So which Night film is canon to George's series, original or remake? [Archive]

MinionZombie

15-Feb-2018, 11:20 AM

I agree with the last bit (it is not "bad" either, but not as good as the previous films), but I still maintain that the number of problems in seeing Land as happening after Day is greater than the other way around. Some easy examples if one takes the Land happens after Day point of view:

1- Less decayed zombies & cities/towns than in Day

2- Outposts around since early on in the zombie crisis in Land, yet for the people in Day the possibility of going to such outposts is totally unknown or so out of the question that no one even bothers to bring them up anymore (in fact, the issue of where to go to is a big problem for those who are entertaining the idea of leaving the bunker, so much so that Dr. Logan uses it to shut up Rhodes when he threatens to take his men and leave)

3- People in Day could communicate with others even as far up as Washington DC, but eventually they could not find anyone else around, yet the people in the outposts of Land have communications still up and running

4- Money still has value in the world of Land. Money is worthless in the more devastated & decayed world of Day

5- Humans can still venture outside of the outposts with relative safety in Land. In Day going out of the confines of a bunker is deemed very risky and therefore not often practiced, and even then only with helicopters

6- In Land large numbers of humans are still able to live on ground level with relative safety. In Day even what's left of the national government itself has gone underground

Now the other way around, obvious problems if one takes the point of view that Day happens after Land:

1- ???

Can't think of one!

I'll indulge you this one time, JDP.

1) There are many reasons for the look of the zombies changing or not changing. One is the ability of practical effects, another is the available budget. Comparing Land of the Dead to The Walking Dead shows major leaps and bounds in terms of what can be achieved with zombies, but also in how they cast the zombie roles as on TWD they regularly cast quite thin people to show the decay off more (it also allows them to build upon the actor without the zombie appearing too 'bulky').

In Land of the Dead the principal cast of zombies were all your normal, every day actors - so they'll be of a normal, healthy, human build.

Can't think of one very decayed looking zombie in Land of the Dead?

Go to 0:31 in the video.
-ZT3GWgqz-Q

As for the decay of the cities. We only saw one city in Day, and the damage there was cosmetic (for obvious reasons - lack of budget, no easy use of CGI). Apocalyptic, no doubt, but it was mostly detritus on the streets, some newspapers blowing around, a few smashed up cars and such. Land of the Dead, on the other hand, shows far more of the world around it in various states (including long, overgrowing plants - passage of time).

2) All we know is the situation of the people in the bunker inside Day. We get very little information about what's going on in the outside world. The people they were talking to might have gone AWOL, or the link broke down (McDermott's radio is woefully out of date, remember, and barely functioning). Day is mankind scattered to the wind, the dazed chaos of a species that has been knocked for six - Land is the coming together afterwards. It simply is not in mankind's nature to just drift off into nothingness after getting battered.

3) They re-established communications with communities they re-established. Kaufman explains himself that he paid for the setting up of these communities (which makes it clear that he was doing something after the fall of mankind, to rejuvenate the species' hold on the planet and not let it fall to the zombies forever). They took back sections of the world, built new defences, and gathered people back together again and reorganised them. That's one of the major points/themes that Land is working with - reflected in the zombies themselves, whose evolution in understanding is absolutely, positively, clearly AFTER the events of Day of the Dead and Bub. Bub goes from average-ish zombie to recognising Rhodes' rank and seeking revenge for the death of Logan. In Land we see Big Daddy go from lone wolf aware of what's happening to a leader of an entire army, putting guns in the hands of fellow zombies and teaching them (albeit crudely) how to fire them, he even instructs certain zombies (the Butcher) to perform tasks when their progress is hindered. Bub was never at that level - the evolution of the zombies alone screams loud and proud that Land takes place after Day. Romero spoke about it repeatedly himself, of Land's zombies being an evolution of those from Day. Evolution doesn't go backwards in time.

4) *sigh* Again, this has been discussed to death, but the basics of it is thus: mankind understands the value of money and the cash-for-services system. It was a system that mankind had grown up on, and it would have only been 'put aside by the apocalypse' for what, a couple of years? They've got enough to deal with, establishing an entirely brand new economic system isn't going to be a priority. Also, if you didn't have that, you'd bugger up the entire plotline of Kaufman being the rich man in the ivory tower - he's using old world power and influence in the apocalypse to re-establish mankind as it once was. Money still has power, and is a simple system that is already understood by every single human being in that (and other) settlements. The thread dedicated to the subject went over it in far more detail - but suffice it to say, money in Land absolutely makes sense.

5) By the time we come to Land the people have got used to the zombies - again, this was one of Romero's clearly stated objectives with the film as far back as the original script he wrote in the 1990s. It was about 'stepping over the problem and ignoring it', so therefore it stands to reason that the humans would be pretty capable of dealing with the zombies. However, even still, people get bitten, but for the most part we see people venturing out in organised groups (see points 2 and 3) with military vehicles, distraction techniques, body armour, and weapons galore. They've discovered ways to keep the zombies occupied (the "sky flowers") so they meet little resistance as they scavenge.

In Day of the Dead you've got a handful of people with no organised pool of vehicles, weapons, armour, and certainly not the amount of people that they had scrounged together from the streets of Fiddler's Green to do the job. You've got a pilot, a radio man, a scientist, and one (collapsing) military guy. They're not a strong unit for venturing into the world.

6) They've chosen a tactical location - what is almost an island (surrounded by rivers with the bridges up) - and the one strip of land is heavily guarded and defended. They explicitly state that the zombies got wise to the electric fences and opted to sod off elsewhere. In Day of the Dead, the particular group we follow, have been dumped into an old missile silo at a moment's notice (Sarah states that the whole operation was hastily put together - in the heat of the initial outbreak - they went there a few weeks in and have been stuck there for months). Land shows mankind getting themselves re-organised after the events of Day, which shows how mankind scurried to the nearest defendable safe place in a panic. Land shows mankind has taken a breather, got themselves together, and striking out into the world again. Simples.

As for Day taking place before Land, (or vice versa) - the strongest indicator to me personally is that Land clearly takes place 3-5 years after the outbreak (I forgot which they said in the film) whereas to me the people in Day are acting as if the outbreak started within a year ago. When they visit Fort Meyers they're still hoping to find someone, whereas in Land they know there's nothing left.

In Land they also have a way of coping with the new world - they've adapted to it. Whereas in Day, they're still clinging on to the hope that the old one isn't over year.

Aye. There's an explicit reference to 'the last car rolled out of here THREE YEARS ago', in concern to Riley's missing car that he had wanted to take to Canada.

In Day, meanwhile, any references they make to time are a matter of MONTHS. :)

JDP

15-Feb-2018, 03:06 PM

We've been through all those points before and I disagree with pretty much all of them.

I don't see what's there to "disagree", unless you think that the people in Day are the stupidest, most sadomasochist & suicidal bunch ever, who enjoy being surrounded by the living dead instead of choosing the relative safety of one of these outposts which had been around since early on during the zombie crisis. But that is not what the movie shows us. These survivors in the bunker are desperate to either find a solution (the scientists) or at least a safe place to get away from the zombies (the soldiers.) And you cannot blame it on their "orders" since for a while now there has been nothing resembling a central government issuing "orders" to anyone anymore. These people are doing what they are doing not because some top cat in Washington is still pushing them to do so, but because they pretty much have no other choice left. A very different situation from that of Land, where things still look somewhat hopeful.

As for Day taking place before Land, (or vice versa) - the strongest indicator to me personally is that Land clearly takes place 3-5 years after the outbreak (I forgot which they said in the film) whereas to me the people in Day are acting as if the outbreak started within a year ago. When they visit Fort Meyers they're still hoping to find someone,

There is no time reference implied in Day. For all we know those guys have been around for years into the zombie crisis as well.

whereas in Land they know there's nothing left.

Nothing left? These outposts (and there's certainly more than just one) have THOUSANDS of survivors still thriving in plain daylight! Again, a striking difference with what we see in Day, where the much lower number of survivors are pretty much forced to live in bunkers.

In Land they also have a way of coping with the new world - they've adapted to it. Whereas in Day, they're still clinging on to the hope that the old one isn't over year.

They've "adapted" to a much less decayed & devastated world than the one of Day. The "adaptation" we see in Day is that of a much more desperate world, where humans are now vastly outnumbered by hordes of zombies.

EvilNed

15-Feb-2018, 04:21 PM

I don't see what's there to "disagree", unless you think that the people in Day are the stupidest, most sadomasochist & suicidal bunch ever, who enjoy being surrounded by the living dead instead of choosing the relative safety of one of these outposts which had been around since early on during the zombie crisis. But that is not what the movie shows us. These survivors in the bunker are desperate to either find a solution (the scientists) or at least a safe place to get away from the zombies (the soldiers.) And you cannot blame it on their "orders" since for a while now there has been nothing resembling a central government issuing "orders" to anyone anymore. These people are doing what they are doing not because some top cat in Washington is still pushing them to do so, but because they pretty much have no other choice left. A very different situation from that of Land, where things still look somewhat hopeful.

The Soldiers in Day are only just realizing that they are cut off from the outside world. The film depicts the moment when they collectively realize that they are on their own. There is a scene in this film which explicitly states this.

JDP

15-Feb-2018, 04:22 PM

I'll indulge you this one time, JDP.

1) There are many reasons for the look of the zombies changing or not changing. One is the ability of practical effects, another is the available budget. Comparing Land of the Dead to The Walking Dead shows major leaps and bounds in terms of what can be achieved with zombies, but also in how they cast the zombie roles as on TWD they regularly cast quite thin people to show the decay off more (it also allows them to build upon the actor without the zombie appearing too 'bulky').

In Land of the Dead the principal cast of zombies were all your normal, every day actors - so they'll be of a normal, healthy, human build.

Can't think of one very decayed looking zombie in Land of the Dead?

As for the decay of the cities. We only saw one city in Day, and the damage there was cosmetic (for obvious reasons - lack of budget, no easy use of CGI). Apocalyptic, no doubt, but it was mostly detritus on the streets, some newspapers blowing around, a few smashed up cars and such. Land of the Dead, on the other hand, shows far more of the world around it in various states (including long, overgrowing plants - passage of time).

2) All we know is the situation of the people in the bunker inside Day. We get very little information about what's going on in the outside world. The people they were talking to might have gone AWOL, or the link broke down (McDermott's radio is woefully out of date, remember, and barely functioning). Day is mankind scattered to the wind, the dazed chaos of a species that has been knocked for six - Land is the coming together afterwards. It simply is not in mankind's nature to just drift off into nothingness after getting battered.

3) They re-established communications with communities they re-established. Kaufman explains himself that he paid for the setting up of these communities (which makes it clear that he was doing something after the fall of mankind, to rejuvenate the species' hold on the planet and not let it fall to the zombies forever). They took back sections of the world, built new defences, and gathered people back together again and reorganised them. That's one of the major points/themes that Land is working with - reflected in the zombies themselves, whose evolution in understanding is absolutely, positively, clearly AFTER the events of Day of the Dead and Bub. Bub goes from average-ish zombie to recognising Rhodes' rank and seeking revenge for the death of Logan. In Land we see Big Daddy go from lone wolf aware of what's happening to a leader of an entire army, putting guns in the hands of fellow zombies and teaching them (albeit crudely) how to fire them, he even instructs certain zombies (the Butcher) to perform tasks when their progress is hindered. Bub was never at that level - the evolution of the zombies alone screams loud and proud that Land takes place after Day. Romero spoke about it repeatedly himself, of Land's zombies being an evolution of those from Day. Evolution doesn't go backwards in time.

4) *sigh* Again, this has been discussed to death, but the basics of it is thus: mankind understands the value of money and the cash-for-services system. It was a system that mankind had grown up on, and it would have only been 'put aside by the apocalypse' for what, a couple of years? They've got enough to deal with, establishing an entirely brand new economic system isn't going to be a priority. Also, if you didn't have that, you'd bugger up the entire plotline of Kaufman being the rich man in the ivory tower - he's using old world power and influence in the apocalypse to re-establish mankind as it once was. Money still has power, and is a simple system that is already understood by every single human being in that (and other) settlements. The thread dedicated to the subject went over it in far more detail - but suffice it to say, money in Land absolutely makes sense.

5) By the time we come to Land the people have got used to the zombies - again, this was one of Romero's clearly stated objectives with the film as far back as the original script he wrote in the 1990s. It was about 'stepping over the problem and ignoring it', so therefore it stands to reason that the humans would be pretty capable of dealing with the zombies. However, even still, people get bitten, but for the most part we see people venturing out in organised groups (see points 2 and 3) with military vehicles, distraction techniques, body armour, and weapons galore. They've discovered ways to keep the zombies occupied (the "sky flowers") so they meet little resistance as they scavenge.

In Day of the Dead you've got a handful of people with no organised pool of vehicles, weapons, armour, and certainly not the amount of people that they had scrounged together from the streets of Fiddler's Green to do the job. You've got a pilot, a radio man, a scientist, and one (collapsing) military guy. They're not a strong unit for venturing into the world.

6) They've chosen a tactical location - what is almost an island (surrounded by rivers with the bridges up) - and the one strip of land is heavily guarded and defended. They explicitly state that the zombies got wise to the electric fences and opted to sod off elsewhere. In Day of the Dead, the particular group we follow, have been dumped into an old missile silo at a moment's notice (Sarah states that the whole operation was hastily put together - in the heat of the initial outbreak - they went there a few weeks in and have been stuck there for months). Land shows mankind getting themselves re-organised after the events of Day, which shows how mankind scurried to the nearest defendable safe place in a panic. Land shows mankind has taken a breather, got themselves together, and striking out into the world again. Simples.

1- The average zombies in Day look more decayed than those of Land. Even their clothes look more worn down. All this suggests they have been around gradually decaying for a longer time.

We see one large city in Day as an example of how things are looking by this time into the zombie crisis: it looks quite messy and abandoned, with garbage, debris, rotted corpses, rusting cars, wild animals have moved in... Now compare that to the "neater" look of both abandoned cities & towns we see as samples in Land.

2- We can easily deduce quite more from what the people in the bunker say. These people have only been isolated from other parts of the US for some relative amount of time. We know they used to "talk to Washington all the time". It is very safe to assume that they were not exchanging "recipes" during their frequent talks with their bosses in Washington, but precisely about things that matter for the zombie crisis, like what the hell is going on up there and elsewhere. These people in the bunker do not show any signs whatsoever that the information they have gotten from their bosses in Washington looks any "good" at all. The fact that even the government itself has apparently vanished is an even worse sign that things "up there" are no better than "down there" where they are. This is all very different from what see in Land, where there still are some large pockets of survivors thriving "up there" right on Washington's next door.

3- People like Kaufman were doing such things from very early on during the zombie crisis, the movie itself informs us that these outposts are not some development of the distant future.

We don't know when some zombies started getting "smart". What we see in Land is just one zombie displaying the Bub-like behavior of showing some degree of intelligence that we saw in Day. All the other zombies we see are just as "dumb" as the ones we see in the other Romero movies, who are capable of "mimicking" some things they see or vaguely remember from their past lives and of using simple tools, but little else (this was already established in Dawn.) The only reason they "learn" to do some basic things is because Big Daddy shows them how, and then they just blindly "follow the leader". Where is this supposed "evolution" of most zombies? It seems like it is just one in a whole bunch that occasionally "get smart". Same situation we saw in Day.

4- *Sigh* For money to have value there must be something backing it up. Whatever is it that is still backing up the US dollar in Land (perhaps the still lingering US government), it is certainly gone by the time of Day, where money lays on the streets like just another example of garbage. Money still had value in Dawn, though. Even as far as the crisis had already advanced by the time the biker gang assaults the mall (when there no longer are any government broadcasts anymore), evidently money was still a sought-for thing (the bikers waste no time looting the bank, so obviously even this far into the zombie crisis money still "talked" out there. This is certainly gone by the time of the much more decayed world of Day.)

5- Some people in Land are in fact still so unfamiliar with the zombies that one of them even has to ask for information regarding how long does it take for a bitten person to die and become a zombie (and the answer given is yet another huge contradiction to Romero's previous movies, but that is another "nitpick".) You don't see this by the time of Day, though, where everyone is well aware of this situation. There pretty much can be no human left on Earth who isn't very familiar with the zombies and what happens when you get bitten by one by the time of Day. But such ignorance of what exactly happens to a bitten person is still seen in Dawn, though (once again suggesting that what happens in Land should in fact be closer to what happens in Dawn than to what happens in Day.)

No vehicles in Day? Huge sections of the bunker are in fact FILLED with vehicles. Plus we know that at some point during their stay in the bunker they actually ventured outside to capture zombies (the zombies trapped in the section of the caves where the missile silo is were in fact put there on purpose, zombies captured on the outside by the soldiers and then brought down.) Judging by the amount of zombies they captured, it is very safe to assume that they likely used some of the vehicles down there to load and transport zombies to the caves. By the time we are allowed to see what's happening in Day, this is no longer an option. The soldiers now pretty much refuse to go outside anymore (that's why Sarah is against wasting any more specimens, since once they are gone the soldiers will likely not want to risk their lives going outside to capture more.) Things obviously have gotten worse since. More and more zombies everywhere.

6- Again, Kaufman et al. did all this early during the zombie crisis. This is not some development of the distant future.

We don't have any specific time reference in Day. All we know is that the operation they are currently involved in was put together in a rush (Sarah is referring to the start of the operation.) We don't know what they were doing before, and we don't know how long they have been down there since the operation started either.

The people in the bunker in Day could technically leave whenever they wanted to. They had a helicopter and land vehicles (but notice that the soldiers do not consider them an option, they want the helicopter; that should tell you something about how dangerous they consider land-travel at this point, unlike the world of Land, where land-travel in pretty much any kind of vehicle is still very much an option), yet the problem of where to go to is always present. With the only exception of the scientists (who do show a genuine interest in trying to solve the problem), these people are not staying down there because they want to, but pretty much because they have little other choice left (the only other option left, as is suggested by the pilot, is to go to an isolated island. Notice that there is no such thing as these "outposts" of Land to be considered as options in Day. It's either a bunker or an island, take your pick!)

EvilNed

15-Feb-2018, 06:53 PM

5- Some people in Land are in fact still so unfamiliar with the zombies that one of them even has to ask for information regarding how long does it take for a bitten person to die and become a zombie (and the answer given is yet another huge contradiction to Romero's previous movies, but that is another "nitpick".) You don't see this by the time of Day, though, where everyone is well aware of this situation. There pretty much can be no human left on Earth who isn't very familiar with the zombies and what happens when you get bitten by one by the time of Day. But such ignorance of what exactly happens to a bitten person is still seen in Dawn, though (once again suggesting that what happens in Land should in fact be closer to what happens in Dawn than to what happens in Day.)

I'd like to dispute this point in particular, even though I disagree with all of the above points (apart maybe from the money, which is a dumb plot point but that's just Romero's overt way of criticizing capitalism).

None of the characters in Day are aware of anything. In fact, the entire film revolves around them trying to figure out what is going on and to what extent the world has collapsed. They're all confused and several times the point is made that they don't know.

Now you might argue that the people in Land don't all know how long it takes to turn, and the characters in Day do... Well, the characters in Day are a group of soldiers and scientists who have a single purpose - to study the phenomena. The characters in Land are bandits and crooks who are only out to steal and pillage. Of course the former are going to have a better understanding of the zombies than the latter.

But as far as worldy awareness goes, the Land characters undoubtedly are much more secure in their knowledge than the characters in Day - who seem amazed that there's not a single soul out there for a 100 miles.

JDP

15-Feb-2018, 09:14 PM

I'd like to dispute this point in particular, even though I disagree with all of the above points (apart maybe from the money, which is a dumb plot point but that's just Romero's overt way of criticizing capitalism).

None of the characters in Day are aware of anything. In fact, the entire film revolves around them trying to figure out what is going on and to what extent the world has collapsed. They're all confused and several times the point is made that they don't know.

Now you might argue that the people in Land don't all know how long it takes to turn, and the characters in Day do... Well, the characters in Day are a group of soldiers and scientists who have a single purpose - to study the phenomena. The characters in Land are bandits and crooks who are only out to steal and pillage. Of course the former are going to have a better understanding of the zombies than the latter.

But as far as worldy awareness goes, the Land characters undoubtedly are much more secure in their knowledge than the characters in Day - who seem amazed that there's not a single soul out there for a 100 miles.

This is hardly what is shown in Day. The characters are pretty aware of the situation outside: there seems to be no one "out there"! They haven't encountered or heard from anyone else, not even the government itself (all the way right next door to those outposts of Land), for a while now. The fact that Logan can shut up Rhodes regarding his threats to take his men and leave the bunker already shows that they know there's little other choice for a safe dwelling place. But the case you bring up is actually worse for Land if, as you want to believe, they have actually been longer into the zombie crisis than the people down in that bunker in Florida. How come there's still people around in those outposts, supposedly so long into this mess, who do not even know something as basic as: you get bitten, you survive for a while, then die & turn into one of them??? No one has to tell this basic info to anyone in Day, they all know it very well (civilians & soldiers alike), it is an integral part of life & survival in this new messed up world they are in, yet you want to take the paradoxical position that these people in the bunker have actually been less time into the zombie crisis when they in fact show more familiarity with the subject. Doesn't make much sense, just like several other things between these two movies if you want to consider them in the Day--->Land order.

EvilNed

16-Feb-2018, 09:55 AM

This is hardly what is shown in Day. The characters are pretty aware of the situation outside: there seems to be no one "out there"! They haven't encountered or heard from anyone else, not even the government itself (all the way right next door to those outposts of Land), for a while now.

Steel and Rickles are amazed that the others didn't find any sign of life on their helicopter trip. The privates still live in a bubble where communication with Washington is not a far-fetched idea.
They do not know what's out there, they only speculate. This is clearly illustrated in the film.

shootemindehead

16-Feb-2018, 04:44 PM

Are we really going to do all this again?

:D

Look, I thought we all agreed that Night 90 had replaced the 1968 version. Land comes before Day, but ONLY if you watch the 2004 version of Dawn and the 1978 version of Dawn has been relegated to happening on some far away 1970's planet, where disco never died.

It's fuckin simple folks.

MinionZombie

16-Feb-2018, 05:30 PM

JDP

16-Feb-2018, 05:40 PM

Steel and Rickles are amazed that the others didn't find any sign of life on their helicopter trip. The privates still live in a bubble where communication with Washington is not a far-fetched idea.
They do not know what's out there, they only speculate. This is clearly illustrated in the film.

By the time we see what's going on in Day, they have been incommunicated with the outside for only some amount of time. The soldiers are pressuring McDermott to try to re-establish communications. These guys were certainly not out of touch with at least what was going on as far up north as Washington DC (which is not far from where we see the events in Land take place: it's one of the bordering states.) The fact that they are aware of how bad things have gotten is plainly seen in the fact that Logan can stick it to Rhodes' face that his threats about leaving the bunker are bluff: "Where will you go, captain?" Rhodes' answer to this simple "challenge": **crickets** He knows that things out there have gotten very bad and there is hardly much of any safe place to go to left, that's why he can't answer Logan's sarcastic question and has to swallow his pride in front of everyone (something which Rhodes evidently hates to have to do.) Now, do you seriously think that if such outposts like those we saw in Land, which were even reported by the MEDIA while it was still around (so no need to rely on Washington's feedback regarding their existence), were still around by the time of Day that a loud-mouth major A-HOLE like Rhodes would not have used them as an appropriate answer to the doctor's sarcastic "question"? Methinks that he would not have hesitated for a second: "Where will I go, Frankenstein? How about one of them outposts up north, Frankenstein? I will take my men and go there, and I'll leave you and your highfalutin asshole friends to rot in this stinking sewer! Is that answer enough for you, Frankenstein?"

beat_truck

16-Feb-2018, 09:43 PM

:deadhorse:

Even if Land was before Day, which it's not,:D it would take a hell of a lot of doing, at either point in time, to get from that bunker in FL to an outpost in PA.

EvilNed

16-Feb-2018, 10:07 PM

By the time we see what's going on in Day, they have been incommunicated with the outside for only some amount of time. The soldiers are pressuring McDermott to try to re-establish communications. These guys were certainly not out of touch with at least what was going on as far up north as Washington DC (which is not far from where we see the events in Land take place: it's one of the bordering states.) The fact that they are aware of how bad things have gotten is plainly seen in the fact that Logan can stick it to Rhodes' face that his threats about leaving the bunker are bluff: "Where will you go, captain?" Rhodes' answer to this simple "challenge": **crickets** He knows that things out there have gotten very bad and there is hardly much of any safe place to go to left, that's why he can't answer Logan's sarcastic question and has to swallow his pride in front of everyone (something which Rhodes evidently hates to have to do.) Now, do you seriously think that if such outposts like those we saw in Land, which were even reported by the MEDIA while it was still around (so no need to rely on Washington's feedback regarding their existence), were still around by the time of Day that a loud-mouth major A-HOLE like Rhodes would not have used them as an appropriate answer to the doctor's sarcastic "question"? Methinks that he would not have hesitated for a second: "Where will I go, Frankenstein? How about one of them outposts up north, Frankenstein? I will take my men and go there, and I'll leave you and your highfalutin asshole friends to rot in this stinking sewer! Is that answer enough for you, Frankenstein?"

As I said, it's clearly shown in the film that they are not aware of the state of things.

JDP

17-Feb-2018, 08:09 AM

As I said, it's clearly shown in the film that they are not aware of the state of things.

And as I pointed out before, it is hardly the case. Communications between them and the outside have not been down for a very long time. The soldiers are still pressuring McDermott to re-establish them. They still have hope of contacting someone again.

Also, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that out of 18 people in that bunker NONE ever heard the news reports about the outposts? Do you also seriously expect anyone to believe that thriving cities with THOUSANDS of survivors somehow went unnoticed by the people right next door in Washington? So, these folks in the US government are interested in knowing what's happening all the way down in Florida and constantly communicate with the people they sent down there, but they do not show the slightest interest in what's happening right at their doorstep??? It takes a gigantic leap of faith to expect that the people of Day somehow could not have known about such outposts that even the media itself had already reported on. Anyone wanting to see Land as happening after Day will keep on butting-heads with this bunch of contradictions and discrepancies. If Romero's intention was to indeed make Land happen after Day, he totally messed up. He should have thought about these plot details more carefully before introducing a movie that would clash with the previous installments. Not surprising that many hard-core fans disown Land (and let me say again, that technically it is not a bad movie; my main beef with it is regarding plot contradictions with the previous movies more than anything else.)

- - - Updated - - -

:deadhorse:

Even if Land was before Day, which it's not,:D it would take a hell of a lot of doing, at either point in time, to get from that bunker in FL to an outpost in PA.

From the perspective of the soldiers, it sure beats the hell out of being besieged by increasing hordes of zombies! The soldiers in the bunker are progressively getting to the point that they do not care anymore, they want out, no matter what the risks are outside and how long they have to go to find a safe place. They just don't want to stay in that bunker any longer.

Plus one guy in Land actually wants to have a nice trip by car (!) all the way up to Canada, just to see if maybe, just maybe, he can make it up there on his own... Can you imagine such a scenario in the obviously more devastated and zombie-infested (roughly 400,000 zombies per every human!) world of Day, where even travelling by chopper can be risky? Keep on beating the imaginary "dead horse" :) It won't make the bunch of pesky contradictions and discrepancies between both movies to magically "vanish". But one day you might realize that most of them do in fact "vanish" by simply considering the Land ----> Day order.

EvilNed

17-Feb-2018, 02:52 PM

And as I pointed out before, it is hardly the case.

It is the case.

The soldiers are still pressuring McDermott to re-establish them. They still have hope of contacting someone again.

Exactly my point. They're unaware of what deep shit they're in.

MinionZombie

17-Feb-2018, 05:19 PM

It is the case.

Aye, the theme of not knowing is throughout the film. From Logan's experiments doing nothing to prove anything new, to Sarah & Co's frustration with not being able to advance their research, to everyone not knowing what's really going on out there due to communication troubles and so forth.

Plus, their chopper only has a range of what, a couple hundred miles? So you can only go out so far while keeping enough fuel in the tank for the trip back. Your radius, compared to the rest of the nation, is going to be limited.

JDP

17-Feb-2018, 09:51 PM

It is the case.

Exactly my point. They're unaware of what deep shit they're in.

But that contradicts your point of view, not mine! According to the point of view of the Day ----> Land order, there actually are a whole bunch of people still left around on the surface, and not very far from Washington DC itself in fact. Why then should the guys in the government bunker down in Florida not entertain hopes of contacting someone again??? They would have plenty of reasons to.

Leaving aside Land and the problems it (unwittingly?) introduced into the series, the people in Day already have good reason to still be hopeful that someone else is still out there somewhere, despite how bad things have gotten, because not too long ago they were still communicating with others. Sarah says that the government people in Washington are holing up in shelters as well. So these guys have a good excuse to keep on trying to contact somebody again, no matter how bad things have gotten.

- - - Updated - - -

Aye, the theme of not knowing is throughout the film. From Logan's experiments doing nothing to prove anything new, to Sarah & Co's frustration with not being able to advance their research,

Logan did prove something "new": that some zombies can be "domesticated". It wasn't very useful to solve the problem, but he did prove the point.

to everyone not knowing what's really going on out there due to communication troubles and so forth.

Their communication troubles are only relatively recent. The soldiers are still surprised that no one seems to be "out there" and they are still putting pressure on their radio man to try to re-establish contact with the outside.

Plus, their chopper only has a range of what, a couple hundred miles? So you can only go out so far while keeping enough fuel in the tank for the trip back. Your radius, compared to the rest of the nation, is going to be limited.

