Had Rhodes and the boys been inside the mall

[CaldoTheKid]

Could they have successful have defended against the bikers?

[Neil]

If they'd let the bikers run away with their TVs and cream pies, they might then have been able to repeat the access blocking and visitor clear-out...

Having lost some of the doors would obviously have made things more tricky.

[JDP]

It's still just 7 guys against like 50 or 60 (when Stephen says that it's "15 or 20" of them, he is obviously underestimating their numbers so as not to freak out Fran; he knows there's actually more of them.) The odds are strongly against them.

[Neil]

It's still just 7 guys against like 50 or 60 (when Stephen says that it's "15 or 20" of them, he is obviously underestimating their numbers so as not to freak out Fran; he knows there's actually more of them.) The odds are strongly against them.

True, but would they have stayed? ie: It looked like they wanted to hit and run (stupidly). They could have broken a single window and been far more logical about the process :)

[MinionZombie]

I wonder if Rhodes et al, with their military training, would've not only blocked off the doors more successfully (e.g. at the very least rip out the wiring and not leave them "all taped up"), and of course with all that weaponry on-hand, they might've been more capable of taking them on - and also more willing to take them all on, regardless of the odds.

They might have also already thought about the mall as being a desirable target, so could have already had some plans of action in-place.

Mind you, they were a miserable bunch - but then again, being stuck in a rotten hole in the ground will do that to you. At least the mall had shops and games and food and ice skating and open air, so they might have also been a little less stressed out by comparison.

[shootemindehead]

Could they have successful have defended against the bikers?

No.

"Rhodes and the boys" wear the patch of the 99th Inf. Readiness Div. on their shoulders. They're reservists and clearly out of their depth in the dilemma that is Romero's zombie apocalypse. None of them have probably seen any combat prior and were more than likely assigned to security detail before the outbreak. Into the bargain, they're few in number and would certainly be no match for the numbers of bikers that trash the mall.

As an aside, the patch that the soldiers wear represents Pittsburgh and the design was inspired by William Pitt's coat of arms.

[JDP]

True, but would they have stayed? ie: It looked like they wanted to hit and run (stupidly). They could have broken a single window and been far more logical about the process :)

The bikers don't seem to have wanted to take over the mall, otherwise they would have gone about it more carefully, as you say. And they certainly could have, the 3 people at the mall would not have been able to prevent them from doing so. They would eventually have taken off with the chopper before the biker gang had had a chance of searching the mall thoroughly in order to locate the entrance to their hideout.

[CaldoTheKid]

No.

"Rhodes and the boys" wear the patch of the 99th Inf. Readiness Div. on their shoulders. They're reservists and clearly out of their depth in the dilemma that is Romero's zombie apocalypse.



I've heard the argument before that Rhodes etc were reservists but has Romero or anyone else involved in the production actually confirmed that?

- - - Updated - - -


I wonder if Rhodes et al, with their military training, would've not only blocked off the doors more successfully (e.g. at the very least rip out the wiring and not leave them "all taped up"), and of course with all that weaponry on-hand, they might've been more capable of taking them on - and also more willing to take them all on, regardless of the odds.

They might have also already thought about the mall as being a desirable target, so could have already had some plans of action in-place.

Mind you, they were a miserable bunch - but then again, being stuck in a rotten hole in the ground will do that to you. At least the mall had shops and games and food and ice skating and open air, so they might have also been a little less stressed out by comparison.

Another thing to consider is Dawn is in the earlier stages of the apocalypse, and there is a debate over which happens first Land or Day. So given what you say about the things you say about games, food and being in the earlier stages yes they probably would be less stressed out and also more able to mount a defence against the bikers.

[MinionZombie]

Another thing to consider is Dawn is in the earlier stages of the apocalypse, and there is a debate over which happens first Land or Day. So given what you say about the things you say about games, food and being in the earlier stages yes they probably would be less stressed out and also more able to mount a defence against the bikers.

I was just thinking this earlier today - earlier in the apocalypse, so Rhodes et al wouldn't be so messed up in the head. There's still plenty of opportunity for mankind to turn things around, things are still up in the air, there's still lots to be getting on with ... ... by the time we get to Day, though (several months up to a year into the ZA), and with them stuck down in that dark hole, they've had an awful lot of time to stew over their dire situation.

I mean, though, look at John and McDermott sitting in their little island-themed getaway enjoying booze and weed. They're making the best of a dreadful situation and are much more comfortable ... it also helps that they're indispensible members of the team, of course.

