Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[JDP]

I'm not arguing that they give a general idea, but the leap from general idea to "everyone is dead everywhere" is a quite big one. The world is huge, for there not to spring up a outpost of human survivors here and there is quite unlikely. To go from 7 billion to absolute zero in a relatively short timespan is more probable than what you see in Land - money included. Humans are adept at adapting to enviroments - in fact it's what's gotten us this far. So yes, a general idea indeed, but situations would vary from place to place and from time to time even. By the time of Dawn that is not the idea conveyed. The big populated areas are to be avoided because the zombies concentrate there, but there even still are gangs of looters roaming the land elsewhere defying the zombies. But by the time of Day the idea conveyed is that what's left of survivors have gone into hiding. Even the government itself has, which in Dawn's time was still more active and capable to still be trying to keep things up and running (there still was electrical power and emergency networks in Dawn, for example.) The zombies now have a firm grip of most of the land. This is because of sheer numerical superiority, as Logan explains. It is much more dangerous for survivors to venture outside now. I don't put as much stock in the government as I think you are. I think a lot of people would abandon ship when they realized their families, loved ones or very own lives were at stake. Just take a look at the police officers in Dawn. For a government to function you need people who are willing to give up everything in order to service it - even people who might in such a situation compromise their loved ones. There might be remnants of the government here and there - the unit in Day surely is one - but I highly doubt the government by the time of Day - or Land - would be anything like you imagine it is. So when it comes down to it, I don't find it unlikely at all that the government would cease to exist within a short amount of time. The government does not look like it has ceased to exist by the time of Day, it seems to still be around, but it is hiding in shelters, just like the Florida team is, as Sarah explains. Notice that those who defect the government in Dawn do so at their own risk. The reason why it might be desirable to do so in some cases is because the increasing inability of the government to be able to handle the situation, like rescue stations and emergency networks being knocked off and so, not because things are easier on your own. That the government itself is having a hard time keeping things up is a sure sign of how bad things are getting by the time of Dawn. All of these points are things that would vary from place to place and time to time. No smaller fragmented society is going to have it easier to run things efficiently than a strong unified centralized government. My point is that stabile societies can form in a power vacuum, I've illustrated this point now so I will no drop it. They can, but they are not going to be as efficient and advanced. No matter how stable a society you manage to establish, it will never have the same manpower, capital and resources at its disposal as the central government. You have to include the context. This is how films and dialogue work. The context is just Riley shooting a zombie in the head and Charlie congratulating him for the accurate shot. But he didn't make a film about hurricanes, earthquakes or tornadoes. But he says that you could eliminate the zombies altogether and the gist of his films remains intact. He uses the zombies as nothing but a grotesque tool. He does not even consider the zombies to be the main thing in his movies. Of course, many disagree with him. I only agree partially. For some things the zombies in his movies are just incidental. But for others they are crucial. In the case of the business relationship between Cholo and Kaufman, the zombies are indeed just an incidental element of no consequence. The nature of their business has to do with the elimination of other humans deemed as undesirable by Kaufman, not with the zombies. A common activity of a gangster for which the zombies have no bearing whatsoever. As I said, you do not know these things. We don't even know how much they talked, to whom or about what. We deduce what they'd LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, but we have no idea if there was time for off-the-record chitchat or even if the person on the other side knew anything. Maybe it was a scientist, stressed out of his ass, pulling 20 hour a day shifts and was wholly out of touch with what happened outside whatever complex he was in? This is just one of many scenarios that would prohibit any valuable transformation of off-the-record information. Considering that they talked to Washington "all the time" (a figure of speech that means "frequently"), it does not seem unlikely at all that they would have had plenty of chances to request feedback on the type of information that most concerned them. Plus we have already seen that even the mass media reported that the survivor outposts were being established. That both Washington and the Florida team could somehow have ignored this is quite an unlikely conclusion.

