From the Horse's Mouth....Land IS after Day!

[Svengoolie]

I don't know if anyone came across this yet, but here goes nuttin'....

From GAR himself:


"It's about ignoring the problem. After the events in Day of the Dead, the remaining survivors are living in exclusive gated communities that protect them from the dead outside. They attempt to live normally while ignoring the problem in the world outside their walls...."

http://www.wandwvideo.com/news/georgeromero.htm

[AssassinFromHell]

Thank you!

Now everybody. Shut up. The man has spoken. We can move on with our lives now...

[Giger]

I will be able to sleep tonight. Thanks Sven

[radiokill]

I don't know if anyone came across this yet, but here goes nuttin'....

From GAR himself:



http://www.wandwvideo.com/news/georgeromero.htm

thank you! :)

[darth los]

I don't know if anyone came across this yet, but here goes nuttin'....

From GAR himself:



http://www.wandwvideo.com/news/georgeromero.htm

Well buddy i've been waiting to hear something like this from GAR'S mouth and now i have it. However you know that some people don't want to hear the truth. You ever try and hit a really religious bible reading person with a slew of facts and inconsistancies that basicaly prove that what's in the bible can't be true? I'll save you the time , they don't want to hear any of it. Just like with the Land after Day debate, among others, people are gonna believe what they want. So if this debate rages on after this, what can you do?

But what i find more interesting is an excerpt from the same article you linked to. We actually discussed this during a chat session in the not to distant past:


With the subject of Dawn of the Dead breeched, it seemed like a good idea to ask about the currently filming remake with Ving Rhames cast in the Ken Foree role. Romero has noting to do with the project and wasn't asked to be involved, even in an advisory role. Back in June, Ken Foree told me he had auditioned for the remake but wasn't cast in the project either. I hate to editorialize the issue, but it saddens me that Hollywood continues to mine the ideas and loyal following of the zombie genre directly born out of Romero's films, but consistently refuses to let the original mastermind be involved in the current horror frenzy. Instead, younger and less experienced film makers that Hollywood hopes will attract the younger, hipper audience that flock to horror films are allowed to take stabs in the dark at reinventing the genre for the MTV-raised generation.


Bassman311 and i had a discussion on the quality of movies and just who it is that hollywood is trying to attract with the slew of recent remakes and subpar films. He was dead on when he said that teenagers looking for popcorn flicks make up the bulk of today's moviegoing public.


The next issue is the fact that here we have yet another source claiming that people have somehow disrespected Gar by " mining the ideas ...Born directly out of Gar's films" when again it's something we've all heard straight from the horses mouth. That he got the idea for NOTLD from the Novel "I am Legend" and the subsequent movie based on it "Last Man on Earth". Now i know that GAR added alot of his own ideas to the mix just as, GASP!!! Many of todays newbs are doing to his work. It's undeniable that these newbs use GAR's classics as the source material. It's just as undeniable that GAR used I am legend as his. So what's the problem? Sure Gar is the best to ever do it, but does that mean that no one else tried this before him and because of his greatness that no one else should ever try to? Michael Jordan is the best to ever play pro basketball but does that mean that no one came before him and that no one else should ever be allowed to play thier own style? Should everyone have to pattern their game after MJ's to be considered legitimate? Michael himself admits that he patterned his game ( source material ) from the great doctor J. So as every generation for thousands of years has found out , nothing is really new it's just new to them. The following was also posted in another discussion.

Originally Posted by AssassinFromHell
Matheson must feel special. Some rookie nobody rips off his novel and becomes one of the most monumental directors/writers in the modern zombie film genre. lol. Poor guy.

Let me know what you think. Hit me with some feedback son:D

[radiokill]

geez! sorry...but you didn't have to imply that I have want of balls. :)

[darth los]

:( :( :(

could you choose a less offensive analogy next time?