And there is no reasonable debate RE: Day/Land timeline. Day first, then Land - which is stated to be three years deep into the ZA. And I'm not going down that damned road again because we've tread on that rotten path many a time here at HPOTD with wearying effect. :lol:

[JDP]

And there is no reasonable debate RE: Day/Land timeline. Day first, then Land - which is stated to be three years deep into the ZA. And I'm not going down that damned road again because we've tread on that rotten path many a time here at HPOTD with wearying effect. :lol:

There is actually plenty of "reasonable debate", and you know very well the reasons, the ones that you try to avoid since there really is no good counterarguments against them. Like I said many times before: if Romero's intention was to make Land happen after the events of Day, he did a fantastically ineffective job at conveying that idea. The world of Land is still a hopeful one, a lingering remain of the pre-zombie one (they even use the same currency as a base for their still ongoing economy), the one of Day is one of impending doom and despair (where that very same money has become just more garbage on the streets and the butt of jokes from past times.)

Even the very arguments that you yourself just brought up in this thread contradict your position, BTW. As you yourself recognize, the people from Day are in a desperate situation, their outlook on the zombie situation is very different than the ones from Dawn, for which events we really have good and clear evidence that are taking place only a few weeks to a few months after the events of Night, unlike the events of Day, which are never clearly addressed when exactly are they happening after the events of Night, but it is very easy to deduce that they are definitely taking place quite after the events of Dawn. Well, unfortunately for the deniers, the people from Land actually resemble the still hopeful people from Dawn way more than they resemble the somber and pessimistic people of Day. They definitely seem closer to each other in time than to the totally desperate ones of Day, who see no other choice for a chance at surviving than to try to isolate themselves from the massive disaster that the mainland has become. The still hopeful people from Land, therefore, would feel more at home in that shopping mall from Dawn than the somber people from Day would.

[beat_truck]

.... and there is a debate over which happens first Land or Day.

There is?:rockbrow: Despite the convoluted analyzing, "logic", and constant arguing of one or two members, this is the only true answer:



And there is no reasonable debate RE: Day/Land timeline. Day first, then Land - which is stated to be three years deep into the ZA. And I'm not going down that damned road again because we've tread on that rotten path many a time here at HPOTD with wearying effect. :lol:

[JDP]

There is?:rockbrow: Despite the convoluted analyzing, "logic", and constant arguing of one or two members, this is the only true answer:

The truly ineffective "answer", that is, as it doesn't clarify anything of what keeps being pointed out that conflicts with the idea that Land comes after Day. Still waiting to see any reasonable counterarguments to the following observations:

1- The world of Day looks overall more decayed than the one of Land, including the zombies themselves

2- The world of Land still functions on an economy based on the US dollar; being paid is still extremely important, and people desire and will do all kinds of things to get their hands on money; the one of Day has no such thing, money is a thing of the past, including the very government that backed it up; "being paid" for something has in fact become a joke, as there is no use for money anymore, which now lies on the streets like other garbage

3- The survivors of Day have no notion whatsoever that such things as the "Outposts" of Land exist, even despite the fact their existence was actually advertised by the media while it was still around, and the only viable option for possible survival they consider is to look for some place isolated from the mainland, like an island

4- The survivors of Land can still be so unacquainted with the zombies that they don't even know how long it takes for a bitten person to die and come back as a zombie (notice that this ignorance also still happens in Dawn), while the survivors of Day are all very well acquainted with this fact and quickly try to dispatch anyone who gets bitten

5- Travelling by land in the world of Day is not considered as viable (and it cannot be argued that it is because of a lack of vehicles... they have TONS of them at their disposal!), so naturally everyone wants to have control over the chopper, the only safe way of travelling long distances; the world of Land is still relatively safe enough for most transportation (even for very long distances) to actually be by ground vehicles, even uncovered ones!

6- The survivors from Land are still looting towns that are very near their VERY POPULOUS AND THUS SUPPLY-DEMANDING city, and still finding loads of supplies... Really? After "3" supposed years??? This "it's been 3 years since the zombie outbreak of Night" bit is an assumption, based on what a couple of characters say about OTHER EVENTS that are never explicitly connected to the zombies themselves: a wino claiming that he hasn't driven a car in three years in order to clear himself from suspicion of car theft, and a hired goon stating that he has worked for his boss for three years

7- There is no clear statement in Day either regarding how long has it been since the events of Night. One character refers to theories about the zombies that "were advanced months ago", but that does not mean that there weren't other previous theories before that, which were also advanced other months before, only to be proven wrong and replaced by newer ones, and so on. The same character also refers to their current operation as having been "put together in a matter of days", but that only refers to how long the thing was planned, definitely not how long they have actually been there in that bunker. We can also get a good idea of how long they have actually been in that place by the fact that they have built a "corral" for the zombies in a section of the caves, and have captured and transported a SHITLOAD of them down there. That alone by itself tells us that these guys have been around this place for quite a while. Just look at how much trouble capturing and handling a couple of zombies give them, now imagine having to repeat this until they have gathered the large number of zombies they brought down to those caves!