[EvilNed]

By the time of Dawn that is not the idea conveyed. It is not inconcievable that a small pocket of survivors survived, thrived and grew. We do not see anything that excludes this possibility. Land implies that's just what happened. The government does not look like it has ceased to exist by the time of Day, it seems to still be around, but it is hiding in shelters, just like the Florida team is, as Sarah explains. I'd say that Day depicts the remnants of government breaking down. A non-functioning government might as well be a non-existant one. No smaller fragmented society is going to have it easier to run things efficiently than a strong unified centralized government. That's not true, though. You are simplifying it. A smaller state can run a local area more efficiently if it has more sway there than a federal state can from afar. They can, but they are not going to be as efficient and advanced. No matter how stable a society you manage to establish, it will never have the same manpower, capital and resources at its disposal as the central government. Yes, of course, but Kaufman isn't trying to run the country - he's trying to run Fiddler's Green. The two are very separate things. The context is just Riley shooting a zombie in the head and Charlie congratulating him for the accurate shot. I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna debate screenwriting 101 with you. It's Riley's character introduction. That's the context. There is no trivial dialogue. That's just not how screenwriting works. I studied it for a few years - I should know (I hate to bring up that card, but you're really quite ignorant in regards to the subject matter). The examples you have provided I have refuted. There are no two ways around this - You are wrong. You don't have to debate every point and you don't have a case here. You may wish to read Robert McKee's Story and Syd Field's Screenwriting if you want to dwelve deeper into the subject. God knows you could need it, if you wanna keep nitpicking dialogue the way you do. But he says that you could eliminate the zombies altogether and the gist of his films remains intact. "The gist of the films" =/= Minutae details of the films. Considering that they talked to Washington "all the time" (a figure of speech that means "frequently"), it does not seem unlikely at all that they would have had plenty of chances to request feedback on the type of information that most concerned them. Plus we have already seen that even the mass media reported that the survivor outposts were being established. That both Washington and the Florida team could somehow have ignored this is quite an unlikely conclusion. I take it more as that they had regular contact with Washington, not that they were on the phone with them 24/7. My example still stands. The media does not report everything correctly - not even today in this functioning society. A lot of misinformation get's thrown around - and much of it doesn't get thrown around at all. I'm sorry, but as I pointed out there are too many holes in this argument of yours.

[JDP]

