The whole point of Fiddler's Green is to return people to what was once their normal lives. Those residents are cut off from the outside world and living in their own bubble of "happiness". In that sense, it works that money is still their system of trade. It's not something that can be easily forgotten. More importantly, they don't want to forget it because they want their lives to be like they were before. So it makes sense in the same way Roger, Peter, and Stephen wanted to set up shop in a large shopping mall, imo.

[shootemindehead]

I agree Bassy, that's my take on it as well.

But what I mean by "lazy" writing is that it's an easier way out than having to write about a barter system, which would require some sort of background or exposition of some sort, which would have been hard to do in a short period.

[Rancid Carcass]

Whether you agree with it or not, this is an interesting read:

http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/Living_Dead-timeline

I also dug this up on IMDb which I think supports the Land before Day argument:


Dr. Logan figures that the ratio of the undead to the human survivors is 400,000:1. When the film was made, in 1985, the population of the United States in our universe stood at about 240 million. If Dr. Logan is right, and the US population of this universe stood at roughly the same, and this film took place in 1985, there are 600 living human beings left in the USA.

The rest of the article is also highlights the problems of trying to figure out the timeline:


However, since the history of the universe in the "of the Dead" movies had radically diverged from real world history even before the ghouls emerged (notice the Venus probe in the first Night of the Living Dead movie), the timeline of the "Dead" movies remains unclear (the Stephen King novel 'Salem's Lot appears in this film, even though in the real world it came out in 1975; note that the first film in this series came out in 1968; Diary of the Dead, set simultaneously with the events of Night of the Living Dead, features technology not available in 1968 in our world), and we do not know how long after the ghouls emerged that this film takes place, one cannot easily presume that this film takes place in 1985 or that the US population would have remained the same. This is one of many continuity series (eg. Superman, Austin Powers, etc.) affected by "timeslip" wherein more time has passed in the real world between entries which take place in less time, yet each is set in the time it was made. (This often happens in superhero comic books where the same characters experience the Iran-Contra Affair of the 1980s and the 9/11/01 massacres, but only "one year" has passed in the characters' "lives".) It is one of the suspension-of-disbelief conventions that viewers simply have to accept.

Basically - we ain't never gonna figure this shit out...



*Land before Day FTW! :shifty: :D

[nycbsn]

I guess I do not see how what you are saying indicates that the events in Day happen before the events in Land. True, you can not determine the timeframe "simply" by paying attention to the use of money, that is why I mentioned SEVERAL things to consider. Perhaps if our hero's from Day DID find an outpost that used money they might need/want some money themselves, however, we see no indication they are looking for goods, so that argument seems irrelevant to the timeline. I mean, in real life right now, I would like to have all the money I can get, BUT if I had years worth of food and didnt have to pay electric bills, didnt have to pay ANY bills, could just take anything from anywhere that I wanted and literally did not have to suffer ANY consequences (like jail time, etc), then I would not need any money whatsoever. That is the situation they were in.


LOL! Not sure what to say to this one!

Sorry, I should have worded what I said differently. What I meant by "movies" was the tone, that's what I should have said. In other words, I don't think using the *tones* of these films themselves is a good enough indicator of the timeline simply due to the fact that each film doesn't follow the same characters, settings, or circumstances.

It would be easier if it were the same characters throughout the series, which is why I used "Star Wars" and "Alien" as examples.

i.e. Star Wars:

Movie 1 - Heroes win their first major victory

Movie 2 - Villains strike back and chase/hunt down heroes

Movie 3 - Heroes recover and rid of the villains once and for all.

Using the tone as an indicator of the chronological story makes sense in that case, because we are following the same story of the same characters in each film. That's not so much the case with GAR's films. Does that make more sense now?


This is true, however, I fail to see what bearing it has on the topic at hand.


This is not just something I disagree with, it falls more into the category of "doesnt seem to make sense".


Again, not sure this really makes sense, regardless of whatever the truth is about the timeline. If you are suggesting that the events in the two movies could be happening at the same time, that is a valid argument to make, however, I suggest that THE WAY you are trying to make that argument doesnt seem valid. If things seem bleak in a civil war movie but more happy in a WWII movie, that doesnt suggest that they COULD be occuring at the same timeframe.

I don't see how what I'm saying doesn't make any sense. Ok, you think it's possible that "Land" before "Day" because of the tone consistency and the rate at which the characters are clinging to old world concepts, right? All I'm trying to say is just because "Land" seems closer to the old world doesn't mean it is.

We don't know what is going on in the rest of the world. Which is why I used the examples that I did.

I never said that I think "Land" and "Day" can be happening simultaneously. I'm talking about both sets of characters and environments existing simultaneously, the *set-ups* if you will.