[beat_truck]

At this point, does anyone even bother reading JDP's posts on this subject? I don't, because I know it's the same old crackpot theories that I've read before, ad nauseam. Christ, you'd think he'd get tired of typing it over and over.:duh:

[JDP]

At this point, does anyone even bother reading JDP's posts on this subject? I don't, because I know it's the same old crackpot theories that I've read before, ad nauseam. Christ, you'd think he'd get tired of typing it over and over.:duh:

You should, because then you would realize that there is nothing "crackpot" about it, and the only ones being (purposefully?) obtuse are in fact the deniers that you strangely keep on siding with. Much like you, they can never provide any satisfactory answer for all the above observations that keep on contradicting their assurances that Land can only supposedly happen after Day. What is actually shown, explicitly and implicitly, in these movies suggests a very different thing than they claim, though.

[MinionZombie]

There is actually plenty of "reasonable debate", and you know very well the reasons, the ones that you try to avoid since there really is no good counterarguments against them.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/bzbbBzmcaOF7q/200w.gif?cid=6c09b9526kce0vqebbkqs1qy4ux3jkb85wxrg 7a5kr5qnrxp&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/206d836a00812d2dec86fe3a97e9e19bba8a16aa5a904d9b0e d7600a74d018e7.gif?w=600&h

Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

[JDP]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/bzbbBzmcaOF7q/200w.gif?cid=6c09b9526kce0vqebbkqs1qy4ux3jkb85wxrg 7a5kr5qnrxp&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/206d836a00812d2dec86fe3a97e9e19bba8a16aa5a904d9b0e d7600a74d018e7.gif?w=600&h

Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

But unlike you, I did address all your arguments, and very satisfactorily and thoroughly. The ones listed above are still waiting for any reasonable counterarguments, though. Go ahead and try to "explain" such bizarre and flagrant contradictions as someone not knowing how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie supposedly THREE FRIGGIN' YEARS into said zombie apocalypse, LOL! We both know there aren't any valid "answers". Land is widely disliked by fans of the original trilogy largely in fact due to such contradictions with the previous movies.

[MinionZombie]

No matter what argument, regardless of how logical and clearly laid out, you JDP always refuse to accept them.

It's a tale as old as time at this point and quite predictable, and this is why it's not fun to discuss these things with you. :(

You are incapable of accepting someone else's argument - so what on earth is the point? It's not a fun conversation to have and we've all been down this same old tatty road several times before - it is pointless.

[JDP]

No matter what argument, regardless of how logical and clearly laid out, you JDP always refuse to accept them.

It's a tale as old as time at this point and quite predictable, and this is why it's not fun to discuss these things with you. :(

You are incapable of accepting someone else's argument - so what on earth is the point? It's not a fun conversation to have and we've all been down this same old tatty road several times before - it is pointless.

Not true, I accept reasonable arguments, but the ones that defy logic & common sense and obviously conflict with other observations, I don't see any reason to have to accept. Now, go ahead and "explain" to us such conundrums as how exactly someone like Slack, who has lived her whole life in that city, cannot possibly know how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, if, as you claim, this entire zombie affair has supposedly been ongoing FOR THREE FRIGGIN' YEARS??? Or how can it be possible that the SHITLOAD of looters employed by Kaufman to keep necessary supplies coming into the POPULOUS city are still sacking nearby towns and still finding loads of supplies AFTER THREE FRIGGIN' YEARS??? LOL! The position of the deniers is hopeless. Fact: Romero did not put much thought into Land when it comes to its relationship and continuity with the three previous movies. That's why there's more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese when one tries to claim that this movie has to happen after the events of Day. Too many conflicts. But if you see this movie as happening BEFORE Day, most of these difficulties VANISH. Sticking to the two examples above: the zombie apocalypse has obviously not been going on for several years, that's why a city dweller like Slack can still ignore such an important bit of information about the zombies, and why Kaufman's huge gang of marauding goons can still be looting nearby towns and finding plenty of supplies left around. See how easy it is when you adopt the proper logic and common sense? Try it yourself, you will see that you yourself can more easily explain all the above listed observations when you adopt the Land happens before Day view than the other way around. The other way only keeps presenting problems and conflicts.