It is not inconcievable that a small pocket of survivors survived, thrived and grew. We do not see anything that excludes this possibility. Land implies that's just what happened. Yes, but to pretend that they can pull so many things that not even the government can anymore is rather stretching it. I'd say that Day depicts the remnants of government breaking down. A non-functioning government might as well be a non-existant one. Now imagine how much tougher it will be for private entrepreneurs to be functioning at levels that the government itself is very hard pressed to try to bring back. That's not true, though. You are simplifying it. A smaller state can run a local area more efficiently if it has more sway there than a federal state can from afar. A smaller city-state has not the same manpower and resources at its disposal as a federal state. If Land supposedly happens about the same time or after Day then it is extremely puzzling how could the outpost be faring so much better than the government itself. They were maintaining large numbers of survivors, mercenaries, machines, communications, etc. Yes, of course, but Kaufman isn't trying to run the country - he's trying to run Fiddler's Green. The two are very separate things. But his outpost was big, very much populated, and right in a danger zone like a big city. Even the government itself has pretty much lost a grip of the big cities by the time of Dawn. That's why Dr. Rausch has no second thoughts proposing to drop atomic bombs on them. There's basically nothing left there but zombies. Everyone else there has either fled or died. I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna debate screenwriting 101 with you. It's Riley's character introduction. That's the context. There is no trivial dialogue. That's just not how screenwriting works. I studied it for a few years - I should know (I hate to bring up that card, but you're really quite ignorant in regards to the subject matter). The examples you have provided I have refuted. There are no two ways around this - You are wrong. You don't have to debate every point and you don't have a case here. You may wish to read Robert McKee's Story and Syd Field's Screenwriting if you want to dwelve deeper into the subject. God knows you could need it, if you wanna keep nitpicking dialogue the way you do. This coming from someone who confused expositional dialogue with narrative exposition? The fact is that scripts have incidental and non-essential matter in them that are not crucial to the plot. They are there simply to do such things as build atmosphere, lighten the mood, transition to another scene, etc. Similar things happen with other forms of narrative, like novels. Romero even considers the zombies themselves to be basically incidental for his stories, and you expect me to believe that something as ludicrous as "nice shooting" vs "good shooting" (both actually mean the same thing) has some very profound meaning for the plot? You have "refuted" nothing. You even totally missed the fact that the root of the problem between Cholo and Kaufman has nothing to do with the zombies. You can lift this Cholo vs Kaufman part of the plot and drop it on a story exclusively having to do with mobsters and their quarrels and it would fit right in. No zombies needed anywhere. Introduction to Riley? By the time this scene happens Riley has already been more than introduced. We already know what type of fellow he is. You could easily eliminate this rather silly and corny bit of dialogue and the story would not be affected one bit. In fact, if anything it would actually improve. "The gist of the films" =/= Minutae details of the films. Gist = the substantial/essential part I take it more as that they had regular contact with Washington, not that they were on the phone with them 24/7. My example still stands. The media does not report everything correctly - not even today in this functioning society. A lot of misinformation get's thrown around - and much of it doesn't get thrown around at all. I'm sorry, but as I pointed out there are too many holes in this argument of yours. Even more reason then to inquire about what was being reported by the media from another source. And what better one than Washington itself! Too many holes? The real hole is proposing that this topic could somehow have been overlooked by a group of people so deeply concerned about it. I can see them overlooking trivial things that would have no important meaning for their situation, but not something they keep showing an interest in and could have significance for their situation. This also explains why they are very pessimistic about the whole situation. Things are not only bad in their "backyard", things are bad pretty much everywhere else, judging by what they would have been able to gather from other sources. Otherwise the dilemma of where to go to if they decide to leave the security of the bunker would hardly have been necessary.

[EvilNed]