In other words, I believe Pittsburgh/Fiddler's Green was *held* not *lost* during the time spanning from the end of "Night" to the end of "Dawn". I believe in that time frame Kaufman was able to successfully barricade that place up and has been reliving the old world ways ever since... yes that means during the events of "Day" too (i.e. while "Day" was taking place, those survivors were moping in despair in their bunker while Kaufman, etc. was living the high life in Fiddler's Green, neither one having any knowledge that the other even exists).

On a side note, if the *on-screen* story of "Land" and "Day" were in fact occuring at the same time, the only way I personally can buy that is if nobody in "Land" brought up 'this and this happened 3 years ago', that is the only thing stopping me from agreeing to that.


To be clear, I wasnt "proposing" anything, I was only responding sarcastically to what you said, which didnt really make sense. I was trying to be nice by not calling attention to the fact that it didnt make sense, but since you posted a bunch more that doesnt make sense, I have to point it out now.

Sorry, I wasn't picking that up at all, then again it can be difficult at times to pick things like that up over a computer. Either way, no need to be sarcastic, you could just simply say I don't quite understand, could you please elaborate a little? And I would be more than happy to.


The reason you agree about the tone is one of the main reason I say the events in Day happen after the events in Land.

I always wrote off the transitional tone between "Day" and "Land" as GAR *losing his touch* so to speak, therefore I personally never counted that as an issue pertaining to this discussion. But that's just me.

[shootemindehead]

The rest of the article is also highlights the problems of trying to figure out the timeline:

The problem with that article though, is that it's talking bollocks.

'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' are not part of Romero's original series of pictures. They're a reboot of it. They just don't belong in the same bracket. They're a completely different series. There is no continuity at all.

As for Dr Logan, he was as mad as a box of frogs. Who give a fiddlers what he says.

:p


And a Stephen King book proves nothing. I have books on my shelf from the 20's and 30's

[sandrock74]

The problem with that article though, is that it's talking bollocks.

'Diary of the Dead' and 'Survival of the Dead' are not part of Romero's original series of pictures. They're a reboot of it. They just don't belong in the same bracket. They're a completely different series. There is no continuity at all.

As for Dr Logan, he was as mad as a box of frogs. Who give a fiddlers what he says.

:p


And a Stephen King book proves nothing. I have books on my shelf from the 20's and 30's

Yeah, that write up was all full of plot holes you could drive Optimus Prime thru! Nothing was "proven" at all.

[Philly_SWAT]

Yeah, that write up was all full of plot holes you could drive Optimus Prime thru! Nothing was "proven" at all.
I say that it is totally inaccurate.

I dont feel like making a nice graphic with all the GAR zed movies right this second, but I would say this about the original trilogy+Land, or the original quadrilogy if you prefer.

The only thing that I need to say other than the timeline is that technological difference have to be ignored. It is just like when watching an episode of the original Star Trek tv show. When the computers look like cardboard boxes with flashing lights, you must suspend your disbelieve and accept that it is set in the future. NOTLD is set in the perpetual NOW. Ignore the 60's clothes, hairstyles, technology, etc, and just accept that filmmakers had to use what was available at the time. That being said, I say this is the timeline...


Night - Occurs NOW, the perpetual present, most precisely either later today or tomorrow. I say this because as you are reading this there is no such thing as a zombie outbreak, so obviously the events in the movie can not have happened in the past. But for a horror movie, the most horrifying thing is that the events you see could happen to you, right now or asap.

Dawn - Occurs approx. three weeks after the events in Night. This is based on Dr Foster saying in the beginning that no one has listened "for three weeks", a direct comment about the current situation. When a Dr was on TV discussing this very terrifying topic of the dead rising and attacking the living, he would obviously try to use facts and avoid misleading, inaccurate comments, and would refrain from using slang and common sayings that could be misunderstood.

Land - Unclear as the exactly when, it appears to be happening right after the events in Dawn, or perhaps simultaneously. Life in the Green is much as it is now...blue collar guys doing the dirty work(Riley and crew), being denied entry into the upper class(Cholo), using money to buy good and services, the sheer number of survivors, most of whom are doing nothing to contribute to the well being of the group. Both the rich and the poor are not defending the Green or foraging for goods. When someone says "No car has driven out of here for 3 years", that isnt a Dr on tv but some half-homeless drunk guy talking shit. It is a common saying. "I havent been laid in forever" does not mean I am a virgin, just that I am conveying it had been a while since I had sex. Same with Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years, it isnt obvious that kaufman would use guys who already worked for him PRIOR to the outbreak? Why would he get a new crew of guys? Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years must mean for sure they are NOT three years into the outbreak.

Day - Five years after the outbreak. This is based on notes in the original script (which said 5 years, although that info is not in the movie) and the overall tone of the movie. There are apparently no other survivors. Military guys and scientists are to the point of murdering each other. Pot is being grown in the open with no fear of repurcusion. Not hidden, right up top in the choperr landing area. YOu think soldiers would do this if they thought there was ANY chance of some superior landing there anytime soon. There USED to be radio contact with Washington, now there is none. That old equipment would still work pretty good TODAY,...not dependent on satelites in space or anything to work. The tone is bleak as if it is the end of the world, unlike the tone in Land which is people laughing and going to bars and taking pictures in the bar, selling hotdogs on the streets, etc.