[shootemindehead]

I've heard the argument before that Rhodes etc were reservists but has Romero or anyone else involved in the production actually confirmed that?

Well, the shoulder patch is there for a reason. And just look at the state of these men. They're, sloppy, ill-disciplined morons, two of which are overweight and the rest are doped up to their eyeballs. They certainly don't look like regulars to me. Into the bargain, I can hardly imagine the US Army appointing first class soldiers to guard a facility that was primarily a civilian operation. Perhaps Captain Rhodes and Major Cooper were regular army, but the rest are just a rabble. And, frankly, Rhodes' leadership qualities are miniscule, so that debatable as well.

I may be wrong, but I think George mentions something on the commentary track on the Blu Ray that Rhodes and his men are National Guard, probably to tie into the line about the National Guard being mobilised in 'Dawn of the Dead'.


Another thing to consider is Dawn is in the earlier stages of the apocalypse, and there is a debate over which happens first Land or Day. So given what you say about the things you say about games, food and being in the earlier stages yes they probably would be less stressed out and also more able to mount a defence against the bikers.

There's no debate whether Land takes place before Day. IIRC Romero even stated that the events in Land take place after Day. 'Land of the Dead' had long gestated in George's mind as a situation where humanity had "come back" to a certain degree. The whole point of 'Land of the Dead' is that even many years into the zombie apocalypse mankind can't get over the petty trappings of a society that existed pre-apocalypse and are again divided into the haves and have nots. The film is called "LAND of the Dead' because the dead have won. The human enclave we see in Fiddlers Green are in a slight resurgence.

https://youtu.be/mjOjY6zRliI?t=240

[MinionZombie]

There's no debate whether Land takes place before Day. IIRC Romero even stated that the events in Land take place after Day. 'Land of the Dead' had long gestated in George's mind as a situation where humanity had "come back" to a certain degree. The whole point of 'Land of the Dead' is that even many years into the zombie apocalypse mankind can't get over the petty trappings of a society that existed pre-apocalypse and are again divided into the haves and have nots. The film is called "LAND of the Dead' because the dead have won. The human enclave we see in Fiddlers Green are in a slight resurgence.

Indeed, look at the thematics of the end of the film - man and zombie are going to have to go their separate ways and live apart in order to both survive. Big Daddy and his contingent of zombies are going one way, while Riley and his group are going another way - they even share a look before both heading off in search of what they want. Riley wants peace and quiet in a far away, isolated land. Big Daddy wants away from the slaughter of his compatriots.

The other humans stay to rebuild their enclave in a better vision.

If we look to TWD for a moment, with the likes of the Commonwealth in particular, it's very much of that same idea - the old world being rebuilt (at any cost) by the very people who were in power before the ZA, dragging the same problems with them. Much like Fiddler's Green, the Commonwealth were set up very early on in the ZA and survived, but in-so-doing they bred greater internal divisions between the haves and have-nots and allowed an increasingly corrupt rot to seize hold of the enclave, emboldened to do anything in the name of security, safety, and the pre-approved image of order and control.

[sandrock74]

Day comes before Land. Anyone who says otherwise can take solace in the thought of somewhere in the multiverse it is true. Just not in our reality. ;)

Anyway, Rhodes and crew (I assume their full number, at the outset of things) would definitely do better against the biker gang at the mall, if only because of their increased numbers over Peter and Flyboy. They may not have been able to prevent the bikers from breaking in, which is debatable, but they definitely could have forced the bikers to quickly rethink their game plan. It would be fun to see this situation play out.

[JDP]

Another thing to consider is Dawn is in the earlier stages of the apocalypse, and there is a debate over which happens first Land or Day.

Yes, and it has in fact been going on since very early after the movie's release, but just don't expect the deniers that such a debate is very much valid to be able to "explain" the flagrant contradictions to their point of view, even in Land itself. In their minds, such obvious contradictions as someone living THREE YEARS (yes, you read that correctly!) into a zombie apocalypse and yet paradoxically not knowing such an important piece of information as how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, or a LARGE gang of looters still ransacking nearby towns for necessary supplies for a city with a HUGE POPULATION, and still finding plenty of them left around, apparently are "fine" and "make sense". Go figure! Even if someone one day manages to locate a quote from the filmmaker himself clearly saying that yes, it is supposed to take place after Day, and three years after the events of Night, that still does NOT get rid of the problems. It is truly unfortunate that old "Nitpickers" site is no longer around (it was ruined by the inept company that bought it from its original creator & owner, who, unlike them, actually knew what he was doing), as such deniers could have brushed up a bit on how to properly "nitpick" movie mistakes. The filmmaker himself/herself can say one thing off-movie, but if the movie itself does not properly convey such a claim... BANG! You've been "nitpicked" nonetheless! And Land is certainly an easy target for "nitpicking", as it not only has its own plot problems, but being part of a "series", it also has problems with respect to the earlier installments.

