Had Rhodes and the boys been inside the mall

[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. 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. 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.