[EvilNed]

@Philly_Swat

I hate to say this, but I think you want Day to take place after Land more than actually having any logical conclusion to deduce it. I think most of your arguments are rather thin, especially the ones regarding Land of the Dead not taking place 3 years after the outbreak. That's even mentioned in dialoge. There's noway to get around that.

As for Day taking place 5 years after the outbreak? Not impossible, just highly improbable. It would require all characters to have undergone a coma the first 4 years of the outbreak. They still refer to months as a great period of time, they don't know each other very well and they haven't even explored that far around their base. If it's 5 years after the outbreak, they sure aren't acting like it...

The original Day script was adapted into Land. So that's not really a valid "source" in this instance. It is a great script tho. Better than Lands...

[paranoid101]

The timeline to me feels like that the outbreak in Night is a few day's, Dawn is weeks to a few months and Day is a months to nearly a year.

[Rancid Carcass]

I think this pretty much sums up this thread, (and probably a few others around here too!):


Sarah: Maybe if we tried working together we could ease some of the tensions. We're all pulling in different directions.

John: That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life.

;)

[Christopher Jon]

I don't think you can used the mental state of the military in Day as a good reference for how much time had passed. Romero has never been kind to the military and usually presents them as the bad guys. He essentially needed the military in Day to be a bunch of nuts to move his story along. If they weren't nuts, events wouldn't have unfolded like they did.

However, as shooteminthehead pointed out, they were reservists so they could have been complete shit-bags from the beginning.

[Wyldwraith]

I don't think you can used the mental state of the military in Day as a good reference for how much time had passed. Romero has never been kind to the military and usually presents them as the bad guys. He essentially needed the military in Day to be a bunch of nuts to move his story along. If they weren't nuts, events wouldn't have unfolded like they did.

However, as shooteminthehead pointed out, they were reservists so they could have been complete shit-bags from the beginning.

Even this explanation bothers me,
Enlisted guys, sure. Officers, especially a Captain or Higher (the late Major Cooper) have made a SUBSTANTIAL commitment to the notion of SERVING their country. I'll even grant you that, so long as it isn't habitual and was a terrible heat-of-the-moment thing, even Steele's behavior towards the beginning of the movie where he's threatening to feed Miguel to the zombie in the chute for dropping the catch-pole and endangering Steele's buddy is POSSIBLE. As an enlisted Reservist, Steele might be a blue-collar high-functioning alcoholic puke prior to the outbreak.

Where I go right off the deep end is Rhodes, beginning of the movie, threatening to have Sarah SHOT for something as trivial as meeting protocol. This is the behavior of a sociopath, or at the very least a high-function psychotic individual. Borderline Personality at BEST. This sort of individual simply would NOT have made Captain, reservist or no. That's GAR's rabid anti-military prejudice there. Nothing resembling reality remotely. Sarah didn't actively antagonize Rhodes, she wasn't overtly challenging him, and they were all still quite safe while down below in the bunker. There's no IMMEDIACY of danger to excuse this deep-end behavior. Chronic stress and PTSD or no.

If this was how the military behaved, the National Guard would've joined the looters during the L.A Riots and Katrina. They didn't.

Edit/Note: Further, had Rhodes deteriorated THIS far, this completely, Cooper would've relieved him of duty and had him confined long before Cooper's own death. The idea that Rhodes inherits the C.O position and PROMPTLY begins as one of his first acts to order Steele to gun down the ONLY WOMAN IN THE BUNKER isn't just immoral, insane, ITS STUPID.

[EvilNed]

To be honest, Ww, I think the world they are facing in Day might turn anyone into a psychopath if they're not disciplined enough. You can't compare this to the LA Riots or Katrina, because that wasn't the end of the world. This was. Just imagine all the lonely moments these guys have had, sitting in their bunks, staring into the wall and thinking how everything they know, and everyone they knew, is gone. Dead. Devoured. Death is all around them, but even death itself has switched meanings. Death doesn't mean "the end" anymore. It means "transition". From being a healthy human being to a mindless automaton that wants to eat you alive. That right there is enough to give me shivers. To live through that could drive anyone insane.

[Philly_SWAT]

To be honest, Ww, I think the world they are facing in Day might turn anyone into a psychopath if they're not disciplined enough. You can't compare this to the LA Riots or Katrina, because that wasn't the end of the world. This was. Just imagine all the lonely moments these guys have had, sitting in their bunks, staring into the wall and thinking how everything they know, and everyone they knew, is gone. Dead. Devoured. Death is all around them, but even death itself has switched meanings. Death doesn't mean "the end" anymore. It means "transition". From being a healthy human being to a mindless automaton that wants to eat you alive. That right there is enough to give me shivers. To live through that could drive anyone insane.
So let me ask you EvilNed. You seem reasonably smart, well adjusted, capable, etc. Are you saying that you think after only a few weeks/months, when faced with the possible (not certain) "end", that you would turn into a maniacal killer? For sure none of us knows what we would do in any situation until we are actually in it, but I tend to think that I would not be ready to kill people over being late to a meeting after only a couple of months of bleakness, and I am not an army officer, but just a regular dude.