[EvilNed]

Land of the Dead is set after the events of Day of the Dead.

[JDP]

Land of the Dead is set after the events of Day of the Dead.

https://chefsmandala.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/FR-v-SW-Emmental-FF-shutterstock_184750109-1-600x338.jpg

[shootemindehead]

Indeed, look at the thematics of the end of the film - man and zombie are going to have to go their separate ways and live apart in order to both survive. Big Daddy and his contingent of zombies are going one way, while Riley and his group are going another way - they even share a look before both heading off in search of what they want. Riley wants peace and quiet in a far away, isolated land. Big Daddy wants away from the slaughter of his compatriots.

Mmmm...at the end of the film Riley says "They're just looking for a place to go" as Big Daddy and his group wander off, which mirrors what Riley and his band want to do.

On the commentary track, it's mentioned that Big Daddy's "tribe" have evolved to a certain state over the years. Romero mentions that there are also other zombies that would be still in their previous state, as it were, and would be happy "just to sit and have lunch", and that some of them would be still wandering around the city.

I've always been in two minds about how I feel with Big Daddy and his lot. I think in many ways they're too advanced. To the point where they lose their creepiness. The make up is fine and all that, but they just act far too "human", for want of a better word.

[MinionZombie]

I've always been in two minds about how I feel with Big Daddy and his lot. I think in many ways they're too advanced. To the point where they lose their creepiness. The make up is fine and all that, but they just act far too "human", for want of a better word.

An evolution that could've maybe used a little finessing, perhaps. What Bub began in Day, Big Daddy continued and expanded in Land. I'm a big fan of Land, always have been, although it is fair to say BD's yowling mostly hasn't aged particularly well.

I did like all the stuff with BD seeking vengeance on Kauffman's tower, and it somewhat mirrors the rich/poor divide of those within the confines of Fiddler's Green and its slum surroundings. BD and Riley are two sides of the same coin in a lot of ways.

[JDP]

This idea that "Big Daddy" supposedly "continued and expanded" on "Bub" is not very convincing. Land really doesn't show any such "improvement" over "Bub". The only thing that "Big Daddy" does that we did not get to see "Bub" do (and because Day ends soon after he gets free and hasn't had a chance of coming in contact with other zombies, so we have no idea what he might have done afterwards) is "lead" the zombies, but then again so did even zombified Stephen in Dawn. Plus "Bub" did something truly unique and unheard of that no other zombie ever did: he actually was able to utter a few words! I know what the counterargument would be here: "Big Daddy" did not get a chance of interacting with a human, like "Bub" did, so maybe he could also have managed to utter some words. True, but unfortunately we will never know. But we do know that the capability of "leading" other zombies is not really "unique" or "new", as we saw zombified Stephen already do it in Dawn.

[MinionZombie]

I'd say Stephen 'leading them up' was as much, if not more so, accidental than deliberate. He, as in Stephen, was deliberately heading that way because of the residual memories the zombies have, the others just followed him.

He may 'point', and deliberately turn down the hallway (the other zombies just follow dumbly behind), but it's fairly rudimentary.

Bub had lenghty tutelage to achieve what he did, with Bub's character building upon the memories contained in the zombies' festering minds as seen in Dawn.

Big Daddy, on the other hand, comes to leadership realisation purely on his own with no guidance. He also instructs other zombies to carry out rudimentary actions - like use the meat cleaver zombie to hack away at the wood blocking their path. He also puts weapons into the hands of other zombies, such as #9.

Big Daddy is an evolution of the ideas put forth in Day with Bub.

[JDP]

Zombified Stephen does signal the other zombies who are just aimlessly wandering around the mall, and not only to follow him down the hall, but also to tear down the section with the fake wall covering the entrance, and then takes them all the way back through the machine room to the stairs that go up to the roof area. This is way more than just simple random "coincidence". The other zombies are plainly following the "lead" of this one particular zombie. "Big Daddy" leading other zombies is therefore not really anything truly "new". He is doing it in a more organized way than zombified Stephen, but still not really something "unheard of" before. But a zombie being able to utter words is truly something "new" and "unheard of", both figuratively and literally!