Yes, but to pretend that they can pull so many things that not even the government can anymore is rather stretching it. Now imagine how much tougher it will be for private entrepreneurs to be functioning at levels that the government itself is very hard pressed to try to bring back. A smaller city-state has not the same manpower and resources at its disposal as a federal state. If Land supposedly happens about the same time or after Day then it is extremely puzzling how could the outpost be faring so much better than the government itself. They were maintaining large numbers of survivors, mercenaries, machines, communications, etc. I already pointed out the defections from the state pictured in Dawn. I already provided you with historical precedent of smaller more stabile states emerging in the remnants of earlier more powerful ones. You also totally disregard the exceptionalism presented in Land in your argument - It's not as if Land is implying that there's crawling of settlements like Fiddler's Green but there might be a few. As would be expected a few years after the apocalypse when people start to rebuild. But the story George wanted to tell necessitated a society like Fiddler's Green and he wanted to set it in Philly. But his outpost was big, very much populated, and right in a danger zone like a big city. Even the government itself has pretty much lost a grip of the big cities by the time of Dawn. That's why Dr. Rausch has no second thoughts proposing to drop atomic bombs on them. There's basically nothing left there but zombies. Everyone else there has either fled or died. Dr Rausch was not talking about Philadelphia specifically, he was talking about cities in general. You cannot determine from his dialogue that there is no proto-Fiddler's green, that logical conclusion is nonsense and requires to many specific assumptions. This coming from someone who confused expositional dialogue with narrative exposition? I never did that. I've already pointed out to you that no lines of dialogue are trivial. If you won't accept that, despite all the numerous points, hints and rebuttals I've thrown at you I can only assume you're either trolling me or simply not that knowledgeable. Either way, this discussion of scripting is over because it's like an adult talking to a child at this point... And you're not the adult. Gist = the substantial/essential part This started as an argument regarding details, not the "substantial part". You couldn't take Land, replace all the zombies digitially with tornadoes and leave the dialogue and specific actions intact and not have it been a completely nonsensical film. The dialogue refers to the specific type of catastrophe that the characters are dealing with, because that is the context. Romero could easily have told a very similar story in a post-apocalyptic world beset by other disasters than Zombies, but it would have required substantial alterations to the details. So just drop this point, you don't have to argue every specific point that makes your blood boil. Quite frankly, when I think of your nonsensical cherrypicking, this is the image I see in front of me; duty_calls.jpg Too many holes? The real hole is proposing that this topic could somehow have been overlooked by a group of people so deeply concerned about it. I can see them overlooking trivial things that would have no important meaning for their situation, but not something they keep showing an interest in and could have significance for their situation. This also explains why they are very pessimistic about the whole situation. Things are not only bad in their "backyard", things are bad pretty much everywhere else, judging by what they would have been able to gather from other sources. Otherwise the dilemma of where to go to if they decide to leave the security of the bunker would hardly have been necessary. Yes, holes. I already pointed them out to you. If you really can't figure out why everyone in this thread has accused you of absurd assumptions at this point, despite everyone giving logical, step-by-step rebuttals to your astronomical guesses (and subsequent very specific conclusions) then there is nothing I can do further. I can only assume you're like 14 or something, or that you're trolling me. Either way, this discussion is over. - - - Updated - - - On the last episode of the podcast the Biggest Problem in the Universe they talk a lot about "Confirmation Bias" and bring up a number of psychological fallacies that influence our mind's decision making process; One of them that stuck with me was how the mind stopped looking for possible problems to a conclusion once the mind has reached a conclusion that fitted neatly in with a pre-determined opinion. http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com/ Give it a listen, I think it might shed some light on some things that a lot of us have been trying to point out that is faulty with your conclusions. Specifically, you don't seem to accept any other possible (and more probable) explanations for many of your lines of thought than the ones that fit your theory. You outright dismiss them without even entertaining them for a second; despite the alternative conclusions less reliance on advanced and unfounded assumptions than those conclusions which you have arrived at and support. In the end, all arguments should be about teaching the other person a thing or two (i.e., trying to convince them) but also growing as a person. I try to learn something from all arguments I get into until I reach a point where I deem that the potential rewards of an argument do not outweigh the headache they generate.

[JDP]