[babomb]

When someone says "No car has driven out of here for 3 years", that isnt a Dr on tv but some half-homeless drunk guy talking shit. It is a common saying. "I havent been laid in forever" does not mean I am a virgin, just that I am conveying it had been a while since I had sex. Same with Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years, it isnt obvious that kaufman would use guys who already worked for him PRIOR to the outbreak? Why would he get a new crew of guys? Cholo working for kaufman for 3 years must mean for sure they are NOT three years into the outbreak.
Take into consideration that both of these comments state the 3 year mark. I think it's likely that it means something, rather than mere coincidence that both refer to a 3 year time span.
Also, if the comment of a "car not driving out of there in 3 years" was not meant to illustrate anything, and was just a exaggeration, why put a number on it? Why not just say "no car has driven out of there in years"? Most films and writers wouldn't do that, and most people in real life wouldn't do that. Like you said-"I haven't been laid in forever", this is intentionally vague in terms of the time span to illustrate a point. If you said-"I haven't been laid in 3 years", most logical people would assume that to be more of a general approximated time span. Not an exaggeration that really means a few months.
Most exaggerations that refer to time spans are normally expressed in vague terms such as years or months or days, or extremely long time spans like 20 years or more or with terms like forever.
So it seems much more likely that both comments that refer to the 3 year mark are approximated time spans that actually are meant to illustrate a literal time frame within the storyline. It just doesn't seem likely that the script writer/s just happened to use "3 years', one meant as an exaggeration, and the other meant to include time before the outbreak. That's an over complication of intent and dialogue that isn't normally seen in films or in real life.


I always got the impression that the group in Day were just people who happened to be around the right place to come in contact with each other. Sarah was what, a medical Dr? The only real scientist was Dr. Frankenstein. It doesn't seem like the group is in any way trained, or even familiar with governmental procedures on research and development methods for finding solutions of any kind for anything. All indications point to them being an ad-hoc group that came together by circumstance.
The helicopter guy doesn't seem like a military pilot, he seems like a commercial pilot that happened to have access to a chopper, much like Steven from Dawn. Who happened to come across the bunker, possibly because it just seemed like a good place to land, or maybe he saw Rhodes' team in the vicinity.

Speaking of Rhodes, my impression of his demeanor was never that he was once a normal person who was just pushed to his limits due to the circumstances of the apocalypse(lending to the idea that Day took place years into the outbreak when civility had time to break down). It was that he was a control freak military leader that felt forced to resort to psychopathic methods to control the situation in the bunker due to the fact that the civilians in the group were individualists not used to or concerned with militant discipline. So Rhodes felt that control over the situation was getting away from him, so he had to resort to extreme methods to try to regain a sense of control. Based on his demeanor, he could've resorted to murder and tyranny days or weeks into the outbreak. As soon as the situation triggers his controlling nature.
So this itself does not support the theory that Day took place long into the outbreak. I'm not saying that it didn't, or that Day was before Land or vice versa. I'm just saying that the behavior of Rhodes or the other soldiers doesn't support the long timeline theory.

Unless I'm missing something in dialogue, nothing about the situation suggests that they were put there to operate as a cohesive unit to find a cure. Seems more like they were operating independently, where the civilians did not know each other previously. Hence the lack of cooperation and absence of any real organized R&D protocol.
The idea that they were a government sanctioned group, even chosen out of desperation because of a lack of options, seems like the least likely scenario.

The radio would've already been there, and they would've been scanning to find any existing elements still alive and functional within range. So the fact that they were in radio contact at one point with some type of command and control doesn't indicate them being a government sanctioned group. The soldiers were government sanctioned originally.

But ultimately, I don't think this specific issue can be resolved by analyzing the events in the films themselves. I think it's implied more in the chronological order of the films as they were released. Is Land ever officially referred to as a prequel to Day? You'd think it would be if it were meant to be. Since it came out so many years later, if it were specifically written as being before Day, I think that would be something that George would want people to understand.

[MoonSylver]

Unless I'm missing something in dialogue, nothing about the situation suggests that they were put there to operate as a cohesive unit to find a cure.

Captain Rhodes: "McDermott doesn't have decent radio gear. And now, you're telling me that you don't have the shit you need? We're running low on ammunition. I'm running low on men for Christ's sake! Who in Washington DC put this loony farm together like this?"

Sarah: "It was very rushed. This whole operation was put together in a matter of days."