I'm sorry if anyone was offended by that comment. I could edit it and take it out but that would be hypocritical. I could make an argument that I'm just as offended when someone interjects religion into a conversation.( I.E. -Thank God or God willing) But i never said anything that wasn't true. I just meant it as an analogy on how some people have no basis on which to believe certain things other than they just do. For, example I had a conversation with a classmate on how he felt gay marriage was wrong, an abomination...etc. So i proceeded to ask him what was the basis for his feelings on that issue. He suprisingly couldn't give me an answer other than just because it is. He sounded like an 8 year old who's in trouble and you ask them why they did what they did and they look at you with this blank stare and tell you "because" or "i don't know". It just didn't make for a good case on why he believed what he did. Also, like it or not religious people don't make good cases on why they believe what they do. Now, i live in New York which i'm sure you know is very diverse. I'm very tolerant of other people's beliefs and lifestyles, but facts are facts. As i stated in a post a couple of weeks ago. I find that when a position is stated in an intelligent manner and people get offended it's probably because your position has some merit and you just hit a nerve. Now, as you probably have figured out by now i'm not a particularly religious person. However, I have read the entire bible from cover to cover along with the Quran and the Talmud. I do not know many people who can honestly say that. To tell you the truth i was not convinced. There's nothing wrong with it if you are. It's called faith and you have that right. I on the other hand, don't take everything that i'm told at face value. I need proof. I'd like to appologize once again if this post rubbed anyone the wrong way as it was not my intention to offend any one.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I don't know if anyone came across this yet, but here goes nuttin'....

From GAR himself:



http://www.wandwvideo.com/news/georgeromero.htm


AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

Where is Philly Swat? :p


I'm sorry if anyone was offended by that comment. I could edit it and take it out but that would be hypocritical. I could make an argument that I'm just as offended when someone interjects religion into a conversation.( I.E. -Thank God or God willing) But i never said anything that wasn't true. I just meant it as an analogy on how some people have no basis on which to believe certain things other than they just do. For, example I had a conversation with a classmate on how he felt gay marriage was wrong, an abomination...etc. So i proceeded to ask him what was the basis for his feelings on that issue. He suprisingly couldn't give me an answer other than just because it is. He sounded like an 8 year old who's in trouble and you ask them why they did what they did and they look at you with this blank stare and tell you "because" or "i don't know". It just didn't make for a good case on why he believed what he did. Also, like it or not religious people don't make good cases on why they believe what they do. Now, i live in New York which i'm sure you know is very diverse. I'm very tolerant of other people's beliefs and lifestyles, but facts are facts. As i stated in a post a couple of weeks ago. I find that when a position is stated in an intelligent manner and people get offended it's probably because your position has some merit and you just hit a nerve. Now, as you probably have figured out by now i'm not a particularly religious person. However, I have read the entire bible from cover to cover along with the Quran and the Talmud. I do not know many people who can honestly say that. To tell you the truth i was not convinced. There's nothing wrong with it if you are. It's called faith and you have that right. I on the other hand, don't take everything that i'm told at face value. I need proof. I'd like to appologize once again if this post rubbed anyone the wrong way as it was not my intention to offend any one.


Some people take ananolgies to literally. I am sick of these people whom if you bring up the bible act like you committed the crime of the century. People need to get over themselves. Everyone has a write to free opinion, and free speech. Writing your feelings and making ananolgies is no different. Why is it when someone uses something in comparison they have to be scolded or told you use something less offensive. What was so offensive about it anyways?

Stop being a bunch of sheep and following a dead moement like the PC crowd. It's old and forgotten. Get over it and and in so many words Grow some balls. I agree with Darth and I hope he doesn't edit his comment because it would be hypocritical of him to do so.

Kudo's Darth :D

[Deadman_Deluxe]

LOL @ CRAZY PHILLY SWAT :lol:

[axlish]

Where is Philly Swat? :p

He's at the Evans City Cemetery playing HPOTD tetris on his laptop :cool:

[creepntom]

some of us new this but didn't feel it was necessary to stab the already decaying horse

[general tbag]

right on... it ranks up there with the who shot j.r ewing mystery :lol:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1195000/images/_1196661_hagman150.jpg

[panic]

Svengoolie, you rule! Thanks for the info.

[Adrenochrome]

I never really understood the "argument/debate". To me, the answer was simple-
Day of the dead - 1985
Land of the Dead - 2005
Plus there are no clues in Land to even think it was "before Day".:rolleyes: :confused:

[bassman]

whew.....that's a load off my shoulders. This was killing me....haven't slept in days. Now I can finally move on with my life.:rolleyes:

It's not like this even matters, anyway....

[DjfunkmasterG]

geez! sorry...but you didn't have to imply that I have want of balls. :)


Dude, why did you edit your original post? That's a little cheesy since peope already commented on what you originally posted.

Thats the one thing I love about the quote feature even if people edit there original post to completely change the reply the quote feature keeps it original. I don't mind edit's for misspelling, but when you change the whole thing it makes you look suspicious and not trust worthy.

[bassman]

hrmmm....not trustworthy? "She's a Witch! Burn her....she's made of wood!"