I already pointed out the defections from the state pictured in Dawn. I already provided you with historical precedent of smaller more stabile states emerging in the remnants of earlier more powerful ones. You also totally disregard the exceptionalism presented in Land in your argument - It's not as if Land is implying that there's crawling of settlements like Fiddler's Green but there might be a few. As would be expected a few years after the apocalypse when people start to rebuild. But the story George wanted to tell necessitated a society like Fiddler's Green and he wanted to set it in Philly. The defections were made by people escaping the big cities, and they did so at their own risk. I already showed you how your historical analogy is faulty, and the events you talk about in fact made the situation worse for a number of centuries, not better. Trying to pretend otherwise is what is truly untenable. For your analogy to truly be fitting to the example seen in Land vs Day things would have had to get better through the fall of the Roman empire, not worse. It is amazing how many times this has had to be pointed out to you and yet you still continue trying to push this fallacy. The world of Land looks safer than that of Day. The survivors still have choices to go to if they so decide to leave Kaufman's city. If you want more real exceptionalism, look at the situation of the survivors in Day. Now those guys really have very few choices left! Dr Rausch was not talking about Philadelphia specifically, he was talking about cities in general. You cannot determine from his dialogue that there is no proto-Fiddler's green, that logical conclusion is nonsense and requires to many specific assumptions. Dr. Rausch clearly says the big cities. Unless you think that Philadelphia doesn't qualify as such a thing, I don't see what kind of your usually faulty type of arguments is it that you are trying to defend here. And the reason why Dr. Rausch or any of the other characters in the movies before Land have no idea whatsoever about the city outposts is because this contradictory nonsense had not yet crossed Romero's mind when he made them. That simple. But instead of dismissing Land as not being proper "canon" and truly belonging to the world of the original Dead trilogy, as many have done and criticized Romero so much for this movie, I in fact have no problem at all giving it a chance to fit in. I don't see too much problem with it as long as it takes place before Day. Other people are not this open minded about it and entirely blast it as nothing but a sign of Romero having lost his "touch" when it comes to making zombie movies. I never did that. I've already pointed out to you that no lines of dialogue are trivial. If you won't accept that, despite all the numerous points, hints and rebuttals I've thrown at you I can only assume you're either trolling me or simply not that knowledgeable. Either way, this discussion of scripting is over because it's like an adult talking to a child at this point... And you're not the adult. Yes, you did, it is in page 5, post #72 of the thread: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/s...?t=1523&page=5 Ironically, I had to show you what that actually is in post #73, and then in post #75 you posted what you actually had in mind, which was not the same thing. Hilarious how you are trying to deny this, which is in plain sight, and yet you have the brazenness of implying others of "trolling" or being "a child". Hint: this is a PUBLIC forum, the posts remain, anyone can check them by going back the thread. I've already pointed out to you that not all dialogue in a movie is essential. Can you imagine how "cardboard", artificial and dull would a movie be if everything in it was strictly down to the essential plot? The "rebuttals" exist in your imagination, nowhere else. I can keep on pointing out more examples for you, which you will still totally fail to show how they are supposedly relevant to the plot all the same, but I am starting to suspect that this will only be an exercise in futility, as you probably will only keep on stubbornly trying to argue that they are very important. In good faith, though, I will simply point out another example for you, maybe hoping that this time you will get the point. This bit of dialogue, for example: Motown: What the fuck does a Samoan know about hot-wiring a fucking car? Pillsbury: Fifty thousand cars stolen in Samoa every year. Motown: Yeah? Well, a million in Detroit. Pillsbury: Detroit's got 50 million cars. Samoa, 50,000. Every one stolen. I suppose you would hilariously want us to believe that this obvious joke, introduced as comic relief to lighten the mood, is really very crucial to the story and the script can't do without it, because as you say "there is no trivial dialogue", but it is quite absurd to pretend such a thing. Anyone can easily see it is not the case by any means. Scripts also have this type of dialogue in them that is non-essential to the story. It is part of building an atmosphere, otherwise the story would be too "dry", too "cardboard", people would not come across as real people. The difference between this bit of dialogue and the equally silly "good shooting" vs "nice shooting" one is that this one is actually funny. Both could be easily eliminated from the script, though, and replaced with something else and nothing pertaining to the plot would be affected. This started as an argument regarding details, not the "substantial part". You couldn't take Land, replace all the zombies digitially with tornadoes and leave the dialogue and specific actions intact and not have it been a completely nonsensical film. The dialogue refers to the specific type of catastrophe that the characters are dealing with, because that is the context. Romero could easily have told a very similar story in a post-apocalyptic world beset by other disasters than Zombies, but it would have required substantial alterations to the details. That is how the filmmaker himself basically sees it: http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/cu...ector-1-793342 And of course you would have to eliminate the zombies from the script, not just digitally alter them from an already made movie with plenty of references to them, duh! That is very evident. What kind of "argument" is it that you are trying to pull now with such obvious remarks that anyone already easily deduced from the context of the discussion? The point that Romero tries to make is that the zombies are not really the center of the stories, they are rather incidental and can be replaced with other things. The more relevant parts of the story would still remain. So just drop this point, you don't have to argue every specific point that makes your blood boil. Quite frankly, when I think of your nonsensical cherrypicking, this is the image I see in front of me; duty_calls.jpg What you are trying to do here has a very clear name:projecting. It does not work, kid. Yes, holes. I already pointed them out to you. If you really can't figure out why everyone in this thread has accused you of absurd assumptions at this point, despite everyone giving logical, step-by-step rebuttals to your astronomical guesses (and subsequent very specific conclusions) then there is nothing I can do further. I can only assume you're like 14 or something, or that you're trolling me. "Everyone" once again meaning you and a couple or so of other people who don't want to accept that the idea of Land taking place after Day is quite contradictory and implausible, based entirely on what we see and can deduce from both movies. And in fact I am hardly alone in concluding this, others around here have also concluded the same all on their own, without any help from me: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/s...ad.php?t=10361 Either way, this discussion is over. This is in fact what I should have said about it quite a while back when I already started suspecting you might be trying to be purposefully obtuse, arguing just for arguing's sake, and not because you were really presenting very solid counterarguments. - - - Updated - - - On the last episode of the podcast the Biggest Problem in the Universe they talk a lot about "Confirmation Bias" and bring up a number of psychological fallacies that influence our mind's decision making process; One of them that stuck with me was how the mind stopped looking for possible problems to a conclusion once the mind has reached a conclusion that fitted neatly in with a pre-determined opinion. http://thebiggestproblemintheuniverse.com/ Give it a listen, I think it might shed some light on some things that a lot of us have been trying to point out that is faulty with your conclusions. Specifically, you don't seem to accept any other possible (and more probable) explanations for many of your lines of thought than the ones that fit your theory. You outright dismiss them without even entertaining them for a second; despite the alternative conclusions less reliance on advanced and unfounded assumptions than those conclusions which you have arrived at and support. In the end, all arguments should be about teaching the other person a thing or two (i.e., trying to convince them) but also growing as a person. I try to learn something from all arguments I get into until I reach a point where I deem that the potential rewards of an argument do not outweigh the headache they generate. The alternative conclusions just aren't as satisfactory, that simple. They fail to explain or account for many things: how could the Florida survivors be so paradoxical and contradictory in their behavior as to be so worried about the issue of survivors yet they could somehow not care at all to request feedback on the subject from their superiors in Washington during their frequent communications, how could those outposts have been ignored by BOTH the Dawn and Day survivors when they were already being established before the media went off the air, how can Kaufman maintain so many things going on that not even the US government can anymore, why does the landscape, the zombies and their clothing look more consistently abandoned/decayed in Day than in Land, why is the world of Land still relatively safe compared to that of Day and even to that of Dawn, how can the survivors of Land be still so optimistic about the future when the ones in Day and even Dawn are very pessimistic about it, why is it such a huge dilemma in Day to find a safe place to go to, as opposed to Land, where alternatives to Kaufman's city still exist, why is it that in Dawn the big cities are already a lost cause, to the point that the prospect of nuking them is being seriously proposed as a solution, yet in Land thriving outposts still exist in some of them, how can some of the survivors in Land still be so ignorant regarding some very fundamental things about the zombies which would be unthinkable that any survivor by the time of Day could possibly ignore, etc. When you carefully weigh everything that has been pointed out by me and others before me, the most logical conclusion is that Day has to be later than Land.