That did not stop the survivors in Dawn to try to make it to Canada in the exact same way. You simply stop for refueling, as many times as it takes. Yes, it's risky, but desperate people will try it before allowing themselves to be besieged by increasing hordes of zombies. Plus in Land we have something that is even more dangerous: here we have a dude who wants to make the trip into the Canadian wilderness by car!!!

MinionZombie

18-Feb-2018, 11:28 AM

That did not stop the survivors in Dawn to try to make it to Canada in the exact same way. You simply stop for refueling, as many times as it takes. Yes, it's risky, but desperate people will try it before allowing themselves to be besieged by increasing hordes of zombies. Plus in Land we have something that is even more dangerous: here we have a dude who wants to make the trip into the Canadian wilderness by car!!!

In Dawn they're forced to flee, regardless of their fuel situation. They were planning on staying at the mall. As Fran says, they don't have much fuel. There's almost a hopelessness to it all - IIRC there was an idea floating around that they would put in the sound of a sputtering helicopter engine during the credits somewhere (i.e. the chopper runs out of juice).

As for Riley and his car, we don't even get to see it, so we don't know how he'd set it up. The fact that it was in a workshop suggests it was being modified, especially as he was the architect behind Dead Reckoning. It wouldn't just be some family run around. Riley wants to escape the society he has found himself in, he wants to go out there alone rather than live in the re-established society ... a society, which, after being 'torn down' by the zombies is then re-re-established by the people on the street after the zombies leave en masse. The people on the ground take over and seek to build something new. They suggest Riley stick around, but he insists on leaving as he's in search of something else entirely - much like the zombies.

Land has a running theme of recycling society. Revolution, evolution, change. Mankind falls, mankind rises, mankind falls again, mankind rises again. It's at the very core of our species' nature, so it doesn't make any sense that mankind wouldn't attempt (and succeed) at re-establishing some kind of organised community with as many of the trappings and systems of the old world as possible.

To briefly return to the money issue and how some have a hard time buying it having any worth: in addition to it already being a currency all the people are very familiar with, in addition to the currency existing, just look at all this e-currency like BitCoin at the moment. It doesn't even physically exist and was just made up and had value applied to it. If that can be achieved, why can't a pre-apoc currency that physically exists, that people already know how to use and have attached value to, be brought back in pockets of societies that are all linked. It's a pretty simple notion to get your head around, I'm baffled by why some have such a hard time with it in regards to Land of the Dead. :confused:

JDP

19-Feb-2018, 04:05 AM

In Dawn they're forced to flee, regardless of their fuel situation. They were planning on staying at the mall. As Fran says, they don't have much fuel. There's almost a hopelessness to it all - IIRC there was an idea floating around that they would put in the sound of a sputtering helicopter engine during the credits somewhere (i.e. the chopper runs out of juice).

As for Riley and his car, we don't even get to see it, so we don't know how he'd set it up. The fact that it was in a workshop suggests it was being modified, especially as he was the architect behind Dead Reckoning. It wouldn't just be some family run around. Riley wants to escape the society he has found himself in, he wants to go out there alone rather than live in the re-established society ... a society, which, after being 'torn down' by the zombies is then re-re-established by the people on the street after the zombies leave en masse. The people on the ground take over and seek to build something new. They suggest Riley stick around, but he insists on leaving as he's in search of something else entirely - much like the zombies.

Land has a running theme of recycling society. Revolution, evolution, change. Mankind falls, mankind rises, mankind falls again, mankind rises again. It's at the very core of our species' nature, so it doesn't make any sense that mankind wouldn't attempt (and succeed) at re-establishing some kind of organised community with as many of the trappings and systems of the old world as possible.

To briefly return to the money issue and how some have a hard time buying it having any worth: in addition to it already being a currency all the people are very familiar with, in addition to the currency existing, just look at all this e-currency like BitCoin at the moment. It doesn't even physically exist and was just made up and had value applied to it. If that can be achieved, why can't a pre-apoc currency that physically exists, that people already know how to use and have attached value to, be brought back in pockets of societies that are all linked. It's a pretty simple notion to get your head around, I'm baffled by why some have such a hard time with it in regards to Land of the Dead. :confused:

The guys in Dawn are doing what others are doing: getting out of the big cities since they are being overrun by the increasing numbers of zombies. Their original plan was not staying at a mall. They just made a stop on one, to catch their breath, take a look around, and then continue, likely all the way up to Canada, as Fran suggests. It's just that they then realized that they likely had a good thing going at the mall that made them stop their travels.

Riley was just having a normal car fixed at that mechanic's shop, he obviously doesn't have the resources to build an armored vehicle a la Dead Reckoning. Plus no matter what modifications he would have made to it, you still have to stop to eat, go to the bathroom, sleep and/or refuel. In a world with zombies roaming around free it would be quite more dangerous to do this with a car than to do it with a helicopter. The more time you spend on the ground, the more potential encounters with the zombies, the very thing you are trying to avoid. In a helicopter you only really have to expose yourself to potential encounters with the zombies when you refuel (there is no choice but to land where the fuel is stored.) Eating, going to the bathroom and sleeping can be done on top of buildings where the zombies can't reach you.

About paper money: it needs something backing it up, otherwise it is worthless. People will rather go back to bartering with actual physical goods than taking worthless paper for something that has value, or go back to gold & silver currency (which is what I think Romero should have done, not US dollars, which, if you consider the point of view that Land takes place after Day, would be worthless, as the government that backed it up is now pretty much gone itself.)

EvilNed

19-Feb-2018, 04:37 AM

But that contradicts your point of view, not mine! According to the point of view of the Day ----> Land order, there actually are a whole bunch of people still left around on the surface, and not very far from Washington DC itself in fact. Why then should the guys in the government bunker down in Florida not entertain hopes of contacting someone again??? They would have plenty of reasons to.

When they refer to Washington, they’re obviously refering to some higher authority within the military. This having only recently collapsed being a sign of how bad things are, something the soldiers are unwilling to accept.

It’s all right there in the film, clear as Crystal. These guys don’t know what’s out there.

JDP

19-Feb-2018, 09:52 AM

When they refer to Washington, they’re obviously refering to some higher authority within the military. This having only recently collapsed being a sign of how bad things are, something the soldiers are unwilling to accept.

It’s all right there in the film, clear as Crystal. These guys don’t know what’s out there.

The fact that communications are down and that their physical searches are "another waste of time" (notice the plural; they have been going around with the chopper more than once), are an indicator that they have a pretty good idea how bad things have gotten. The increasing horde of zombies accumulating at their very own doors is also another crystal clear indicator of what's going on out there. Logan has enough info on the subject to calculate that zombies now outnumber humans by something like 400,000 to one. Yes, they have a pretty good idea that the fecal matter has hit the fan out there!

ElectricFire169

19-Feb-2018, 10:34 AM

Whoa, what did I miss?

Just to go back briefly to the subject of the differences between Night and Diary, I think the films are all meant to be considered as happening "in the near future" and hence they're portrayed as having technology that would have been available to them at the time of the making of the film, rather than being a literal linear progression. That's how they can have analogue TVs in Night but digital cameras in Diary, imo. They're not meant to be set in a particular time period, they're just generally about "the end".

EvilNed

19-Feb-2018, 11:41 AM

The fact that communications are down and that their physical searches are "another waste of time" (notice the plural; they have been going around with the chopper more than once), are an indicator that they have a pretty good idea how bad things have gotten.

Clearly not, as indicated by Rickles and Steele's surprise at the start of the film. They are only now beginning to realize.

MinionZombie

19-Feb-2018, 05:25 PM

ElectricFire169 - haha, you're stirred something up here. :D But it's nice to dig into some Romero chat again.

Clearly not, as indicated by Rickles and Steele's surprise at the start of the film. They are only now beginning to realize.

Indeed, their emotional outbursts and incapability clearly suggests this is all new to them. The people in Land have all got used to the idea quite considerably and are living with the problem (one of Romero's biggest intentions with that film - to show mankind 'stepping over' the problem). It makes no sense for Land to come before Day for that reason alone - not to mention the myriad other reasons laid out before in this thread.

JDP

20-Feb-2018, 03:55 AM

Clearly not, as indicated by Rickles and Steele's surprise at the start of the film. They are only now beginning to realize.

That's because they have just come back from exploring the coast, an area that they probably did not explore before. They obviously have been to other places and also found no signs of life, otherwise the "another waste of time, right?" remark by one of the soldiers when they come back from this chopper expedition would not make any sense. They do realize very well how bad things have gotten.

- - - Updated - - -

ElectricFire169 - haha, you're stirred something up here. :D But it's nice to dig into some Romero chat again.

Indeed, their emotional outbursts and incapability clearly suggests this is all new to them. The people in Land have all got used to the idea quite considerably and are living with the problem (one of Romero's biggest intentions with that film - to show mankind 'stepping over' the problem). It makes no sense for Land to come before Day for that reason alone - not to mention the myriad other reasons laid out before in this thread.

Yes, so "used" to it that one of the main characters in that movie actually has to ask info about what exactly happens when a person gets bitten by a zombie! That would be unthinkable in the world of Day, where everyone still alive is already very familiar with the zombies and what happens when you get bitten by one. And no, you don't need a PhD to know that simple basic fact, which is now very necessary for everyday survival. Peter in Dawn, for example, did not need a scientific study to know this basic fact, he learnt it from simply having come in contact with the zombies and seeing what their bites do to people. That Flyboy and Fran still don't know this basic fact and need Peter to inform them about it is excusable in that movie since the zombie crisis has not been going on for very long yet and they have only recently started to come in contact with the zombies. That by itself already, without taking into account all of the other observations that have been made in this thread, shows it makes little sense to think that the clearly less devastated world of Land can possibly come after the total collapse of society and more decayed world that we plainly see in Day.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoa, what did I miss?

Just to go back briefly to the subject of the differences between Night and Diary, I think the films are all meant to be considered as happening "in the near future" and hence they're portrayed as having technology that would have been available to them at the time of the making of the film, rather than being a literal linear progression. That's how they can have analogue TVs in Night but digital cameras in Diary, imo. They're not meant to be set in a particular time period, they're just generally about "the end".

Yes, but many people still have a problem with Diary taking place simultaneously as the events in Night, which is what Romero himself suggested. This problem could have been more easily overlooked if Diary did not make technology itself one of the central plot elements. The movie in fact revolves much around portable video cameras, personal computers & the internet, things totally absent in the world of Night. It is just too difficult for many people to simply overlook this very notable difference between both worlds.

EvilNed

20-Feb-2018, 06:08 AM

That's because they have just come back from exploring the coast, an area that they probably did not explore before.

Dude... They're in Florida. What the fuck man, these mental gymnastics should earn you a gold medal.

JDP

21-Feb-2018, 04:56 AM

Dude... They're in Florida. What the fuck man, these mental gymnastics should earn you a gold medal.

Look at a map of Florida. Does it look to you that it does not have any areas without coast? How do we know where the bunker is located? It could be miles inland.

EvilNed

21-Feb-2018, 06:06 AM

Look at a map of Florida. Does it look to you that it does not have any areas without coast? How do we know where the bunker is located? It could be miles inland.

They went a 100 miles up each way.
No place in Florida is a 100 miles from any coast to begin with.
In fact, much of Florida is coast.

Anyway, minutae detail... The film clearly shows the soldiers not being aware of their situation around them, regardless of where they are.

I think that what makes the film so great. It depicts the realization of doom. They realize the world they've come to know is at an end. There's no more hierarchy, the government's fallen. They're left to their own devices and all the things people count on as security are gone. Desperation sets in.

Man, I gotta rewatch this.

JDP

21-Feb-2018, 10:22 AM

They went a 100 miles up each way.

Yes, but the location of the bunker could be in central Florida, still many miles away from any coast.

In fact, much of Florida is coast.

Yes, and much of it is also not coastal.

Anyway, minutae detail... The film clearly shows the soldiers not being aware of their situation around them, regardless of where they are.

I think that what makes the film so great. It depicts the realization of doom. They realize the world they've come to know is at an end. There's no more hierarchy, the government's fallen. They're left to their own devices and all the things people count on as security are gone. Desperation sets in.

Man, I gotta rewatch this.

Further evidence that they have been exploring other areas before:

"Forget it, Billy boy. It's a dead place, LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, you know."

The movie shows well that they are aware that things have gotten very bad: communications with Washington down, no one within range of their persistent radio messages (sent both from their base and from the helicopter while they are exploring) responds, no signs of human life anywhere they have been to, more and more zombies at their doors everyday... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

EvilNed

21-Feb-2018, 01:14 PM

Yes, but the location of the bunker could be in central Florida, still many miles away from any coast.

Considering the geography of Florida... That would be a highly unlikely assumption.

But I digress. It doesn't matter anyway. The characters make clear that they're not aware of what scenario is developing around them.
You may disagree with this, if you will, but it is nonetheless exposition given in the film.

MinionZombie

21-Feb-2018, 05:21 PM

Not sure how searching Florida has much to do with 'Land before Day' ... I've lost the plot here. :lol:

JDP

22-Feb-2018, 07:54 AM

Considering the geography of Florida... That would be a highly unlikely assumption.

But I digress. It doesn't matter anyway. The characters make clear that they're not aware of what scenario is developing around them.
You may disagree with this, if you will, but it is nonetheless exposition given in the film.

Once again, such remarks as "another waste of time, right?", "it's a dead place, like all the others, you know", "I wanna know if you're doing something that's gonna help us out of this deep shit we're in", "they have overrun us, you know? We're in the minority now. Something like four hundred thousand to one, by my calculations", pretty much shows these guys know that things have gotten very bad. I don't know where you are getting this idea from that they don't know what's happening. It is not what the movie shows. They are very well aware of the situation and how bad it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how searching Florida has much to do with 'Land before Day' ... I've lost the plot here. :lol:

Because it shows these guys are in fact well aware of how bad things have gotten, and they have not confined themselves to other people's reports (back when the media and long-distance communications were still up) but have also done some investigations of their own, which confirm that things are indeed very bad and there appear to be hardly much people left, or at least living on the surface. The counter-argument is trying to make these guys look like they are clueless about what's going on outside the confines of the bunker (which would also imply that they could know nothing about what's going on up there in Pennsylvania), but that's hardly the case. Besides the previous frequent communications with Washington, they have also been actively exploring and sending radio signals as far as they can. They have not been sitting idle and blindly speculating about things. But this counter-argument is nil even if the people in the bunker had really just sat idly doing nothing, because even the MEDIA had already reported the existence of the outposts early on during the zombie crisis. There just is no way that they could not have known about them.

EvilNed

22-Feb-2018, 11:50 AM

Once again, such remarks as "another waste of time, right?", "it's a dead place, like all the others, you know", "I wanna know if you're doing something that's gonna help us out of this deep shit we're in", "they have overrun us, you know? We're in the minority now. Something like four hundred thousand to one, by my calculations", pretty much shows these guys know that things have gotten very bad. I don't know where you are getting this idea from that they don't know what's happening. It is not what the movie shows. They are very well aware of the situation and how bad it is.

Absolutely, they're frustrated. But the film explicitly shows that they're not aware of the scope things have. Frankensteins estimations and the fact that they were clearly expecting the helicopter recon to lead to something show that they're not aware.

Again, the film explicitly shows this. In fact, it's what the film is about.

JDP

23-Feb-2018, 08:35 AM

Absolutely, they're frustrated. But the film explicitly shows that they're not aware of the scope things have. Frankensteins estimations and the fact that they were clearly expecting the helicopter recon to lead to something show that they're not aware.

Again, the film explicitly shows this. In fact, it's what the film is about.

Who says they all are necessarily expecting anything positive? Of the two soldiers who make comments on the latest helicopter recon, one sounds surprised they found nothing, the other one wasn't surprised at all. The helicopter pilot is another guy who obviously has pretty much lost all hope too. He thinks the whole thing they are doing there is nuts, he just wants out, they should just go spend the remaining days they have on an island somewhere, isolated from the mainland. Miguel is having a nervous break-down about the whole thing. The radio man is also nervous as hell, and not just because they have found nothing with their helicopter searches, but also because of the "dead air" everywhere (plus the soldiers are pressuring him to re-establish communications with anyone), and tries to calm down with loads of booze. Sarah tries to keep a more positive and hopeful attitude. But whether hopeful or not, these guys are doing what they are doing because there is little else they can do but to look for signs of anyone else left alive.

Frankenstein's estimations sound very doomy, certainly not hopeful at all for mankind. And by all we see and can deduce from the movie, he's certainly on the right track. Things look ghastly. More so than in Land, where there's still very large numbers of people thriving on the surface.

EvilNed

23-Feb-2018, 01:25 PM

Who says they all are necessarily expecting anything positive?

The scene implies they did.

Anyway, moving on. We'll never agree on this.

In my mind, Day takes place around 6-8 months into it all. Maybe up to a year even. It depicts a small group of researchers who have been set up by the military, in isolation, to study and try to find a cure or solution to the zombie question. Slowly, but surely, they lose men. They started out with 18 and are now down to 12 persons. They're corrall of zombies is dwindling and they are running out of time and hope. They are beginning to realize that perhaps it is futile to try to solve this thing. Perhaps it's better to try to survive.

On the other hand, Land depicts a society which has done just that. It's moved on. It's beyond trying to solve the issue. It's just trying to survive. As mentioned in dialogue in the film it's 3+ years into it and obviously people have adapted to a new way of life.

It's clear as crystal to me which one takes place before the other. But I'm glad there can be disagreements among observers and I'm also aware that it's up to the viewer to decide which is which - even if Romero intended for it to be Day > Land.

MinionZombie

23-Feb-2018, 05:30 PM

even if Romero intended for it to be Day > Land.

Aye. At no point whatsoever in the lead up to, nor time since (up to his death), the film being made, was Land taking place before Day ever mentioned. In fact, Romero's statements and intentions regarding the film were all aimed at showing the next step after Day of the Dead. Romero's the creator of these films, so I think he'd know which one goes where. :D

I'm less convinced on Diary/Survival vs Night, but I've always personally considered Diary/Survival to almost be a 'reboot' of sorts, being that he went back to the beginning, and that Survival is a direct sequel to Diary with continuing characters (albeit not many). The original four don't do that kind of thing, and no JDP, before you mention it, the Blades zombie in Land doesn't count - it's a fan-pleasing nod-wink of a cameo, that's all.

JDP

24-Feb-2018, 10:24 AM

The scene implies they did.

But what do you expect them to do, just sit around doing nothing? Of course they are going to try to see if they find someone. It's one of the few options they have left. That doesn't mean that all of them harbor much hope they will find someone, though. The pilot and the soldier who sarcastically says "another waste of time, right?" obviously think that to keep exploring for signs of any other survivors won't yield any results.

Anyway, moving on. We'll never agree on this.

In my mind, Day takes place around 6-8 months into it all. Maybe up to a year even. It depicts a small group of researchers who have been set up by the military, in isolation, to study and try to find a cure or solution to the zombie question. Slowly, but surely, they lose men. They started out with 18 and are now down to 12 persons. They're corrall of zombies is dwindling and they are running out of time and hope. They are beginning to realize that perhaps it is futile to try to solve this thing. Perhaps it's better to try to survive.

On the other hand, Land depicts a society which has done just that. It's moved on. It's beyond trying to solve the issue. It's just trying to survive. As mentioned in dialogue in the film it's 3+ years into it and obviously people have adapted to a new way of life.

It's clear as crystal to me which one takes place before the other. But I'm glad there can be disagreements among observers and I'm also aware that it's up to the viewer to decide which is which - even if Romero intended for it to be Day > Land.

Romero's intentions are one thing, how the movies actually came out looking is another very different one. The world of Day came out looking so doomy, devastated, decayed and hopeless that he just could not duplicate this atmosphere in his next film. He simply outdid himself. Land has all the looks of happening before Day, not after: the more decayed zombies & cities/towns, the desperate behavior of the surviving human characters, the gloomy atmosphere of impending doom of a humanity reduced to a small dwindling minority... none fit well the other way around. The world of Day is one of humanity at the brink of extinction. The world of Land is one where a more numerous humanity still has hopes and a possible future. I don't think that Romero fully realized how well he accomplished these things in Day if he seriously thought that a movie like Land could "pass" as happening after. Besides these details, there's also contradictions that Romero apparently did not spot, like one of his main characters in Land showing ignorance of a basic fact that no person living so far into the zombie apocalypse could possibly ignore, or paper money still retaining its old value back when the government that backed it up was still around (something still seen in Dawn, but gone by the time of the more devastated world of Day.) When you start adding up all such details, it's just too difficult to accept the Day ----> Land sequence.

- - - Updated - - -

Aye. At no point whatsoever in the lead up to, nor time since (up to his death), the film being made, was Land taking place before Day ever mentioned. In fact, Romero's statements and intentions regarding the film were all aimed at showing the next step after Day of the Dead. Romero's the creator of these films, so I think he'd know which one goes where. :D

I'm less convinced on Diary/Survival vs Night, but I've always personally considered Diary/Survival to almost be a 'reboot' of sorts, being that he went back to the beginning, and that Survival is a direct sequel to Diary with continuing characters (albeit not many). The original four don't do that kind of thing, and no JDP, before you mention it, the Blades zombie in Land doesn't count - it's a fan-pleasing nod-wink of a cameo, that's all.

You said it: one thing is what Romero might have intended, and a very different one is how all these movies in question actually came out looking as. I don't think that he invested enough time in his more recent zombie films to "iron out the wrinkles". Just like it is too difficult for many people to accept Romero's intention that Diary is happening simultaneously as Night, it is also very difficult to accept that Land can possibly be happening after the total chaos and hopeless world of Day. Even many hardcore Romero fans notice and accept that he kind of "lost his touch" after Day. "The devil is in the details", the old saying goes.

EvilNed

24-Feb-2018, 10:59 AM

Romero's intentions are one thing, how the movies actually came out looking is another very different one.

I agree. With this part.

And I think Romero did a good job of portraying the films in the order in which he inteded. Night, Dawn, Day and Land.

MinionZombie

24-Feb-2018, 11:36 AM

I think Romero got his ideas across just fine with Night/Dawn/Day/Land. The only thing with Day is that the budget had to be much smaller, so he had to adapt, but he still got his points across, and some of the points he was making with Land were clearly ideas that only make sense as a progression going forwards from Day of the Dead.

JDP

25-Feb-2018, 10:12 AM

I agree. With this part.

And I think Romero did a good job of portraying the films in the order in which he inteded. Night, Dawn, Day and Land.

The first three zombie movies fully make sense in progression, there are no contradictions between them, but Land is a different case. Even the issue of what the zombie bites do to people is contradicted by this movie. My impression is that Romero simply did not spend enough time ironing out the details for Land, or, as some people have pointed out, Romero's memory seems to have gotten worse with time, so maybe he just did not remember very well details from the previous movies and did not notice that some of his ideas for Land clashed with things he had established or implied in the previous films.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Romero got his ideas across just fine with Night/Dawn/Day/Land. The only thing with Day is that the budget had to be much smaller, so he had to adapt, but he still got his points across, and some of the points he was making with Land were clearly ideas that only make sense as a progression going forwards from Day of the Dead.

I am still puzzled why you want to see no plot problems in Land with respect to the previous films, specially with Day. I plainly see quite a number of them: paper money retaining its value when the government that backed it up is gone, a main character ignoring something that no one far into a zombie apocalypse would ignore, huge numbers of people living fairly well on the surface that went wholly unaccounted for in the previous two films (where are all these survivors in Day or even in Dawn that no one mysteriously notices their existence, even though the survivors in these movies are very interested in the subject of information about other survivors? Were they hiding in a huge cave???), the establishment of the outposts early on during the zombie crisis, which is even reported by the media (yet, once again, no one mysteriously knows anything about them in the previous two movies), land travel outside of the outposts is still relatively safe and can be undertaken even by single individuals (whereas even in Dawn travelling on land is already quite dangerous and can only be pulled off by large well-armed groups, like the biker gang, who can defy the increasing hordes of zombies freely roaming the land), etc. There's plenty of problems between Land and the previous two movies.

EvilNed

25-Feb-2018, 10:25 AM

I think Romero did a good Job at depicting Land taking place After Day.

MinionZombie

25-Feb-2018, 11:33 AM

I think Romero did a good Job at depicting Land taking place After Day.

Yup.

And JDP - I addressed all those points quite clearly in one or two of my previous posts.

JDP

26-Feb-2018, 10:51 AM

I think Romero did a good Job at depicting Land taking place After Day.

I beg to differ. It has a good deal of problems to be able to fulfill that scenario. One of the things that makes it the weakling in the series.

And Minion - I responded to your answers quite clearly in several posts. The same problems are still there. I have yet to hear satisfactory "explanations" for all the discrepancies and contradictions that Land introduced into the series if one wants to see it as happening after Day. But most of such problems do go away if the order is reversed.

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2018, 12:40 PM

I could make the most beautifully written, air tight post supporting my side of the argument, and you'd still not be satisfied, JDP. ;)

EvilNed

26-Feb-2018, 12:53 PM

I beg to differ.

As is your perogative.
As for Land being a weaker entry into the series - I agree with that part.

MinionZombie

26-Feb-2018, 05:23 PM

As for Land being a weaker entry into the series - I agree with that part.

Weaker compared to three absolute giants of the horror genre. On that scale anything coming along 20 years later was gonna suffer.

There's some flaws here and there, but I think Land of the Dead is bedding in nicely into the history of Romero's zombie films. :)

ElectricFire169

26-Feb-2018, 09:18 PM

Maybe we should put it to the vote to settle this once and for all? Majority rules.

EvilNed

27-Feb-2018, 08:27 AM

Maybe we should put it to the vote to settle this once and for all? Majority rules.

You know, I'm pretty sure we did that once but for the life of me I can't find it now!

Philly_SWAT

08-Apr-2018, 05:48 AM

As far as I know, I was the originator of the idea that the events in Land occur before the events in Day. When I first suggested it, most (if not all) of the members here scoffed at the idea, but eventually a few came around. To my memory, EvilNed was one of the main people against the concept, in many threads that contained many, many posts. I do not remember if JDP was involved in those discussions back then, but whether he was or wasnt, it is good to see how in-depth he goes to illustrate the obviousness of the proposition. Rather than restate things JDP has already pointed out in this thread, I will make just two comments, and then address the original posters question.

1) When it comes to discussion of things like technology, hairstyles, clothing, etc. of different eras, that it not a prudent way to determine "when" a film takes place in regards to other films, when the producers/directors simply chose to use whatever was prevalent at the time of filming. A good example of this is the Star Trek TV series. No one disputes than they are all related to each other, existing in the same story telling universe. The show called "Enterprise" was specifically the "first" in the timeline of the Star Trek Universe, it was the first warp capable ship that humans were using to explore outer space. The events in Enterprise were mid 22nd century, the events in the original series were mid 23rd century. This is not in dispute by anyone who knows Star Trek. But judging by the looks of the ship and the computers....the original series looks like some cheap cardboard boxes with random flashing lights on them (because basically, thats what they were) and the Enterprise ship and computer looks way, WAY better than the original series (much bigger budget). Should we assume something screwy with the timeline due to an earlier ship looking FAR superior in every way to a later ship? Of course not, we understand that the reasons for that is time had passed in real like, and the producers used what was available at the time. Taking this into account, Night and Diary can both be stories within the same story telling universe, both at the start of the zombie outbreak, despite Diary having cell phones and Night having old fashioned landlines. Another quick Star Trek point...on the original series, all the females wore short little mini-skirts...are we to assume that a society that had learned how to travel faster then the speed of light didnt grasp the concept of covering your legs with materials when visiting a new planet, where poison-ivy type vegetation could easily cause a severe rash or worse? Or should we assume that is was just 1960's life in America when the show was made,and many women then wore short little mini-skirts, and most roles for women on tv only existed in a sexist way to serve the men? I should think that the latter is obvious.

2) Even if you want to accept the premise that the events as depicted in Land were three years after the start of the outbreak (which I dont), there is no explicit statement of this in the movie, only an implied statement by a couple of characters to 'three years', which could easily be referring to pre-outbreak times. Cholo worked for Kaufman for three years....impossible and far fetched that he worked for Kaufman BEFORE the outbreak? Rileys car was in the garage for three years...impossible and far fetched that the car was there BEFORE the outbreak? Or are both possible? That is for each to decide for themselves, but even if you dont agree that Cholo worked for Kaufman prior to the outbreak, it seems one would have to admit that it is possible, and not some crazy no-way-you-are-grasping-at-straws kind of thing, but a reasonable possibility. I say all that to say this...in the original script for Day, it specifically says it is five years into the outbreak, so five years is obviously more than three years. If you want to argue, 'well that may have been in the original script but it wasnt explicitly said in the movie' then fine, but then you would have to admit that it doesnt EXPLICITLY say three years 'into the outbreak' in Land either. But as JDP has said, and I said years ago, it seems clear for a multitude of reasons that the world in which Day exists is a decrepit, bleak, hopeless world, and the world in which Land exists is one where there are hot dog vendors in the streets, and people want money to move somewhere else. No way society would completely collapse as shown in Day, and then come back to close to normal so soon after that collapse as shown in Land.

As to the original poster, he asked...

Like, which version did George consider to be the definitive version, and which one did he consider to be in the same continuity as all the other films?

EDIT: Just in case it wasn't made clear, I am of course referring to the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead and its 1990 remake.

The 1990 remake wasnt a Romero film, it was a Savini film. So as far as addressing which is in Romero 'cannon', well the only one of the two that he made would have to be Romero cannon. But as i was discussing above, Savini made a movie within the same story telling universe, a remake if you will, and that story takes place in the same time period as the original.

But "when" do these movies take place? Many get hung up on "when" the movies were made and seem to confuse that as to when they are set. To suggest that Night 68 is set in 1968 makes no sense. As a human being, we know there was no nationwide/worldwide zombie outbreak in 1968, so why would that be scary to think about? The movie was set in the "real world", so no need for elaborate costumes or hairstyles, just whatever everyone looked like when it was made. Same as Dawn...yes the movie was made 10 years later, and the clothing and hairstyles that existed in the real world at the time were used, but not as a timestamp, but simply due to the lack of necessity to do it any differently. My thoughts as to "when" these movies take place, "when" are they set, is as follows...

1. Night - set tomorrow, or anytime in the near future
2. Dawn - three weeks after that
3. Land - hard to pin down an exact time, but more than three weeks later for sure
4. Day - again hard to have an exact time in relation to the outbreak, but definitely some time after the events in Land

(EDIT: actually after I typed this and looked at it, I wanted to say that one could easily say that the events in Dawn
STARTED three weeks after the events in Night, but several months passed in Dawn, and taking that into account, arguments could be made that the events in Dawn and Land actually overlap. The same could not be said of Dawn and Day, nor Land and Day.)

I havent typed this much in years. Lots more to say, but will end it here.

EvilNed

08-Apr-2018, 11:53 AM

I think Night takes place after Day. After all, there is nothing that explicitly states that it doesn't.

JDP

08-Apr-2018, 08:50 PM

I think Night takes place after Day. After all, there is nothing that explicitly states that it doesn't.

No, that is not possible, and for very obvious reasons. In the world of Night the zombies are a total novelty, nobody has the slightest clue of what is going on when they first appear (only some scientists who have been looking into the new phenomenon start to figure out what is happening and then informing the public through the media), while in the world of Day they are very much a reality of daily life and everyone is more than well aware of what they are and what they do. The chronological order given by Philly_SWAT is the most obvious and logical one when everything these 4 movies show is carefully considered.

beat_truck

08-Apr-2018, 10:46 PM

No, that is not possible, and for very obvious reasons. In the world of Night the zombies are a total novelty, nobody has the slightest clue of what is going on when they first appear (only some scientists who have been looking into the new phenomenon start to figure out what is happening and then informing the public through the media), while in the world of Day they are very much a reality of daily life and everyone is more than well aware of what they are and what they do. The chronological order given by Philly_SWAT is the most obvious and logical one when everything these 4 movies show is carefully considered.

EvilNed was being sarcastic there.:rolleyes:

Day taking place after Land is obvious and logical to what, two people now?:D

A while back, I read through the old multi page threads on the subject. They just went around in circles, and that opinion was in the minority then, too. That's why :deadhorse: seemed appropriate when I used it earlier.

I also think a Poll on the subject would be a great idea.

Philly_SWAT

08-Apr-2018, 11:27 PM

I also think a Poll on the subject would be a great idea.

I think as EvilNed said, there was a poll back in the day, and most people said that they thought Day was before Land.

However, back in the year 1491 A.D. if you had polled the entire population of the planet and asked them if the earth was round or flat, almost every single person in the world would have said they thought the earth was flat. Polling is not an absolute indicator of the truth...sometimes polls can be vastly different than what is actually true.

JDP

08-Apr-2018, 11:42 PM

EvilNed was being sarcastic there.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, that "sarcasm" falls flat on its face, since it is not a comparable situation with what Philly_SWAT was explaining.

Day taking place after Land is obvious and logical to what, two people now?:D

A while back, I read through the old multi page threads on the subject. They just went around in circles, and that opinion was in the minority then, too. That's why :deadhorse: seemed appropriate when I used it earlier.

I also think a Poll on the subject would be a great idea.

We don't expect the majority of viewers to understand or accept why viewing Land as happening after Day does not make much sense, as most people are not critical enough to plainly see such details. The fact that the average viewer keeps on so casually trying to dismiss all the logical arguments and observations brought forth to show why it makes little sense to try to view these movies in such an order is more than enough to prove this. No amount of logic will convince them, instead they just keep on denying what the more critically-minded minority can plainly see and have no problem accepting (like the cities and average zombies being obviously more decayed in Day than in Land; this is not an "opinion", as they claim, but a plain objective observation. All you have to do is compare them side-by-side.) You have to be a good "nitpicker" to appreciate why Land happening after Day has quite a number of problems which are just not going to go away by any amount of denial or beating imaginary "dead horses". Critical viewers will plainly see them and point them out no matter what. The cold, hard fact is that Romero messed up quite a bit with Land, if his intention was indeed to have it happen after Day. He should have put more thought into ironing out several details before presenting this movie as such.

beat_truck

09-Apr-2018, 02:11 AM

We don't expect the majority of viewers to understand or accept why viewing Land as happening after Day does not make much sense, as most people are not critical enough to plainly see such details. The fact that the average viewer keeps on so casually trying to dismiss all the logical arguments and observations brought forth to show why it makes little sense to try to view these movies in such an order is more than enough to prove this. No amount of logic will convince them, instead they just keep on denying what the more critically-minded minority can plainly see and have no problem accepting (like the cities and average zombies being obviously more decayed in Day than in Land; this is not an "opinion", as they claim, but a plain objective observation. All you have to do is compare them side-by-side.) You have to be a good "nitpicker" to appreciate why Land happening after Day has quite a number of problems which are just not going to go away by any amount of denial or beating imaginary "dead horses". Critical viewers will plainly see them and point them out no matter what. The cold, hard fact is that Romero messed up quite a bit with Land, if his intention was indeed to have it happen after Day. He should have put more thought into ironing out several details before presenting this movie as such.
Hey, it's a free country and you can believe anything you please. No matter how intelligent you claim to be or how dumb you make those who don't believe your crack pot theories sound, it is absolutely still an OPINION, though. So, go ahead and keep grasping at straws to make a handful of observations fit your beliefs. I for one don't really give a shit. Not many others seem to, either.

- - - Updated - - -

However, back in the year 1491 A.D. if you had polled the entire population of the planet and asked them if the earth was round or flat, almost every single person in the world would have said they thought the earth was flat. Polling is not an absolute indicator of the truth...sometimes polls can be vastly different than what is actually true.
Being that only Romero himself knew the absolute truth, and he is gone now, this is all pointless speculation anyways.

EvilNed

09-Apr-2018, 08:21 AM

I think as EvilNed said, there was a poll back in the day, and most people said that they thought Day was before Land.

However, back in the year 1491 A.D. if you had polled the entire population of the planet and asked them if the earth was round or flat, almost every single person in the world would have said they thought the earth was flat. Polling is not an absolute indicator of the truth...sometimes polls can be vastly different than what is actually true.

Nobody in 1491 believed the earth was flat.
People have known the earth to have a spherical-type shape since Babylonian times. I get your point, however...

And the Night after Day comparison is still fitting because dismissing exposition meant to convey information pertaining to where we fit in the universe at large because it is not explicit is pretty much the definition of grasping for straws.

You can claim that Day takes place more than 3 years after the outbreak - and thus takes place after Land. But you cannot make a serious claim that Land takes place less than 3 years after the outbreak - because it's in the film.

JDP

09-Apr-2018, 12:04 PM

Hey, it's a free country and you can believe anything you please. No matter how intelligent you claim to be or how dumb you make those who don't believe your crack pot theories sound, it is absolutely still an OPINION, though. So, go ahead and keep grasping at straws to make a handful of observations fit your beliefs. I for one don't really give a shit. Not many others seem to, either.

You could have fooled me with your repeated puerile denials of obvious things.

beat_truck

09-Apr-2018, 12:12 PM

You could have fooled me with your repeated puerile denials of obvious things.

:whatever:

JDP

09-Apr-2018, 12:24 PM

And the Night after Day comparison is still fitting because dismissing exposition meant to convey information pertaining to where we fit in the universe at large because it is not explicit is pretty much the definition of grasping for straws.

It is hardly fitting. It is a kind of "reductio ad absurdum". Claiming that Night happens after Day in order to try to ridicule the points Philly_SWAT was making is pretty absurd, unlike pointing out the many logical problems that present themselves by trying to see Land as happening after Day. We don't need any explicit statements in Night and Day (and there in fact aren't any) in order to be able to know the chronological order of those two movies. We can easily deduce that Night must happen before Day (one very pertinent reason for this conclusion has already been explained.) But the same cannot be said regarding Land and Day, though, where things are nowhere nearly as clear-cut. Neither movie explicitly says exactly when the events are happening, yet when we try to deduce it by means of other details from each movie, it doesn't seem to favor the idea that the still relatively safe, functional and less decayed world of Land can possibly be happening after the utterly dangerous, devastated and decayed world of Day.

- - - Updated - - -

:whatever:

If you had any counterarguments, that graphic would very likely pretty much describe them. :)

EvilNed

09-Apr-2018, 12:29 PM

It is hardly fitting. It is a kind of "reductio ad absurdum". Claiming that Night happens after Day in order to try to ridicule the points Philly_SWAT was making is pretty absurd, unlike pointing out the many logical problems that present themselves by trying to see Land as happening after Day. We don't need any explicit statements in Night and Day (and there in fact aren't any) in order to be able to know the chronological order of those two movies. We can easily deduce that Night must happen before Day (one very pertinent reason for this conclusion has already been explained.) But the same cannot be said regarding Land and Day, though, where things are nowhere nearly as clear-cut. Neither movie explicitly says exactly when the events are happening, yet when we try to deduce it by means of other details from each movie, it doesn't seem to favor the idea that the still relatively safe, functional and less decayed world of Land can possibly be happening after the utterly dangerous, devastated and decayed world of Day.

Well, agree to disagree. I think it's a completely toothless argument to make because if we're only allowed to take explicit information into account, then anything can be anything. Ben can be John from Day of the Dead but who changed his name. It's never explicitly stated that this isn't the case... But it is presented as if he isn't. Just as Land is presented as taking place 3 years after the outbreak.

beat_truck

09-Apr-2018, 12:37 PM

If you had any counterarguments, that graphic would very likely pretty much describe them. :)

As others have mentioned, you could be given the most intelligent, well thought out response and you'd just automatically dissmiss it. So why would I waste my time writing it? You are obviously an attention starved troll that has to have the last word and will continue to argue your point as long as people are responding. I'm done.

JDP

09-Apr-2018, 01:17 PM

As others have mentioned, you could be given the most intelligent, well thought out response and you'd just automatically dissmiss it. So why would I waste my time writing it? You are obviously an attention starved troll that has to have the last word and will continue to argue your point as long as people are responding. I'm done.

Funny, that's exactly what you and other naysayers usually do. That's called "projecting".

beat_truck

09-Apr-2018, 01:20 PM

Funny, that's exactly what you and other naysayers usually do. That's called "projecting".

You just proved my point in my last post.

JDP

09-Apr-2018, 01:31 PM

Well, agree to disagree. I think it's a completely toothless argument to make because if we're only allowed to take explicit information into account, then anything can be anything. Ben can be John from Day of the Dead but who changed his name. It's never explicitly stated that this isn't the case... But it is presented as if he isn't. Just as Land is presented as taking place 3 years after the outbreak.

Even stranger comparison & scenario, since Ben in fact died in the first movie when the zombies were still a novelty! So how could he be around flying a helicopter in the obviously much later time of Day??? See how these kinds of "reduction to absurdity" arguments are not very valid?

The 3 year thing in Land is not 100% specific either, since it is not clearly stated if those mentioned 3 years appertain exclusively to the start of the zombie outbreak or they actually go back to some time prior to that. Is it really so "impossible" that Cholo and Kaufman had a business relationship that extended back to some time prior to the zombie crisis? That was one of the points he was making, and it is perfectly fine. There also is no 100% specific time-frame reference in Day either. This is one of the things that contributes to make these two movies conflict with one another. They are not as clear in that regard as Night and Dawn are.

shootemindehead

09-Apr-2018, 02:05 PM

This is getting silly now lads.

EvilNed

09-Apr-2018, 02:43 PM

The 3 year thing in Land is not 100% specific either, since it is not clearly stated if those mentioned 3 years appertain exclusively to the start of the zombie outbreak or they actually go back to some time prior to that. Is it really so "impossible" that Cholo and Kaufman had a business relationship that extended back to some time prior to the zombie crisis?

No. It's certainly not impossible.
Which is why Ben and John are the same character. Not impossible! Never explicitly stated that they are not!

- - - Updated - - -

This is getting silly now lads.

This discussion has never not been silly.

JDP

09-Apr-2018, 07:51 PM

No. It's certainly not impossible.
Which is why Ben and John are the same character. Not impossible! Never explicitly stated that they are not!

Apparently you are missing the point that it is not a comparable situation by any means. There is nothing impossible in Cholo having known and worked for Kaufman since before the zombie outbreak, while it is totally impossible for Ben and John to be the same person if for no other reason than Ben has been dead (and on top of that then burned in a bonfire!) for quite a while by the time of the events we see in Day. Again, reducing things to absurdity is not a good way to try to counter someone else's reasonable arguments.

This discussion has never not been silly.

If you keep bringing "reduction to absurdity" as "counterarguments", of course it will devolve into that.

EvilNed

09-Apr-2018, 08:35 PM

Apparently you are missing the point that it is not a comparable situation by any means. There is nothing impossible in Cholo having known and worked for Kaufman since before the zombie outbreak, while it is totally impossible for Ben and John to be the same person if for no other reason than Ben has been dead (and on top of that then burned in a bonfire!) for quite a while by the time of the events we see in Day.

Night takes place after Day. Haven't you been following? There's nothing that explicitly states that it doesn't.

If you keep bringing "reduction to absurdity" as "counterarguments", of course it will devolve into that.

This entire discussion is an excercise in absurdity, and has been for a long time.

JDP

09-Apr-2018, 09:13 PM

Night takes place after Day. Haven't you been following? There's nothing that explicitly states that it doesn't.

Again, not possible. The events in Night are self-explanatory: we are witnessing the very beginning of a zombie plague. The events in Day also are self-explanatory: we are witnessing a very advanced stage of the zombie plague. The chronology of these two movies (and of Dawn as well), cannot be put into question. Land is a pretty different case, though. It certainly takes place after Night, but where exactly does it fit with respect to the other two movies??? This is the crux of the problem. The movie does not do a good job at establishing this by any means.

This entire discussion is an excercise in absurdity, and has been for a long time.

It is if you try to use such arguments as obvious and self-evident impossibilities. Otherwise it is just an exercise in logic and common sense.

EvilNed

09-Apr-2018, 10:18 PM

Again, not possible. The events in Night are self-explanatory: we are witnessing the very beginning of a zombie plague.

Not at all, this is never explicitly stated.

It is if you try to use such arguments as obvious and self-evident impossibilities. Otherwise it is just an exercise in logic and common sense.

In Bizarro world, perhaps...

JDP

10-Apr-2018, 04:24 AM

Not at all, this is never explicitly stated.

It is self-explanatory and self-evident: we can plainly see that nobody knows anything about zombies in the first movie, unlike in the sequels, where people are well aware of the situation. Ergo, that's the very beginning of the zombie plague in Romero's series. No question about this is possible.

In Bizarro world, perhaps...

No, just in our normal world. Such discussions about movies and TV shows and the mistakes, contradictions, flops, lack of continuity, etc. they contain go on all the time. There was even a whole website devoted to such things (now basically defunct thanks to the inept new owners who totally mismanaged it) called Nitpickers.com, which collected and discussed thousands of such mistakes.

EvilNed

10-Apr-2018, 06:35 AM

It is self-explanatory and self-evident: we can plainly see that nobody knows anything about zombies in the first movie, unlike in the sequels, where people are well aware of the situation. Ergo, that's the very beginning of the zombie plague in Romero's series. No question about this is possible.

Since it is not explicitly stated otherwise, you must admit that it is possible.

No, just in our normal world. Such discussions about movies and TV shows and the mistakes, contradictions, flops, lack of continuity, etc. they contain go on all the time. There was even a whole website devoted to such things (now basically defunct thanks to the inept new owners who totally mismanaged it) called Nitpickers.com, which collected and discussed thousands of such mistakes.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

JDP

10-Apr-2018, 07:18 AM

Since it is not explicitly stated otherwise, you must admit that it is possible.

The only way it is "possible" is if you throw logic, reason and common sense out the window. Romero's movies are not abstract pieces devoid of logic, reason and common sense, though, they are coherent works that show a specific story. So the norms of our logic, reason and common sense apply to them. There must be a sequence of events in his zombie series. So how do we know which one is the first (within the context of the movie series, not the year in which they were made)? Well, it must obviously be the one where none of the human characters know anything about any zombies and these creatures are a total unexpected novelty for everyone, and not the movies where people are already well-acquainted with what the zombies are and what they do. The only one fitting that description is Night. Ergo, that is the first movie in the series. There can be no other logical conclusion here.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

It is relevant to your strange dismissal of applying logic and common sense to movies and that it only happens in "Bizarro world".

MinionZombie

10-Apr-2018, 11:10 AM

JDP

10-Apr-2018, 11:55 AM

*sigh*

Good grief... :rolleyes: I think this whole 'X before X' line of conversation is what hell looks like.

JDP - why are you trying to seriously argue against Ned's obviously and deliberately sarcastic reductio ad absurdum theories? :confused:

Are they really "sarcastic"? Are you so sure? Because if they are, he keeps misplacing them. He was trying to ridicule Philly_SWAT's well-reasoned arguments. Why? One would understand sarcasm being used against some badly thought up argument. Ned's insistence of comparing what Philly_SWAT said with something as absurd as claiming that Day comes before Night does not serve any constructive purpose whatsoever for the discussion.

EvilNed

10-Apr-2018, 11:56 AM

The only way it is "possible" is if you throw logic, reason and common sense out the window.

If it is not explicitly stated otherwise, it is a valid argument - by your own admission.

It is relevant to your strange dismissal of applying logic and common sense to movies and that it only happens in "Bizarro world".
No it's not. We're not discussing film flaws.

Ned's insistence of comparing what Philly_SWAT said with something as absurd as claiming that Day comes before Night does not serve any constructive purpose whatsoever for the discussion.

It is as constructive as reasoning that exposition is irrelevant as long as it is not explicit.

JDP

10-Apr-2018, 12:20 PM

If it is not explicitly stated otherwise, it is a valid argument - by your own admission.

It is self-explanatory. A filmmaker does not need to explicitly say something to convey a point to the audience, he can just show it to them either without any words or with not so directly explicit words, and they will understand the same point just as well, as long as it is well done. But why would anyone expect any filmmaker to put explicit words like "this is the first movie in this series" in the mouth of any character? That would be ludicrous and totally ruin the movie itself. It is something that no character in any movie would ever say to begin with. But two characters saying that they have known each other and had a business relationship for 3 years is hardly a comparable situation. "As is", the characters can easily say that and still not necessarily imply anything else other than what they just said. So this comparison is hardly valid. The intended (?) "sarcasm" is not well placed.

No it's not. We're not discussing film flaws.

We are discussing contradictions between some movies if they are seen as happening in a particular sequence.

EvilNed

10-Apr-2018, 12:39 PM

It is self-explanatory.

No it's not. Unless it's explicitly stated, it's up for debate.

We are discussing contradictions between some movies if they are seen as happening in a particular sequence.

There are no contradictions.

JDP

10-Apr-2018, 01:19 PM

No it's not. Unless it's explicitly stated, it's up for debate.

Nope, some things cannot be explicitly stated in a movie or you ruin the movie itself. On top of that, some things are also so self-evident that they simply are not up for debate under any circumstance. And people in a series not knowing about something in one movie, but being fully aware of it in the other ones, happens to be one of those very self-evident and self-explanatory things. So better look for something else to try to be "sarcastic" about, because this one does not work at all.

There are no contradictions.

There are aplenty.

EvilNed

10-Apr-2018, 02:18 PM

Nope, some things cannot be explicitly stated in a movie or you ruin the movie itself.

I'm glad we finally agree. So the argument that the 2 "3 years ago"-comments in Land are not referring to the outbreak is absurd.

JDP

10-Apr-2018, 02:30 PM

I'm glad we finally agree. So the argument that the 2 "3 years ago"-comments in Land are not referring to the outbreak is absurd.

No, you can say that in a movie and still not be explicit enough to rule out something as impossible, which is the case here. But you CANNOT have your characters say some explicit things, like "this movie we are in now is the first in a movie series". It just isn't done. It would ruin the entire movie. So it is not comparable. There are things in movies which simply cannot be explicit. You have to convey the point in other ways.

EvilNed

10-Apr-2018, 02:51 PM

No, you can say that in a movie and still not be explicit enough to rule out something as impossible, which is the case here.

Excluding something which is not explicit, but strongly implicit is ludicrous.

MoonSylver

10-Apr-2018, 09:48 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/ADr35Z4TvATIc/giphy.gif

Arguing "Land vs. Day" in 2018?!?

https://media.giphy.com/media/jNdw5Qmy5MOpq/giphy.gif

Stay classy HPotD!!! :lol:

EvilNed

10-Apr-2018, 09:56 PM

This is the most action this board has seen in a long time.

JDP

11-Apr-2018, 09:38 AM

Excluding something which is not explicit, but strongly implicit is ludicrous.

Romero could easily have made any time references in Land more explicit so as to leave no other possibility, but unfortunately he did not. Look at what he did in Dawn as an example of a very clear and explicit reference that leaves no doubt regarding when exactly are the events of that movie starting to happen with respect to the events seen in the first movie: "We've had this situation for the last 3 weeks."

Philly_SWAT

11-Apr-2018, 10:00 AM

This is the most action this board has seen in a long time.

To my memory, this topic generated much action years ago as well. A lot of that 'activity' was for the same reason as now, your refusal to accept any argument that in any way casts doubt on what you believe, and your refusal to admit that someone else has a good point. In a discussion on any topic, someone can make a good argument, an argument that neither proves their overall point nor disproves the point they are arguing against. One good point in and of itself doesnt prove anything, that doesnt mean that it isnt a good point. And rather than admit that a good argument has been made, your banter devolves into various levels of ridiculousness.

For example, your harping on the word 'explicit' None of the films explicitly says that any of the characters AREN'T transgender...is it reasonable then to assume that some, or all, of the characters are actually transgender? Of course not, that is a far cry from the '3 years' comment. If the three years comment was meant as a concrete timestamp as to how long into the outbreak they were, Cholo could have easily said "I have worked for you for three years,ever since the start of this outbreak" (or any other similarly worded statement.) I would have added 2 seconds to the run time, and really wouldnt really have affected the overall movie much if at all. It could be that be sheer coincidence, it was exactly three years to the day that the outbreak started when Land starts. Even if it isnt explicitly stated, it could be very much the case. However, if someone suggests that Cholo may have worked for Kaufman for three years, including time prior to the outbreak, is not crazy, ridiculous, far-fetched, or any other such insult. It does not prove anything, but it is a valid point. Perhaps you are so unconvinced by your own arguments that Day occurs before Land that you are scared to even admit common sense points for fear that admitting anything disproves your overall point, no matter how small or insignificant it may be.

If it is indeed a fact that the events we see in Land ARE happening three years after the start of the outbreak, (which I admit IS a possibility, even though I dont think it is true) it makes much more sense that the events in Day happen AFTER the events in Land, whenever the events of Land take place. A government facility staffed by scientists, military, and civilian specialists, has lost contact with not only with the government, but EVERYBODY ELSE. They have searched for 150 miles in all directions but can find not one survivor anywhere. Military discipline has broken down to the point where they are openly growing marijuana and threatening to kill scientists. Scientists are literally going crazy. So at a location where highly trained people are on the verge of killing each other, going insane, no contact with anyone other than themselves, and no indication of anything anywhere, AFTER this (within less than three years if you take it that the events in Land happen three years into the outbreak) a location where there is just a rich guy with money trying to rent expensive apartments has people everywhere, zombie combat games in bars, hot dog stands, and the common belief that there are other outposts nearby where if someone had a lot of money they could move there? Mankind was so weak that highly trained people specifically put together to survive and combat the zombie problem wither and destroy themselves quickly, but then mankind is so strong that they have 'rebuilt' society to the point where people 'pay rent' with 'money' and enjoy the nightlife the city has to offer, all within less than three years? It makes much more sense that they are holding on to the past rather than that they have rebuilt from ruins to near normality in a couple of years. Romero himself said that Land of the Dead was showing mankind "ignoring the problem". This in and of itself suggests that people are trying to live as they always have, ignoring a very big problem (zombies) NOT that they have rebuilt to past glory and all of a sudden start ignoring the problem. Day of the Dead does not appear to depict a society that has hit rock bottom and is on the verge or rebuilding, it depicts one of the last vestiges of society, period.

I admit that I may have used a word choice here or there which someone mind find worthy or ridicule, and I apologize ahead of time for that. If you choose to rebut anything I have said, please use your common sense and reasonable intelligence to see the meat of the points I am trying to make, and rebut that, rather than cherry pick from the dessert menu of personal trigger words that do not add to intelligent discussion.

EvilNed

11-Apr-2018, 10:23 AM

Romero could easily have made any time references in Land more explicit so as to leave no other possibility, but unfortunately he did not.

He could also have explicitly stated that Day takes place after Night - yet he didn't. Thus, by your own argument, we cannot exclude the possibility. Interesting argument you've got there , hmm...

We can either deduce that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, or dwelve into absurdist territory. There is no middle ground.

To reiterate; You can make the case that Day takes place more than 3 years after the Outbreak. But you cannot make the case that Land takes place less than 3 years into the outbreak - because it's in the film.

- - - Updated - - -

If it is indeed a fact that the events we see in Land ARE happening three years after the start of the outbreak, (which I admit IS a possibility, even though I dont think it is true) it makes much more sense that the events in Day happen AFTER the events in Land, whenever the events of Land take place. A government facility staffed by scientists, military, and civilian specialists, has lost contact with not only with the government, but EVERYBODY ELSE. They have searched for 150 miles in all directions but can find not one survivor anywhere.

It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.

JDP

11-Apr-2018, 10:47 AM

He could also have explicitly stated that Day takes place after Night - yet he didn't. Thus, by your own argument, we cannot exclude the possibility. Interesting argument you've got there , hmm...

We can either deduce that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, or dwelve into absurdist territory. There is no middle ground.

To reiterate; You can make the case that Day takes place more than 3 years after the Outbreak. But you cannot make the case that Land takes place less than 3 years into the outbreak - because it's in the film.

- - - Updated - - -

It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.

Romero makes no specific statements regarding time in Day, but that doesn't mean it is possible for it to take place before Night, as you strangely tried to argue. The things we see in both movies totally preclude that possibility. There is an obvious chronological sequence in place between both movies that totally precludes such an idea:

humanity has no clue about zombies & is caught by surprise by their sudden appearance ----> humanity is now close to the brink of extinction because of those zombies

But what exactly is shown in Land that precludes the possibility that Cholo and Kaufman have known each other and had a business relationship since before the zombie outbreak??? There is NOTHING shown in the movie to suggest that this is "impossible", while the things shown in Night and Day plainly preclude what you are suggesting. They are not comparable situations.

- - - Updated - - -

It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.

You can't possibly know that since Day gives no specific time references. How long have those people been down there in the bunker? Where were they before that, and what were they doing, and for how long?

Philly_SWAT

11-Apr-2018, 10:49 AM

He could also have explicitly stated that Day takes place after Night - yet he didn't. Thus, by your own argument, we cannot exclude the possibility. Interesting argument you've got there , hmm...
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are either trolling or enjoy devil's advocate positions regardless of worth. But I can play along with you. There is no need to explicitly state Day takes place after Night, it is obvious. When is Land in relation to Night? Less obvious. 2 seconds of dialogue to make clear. Dialogue not there. Other reasonable possibilities exist. REASONABLE. A key word to learn here. I have a difference of interpretation of things than you that are reasonable (i.e. cholo worked for kaufman prior to the outbreak). You disagree. But then you bring something totally UNREASONABLE up (i.e. perhaps Day happens before Night) and then act as if both examples are the same. One is reasonable, one not.

We can either deduce that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, or dwelve into absurdist territory. There is no middle ground.
For absolutists.

To reiterate; You can make the case that Day takes place more than 3 years after the Outbreak. But you cannot make the case that Land takes place less than 3 years into the outbreak - because it's in the film.
If we see a cameraman's reflection in a film, does that mean you would make the case that the characters in the movie are oblivious to the fact that a cameraman is 3 feet in front of them? Plus, as I stated years ago, a generic mention of 'three years ago' may or MAY NOT refer to any particular thing that happened three years ago.

It is this that makes the less sense of this argument. Since Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, then the people of Day have really been sitting on their asses for a long time.
So I guess you went thru my long post and picked out the one thing that best suites your theory? Guess all of my other points were pretty convincing. We have no idea what they have been doing, what their priorities were, when they did what since they have been there, etc. They may have only recently started searching for other survivors, after years and years or research that was bearing no fruit, and now that after years and years of contact with Washington, there has been no recent contact. There mission was to look figure out why the outbreak was happening and find a way to stop/reverse it. Finding other survivors wouldnt be a priority, (or very hard if the world was still as populated with fun loving people, many living out in the open, as we see in Land).

MinionZombie

11-Apr-2018, 11:25 AM

*throws an entirely different cat amongst the pigeons*

http://livingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

:lol::lol::lol:

...

I recall at the time of Land's release that Romero stated on several occasions that Land takes place after Day as he was exploring the next step in his zombie saga.

Conversely, not once do I recall Romero saying 'Land before Day'.

EvilNed

11-Apr-2018, 01:48 PM

You can't possibly know that since Day gives no specific time references. How long have those people been down there in the bunker? Where were they before that, and what were they doing, and for how long?

True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.

In any case, I'm still on the fence wether or not Night takes place prior to or post-Day of the Dead. After all, it's not explicitly mentioned in either film where in time they take place - thus it can easily be argued (should we dismiss all but the explicit references, which is your argument) that Night takes place after Day.

MinionZombie

11-Apr-2018, 05:57 PM

True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.

IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

I'd also say that, judging by various other factors - such as how well the characters know each other (or don't know each other) suggests a matter of months at most, as well as tensions being extraordinarily high as the chaos has escalated to a doom-laden scenario. In Night we saw confusion (what they hell is going on?) as well as small-scale effective resistance (the good 'ole boys roaming the countryside gunning down ghouls), then in Dawn we saw early panic but numerous instances of society breaking down from still operational to defunct (the most obvious being television - at the start of Dawn we're somewhere less than a month into proceedings, probably 2 or 3 weeks, and various rescue stations etc are operational, travel is still possible so they can have guests on to discuss the phenomena, and there's still a relatively effective police and military force attempting to sort shit out).

Dawn is the clearest indication of passing time - Fran's pregnancy - so we can wager that the film itself takes place over a period of months (I forget how far along she was in Dawn, but the conception was pre-zombies) and she's still able to scamper to the helicopter and climb a ladder, so I'd figure 7 to 8 months pregnant at the climax of the film.

There was talk a while back on the forum suggesting that Dawn and Day somewhat overlap, or that the ending of Dawn is about when the events of Day take place (i.e. a matter of several months into proceedings).

The fact that we see a crumbling of society over the course of Dawn of the Dead clearly shows a downwards trajectory for mankind, which bottoms out with Day of the Dead (clusters of desperate, warring people stuck in holes in the ground with an abject sense of hopelessness and a lack of understanding of how the zombie virus works).

Now, Land of the Dead shows the sickly phoenix rising from the smouldering wreck of humanity's former world. Romero explicitly talked about how Land was about society regrouping and repeating the mistakes of the past (the rich/poor divide, petty squabbles etc) and, being that a huge part of that film was about mankind being in a place where they had gotten used to the zombies very clearly shows that a lot of time has passed in the ZA - you know, like three years as referenced in the script at the garage where Riley's car went missing. :)

No writer would put that time reference in for no reason or just at random - Romero was very purposeful in putting that time reference in - no writer worth their salt just tosses in random shite with no thought.

Ergo Land after Day, blatantly. If you can't accept the word of the creator himself, whose can you accept?

Monrozombi

11-Apr-2018, 09:33 PM

wow i can't even with this conversation right now:duh:

As far as i can remember and who am i to recall anything about this film *wink* but i remember George saying that Big Daddy was the next step in zombie evolution after Bub, such as a natural progression. So that would make Land take place after Day.

I'm also trying to figure out why this is a thing all of a sudden.

Philly_SWAT

12-Apr-2018, 06:08 AM

Ergo Land after Day, blatantly. If you can't accept the word of the creator himself, whose can you accept?
You have offered no proof that Romero said anythings of the sort, other than to say 'your memory'? Whose word would be accepting?

Also, as I believe I asked years ago,if the greatest comedic film maker of all time made what he called 'the funniest movie ever', and the cast was made up of all academy award winners known primarily for comedy, and in their interviews leading up to the premier they all bragged about how uproarously funny it was, and then after it was released the public overwhelming found it not funny, but depressing, and it made them cry with sadness, would you say that this movie was a funny movie or not? What someone intends to create is sometimes different than what they actually end up creating.

Your assessment of events has society totally collapse, then 'rebuild' to a basically identical state, in three years. It makes much more sense that they were holding on to the past, not that they have rebuilt to it. The entire thousands of years of human history brought us to the point right prior to the outbreak, then society collapsed, then was rebuilt, less than three years after the outbreak? One of the points that goes through all of Romero's dead films is that human beings do not get along well with human beings in a time of crisis, yet they miraculously cooperate to rebuild to a point where they are selling hot dogs in the streets and watching zombie fights in bars, in three years?

Maybe since these are zombie movies people have trouble grasping the concept of making movies out of chronological order. Maybe thinking of the Star Wars franchise would make it easier? The first three made were parts 4, 5 and 6. The year of release had nothing to do as to when they were set.

MoonSylver

12-Apr-2018, 08:59 AM

https://i.imgflip.com/2883ay.jpg

JDP

12-Apr-2018, 10:56 AM

True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.

No, because Land does not clearly specify it, and we also don't know how long have the people in Day been in that bunker. For all we know, they were busy working on other projects before being sent to that bunker to have a crack at solving the zombie problem (and we know for sure that at least one of them was doing other things before being sent to the bunker: Fisher was in Washington, and we also know the zombie plague was already around since he says he saw a zombie trying to drive a car.)

In any case, I'm still on the fence wether or not Night takes place prior to or post-Day of the Dead. After all, it's not explicitly mentioned in either film where in time they take place - thus it can easily be argued (should we dismiss all but the explicit references, which is your argument) that Night takes place after Day.

You are comparing apples with oranges... again! You are trying to absurdly demand that Romero inserted a totally ludicrous dialogue line stating something like "this is the first movie in a zombie series". It just would never happen. No filmmaker is going to do such nonsense. But in Dawn he did insert a very clear and explicit reference to time with respect to the events in the first movie: "We've had this situation for the last 3 weeks." See how this is a case where you CAN be very specific and not ruin the movie at all, unlike the absurd demand that you keep going on in circles about? Now apply the same to Land. But he did not do it there. Instead we get a vague "3 years" and no specific reference to the zombie situation in connection to these 3 years.

- - - Updated - - -

wow i can't even with this conversation right now:duh:

As far as i can remember and who am i to recall anything about this film *wink* but i remember George saying that Big Daddy was the next step in zombie evolution after Bub, such as a natural progression. So that would make Land take place after Day.

I'm also trying to figure out why this is a thing all of a sudden.

How was he "the next step in zombie evolution after Bub", though? He pretty much is the same as Bub: a zombie with a somewhat higher IQ than the average zombie. If Big Daddy started solving math problems or writing poetry, then that would certainly drive the point across. But making odd noises, getting pissed off when he sees something he does not like, growling and rather clumsily firing guns doesn't quite cut it as being "the next step in zombie evolution after Bub", but more like "Bub II".

MinionZombie

12-Apr-2018, 11:17 AM

As far as i can remember and who am i to recall anything about this film *wink* but i remember George saying that Big Daddy was the next step in zombie evolution after Bub, such as a natural progression. So that would make Land take place after Day.

I'm also trying to figure out why this is a thing all of a sudden.

Aye, Romero talked about Big Daddy being the next step of zombie evolution a lot at the time of the film's release. The very fact that in the film the dead have been walking for so long that the living have devised ways to distract them so they can loot carefree (carefree to the point of a complete lack of care, as witnessed by the likes of Cholo), and are - in Romero's own estimation - more like a 'problem to be stepped over', clearly shows a Night-Dawn-Day-Land progression. Hell, in Day you've got Bub who is being taught by a human - in Land you've got a smart zombie teaching other zombies. Bub was just discovering his surroundings and gaining an understanding - Big Daddy leads an attack on a city - that alone makes it painfully obvious that Land follows Day.

Diary and Survival, on the other hand, are obviously at the beginning of the ZA ... whether it's the same ZA as N/D/D/L or not is another debate entirely ... but Land clearly shows a thematic progression (the evolution of the zombies themselves clearly shows what the trajectory is - why would they de-evolve going from Land to Day?!) Romero's artistic direction is very clear.

Even on a casual conversational level between artists, if you go to about 4 minutes into this video - www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyjC09Hqogs&t=1s - Savini speaks of his character from Dawn making a cameo appearance in Land, and mentions "a year and a half". So at the very least you've got over two years (maybe something like 2 years and 3 months) - however I'm not suggesting this is an accurate statement of the time lapsed by the time Land shows up in the narrative, but it is an obvious suggestion that this is quite a long time into the ZA and what Romero's intentions with the film were.

At 5 minutes in that video you see the clip where the garage owner states "the last car drove out of this town three years ago".

At about 17:45 an interviewee talks about the script being "so much about the evolution of the species". Evolution isn't particularly known for leaping forward, then deciding to hop backwards again just for the hell of it.

There's not been much in the way of interviews regarding Land uploaded to YouTube, but the man's intentions regarding the movie will be all over the DVD extras and commentary. However, I've wasted enough time on this bizarre topic as it is. Go and find it for yourself. :D

EvilNed

12-Apr-2018, 11:19 AM

No, because Land does not clearly specify it

Yes it does.

There, that's all it took for me to crush your argument.

JDP

12-Apr-2018, 11:38 AM

IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

That reference is about how long it took to put that operation together, certainly not about how long has the zombie crisis been going on. There is no specific reference to that in Day. But we can easily deduce that they have spent quite a while in that place doing a number of things, and certainly not sitting on their assess doing nothing, as someone around here seems to think. For example, just look at how many zombies they have already captured and brought down to the blocked caves. There's quite a bunch of those creeps trapped in there (we can better appreciate their large numbers later on in the film, when they escape the corral and start inundating the main part of the bunker.) That by itself would be a heck of an arduous time-consuming task. Just look at how many problems they have just to be able to handle a couple of these unruly zombies from the corral and take them to the scientists' labs, and that's within the more limited space of the bunker itself. Now imagine this constant and dangerous struggle to try to control them for the whole bunch of zombies they brought down there from on top! That by itself must have taken them a very substantial amount of time to accomplish. The whole thing was in fact so difficult and dangerous that Sarah suspects the soldiers simply will refuse to do such a thing again once they run out of specimens.

I'd also say that, judging by various other factors - such as how well the characters know each other (or don't know each other) suggests a matter of months at most, as well as tensions being extraordinarily high as the chaos has escalated to a doom-laden scenario. In Night we saw confusion (what they hell is going on?) as well as small-scale effective resistance (the good 'ole boys roaming the countryside gunning down ghouls), then in Dawn we saw early panic but numerous instances of society breaking down from still operational to defunct (the most obvious being television - at the start of Dawn we're somewhere less than a month into proceedings, probably 2 or 3 weeks, and various rescue stations etc are operational, travel is still possible so they can have guests on to discuss the phenomena, and there's still a relatively effective police and military force attempting to sort shit out).

Dawn is the clearest indication of passing time - Fran's pregnancy - so we can wager that the film itself takes place over a period of months (I forget how far along she was in Dawn, but the conception was pre-zombies) and she's still able to scamper to the helicopter and climb a ladder, so I'd figure 7 to 8 months pregnant at the climax of the film.

There was talk a while back on the forum suggesting that Dawn and Day somewhat overlap, or that the ending of Dawn is about when the events of Day take place (i.e. a matter of several months into proceedings).

Whether you like it or not, the outposts in Land must overlap with Dawn. This is not speculation, like saying that Day may overlap with Dawn. These outposts are not any "phoenix rising from the ashes" of some distant future, but in fact surviving relics from a not too distant past. How do we know that they have existed since early on in the zombie crisis? Easy: the media itself reported their existence (and this by itself again brings more problems, like how could the people in Dawn and Day, both of whom were very interested in knowing about other survivors, ignore the existence of such large populous outposts??? Like I said, Romero did not think deep enough about all these details that would bring up several contradictions & discrepancies with his previous two movies.) By the end of Dawn there is in fact no media around anymore, let alone in Day, when even long distance radio communications are down.

The fact that we see a crumbling of society over the course of Dawn of the Dead clearly shows a downwards trajectory for mankind, which bottoms out with Day of the Dead (clusters of desperate, warring people stuck in holes in the ground with an abject sense of hopelessness and a lack of understanding of how the zombie virus works).

And what makes you think that the people in Land actually know better about this than those of Day? In fact, it is one of the main characters in Land who shows an incriminating paradoxical ignorance about what exactly zombie bites do to people, definitely not any character in Day, all of whom are more than well aware of this important detail. This incriminating paradoxical ignorance about an important phenomenon regarding the zombies and their bites belongs wholly to Land, not to Day.

Now, Land of the Dead shows the sickly phoenix rising from the smouldering wreck of humanity's former world. Romero explicitly talked about how Land was about society regrouping and repeating the mistakes of the past (the rich/poor divide, petty squabbles etc) and, being that a huge part of that film was about mankind being in a place where they had gotten used to the zombies very clearly shows that a lot of time has passed in the ZA - you know, like three years as referenced in the script at the garage where Riley's car went missing. :)

No writer would put that time reference in for no reason or just at random - Romero was very purposeful in putting that time reference in - no writer worth their salt just tosses in random shite with no thought.

Ergo Land after Day, blatantly. If you can't accept the word of the creator himself, whose can you accept?

Even if Romero intended such a thing, the way the movie actually comes across is a totally different issue. If Romero intended Land to happen after Day, then he pretty much screwed up trying to convey such an idea. The movie has plenty of contradictions and discrepancies with Day (and even with Dawn!) if you want to see it in that order. If you reverse the order, on the other hand, most of these contradictions and discrepancies vanish.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it does.

There, that's all it took for me to crush your argument.

Nope, you still have to cite anything in the movie that unequivocally says or implies those 3 years refers specifically to the time the zombie crisis began. Keep on looking. It isn't there. It is not like the very specific time reference in Dawn.

MinionZombie

12-Apr-2018, 11:39 AM

That reference is about how long it took to put that operation together, certainly not about how long has the zombie crisis been going on.

No, she says the operation was cobbled together in days, not months. If the operation had been put together in months then for one, it would have been too damn slow, and for two it'd be a hell of a lot better organised.

And if you think Bub and Big Daddy are no different from one another in terms of their evolution, you're nuts. :D

JDP

12-Apr-2018, 12:04 PM

Aye, Romero talked about Big Daddy being the next step of zombie evolution a lot at the time of the film's release. The very fact that in the film the dead have been walking for so long that the living have devised ways to distract them so they can loot carefree (carefree to the point of a complete lack of care, as witnessed by the likes of Cholo), and are - in Romero's own estimation - more like a 'problem to be stepped over', clearly shows a Night-Dawn-Day-Land progression. Hell, in Day you've got Bub who is being taught by a human - in Land you've got a smart zombie teaching other zombies. Bub was just discovering his surroundings and gaining an understanding - Big Daddy leads an attack on a city - that alone makes it painfully obvious that Land follows Day.

Diary and Survival, on the other hand, are obviously at the beginning of the ZA ... whether it's the same ZA as N/D/D/L or not is another debate entirely ... but Land clearly shows a thematic progression (the evolution of the zombies themselves clearly shows what the trajectory is - why would they de-evolve going from Land to Day?!) Romero's artistic direction is very clear.

This bit about Big Daddy being capable of doing things that Bub couldn't is pure speculation. You don't know if Bub could have led other zombies as well. The movie ends without showing us what did Bub do next after he came in contact with other zombies. Everything else that Big Daddy does is pretty much the same as Bub. There is no clear "evolution" from Bub's basic capabilities here.

- - - Updated - - -

No, she says the operation was cobbled together in days, not months. If the operation had been put together in months then for one, it would have been too damn slow, and for two it'd be a hell of a lot better organised.

You are the one who said "months". There is only one time reference in Day, and it's about the operation being put together, not about how long the zombie situation has been going on.

And if you think Bub and Big Daddy are no different from one another in terms of their evolution, you're nuts. :D

I already replied to this nonsense. Show us where is the evidence of this "giant leap" in "evolution" between Bub and Big Daddy? Let's see, they both growl, get pissed off like spoiled little brats when they see something they don't like, and clumsily shoot guns. Wow! I am flabbergasted by the huge "differences" between the two! In fact, if I remember correctly, Bub did something that Big Daddy did not do: attempt to talk! So who is really more "evolved"???

And the reason why we did not see Bub leading any other zombies or teaching them tricks might very well be because the movie ends right after Bub comes in contact with the other zombies. The fact is that we have no idea whatsoever what did Bub do after that. For all we know, he led all the zombies out of the bunker. Or maybe not. Who knows.

MinionZombie

12-Apr-2018, 12:15 PM

You are the one who said "months". There is only one time reference in Day, and it's about the operation being put together, not about how long the zombie situation has been going on.

In regards to a completely different conversation.

I never once said "months" in relation to the 'putting together the operation' line that Sarah says. You, on the other hand, did. :)

I already replied to this nonsense. Show us where is the evidence of this "giant leap" in "evolution" between Bub and Big Daddy?

It's all over the movie, dude.

JDP

12-Apr-2018, 12:23 PM

In regards to a completely different conversation.

I never once said "months" in relation to the 'putting together the operation' line that Sarah says. You, on the other hand, did. :)

Huh??? I quote you verbatim here from the earlier post I was replying to:

IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

Again, that reference (not in "months", as you misremembered) is about how long it took to put the bunker operation together, not how long has it been since the zombie crisis started.

It's all over the movie, dude.

Yes, we can see him do pretty much the same things that Bub did (and if I do not misremember, Big Daddy in fact did not attempt to talk, something which Bub in fact did!) The supposed "giant leap" in evolution shines for its absence only.

EvilNed

12-Apr-2018, 01:35 PM

Nope, you still have to cite anything in the movie that unequivocally says or implies those 3 years refers specifically to the time the zombie crisis began. Keep on looking. It isn't there. It is not like the very specific time reference in Dawn.

Fine, have it your way. This is as absurd as claiming that Night takes place after Day.
Which, according to you, is a reasonable assumption to make.

Monrozombi

12-Apr-2018, 04:50 PM

I haven’t read this whole thread but it seems one person has an outlandish theory that Land comes before Day and that Noght comes after Day if it reading correctly? So the question is why does it matter. No matter how much evidence or common sense is laid out, JDP is sticking to what they believe. If that’s what one person wants to think that’s fine. I see a lot of grasping for straws under the banner of “if Romero didn’t explicitly state something then it’s fair game”. I think we are all pissing in the wind at something I’ve never seen as an issue before.

Land comes after Day and I don’t think there is anything to state otherwise other than someone looking deeper for a reason to delve deeper into the story and while there is nothing wrong with that this thread is going in circles.

- - - Updated - - -

Well of course night comes after Day. Remember the 30th anniversary came out in 98 and Day came out in 85

EvilNed

12-Apr-2018, 04:59 PM

Well of course night comes after Day. Remember the 30th anniversary came out in 98 and Day came out in 85

And that's without even mentioning the remake!

MinionZombie

12-Apr-2018, 05:58 PM

Huh??? I quote you verbatim here from the earlier post I was replying to:

MZ QUOTE: IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

Again, that reference (not in "months", as you misremembered) is about how long it took to put the bunker operation together, not how long has it been since the zombie crisis started.

Read it again, JDP - not once do I mention "months" in relation to 'putting the operation together' - plain to see in that very quote you picked, which doesn't back up your point at all.

And in yet another different conversation in the movies Sarah speculates that it could be years before they begin to really understand what's going on with the zombies (i.e. that "years" haven't happened yet). She also mentions "months" in relation to Logan re-proving theories that were proven "months" ago (i.e. that Logan's tinkering in his lab is pointless to the ultimate goal).

Yes, we can see him do pretty much the same things that Bub did (and if I do not misremember, Big Daddy in fact did not attempt to talk, something which Bub in fact did!) The supposed "giant leap" in evolution shines for its absence only.

Let's see what Bub manages to do in Day of the Dead - under clear human tutelage:

He recognises a book.
He recognises a razor and clumsily shaves with it.
Under clear physical instruction from Logan he learns to turn a tape player on and off with colour-coded buttons.
He has figured out that Logan = Food Provider and Non-Threat.
He recognises Rhodes as a military man and recalls his own military past - hence the salute.
His emotional outburst at figuring out Logan is dead (he's also proud/curious that his chain broke off and wants to show it to Logan).
His big thing is picking up a gun and using it to injure Rhodes.

Now, compare that with Big Daddy in Land of the Dead - completely of his own volition:

He already has 'recognised behaviour' from the get-go as he proceeds to exit the gas station and go to the pump when the bell is accidentally rung (as do several other zombies - e.g. the ones on the bandstand who are all attempting to play music AND the butcher still carrying his meat cleaver AND the boyfriend/girlfriend holding hands, plus some others). This shows the zombies in Land 'picking up' from the zombies in Day in terms of evolution in a linear, forward-moving manner.
He also recognises that the "sky flowers" are being used as a distraction - he's the first to break from the spell of them and shows the other zombies not to look at them (the first of several instances where Big Daddy, a zombie, instructs fellow zombies - no human instruction necessary).
He steals a weapon from a biker and learns to shoot it (albeit clumsily) - he also makes the decision to keep the weapon and take it with him.
He sees the slaughter of fellow zombies and attempts to save one of his own kind - but fails (the severed head) - he then recognises the pitiful look in the severed head zombie (which, it seems, was the patriarch of a family of zombies who were sticking together) and puts the poor thing out of its misery.
He leads an entire group of zombies towards the human's city - which he recognises throughout the movie by the conspicuous, gleaming, illuminated tower of Kaufman's).
He teaches fellow zombies to perform actions - e.g. they come across a wooden blockage in their path. He sees the meat cleaver in the butcher's hand, he pulls the butcher over to it and gestures - blade to wood - and the butcher hacks through it and they all continue on their journey.
He is the first to drop into the water (of which all the others are afraid) and the others follow his lead.
Throughout the attack on the city he uses a variety of tools and weapons (e.g. the jackhammer to break the thick glass of the skyscraper), discerning which is best for the job.
His encounter with Kaufman is also quite revealing as to zombie evolution - Kaufman locks himself inside, Big Daddy wants revenge, so he assesses the area and sees the gas pump (a tool of his trade in pre-ZA life), knocks a hole through the window and pumps petrol into the vehicle - he then walks off specifically to get one of those flaming gas container thingies seen in the street (so he not only noticed them, he remembered them, and problem solved using different tools in different places) and returns - the flaming canister blows up Kaufman and the car, job done.
Finally, Big Daddy locks eyes with Riley and they share a moment - they both want peace - and Big Daddy leads his surviving zombies away to a new future.

...

I cannot possibly explain it any clearer than that - obviously the evolution of the zombies has progressed from Day to Land (ergo Land follows Day) - and while I've enjoyed having a lengthy discussion about Romero movies again (something that doesn't happen often enough these days), I'll have to say that with that I'm bowing out of the conversation, because it's just going round in ruddy circles and who can be arsed with that?

EvilNed

12-Apr-2018, 06:06 PM

I never got why Romero never bothered to explain how the zombie behavior could regress from Day to Night, tho.

Monrozombi

12-Apr-2018, 07:55 PM

I never got why Romero never bothered to explain how the zombie behavior could regress from Day to Night, tho.

Bath salts

- - - Updated - - -

And that's without even mentioning the remake!

The remake clearly comes between NIGHT 68 and DOTD

MoonSylver

12-Apr-2018, 09:26 PM

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/81657361/trollface-merle-approves-of-this-thread.jpg

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-06c6e327453f35da5e5e892acb0d37e6-c

JDP

13-Apr-2018, 11:41 AM

Fine, have it your way. This is as absurd as claiming that Night takes place after Day.
Which, according to you, is a reasonable assumption to make.

This little nonsensical comparison of yours is wearing real thin by now. It has already been sufficiently explained why your analogy falls flat. Apples & oranges.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven’t read this whole thread but it seems one person has an outlandish theory that Land comes before Day and that Noght comes after Day if it reading correctly? So the question is why does it matter. No matter how much evidence or common sense is laid out, JDP is sticking to what they believe. If that’s what one person wants to think that’s fine. I see a lot of grasping for straws under the banner of “if Romero didn’t explicitly state something then it’s fair game”. I think we are all pissing in the wind at something I’ve never seen as an issue before.

Land comes after Day and I don’t think there is anything to state otherwise other than someone looking deeper for a reason to delve deeper into the story and while there is nothing wrong with that this thread is going in circles.

- - - Updated - - -

Well of course night comes after Day. Remember the 30th anniversary came out in 98 and Day came out in 85

You should actually bother to read the thread first before making such mistaken comments. The person proposing outlandish things is Ned, he is the one who absurdly wants to compare a character not being specific enough regarding a period of time and something like Night very obviously being the very first movie in the series, which is self-evident and self-explanatory and needs zero explicit lines. There is nothing "outlandish" about Land happening before Day. In fact, when all details in these movies are considered, it is the choice that makes the most sense, not the other way around. Again, actually bother to read the thread and see who is really presenting the more logical arguments.

bassman

13-Apr-2018, 12:12 PM

Ah, it warms the heart to once again see the Day/Land debate. That decade’s-worth of entertaining message board drama has been sorely missed.

I’ll start the popcorn. Anyone seen Philly lately??

JDP

13-Apr-2018, 12:28 PM

Read it again, JDP - not once do I mention "months" in relation to 'putting the operation together' - plain to see in that very quote you picked, which doesn't back up your point at all.

Are you trying to pull my leg here? You know very well what you said and in what context. Accept that it was your mistake, on both counts: "a matter of months" (it is in fact "a matter of days", as you then more correctly remembered after I replied) and that this time reference in the movie does NOT have anything to do with when the zombie crisis started. Again, I quote your words, verbatim and within the clear context you intended:

IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

And in yet another different conversation in the movies Sarah speculates that it could be years before they begin to really understand what's going on with the zombies (i.e. that "years" haven't happened yet). She also mentions "months" in relation to Logan re-proving theories that were proven "months" ago (i.e. that Logan's tinkering in his lab is pointless to the ultimate goal).

That only refers to that particular theory the Doc is testing. How do you know if Logan did not have other theories before and then discarded them for this one months ago and that he is only now working on? Also, why did it take him so long to start working on something that was thought up months ago? If anything these references actually suggest that things aren't moving as smoothly and fast as these scientists would like. These folks might in fact have been working on this mess for quite an amount of time and advancing at snail pace due to a number of circumstances. Again, none of these references says anything concrete about when exactly is the action we are seeing in this movie happening in relation to the events seen in Night.

Let's see what Bub manages to do in Day of the Dead - under clear human tutelage:

He recognises a book.
He recognises a razor and clumsily shaves with it.
Under clear physical instruction from Logan he learns to turn a tape player on and off with colour-coded buttons.
He has figured out that Logan = Food Provider and Non-Threat.
He recognises Rhodes as a military man and recalls his own military past - hence the salute.
His emotional outburst at figuring out Logan is dead (he's also proud/curious that his chain broke off and wants to show it to Logan).
His big thing is picking up a gun and using it to injure Rhodes.

And there is a reason why Logan chose him: he was the only zombie he had encountered so far with the higher IQ. This he did not learn from anyone. He already had it. Doc Logan only helped his learning process.

Now, compare that with Big Daddy in Land of the Dead - completely of his own volition:
He already has 'recognised behaviour' from the get-go as he proceeds to exit the gas station and go to the pump when the bell is accidentally rung (as do several other zombies - e.g. the ones on the bandstand who are all attempting to play music AND the butcher still carrying his meat cleaver AND the boyfriend/girlfriend holding hands, plus some others). This shows the zombies in Land 'picking up' from the zombies in Day in terms of evolution in a linear, forward-moving manner.

Nope, it doesn't. Even in Dawn the zombies are already trying to clumsily do things from their former lives. The very fact that they flock to the mall is a result of this. Plus Fisher also says he saw a zombie trying to drive a car in Washington DC. Nothing "new" here. Next!

He also recognises that the "sky flowers" are being used as a distraction - he's the first to break from the spell of them and shows the other zombies not to look at them (the first of several instances where Big Daddy, a zombie, instructs fellow zombies - no human instruction necessary).
He steals a weapon from a biker and learns to shoot it (albeit clumsily) - he also makes the decision to keep the weapon and take it with him.
He sees the slaughter of fellow zombies and attempts to save one of his own kind - but fails (the severed head) - he then recognises the pitiful look in the severed head zombie (which, it seems, was the patriarch of a family of zombies who were sticking together) and puts the poor thing out of its misery.
He leads an entire group of zombies towards the human's city - which he recognises throughout the movie by the conspicuous, gleaming, illuminated tower of Kaufman's).
He teaches fellow zombies to perform actions - e.g. they come across a wooden blockage in their path. He sees the meat cleaver in the butcher's hand, he pulls the butcher over to it and gestures - blade to wood - and the butcher hacks through it and they all continue on their journey.
He is the first to drop into the water (of which all the others are afraid) and the others follow his lead.
Throughout the attack on the city he uses a variety of tools and weapons (e.g. the jackhammer to break the thick glass of the skyscraper), discerning which is best for the job.
His encounter with Kaufman is also quite revealing as to zombie evolution - Kaufman locks himself inside, Big Daddy wants revenge, so he assesses the area and sees the gas pump (a tool of his trade in pre-ZA life), knocks a hole through the window and pumps petrol into the vehicle - he then walks off specifically to get one of those flaming gas container thingies seen in the street (so he not only noticed them, he remembered them, and problem solved using different tools in different places) and returns - the flaming canister blows up Kaufman and the car, job done.

All of the above is moot: Day of the Dead ends pretty much at the moment that Bub comes in contact with the other zombies, so we have no idea whatsoever what happened after that. Did he become the leader of that gang of zombies that took over the bunker? Did he teach them tricks?? Did he lead them out of the bunker and into the Zombie Promised Land of Blood & Guts??? We'll never know! So trying to compare it with Big Daddy's interactions with other zombies, which are featured throughout the movie, is simply impossible since there is no equivalent material to compare it with on Bub's side. But we can compare what both of them did with what they had in common, like handling a gun (which Bub knew how to do all on his own, BTW, Logan did not teach him that), attacking a human opponent with it (which, again, Logan did not teach him, he knew how to do that all on his own), or getting angry/emotional when they saw something they did not like (which, again, Logan did not teach him, he did it on his own.) So I ask you again: where are these "huge" differences with what we can compare between both of them???

Finally, Big Daddy locks eyes with Riley and they share a moment - they both want peace - and Big Daddy leads his surviving zombies away to a new future.

This looks more like your interpretation of that scene (if I am not misidentifying the scene in question) rather than an objective observation. If I remember correctly, this scene happens while Riley is watching the wandering zombies through binoculars. That pretty much says it all about how could they possibly "lock eyes and share a moment"!

I cannot possibly explain it any clearer than that - obviously the evolution of the zombies has progressed from Day to Land (ergo Land follows Day) - and while I've enjoyed having a lengthy discussion about Romero movies again (something that doesn't happen often enough these days), I'll have to say that with that I'm bowing out of the conversation, because it's just going round in ruddy circles and who can be arsed with that?

And I cannot possibly explain it any clearer that you have not done any proper comparison of the two. You are just taking advantage of the fact that Big Daddy was placed in a very different setting than Bub and using what he had a chance of doing there to try to present this supposed "evolution". I can pull the same trick: did Big Daddy attempt to talk? Nope, he didn't. But Bub did! So who is more "evolved"?

PS: obviously I am resorting to similar tactics as yours here. Big Daddy obviously could not have attempted to talk since he did not have the opportunity of having FRIENDLY contact with any human who might have tried to teach him how to talk, while Bub did.

Monrozombi

13-Apr-2018, 01:49 PM

I’m trying to figure out why this is a thing in the first place

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2018, 01:58 PM

Because some people want it to be.

Romero's laughing his arse off somewhere. :lol:

Monrozombi

13-Apr-2018, 02:11 PM

or hanging his head wondering wtf is wrong w some people

JDP

13-Apr-2018, 02:15 PM

I’m trying to figure out why this is a thing in the first place

Not only is it a "thing", but it has been going on for a long time, and not only in this site. Example:

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Does-Romeros-Dead-series-depict-the-same-zombie-apocalypse/id/12832

The first three certainly seem to follow an arc.

A sudden outbreak where the recently dead rise again and look quite fresh, the living still outnumber the undead and the local 'militia' in the locality of the farmhouse eventually get that area cleared but chaos is described in the cities.

People refuse to destroy corpses and the emergency broadcast system (seen in the first film) is inaccurate and sending people into danger zones.

The characters of the second film fly over redneck militias like those in the first film who make sport of shooting the undead but pockets between the cities go missed (like the petrol station). The Mall draws zombies from all around. The zombies seem a bit more decayed and the numbers are definitely on the rise.

In Day Of The Dead the undead are much more decayed and outnumber the living, there is no visible government and what military does exist is are cut off and is reluctantly following orders given a long time ago.

If Land Of The Dead does fit in it could be between Dawn and Day but to be honest it feels out of place(it certainly feels more like an eighties film than Day does).

Diary Of The Dead in my view can not be made to fit in with the first three films or the fourth.

I haven't seen Survival Of The Dead so I can't comment on it.

And as to "why?": well, read the various threads on this subject found around the net. What the guy quoted above pointed out are merely a couple of the many observations and arguments that can be easily brought up against seeing this movie as taking place after Day. Land is the only movie in Romero's zombie series that has sparked such endless debates regarding where exactly in the time-line it belongs. And it has to do with certain plot elements and details the movie introduced which conflict with those of the previous 2 movies, specially with Day. Romero should have more carefully planned this film and tried to "iron out" the several problems these plot elements introduced. "As is", it is hardly clear at all when exactly are the events in this movie happening in relation to even the later stages of Dawn, so needless to say in relation to Day.

Monrozombi

13-Apr-2018, 02:56 PM

Not only is it a "thing", but it has been going on for a long time, and not only in this site. Example:

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Does-Romeros-Dead-series-depict-the-same-zombie-apocalypse/id/12832

And as to "why?": well, read the various threads on this subject found around the net. What the guy quoted above pointed out are merely a couple of the many observations and arguments that can be easily brought up against seeing this movie as taking place after Day. Land is the only movie in Romero's zombie series that has sparked such endless debates regarding where exactly in the time-line it belongs. And it has to do with certain plot elements and details the movie introduced which conflict with those of the previous 2 movies, specially with Day. Romero should have more carefully planned this film and tried to "iron out" the several problems these plot elements introduced. "As is", it is hardly clear at all when exactly are the events in this movie happening in relation to even the later stages of Dawn, so needless to say in relation to Day.

I think Ned said it once, in Day they're still searching for survivors and talking about talking with Washington like it was recent memory and clinging to that for hope. In Land, they got what they got.

Honestly I spent enough time around George that I never heard this be brought up to him and I don't think Land is before Day and I don't think he had any intention to put it there let alone put clues in to say otherwise.

JDP

13-Apr-2018, 03:18 PM

I think Ned said it once, in Day they're still searching for survivors and talking about talking with Washington like it was recent memory and clinging to that for hope. In Land, they got what they got.

But why would they want to look for survivors in Land when there's a whole bunch of people already thriving! Can't you see that that by itself is already a huge contradiction to the bleak and increasingly devastated world shown in both Dawn and Day??? The progression of these two movies is very clear: people are dwindling, zombies are thriving, not the other way around. That's why by the time of Day finding any other survivors has become quite the task. There seems to hardly be anyone else left around, at least on top ground. Even what's left of the government itself has been driven underground. Add to this problem the fact that Romero makes these outposts of Land to be an early development during the zombie crisis (the media itself reported their existence while it was still around), and you have yet another paradox: why are the people in the world of Dawn and Day (all of them very interested in finding out what's going on "out there" with other survivors) totally oblivious to the existence of these huge outposts with thousands of people thriving, which even the media had already reported while it was still around??? Land is a bagful of problems and contradictions if you try to see it as happening after Day.

Honestly I spent enough time around George that I never heard this be brought up to him and I don't think Land is before Day and I don't think he had any intention to put it there let alone put clues in to say otherwise.

Very strange that no one brought all these discrepancies and problems to his attention. Someone should have, specially before he actually made the movie. Maybe he could have worked out many of these details in a better way that would not conflict so much with the other movies.

Monrozombi

13-Apr-2018, 03:27 PM

EvilNed

13-Apr-2018, 03:33 PM

This little nonsensical comparison of yours is wearing real thin by now. It has already been sufficiently explained why your analogy falls flat. Apples & oranges.

It is in noway absurd. It makes as little sense as your Day/Land argument.
But if that's the way you want it, then I'll play your game.

JDP

13-Apr-2018, 04:00 PM

they weren't looking for survivors in Land? they were supply gathering, doing the jobs they had assigned.

You said it yourself: they were looking for SUPPLIES (medicine, food, booze, cigars, etc.), not for any other survivors. These guys already had their hands full of people, or didn't you notice the THRONGS of people on the streets going about their lives? They had no interest whatsoever in having more mouths to feed. Very different from the situation in Day, where people have become very scarce and finding survivors is quite a difficult task.

I've seen Land happening after Day since the first time I saw it and while on set.

Even the very first time I saw Land I thought quite the opposite: this movie has to be happening before Day. It was only when I started reading these internet discussions that, to my surprise, I saw people who did not quite get why this is the most logical conclusion you can come to when you consider everything shown in the previous two movies.

I've never once thought of it happening before Day and this thread is the only place in 13 years that i've ever seen it brought up and its only maybe one or 2 people so i doubt the problem is as big as you say it was.

Then look again. I just showed you a post regarding this from 7 years ago in another forum. This site alone has several huge threads regarding this issue. Plenty of people have noticed the problems with this movie in respect to the previous two.

As for nobody bringing it up to George, maybe that should tell you that its widely accepted that Land is after Day. George didn't concern himself with timelines and intricacies that fans spend time plowing through looking for things that aren't there.

At the end of the day, to me, this is a non-issue becoming an issue because some people are looking for things that aren't there. Which causes people to trivialize and dig for stuff to prove their pointer because its more important that the views of one or two people mean an entire fandom should change what it has seen has something that isn't an issue to begin with.

Maybe because the majority of people aren't critical enough to easily see the several problems with it. Spotting these problems in fact requires what you are rather liberally dismissing to do: concerning yourself with and noting such intricacies and details. "Nitpicking", if you like.

- - - Updated - - -

also in Dawn which is a few weeks after the outbreak who is putting up big outposts? they weren't outposts they were rescue stations, gyms, hospitals, nothing like you see in Land

Again thats digging for something that isn't there because it wasn't part of the story. No matter how much you want it to be that wasn't something George was concerning himself with because it wasn't important to the story in Dawn. So saying why didn't the people in Dawn go to these outposts? because we're human and self serving.

That hardly cuts it. People who are desperately looking for a safe place to go to would not so casually dismiss these outposts, no matter how big or small they were at the beginning of the zombie crisis.

- - - Updated - - -

It is in noway absurd. It makes as little sense as your Day/Land argument.
But if that's the way you want it, then I'll play your game.

For reasons already more than sufficiently explained to you: no. Your analogy doesn't pass muster. Apples & oranges.

Night happening before Day ------> self-explanatory, self-evident, does not need any explicit dialogue lines to plainly show it, the events shown clearly prove it, and in fact the filmmaker CANNOT address such a thing explicitly within the context of the movie or he will ruin it!

Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years -----> does not necessarily imply anything else other than that fact

Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years SINCE A CERTAIN EVENT -----> unequivocal, irrefutable, clear-cut, solid, indisputable time reference to that event in question

EvilNed

13-Apr-2018, 04:34 PM

For reasons already more than sufficiently explained to you: no. Your analogy doesn't pass muster. Apples & oranges.

Night happening before Day ------> self-explanatory, self-evident, does not need any explicit dialogue lines to plainly show it, the events shown clearly prove it, and in fact the filmmaker CANNOT address such a thing explicitly within the context of the movie or he will ruin it!

Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years -----> does not necessarily imply anything else other than that fact

Someone saying that he has worked for another person for 3 years SINCE A CERTAIN EVENT -----> unequivocal, irrefutable, clear-cut, solid, indisputable time reference to that event in question

It is not apples and oranges. It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your argument hinges on two lines in Land which give exposition regarding when the film takes place: 3 years after the outbreak. But since the characters only strongly imply, rather than explicitly state it - you disregard it. Thus anything that's not explicitly stated is up for debate. Thus according to you, it is possible that Night takes place after Day.

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2018, 05:19 PM

they weren't looking for survivors in Land? they were supply gathering, doing the jobs they had assigned.

I've seen Land happening after Day since the first time I saw it and while on set. I've never once thought of it happening before Day and this thread is the only place in 13 years that i've ever seen it brought up and its only maybe one or 2 people so i doubt the problem is as big as you say it was.

As for nobody bringing it up to George, maybe that should tell you that its widely accepted that Land is after Day. George didn't concern himself with timelines and intricacies that fans spend time plowing through looking for things that aren't there.

At the end of the day, to me, this is a non-issue becoming an issue because some people are looking for things that aren't there. Which causes people to trivialize and dig for stuff to prove their pointer because its more important that the views of one or two people mean an entire fandom should change what it has seen has something that isn't an issue to begin with.

While there isn't any bolted on timeframes, for me the clue has always been in the title and other little indications. In 'Land of the Dead', The Dead have won, they own the land, it's a land of the dead. Fiddler's Green is an enclave onto itself, clawed back and probably hard won. It's carved out a functioning mini society, that has fallen back into the crass trappings of a pre-apocalypse world...class, status, money, the haves and have nots. That was always the point Romero was trying to make. Fiddler's Green isn't somewhere that's just experiencing a breakdown of society. It's gone through the zombie apocalypse and rose back up, with all the failings of the worst of humanity intact.

Also, they specifically mention having to go further and further out to scavenge supplies. It isn't about looking for survivors anymore, like they are in 'Day of the Dead', because such efforts are futile. As far as the folk in Fiddler's Green are concerned, there are no more survivors, or at least none that they can get to. The group in 'Land of the Dead' also travel by cars and other motor vehicles, allowing for a greater miliage to be covered. The group in 'Day of the Dead', are limited to the search distance of their Jet Ranger, which can get 100 to 150 miles max over Florida's 12,000 mile coastline before having to turn around. That's an extremely short amount of terrain they can cover. So while nothing about the state of the rest of the country, or world for that matter, can really be gleaned from either film, it's less so from 'Day of the Dead' because of the short range of travel the group can achieve.

In 'Day of the Dead', Pvt. Johnson says "There's more and more of them every day", indicating that they haven't seen the numbers of zombies that are at the gates in the film before. In 'Land of the Dead', I believe they state that "They don't come here around so much any more", indicating that the zombies have "learned" not to go near the electrified fences that surround the city blocks. One group are surprised by the lack of survivors being found and the numbers of zombies at their gates. The other group have given up looking for survivors and are surprised at the lack of zombies encroaching on their perimeter.

At the end of the day, if people want 'Day of the Dead' to take place after 'Land of the Dead', then off they go. I can see why they may want think that way. The survivors in 'Day of the Dead' have a grimer time of it than those in 'Land of the Dead'. But to me 'Land of the Dead' clearly takes place after 'Day of the Dead' and I haven't seen a convincing argument to suggest otherwise.

But, if it floats your boat, go for it.

Actually, I'm going to watch 'Land of the Dead' right now. Haven't seen it in quite a while.

MinionZombie

13-Apr-2018, 07:03 PM

Are you trying to pull my leg here? You know very well what you said and in what context. Accept that it was your mistake, on both counts: "a matter of months" (it is in fact "a matter of days", as you then more correctly remembered after I replied) and that this time reference in the movie does NOT have anything to do with when the zombie crisis started. Again, I quote your words, verbatim and within the clear context you intended:

IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

Where in that quote do I connect "months" to the conversation or context about how long it took to set up the operation? - Show me exactly where.

When I responded to your misquote of Sarah I was correcting your misquote. When I mentioned "months" in terms of Day's timeline, I wasn't placing it in connection to the dialogue Sarah says regarding the haste with which their operation was setup.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I'm going to watch 'Land of the Dead' right now. Haven't seen it in quite a while.

Do chime back in with your thoughts on it now after a long time not seeing it, your opinion of it then versus now etc. :)

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2018, 10:50 PM

Do chime back in with your thoughts on it now after a long time not seeing it, your opinion of it then versus now etc. :)

Pffft...so much for my big plans. The missus "reminded" me that I had other things to do.

EvilNed

14-Apr-2018, 07:20 AM

Pffft...so much for my big plans. The missus "reminded" me that I had other things to do.

Women. Can't live with 'em. Can't shoot 'em in the head.

JDP

14-Apr-2018, 01:13 PM

It is not apples and oranges. It is a perfectly fitting analogy. Your argument hinges on two lines in Land which give exposition regarding when the film takes place: 3 years after the outbreak. But since the characters only strongly imply, rather than explicitly state it - you disregard it. Thus anything that's not explicitly stated is up for debate. Thus according to you, it is possible that Night takes place after Day.

The characters in Land do not say anything explicit regarding when exactly did the zombie situation start. Your interpretation is just a possible one, but not the only one. When Cholo is talking to Kaufman and he mentions those 3 years, it is specifically in regard to how long he has been working for Kaufman and doing his "dirty work". They are not specifically talking about the zombies or when they first popped up. This is certainly not in the same category as the truly zombie-specific line at the start of Dawn about the "situation" having been going on for 3 weeks. That line appears in the middle of a heated discussion about the zombies themselves, so it is very clear and impossible to interpret it in any other way. There is no such equivalent clear line in Land, so the issue of when exactly is this movie taking place in relation to Night can easily remain open to question. Day has the same problem. There is no specific reference to how long exactly has the zombie situation been going on there either.

According to no one but you can Night supposedly take place after Day. It has already been explained to you a whole bunch of times why this intended analogy doesn't pass muster. Romero cannot have put any specific line of dialogue in Night saying something like "this is the first installment in a series of zombie movies". What you are requesting to try to use as an analogy is simply ludicrous and no filmmaker worth his salt would ever do such a thing since it would make a mockery of the whole film. The way anyone can easily tell that Night has to be the first movie in the series is simply through common sense: people knew nothing about zombies in that movie and everyone is caught by surprise by their sudden appearance. None of the other movies feature this, people in those films are already familiar with the zombie situation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which movie comes first. No explicit lines of dialogue are needed to know something so elemental.

- - - Updated - - -

Where in that quote do I connect "months" to the conversation or context about how long it took to set up the operation? - Show me exactly where.

See the underlined parts of your very own post I copied & pasted above (in red text.)

When I responded to your misquote of Sarah I was correcting your misquote. When I mentioned "months" in terms of Day's timeline, I wasn't placing it in connection to the dialogue Sarah says regarding the haste with which their operation was setup.

My "misquote"? I was just quoting YOU verbatim!

- - - Updated - - -

While there isn't any bolted on timeframes, for me the clue has always been in the title and other little indications. In 'Land of the Dead', The Dead have won, they own the land, it's a land of the dead.

But by the time of Day it is already pretty much a "land of the dead". The scarce survivors still around seem to be mostly living underground or other isolated places where the zombies can't easily reach.

Fiddler's Green is an enclave onto itself, clawed back and probably hard won. It's carved out a functioning mini society, that has fallen back into the crass trappings of a pre-apocalypse world...class, status, money, the haves and have nots. That was always the point Romero was trying to make. Fiddler's Green isn't somewhere that's just experiencing a breakdown of society. It's gone through the zombie apocalypse and rose back up, with all the failings of the worst of humanity intact.

This idea is very questionable, since the movie itself establishes that these outposts have been set up since very early on during the zombie crisis. What they are more like is surviving relics from a not too distant past. The fact that they are still trying to cling to old society values, like money and real state, is rather telling also. This is quite different from the increasingly decayed world of Dawn and Day, where such things have pretty much lost their meaning.

Also, they specifically mention having to go further and further out to scavenge supplies. It isn't about looking for survivors anymore, like they are in 'Day of the Dead', because such efforts are futile. As far as the folk in Fiddler's Green are concerned, there are no more survivors, or at least none that they can get to.

Excuse me, but the people in Land do not show the slightest interest in finding "survivors" since their city is in fact already FULL of them! They already are quite busy trying to find food & medicine for all these people to really be concerned about any more survivors out there in other places. Plus they are in fact aware that they are not the only ones. They know about other places with people. The reason why they don't seem to care much about them is, again, because they already have enough problems handling all of the people they have within their city. This looks like a very different situation from even the end of Dawn, let alone than Day.

The group in 'Land of the Dead' also travel by cars and other motor vehicles, allowing for a greater miliage to be covered. The group in 'Day of the Dead', are limited to the search distance of their Jet Ranger, which can get 100 to 150 miles max over Florida's 12,000 mile coastline before having to turn around. That's an extremely short amount of terrain they can cover. So while nothing about the state of the rest of the country, or world for that matter, can really be gleaned from either film, it's less so from 'Day of the Dead' because of the short range of travel the group can achieve.

Travelling by land even in Dawn was already a dangerous thing to do, let alone in Day! All this land travelling in Land far from arguing in favor of Land taking place after Day in fact does the opposite! The people in Land are mysteriously quite comfortable with rather casually taking trips by land. Riley even wants to take a car and make a trip all the way into the friggin' Canadian wilderness, for crying out loud! Can anyone seriously imagine that in the way more dangerous world of Day???

In 'Day of the Dead', Pvt. Johnson says "There's more and more of them every day", indicating that they haven't seen the numbers of zombies that are at the gates in the film before.

The bunker seems to be in the middle of the wilderness, so it might very well have taken a while for stray zombies freely wandering the land to reach there and start accumulating at the gates.

In 'Land of the Dead', I believe they state that "They don't come here around so much any more", indicating that the zombies have "learned" not to go near the electrified fences that surround the city blocks.

Two different situations: the fences in Day were not electrified. There was nothing for the zombies to "learn" there.

One group are surprised by the lack of survivors being found and the numbers of zombies at their gates.

The reason there is because survivors have truly become scarce, unlike in Land, where they are still found aplenty.

The other group have given up looking for survivors and are surprised at the lack of zombies encroaching on their perimeter.

There is nothing in Land that suggests that. They in fact show hardly much interest in other survivors (and why should they? their city is already FULL of them!), plus they actually know they exist. They are aware of other places with people in them. But again, they show rather little interest in them, except for when someone is looking for another place to go to, like Foxy, who doesn't want to return to Kaufman's outpost and will take his chances elsewhere. The fact that these people can so casually abandon a safe place like Kaufman's to seek their fortunes elsewhere once again strongly argues against it really happening after Day, where finding a safe place to go to is quite the dilemma! Even in Dawn the issue of finding a safe place to go to is already very evident. But not in Land. These people still have a number of choices. The people in Land behave in a way that is quite in opposition to those of Day and even Dawn. It's almost as if they were totally oblivious of each other and the zombie situation they were going through was a different one altogether, when in theory it should be the same.

At the end of the day, if people want 'Day of the Dead' to take place after 'Land of the Dead', then off they go. I can see why they may want think that way. The survivors in 'Day of the Dead' have a grimer time of it than those in 'Land of the Dead'. But to me 'Land of the Dead' clearly takes place after 'Day of the Dead' and I haven't seen a convincing argument to suggest otherwise.

And I haven't seen any convincing argument to suggest the opposite. Plus I haven't seen any very convincing counterarguments to the Land ----> Day order either.

EvilNed

14-Apr-2018, 03:49 PM

The characters in Land do not say anything explicit regarding when exactly did the zombie situation start

Yes, they do.
Twice an event is mentioned that happened 3 years ago. That's twice. Two different characters. Heavily implied.
You can disregard this, but that would be as absurd as disregarding anything that's not explicit. So you're essentially making the case that Night could theoretically take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly mentioned in either.

Checkmate.

MinionZombie

14-Apr-2018, 05:52 PM

See the underlined parts of your very own post I copied & pasted above (in red text.)

IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead. Plus, Romero mentioned on numerous occasions that Day follows Dawn and is set only a matter of months into the ZA.

And where in this text is there any mention of the dialogue that Sarah gives relating to the short amount of time that it took to put the operation together? As in - a different conversation elsewhere in the film in which timespan is referenced, if I remember correctly.

Your response, to that red text was:

That reference is about how long it took to put that operation together, certainly not about how long has the zombie crisis been going on.

Which isn't the case, because Sarah says "days" not "months", much like I never said "months" in relation to the length of time it took to set up the operation.

I did, however, say "months" in relation to how deep into the ZA 'Day of the Dead' takes place.

The first time I wrote that red text was in response to Ned saying:

True, but Land does. So either Day takes place 3+ years into the outbreak (thus; Post-Land) and they're incompetent morons or it takes place prior to Land. Those are the two options we're dealing with here.

So either you're reading something that literally isn't there, or you're havin' a laugh, JDP. Either way - I'm not entertaining this any more.

- - - Updated - - -

Pffft...so much for my big plans. The missus "reminded" me that I had other things to do.

Hmmm ... she clearly needs to be re-educated regarding the importance of Romero movies! :D

Moon Knight

14-Apr-2018, 07:20 PM

I could have swore Big Daddy was an evolution of Bub. *shrugs*

EvilNed

14-Apr-2018, 08:10 PM

I could have swore Big Daddy was an evolution of Bub. *shrugs*

So does Romero.

Capone: Although, according to reports about LAND OF THE DEAD as well as the DVD commentary for DAY OF THE DEAD, it sounds like the zombies get smarter and evolve somewhat.

G.R.: They have been. The last zombie you see in DAWN is holding a gun with some familiarity. And of course, in DAY OF THE DEAD there's Bub. In LAND, I'll have uber-Bub and a couple others that make it clear that the zombies are getting it together a little bit. They're still stumbling around, but they are developing a bit and there's more memory.

shootemindehead

14-Apr-2018, 10:01 PM

And I haven't seen any convincing argument to suggest the opposite. Plus I haven't seen any very convincing counterarguments to the Land ----> Day order either.

As I said, if that floats your boat, go for it.

But, you'll have a hard time convincing that vast majority of people of its validity.

- - - Updated - - -

Women. Can't live with 'em. Can't shoot 'em in the head.

Hmmm ... she clearly needs to be re-educated regarding the importance of Romero movies! :D

Mmmmm...well apparently I "promised" to take her out for dinner.

In any case, I stuck on 'Land of the Dead' when we got home. My opinion on it hasn't changed since 2005. It's an Ok film, let down here and there by some questionable gags (the zombie with the flip top head) and ill-thought out scenes (Mouse at the docks) and cameos (Savini). And the tech employed is at odds with other entries in the quad (I don't consider Diary or Survival part of the series). There shouldn't be laptops and digital wotsits knocking around.

But, yeh. It's grand. I think The Mentalist is an ok front man and I like Asia. Cholo is ok as is Denis Hopper. Big Daddy is pretty awful, but his troupe contain some great zombies. That girl with half her cheek missing creeps me out and Dr. Butcher and Mr. Tambourine man are fun.

I'm kind of left feeling disappointed that Romero chose to reboot and modernise his series rather than following on from 'Land of the Dead'. There's still the oportunity for someone (Nicotero?) to carry on the series, given the interest in all things zombie and it would be great to have a truly good zombie film to watch amidst all the dross. But, given his work schedule on 'The Walking Dead' and the damage to the "...of the Dead" brand that Survival and Diary did, it's difficult to see that come to fruition.

JDP

15-Apr-2018, 01:00 PM

Yes, they do.
Twice an event is mentioned that happened 3 years ago. That's twice. Two different characters. Heavily implied.
You can disregard this, but that would be as absurd as disregarding anything that's not explicit. So you're essentially making the case that Night could theoretically take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly mentioned in either.

Checkmate.

And neither one is within any context necessarily having to do with the zombies or when they first appeared. Plus the other comment is by some random bum/wino (who was that guy??? not even this is clear) and what he says hardly makes any sense regarding when the zombie crisis began: in fact we can plainly see that cars still roll in & out of the city (Riley himself wants to do just that!), so the zombies are obviously not preventing people from engaging in such an activity. Not a very reliable source for claiming that the appearance of the zombies somehow would necessarily prevent anyone from driving a car and therefore it must refer to them. So what exactly was that bum/wino/whoever-he-was referring to that would prevent him from driving a car 3 years ago?? Where is the "clear-cut" or even implied reference to the zombies here??? This one is even more vague and easily open to interpretation than the Cholo-Kaufman reference (which is within another context, but, once again, not specifically about the zombies.) There simply is no unequivocal line in this movie as to how long the zombies have been around, unlike there is in Dawn. There the time reference is impossible to be interpreted any other way because the line is said within the context of a very explicit and clear discussion about the zombies and all the mayhem they have been causing.

Touché.

- - - Updated - - -

And where in this text is there any mention of the dialogue that Sarah gives relating to the short amount of time that it took to put the operation together? As in - a different conversation elsewhere in the film in which timespan is referenced, if I remember correctly.

Your response, to that red text was:

Which isn't the case, because Sarah says "days" not "months", much like I never said "months" in relation to the length of time it took to set up the operation.

I did, however, say "months" in relation to how deep into the ZA 'Day of the Dead' takes place.

The first time I wrote that red text was in response to Ned saying:

So either you're reading something that literally isn't there, or you're havin' a laugh, JDP. Either way - I'm not entertaining this any more.

Did you or did you not say: "IIRC a matter of "months" is explicitly referenced in Day of the Dead."? There's only two lines in that movie that say "a matter of (some period of time)": one is a reference to how long Dr. Logan thinks it will take him to be able to show the results of his progress to Rhodes, and the other one is that line in reference to how long it took to put the operation together. From the context of your post, we can easily rule out the Logan quote. That only leaves Sarah's remark about how long it took to put the current operation together.

- - - Updated - - -

I could have swore Big Daddy was an evolution of Bub. *shrugs*

How can you deduce that from what the two movies show these two characters do in common? Everything Big Daddy does in common with what we saw Bub do, he does it pretty much just like him. Where is the "evolution" here? If Big Daddy shot guns with sniper-like accuracy, or if he kept his cool and did not go into fits of rage when he saw something he did not like, then such a conclusion would be warranted. But from what we are shown that both Bub and him did in common, there is no shred of evidence that Big Daddy is "more evolved".

EvilNed

15-Apr-2018, 01:24 PM

And neither one is within any context necessarily having to do with the zombies or when they first appeared.

Yes - they are. Thus ignoring them because they are not explicit is like saying that Night could take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly stated. Which is what you are advocating.

JDP

15-Apr-2018, 01:36 PM

Yes - they are. Thus ignoring them because they are not explicit is like saying that Night could take place after Day, since nothing is explicitly stated. Which is what you are advocating.

Nope, they aren't, and you have yet to show even one logical argument as to how can the very plainly earlier events in Night possibly be happening after Day, when the zombie crisis is also very plainly in a much more advanced stage, as easily seen by the fact that no one is surprised by the existence of the zombies, everyone knows what they are and what they do, the media is gone, the government itself is apparently "gone" too, the cities are in decay and full of zombies and wild animals, scarce survivors left, etc. All of them very self-explanatory and self-evident, unlike the vague lines in Land which do not even happen during any conversation about the zombies. Your analogy is totally faulty.

EvilNed

15-Apr-2018, 03:37 PM

Nope, they aren't, and you have yet to show even one logical argument as to how can the very plainly earlier events in Night possibly be happening after Day

That's the point. That's the equivalence. It makes as much sense, and is as logical, as all the points you have been trying to make. Your arguments are absurdist and focused on really minutae details, whereas you ignore a lot of things (like for instance: Actual exposition relayed through dialogue) that do not support your far out theory.

So the case you're making makes as much sense as claiming that Night takes place after Day. It's on the same level.

CallMeChico

15-Apr-2018, 06:54 PM

Oh, boy. Interesting discussion, i never attended to something like this before. Many valid arguments on both side, but it has got stuck a few pages ago, i think.
To my opinion, the only effectiv timeline in the ... of the Dead-Movies is that Day settles up after Dawn. In germany they are named Zombie and Zombie 2 - Das letzte Kapitel, which fits very good i think.
To me Dawn is clearly no follow-up to Night 'cause in Night mankind wins the battle (while the group loses, especially Ben), in Dawn they are about losing it. They are two versions of the same outbreak story.
On the other side could Land be a follow-up to Dawn, but not to Day, because at the end of Day mankind only finds shelter on an island (if this is real and no dream). But it's doomed to end up as footnote of evolution. And the themes of either Day and Land are taken from the same Romero script, the original Day of the Dead (which is also more Land than Day actually).
To me possible Timelines are:
1. Dawn > 2. Day
1. Dawn > 2. Land
1. Diary > 2. Survival
AND
1. Night > 2. Crazies > 3. Return of the Living Dead

And just one point to the function of money in Land of the Dead; money is an illusion because Kaufman doesn't want Cholo to move in the tower, despite the amount of money has henchman owns. He wants him down to his service not to be part of the upper class. This makes Cholos plan of taking the dead reckoning as hostag for ransom looking so absurd.

EvilNed

15-Apr-2018, 07:40 PM

1. Night > 2. Crazies > 3. Return of the Living Dead

Now we're getting places.

MinionZombie

16-Apr-2018, 12:38 PM

And just one point to the function of money in Land of the Dead; money is an illusion because Kaufman doesn't want Cholo to move in the tower, despite the amount of money has henchman owns. He wants him down to his service not to be part of the upper class. This makes Cholos plan of taking the dead reckoning as hostag for ransom looking so absurd.

Hmmm ... but Dead Reckoning is an important tool in Kaufman's empire. Dead Reckoning is the commanding vehicle for all the expeditions into the outside world for supplies, so taking DR hostage is Cholo's only real play and it does carry some weight.

You're right about Kaufman not wanting Cholo in the tower with him, and I believe that Cholo doesn't even get to see his cash - or only enough to tide him over on the streets to piss up the wall on booze and hookers and gambling (all vices that Kaufman had set up to entertain the masses and keep them distracted). I've always thought that Kaufman was 'keeping Cholo's cash' safe for him, IIRC that gets referenced in Land of the Dead (as if Cholo is building up credit).

However, this all shows that money does have a purpose and is evidently very useful, plus it's a system that everyone understands from the old world. In addition to that bartering has become a bigger part. We have bartering in our world to some extent, people doing things for each other in trade, but it's a more important thing for the folks on the streets in Land living in the slums (e.g. Riley gets the meds for that man's sickly son), so there's two economies going on, but they also overlap.

CallMeChico

16-Apr-2018, 12:58 PM

Hmmm ... but Dead Reckoning is an important tool in Kaufman's empire. Dead Reckoning is the commanding vehicle for all the expeditions into the outside world for supplies, so taking DR hostage is Cholo's only real play and it does carry some weight.

You're right about Kaufman not wanting Cholo in the tower with him, and I believe that Cholo doesn't even get to see his cash - or only enough to tide him over on the streets to piss up the wall on booze and hookers and gambling (all vices that Kaufman had set up to entertain the masses and keep them distracted). I've always thought that Kaufman was 'keeping Cholo's cash' safe for him, IIRC that gets referenced in Land of the Dead (as if Cholo is building up credit).

However, this all shows that money does have a purpose and is evidently very useful, plus it's a system that everyone understands from the old world. In addition to that bartering has become a bigger part. We have bartering in our world to some extent, people doing things for each other in trade, but it's a more important thing for the folks on the streets in Land living in the slums (e.g. Riley gets the meds for that man's sickly son), so there's two economies going on, but they also overlap.

That's right, money has some value in Land... but only in the restrictions dictated by Kaufman. He wants to hold up the old system, but make also sure that he ist the one who decides whether a person can climb up a letter or not. And when Cholo takes the vehicle for ransom, the money, if he would get it, would be useless for him. It wouldn't bring him into the tower and outside the outpost this printed paper is quite useless. And it's no question he has to escape after the deal, for without the Dead Reckoning he would be worthless.

shootemindehead

16-Apr-2018, 02:53 PM

That's right, money has some value in Land... but only in the restrictions dictated by Kaufman. He wants to hold up the old system, but make also sure that he ist the one who decides whether a person can climb up a letter or not. And when Cholo takes the vehicle for ransom, the money, if he would get it, would be useless for him. It wouldn't bring him into the tower and outside the outpost this printed paper is quite useless. And it's no question he has to escape after the deal, for without the Dead Reckoning he would be worthless.

Cholo doesn't know this yet though and to be honest, he isn't that smart. Plus, as Peter said about money in 'Dawn of the Dead'..."You never know".

In any case, the whole money angle is part of Romero's "message" in 'Land of the Dead', in that we cling to outdated and elitist concepts, instead of working with each other for the greater good. Something that harks back to his original subplot in 'Night of the Living Dead'. The city is portioned off and highly defensible. It's surrounded by water on two sides and the only way in or out is a guarded entry point, called "The Throat". So, in theory, it should be a kind of mecca for humans among the nightmare of the living dead hordes that control outside. But, the humans within are saddled with a need to hold onto items of nebulous worth like a fiat currency, or destructive items like self medication (booze and drugs), while the guy who "took" the Fiddler's Green tower block is concerned with self aggrandisement.

We know that money probably doesn't have any "value" outside of the walls of the city. Hell, more than likely even Cholo knows. But, in the end that's all he has to cling to and he's probably been beholden to the idea of pursuing money for his entire life.

MinionZombie

16-Apr-2018, 05:06 PM

That's right, money has some value in Land... but only in the restrictions dictated by Kaufman. He wants to hold up the old system, but make also sure that he ist the one who decides whether a person can climb up a letter or not. And when Cholo takes the vehicle for ransom, the money, if he would get it, would be useless for him. It wouldn't bring him into the tower and outside the outpost this printed paper is quite useless. And it's no question he has to escape after the deal, for without the Dead Reckoning he would be worthless.

Cholo doesn't know this yet though and to be honest, he isn't that smart. Plus, as Peter said about money in 'Dawn of the Dead'..."You never know".

We know that money probably doesn't have any "value" outside of the walls of the city. Hell, more than likely even Cholo knows. But, in the end that's all he has to cling to and he's probably been beholden to the idea of pursuing money for his entire life.

Aye, Cholo doesn't know until much later - he's already gone through with his hostage plan, that fails, and then he's only got vengeance in mind for Kaufman (they end up fighting - Cholo as a zombie - right when Big Daddy blows them up ... using his post-Day evolutionary zombie thinking ;) ).

As for money - there's a bunch of other pockets of humanity spread out, which Kaufman helped set up (he's planning to escape to one of them in his limo when the shit goes down) - so the money would be good there, too (which will be the practical reason why Kaufman's bags are stuffed full o'cash and nothing else). :)

JDP

16-Apr-2018, 07:51 PM

That's the point. That's the equivalence. It makes as much sense, and is as logical, as all the points you have been trying to make. Your arguments are absurdist and focused on really minutae details, whereas you ignore a lot of things (like for instance: Actual exposition relayed through dialogue) that do not support your far out theory.

So the case you're making makes as much sense as claiming that Night takes place after Day. It's on the same level.

No, that's our point, not yours. Yours is a totally faulty analogy with a couple of guys making vague references that do not even happen within the context of the zombies themselves with things that are plainly self-explanatory, which means NO EXPLICIT EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED because everyone with at least a modicum of common sense knows that things progress in chronological order: people not knowing anything about zombies and being caught by surprise by their appearance must necessarily precede people being very well familiar with them and no longer being surprised. It's how the world works, sorry, we can't do anything about the natural progression of time. So no, it's not "on the same level" by any stretch of the imagination. Keep trying.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, boy. Interesting discussion, i never attended to something like this before. Many valid arguments on both side, but it has got stuck a few pages ago, i think.
To my opinion, the only effectiv timeline in the ... of the Dead-Movies is that Day settles up after Dawn. In germany they are named Zombie and Zombie 2 - Das letzte Kapitel, which fits very good i think.
To me Dawn is clearly no follow-up to Night 'cause in Night mankind wins the battle (while the group loses, especially Ben), in Dawn they are about losing it. They are two versions of the same outbreak story.
On the other side could Land be a follow-up to Dawn, but not to Day, because at the end of Day mankind only finds shelter on an island (if this is real and no dream). But it's doomed to end up as footnote of evolution. And the themes of either Day and Land are taken from the same Romero script, the original Day of the Dead (which is also more Land than Day actually).
To me possible Timelines are:
1. Dawn > 2. Day
1. Dawn > 2. Land
1. Diary > 2. Survival
AND
1. Night > 2. Crazies > 3. Return of the Living Dead

And just one point to the function of money in Land of the Dead; money is an illusion because Kaufman doesn't want Cholo to move in the tower, despite the amount of money has henchman owns. He wants him down to his service not to be part of the upper class. This makes Cholos plan of taking the dead reckoning as hostag for ransom looking so absurd.

I will take issue with 2 of your statements:

1- We saw people beat the zombies in Night only in that rural setting where the story takes place. It does not mean that people in the big cities and towns actually were able to beat them too. So there is absolutely nothing preventing Dawn from being what it plainly is: a sequel to Night. The zombie plague was able to continue in the more populated areas and it eventually spread everywhere again.

2- Money evidently has value outside of Kaufman's city. Otherwise it would make no sense at all for Cholo to want to get all that money from him if he can't use it anywhere else. It would be a self-defeating plan. In fact, Kaufman would laugh it off himself, he could simply end the whole charade by telling Cholo: "Where are you going to use all that dough, dumbass? I am the only one you can use it with LOL!" But no, he takes the threat very seriously and refuses to pay him instead. Plus Kaufman himself wants to take the money with him when he attempts to flee his own city. Why, if it is supposedly worthless out there? And trying to "explain" this pertinent little fact the way Minion wants to, by conjuring up the other places that Kaufman has set up as emergency refuges, hardly makes sense since he owns those places too, he does not need any money there. The supplies in those places belong to him and his associates. So why does Kaufman need any money, then? The only reasonable answer is that in the plainly less devastated world of Land money still "talks" with the other survivors "out there". That is the only reason why Kaufman needs the money he wants to take with him. He will have to hire more new people to try to rebuild his empire. And these people want money. Again, why??? Only reasonable answer: money is still worth something at the time the movie is happening. Otherwise no one would accept it as payment, they would go back to gold/silver currency, or bartering, but not paper money which is not being backed up by anything.

EvilNed

16-Apr-2018, 10:00 PM

No, that's our point, not yours.

Exactly. It IS your point.
Your point is that only explicit references mater. All other's are irrelevant. You've said this several times. Which means that on some level, you actually believe that it is possible that Night takes place after Day.

shootemindehead

17-Apr-2018, 08:12 AM

As for money - there's a bunch of other pockets of humanity spread out, which Kaufman helped set up (he's planning to escape to one of them in his limo when the shit goes down) - so the money would be good there, too (which will be the practical reason why Kaufman's bags are stuffed full o'cash and nothing else). :)

Sure, but we don't know if any of those are still going. There doesn't seem to be an communication going on between Pittsburg and anywhere else. There's a line about a "Cleveland outpost", but they haven't head from them in some time.

TBH, I don't really think George gave that much thought to it. :D

JDP

17-Apr-2018, 02:01 PM

Exactly. It IS your point.
Your point is that only explicit references mater. All other's are irrelevant. You've said this several times. Which means that on some level, you actually believe that it is possible that Night takes place after Day.

Explicit references WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED, not where self-explanatory/evident things are concerned, like the obvious progression of time and chronological order, such as: people not knowing about something must by force precede people knowing about that same something. THIS IS VERY SELF-EXPLANATORY/EVIDENT, NEEDS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER!!! How many times does this have to be pointed out??? It's like demanding "explanations" as to why people in the movies die when they get shot through the heart or the head: NEEDS NO EXPLANATION, IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY/EVIDENT since that's what also happens to people in real life. So it is you, and only you, no one else, who for some bizarre reason thinks that a filmmaker needs to clarify and be explicit about something so obvious and self-explanatory/evident that requires no further details to be readily understood.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but we don't know if any of those are still going. There doesn't seem to be an communication going on between Pittsburg and anywhere else. There's a line about a "Cleveland outpost", but they haven't head from them in some time.

TBH, I don't really think George gave that much thought to it. :D

The Cleveland outpost must be independent from Kaufman and set up and run by other survivors, otherwise Foxy and Cholo could not have escaped Kaufman's "justice" by going there. As I pointed out before, the lack of interest in other survivors by the people in Kaufman's city is self-evident by how casually they talk about other such places. They haven't heard from other survivors in a while and only seem to care about such things when someone from Kaufman's city needs to flee to somewhere else out of Kaufman's reach. These people do not care much about other survivors, they have their hands full with all the survivors they already have in their own city.

But Kaufman and his associates evidently have also set up other places which they do control and which they intend to use in case of an emergency, that's where Kaufman was heading when he attempted to flee his city.

EvilNed

17-Apr-2018, 03:40 PM

Explicit references WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED

They are not needed in Land, since it is self-evident that it takes place after Day. So why are you contradicting yourself?
You say a strong implication is not enough proof to warrant an assumption that Land takes place after Day,
yet you are unwilling to admit that such a case should then be needed in Night - after all it is as self-evident that Night takes place prior to Day as it is that Land takes place after it. So which way is it? Does exposition count or doesn't it?

Moon Knight

18-Apr-2018, 05:17 AM

So does Romero.

Exactly, Romero himself had confirmed this. I'm convinced JDP just likes arguing with people, haha.

JDP

18-Apr-2018, 07:24 PM

They are not needed in Land, since it is self-evident that it takes place after Day. So why are you contradicting yourself?
You say a strong implication is not enough proof to warrant an assumption that Land takes place after Day,
yet you are unwilling to admit that such a case should then be needed in Night - after all it is as self-evident that Night takes place prior to Day as it is that Land takes place after it. So which way is it? Does exposition count or doesn't it?

They are as much needed in Land as they were in Dawn or Day, but Romero did not provide an explicit reference in Land or Day regarding when did the zombie crisis start, all we get are vague statements that do not specifically refer to the zombies, so there is no "contradiction" except in your mind. The self-evidence in Night is not a comparable situation. No one in his right mind will misunderstand something as obvious as people not knowing anything about and being caught by surprise by a particular event and then in all the sequels everyone knowing very well about and not being surprised by that same event. The chronological order here is self-explanatory/evident. That means: IT NEEDS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER, unlike the issue of when Dawn, Land and Day are exactly happening with respect to that self-evident/explanatory first movie in the series. The only one of the sequels that clarified this without any possible other interpretation was Dawn: when the movie starts, it's been three weeks since those events in the first movie. No questions about it. The other two sequels lack this precise "dating" so they are totally open to interpretation as to when are they supposedly happening with respect to the self-evident/explanatory first movie.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, Romero himself had confirmed this. I'm convinced JDP just likes arguing with people, haha.

One thing is what Romero might have intended, and another one is how what he actually did comes across to the viewers. If his intention was to make us think that Big Daddy was some sort of "evolution" of Bub, then he did a pretty lousy job at it. All we see Big Daddy do in common with what Bub did is pretty much the same: more or less clumsy attempts at doing things that humans do.

kidgloves

19-Apr-2018, 12:16 AM

Fight..fight...fight...fight

:D:elol::p

Moon Knight

19-Apr-2018, 04:36 AM

But... Romero did say Big Daddy was in fact a revolution of Bub haha. If you you think it was poor doesn't change the fact it came after Day. I don't know, man, Land of the Dead doesn't look like it took place in the early 80's.

Philly_SWAT

19-Apr-2018, 05:56 AM

I don't know, man, Land of the Dead doesn't look like it took place in the early 80's.
Does the original Star Trek series look like it takes place in the 23rd century, or does it look like it takes place in a low budget 1960's? Many times how something looks is unimportant when critiquing a TV show or movie. You have to suspend your disbelief in the practicalities of production just as much as you suspend your disbelief as to the fantastical elements of the work. It you accept that Star Trek takes place in the 23rd century, then you have to accept that the ship and computers were as good as limited budgets and technology at the time would allow, and not ponder why 23rd century technology looks vastly inferior to what is actually here in the early 21st century.

In real life, has there ever been a mass worldwide zombie outbreak as depicted in Romero's dead movies? No. So obviously (to me anyway) they are not intended to be viewed as some type of historical movie that is set at some point in the past, as the viewer knows that the events in the movies never did in fact happen in the past. Something horrible could happen in the future = scary. Something you know for a fact didn't happen in the past = not scary. Ergo, the timestamp of the dead movies, in my opinion, is as follows:

1) Night - tomorrow, or some time in the near future
2) Dawn - three weeks after that
3) Land - at some indeterminate time after the start of Dawn
4) Day - at some indeterminate time after the start of Land

Hairstyles and fashion choices are not meant in anyway to timestamp the movies, they were simply what was popular at the time the various movies were made.

EvilNed

19-Apr-2018, 06:39 AM

They are as much needed in Land as they were in Dawn or Day, but Romero did not provide an explicit reference in Land or Day regarding when did the zombie crisis start

Yes he does. Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. This is what characters in the film say.
If you disregard this expositon, that is as absurd as stating that Night could possibly take place after Day - seeing as nothing explicitly stated in either. You have yet to face this argument.

JDP

19-Apr-2018, 08:36 PM

Yes he does. Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. This is what characters in the film say.
If you disregard this expositon, that is as absurd as stating that Night could possibly take place after Day - seeing as nothing explicitly stated in either. You have yet to face this argument.

No, watch it again, references to "3 years" or whatever other amount of time that do not occur in a zombie-specific context do not settle such matters for the viewer. That's really just you ASSUMING that it must be in reference to the beginning of the zombie plague, but there is nothing in the movie that guarantees such an interpretation, unlike in Dawn, where the 3 week reference is very unambiguously and clearly referring to the zombies and all the problems they have been causing since they first appeared, there can be no other interpretation in that movie, so we can very safely conclude that it starts 3 weeks after the events in the first movie. The other two sequels we also know for sure that take place sometime after the first movie, the problem is that Romero NEVER unambiguously & clearly sets a time reference to the events in the first movie in the two other sequels.

It is simply impossible for Night to happen after Day. Reasons more than sufficiently explained already: self-evident/explanatory chronological order of events prevents this from being possible. People knowing and being very familiar with something simply cannot precede the time when people did not know anything about said something. Time does not naturally run backwards! Events therefore naturally follow a forward direction, always. No lines of dialogue whatsoever are needed to state this, everybody knows it already.

EvilNed

19-Apr-2018, 09:09 PM

No, watch it again, references to "3 years" or whatever other amount of time that do not occur in a zombie-specific context do not settle such matters for the viewer

Yes it does. This we can agree that Land takes place 3 years After the outbreak.

Moon Knight

20-Apr-2018, 05:42 PM

I’m even more confused on what the argument is now.

JDP

20-Apr-2018, 07:59 PM

Yes it does. This we can agree that Land takes place 3 years After the outbreak.

No, those statements in Land are open to interpretation, unlike the statement in Dawn about the 3 weeks. Compare them both and you will see that the statements in Land are simply not equivalent. The zombies are not specifically being talked about when the "3 years" pop up, it's other matters that are being discussed (Cholo's business relationship with Kaufman and that random wino/bum/whatever-he-was not driving a car; no zombies mentioned anywhere in these conversations.) The 3 weeks in Dawn is unambiguously about the zombies (it occurs right smack in the middle of a heated argument regarding them and all the mayhem they have been causing), no other possible interpretation there. Romero simply did not place such a specific and unambiguously zombie-related time reference for Land or for Day.

EvilNed

20-Apr-2018, 08:01 PM

No, those statements in Land are open to interpretation

No, they're not. That's where you're mistaken.
They are not open to interpretation.

JDP

20-Apr-2018, 08:07 PM

No, they're not. That's where you're mistaken.
They are not open to interpretation.

Yes, they are. Cholo wasn't referring to the zombies but to his business relationship with Kaufman. Where are the zombies unambiguously mentioned or even alluded to here??? The bum/wino/whatever was talking about the last time he drove a car. Again, where are the unambiguous references to the zombies here??? Neither one of those remarks takes place in a dialogue involving the zombies. Compare that to the very clear and unambiguous 3 week reference in Dawn, which happens during an argument regarding the zombies and thus leaves no doubt whatsoever about what those 3 weeks refer to.

EvilNed

20-Apr-2018, 09:52 PM

Yes, they are.

No. They are not open to interpretation.
It is exposition given to us within the frames of a zombie apocalypse. Romero is not trying to tell us anything about Cholo's dayjob 3 years ago. To sugges so is absurd.
Your argument is meaningless.

You can make the case that these lines do not refer to the start of the apocalypse but that would be on the same absurd level as suggesting that Night could potentially take place after Day.

JDP

21-Apr-2018, 01:40 AM

No. They are not open to interpretation.
It is exposition given to us within the frames of a zombie apocalypse. Romero is not trying to tell us anything about Cholo's dayjob 3 years ago. To sugges so is absurd.
Your argument is meaningless.

You can make the case that these lines do not refer to the start of the apocalypse but that would be on the same absurd level as suggesting that Night could potentially take place after Day.

No, it is not, and no matter how many times you try to pass this "Day of the Dead happens before Night of the Living Dead" fallacy as "equivalent" it simply won't pass muster. Cholo could very well have been working for Kaufman before the zombie thing happened and he would be referring to that, there is nothing "weird" or "impossible" about that. But it is totally impossible that the events in Night could possibly have happened after Day. Why? Once again let me point out the very obvious impossibility for you: in Day everyone knows about the zombies, they are not a "novelty" to anyone, while in Night no one knows anything about the zombies and everyone is totally caught by surprise by their appearance. We don't need anything else to see where the impossibility of your proposition is, it is plain as day to everyone. It is pretty similar to those people who absurdly want to claim that Lucio Fulci's Zombie is supposedly an unofficial "sequel" to Dawn or Night. Why is that impossible? Well, the exact same reason: in that movie no one except the inhabitants of Matul know anything about zombies being real. By the end of the movie everyone in the world is starting to realize how real they are since the zombie plague has made its way to New York and the media is reporting the events. That by itself prevents that movie from being any kind of sequel to the two Romero movies, where we plainly see that everyone became very well aware of the zombies and the media reported their reality to the whole world. People can't simply go from knowing something to mysteriously and bizarrely not being aware of it again. The world does not work that way.

EvilNed

21-Apr-2018, 08:18 AM

No, it is not, and no matter how many times you try to pass this "Day of the Dead happens before Night of the Living Dead" fallacy as "equivalent" it simply won't pass muster.

It's an absurd statement. Just as absurd as stating that the lines in Land are open for interpreration - which they obviously are not. They are said in context. The context is the raging zombie apocalypse. It's obvious to everyone.

shootemindehead

21-Apr-2018, 04:00 PM

No, they're not. That's where you're mistaken.
They are not open to interpretation.

I don't think Romero was the kind of filmmaker to throw such things into his movies without justification. Those "three years" comments are in there to make a point. Otherwise there's absolutely no cause for them to be in the film. Romero deliberately has his characters mark a timeframe.

"No, no, no. Three years! Three
years I been cleaning up after you,
taking out your garbage, and you
tell me I'm not good enough? You're
the one who's no good. You are no
fucking good. And you are gonna let
me in. You know why? Because I know
what goes on around here. How many
of your fucking "members" know
what's in that garbage I take out
for you?"

"How long have I been working
for you? Three years?
Taking out your garbage,
cleaning up after you
and then you're going to say
I'm not good enough?
Let me tell you something,
you're going to let me in
because I know what goes on
around here. Do your committee
members know what the fuck is
going out with the garbage?"

Cholo says this for a reason in both the original and the shooting script, and he not talking about his "old" job before the zombies started chomping on people.

Also, Asia Argento's character says she's "never been out" of the city. She says that for a reason too. It's to indicate that Pittsburg has been in the midst of the zombie apocalypse for a considerable amount of time and it isn't some recent phenomena that's just happened a few months ago.

JDP

21-Apr-2018, 08:43 PM

It's an absurd statement. Just as absurd as stating that the lines in Land are open for interpreration - which they obviously are not. They are said in context. The context is the raging zombie apocalypse. It's obvious to everyone.

Sorry, but no, the context of those lines in Land is NOT about the zombies. Keep trying.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think Romero was the kind of filmmaker to throw such things into his movies without justification. Those "three years" comments are in there to make a point. Otherwise there's absolutely no cause for them to be in the film. Romero deliberately has his characters mark a timeframe.

"No, no, no. Three years! Three
years I been cleaning up after you,
taking out your garbage, and you
tell me I'm not good enough? You're
the one who's no good. You are no
fucking good. And you are gonna let
me in. You know why? Because I know
what goes on around here. How many
of your fucking "members" know
what's in that garbage I take out
for you?"

"How long have I been working
for you? Three years?
Taking out your garbage,
cleaning up after you
and then you're going to say
I'm not good enough?
Let me tell you something,
you're going to let me in
because I know what goes on
around here. Do your committee
members know what the fuck is
going out with the garbage?"

Cholo says this for a reason in both the original and the shooting script, and he not talking about his "old" job before the zombies started chomping on people.

Also, Asia Argento's character says she's "never been out" of the city. She says that for a reason too. It's to indicate that Pittsburg has been in the midst of the zombie apocalypse for a considerable amount of time and it isn't some recent phenomena that's just happened a few months ago.

Your very own quotes show my point: where is anything said here that Cholo is talking about the zombies? All he mentions is the fact that for 3 years he's been doing Kaufman's "dirty work". Where does it say or imply anything else??? Kaufman is a crook, he could easily have been doing illegal stuff long before the zombies came about, and Cholo was one of his "handymen". Where is the "impossibility" in this??? As it stands, that dialogue proves nothing about how long has it been since the zombies first appeared. Now compare those lines with the truly specific and unambiguous dialogue in Dawn:

- Do you believe the dead are returning to life?
- I'm not so...
-Do you believe the dead are returning to life and attacking the living?
-I'm not so sure what to believe, doctor. All we get is what you people tell us. And it's hard enough to believe...
-It's fact...! It's fact...!
-It's hard enough to believe without you coming in here...
-You're not running a talk-show here, Mr. Berman! You can forget pitching an audience the moral bullshit they wanna hear!
-You're talking about abandoning any human code of behaviour...

-You're not listening! You're not listening! We've had this situation for the last 3 weeks... What does it take? What does it take to make people see?
-People aren't willing to accept your solutions, doctor, and I for one don't blame them!
-Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill!

There are no "ifs" or "buts" here: the 3 week reference is unambiguously about how long the zombie situation has been going on at this point in the movie. It is simply impossible to interpret it any other way. There is no such equivalent in Land (or Day.)

As for Slack's statement: many people actually live their whole lives in one city or town, without going anywhere else. It doesn't prove anything. But the same character does in fact say something regarding the zombies themselves which again argues against the idea that they could really have been around for 3 years: she has no idea how long does it take for a bitten person to die and come back as a zombie. Does it sound reasonable to you that a person could possibly live through 3 years in this zombie crisis and NOT know something so basic and vital for survival??? I don't think so! You don't have to tell any of the characters in Day such a well-known thing, though, they are all very familiar with what exactly the zombie bites do to people.

As I said many times before, if Romero did indeed intend this movie to happen after Day, he did a very lousy job at trying to convey that idea. Seen that way, the movie has many contradictions and paradoxes. But most of these problems vanish by simply inverting the order.

shootemindehead

22-Apr-2018, 04:48 AM

Your very own quotes show my point.

It doesn't even remotely coincide with your point.

EvilNed

22-Apr-2018, 06:34 PM

Sorry, but no, the context of those lines in Land is NOT about the zombies. Keep trying.

I don't need to keep trying. It's obvious to any and all that Land is a continuation from Day. Romero said so himself, go back a page or two, that Big Daddy was an "uber bub".

Besides all of that, it's mentioned in the film that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It's in the film. You can't ignore it and at the same time make a case for yourself.

So your argument holds as much water as saying that Night takes place after Day. Which is an equivalent comparison, according to you.

JDP

22-Apr-2018, 09:12 PM

It doesn't even remotely coincide with your point.

Yes, they do, as there is no reference to the zombies in those quotes whatsoever. Again, that's just you and Ned ASSUMING that it must be in reference to them, but if you read the quotes without this ASSUMPTION you will see that there is no explicit implication about them anywhere. Plus the idea that these movies could not have references to things that go back to events before the zombies, on which this invalid argument solely rests, is false too. There's a number of references to events in these movies that can also easily be interpreted as having happened before the zombies (like Cholo's or Dr. Logan's comments about their fathers and what they did, which though not specifically said to be from pre-zombie times they can also be easily interpreted as such, since there is nothing in these dialogue lines to prevent them from being so; same thing as Cholo's lines about him working for Kaufman.)

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need to keep trying. It's obvious to any and all that Land is a continuation from Day. Romero said so himself, go back a page or two, that Big Daddy was an "uber bub".

Besides all of that, it's mentioned in the film that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. It's in the film. You can't ignore it and at the same time make a case for yourself.

So your argument holds as much water as saying that Night takes place after Day. Which is an equivalent comparison, according to you.

An "uber" whatever does not mean it happened "after", plus I am judging the movie by what it shows, Romero's intentions apart.

There is no such reference in the movie that it has been "3 years after the outbreak". Again, find me such a line which unambiguously states so. It does not exist.

Nope, because you already know how impossible and incorrect your "comparison" is. It is you and you alone who bizarrely thinks they are equivalent. The chronological order of Night ----->Day is NOT open to any kind of question as it relies on self-explanatory/evident things which the filmmaker does NOT have to clarify to anyone, unlike when exactly is Land supposedly happening, which needs specific addressing or else it's anyone's guess. Your "reduction to absurdity" kind of arguments do not work. So keep on trying. Maybe one day you will manage to get a proper counterargument that does not rely on a fallacy.

shootemindehead

22-Apr-2018, 10:30 PM

Yes, they do, as there is no reference to the zombies in those quotes whatsoever. Again, that's just you and Ned ASSUMING that it must be in reference to them, but if you read the quotes without this ASSUMPTION you will see that there is no explicit implication about them anywhere. Plus the idea that these movies could not have references to things that go back to events before the zombies, on which this invalid argument solely rests, is false too. There's a number of references to events in these movies that can also easily be interpreted as having happened before the zombies (like Cholo's or Dr. Logan's comments about their fathers and what they did, which though not specifically said to be from pre-zombie times they can also be easily interpreted as such, since there is nothing in these dialogue lines to prevent them from being so; same thing as Cholo's lines about him working for Kaufman.)

Just because it doesn't mention zombies, specifically, doesn't mean anything.

In the context of the film, Cholo has been dumping bodies and whatnot for Kaufmann for three years. He states clearly that Kufmann's henchmen doesn't know about it. And he (Cholo) is working for a place in Fiddler's Green. He also states later that without "this truck" (Dead Reckoning), he'd just be another Mexican bum pushing a lawnmower. So his relationship as Kaufmann's dirty worker and his use of Dead Reckoning has given him a certain elevation that wouldn't have existed pre-apocalypse.

Three years is marked as a specific timeframe, not just for a laugh, or for some nebulous want. It's marked by Romero (twice) for a reason. That dialogue means something and isn't what you want it to mean.

You're just ignoring obvious stuff, because it doesn't support the narrative you want in your head.

Moon Knight

23-Apr-2018, 12:28 AM

EvilNed

23-Apr-2018, 06:41 AM

An "uber" whatever does not mean it happened "after"
In a narrative sense: Yes - it does. Read Romero's quote again. He explains how a zombie by the end of day grasped a Rifle, then came Bub, then came Big Daddy. Case closed.

There is no such reference in the movie that it has been "3 years after the outbreak". Again, find me such a line which unambiguously states so. It does not exist.

There is a reference in the movie. Have you seen the film? Have you noticed it takes place after a zombie holocaust? That's the reference. It's there for all to see. It's not open to interpretation.
But if you insist that it IS open to interpretation, then you also agree that Night could possibly take place after Day - as that would also be open to interpretation.

JDP

23-Apr-2018, 08:30 PM

Just because it doesn't mention zombies, specifically, doesn't mean anything.

In the context of the film, Cholo has been dumping bodies and whatnot for Kaufmann for three years. He states clearly that Kufmann's henchmen doesn't know about it. And he (Cholo) is working for a place in Fiddler's Green. He also states later that without "this truck" (Dead Reckoning), he'd just be another Mexican bum pushing a lawnmower. So his relationship as Kaufmann's dirty worker and his use of Dead Reckoning has given him a certain elevation that wouldn't have existed pre-apocalypse.

Three years is marked as a specific timeframe, not just for a laugh, or for some nebulous want. It's marked by Romero (twice) for a reason. That dialogue means something and isn't what you want it to mean.

You're just ignoring obvious stuff, because it doesn't support the narrative you want in your head.

How do you know that he hasn't been dumping bodies for Kaufman before the zombies??? The guy is obviously a CROOK, how do you know he wasn't already doing similar stuff before the zombies appeared and that Cholo was already one of his henchmen??? Again, show me this by quoting the dialogue. There is NOTHING in it to say this is not the case. Face it: the way Romero wrote this dialogue it is hardly specific and it is open to interpretation, unlike the dialogue in Dawn about the 3 weeks. Neither character is talking about the zombies when they deliver those lines, they are specifically talking about their business relationship for the last 3 years. Where in the dialogue it says that these 3 year relationship necessarily began during the zombie crisis and not before??? Again, you are just ASSUMING that must be the case, but the dialogue itself does not guarantee this ASSUMPTION. For all we know, these guys already knew each other before the zombies came about. Show me otherwise from the dialogue itself.

- - - Updated - - -

In a narrative sense: Yes - it does. Read Romero's quote again. He explains how a zombie by the end of day grasped a Rifle, then came Bub, then came Big Daddy. Case closed.

Hardly so. It was at the end of Dawn, where we also see the zombies flocking to the mall because they "remember" they want to be in that place. Plus being "uber" does not mean it must have happened "after" either. It could be that he is just "smarter" than Bub (which, again, Romero totally failed to show, since everything he did that we also saw Bub do does not show any big difference.)

There is a reference in the movie. Have you seen the film? Have you noticed it takes place after a zombie holocaust? That's the reference. It's there for all to see. It's not open to interpretation.
But if you insist that it IS open to interpretation, then you also agree that Night could possibly take place after Day - as that would also be open to interpretation.

No, there is no such "agreement" as the Night ------> Day order is not open to question under any circumstance, while those vague dialogue lines in Land are very much so. The fact that the movie is about zombies does not prevent people in it from having known and worked with each other since before that event. Show me where is this "impossibility"??? Also, references to things that happened before the zombies came about are found in these movies as well. For example, Slack says she's been living in this city since it was "a real city" (meaning, before the zombies came about and the city had to basically become a fortress.) This "argument" that just because the movie is about zombies everything said in it must be about them is quite incorrect. In the case of Cholo's argument with Kaufman, it is obviously about their business relationship for the last three years, without any mention whatsoever about anything regarding the zombies. They are talking about the "dirty work" that Cholo has been doing for Kaufman for the last 3 years, zombies or no zombies involved, this is not specified anywhere.

EvilNed

23-Apr-2018, 09:53 PM

Hardly so. It was at the end of Dawn, where we also see the zombies flocking to the mall because they "remember" they want to be in that place.

Read the interview. I posted it a few pages back. It's obvious you're skirting around too many bushes and trying not to face the obvious.

Anyway, so we both agree that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, since it is not open for interpretation. You agree that since references must not be explicit for them to be able to tell a tale (i.e. normal film exposition) since you agree that Night cannot take place after Day. - And that these comments are said in the context of a zombie apocalypse and thus refer to that. Glad you came to your senses.

So that leaves the idea that Day takes place after Land - which (as we agree) take place 3 years into the conflict. So you think Day takes place 3 years on? And they haven't even begun exploring the coastline?

JDP

24-Apr-2018, 08:51 PM

Read the interview. I posted it a few pages back. It's obvious you're skirting around too many bushes and trying not to face the obvious.

I read the quoted passage. So? It doesn't guarantee anything regarding Land happening after Day. And even if that was Romero's intention, what counts is how what he showed on screen comes across, and it certainly does not make this clear at all. Land has quite a number of contradictions and paradoxes if you want to see it that way.

Anyway, so we both agree that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak, since it is not open for interpretation. You agree that since references must not be explicit for them to be able to tell a tale (i.e. normal film exposition) since you agree that Night cannot take place after Day. - And that these comments are said in the context of a zombie apocalypse and thus refer to that. Glad you came to your senses.

No, but we both know very well that there is no certainty at all when Land is supposedly happening in regards to the outbreak, since it is very much open to interpretation. If you still want to revert to your invalid arguments, you need to explain and show where exactly is the "impossibility" in Kaufman & Cholo having been working together doing illegal stuff before the zombies showed up. You also know perfectly well that this vague dialogue is not equivalent to self-evident/explanatory things, like people not knowing anything about zombies and being caught totally by surprise by their appearance must BY FORCE (I.E. NO CHOICES HERE!) precede people knowing and not being surprised at all by the existence of those zombies. Time does not move backwards, we both know this very well. So the filmmaker does not need to clarify any of this, since it is simply common sense and how the world works, while the issue of when exactly is a sequel happening in respect to this self-evident/explanatory first movie MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY STATED (such as Romero did in Dawn, a nice example of a very clear time-reference in respect to the first movie), otherwise it's anyone's guess. So the two cases are not comparable by any stretch of the imagination. I am glad you finally realize this!

So that leaves the idea that Day takes place after Land - which (as we agree) take place 3 years into the conflict. So you think Day takes place 3 years on? And they haven't even begun exploring the coastline?

It is not clear when Day takes place, true; pretty much the same situation as Land, as Romero did not clarify when exactly were these two movies happening after the events we see in Night, which as you know perfectly well, it is indisputably the first movie in the series, something that CANNOT be questioned because it is self-evident/explanatory. The way time and history works simply prevents this from being put into question. Glad to see you finally admit it!

Oh, and exploring the coastline after 3 years of being busy doing other things (like gathering a veritable army of unruly dangerous zombies and transporting them underground to a corral) is way more believable than someone supposedly living through 3 years of the same zombie crisis and bizarrely not knowing something as basic as what exactly happens to people when they are bitten by the zombies!

EvilNed

24-Apr-2018, 09:34 PM

I read the quoted passage. So? It doesn't guarantee anything regarding Land happening after Day.

Yes, as you can read George's intention was for Big Daddy to be an evolution of Bub.
Thus, with that reference and the dialogue in Land that specifically states that they are 3 years into the outbreak the only conclusion is that Land takes place after Day.
Of course you could argue that Day takes place more than 3 years after the outbreak but that wouldn't make sense for a number of reasons as we've already outlined above.
So the bottom line is that Land of the Dead take place after Day - as both Romero states it and it a timeframe is given in the film itself.

JDP

26-Apr-2018, 12:14 AM

Yes, as you can read George's intention was for Big Daddy to be an evolution of Bub.
Thus, with that reference and the dialogue in Land that specifically states that they are 3 years into the outbreak the only conclusion is that Land takes place after Day.
Of course you could argue that Day takes place more than 3 years after the outbreak but that wouldn't make sense for a number of reasons as we've already outlined above.
So the bottom line is that Land of the Dead take place after Day - as both Romero states it and it a timeframe is given in the film itself.

He said an "uber" Bub. That does not mean much in terms of time. It could be that he wanted to envision him as "smarter" than Bub... but, once again, he did not really convey such an idea very clearly in the movie itself. All we see Big Daddy do in common with Bub is carried out with just about the same level of skill (more or less clumsy attempts at doing things that people do.)

By the way: as some people have noted, Romero's memory was getting worse and worse with the years, and I think it shows in that interview. Apparently Romero forgot that Fisher even saw a zombie trying to drive a car in Washington DC. That's something else that we do not see or hear Big Daddy or any other zombie of Land do that the zombies in Day did. So this whole "uber" thingy is rather questionable. Once again we must distinguish between the filmmaker's original intentions and what did he really convey on the film itself, whether wittingly or unwittingly. They are not always the same.

The dialogue in Land does not specify anything about any "outbreak", I have repeatedly challenged you over and over again to find even one single line that clarifies this for the viewer, but you have repeatedly failed to find it, because it simply isn't there. I could not challenge you to do the same in Dawn because such a clear and specific line that leaves no room whatsoever for any doubt does exist there, though.

BTW: if you are still entertaining this erroneous idea that the Cholo-Kaufman "3-years-doing-your-dirty-work" dialogue in Land is supposedly clear and specific enough regarding the zombies and when they first came about, you can quote it to anyone who has not seen any of Romero's movies. Let's see how many people you find that will conclude from such a dialogue that these two characters are supposedly referring to a "zombie outbreak". How much you want to bet that the number is... ZERO! But now do the same with the very clear and explicit dialogue of Dawn regarding the 3 weeks. How much you want to bet that virtually NO ONE will fail to easily see that the two characters are very obviously talking about a zombie outbreak and how long it has been going on? And don't try to pull the "context" excuse either, which is very predictably what you will try to do in order to excuse why no one can make any connection whatsoever between those lines in Land and any "zombies". The Dawn lines are also taken "out of context", yet you will plainly see that no one will fail to easily perceive that the dialogue is plainly about a zombie outbreak that has been going on for 3 weeks, even without having seen the movie, while for the Cholo-Kaufman dialogue everyone will easily perceive it as being about one guy being pissed off with his employer for not treating him right after 3 years of services rendered. There is a reason for that. The two dialogues plainly carry their respective contexts with them. That's why everyone will fail to come to the conclusion that the 3-year dialogue in Land supposedly implies something about any "zombies", while virtually everyone will easily and plainly see that the 3-week dialogue in Dawn is certainly about zombies and how long they have been around, even if they have never seen any of these movies. The "context" is very plain in the lines themselves.

There is no problem either with Day taking place 3 years after the outbreak, unlike Land, where the problems just continue to be there and make it paradoxical, as we've already outlined a bunch of times. There is nothing whatsoever in Day that prevents it from taking place that long into the zombie outbreak. For example, we don't see the paradoxical ignorance of Slack regarding zombie bites in any of the characters in Day, as should be expected from any survivors who have lived longer into the said outbreak. Such ignorance was excusable at the beginning of Dawn, though, as it was only 3 weeks into the outbreak, so we should expect some people to still not be familiar enough with the zombies and what their bites do to people. So, try as you might to ignore all these very pertinent contradictions/paradoxes in Land if you want to see it as happening after Day, they simply won't go away. We will keep on pointing them out until someone can come up with satisfactory answers for all these problems.

So the bottom line still continues to be that Land makes little sense and is quite packed with contradictions and paradoxes (none of which you have satisfactorily "explained") if seen as happening after Day, whether that was Romero's intention or not.

EvilNed

26-Apr-2018, 08:05 AM

He said an "uber" Bub. That does not mean much in terms of time.

The Quote also referred to an evolvement of the zombies going back to Day - so Yes. It does in fact refer to time. Just like the exposition given by Cholo refers to the Zombie holocaust. Of course, you could ignore these very specific references, but that would be akin to referring to Night as possibly taking place after Day - after all there is nothing explicit to suggest otherwise.

JDP

26-Apr-2018, 12:04 PM

The Quote also referred to an evolvement of the zombies going back to Day - so Yes. It does in fact refer to time. Just like the exposition given by Cholo refers to the Zombie holocaust. Of course, you could ignore these very specific references, but that would be akin to referring to Night as possibly taking place after Day - after all there is nothing explicit to suggest otherwise.

The quote actually goes back to Dawn, and Romero's memory was starting to leave a bit to be desired by the time of the interview, as he doesn't seem to remember that the zombies in Day were already doing this "uber" kind of stuff (like attempting to drive cars, which we in fact don't see any zombies in Land try to do), so there is no real "novelty" in Land in this regard. Just like the lines of dialogue about the 3 years in Land also don't prove anything regarding any "zombies" since the context is Cholo obviously complaining about his boss not being fair with him for services rendered during those 3 years (no mention whatsoever in there that these services and these 3 years have to do exclusively with the zombies; find me the "smoking gun" proving otherwise; you keep on failing to do so, because it just ain't there.) And it is simply impossible for Night to take place after Day. Reason? Plain enough to anyone: nobody knew anything about any zombies at the start of Night, everyone was caught by surprise by them, we even see the media explicitly covering the shocking news of their appearance and informing the public about what is developing, whereas in all the movies that came after Night everyone already knows about the zombies from the very start. Explicit enough for you? Yep, it indeed is! Mankind does not go from knowing something to mysteriously not knowing it. Impossible. It would be like us knowing about atom bombs today, and yet tomorrow nobody knows a thing about them! It just does NOT happen. It's how reality works, that simple, and the filmmaker needs NOT explain anything in this regard (in fact he CANNOT do so, at the risk of ruining the whole movie by inserting some silly dialogue "explaining" what is perfectly obvious to everyone) since it is self-evident/explanatory. On the other hand: where is the "impossibility" in Cholo & Kaufman having been involved in dirty business since before the zombies were around??? Unless there is something in the movie that shows that this is not the case and these two met during the zombie crisis, the possibility easily stands. So you are in fact comparing apples & oranges, as pointed out countless times, only for you to then keep pulling this invalid "argument" over and over, only to be refuted over and over.

EvilNed

26-Apr-2018, 04:07 PM

The quote actually goes back to Dawn, and Romero's memory was starting to leave a bit to be desired by the time of the interview, as he doesn't seem to remember that the zombies in Day were already doing this "uber" kind of stuff

What Romero is referring to is Big Daddy's ability to lead and not just mimic and connect with past memories.
Thus it is an evolution from Day, as per the interview.

JDP

27-Apr-2018, 11:42 PM

What Romero is referring to is Big Daddy's ability to lead and not just mimic and connect with past memories.
Thus it is an evolution from Day, as per the interview.

If you read his quoted statement you will see that he does not seem to say anything specific about this, but he in fact specifically refers to their "memory" to do these kinds of things. He seemed to have wanted to make this point clearer in Land, but I think that was unnecessary, his previous two movies, specially Day, already made this point very clear.

EvilNed

28-Apr-2018, 07:14 AM

If you read his quoted statement you will see that he does not seem to say anything specific about this, but he in fact specifically refers to their "memory" to do these kinds of things. He seemed to have wanted to make this point clearer in Land, but I think that was unnecessary, his previous two movies, specially Day, already made this point very clear.

So since über-Bub is a evolution of the Bub (that's not open for interpretation) that suggests, again, that Land takes place after Land.

So we have both the Romero interview and the dialogue in Land.

That's two very explicit statements regarding when they are set.

JDP

29-Apr-2018, 02:00 AM

So since über-Bub is a evolution of the Bub (that's not open for interpretation) that suggests, again, that Land takes place after Land.

So we have both the Romero interview and the dialogue in Land.

That's two very explicit statements regarding when they are set.

That's not even one statement: "uber" does not necessarily mean "after", it just means "above/better", and the statements in Land itself are not specific enough to settle the matter beyond any shadow of a doubt, as the beginning of the zombie outbreak is not clearly and specifically referred to anywhere in the movie. Plus Day itself also lacks such specific dating beyond any shadow of a doubt, which leaves it open to question as well. And no, again, just because it is not clearly specified when these two movies are happening with respect to the first one it does not mean that Day or Land can happen "before Night" either. It is unquestionable that they are happening after the events of that first movie (self-evident/explanatory reasons for this already pointed out), but it is not at all clear exactly when after those first zombie events that took the whole world by surprise in the first movie.

Oh, and even the "leading other zombies" stuff is not 100% new in Land either. By the end of Dawn we saw zombie Flyboy lead a large gang of zombies to the upper parts of the mall, where the last two human survivors were holing up. So, even by the end of Dawn it was pretty clear that the zombies were capable of retaining a certain degree of "collectiveness" and memory. Yet another thing that Romero seems to casually "forget" in the quoted interview.

EvilNed

29-Apr-2018, 02:19 PM

That's not even one statement: "uber" does not necessarily mean "after", it just means "above/better"

Exactly, and since we're talking about the evolution of zombies in a narrative sense, then Big Daddy comes after Bub.
So as I said, we have two instances of Land clearly taking place after Day. We know it takes place 3 years after the outbreak and we know that Big Daddy is after Bub, so to speak.

JDP

30-Apr-2018, 06:43 PM

Exactly, and since we're talking about the evolution of zombies in a narrative sense, then Big Daddy comes after Bub.
So as I said, we have two instances of Land clearly taking place after Day. We know it takes place 3 years after the outbreak and we know that Big Daddy is after Bub, so to speak.

No, being "better" does not necessarily mean "after". These two zombies in fact must be pretty much "contemporaries". If you push me, Bub looks actually more "decayed" than Big Daddy, so I would say that he has been around a bit longer (this is in fact true for the average zombies of both movies: the ones in Day look plainly more "decayed" than the ones in Land. This is yet another argument in favor of seeing Land as taking place before Day. Add to that the state of decay of the abandoned cities as well: plainly more decayed in Day than in Land.)

And no, we don't know for sure that Land takes place "3 years after the outbreak", that's just your preferred assumption regarding the vague "3 year" reference, but the movie itself never clarifies this anywhere. On top of that, we also don't have any clear time reference to the outbreak itself in Day. For all we know, Day is happening 3, or 5, or take-your-pick years after the outbreak.

EvilNed

30-Apr-2018, 08:40 PM

No, being "better" does not necessarily mean "after".

In the context of evolving zombies it does. Again, it's all about the context. If you think of Big Daddy as the next step in a line of zombies, it should become more clear to you. If you think about Cholo's lines are being said in a zombie apocalypse, it becomes undeniable that they refer to the start of the outbreak.

I hope this clears things up for you. :)

JDP

01-May-2018, 01:34 PM

In the context of evolving zombies it does. Again, it's all about the context. If you think of Big Daddy as the next step in a line of zombies, it should become more clear to you. If you think about Cholo's lines are being said in a zombie apocalypse, it becomes undeniable that they refer to the start of the outbreak.

I hope this clears things up for you. :)

No, they don't, since those are just your assumptions, as plausible as any out of several possible ones. Just because something is said during an "apocalypse" it does not necessarily mean it refers to it or its beginning. Again, we see these characters refer to things that obviously either happened before or could easily have happened before said "apocalypse". Examples: Cholo's statements about his father (could easily refer to pre-apocalypse things, even though he does not specify any time for that reference) or Slack's statements about where she has lived all her life (obviously refers to BOTH: pre- and post- zombie apocalypse.) So there is nothing remotely "impossible" about Cholo's statements regarding his business relationship with Kaufman to also extend back to pre-apocalyptic times. Obviously all these people had lives before the zombies showed up, their lives did not begin with the zombies, they all have pasts that go back further and sometimes they refer to that.

I hope this clears things up for you. :)

EvilNed

01-May-2018, 06:27 PM

No, they don't, since those are just your assumptions

No assumptions really. I mean, no more an assumption than assuming that for instance Night takes place prior to Day. That is, only reasonable assumptions since all deductions regarding the timeline in Day and Land have a root in either dialogue or interviews.

For instance, Cholo mentions that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak in dialogue. Romero mentions that Big Daddy is an evolution, or at least a step up, from previous zombies in the films.

So no, no assumptions.

JDP

03-May-2018, 12:26 AM

No assumptions really. I mean, no more an assumption than assuming that for instance Night takes place prior to Day. That is, only reasonable assumptions since all deductions regarding the timeline in Day and Land have a root in either dialogue or interviews.

For instance, Cholo mentions that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak in dialogue. Romero mentions that Big Daddy is an evolution, or at least a step up, from previous zombies in the films.

So no, no assumptions.

Yes, they are 100% assumptions since nowhere is it clearly explained/clarified that the 3 year working relationship between the two characters necessarily refers to anything regarding the zombie outbreak.

And your comparison with the self-evident/explanatory nature of Night very obviously being the first movie in the series is still (and always will be) invalid, since its status as such is due to just how reality works. The filmmaker does NOT (in fact he CANNOT!) be explicit about such things. It's a given. Everyone knows it because that is exactly how things work. People just don't mysteriously go from knowing and being well aware of something to not knowing it at all. That's not how it works. On the other hand, there is nothing whatsoever "self-explanatory/evident" regarding when exactly did Cholo and Kaufman first meet and started engaging in the seedy activities being alluded to (making troublesome people "disappear", dumping bodies, trafficking in booze, tobacco, etc.), which could easily be before the zombies came about and thus included in those 3 years. That NEEDS to be clarified/specified, otherwise it's anyone's guess. But Night being very obviously the first movie in the series is NOT "anyone's guess", it's not open to question since it's very crystal clear that it can be NOTHING BUT THE FIRST MOVIE in the series. So keep trying. Comparing apples & oranges leads nowhere.

EvilNed

03-May-2018, 06:39 AM

Yes, they are 100% assumptions since nowhere is it clearly explained/clarified that the 3 year working relationship between the two characters necessarily refers to anything regarding the zombie outbreak.

Actually, yes it is. You see, the dialogue lines are what in film are referred to as Exposition. They are both referring to the context of the film - the Zombie outbreak. Two different characters no less are referring to it, so there's more to it than just Cholo.

So no, there are no assumptions. It is exposition given within the film, referring to the start of the zombie outbreak (3 years ago).

JDP

04-May-2018, 01:10 AM

Actually, yes it is. You see, the dialogue lines are what in film are referred to as Exposition. They are both referring to the context of the film - the Zombie outbreak. Two different characters no less are referring to it, so there's more to it than just Cholo.

So no, there are no assumptions. It is exposition given within the film, referring to the start of the zombie outbreak (3 years ago).

The film has more than one context, the zombies are not the only one. The specific context regarding Cholo & Kaufman and the 3 years is their business relationship, not the zombies or when they first appeared. So yes, you are making assumptions. Granted that they are plausible assumptions, but they are not the only ones. The lines of dialogue are not specific enough to rule out other assumptions that are also plausible, like Cholo and Kaufman's business relationship extending to a time before the zombies appeared. Show us something in the movie that would preclude such an assumption from being possible. We know that some of these people have been living their WHOLE LIVES in that city (that implies they were there before the zombies), so there is no impossibility whatsoever in some of them having known each other since long before any zombies appeared. If the city itself had not existed before the zombies, you would have a better point that perhaps Cholo and Kaufman could not have known each other before, but that is not the case. The city and its dwellers clearly have pre-zombie pasts as well.

EvilNed

04-May-2018, 07:47 AM

The film has more than one context, the zombies are not the only one.

Well, since we are talking exposition given to us explicitly by characters on several occassions, there can be only one relevant context:

The start of the outbreak. All Other contexts are irrelevant and can be dismissed as options.

Thus, for the intents and purposes of this argument the dialogue explicitly references the outbreak and we can deduce from it how long ago it has been since the start of the outbreak: 3 years. It's there, clear as crystal.

JDP

05-May-2018, 01:28 AM

Well, since we are talking exposition given to us explicitly by characters on several occassions, there can be only one relevant context:

The start of the outbreak. All Other contexts are irrelevant and can be dismissed as options.

Thus, for the intents and purposes of this argument the dialogue explicitly references the outbreak and we can deduce from it how long ago it has been since the start of the outbreak: 3 years. It's there, clear as crystal.

Hardly so. Even Romero himself kept insisting that the zombies are not the most important thing in his "living-dead" movies and saw them as secondary to the other plot elements. In the specific case of Cholo & Kaufman's dialogue, the obvious context is their weakening business relationship (which will eventually lead to a "war" between these two characters) and most certainly not the zombies or when they first appeared. You could easily have the exact same dialogue in a non-zombie movie and it would work 100% the same without any zombies around anywhere. That's how non-zombie-related Cholo & Kaufman's dialogue is. So there is more than one choice here, it does not necessarily mean "zombie outbreak!" like you want it to exclusively mean. The way the dialogue in Land is written it leaves the whole thing open to interpretation. Compare it now with the truly specific, clear and unambiguous dialogue in Dawn. You can't take that whole Dawn dialogue about the 3 weeks verbatim and put it into a non-zombie movie, it will never work. That's how specific, unambiguous and 100% crystal clear the Dawn dialogue is; it leaves zero doubt whatsoever that the characters are referring to zombies and how long they have been around.

EvilNed

05-May-2018, 10:02 AM

Hardly so. Even Romero himself kept insisting that the zombies are not the most important thing in his "living-dead" movies and saw them as secondary to the other plot elements. In the specific case of Cholo & Kaufman's dialogue, the obvious context is their weakening business relationship (which will eventually lead to a "war" between these two characters) and most certainly not the zombies or when they first appeared.

The dialogue is meant to give us background. This type of dialogue is called exposition.

Here you can read a bit about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative)

To put it simply, the dialogue is there to convey information about the characters, the setting and the narrative to us viewers. Two different characters refer to something "3 years ago". The context is a zombie apocalypse. The dialogue is referring to this zombie apocalypse. Textbook exposition really.

Thus, we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

JDP

06-May-2018, 01:19 AM

The dialogue is meant to give us background. This type of dialogue is called exposition.

Here you can read a bit about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative)

To put it simply, the dialogue is there to convey information about the characters, the setting and the narrative to us viewers. Two different characters refer to something "3 years ago". The context is a zombie apocalypse. The dialogue is referring to this zombie apocalypse. Textbook exposition really.

Thus, we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

That would be fine and dandy if the zombies were the only thing going on in the movie, but they are clearly not. These people all had pasts that extend beyond the zombies as well. Their lives did not begin with the zombies. In fact, people wanting to cling to the past ways of life, back to the way things were before the zombies showed up, is a big plot element itself. So, unless clearer and more specific information is given regarding time references, it is open to interpretation what "something" regarding "x number of days/weeks/months/years" might refer to. "Something 3 years ago" could be a number of things, actually, and not necessarily the same thing either. The bum/wino lost his license three years ago, for example, and Kaufman's new "rules" after he took over have continued to prevent him from getting permission to drive a car again, or maybe he just doesn't have the money to get it back, or to buy a car. In fact, all of these would explain much better than the zombies why he has not driven a car since, as we can plainly see that zombies being around hasn't stopped other people from being able to drive cars. So, the bum/wino might easily be referring to something that happened to him specifically 3 years ago that prevented him from driving a car, and not necessarily, as you keep on assuming, "the zombie outbreak!!!!". In other words: some of the dialogue in Land is vague and choppy as hell and leaves a lot to be desired. Not Romero's best (but not his worst either.)

EvilNed

06-May-2018, 09:38 AM

That would be fine and dandy if the zombies were the only thing going on in the movie, but they are clearly not.

The films are still set in an apocalyptic enviroment and any exposition is refering to the setting. Since it is repeated by several characters, on numerous occasios, we can further deduce that the dialogue is explicitly referencing (and giving us exposition on) when in time the film is set. Any other conclusions are simply not true, and not based on anything other than wishful and contrived thinking.

Thus we can deduce that the film is set 3 years after the outbreak. The real question is, as I've already stated, where does Day fit into this?

JDP

07-May-2018, 01:35 AM

The films are still set in an apocalyptic enviroment and any exposition is refering to the setting. Since it is repeated by several characters, on numerous occasios, we can further deduce that the dialogue is explicitly referencing (and giving us exposition on) when in time the film is set. Any other conclusions are simply not true, and not based on anything other than wishful and contrived thinking.

Thus we can deduce that the film is set 3 years after the outbreak. The real question is, as I've already stated, where does Day fit into this?

False premise, not everything that is said in a zombie movie has to be regarding the zombies. We get examples of this in virtually any zombie movie. In this one in particular, just look at Cholo's statements about his father being a loser all his life, and how Riley reminds him of the fellow, for example. Where are the zombies in this? According to your faulty logic, this too must by force be referring to "the zombie outbreak!!!", but there is nothing to warrant such an assumption, just like any of a number of other things that can also be easily referring to things other than the zombies. So, no, unless more specifically, clearly and unambiguously stated, not everything said in this movie is necessarily about the zombies.

Also, 3 years is only mentioned twice, not "numerous occasions", and in both cases it has nothing to do with the zombies. One is some random bum/wino trying to avoid the accusation of being a thief by saying he hasn't driven a car for that long, and the other one is another guy complaining about his business relationship with someone else. It takes a gigantic ASSUMPTION to try to connect these two separate references as supposedly having to do with the same thing, since they are about totally different subjects, neither of which have anything to do with the zombies. Why would the zombies stop anyone from driving a car, when we can plainly see other characters doing so despite the zombies? Why is it "impossible" that someone has been working with another person from before the zombies and they have continued their partnership all the way up to the present? How would the appearance of any "zombies" prevent such things from happening???? Go ahead an admit it once and for all instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on assumptions: it's SHODDY AND LAZY writing that hardly clarifies anything for the viewer, plain and simple. Certainly not Romero's best effort.

Regarding "where does Day fit into this?": the more appropriate question would be: how can Land be happening after the clearly more desolate, depopulated, devastated and decayed world of Day??????

EvilNed

07-May-2018, 07:30 AM

False premise, not everything that is said in a zombie movie has to be regarding the zombies.

True, but any exposition regarding events is going to be. So the first part of your statement is incorrect, but the second is correct.

Had Cholo said something like "We had a working relationship even before all this broke out" or the mechanic something along the lines of "You know, I've been in a bad place for 3 years, and that's not counting the 1 year before all this happened" then maybe something like what you're saying could make sense.

As it stands now, the dialogue is just fairly straight forward exposition. The context is a zombie apocalypse. The result is explicit dialogue to tell us viewers what world we're in. Quite a common practice in these films. So we know that the film is set 3 years into the outbreak.

JDP

08-May-2018, 01:50 AM

True, but any exposition regarding events is going to be. So the first part of your statement is incorrect, but the second is correct.

Again, not true. Example: Cholo referring to his father being a loser is a reference to an "event". Another example: Charlie, Riley and Slack referring to the fire accident that scarred Charlie's face is a reference to an "event". Now, prove to me that such references necessarily have to do with the zombies just because the movie is set in a zombie apocalypse. Good luck! Guess what? Same thing with the 3 years bit. "As is", such lines prove nothing regarding the zombies, and they are 100% open to question and subject to various plausible interpretations/assumptions.

Had Cholo said something like "We had a working relationship even before all this broke out" or the mechanic something along the lines of "You know, I've been in a bad place for 3 years, and that's not counting the 1 year before all this happened" then maybe something like what you're saying could make sense.

By the exact same token, had Cholo said something like "How long have I been working for you? Three years? Three years since this whole mess started!" or the mechanic/wino/bum something along the lines of "The last car I drove out of this town was 3 years ago, before it became a fortress" then maybe something like your assumption that it all has to do with the zombies could be 100% guaranteed and exclude all other plausible assumptions. But alas, Romero did not bother to be more precise and instead wrote such vague lines that leave the whole thing hanging in the air and open to interpretation, just like when did the fire happen that disfigured Charlie's face, or Cholo's father having become a loser. Same thing. All vague and quite open to interpretation regarding whether any of these "events" has anything to do with the zombies.

And by the way, the mechanic/bum/wino (WHO IS THIS GUY??? Not even this is clear!) saying that he hasn't driven a car out of town for 3 years far from helping your case in fact throws more question marks at it. I repeat the same very pertinent question again: why exactly would the coming of the zombies prevent this guy from being able to drive a car out of the city? Your assumption that it "must" have to do with the zombies does not make much sense considering that we plainly see other people not being stopped at all by the exact same zombies from doing exactly what he is complaining about not being able to do: driving vehicles in & out of the city. All it takes for this action to happen is having enough money to buy a working vehicle (like Riley was doing) and/or getting permission from the authorities to drive vehicles. So the most logical conclusion here is that this fellow hasn't been able to drive a car because of something that specifically happened to him 3 years ago, and NOT something that by force happened to everyone else, which would be the case if his reference really was about the coming of the zombies (something that affected everyone, no exceptions.) So, this reference is even less clear and even more open to interpretation/assumptions than Cholo's also vague dialogue with Kaufman.

As it stands now, the dialogue is just fairly straight forward exposition. The context is a zombie apocalypse. The result is explicit dialogue to tell us viewers what world we're in. Quite a common practice in these films. So we know that the film is set 3 years into the outbreak.

As it stands, these lines in Land are all vague as hell and prove nothing beyond any shadow of a doubt, precluding any other possible assumptions. Again, compare them to the truly specific, clear and unambiguous "exposition" regarding the zombies and their uprising in Dawn, where no other plausible interpretation/assumptions are possible.

EvilNed

08-May-2018, 06:58 AM

Again, not true. Example: Cholo referring to his father being a loser is a reference to an "event".

Absolutely, but there's more to it than that; To explain to us who Cholo is and that his father is dead by now - probably even due to the zombies.

So again, these references are all inseperable from the setting the film takes place in - a Zombie apocalypse. Which is why the "3 year"-lines all refer to the zombie outbreak. It's the logical conclusion.

Thus we know for sure that Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak. It's mentioned in dialogue and is not refuteable.

JDP

09-May-2018, 01:21 AM

Absolutely, but there's more to it than that; To explain to us who Cholo is and that his father is dead by now - probably even due to the zombies.

So again, these references are all inseperable from the setting the film takes place in - a Zombie apocalypse. Which is why the "3 year"-lines all refer to the zombie outbreak. It's the logical conclusion.

Thus we know for sure that Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak. It's mentioned in dialogue and is not refuteable.

Operative word here being: PROBABLY. Notice that well. Not "surely". Same thing with the "3 years" bit. The way the dialogue in this movie is written, there are no guarantees regarding the zombies in respect to most of the "events" we hear about that extend to some time in the past. One of the very few ones that is for sure and leaves no doubt whatsoever is Slack having lived all her live in the city. Since she is not a baby, then there is NO choice but to conclude that this happened both before and after the zombies. But most of the other past "events" in the movie are really anyone's guess when exactly did they happen with respect to the appearance of the zombies, including the "3 years" bits of dialogue, which could easily be referring to things other than the zombies, like that mechanic/bum/wino protesting about not having driven a car for that long, something which the appearance of the zombies did not prevent everyone else from doing, and therefore must refer to something that specifically happened to him and not everyone else equally.

EvilNed

09-May-2018, 06:43 AM

Operative word here being: PROBABLY.

Yes, Cholo's dad probably died from being eaten by zombies. It's only mentioned once - unlike the 3 year referene - and to be honest he looks like he lived a rough life prior to outbreak 3 years ago as well.

This has no effect on the exposition the films gives us regarding the time the film is set in - which the film clearly spells out is 3 years after the outbreak.

JDP

10-May-2018, 01:29 AM

Yes, Cholo's dad probably died from being eaten by zombies. It's only mentioned once - unlike the 3 year referene - and to be honest he looks like he lived a rough life prior to outbreak 3 years ago as well.

This has no effect on the exposition the films gives us regarding the time the film is set in - which the film clearly spells out is 3 years after the outbreak.

Just like there is no clarification on that bit about Cholo's dad, or when exactly did Charlie manage to survive the fire that scarred him (which is also referred to more than once, but is not made any clearer by that fact either, as nothing having to do with the zombies is specifically mentioned in that context either), the "3 years" references also do not clarify anything regarding the zombies, as they also happen in other contexts that do not specifically appertain to the zombies themselves: one is a guy protesting that he has not driven a car for that long (something that we can plainly see hasn't happened to many other people in the city, therefore obviously the zombies are not impeding vehicles from going in & out of the city, so something else happened to that guy in particular that prevented him from driving a car), another one is a guy ranting about his business relationship with someone else. No zombies implicated anywhere. Just like in Cholo's dad case or Charlie's accident. But could the zombies have had something to do with all of these things? Yes. But is it a must that they did have something to do with them? No. So, no, the movie clarifies nothing in regards to how long have the zombies been around. It is something that is simply never specifically addressed in the movie.

EvilNed

10-May-2018, 09:22 AM

Just like there is no clarification on that bit about Cholo's dad, or when exactly did Charlie manage to survive the fire that scarred him (which is also referred to more than once, but is not made any clearer by that fact either, as nothing having to do with the zombies is specifically mentioned in that context either), the "3 years" references...[/U]

Incorrect,
The setting is clarification enough. We can easily deduce that the intention was to tell us when the film is set in regards to the outbreak. It's textbook exposition.
So we know the film takes place 3 years after the outbreak. How do we know? The characters tell us so, in dialogue. In the film itself. On two occasions.

JDP

11-May-2018, 02:03 AM

Incorrect,
The setting is clarification enough. We can easily deduce that the intention was to tell us when the film is set in regards to the outbreak. It's textbook exposition.
So we know the film takes place 3 years after the outbreak. How do we know? The characters tell us so, in dialogue. In the film itself. On two occasions.

Truly incorrect. "Textbook exposition" would be the dialogue about 3 weeks in Dawn, which very well and clearly informs the viewer when exactly is the action happening with respect to the first movie. What we see in Land are only vague lines that do not address such information but are plainly about other subjects. Two totally disconnected mentions of some amount of time are not guarantee of anything, specially not when the subjects are so different and peculiar to each separate character and do not implicate the zombies at all:

1- A character protesting about not having driven a car out of town in 3 years, which we know other characters can actually do without any problem, the mere presence of the zombies notwithstanding (note well this very pertinent last bit, that's why it's underlined. It points out that the mere presence of the zombies cannot account for the character's statements.)

2- A character complaining about his 3 year business relationship with another character, with no mention of anything appertaining to the zombies anywhere in this dialogue either

Where is the supposed necessary involvement of the zombies anywhere in either case, then??? I keep asking you the same VERY PERTINENT question over and over, and all you keep giving is the same invalid claim that "exposition" must somehow magically "fill in the blanks" for the viewer. Wrongo! Some viewers making GIGANTIC ASSUMPTIONS about totally disconnected mentions of some amount of time is NOT what "exposition" is all about. What this in fact tells us is that the "exposition" in this movie is sloppy enough that different viewers can easily go around making DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS about some of what the movie "exposes". Notice that such a thing CANNOT happen in a truly well-done "exposition", like that of Dawn, where no alternative explanations/interpretations/assumptions regarding its mention of "3 weeks" are possible.

EvilNed

11-May-2018, 06:57 AM

Truly incorrect. "Textbook exposition" would be the dialogue about 3 weeks in Dawn, which very well and clearly informs the viewer when exactly is the action happening with respect to the first movie.

Yes, that is also textbook exposition - like in Land they convey to us the viwwer when the film is set. I forgot the case in Dawn, but in Land the mention of three years clearly tells us viewers that it's been three years since the outbreak. In Land, two different characters tells us this - leaving no room for any interpretation.

JDP

12-May-2018, 01:29 AM

Yes, that is also textbook exposition - like in Land they convey to us the viwwer when the film is set. I forgot the case in Dawn, but in Land the mention of three years clearly tells us viewers that it's been three years since the outbreak. In Land, two different characters tells us this - leaving no room for any interpretation.

No, Land did no such thing, and that is the key difference between both examples: Dawn did a very good job at leaving no doubts whatsoever when the action at the start of that movie is happening with respect to the zombie outbreak. The only thing in Land even remotely close to what Dawn did in this respect is when the opening sequence tells us "sometime ago" (follow TV/radio broadcasts about the zombie outbreak) and then "today" (follows the sequence of Riley's team preparing to raid a town.) And even here, where Romero had a golden opportunity to clarify this issue to everyone and then some, the whole thing is totally vague again! "Sometime ago" and "today" do not answer any specific questions in this respect, and certainly neither do two totally disconnected "3 year" references in different contexts that do not appertain to the zombies.

EvilNed

12-May-2018, 10:39 AM

No, Land did no such thing,

Actually yes it did. You see, as two different characters are referring to something that happened 3 years ago, in a setting that is clearly a zombie apocalypse - the thing they are referring to is the start of the outbreak. The time when the world changed.
Thus we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

JDP

13-May-2018, 12:52 AM

Actually yes it did. You see, as two different characters are referring to something that happened 3 years ago, in a setting that is clearly a zombie apocalypse - the thing they are referring to is the start of the outbreak. The time when the world changed.
Thus we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

Actually, no, it did not. You see, you know all too well by now that those 3 year references happen in two TOTALLY DISCONNECTED contexts. The characters are obviously NOT talking about the same thing and the two contexts have JACK-SQUAT to do with the zombies. On top of that, you also know well by now that just because someone mentions some event of the past it does not necessarily mean it has to do with the zombies. The fact that you keep failing to prove that Charlie got his scars because of the zombies or Cholo's dad became a loser because of the zombies speaks volumes about this point. Same with the "3 years" bit.

Plus now you have also been reminded that at the very start of the movie there is in fact THE ONLY SPECIFIC, CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS REFERENCE TO THE ZOMBIE OUTBREAK IN THE WHOLE MOVIE, and what does your much ballyhooed "exposition" tell us there, when it had the golden chance of settling the matter for the viewer beyond any shadow of a doubt? "Sometime ago" and "today". Could not be more vague! Game over.

EvilNed

13-May-2018, 09:02 AM

Actually, no, it did not. You see, you know all too well by now that those 3 year references happen in two TOTALLY DISCONNECTED contexts.

Exactly, which further proves my point that the lines are explicit references to some event that took place 3 years ago. Since we're in a zombie apocalypse, that event is clearly the start of the zombie apocalypse. It's there for all to see in the dialogue that the outbreak started 3 years ago. Which is how we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak - through dialogue.

JDP

14-May-2018, 01:12 AM

Exactly, which further proves my point that the lines are explicit references to some event that took place 3 years ago. Since we're in a zombie apocalypse, that event is clearly the start of the zombie apocalypse. It's there for all to see in the dialogue that the outbreak started 3 years ago. Which is how we know that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak - through dialogue.

Not even by a huge stretch; those lines are explicit references to two very different events that have nothing to do with each other, and neither one concerns the zombies. I don't think I need to explain them again since you know them all too well by now. For your kind of argument to have any weight these totally disconnected mentions of three years would have to happen in a SETTING (look up what this is) where only a few survivors are involved, then you can more safely rule out the role of coincidence. But in a city where we can plainly see LOADS AND LOADS of survivors all over the place, all of them with their own peculiar pasts... not a chance, Jack! The likelihood that most of them had things happen to them 3 years ago that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other or the zombies is HUMONGOUS. So, in a movie with a setting involving HUGE NUMBERS of survivors you need a specific reference to the zombie outbreak itself, otherwise your type of argumentation doesn't fly. It falls squarely under the category of ASSUMPTIONS. And guess what? Yours are as good as mine. There is nothing settled here by the movie itself. Now try to pull that one with the truly specific and explicit reference in Dawn. Good luck! Here viewers do not have to go around assuming anything, the movie itself is very clear and leaves no doubts at all regarding this topic.

EvilNed

14-May-2018, 10:46 AM

Not even by a huge stretch; those lines are explicit references to two very different events that have nothing to do with each other

No, not really. You see, in film terminology there's something called Exposition. Exposition is meant to convey information to us viewers which would be relevant and interesting for us to have. In this case, the context of that exposition is the zombie apocalypse. The two characters, by telling us of something that happened 3 years ago are referring to the start of the zombie outbreak. That's how we know Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

JDP

15-May-2018, 01:44 AM

No, not really. You see, in film terminology there's something called Exposition. Exposition is meant to convey information to us viewers which would be relevant and interesting for us to have. In this case, the context of that exposition is the zombie apocalypse. The two characters, by telling us of something that happened 3 years ago are referring to the start of the zombie outbreak. That's how we know Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

The "expositions" (notice the PLURAL, because a movie has many of them, not just one) in the "three year" bits of dialogue are: 1- a guy complaining about his business relationship with another character, zombies mentioned nowhere, and which will result in a "war" developing between the two characters, and 2- a totally disconnected guy protesting he is innocent of theft by the fact he hasn't driven a car out of town, something we can plainly see plenty of his fellow citizens are able to do without any problems, the mere presence of the zombies notwithstanding (notice the underlined bit well, as it implicates something else that is peculiar to this character in particular and not to everyone else without exception.) They are NOT the same "exposition", and neither are the "expositions" here about the zombies themselves but about these two other characters. I suggest you actually get acquainted with what "exposition" is, because it does not mean you making ASSUMPTIONS about things a movie does not actually clearly state anywhere and trying to pass them as if they were. "Exposition" is the filmmaker conveying clear information to the viewer regarding a particular/specific subject. And do you know what is the only bit of "exposition" in Land regarding the zombie outbreak? Yep, its intro sequence. I think I don't need to remind you what the "exposition" there actually says. It could not be more VAGUE. The "3 years" are seen nowhere in sight there. But keep on trying. Maybe one day you will hit upon an actually valid counterargument.

EvilNed

15-May-2018, 01:26 PM

The "expositions" (notice the PLURAL, because a movie has many of them, not just one) in the "three year" bits of dialogue are:

- Both to be taken within the context of a zombie apocalypse, which is what the director wants to convey to us about.
Since two different characters mention this three year time period, referring to an event in the past, with a zombie apocalypse raging all around them then it is obvious what they are referring too. Through dialogue this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. .

JDP

16-May-2018, 12:15 AM

- Both to be taken within the context of a zombie apocalypse, which is what the director wants to convey to us about.
Since two different characters mention this three year time period, referring to an event in the past, with a zombie apocalypse raging all around them then it is obvious what they are referring too. Through dialogue this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak. .

For that to be so the 3 years bits of dialogue NEED to refer to the zombies, since they are not the only "characters" around, and, despite what you want to imply, the movie does not in fact revolve exclusively around them. In other words, the context needs to involve them. But neither one does. The context in both cases is a very different one and it does not implicate the zombies anywhere.

"Exposition" does not mean a free-license for the filmmaker to be totally vague and let his viewers decide things for him. There is only one specific and totally unambiguous reference in the whole movie regarding the zombie outbreak: its intro. And you already know very well what it says there: a very VAGUE "sometime ago" and then "today". There is no other specific, unambiguous statement regarding the zombie outbreak anywhere in the movie. If Romero wanted to settle this matter for the viewer in a clear and proper manner he could easily have written "3 years ago" and then "today" right there in that expository intro. But he did not. You can argue that perhaps Romero wanted to be vague on purpose, which is fine, but then that leaves the question totally open for the viewers. Whether he did it on purpose or unwittingly makes no difference. The fact is that the "exposition" regarding the zombie outbreak itself is VAGUE and not settled beyond any shadow of a doubt anywhere in the film itself. Two references to "3 years" in contexts that do NOT involve the zombies do not settle anything regarding this subject. You might as well tell us that the two separate references to Charlie's accident that left him scarred "must be because of the zombies! Look, it's a zombie apocalypse, and there's two references to it by different characters, so that must be it!" Really? Go ahead and prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt by citing pertinent dialogue that explicitly incriminates the zombies in that event. You know perfectly well you can't. Why? Because nowhere in those two references there is said anything regarding the zombies, so, for all we know, the zombies maybe did not have anything to do with that. And neither can you do the same regarding the two mentions of any "3 years" by those two characters, where nothing whatsoever is said about the zombies either. Do not confuse "probability" with "established fact".

bassman

16-May-2018, 07:53 AM

The prologue of Land featured a shot of the old Zenith radio, so clearly that means Land takes place forty some odd years since the outbreak began. Boom, end of discussion! :p

EvilNed

16-May-2018, 08:58 AM

For that to be so the 3 years bits of dialogue NEED to refer to the zombies

No actually,
all that is needed is for the dialogue to be stated in a context. The context being the zombie apocalypse.
You see, when two characters mention something a life-changing moment, or otherwise shift from a previous status quo, as having happened "3 years ago" in the midst of a zombie apocalypse then they are referring to the start of the outbreak.
That's how we know Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak.

MinionZombie

16-May-2018, 10:18 AM

The prologue of Land featured a shot of the old Zenith radio, so clearly that means Land takes place forty some odd years since the outbreak began. Boom, end of discussion! :p

*the courtroom bursts into a kerfuffle of muddled voices*

:lol::lol::lol:

:D

JDP

17-May-2018, 01:15 AM

No actually,
all that is needed is for the dialogue to be stated in a context. The context being the zombie apocalypse.
You see, when two characters mention something a life-changing moment, or otherwise shift from a previous status quo, as having happened "3 years ago" in the midst of a zombie apocalypse then they are referring to the start of the outbreak.
That's how we know Land takes place 3 years into the outbreak.

The contexts (plural) in those two cases are not the zombies but other characters, so it refers to things that happened to or involve them only, unless other characters are specifically referred to or clearly alluded to in those dialogues. But they aren't. And the zombies ARE "characters" after all.

Plus Charlie's accident changed his life (and Riley's too), and it is mentioned more than once in the movie. Was it because of the zombies, then??? According to your strange arguments, the answer must be a resounding "yes", but anyone can tell there is no evidence to prove any such thing in the movie itself. Why? Because there is no specific mention of the zombies in that context either. For all we know, the zombies had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Same with the "3 years" bit. Just because something is mentioned in a world where zombies exist it does not "by default" mean that they must be somehow involved. People are not cardboard figures. They all have pasts, extending well before the appearance of the zombies themselves. The world did not begin with the zombies. So, finding people referring to past events that do not involve the zombies is 101% perfectly fine and totally possible. In fact, we see that for sure in such examples as Slack having lived all her life in the city, or nothing bad ever happening to Riley (before the zombies.)

bassman

17-May-2018, 04:06 AM

EvilNed

17-May-2018, 09:22 AM

The contexts (plural) in those two cases are not the zombies but other characters

Yes, but the zombie apocalypse context is what's interesting to us - as viewers. The characters are referring to it, not some prior and irrelevant engagement they had before all hell broke loose.
As two characters refer to it, it becomes even more explicit.
Through this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

JDP

18-May-2018, 12:39 AM

I was just watching Frumkes’ Dream of the Dead, shot during the production of Land. At one point after getting into his zombie biker wardrobe, Savini comes out of the dressing room and says he’s been wandering around in that leather biker gear for a year and a half since we last saw him in Dawn.

Just gonna drop that grenade and exit quickly...

Sounds way more believable than 3 years! Imagine that. Suppose the unproven 3 years as if they were a "fact": how can Slack still be ignorant of what exactly do zombie bites do to people so far into the zombie crisis??? Even a year and half seems excessive for that to happen. Another contradiction: it's been 3 years of these scavenger armies looting the hell out of what remains out there so they can sustain the DROVES of people they have in the city, as well as provide luxury items and booze & tobacco for the wealthy... and they are still "raiding" TOWNS WHICH ARE A STONE'S THROW AWAY FROM THE CITY ITSELF!!! LOL! The "3 years" thing is a major plot hole if you actually accept such a theory. Maybe that's the reason behind the actual vagueness of the film when it comes to this point, leaving it "hanging" in the air for the viewer since it is never settled anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but the zombie apocalypse context is what's interesting to us - as viewers. The characters are referring to it, not some prior and irrelevant engagement they had before all hell broke loose.
As two characters refer to it, it becomes even more explicit.
Through this dialogue we learn that Land takes place 3 years after the outbreak.

The zombies actually have ZERO to do with the quarrel between these two main characters, who are feuding over money for shady "services" due; criminal activities that are independent from the presence of the zombies and could very easily go back to times before the zombies appeared and would not affect the plot one bit. And the other character who mentions 3 years in fact implies something that happened to him specifically that has prevented him from driving a car, not to everyone else, otherwise if the mere appearance of the zombies into the scene was the reason behind his protestation then no one should be able to drive vehicles in & out of town, everyone would be affected equally. Far from helping your theory, this other character's statements actually put more question marks on the whole thing. Plus on top of all that, we actually have only one truly specific and unambiguous reference to the zombie outbreak in the entire movie, and all it says is a very VAGUE "sometime ago" and "today". Game over.

EvilNed

18-May-2018, 07:06 AM

The zombies actually have ZERO to do with the quarrel between these two main characters,

Not true. The zombies are the reason they're in this business relationship in the first place.
The zombies have everything to do with this quarrel. The business relationship started when the zombies started to appear and Kaufman set up his safe zone.
That's how we know it's been 3 years since the outbreak.

JDP

19-May-2018, 12:51 AM

Not true. The zombies are the reason they're in this business relationship in the first place.
The zombies have everything to do with this quarrel. The business relationship started when the zombies started to appear and Kaufman set up his safe zone.
That's how we know it's been 3 years since the outbreak.

That's a big ASSUMPTION on your part, it's something which is nowhere proved in the movie. The zombies are never mentioned or implied anywhere in their dispute. This is purely a problem between these two characters, no one else. You could take this entire Cholo-Kaufman dispute part of the movie's plot and drop it in the middle of a gangster movie, no zombies anywhere, and it would still work 100%. That's how "relevant" the zombies are for it!

EvilNed

19-May-2018, 01:55 PM

That's a big ASSUMPTION on your part

Thats a very minor assumption, if any at all. The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone. It's what they are talking about.

JDP

20-May-2018, 12:39 AM

Thats a very minor assumption, if any at all. The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone. It's what they are talking about.

But they are not talking about something that affected everyone equally, they are talking about something that has affected both of them in particular, it is a very specific issue between the two: Cholo wants the overdue payments that Kaufman owes him for some of the dirty work he has been doing for him, and he wants to use the money to "move up" the social scale, but Kaufman does not agree with his plans and pulls excuses. All this ends up leading to a "war" between the both of them. So, yes, it is a BIG ASSUMPTION on your part to decide that this dialogue must involve the zombies. You might as well tell us that the accident that scarred Charlie's face somehow also must have been caused by the zombies, but we all know that there is no conclusive evidence for that either. The dialogue needs to be clearer, more specific and less ambiguous for someone to be able to derive such conclusions in a definitive manner, where no other possible explanations can have a place.

EvilNed

20-May-2018, 09:36 AM

But they are not talking about something that affected everyone equally

I'm not saying that they're talking about something that affected everyone equally, I don't know where you got that from. But it's obvious to anyone that the world changed forever when the zombies began to walk and whatever business arrangements were in place prior to that would be irrelevant in this new world. When Cholo says they've been having dealings for 3 years, he means what he's been doing for Kaufman for 3 years in this post-apoc world - taking out the garbage from Fiddler's Green (which in itself did not exist in it's current form prior to the apocalypse).

Besides, there's two characters referring to something that happened 3 years ago, and they're both knee deep in a zombie apocalypse. That something is the start of the zombie apocalypse. That's how we know it started 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal in the dialogue of the film.

JDP

21-May-2018, 12:45 AM

I'm not saying that they're talking about something that affected everyone equally, I don't know where you got that from. But it's obvious to anyone that the world changed forever when the zombies began to walk and whatever business arrangements were in place prior to that would be irrelevant in this new world. When Cholo says they've been having dealings for 3 years, he means what he's been doing for Kaufman for 3 years in this post-apoc world - taking out the garbage from Fiddler's Green (which in itself did not exist in it's current form prior to the apocalypse).

Besides, there's two characters referring to something that happened 3 years ago, and they're both knee deep in a zombie apocalypse. That something is the start of the zombie apocalypse. That's how we know it started 3 years ago. It's clear as crystal in the dialogue of the film.

I am getting it from the very fact that you said so yourself above: "The zombie apocalypse obviously affected everyone." But these two characters are obviously talking about things that are peculiar/specific to them, not to everyone else equally, which is what their dialogues would imply if what they were talking about was really just the appearance of the zombies, which is your ASSUMPTION, which I keep pointing out for you that such a conclusion is NOT guaranteed anywhere in the film. So, there is NOTHING remotely "clear as crystal" anywhere in this movie regarding the zombie outbreak itself. All it ever specifically and unambiguously says regarding this point is an EXTREMELY VAGUE "sometime ago" and "today". That's it! Everything else regarding it = ASSUMPTIONS.

Also, you keep bringing up the equally invalid claim that just because a movie happens during a zombie apocalypse everything the characters say about the past has to somehow involve the zombies and their appearance into the scene. Once again, I challenge you to prove that Charlie's accident happened during the zombie apocalypse, or that Cholo's dad became a loser because of the zombies. The fact is that you can't, not any more than you can also prove that the "3 years" really refers to the zombie outbreak and not to things that also COULD VERY EASILY have happened before the appearance of the zombies and DO NOT AFFECT THE PLOT ONE BIT.

And Fiddler's Green obviously existed before the zombies, Kaufman just took over it. But how do you know that Cholo wasn't already "taking out the garbage" (i.e. dumping the bodies of "inconvenient" people that his crooked boss gets rid of) for Kaufman before the zombies appeared??? Once again, you can't prove it. In fact, no one can. Why? Well, because the movie itself doesn't say anything to contradict any such possibility either. Just because the present action is happening during a zombie crisis it does NOT mean that all past events referred to in the movie "must" also refer to it.