[shootemindehead]

I'd say Stephen 'leading them up' was as much, if not more so, accidental than deliberate. He, as in Stephen, was deliberately heading that way because of the residual memories the zombies have, the others just followed him.

He may 'point', and deliberately turn down the hallway (the other zombies just follow dumbly behind), but it's fairly rudimentary.

It's interesting to note that Stephen tries to close the door behind him when he reaches his destination. So, perhaps, it's not so much that he's trying to lead the other zombies anywhere, more that he's died with the desire to get back to the safety of the refuge he's been in when he was alive and that memory is still front and centre in his reanimated mind.


Bub had lenghty tutelage to achieve what he did, with Bub's character building upon the memories contained in the zombies' festering minds as seen in Dawn.

Big Daddy, on the other hand, comes to leadership realisation purely on his own with no guidance. He also instructs other zombies to carry out rudimentary actions - like use the meat cleaver zombie to hack away at the wood blocking their path. He also puts weapons into the hands of other zombies, such as #9.

Big Daddy is an evolution of the ideas put forth in Day with Bub.

...and Romero says as much in his commentary track for the movie.

[MinionZombie]

What I mean is, Big Daddy is very much deliberately leading a group of zombies - he chooses to do so from an emotional response and thirst for revenge, too, picking up where Bub left off (his emotional reaction to Logan's body and exacting revenge against Rhodes) ... ... but Stephen doesn't deliberately guide the zombies up.

Had there been no zombies outside the lift, he may well have wound up heading upstairs on his own.

Indeed, being that there's residual memories, would Stephen even want to lead the zombies up? Then again, that could also be used to argue that in Dawn there is limited/no 'emotional' reasoning for any zombie's actions. This is evolved over the course of Day and then Land.

Once Stephen is 'put down' there's no 'guidance' of any kind. The zombies just do what they do. They can be 'led' anywhere by anyone. They follow after Peter and Fran.

Come to Land, however, and there is very much a deliberate and concerted effort by Big Daddy to lead the other zombies - who in-turn understand not only where they're being marched to, but also why.

Where did I suggest the evolution of the zombies in Land was some giant leap forward of new and unheard magnitudes? Quite aptly, for evolution, the growing intelligence and capabilities of the zombies in Romero's zombie films is based on gradual steps.

Bub could have done what Big Daddy did, but not yet at the point we last see him in Day, not without the evolution of consciousness that is shown in Big Daddy.

Then the question arises of how much of this is a rehabilitation from specifically taught behaviours (Day) and how much is brought about through a sort of osmosis when within an uncontrolled environment (Land). Day is nurture, versus the nature of Land.

Perhaps focused nurturing would potentially speed up the natural process, depending on the individual specimen, of course.

- - - Updated - - -


It's interesting to note that Stephen tries to close the door behind him when he reaches his destination. So, perhaps, it's not so much that he's trying to lead the other zombies anywhere, more that he's died with the desire to get back to the safety of the refuge he's been in when he was alive and that memory is still front and centre in his reanimated mind.

The 'finger point' could as likely be for his own benefit as anyone else's.

[CaldoTheKid]

Indeed, being that there's residual memories, would Stephen even want to lead the zombies up? Then again, that could also be used to argue that in Dawn there is limited/no 'emotional' reasoning for any zombie's actions. This is evolved over the course of Day and then Land.














Maybe it's like deep down inside a junkie doesn't want to hurt their friends & family, but their addiction wins and so they rob them. But the zombie in Stephen wanted that human flesh at all costs.

[MinionZombie]

Maybe it's like deep down inside a junkie doesn't want to hurt their friends & family, but their addiction wins and so they rob them. But the zombie in Stephen wanted that human flesh at all costs.

And then we return to the "pure, motorised instinct" as previously stated in the film when the television was still broadcasting, instead of more evolved thinking.

[JDP]

The zombies that zombified Stephen leads are not the ones that are outside the elevator, but some random zombies that are just wandering around the mall near the hall where the hidden entrance to the hideout is. So, the mall is crawling with zombies again, zombified Stephen goes all the way from Penneys to that hall, and no zombies are following him at this point, he's walking alone, UNTIL he turns around in the direction of the hall, emits some weird growling sounds and points in the direction of the hall. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, zombies start following his lead. We see zombies throughout the whole movie, and none of them display any such follow-the-leader behavior before this sequence, they all act independently of each other. When they "follow" something, it's always either fleeing humans or noises (like gunshots), never just another casual wandering zombie.