[Philly_SWAT]

Where is Philly Swat?
Glad you asked! I was just reading some historical information online. I was reading some quotes from, not some random guy, but the Vice-President of this country. What I was reading was a quote from him...

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now
has weapons of mass destruction....What he wants is time,
and more time to husband his resources to invest in his
ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to
gain possession of nuclear weapons."
-- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

Guess that proves it. Straight from the horses mouth, Saddam definately had WOMD.

[Brubaker]

Glad you asked! I was just reading some historical information online. I was reading some quotes from, not some random guy, but the Vice-President of this country. What I was reading was a quote from him...

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now
has weapons of mass destruction....What he wants is time,
and more time to husband his resources to invest in his
ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to
gain possession of nuclear weapons."
-- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

Guess that proves it. Straight from the horses mouth, Saddam definately had WOMD.

Nice joke. So is that supposed to imply that just because GAR said Land comes after Day doesn't mean it is true? Who do you need to hear it from to admit defeat, good sir?

[Philly_SWAT]

Nice joke. So is that supposed to imply that just because GAR said Land comes after Day doesn't mean it is true? Who do you need to hear it from to admit defeat, good sir?
I am unsure as to the meaning of your question, kind sir. I was simply replying as to where I was. Now that you mention it though, I guess I can see why you thought I was trying to imply something. I guess any implication would be up to the intrepretation of the reader. If the second most powerful man in the world could make a statement that was.....inaccurate? A lie? Proved to be untrue? Whichever, is it possible that the most powerful man in zombie moviemakingdom could also make an.... inaccurate statement? That is up for each to decide. I mean, Romero made the movies, Cheney made the war.

[Danny]

finally, thats one set of useless threads thatll never be starrted up by new members again.

next up the damn ones about runnin' zombies...:elol:

[Svengoolie]

I am unsure as to the meaning of your question, kind sir. I was simply replying as to where I was. Now that you mention it though, I guess I can see why you thought I was trying to imply something. I guess any implication would be up to the intrepretation of the reader. If the second most powerful man in the world could make a statement that was.....inaccurate? A lie? Proved to be untrue? Whichever, is it possible that the most powerful man in zombie moviemakingdom could also make an.... inaccurate statement? That is up for each to decide. I mean, Romero made the movies, Cheney made the war.


Well....Cheney was talking about someone else's work, while GAR was talking about his own.

For you to imply that the old man is inaccurate about the order his own zombie flicks makes you GAR Fan of the Year.:rolleyes: :D

[Philly_SWAT]

Well....Cheney was talking about someone else's work, while GAR was talking about his own.

For you to imply that the old man is inaccurate about the order his own zombie flicks makes you GAR Fan of the Year.:rolleyes: :D
I say that Cheney was definately talking about his own work, not someone else's. As second in command, and most would say, the most powerful and hands-on VP ever, it is his job to determine whether intel is accurate and worth acting upon, or inaccurate, worhty of the trash bin. So for him to make a statement about the nuclear ambitions of another nation based on supposedly reliable intel is him explaining to the public about his work, looking out for the well-being of the country. On the other hand, I believe that motion pictures, once released, belong to the viewers. If GAR, or any other filmmaker for that matter, was making a film solely for themselves then they would not release it and just sit in their basement watching it alone in private. To make it available for mass viewing is to give the film over to the public, making it our work to decide for ourselves what it means.

But again for the record, in my initial post I was simply answering the question "where is Philly SWAT", not making any connection between Cheney and Romero. Interesting that two people have drawn that inference on their own now.

As an aside, my girlfriend and I were once having an argum.....discussion about when we first started going out. She said it was 1999, I said it was 2000. She said that I have a bad memory and obviously dont take our relationship as seriously as she. Later, when I produced a ticket stub from the show we went to on our first date, clearly marked with a date of March 21, 2000, did that mean that I was correct and she was wrong, or that she was still right seeing as she was talking about her personal knowledge of her work i.e. our relationship. Again, apparently that is open for each individual to decide, just ask her. So for me to imply that my girlfriend is inaccurate in the start time of her own relationship, does that make me her Fan of the Year as well?:rolleyes:

[general tbag]

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now
has weapons of mass destruction....What he wants is time,
and more time to husband his resources to invest in his
ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to
gain possession of nuclear weapons."
-- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

Guess that proves it. Straight from the horses mouth, Saddam definately had WOMD.

http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

if course they knew he had them, they gave them to him:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

next your gonna tell me those stinger missles they keep findin from the taliban arent american.:lol: :lol:

[Philly_SWAT]

http://michael.ellerman.id.au/misc/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

if course they knew he had them, they gave them to him:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

next your gonna tell me those stinger missles they keep findin from the taliban arent american.:lol: :lol:
Well, this thread appears to be getting a little (sic) off topic, but in response to your comments, I have two thoughts...
1) If the US gave Saddam nukes, that would be very foolish indeed
2) If we did, we did a lousy job keeping track of the, especially when finding them would have backed up the bullsh....the story that the administration was selling.