Captain Rhodes: "Yeah? Well it can all be taken apart in a matter of minutes, lady! I'm ready to tell you that I'm ready to do just that! I'm ready to shut this whole thing down and take the next train out of here!"

It was an "organized" effort, put together hurriedly, to find a solution. There may have even been who-knows-how many more out there, slapped together in a hurry & stashed away somewhere "safe" at the last minute, as society fell. We know they used to be in contact w/ DC via satellite relays as well, which has now gone silent...

Johnson: "We used to talk to Washington all the time. They could hear us then."

McDermott: "We were on relays then. We weren't over the air. The power is off on the mainland now in case you haven't heard, and all the shopping malls are closed!"

[babomb]

Captain Rhodes: "McDermott doesn't have decent radio gear. And now, you're telling me that you don't have the shit you need? We're running low on ammunition. I'm running low on men for Christ's sake! Who in Washington DC put this loony farm together like this?"

Sarah: "It was very rushed. This whole operation was put together in a matter of days."

Captain Rhodes: "Yeah? Well it can all be taken apart in a matter of minutes, lady! I'm ready to tell you that I'm ready to do just that! I'm ready to shut this whole thing down and take the next train out of here!"

It was an "organized" effort, put together hurriedly, to find a solution. There may have even been who-knows-how many more out there, slapped together in a hurry & stashed away somewhere "safe" at the last minute, as society fell. We know they used to be in contact w/ DC via satellite relays as well, which has now gone silent...

Johnson: "We used to talk to Washington all the time. They could hear us then."

McDermott: "We were on relays then. We weren't over the air. The power is off on the mainland now in case you haven't heard, and all the shopping malls are closed!"
Guess I shoulda watched it again before commenting. It's been at least 5-6 years since I've watched it. It's the one I've watched the least. It's kinda drawn out so I always go for Dawn.

[facestabber]

Very iteresting read. I wonder if someone on this site will be seeing Romero at a comic con or something and can point blank ask the man what the timeline is. It would be funny to cut to the chase and have the man end the theories.

[MoonSylver]

Guess I shoulda watched it again before commenting. It's been at least 5-6 years since I've watched it. It's the one I've watched the least. It's kinda drawn out so I always go for Dawn.

:)

I've seen them all so many times over the years now the dialog is seared into my brain. :lol:

[shootemindehead]

So let me ask you EvilNed. You seem reasonably smart, well adjusted, capable, etc. Are you saying that you think after only a few weeks/months, when faced with the possible (not certain) "end", that you would turn into a maniacal killer? For sure none of us knows what we would do in any situation until we are actually in it, but I tend to think that I would not be ready to kill people over being late to a meeting after only a couple of months of bleakness, and I am not an army officer, but just a regular dude.

All armies are microcosims of society and society produces some real fucked up anomalies from time to time, even with the absence of extremely stressful sitatuations. How do you know that Rhodes wasn't already a "maniacal killer" and that the apocalypse simply hasn't given him carte blanche to unleash his more baser attributes? That, coupled with the fact that he's now running the "monkey farm", could be the ingredient for his final twists.

Rhodes is clearly unhinged and is seen as such by the people in the bunker, before he gets to weild power over the unit. Fisher says that compared to Rhodes, Major Cooper was a "sweetheart". This infers that Rhodes wasn't a likable guy before the events depicted in the film.

[EvilNed]

So let me ask you EvilNed. You seem reasonably smart, well adjusted, capable, etc. Are you saying that you think after only a few weeks/months, when faced with the possible (not certain) "end", that you would turn into a maniacal killer? For sure none of us knows what we would do in any situation until we are actually in it, but I tend to think that I would not be ready to kill people over being late to a meeting after only a couple of months of bleakness, and I am not an army officer, but just a regular dude.

No, I do not, because I am reasonably smart, well adjusted, capable etc. etc.

None of these are attributes I would use to describe Rhodes and his gang.

[AcesandEights]

If you guys think months of watching the world go down the toilet; the incomprehensible event of the dead rising; the cruel and likely torturous deaths of many, possibly most or all of the people you cared about; the inability of man to cope with, contain or deal with the problem and, in many ways only compound them; and then, to top it all off, get sealed in a can with dwindling resources, loss of contact with the outside world and direction; with a seemingly endless horde on your doorstep and a gnawing feeling in your gut that most of the world is dead or dying isn't enough to leave a lot of people emotional wrecks, especially after months of stress piling up and a lack of rest...well...I don't know what to say.

[Trin]

@Moon - Great post up there! Good solid information!

I think Rhodes is getting a bit of a raw deal in this thread. He wasn't a murdering psychopath. In his first dialogue on screen he made some very good points. The military lost 5 men. They were expected to risk their lives daily to gather and house the undead. They were expected to live, eat, and sleep next to the undead. And the scientists were giving them nothing in return. No information. No end point. No progress. He was getting nothing but a mouthful of greek salad. And to top it off they were drugging his men. The man has good reason to be irritated.