[EvilNed]

Not gonna bite. Sorry. Except to say that the dialogue you quote serves to give us more character information on the character of Pillsbury (he's samoan and used to be a car thief) and that the chick is from Detroit. The dialogue always serves a purpose.

[JDP]

Not gonna bite. Sorry. Except to say that the dialogue you quote serves to give us more character information on the character of Pillsbury (he's samoan and used to be a car thief) and that the chick is from Detroit. The dialogue always serves a purpose. Wow, I am amazed how important and crucial all this is for the plot. Really.

[EvilNed]

Wow, I am amazed how important and crucial all this is for the plot. Really. I never said all dialogue is important or crucial to the plot, all I said is that all dialogue is relevant to the context. Which it is. Zombies and the apocalypse are relevant. Pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are not.

[JDP]

I never said all dialogue is important or crucial to the plot, all I said is that all dialogue is relevant to the context. Which it is. Zombies and the apocalypse are relevant. Pre-apocalyptic business arrangements are not. A joke about car thefts in Samoa is hardly relevant to the context of the movie. This is just comic relief, nothing else. Hardly so, some of the characters in this movie also refer to things that happened before the zombie problem. There is nothing that prevents any of these characters from referring to things that happened before or have nothing to do with the zombies. Cholo and Kaufman's business problems in fact have nothing to do with them. We don't see Cholo complaining about Kaufman having exploited him as a zombie-killer, but in turning him into a goon to do Kaufman's dirty work in getting rid of people that were a nuisance to him, some of whom were in fact Cholo's friends. None of this prevents Cholo from having worked for Kaufman for a longer time than the zombies have been around.