And last I checked, the stinger missles were no threat to the US, certainly not enough of a threat to justify a mass invasion, basically culivating an atmosphere of civil war, and costing thousands of American and tens of thousands Iraqi deaths.

[p2501]

I don't know if anyone came across this yet, but here goes nuttin'....

From GAR himself:



http://www.wandwvideo.com/news/georgeromero.htm


wow, i don't come here much, but i had no idea this was an actual arguing point.

that's pretty sad, really.

[panic]

p2501, there are a few folks around here who like to argue that the events of Land take place before the events of Day. (I am not one of them). There are at least half a dozen threads on this part of the board that make for interesting reading.

/p

[Brubaker]

p2501, there are a few folks around here who like to argue that the events of Land take place before the events of Day. (I am not one of them). There are at least half a dozen threads on this part of the board that make for interesting reading.

/p

It is too bad that GAR didn't include a sideplot where some survivors from Land end up in Florida and happen upon the underground bunker where Rhodes and his men were. If that had happened and the survivors found it crawling with zombies, maybe then some folks would finally admit Land comes last in the series. Something like that would settle it once and for all :D And I am aware the four films have nothing to do with each other, but what the hell?

It seems that GAR's own comments on where Land is in the series still aren't good enough.

I can predict the next thread. "Wait, he said all of this when the film was called Dead Reckoning! Who is to say he didn't change his mind between that time and the finished version of Land that made it into theaters?"

[AssassinFromHell]

Here's how a fanboy and Romero arguement would play out.

ROMERO: No, Land of the Dead came before Day of the Dead.
FANBOY: No, Pilato came before the potty.
ROMERO: I wrote the script. You are the fan, just because you worship the ground I walk on, doesn't make you the one who defines it.
FANBOY: I watched all the movies a thousand and fifty-two times, analyzed every angle and came to the conclusion it came before Land.
ROMERO: It didn't!
FANBOY: *slap* I'm running this monkey farm now frankenstein!

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, in the original script, it is said that Day happens 5-years into the problem. Now the original script did not get shot, but with no other reference in Day as to "when" it is in the timeline, why make references to three years in Land? Why not say 6 years? When things fell apart so quickly in Dawn, how is it that the survivors were able to co-operate so well in Land to not only survive, but to build electric fences (and have electricity to being with), block off the bridges, build a huge wall of the non-river protected side of the triangle, keep an active money based society going, etc.? When looking solely at the movies themselves, there is a lot of evidence that the events in Land are taking place before the events in Day.

[MinionZombie]

Because 5 years was in the original script for Day ... which was his big massive epic. As he had to compromise, that meant pulling the story in, which clearly in turn means negating the original "five years" thing as it's not the original story anymore.

The dude said himself that Land takes place after Day ... nuff said really. This is all I'm gonna say...there was even a damn poll!

*sniffs*

Flogged horse anyone? ... I'll get the carving knives...

[zombiegirl]

Here's how a fanboy and Romero arguement would play out.

ROMERO: No, Land of the Dead came before Day of the Dead.
FANBOY: No, Pilato came before the potty.
ROMERO: I wrote the script. You are the fan, just because you worship the ground I walk on, doesn't make you the one who defines it.
FANBOY: I watched all the movies a thousand and fifty-two times, analyzed every angle and came to the conclusion it came before Land.
ROMERO: It didn't!
FANBOY: *slap* I'm running this monkey farm now frankenstein!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Pure comedic genius.

[Brubaker]

Well, in the original script, it is said that Day happens 5-years into the problem. Now the original script did not get shot, but with no other reference in Day as to "when" it is in the timeline, why make references to three years in Land? Why not say 6 years? When things fell apart so quickly in Dawn, how is it that the survivors were able to co-operate so well in Land to not only survive, but to build electric fences (and have electricity to being with), block off the bridges, build a huge wall of the non-river protected side of the triangle, keep an active money based society going, etc.? When looking solely at the movies themselves, there is a lot of evidence that the events in Land are taking place before the events in Day.