You can't call him a murdering psychopath for threatening to have Steele shoot Sarah. The scientists in general and Sarah in particular questioned his authority in the first 24 hours after the former CO died. If he were a murdering psychopath he would've just shot her himself without warning as an example to the others. He gave her plenty of chances to sit back down.

No shootings occurred until after the big reveal that the scientists were feeding his troops to the undead. After that all bets are off. In the best light the scientists are immoral and unethical bordering on insane. In the worst light they are traitorous and Rhodes was justified in executing them.

I'm not saying that Rhodes was not unbalanced. But the scientists expected a lot of the military and ultimately looked very culpable in screwing the military. Logan definitely deserved what he got... and in the eyes of the military the entire research team was a party to the same behavior. I pin the blame on Logan rather than Rhodes.

[MoonSylver]

Honestly, there's plenty of blame on both sides, which is part of the point. By the time of Day we've come full circle to one of the messages of Night: our inability to work together, to get along, & to see things from each others points of view leads to our undoing.

There was plenty of dysfunction & mental instability on both sides as well, come to think of it...:crazy: The military may have had the edge in terms of QUANTITY of spoon in yer ass crazy, but ol' Doc certainly had them in terms of QUALITY...:lol:

[shootemindehead]

@Moon - Great post up there! Good solid information!

I think Rhodes is getting a bit of a raw deal in this thread. He wasn't a murdering psychopath. In his first dialogue on screen he made some very good points. The military lost 5 men. They were expected to risk their lives daily to gather and house the undead. They were expected to live, eat, and sleep next to the undead. And the scientists were giving them nothing in return. No information. No end point. No progress. He was getting nothing but a mouthful of greek salad. And to top it off they were drugging his men. The man has good reason to be irritated.

He may or may not be a murdering psychopath, but he is clearly an unlikable person and is viewed as very dangerous by the civilian element in the bunker. As said earlier, Fisher says that Cooper was a sweetheart compared to Rhodes and tells Sarah to physically "watch" herself. His council is based on good observation, as Rhodes makes a very overt sexual threat to Sarah a few scenes later.

Make no mistake, Rhodes is not a nice guy, or even that reasonable. He is the villian of the piece, he's written as such and played as such by Pilato.


You can't call him a murdering psychopath for threatening to have Steele shoot Sarah. The scientists in general and Sarah in particular questioned his authority in the first 24 hours after the former CO died. If he were a murdering psychopath he would've just shot her himself without warning as an example to the others. He gave her plenty of chances to sit back down.

Rhodes doesn't have any authority. The operation in the bunker is a civilian operation and the duties of the reservist military element within was to facilitate that operation. Rhodes is a self imposed dictator. His authority hasn't been sanctioned by anybody, but himself. As for him shooting her himself, he probably wouldn't. As observed by John in a later scene, he would have "Steele do it" and as it plays out he threatens Steele at the end of a gun to shoot Sarah.

In short, Rhodes is a dirtbag.


No shootings occurred until after the big reveal that the scientists were feeding his troops to the undead. After that all bets are off. In the best light the scientists are immoral and unethical bordering on insane. In the worst light they are traitorous and Rhodes was justified in executing them.

Wrong. LOGAN is feeding Bub, not the scientists, who are as appalled by his actions as the others are.


I'm not saying that Rhodes was not unbalanced. But the scientists expected a lot of the military and ultimately looked very culpable in screwing the military. Logan definitely deserved what he got... and in the eyes of the military the entire research team was a party to the same behavior. I pin the blame on Logan rather than Rhodes.

There's a pair of them in it. Their level of insanity differs in matters of degree and action.

[Morto Vivente]

I agree with Shootem that Rhodes is the primary villain. IMO all the concern for his men is just a smoke screen for his own fear that everyone is already dead; particularly himself, and he's losing control. Logan/scientific team is the catalyst for Rhodes to unleash what he really feels even before he discovers Logan's deluxe brand of "Beef Treats", it's brewing throughout the entire movie. The shooting of Logan is just the release point.

IMO Rhodes attempts to regain a semblance of control by dominating the entire group, both military and civilian, although he's obviously not fit for command. Albeit both Logan and Rhodes are crazy in opposite ways, one compensating with hyper-rationality to the point of insanity and the other overwhelmed by the terror which is consuming him. Neither of them survive, while as we all know, Sarah and crew who kept it together and cooperated did ultimately survive; at least beyond the end of the movie.

Just a thought, but possibly John secured his own survival by allowing his feelings for Sarah to influence his decisions, remembering at the start of the movie he said "My job is just to fly the Whirly Bird". He wasn't that keen on going beyond his remit.

[Philly_SWAT]

Great posts by shootem and Morto!

[Trin]

Agreed! Those are some great posts with great points!