[EvilNed]

A joke about car thefts in Samoa is hardly relevant to the context of the movie. This is just comic relief, nothing else. Dont move the goalpost. Your gripe was with it not being crucial to the plot - something I have never claimed that dialogue was required to be. Also, As I pointed out, it also serves as telling us a bit about their characters - which is always relevant to the context. If you deny this, you must be trolling. The comic relief part is the deliverance. One does not exclude the other. It's better way of telling us a bit about Pillsbury than having Pillsbury say "Hi, my name is Pillsbury and I used to be a car thief in Samoa." which would just be awkward dialogue. There is nothing that prevents any of these characters from referring to things that happened before or have nothing to do with the zombies. You're right. There isn't. It's just highly irrelevant - in the context - and would be the only reference of it's kind to any such pre-apocalyptic business arrangement. So when one possibility is highly likely (that it refers to the start of the apocalypse, or at least the start of Fiddler's Green) and the other is highly unlikely (that it refers to some imagined pre-apocalyptic business arrangement between Cholo and Kaufman), the answer is right in front of you. Cue clueless denial. I'm out, this thing is getting nowhere.

[JDP]

Dont move the goalpost. Your gripe was with it not being crucial to the plot - something I have never claimed that dialogue was required to be. We need to look no further back than earlier in this very page of the thread, where you very assuredly said "there is no trivial dialogue" on post #152. Trivial = of little value or importance. And I have shown you that there is, not once, but twice. Both bits of dialogue are in fact so trivial that they can be eliminated altogether from the movie and it would not alter the plot one bit. And yes, in relation to what else would they be considered "trivial" if not to the movie's very own plot??? There is nothing else to be "trivial" in comparison to in this context. A movie's plot is its core, its most important part, the very reason why people watch it in the first place. Everything else that is not pertinent to it falls under "trivial". It is either of less or no importance. Also, As I pointed out, it also serves as telling us a bit about their characters - which is always relevant to the context. If you deny this, you must be trolling. The comic relief part is the deliverance. One does not exclude the other. It's better way of telling us a bit about Pillsbury than having Pillsbury say "Hi, my name is Pillsbury and I used to be a car thief in Samoa." which would just be awkward dialogue. The character could easily have used other lines that have nothing to do with a joke about the number of car thefts in Samoa. You can even eliminate the whole bit without any problem. But it does serve a less important purpose, thus why it is "trivial", which you quite incorrectly said it supposedly does not exist in scripts (post #152 of this very page.) You're right. There isn't. It's just highly irrelevant - in the context - and would be the only reference of it's kind to any such pre-apocalyptic business arrangement. So when one possibility is highly likely (that it refers to the start of the apocalypse, or at least the start of Fiddler's Green) and the other is highly unlikely (that it refers to some imagined pre-apocalyptic business arrangement between Cholo and Kaufman), the answer is right in front of you. Cue clueless denial. I'm out, this thing is getting nowhere. Is it less highly relevant or irrelevant than Cholo letting us know that his father was a loser all his life, or that Slack has spent her whole life in the city, both of which necessarily imply events from long before the zombies appeared? The way you try to argue is almost as if there was some sort of "rule" that characters in a zombie movie cannot make any type of references whatsoever to events that go back to a time when the zombies were not around. This is hardly the case. There is nothing intrinsically implied in the reference given by Cholo to Kaufman about their business relationship. It carries no necessary connotation to the zombies. You are the one who wants to by force make it look like it has. The fact is that it may or it may not have. Had Cholo specifically referred to a business directly touching upon the zombies themselves then you would have a totally solid point and there would be no other way to interpret the reference. The business relationship would by force have to have been directly connected to the appearance of the zombies.

[EvilNed]

And so the circle starts anew...