Here is what I think. The "new" script couldn't have been 5 years. Rhodes, his men and those scientists never would have stayed down there for 5 years, without killing each other or running out of at least some supplies before the five years was up. Sure, that was what happened in the end but there was enough tension, they could not have made it for five years. The booze hadn't even run out yet, so it wasn't as long as you might think.

Five years seems way off, with the finished movie we got. That would suggest that they didn't go underground right away. How long could the lot of them reasonably survived above ground, keeping in mind they were together, as quickly as things fell apart? Where could they have been kept safe for a couple years, a year, six months or even 2-3 months before even going underground? Who would have tolerated Frankenstein's useless experiments for any more than two or three years? As for the chopper pilot, John was the type who would have ditched long before those many years had passed.

In Day, they make reference to communicating with Washington. It means people still considered the people there to be some type of authority, regardless of Rhodes' interest in leaving his assignment. If the survivors in the Green (Land) could communicate/hear from Cleveland, then why couldn't they talk to people who are (or were) stationed in Washington? You never have a single character make a reference to Washington. By then, I don't think there was anybody left in Washington or they weren't talking to anybody at that point.

However, the whole idea of outposts that were so perfectly crafted seems asinine. I agree with you there 100%. They should be a lot cruder, given the circumstances and how do they clear out thousands of zombies that were already in the city? As I've said two or three times, the set-up they had is indicative of something you would do before an outbreak happens (preventive), as opposed to a reaction (while it is going on).

[Svengoolie]

The whole "5 years into the plague" argument for Day is completely moot--it was in the original script, and didn't make it into the film.

The original script also featured a whole lotta other stuff that didn't make it into the film, are we to go on that too?

Hell, the original script for Dawn featured a puppy named Adam and a double suicide at the end--do we go on that, or on what we saw on screen?:rolleyes:

No amount of evidence or other bull**** is going to change the fact that it came right from the old man himself--Land IS after Day.

Case closed.

[general tbag]

btw i found another source for land happening after day.

on the us version anchor bay single disc dvd ,in the extras under the romero bio. it states on the last page.

'' tentatively titled DEAD RECKONING , romero has hinted the story, which takes place a few years after the events in DAY OF THE DEAD''

im checkin, but i thought it was also mentioned on the commentary also on the same disc.

the line about working for kauffman, and the car driving out there 3 years ago fits pretty solid in the timeline with the above quote.

[Danny]

Here's how a fanboy and Romero arguement would play out.

ROMERO: No, Land of the Dead came before Day of the Dead.
FANBOY: No, Pilato came before the potty.
ROMERO: I wrote the script. You are the fan, just because you worship the ground I walk on, doesn't make you the one who defines it.
FANBOY: I watched all the movies a thousand and fifty-two times, analyzed every angle and came to the conclusion it came before Land.
ROMERO: It didn't!
FANBOY: *slap* I'm running this monkey farm now frankenstein!

TELL EM STEVE DAVE!:D

[Philly_SWAT]

Five years seems way off, with the finished movie we got. That would suggest that they didn't go underground right away. How long could the lot of them reasonably survived above ground, keeping in mind they were together, as quickly as things fell apart? Where could they have been kept safe for a couple years, a year, six months or even 2-3 months before even going underground? Who would have tolerated Frankenstein's useless experiments for any more than two or three years? As for the chopper pilot, John was the type who would have ditched long before those many years had passed.

Well, assuming that your points are accurate, then how does it make any sense that the people in Land were so well prepared, supplied, and co-operative enough to not riot and kill each other after three years? Like you said, the set-up they had is indicative of something you would do before an outbreak happens (preventive), as opposed to a reaction (while it is going on). And keep in mind, the Green was a much grander operation than they had in Day. How did they construct that? Was there some magic in that part of the country that made people more co-operative with others, less greedy than others, and better able to stave off zombies than others?


In Day, they make reference to communicating with Washington. It means people still considered the people there to be some type of authority, regardless of Rhodes' interest in leaving his assignment. If the survivors in the Green (Land) could communicate/hear from Cleveland, then why couldn't they talk to people who are (or were) stationed in Washington? You never have a single character make a reference to Washington. By then, I don't think there was anybody left in Washington or they weren't talking to anybody at that point.
Everyone who mentions Cleavland doesnt think that anyone is there, much less communicates with them. Even Cholo, when told that by Riley just says "I'll take my chances". And why would the power structure of the Green want to communicate with Washington? Kaufman was basically running a massive illegal, unethical and immorral operative there. Remember Cholo was "taking out the trash", people Kaufman was having killed. He wouldnt want anyone communicating with anyone. Lack of communication with Washington is not a valid point in referencing the timeframe of the two movies, imo.