Wrong. LOGAN is feeding Bub, not the scientists, who are as appalled by his actions as the others are.My statement was in context of defending the military position in light of what they knew at the time. Obviously WE know it was Logan solely taking that action, but in the eyes of the military the scientists were all equally involved. Sarah and Fischer were caught observing the experiment as if they were a party to it all along. Anyone who thinks that Logan's execution at the hands of the military was justified has to acknowledge that Sarah and Fischer could have been executed right then with equal justification.

Rhodes not having any authority (and thus it being an authority grab) is an interesting perspective, and one I had not considered. I do recall them saying it was a civilian operation, but I always assumed it was still under military jurisdiction. That is, the military were under orders to facilitate the research team, but were themselves still ultimately in command of the operation. It's pretty clear that Major Cooper was in charge prior to Rhodes. And no one seemed to argue with Rhodes over his right to assume command. The only argument posed by the researchers was whether he was fulfilling the orders given the military. The main shift that seemed to occur as power shifted from Cooper to Rhodes is that Rhodes was not as accomodating to the research staff. I got no sense that Rhodes snatched command from the research team.

I also question how unbalanced Rhodes was prior to Cooper's death. You'd think that Fischer would not have to explain things to Sarah about Rhodes since they'd been in the facility for months (some might say years *g*) together already. Obviously this is speculation, but my impression of Rhodes was that he was doing his job just like the others.... to whatever extent you give any of them that credit... and his demise didn't begin until faced with command.

[EvilNed]

Take into consideration that both of these comments state the 3 year mark. I think it's likely that it means something, rather than mere coincidence that both refer to a 3 year time span.
Also, if the comment of a "car not driving out of there in 3 years" was not meant to illustrate anything, and was just a exaggeration, why put a number on it? Why not just say "no car has driven out of there in years"? Most films and writers wouldn't do that, and most people in real life wouldn't do that. Like you said-"I haven't been laid in forever", this is intentionally vague in terms of the time span to illustrate a point. If you said-"I haven't been laid in 3 years", most logical people would assume that to be more of a general approximated time span. Not an exaggeration that really means a few months.


I think it's quite obvious that Land takes place 3 years after the dead rise. It's stated in dialoge twice. Suggesting that those two references to "three years ago" or "for three years now" mean something else is... just awkward. There is no doubt that Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak. Question is when Day takes place. I personally believe Day takes place sometime around the 1 year mark. Maybe even just a couple of months. I judge that mostly by how the people in the bunker do not seem to know each other that well.

[shootemindehead]

Agreed! Those are some great posts with great points!

My statement was in context of defending the military position in light of what they knew at the time. Obviously WE know it was Logan solely taking that action, but in the eyes of the military the scientists were all equally involved. Sarah and Fischer were caught observing the experiment as if they were a party to it all along.

Not really though. Rhodes etc burst in on the procedings and they're (Billy and Sarah) shocked at what they are witnessing. Sarah and Billy are staring at Logan and saying "oh my god". It would take some leap to believe that they were in on Logan's little plan. In any case, Rhodes later kills Fisher for no real reason, other than to make others do his bidding and then gets Steele to knock some sense into John's "junglebunny" head.

While the guy may have some sort of right to be upset at Logan's feeding of dead soldier flesh to Bub in his experiment, there is no way on earth that his previous or susequent actions can be considered justified.


Rhodes not having any authority (and thus it being an authority grab) is an interesting perspective, and one I had not considered. I do recall them saying it was a civilian operation, but I always assumed it was still under military jurisdiction. That is, the military were under orders to facilitate the research team, but were themselves still ultimately in command of the operation. It's pretty clear that Major Cooper was in charge prior to Rhodes. And no one seemed to argue with Rhodes over his right to assume command. The only argument posed by the researchers was whether he was fulfilling the orders given the military. The main shift that seemed to occur as power shifted from Cooper to Rhodes is that Rhodes was not as accomodating to the research staff. I got no sense that Rhodes snatched command from the research team.

Nobody argued because they probably figured Rhodes out for what he was and arguing would have been pointless. Besides, I doubt anyone would have a problem with Rhodes being in charge of HIS men. That's the chain of command. However, he certainly has no authority over the civilians in the bunker. That much is made very clear by Fisher's dialogue.

From the moment Rhodes is on screen, he is clearly an unlikeable character.

Also Fisher clearly indicates that the operation is a civilan one and not a military one. The military are to "facilitate" the scientific team, that's all. By facilitate, I presume that that meant to help the scientific team in what the needed for their work. If Romero had meant it to be a military operation, I think he would have made that clear.

Fisher: "Since when did this become a military operation?"

Rhodes: "Since I took over."

All we hear about Major Cooper though is that he died in the morning and that compared to Rhodes, he was a "sweetheart". He promised something to Fisher and the scientists, to which Rhodes callously replies that "Major Cooper is dead". I assume that whatever it was he promised was agreeable to Fisher etc, but Rhodes isn't interested.


