Useless/Disposable Dead Characters

[Brubaker]

If this topic has been done before, I'm simply using all the wrong search terms. I was curious as to who comes to mind when you think of useless or disposable characters from GAR's Dead movies. The type of people who have some decent screen time but contribute nothing to the plot or the final outcome. It doesn't matter whether or not you like the character or actor.

Day of the Dead was the most recent I watched and seeing one of the soldiers, Torrez, gave me the idea for this topic. For the 2 or 3 readers here who don't remember all of the character names from Day, Torrez was the first soldier who gets torn apart by the zombies after Miguel lets them into the complex. They get him before Rickles, Steele and Rhodes.

Aside from his death scene, which could have been played out by a different soldier, the Torrez character was a complete afterthought. He wasn't really around for the raids and usually didn't accompany the other men anywhere, except later in the movie. I can't remember any real dialogue from him and he didn't shoot at anyone. I mean he didn't even have a friggin' gun by the time the zombies had invaded the complex. The dude was running around unarmed :lol: You could have written Torrez out of the script entirely and the movie wouldn't have been much different. The surprising thing is that he survived longer than a few of the other characters and was still around near the end of the movie.

That is the type of character (useless or disposable) that I was looking to see opinions on.

Speaking of Torrez, I think of the racist remarks that Rhodes and some of the other men made about Miguel. Wasn't Torrez the same race as Miguel? :shifty:

[Philly_SWAT]

Well, in any movie if you took out all of the "important", non useless or disposable characters, you would be left with every movie only having three or four characters each. Granted, Torrez wasnt an important character, but you needed some extra military guys in the background. Also, the actor was Taso, who plays about every other zombie who gets shot in both Dawn and Day. It was nice to give him some face time that didnt include zombie makeup and squibs taped to the back of his head.

But to try to answer your question, I think that all of the characters in GAR's movie serve some kind of purpose. Torrez seems to fit the criteria of your point as well as any other I can think of.

[capncnut]

Maybe GAR never had the time to round off Torrez as much as he would've liked. As far as I'm concerned, Torrez serves no purpose other than beefing up the squad on-screen and getting his head pulled off. Oh, and watering the crop of Mary Jane - good man!

Actually now that I think of it, Torrez's high-pitched scream as his throat gets stretched makes up for any prior absence and is a totally unforgettable screen death. Maybe that's what GAR intended with him all along. :sneaky:

[Brubaker]

Don't get me wrong. I liked the character, better than any other soldier except maybe Rhodes or Steele. He looks the part of a soldier. I just didn't consider him important to the movie :D

[coma]

Don't get me wrong. I liked the character, better than any other soldier except maybe Rhodes or Steele. He looks the part of a soldier. I just didn't consider him important to the movie :D
He had a number of lines, more than you mention. He also wasn't as aggressive as the others, behaving more like a regular soldier/professional while Steele and Rikels were yahoos. Torrez was the only one who said anything reasonable, defusing the "GAR hates soldiers" argument that might appear (But Doesn't).
In regards to Torrez and Miguels ethnicity, a spanish name doesn't always mean hispanic, though in America it usually does so Torrez might've been European backgroud. Or maybe Miguel had the Catholic medals hispanics often wear and more of the look of a (what seems to be) Cuban, not to mention he was "yellow" so that would incur insults and lead to questions of his loyalty becasue of Xenophobia. Torrez was totally American in look.


If they made a movie about your job, there are the handful of people that you deal with all the time and a whole bunch of peripherals that enter into your work world but only briefly. They are just as important to the atmosphere simply by being around.

[Brubaker]

Well the thread wasn't an indictment on his character, which I liked. I just noticed that in that movie, and Land, that there were a few more characters that were mostly window dressing with no real impact on the plot or the final outcome of the movie. It wasn't such a problem in Night or Dawn where every character mattered and had some importance.

Then again, Dawn 04 was far more guilty of having disposable characters who had no impact whatsoever on the movie :skull:

[coma]

Well the thread wasn't an indictment on his character, which I liked. I just noticed that in that movie, and Land, that there were a few more characters that were mostly window dressing with no real impact on the plot or the final outcome of the movie. It wasn't such a problem in Night or Dawn where every character mattered and had some importance.
Both those casts were really small. If you fleshed out every character in Day you might get...


Then again, Dawn 04 was far more guilty of having disposable characters who had no impact whatsoever on the movie :skull:
Like all of them. I found the way a couple of them turned into a different personality altogether. That was really clever:rolleyes:

[Paradigm]

You need these useless disposible characters for the deaths late on in the film when it becomes more plot-driven, people! At first everyone is dropping like flies and they mean nothing, but as the film progresses and the populus is whittled down, every death is like a dagger through the heart - to the characters. Night of the Dead didn't fall under any catagorey - no one was safe, everyone was expendable, and in the end everyone did die. There is a message in itself there, but not relevant to the discussion - so, onto Dawn of the Dead, the original I mean, managed to be brilliant by focusing on how the characters devolved when they were forced together with no hope for the future. The three of them (Peter, Steven, Fran) kind of lost it, in a way. But this was a horror movie, not a physcological thriller, after all, so what did Romero do? He introduced the bikers. Essential to move the plot along, and after giving himself about 30, he had plenty to dispose of in various ways (tripping off balconies, getting shot, obviously being eaten in a great variety...everyone loves "Senor Sombrero" at the blood pressure machine!). Day was different. There were no "biker people" left, no source of late mischief, because the human race was facing total and utter extinction. So he had to expand the core group (from 4 in Dawn, now to what, 10, 12? - including Bub, too) giving himself more options.
Let's face it these pretty passive characters are around to give you cheap, easy and fun deaths. That's what zombie films are mostly about.