[sandrock74]

I was always perturbed by the zombies waiting in single file line and climbing up the ladder to the roof. Talk about zombie behavior that came out of nowhere!

[MagicMoonMonkey]

I have never associated Land with the original trilogy. It is a happy accident that birthed the second trilogy. Diary, Survival and Land. Brubaker being the constant.
Just watching land and it's tech, clothing weapons and vehicles tells you its in a parallel Romero-verse. They had Pringles in the looted supplies!!!
There is simply no argument as to where Land features in the original trilogy. Blades was just a nice little cameo to tickle us.

[MinionZombie]

Just watching land and it's tech, clothing weapons and vehicles tells you its in a parallel Romero-verse.

In that case Night / Dawn / Day are all in their own universes as they all look so different from each other.

But Romero intended his films to be a 'state of the decade' in which they were made. He missed the 90s, but Land is very much in that same notion that fed through Night/Dawn/Day.

Diary and Survival are their own thing (a reboot, if you will), much more specifically connected to one another (characters, style, references in Survival to events in Diary), with the clear intention of going right back to the beginning with Diary (having gone as far into the ZA as Romero wanted to with Land).

[MagicMoonMonkey]

yeah I get what you're saying but the leap from tech from Night to Dawn to Day isn't that obvious. The soldiers uniforms and weapons in Day are similar to the soldiers in Dawn. Its just sits better with me that the Original Trilogy are the same era.

[JDP]

In that case Night / Dawn / Day are all in their own universes as they all look so different from each other.

The difference between Night and Dawn is pretty clear, organized society is still functioning in those two movies, and the world of the later movie is certainly more "advanced". On the other hand, what we see in Day doesn't look very different from the world of Dawn, except for the obvious decay and abandonment in Day, since we are now far away from the beginning of the zombie catastrophe. We should expect no "progress" in the world of Day, since mankind has been basically reduced to isolated underground groups of survivors. It's a "stagnant" world, organized society no longer exists. Dawn flows into Day very nicely. The world of the two movies doesn't look too different from each other.

[MinionZombie]

The difference between Night and Dawn is pretty clear, organized society is still functioning in those two movies, and the world of the later movie is certainly more "advanced". On the other hand, what we see in Day doesn't look very different from the world of Dawn, except for the obvious decay and abandonment in Day, since we are now far away from the beginning of the zombie catastrophe. We should expect no "progress" in the world of Day, since mankind has been basically reduced to isolated underground groups of survivors. It's a "stagnant" world, organized society no longer exists. Dawn flows into Day very nicely. The world of the two movies doesn't look too different from each other.

I was actually talking about cars, clothes, fashion, hair styles, filming techniques, music, buildings, etc etc etc - even black and white vs colour. Night/Dawn/Day are thoroughly rooted in the decades in which they were made and speak of those decades, it was a running theme for Romero. It continued with Land in the same vein.

The difference is merely the length of time between Day and Land being made (twenty years), as opposed to the original three films (10 years and then 7 years).

[JDP]

I was actually talking about cars, clothes, fashion, hair styles, filming techniques, music, buildings, etc etc etc - even black and white vs colour. Night/Dawn/Day are thoroughly rooted in the decades in which they were made and speak of those decades, it was a running theme for Romero. It continued with Land in the same vein.

The difference is merely the length of time between Day and Land being made (twenty years), as opposed to the original three films (10 years and then 7 years).

Yes, and that's also what I am talking about. You can easily tell the difference between Night and Dawn, but not so much between Dawn and Day. What we get to see in Day could easily be the "left-overs" from the world of Dawn. The cars, the choppers, the clothes, the weapons, etc., are not that different from one movie to the next. There was way more change in this respect from 1968 to 1978 than from 1978 to 1984. Even the shopping mall itself is a sign of that noticeable change between the world of the first movie and that of the second one (Stephen: "What the hell is it?" Roger: "It looks like a shopping center, one of those big indoor malls") Such an obvious change, I repeat, cannot happen between Dawn and Day, not only because there wasn't as much change in the "real world" between the time both movies were made, but also because the plot of Day itself requires a "stagnant" world, there is no more development or progress, organized society has come to a screeching halt. For example, it would have been a very noticeable change if we got to see people using home computers in Day, something which in the 1970s was still not very common, but by the 1980s it was already a huge industry with millions of users. But there is no such opportunity for such a thing to happen, since Day takes place in a world where organized society has died out. There are no survivors playing video games or balancing their checkbooks at home with their Spectrum 48ks or Commodore 64s! Most people are either dead or zombified. The ones still left alive are hiding from the hordes of the living dead. What we see in Day, therefore, can very easily be the decayed remains of the same world of Dawn. There is not as much contrast as between what we see in Night and Dawn, either from the point of view of the "real world" or that of the movies themselves.

[shootemindehead]

I have never associated Land with the original trilogy. It is a happy accident that birthed the second trilogy. Diary, Survival and Land. Brubaker being the constant.
Just watching land and it's tech, clothing weapons and vehicles tells you its in a parallel Romero-verse. They had Pringles in the looted supplies!!!
There is simply no argument as to where Land features in the original trilogy. Blades was just a nice little cameo to tickle us.

The tech and weaponry are one of the things that bug me in 'Land of the Dead'. They're too modern and it's a pity that George didn't catch that. If everyone was armed with M-16's or Uzi's etc and didn't carry more modern guns and not use laptops, it would fit in with the original trilogy with greater ease.

But I'm happy enough to forgive those mild irritations and accept it as part of a quad.

Diary and Survival can feck off though. Really, really, bad ideas.

[MinionZombie]

But I'm happy enough to forgive those mild irritations and accept it as part of a quad.

Diary and Survival can feck off though. Really, really, bad ideas.

1) Agreed. And besides, it's not as egregious as say, Prometheus' pre-Alien tech being vastly more advanced. Sure, it'd maybe look a bit weird having 1970s future tech in a 2010s film, but still ... gimme something mid-way. :D

2) Diary was much too soon for its target topic, and is messy as a result. If he'd done it even in the mid-2010s then I think it might've been a better movie (the concept would've had more time to evolve in the real world before being commented on). I mean, YouTube was so new back then.

I disagree on Survival, though. Aside from a handful of sore thumb cartoony kills, the movie's actually pretty damn good and strips things back to a nice clear Romero style theme of two extreme views and opposed sides locking heads, failing to solve a common problem, and both losing as a result. It was relevant then and it's so much more relevant now (sadly). I wrote a piece defending the film for issue #8 of Exploitation Nation. :)

[shootemindehead]

1) Agreed. And besides, it's not as egregious as say, Prometheus' pre-Alien tech being vastly more advanced. Sure, it'd maybe look a bit weird having 1970s future tech in a 2010s film, but still ... gimme something mid-way. :D

2) Diary was much too soon for its target topic, and is messy as a result. If he'd done it even in the mid-2010s then I think it might've been a better movie (the concept would've had more time to evolve in the real world before being commented on). I mean, YouTube was so new back then.

I disagree on Survival, though. Aside from a handful of sore thumb cartoony kills, the movie's actually pretty damn good and strips things back to a nice clear Romero style theme of two extreme views and opposed sides locking heads, failing to solve a common problem, and both losing as a result. It was relevant then and it's so much more relevant now (sadly). I wrote a piece defending the film for issue #8 of Exploitation Nation. :)

'Prometheus' was stupid. One of the dumbest tentpole movies I've ever seen. I wish Scott never made it as it's effectively wrecked the Alien franchise. But, yes, as far as the the tech is concerned, it looks really silly compared to the originals. And I've heard all the excuses and none of them hold water. It comes down to simple bad set design. I think I'd genuinely rather watch 'Alien vs Predator' on a loop than bother with 'Prometheus' again. But yeah, a little more care on 'Land of the Dead' with regards to uniforms, video screens and weaponry and the picture would be a little more agreeable to me. I like the film, but it's easily the worst of the quad.

As for 'Diary of the Dead', I don't know about it being "too soon". Found footage stuff had been around for a long while before it, even if uploading it to the web was relatively novel. However, the main problem with Diary is the whole reboot thing. Why? That's all that kept going through my head when watching that. I was literally that Jackie Chan gif. Such a bad idea. Plus, in order for the horrific stuff to unfold, the camera person has to not give a shit about their mates getting torn apart. The whole concept of that type of film is just kinda stupid to me. It doesn't really work and it never has. In fact, out of all of them that I've seen, only 'Cannibal Holocaust' does it relatively successfully...and even then. I'd much rather that Romero had made another chapter following Land, remaining within the apocalypse, even if it was on a smaller budget. Essentially scrapping it all and going back to the beginning just makes a mess of everything.

We can disagree on 'Survival of the Dead', but that movie sucks. It's a pity George couldn't get one more film out of him before he died and we're left with that farce being his parting shot. It's just dull and there's little of Romero's usual creativity in it. Plus, there's just so many bad ideas going on within it. Zombies riding horses, those weird Oirish accented families, etc. There's bits and pieces in there, like there is in every Romero movie, but it's just not enough.