[Brubaker]

Well, assuming that your points are accurate, then how does it make any sense that the people in Land were so well prepared, supplied, and co-operative enough to not riot and kill each other after three years? Like you said, the set-up they had is indicative of something you would do before an outbreak happens (preventive), as opposed to a reaction (while it is going on). And keep in mind, the Green was a much grander operation than they had in Day. How did they construct that? Was there some magic in that part of the country that made people more co-operative with others, less greedy than others, and better able to stave off zombies than others?

Everyone who mentions Cleavland doesnt think that anyone is there, much less communicates with them. Even Cholo, when told that by Riley just says "I'll take my chances". And why would the power structure of the Green want to communicate with Washington? Kaufman was basically running a massive illegal, unethical and immorral operative there. Remember Cholo was "taking out the trash", people Kaufman was having killed. He wouldnt want anyone communicating with anyone. Lack of communication with Washington is not a valid point in referencing the timeframe of the two movies, imo.

Ah, glad you asked. The folks in Land were able to cooperate because there is more room to move around in a city than underground. However, I already agreed with all your other points. The only thing in Land that was worse than the character of Charlie (worse than Big Daddy) was the idea they would have been able to set up such an operation in a city full of zombies. All those people made it out? I understand Romero tries to make a statement by suggesting that the downtrodden come out on top over the upper crust but I can't picture most of the people in the city (rich or poor) surviving any sort of outbreak.

Of course Kaufman wouldn't make any efforts to contact Washington but nobody mentions anybody up that way even once? If any activity was going on in that neck of the woods, somebody would have mentioned Washington. Illegal or not, who would have bothered prosecuting them at that point? Either Washington was long gone or enough time had passed (hence it occuring after Day) that most of the terms of anyone who had an actual government title would have expired, anyway, even if no new elections were going to ever take place.

The only thing that hasn't seemed to come up is Logan's figures of 400,000 to 1. Regardless of when the two movies took place, the numbers were never quite that extreme. There were far too many humans running around in Land and assumed humans in Day that I don't think the odds were ever that bad. Only 250-300 million people in the United States, give or take. Do the math and it doesn't add up. That indicates well under 1,000 humans left alive. I attribute it to him being a "mad" scientist.

[LouCipherr]

Y'know, I find it kinda comical that even when GAR himself states Land is after day, some still argue the point. Why? I guess the word from the man who made the movie himself isn't good enough? The "clues" you think you see in the movie doesn't change the fact that it's intention was to be after Day, period. Trying to argue any other point is useless, albeit kinda comical.

....and how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say that Big Daddy was a better character in Land than Charlie? I mean, Charlie was no canidate for best supporting actor, but c'mon, Big Daddy was a complete friggin' idiot that was so like Frankstein's Monster the only thing missing was bolts in his damn neck and a scar on his forehead! Even most of the people who like land will admit that Big Daddy was a bad idea.

[Brubaker]

Y'know, I find it kinda comical that even when GAR himself states Land is after day, some still argue the point. Why? I guess the word from the man who made the movie himself isn't good enough? The "clues" you think you see in the movie doesn't change the fact that it's intention was to be after Day, period. Trying to argue any other point is useless, albeit kinda comical.

....and how can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say that Big Daddy was a better character in Land than Charlie? I mean, Charlie was no canidate for best supporting actor, but c'mon, Big Daddy was a complete friggin' idiot that was so like Frankstein's Monster the only thing missing was bolts in his damn neck and a scar on his forehead! Even most of the people who like land will admit that Big Daddy was a bad idea.

I have no obligation to like Charlie just because he is disfigured and just because everybody else around here likes him. Let's get that right out of the way. As for me thinking Big Daddy is ok, that is opinion. And my opinion is that with Charlie, you have one of the worst characters to hit the screen in Romero's zombie movies. The idea that someone might confuse him for a zombie in the beginning is funny for about five minutes. Ha ha. That was about the only thing I thought he contributed to the movie. Can anyone take him seriously in light of characters like Ben, Roger, Peter, Rhodes, Cooper, Frankenstein, Bub or even Kaufman and Cholo?