I also question how unbalanced Rhodes was prior to Cooper's death. You'd think that Fischer would not have to explain things to Sarah about Rhodes since they'd been in the facility for months (some might say years *g*) together already. Obviously this is speculation, but my impression of Rhodes was that he was doing his job just like the others.... to whatever extent you give any of them that credit... and his demise didn't begin until faced with command.

Rhodes, as a Captain, was second in command to the Major, so he may well have been kept under control by him. He doesn't seem to care very much that Cooper was dead, from his words, so it's possible that he was a "kept dog", with the leash in Coopers hands. With Cooper out of the way (perhaps Rhodes did him in?), the reins were off and it was his time now, to run the "monkey farm". As for Fisher telling Sarah to watch herself, he may only have been putting into words what everybody had been aware of for a long time.

That kind of thing happens all the time.

[Trin]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you to a large extent. But I maintain that no real authority grab was made by Rhodes when he took command. The research team had no leader and no chain of command and no direct authority over the military. Their only leverage was that the military had been given orders to facilitate them. And when Rhodes took command he interpreted that set of orders differently than Cooper did. Which, if you remove Rhodes being a d-bag from the equation and just look at the situation, made sense. They were losing men. They were overworked. They were making mistakes. And the research team was getting nowhere with no demonstrable progress. The best thing the military could've done was refuse support and scale back (if not outright shut down) the operation.

We know Logan's work was worthless. Fischer was trying to feed them beef treats. And Sarah admitted her work might take years to lead to anything.

Maybe *we* saw that Sarah and Fischer were shocked at what Logan was doing, but I don't think Rhodes saw that. My personal opinion is that he was not justified in executing Logan. But I think it would've eventually come to that had they worked it out and put him on trial. The only positive to that would've been they might've discerned the truth which would've saved Sarah and Fischer.

I agree wholeheartedly that Rhodes was the villain and unlikeable from the start. And it's hard to paint a picture where he does not lead the group to some bad end. I think he had it in him to take his men and the helicopter and screw the rest of them. I just don't like ALL of his behavior and actions portrayed as villainous.

[shootemindehead]

I think you're giving Rhodes an overinflated benefit Trin.

The guy is clearly the "bad guy" of the film. He's not some misunderstood chap that nobody gets. He's a total cunt of the highest order and absolutely instrumental in the breakdown of the bunker. From the second he's on screen he's an antagonist. Sure, he may have some points to make and the soldiers job of rounding up zombies and corral operations are extremely dangerous, but those are the duties they were assigned.

I don't think the he just interpreted orders differently than Cooper. He saw his "promotion" as a way to enforce his will, at the end of a gun. He threatens to shoot Steele, after threatening to shoot Sarah. He makes a threatening rapacious signal towards her too. He institutes hiw own version of martial law and says that anyone not following his "orders" will be shot (I'm assuming that that threat is not limited to the scientists).

There not the actions of a reasonable man, or a man that's deserving a command situation of any kind. He's clearly not that smart either, as his plan to get out of the bunker is quite rightly countered by Logan's "where would you go?", to which he has no answer. Even though Sarah, Billy and John get out to some unknown island, which is probably a matter of luck.

Shutting down the operation would have meant what though? As far as they knew, that was it for them. What would they have done? You're correct that the scientifc groups work was largely worthless, but as Sarah said they were doing all that was left to do.

If Rhodes couldn't see Sarah's face he certainly heard her saying "oh my god...", clearly indicating that she was horrified at what she was witnessing. Rhodes is not justified in executing anybody. He has no sanction to do so, except under his own delusions. In any case, Logan was feeding Bub with dead flesh. It's not as if he was hearding live soldiers into the mouths of zombies. Rhodes may have been correct in displaying his objections to Logan's actions and in fact he would have everybody on his side. But by that stage he's not interested any more. He simply wants to get out of the bunker and he'll do it in any way he sees fit, including cold blooded murder.

Rhodes may have been correct on a couple of items, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Morto Vivente]

I really don't see Rhodes as having any redeemable traits at all. His claim about being concerned about his men is a complete fallacy. One example which springs to mind is that he's willing to put Miguel's life on the line purely because of his jealousy over the relationship with Sarah. I'd even go as far as saying he wants Miguel dead.

Maybe I'm being extreme but Rhodes unleashes the sadist within, pure and simple. After shooting Fischer, IMO he forces Sarah and McDermott into the Zed infested caverns in order to maximize and delight in John's suffering, (aside from driving the plot and ultimately allowing them to survive) it fits perfectly with the revelation that Rhodes is the real monster of the movie.

[Neil]

I really don't see Rhodes as having any redeemable traits at all.True! But you got to love the guy :)

[Morto Vivente]

True! But you got to love the guy :)

Yup.....You either love to hate him, or hate to love him. :)

[shootemindehead]

True! But you got to love the guy :)


<------------------------------- :kiss: