Decay and Time.

[Angry312]

Basically, to go all off-valknut here, what is the consensus of decay and its effect on the mobility/viability of the zombies of the Romeroverse?

Judging by Land of the Dead, it looks like they decay to around a few weeks, then level off for roughly twenty years. This sound reasonable? Maybe its me, but nothing in nature stops decaying unless something severe occurs; trapping it amber, injecting it with formaldehyde, dessicating the tissues ala desert mummies or the bog mummy phenomenon.

Additionally: would the insects which feed off of corpses go into a holding pattern, continue eating or just avoid the ones who walk too much?

I have a personal theory I'll posit for this, which I'll arbitrarily place in an arid environment (for no particular reason):
Hour zero: guy drops off over from bite's effect/negative chi/tofu poisoning.
Hour one: blood pools on the lowest edges of the body, 'bruising' the skin.
Hour two: anerobic bacteria become active, beginning the body's 'rot'.
Hour three: body is now into rigor, stiffening beyond mobility.
Hour four: insect have taken hold of the corpse by this point; battle for food.
Hour five: bodies now beginning to bloat slightly; this will worsen over time.
... we can skip the highlights, and move on to...
Hour seventy-two: body exits rigor.

If it goes mobile immediately, it doesn't skip rigor. I'll qualify it with:

"After a body has died, the chemical reaction producing these energy molecules is unable to proceed because of a lack of oxygen. The cells no longer have the energy to pump calcium out of the cell and so the calcium concentration rises, forcing the muscles to remain in a contracted state. This state of muscle stiffening is known as rigor mortis and it remains until the muscle proteins start to decompose." -- http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/rigor_mortis.htm

Whatever reanimates the bodies must be able to stop rigor from hitting; I don't remember anything in the Romeroverse mentioning boo-radley about there being a 72 hour waiting period on undeath. So, we're either accepting that rigor is ignored indefinitely (which means either the bodies are no longer moving according to human physiology or the tissues are inherently immune). In either case, that revivification stuff has to be fairly potent; perhaps it is one of the reasons they seek the living for food -- calcium.

Just a thought.
:evil: Angry312; "Meat... It Does a Body Good." :evil:

[creepntom]

um, huh? :confused: :elol:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3995/1wtfae6.jpg

[DJ.doucheBAG]

lol:lol:

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Judging by Land of the Dead, it looks like they decay to around a few weeks, then level off for roughly twenty years. This sound reasonable?

Ok, maybe not a good idea to "judge" anything by Land of the Dead, especially tinpot theorys which are barely even touched upon in that movie. Try listening to the Doctor in Day of the Dead for more on that particular tinpot theory regarding the potential lifespan of the undead's motor function.

And how did you get to twenty years post clinical death using Land of the Dead, when Land of the Dead is set only three years post clinical death?

I think it goes without saying that the virus IS responsible for a drastic reduction in the speed of cellular breakdown, but everything else, including a definitive lifespan, is open to speculation.

[Angry312]

Development of the Steyr AUG (used by 'Big Daddy'): 1978.
So, we add 10 years to 1968.

Reagan inflatable shot during the guard montage; elected to public office as Governor in California in 1967; minus one year. So, unless its an uncanny likeness of a then-two-year gone public figure on the opposite coast, its an anachronism. Unless, of course, its a reference to his term as president in 1981 to 1989, which would make sense.. by basic math, placeing the average time displaced at ... ten to twenty years.

Believe the cellphones and belly button piercings settles the remainder. There a lot of that running around in 1972? The reference to the videogame by Motown to the hooker, in Dead Reckoning.. what in the Hell is a 'video game'? Lot of upright consoles in 1969 to 1972?

Additionally, there's this:
"This is the fourth film in George Romero's zombie series, which Romero says takes place after Night of the Living Dead (1968) with no specific time frame. The last zombie film he wrote and directed was Day of the Dead (1985), which was released nineteen years before "Land.".."
http://imdb.com/title/tt0418819/trivia

I can accept the idea that the events are supposed to take place during position 'X' on the GAR timeline, but cutesy details which destroy the continuity of the illusion sort of run akin to the Battle of Thermopolyae taking place near the Golden Gate Bridge, the crossing of the Rubicon on speedboats or Abraham Lincoln being assassinated with a Glock.

The idea that the cell death rate is slowed, I'll buy; at substantial difficulty, but I'll buy it. The idea that the corpse-eaters of the insect world hold their meals off, I'll likewise buy... stretching of personal belief.

But an AUG minimum nine years prior to its development, no.
Cellphones in 1969 smaller than a briefcase? No.
Magnavox's Odyssey, the first home video game system, is showcased at a convention in Burlingame, CA, and is released to the public later that year.
The date: May 24th, 1972.

First cellphone: Motorola Communications Systems Division, April 3rd, 1973.
http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/martin_cooper.htm
Just my thoughts.
:evil: Angry312; "The Man That Time Forgot." :evil:

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I think perhaps that you are the only one who can understand yourself.

[Angry312]

I'll sum it up a bit more.

Judged by the evidence I cited in my post, the 'official' timeline that Land of the Dead takes place three years after Night of the Living Dead is *wrong*.

It's easier to accept that GAR might have made a slight miscalculation with the timeline than the aforementioned evidence is off-base; he made a mistake. We all make mistakes.

Alternately, his timeline is accurate, the scriptwriter went off-course; the props department went off-course. The set designer went off-course. The editing teams reviewing the dailies from the shoot made collective off-course errors. The post-production unit went off-course.

If that's the case, I'm off-course, as well.
Or, GAR made the mistake.

No big deal.

Just my thoughts.
:evil: Angry312; "To Err is Human. To Forgive, GAR." :evil:

[tju1973]

Development of the Steyr AUG (used by 'Big Daddy'): 1978.
So, we add 10 years to 1968.

Reagan inflatable shot during the guard montage; elected to public office as Governor in California in 1967; minus one year. So, unless its an uncanny likeness of a then-two-year gone public figure on the opposite coast, its an anachronism. Unless, of course, its a reference to his term as president in 1981 to 1989, which would make sense.. by basic math, placeing the average time displaced at ... ten to twenty years.

Believe the cellphones and belly button piercings settles the remainder. There a lot of that running around in 1972? The reference to the videogame by Motown to the hooker, in Dead Reckoning.. what in the Hell is a 'video game'? Lot of upright consoles in 1969 to 1972?

Additionally, there's this:
"This is the fourth film in George Romero's zombie series, which Romero says takes place after Night of the Living Dead (1968) with no specific time frame. The last zombie film he wrote and directed was Day of the Dead (1985), which was released nineteen years before "Land.".."
http://imdb.com/title/tt0418819/trivia

I can accept the idea that the events are supposed to take place during position 'X' on the GAR timeline, but cutesy details which destroy the continuity of the illusion sort of run akin to the Battle of Thermopolyae taking place near the Golden Gate Bridge, the crossing of the Rubicon on speedboats or Abraham Lincoln being assassinated with a Glock.

The idea that the cell death rate is slowed, I'll buy; at substantial difficulty, but I'll buy it. The idea that the corpse-eaters of the insect world hold their meals off, I'll likewise buy... stretching of personal belief.

But an AUG minimum nine years prior to its development, no.
Cellphones in 1969 smaller than a briefcase? No.
Magnavox's Odyssey, the first home video game system, is showcased at a convention in Burlingame, CA, and is released to the public later that year.
The date: May 24th, 1972.

First cellphone: Motorola Communications Systems Division, April 3rd, 1973.
http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/martin_cooper.htm
Just my thoughts.
:evil: Angry312; "The Man That Time Forgot." :evil:

You lost me on this whole topic....

unless that was your goal..

:rockbrow:

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I'll sum it up a bit more.

Judged by the evidence I cited in my post, the 'official' timeline that Land of the Dead takes place three years after Night of the Living Dead is *wrong*.



No one, with the exception of some lost bumblefcuks, ever seriously thought that LAND took place three years after NIGHT. LAND takes place three years after the initial outbreaks and not three years after the initial outbreaks seen in NIGHT ... it really is as simple as that.

Same universe, same guidelines, different take.

[bassman]

... it really is as simple as that.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's classic.....

:confused:

[radiokill]

Since there's probably only going to one zombie-led holocaust in this universe, I like to think that all the movies are related to the same event. The anachronisms caused by the technology are irrelevant to this because they simply serve to help a present movie theatre patron to become immersed in story and be able to relate to what we seen on screen. Don't forget Romero is all about social commentary - discussing the present society. I don't view the films as different takes on the same event, but I see it as if there's title at the beginning of each sequel (except land) that reads "Elsewhere...".

Also about the bugs and decay (I view the zombie phenomenon as a virus), if a virus is complex enough to reanimate dead tissue, I'll bet it will want to perserve its host by killing bugs and producing fluids to perserve tissues.

[Danny]

i think you are forgetting his films dont say in em what year it is in any of em right?, not to my knowledge at least, thsi explains away the sets, the mall was there because of the consumerism of the time, the others i cant be arsed to post but george allways put social commentary in his films so wether there was a game gear in the films background or something, who cares?, its a series of films ,i couldnt give two ****s if there was a group of cybermen in the background of fiddlers green its still a movie , and if it followed natural laws zombies woudlnt get smarter in about a few months theyd be multch enough not to walk but would that make a good film?, hell if it followed natural laws it would be "NIGHT OF THE QIUET NIGHT IN LISTENING TO THE RADIO THEN GOING TO SLEEP" , so dont question stuff like that cus it doesnt matter. just enjoy the movies man.:)

[bassman]

i think you are forgetting his films dont say in em what year it is in any of em right?, not to my knowledge at least, thsi explains away the sets, the mall was there because of the consumerism of the time, the others i cant be arsed to post but george allways put social commentary in his films so wether there was a game gear in the films background or something, who cares?, its a series of films ,i couldnt give two ****s if there was a group of cybermen in the background of fiddlers green its still a movie , and if it followed natural laws zombies woudlnt get smarter in about a few months theyd be multch enough not to walk but would that make a good film?, hell if it followed natural laws it would be "NIGHT OF THE QIUET NIGHT IN LISTENING TO THE RADIO THEN GOING TO SLEEP" , so dont question stuff like that cus it doesnt matter. just enjoy the movies man.:)

I agree, man. They're just films.....what does it f*cking matter how the timeline lays out. There's no timeline anyway. They're all seperate films. None of them are intended to be tied together.....

But Hellsing......if it followed natural laws, wouldn't the dead stay down and dead?:p

[radiokill]

yeah...but people who can't suspend their disbelief must rely on the imaginations of others to enjoy films like George's.:D

[Crow T R0bot]

Apparently, Angry 312 hasn't watched the James Bond movies.

When it comes to timeline, the Dead series go through what I like to call "The James Bond effect"

I recently found that there's actually a name for this type of rare movie phenomenon, it's called "retconning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retconning

[Angry312]

Ah. Therein I see my original error; I had based my own assumption that it was a defended point that the progression was from Night, Dawn, Day to Land. My own mistake, made glaringly obvious.

In which case, they wouldn't sequels; they'd be their own movies. So, why are they referred to as 'sequels'? Why would we expect to see recurring characters, if they're stand-alone movies?

Regarding James Bond: big fan. I just try not to hit their forums terribly often. Got my own limits on my fandom status.

Then again, I did work for an RPG company.

:evil: Angry312; "So, They're Not Sequels." :evil:

[Danny]

In which case, they wouldn't sequels; they'd be their own movies. So, why are they referred to as 'sequels'? Why would we expect to see recurring characters, if they're stand-alone movies?



because when films have the same basic name and witer and director and storyline thats based off the previous work in the series its usually called a sequel, :rolleyes: see romero stuck to this that other bloke whent to return series and changed it ,people prefered this plus it was called a dead film in the title, yknow night...dawn...day, theres a clue in that title somewere...

[Philly_SWAT]

Dont know if this helps you or not Angry312, but you can not use items in the GAR movies such as clothing, arcade games, cell phones, belly button rings, etc. as time markers in the GAR universe. A lot of what you say is true, like a particular gun model that did not exist until so many years after 1968 would make no sense in a movie set to take place three weeks after events that happened in 1968. However, GAR made a purposeful decision to have the entire series be "timeless", and make commentary on the times in which they were made. The only valid area of discussion in the "time arena" is what time frame do the movies take place in relation to each other, not how they relate to "real time". GAR is not using dress habits, music, technology, etc. as timestamps in the movies. He is only using what exists in the real universe at the time he is making the current movie. The movies are meant to be "timeless", re: the events within take place in our timeframe, whenever that happens to be. Fifity years from now, when a young teenager is watching Night for the first time, it would be a falicy for him to think "Hmmm, these events take place in 1968, since the movie was made then and they are wearing clothing styles from 1968". He should think "OK, even though this movie was made in 1968 and now it is 2056, the timeframe of this movie is in my present timeframe, clothing styles aside". Another way to look at it is this... in Star Trek the original series, the deck of the Enterprise looked like a bunch of cheap cardboard boxes with flashing lights on them (because that is what it was). As a viewer of the show, you should disregard this lack of production value, and accept it for what it is suppose to be. Was Gene Rodenberry making a statement that many years into the future, he thought computers would look like that? No.

[Brubaker]

Apparently, Angry 312 hasn't watched the James Bond movies.