You have me all wrong. In no way, shape or form am I arguing that Land happens before Day. Where on earth did I ever say that? That is Philly Swat making that argument. I was arguing against the idea that Land takes place before Day, go back and reread my posts.

[LouCipherr]

Brubaker - sorry, I wasn't implying you were arguing the point of land being after Day, that was bad wording on my part and I was just making a general comment. I just had to take issue with the idea that big daddy was a better character in land. I don't see it, but as you said, it's all opinions, and we all have 'em. It's all good, no harm meant. ;)

[general tbag]

but c'mon, Big Daddy was a complete friggin' idiot

i howl to that that big daddy style:lol: :lol:

how can u rag on charlie, he represented compassion in the movie. i have that mofo at my side during zombie battles anyday.

also how much more proof is needed, does gar need to come to ur house, tbag for abit, and tell u land came after day.

[bassman]

I have no obligation to like Charlie just because he is disfigured and just because everybody else around here likes him. Let's get that right out of the way. As for me thinking Big Daddy is ok, that is opinion. And my opinion is that with Charlie, you have one of the worst characters to hit the screen in Romero's zombie movies. The idea that someone might confuse him for a zombie in the beginning is funny for about five minutes. Ha ha. That was about the only thing I thought he contributed to the movie. Can anyone take him seriously in light of characters like Ben, Roger, Peter, Rhodes, Cooper, Frankenstein, Bub or even Kaufman and Cholo?

You have me all wrong. In no way, shape or form am I arguing that Land happens before Day. Where on earth did I ever say that? That is Philly Swat making that argument. I was arguing against the idea that Land takes place before Day, go back and reread my posts.

Charlie doesn't contribute to the film.....yet your screen name is taken from a character that has about 5 minutes of screen time and dies?:p

[Brubaker]

Charlie doesn't contribute to the film.....yet your screen name is taken from a character that has about 5 minutes of screen time and dies?:p

You got me there! Although it could be debated his total screen time was about 2-3 minutes, including his zombie form. He made one hell of a good zombie, though. That was part of his appeal. Great make-up and good scene, in the unrated dvd.

From what I read, though, he did log more time in the original script. Brubaker was supposed to be the guy running the car garage where Riley's car was missing, unless I am mistaken.

Lou, no harm meant from me either.

[MinionZombie]

Land IS after Day, simple as. Accept it, people who aren't accepting it.

Also, Charlie rocked! He's my favourite Land character, and while Big Daddy isn't the most well executed lead zombie, I still think he's pretty cool. Charlie was awesome!

*chants with placard down street*

IDIOT SAVANT!
IDIOT SAVANT!
IDIOT SAVANT!

*glares at Lou* dude ... stop lobbing spit balls at me, quiiiiit iiiit *stomps around like toddler in a huff*

*returns to currently one man campaign*

IDIOT SAVANT!
IDIOT SAVANT!
IDIOT SAVANT!

[Trin]

It's assinine to suggest that GAR might be mistaken about his own movies, or that he might've misinterpreted them, or whatever. Land happens after Day. For the billion valid reasons that have been noted plus the testament from GAR himself.

As for Day happening 5+ years post-outbreak - I don't think so. I think it was within the first year. I'll add my one observation to the rest. If Day happens more than a year after the outbreak Sarah wouldn't have had a pre-printed calendar. She'd have long ago resorted to using hand drawn calendars like she does at the end of the movie.

Charlie was my favorite character. I thought his role was a brilliant move by GAR. Charlie showed us that you don't have to be a military expert, or have advanced gear, or be especially intelligent to survive a zombie outbreak. And not only survive but be very valuable. There's not one of those self-serving greedy jerks I'd have by my side over Charlie. He was loyal, focused, and an expert in zombie survival.

From the perspective of GAR commenting on society I think Charlie adds a great deal. His lack of greed and personal motives showed us just how shameful the rest of society had become. He made for a perfect contrast to Kaufman, Cholo, and even Riley, all of which put themselves in harm's way to satisfy their personal motives.

[LouCipherr]

:lol:

Somehow all I can picture now is MZ walking around now babbling like Rain Man

LC: "Hey, MZ! How much did it cost to make Land?"
MZ: "yeah, mmm, 'bout a hundred dollars.."