[FoodFight]

Also bear in mind that the movie is all about Sarah. Since she basically didn't mix with the soldiers, they were peripheral characters, from her point of view. I think that really added to the isolation present in the cramped quarters of the facility.

[coma]

good point. I didn't think of that, but that is likely true

[Mutineer]

Although I understand the reason for the disposable character for bodycount purposes; there is nothing more frustrating that characters none of us care about

[Brubaker]

You need these useless disposible characters for the deaths late on in the film when it becomes more plot-driven, people! At first everyone is dropping like flies and they mean nothing, but as the film progresses and the populus is whittled down, every death is like a dagger through the heart - to the characters. Night of the Dead didn't fall under any catagorey - no one was safe, everyone was expendable, and in the end everyone did die. There is a message in itself there, but not relevant to the discussion - so, onto Dawn of the Dead, the original I mean, managed to be brilliant by focusing on how the characters devolved when they were forced together with no hope for the future. The three of them (Peter, Steven, Fran) kind of lost it, in a way. But this was a horror movie, not a physcological thriller, after all, so what did Romero do? He introduced the bikers. Essential to move the plot along, and after giving himself about 30, he had plenty to dispose of in various ways (tripping off balconies, getting shot, obviously being eaten in a great variety...everyone loves "Senor Sombrero" at the blood pressure machine!). Day was different. There were no "biker people" left, no source of late mischief, because the human race was facing total and utter extinction. So he had to expand the core group (from 4 in Dawn, now to what, 10, 12? - including Bub, too) giving himself more options.
Let's face it these pretty passive characters are around to give you cheap, easy and fun deaths. That's what zombie films are mostly about.

Keep in mind that all of the bikers, even the ones without any lines, were very important characters. Much like the priest in the apartment complex, since his conversation with Roger and Peter fits in with the theme. Without them, that movie is not the same.


He had a number of lines, more than you mention. He also wasn't as aggressive as the others, behaving more like a regular soldier/professional while Steele and Rikels were yahoos. Torrez was the only one who said anything reasonable, defusing the "GAR hates soldiers" argument that might appear (But Doesn't).

This is mostly facetious but somebody must have hated Torrez. Nobody gave him a gun at the end and his fellow soldiers split up, leaving him to fend for himself unarmed.

[red max]

I liked this guy. Like someone else said, he seemed to be less hysterical than the other soldiers. When the platform comes down laden with zombies I like the way he stands there and stares at them for a while. I'd have been running from the second I saw them.

I assume he had a gun before John punched him and Rhodes out. John takes Rhodes's guns, and when this loss is discovered Torrez feels at his sides, so he clearly had a weapon too that's also been taken.

I can't remember him saying anything throughout the movie- what were his lines?

[Chaos]

T O R R E S, damn it! :skull:

[bassman]

T O R R E S, damn it! :skull:

Actually....Redmax had it right.:confused:

[Chaos]

Actually....Redmax had it right.:confused:

It's TORRES. Not TORREZ.

EDIT*EDIT*EDIT*

I retract and apologize for my last post(s). It seems to be TORREZ.

[bassman]

It's TORRES. Not TORREZ.

I'm pretty sure it's with a Z, bud. I don't have the DVD on hand to check the credits, but IMDB has it listed as Pvt. Torrez (http://imdb.com/name/nm0824003/).

And I also just learned that Taso did stunts on the first "Pirates of the Caribean".....you learn something new everyday, huh?:p

[7734]

is a bastion of purity from the golden age of stunts and prosthetics in a digital world.

[rawrOTD]

i did notice that torrez was expendable
but also that he was alot more ethical and humane than the other soldiers

the guys that i think are the most expendable are the other two soldiers
they just died and they actually looked identical to me

in day there were more characters and i think most of them were just there to bulk out the crew
they lacked a ceratin personality for each survivor that we loved in the previous films
three random soldiers
ted the scientist that we know nothing about and does nothing
the irish guy could have been fleshed out more IMHO

however
the most expendable characters were in land i think
ex. the tacked on feeling of the irish revolutionary (that sub plot had so much potential )
pillsbury and the spanish bullfighter mercinary
the non driver guy in dead reckoning

i guess with that huge list of characters you cant developement them all
but land was so short
if it ws te length of dawn it would have been perfect to build up this world slowly before riley ultimately leaves it