When it comes to timeline, the Dead series go through what I like to call "The James Bond effect"

I recently found that there's actually a name for this type of rare movie phenomenon, it's called "retconning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retconning

You also see it in the Ernest P. Worrell movies. Just once, in one of those later day direct-to-video Ernest titles, I would have liked to see Jim Varney make a joke that referenced an earlier movie, like "Didn't I save a summer camp once?" or "Didn't I save Christmas once?" :D

Seriously, though, I don't see where decay would even be an issue. Even in Day and Land, there would have been enough new people being bitten every day and coming back as zombies that decay wouldn't have helped shift the balance in the favor of the survivors. Right now, there is a whole city full of rich folks from the Green who were newly bitten in Land roaming the landscape.

Even if there was noticeable decay, there would have been enough zombies left over where the surviving humans would have never totally eradicated them.

[Danny]

You also see it in the Ernest P. Worrell movies.

damn that takes me back ,isnt that the dude who spent a movie with his ass stuck in a cannon?:lol:

[Brubaker]

damn that takes me back ,isnt that the dude who spent a movie with his ass stuck in a cannon?:lol:

Yeah, Ernest Rides Again, I think. The first few ones did pretty well in the theater but after awhile they started going straight to video.

I commented on them only because someone made the Bond reference. Out of all the Ernest movies, none of them had anything to do with each other. Even though Jim Varney spit out a new movie every year featuring the character, they were not really sequels in any way.

Back On Topic:

Until you see any real reference to a character from a previous (or later) movie, you have to concede that the four movies are totally different entities. A timeline doesn't make the grade.

And I don't count stuff like the last name Cooper coming up in both Night & Day or the fact that Savini's leatherclad zombie shows up in both Dawn and Land. The former was probably to see if any fanboys were paying attention or it might have even happened purely by accident. The latter, from my point of view, was a tribute to a good guy and something to get the older fans talking.

[bassman]

Until you see any real reference to a character from a previous (or later) movie, you have to concede that the four movies are totally different entities. A timeline doesn't make the grade.


My thoughts exactly. They were never meant to be connected except in name only. Even that almost ended had "Land" been called "Dead Reckoning".

Ernest! "Know what I mean, Verne?"
"Camp", "Scared Stupid", "Saves Christmas", and "Goes to Jail" were all the theatricals, I believe. They even had some that were TV movies("Ernest Goes to Splash Mountain":rockbrow: )

You know that character started off as a commercial?

*sigh*....I miss Jim Verney.

[radiokill]

Varney

he was a funny guy. used to watch the ernest tv show every saturday morning. that was a crazy show for kids.:)

[Brubaker]

My thoughts exactly. They were never meant to be connected except in name only. Even that almost ended had "Land" been called "Dead Reckoning".

Ernest! "Know what I mean, Verne?"
"Camp", "Scared Stupid", "Saves Christmas", and "Goes to Jail" were all the theatricals, I believe. They even had some that were TV movies("Ernest Goes to Splash Mountain":rockbrow: )

You know that character started off as a commercial?

*sigh*....I miss Jim Verney.

"Rides Again" hit theaters for about a week or two. Other than that, a few of the direct-to-video ones in later years were "Goes to School", "In the army", "Goes to Africa" and "Slam Dunk Ernest." Slightly lower budget, but overall they were still entertaining assuming you were a fan of his.

I remember some interviewer had the nerve to ask Jim V. once that, with the other work he'd done, if he was embarrassed to be associated with the character. He laughed it off fairly well and said "No." I remember the year he died, I was somewhere watching the Academy Awards and just about every actor, well-known or obscure, who passed away that same year got mentioned during the show but him. That made me a little angry.

[bassman]

"Rides Again" hit theaters for about a week or two. Other than that, a few of the direct-to-video ones in later years were "Goes to School", "In the army", "Goes to Africa" and "Slam Dunk Ernest." Slightly lower budget, but overall they were still entertaining assuming you were a fan of his.

I remember some interviewer had the nerve to ask Jim V. once that, with the other work he'd done, if he was embarrassed to be associated with the character. He laughed it off fairly well and said "No." I remember the year he died, I was somewhere watching the Academy Awards and just about every actor, well-known or obscure, who passed away that same year got mentioned during the show but him. That made me a little angry.

Yeah....I was quite sad when I heard he passed. I guess that's what happens when you're a heavy smoker for your entire life. I believe he passed shortly after or just before "Toy Story 2" was released(he was the Slinky Dog....in case you didn't already know).

[Blackdragon6]

i'm assuming romero retconned the series with land of the dead.as far as the time line goes that is.so instead of being a late 60's pandemic its a 21st century pamdemic.so theoretically the original might be set in the late 90's instead of the late 60's.