:lol:

[MinionZombie]

MZ: "Fifteen million dollars well spent, mate"
LC: "Why do you have a nappy on your head?"
MZ: "Why are you using a British term, aren't you American?"
LC: "Yes I am still American, but I'm trying to be the new James Bond, the more bad ass version that listens to metal."
MZ: "Tin, Iron or Steel?"
LC: "You're a f*cking lunatic you know?"
MZ: "I'm quite fully aware of my mental incapacities, thank you very much Mr President."
LC: "That's a nice placard you've got there."
MZ: "Thanks, I smeared all the letters myself."
LC: "I don't wanna know what you smeared the letters with."
MZ: "If you can smell it, you already know."
LC: "Are you one of those ultra Liberal tree-hugging, pocket-mulching wankers?"
MZ: "No, I'm just really, really, really cheap."
LC: "So you like Charlie then do ya?"
MZ: "Yeah, he's my mate."
LC: "And I don't mean Charlie Chalk."
MZ: "Oh ... well yeah Charlie The Idiot Savant is also cool in my books ... wait a pissing minute, how the hell did you know about classic British children's animation Charlie Chalk?!"
LC: "I move in mysterious ways."
MZ: "I know ... why the fart are you moonwalking right now?"
LC: "Because Michael Jackson is one classy mofo."
MZ: "Chamone, hee-heeeeeee!"

*continues placard waving with added stink palming of interested parties and worried officials*

*LC scurries away to fetch Dj to come gawp with him*

[Brubaker]

It's assinine to suggest that GAR might be mistaken about his own movies, or that he might've misinterpreted them, or whatever. Land happens after Day. For the billion valid reasons that have been noted plus the testament from GAR himself.

As for Day happening 5+ years post-outbreak - I don't think so. I think it was within the first year. I'll add my one observation to the rest. If Day happens more than a year after the outbreak Sarah wouldn't have had a pre-printed calendar. She'd have long ago resorted to using hand drawn calendars like she does at the end of the movie.

Charlie was my favorite character. I thought his role was a brilliant move by GAR. Charlie showed us that you don't have to be a military expert, or have advanced gear, or be especially intelligent to survive a zombie outbreak. And not only survive but be very valuable. There's not one of those self-serving greedy jerks I'd have by my side over Charlie. He was loyal, focused, and an expert in zombie survival.

From the perspective of GAR commenting on society I think Charlie adds a great deal. His lack of greed and personal motives showed us just how shameful the rest of society had become. He made for a perfect contrast to Kaufman, Cholo, and even Riley, all of which put themselves in harm's way to satisfy their personal motives.

The rest of the characters may be greedy and selfish but they are also far more interesting. He was dull and I felt like he was being shoved down my throat the entire time I was watching the movie. Almost like I was being forced to like him.

Besides, it isn't that hard to survive a zombie outbreak when you get to ride around in Dead Reckoning all the time because your best friend built it :D Let him hang around, out in the open, guarding the Green with everyone else and it may be a whole different story.

[Philly_SWAT]

Y'know, I find it kinda comical that even when GAR himself states Land is after day, some still argue the point. Why?
I thought that was the general idea of this forum, to discuss ideas, even if eveyone else disagrees with you.

I guess the word from the man who made the movie himself isn't good enough? The "clues" you think you see in the movie doesn't change the fact that it's intention was to be after Day, period.
You know Sharon Ceccatti? She was the "Nurse Zombie" in Dawn. What do you think that the intention of her zombie character was? Do you think it was to be a faceless zombie in the crowd, a zombie equal to any other, whose very nature was to be scary to the audience and a dangerous threat to the characters in the movie? Or do you think the intention was for her to be way, WAY over the top in her "zombie movements", almost coming across as comical rather than scary? Your personal intrepretation of the intention and your intrepretation of the end result may be different.


Trying to argue any other point is useless, albeit kinda comical.
The world needs more humor, dont you think?

[LouCipherr]

The world needs more humor, dont you think?

Yeah, it does, but there's a lot of things funnier than this topic - beating an already decaying horse is only fun for about 5 minutes. :p

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, it's only funny until a part of it explodes gore all over you and it goes in your mouth, then you step in some shredded flesh and get it all over your new hush puppies and you step back and do the same to the other, then the stench gets into your lungs and you get all pissy and wanna go home ... so really, it's not that fun a past-time...

Yes I'm in a weird mood, I just got up at 7am on a Saturday (cutting my usual sleep duration short by 3 hours) to go film a model aircraft show, only to not go yet cos of the bloody rain ... if it isn't cleared by 11am then we're going tomorrow, so I'd lose another weekend lie in! ... Not a disaster perhaps, but I'm like a hibernating bear, you don't disturb their sleep, damnit! :eek: