Had Rhodes and the boys been inside the mall

[JDP]

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

[MinionZombie]

No matter what argument, regardless of how logical and clearly laid out, you JDP always refuse to accept them. It's a tale as old as time at this point and quite predictable, and this is why it's not fun to discuss these things with you. You are incapable of accepting someone else's argument - so what on earth is the point? It's not a fun conversation to have and we've all been down this same old tatty road several times before - it is pointless.

[JDP]

No matter what argument, regardless of how logical and clearly laid out, you JDP always refuse to accept them. It's a tale as old as time at this point and quite predictable, and this is why it's not fun to discuss these things with you. You are incapable of accepting someone else's argument - so what on earth is the point? It's not a fun conversation to have and we've all been down this same old tatty road several times before - it is pointless. Not true, I accept reasonable arguments, but the ones that defy logic & common sense and obviously conflict with other observations, I don't see any reason to have to accept. Now, go ahead and "explain" to us such conundrums as how exactly someone like Slack, who has lived her whole life in that city, cannot possibly know how long it takes for a bitten person to die and become a zombie, if, as you claim, this entire zombie affair has supposedly been ongoing FOR THREE FRIGGIN' YEARS??? Or how can it be possible that the SHITLOAD of looters employed by Kaufman to keep necessary supplies coming into the POPULOUS city are still sacking nearby towns and still finding loads of supplies AFTER THREE FRIGGIN' YEARS??? LOL! The position of the deniers is hopeless. Fact: Romero did not put much thought into Land when it comes to its relationship and continuity with the three previous movies. That's why there's more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese when one tries to claim that this movie has to happen after the events of Day. Too many conflicts. But if you see this movie as happening BEFORE Day, most of these difficulties VANISH. Sticking to the two examples above: the zombie apocalypse has obviously not been going on for several years, that's why a city dweller like Slack can still ignore such an important bit of information about the zombies, and why Kaufman's huge gang of marauding goons can still be looting nearby towns and finding plenty of supplies left around. See how easy it is when you adopt the proper logic and common sense? Try it yourself, you will see that you yourself can more easily explain all the above listed observations when you adopt the Land happens before Day view than the other way around. The other way only keeps presenting problems and conflicts.

[shootemindehead]

I've heard the argument before that Rhodes etc were reservists but has Romero or anyone else involved in the production actually confirmed that? Well, the shoulder patch is there for a reason. And just look at the state of these men. They're, sloppy, ill-disciplined morons, two of which are overweight and the rest are doped up to their eyeballs. They certainly don't look like regulars to me. Into the bargain, I can hardly imagine the US Army appointing first class soldiers to guard a facility that was primarily a civilian operation. Perhaps Captain Rhodes and Major Cooper were regular army, but the rest are just a rabble. And, frankly, Rhodes' leadership qualities are miniscule, so that debatable as well. I may be wrong, but I think George mentions something on the commentary track on the Blu Ray that Rhodes and his men are National Guard, probably to tie into the line about the National Guard being mobilised in 'Dawn of the Dead'. Another thing to consider is Dawn is in the earlier stages of the apocalypse, and there is a debate over which happens first Land or Day. So given what you say about the things you say about games, food and being in the earlier stages yes they probably would be less stressed out and also more able to mount a defence against the bikers. There's no debate whether Land takes place before Day. IIRC Romero even stated that the events in Land take place after Day. 'Land of the Dead' had long gestated in George's mind as a situation where humanity had "come back" to a certain degree. The whole point of 'Land of the Dead' is that even many years into the zombie apocalypse mankind can't get over the petty trappings of a society that existed pre-apocalypse and are again divided into the haves and have nots. The film is called "LAND of the Dead' because the dead have won. The human enclave we see in Fiddlers Green are in a slight resurgence. https://youtu.be/mjOjY6zRliI?t=240

[MinionZombie]

There's no debate whether Land takes place before Day. IIRC Romero even stated that the events in Land take place after Day. 'Land of the Dead' had long gestated in George's mind as a situation where humanity had "come back" to a certain degree. The whole point of 'Land of the Dead' is that even many years into the zombie apocalypse mankind can't get over the petty trappings of a society that existed pre-apocalypse and are again divided into the haves and have nots. The film is called "LAND of the Dead' because the dead have won. The human enclave we see in Fiddlers Green are in a slight resurgence. Indeed, look at the thematics of the end of the film - man and zombie are going to have to go their separate ways and live apart in order to both survive. Big Daddy and his contingent of zombies are going one way, while Riley and his group are going another way - they even share a look before both heading off in search of what they want. Riley wants peace and quiet in a far away, isolated land. Big Daddy wants away from the slaughter of his compatriots. The other humans stay to rebuild their enclave in a better vision. If we look to TWD for a moment, with the likes of the Commonwealth in particular, it's very much of that same idea - the old world being rebuilt (at any cost) by the very people who were in power before the ZA, dragging the same problems with them. Much like Fiddler's Green, the Commonwealth were set up very early on in the ZA and survived, but in-so-doing they bred greater internal divisions between the haves and have-nots and allowed an increasingly corrupt rot to seize hold of the enclave, emboldened to do anything in the name of security, safety, and the pre-approved image of order and control.

[sandrock74]

Day comes before Land. Anyone who says otherwise can take solace in the thought of somewhere in the multiverse it is true. Just not in our reality. Anyway, Rhodes and crew (I assume their full number, at the outset of things) would definitely do better against the biker gang at the mall, if only because of their increased numbers over Peter and Flyboy. They may not have been able to prevent the bikers from breaking in, which is debatable, but they definitely could have forced the bikers to quickly rethink their game plan. It would be fun to see this situation play out.

[JDP]

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

[EvilNed]

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

[JDP]

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

[shootemindehead]

Indeed, look at the thematics of the end of the film - man and zombie are going to have to go their separate ways and live apart in order to both survive. Big Daddy and his contingent of zombies are going one way, while Riley and his group are going another way - they even share a look before both heading off in search of what they want. Riley wants peace and quiet in a far away, isolated land. Big Daddy wants away from the slaughter of his compatriots. Mmmm...at the end of the film Riley says "They're just looking for a place to go" as Big Daddy and his group wander off, which mirrors what Riley and his band want to do. On the commentary track, it's mentioned that Big Daddy's "tribe" have evolved to a certain state over the years. Romero mentions that there are also other zombies that would be still in their previous state, as it were, and would be happy "just to sit and have lunch", and that some of them would be still wandering around the city. I've always been in two minds about how I feel with Big Daddy and his lot. I think in many ways they're too advanced. To the point where they lose their creepiness. The make up is fine and all that, but they just act far too "human", for want of a better word.

[MinionZombie]

I've always been in two minds about how I feel with Big Daddy and his lot. I think in many ways they're too advanced. To the point where they lose their creepiness. The make up is fine and all that, but they just act far too "human", for want of a better word. An evolution that could've maybe used a little finessing, perhaps. What Bub began in Day, Big Daddy continued and expanded in Land. I'm a big fan of Land, always have been, although it is fair to say BD's yowling mostly hasn't aged particularly well. I did like all the stuff with BD seeking vengeance on Kauffman's tower, and it somewhat mirrors the rich/poor divide of those within the confines of Fiddler's Green and its slum surroundings. BD and Riley are two sides of the same coin in a lot of ways.

[JDP]

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

[MinionZombie]

I'd say Stephen 'leading them up' was as much, if not more so, accidental than deliberate. He, as in Stephen, was deliberately heading that way because of the residual memories the zombies have, the others just followed him. He may 'point', and deliberately turn down the hallway (the other zombies just follow dumbly behind), but it's fairly rudimentary. Bub had lenghty tutelage to achieve what he did, with Bub's character building upon the memories contained in the zombies' festering minds as seen in Dawn. Big Daddy, on the other hand, comes to leadership realisation purely on his own with no guidance. He also instructs other zombies to carry out rudimentary actions - like use the meat cleaver zombie to hack away at the wood blocking their path. He also puts weapons into the hands of other zombies, such as #9. Big Daddy is an evolution of the ideas put forth in Day with Bub.

[JDP]

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

[shootemindehead]

I'd say Stephen 'leading them up' was as much, if not more so, accidental than deliberate. He, as in Stephen, was deliberately heading that way because of the residual memories the zombies have, the others just followed him. He may 'point', and deliberately turn down the hallway (the other zombies just follow dumbly behind), but it's fairly rudimentary. It's interesting to note that Stephen tries to close the door behind him when he reaches his destination. So, perhaps, it's not so much that he's trying to lead the other zombies anywhere, more that he's died with the desire to get back to the safety of the refuge he's been in when he was alive and that memory is still front and centre in his reanimated mind. Bub had lenghty tutelage to achieve what he did, with Bub's character building upon the memories contained in the zombies' festering minds as seen in Dawn. Big Daddy, on the other hand, comes to leadership realisation purely on his own with no guidance. He also instructs other zombies to carry out rudimentary actions - like use the meat cleaver zombie to hack away at the wood blocking their path. He also puts weapons into the hands of other zombies, such as #9. Big Daddy is an evolution of the ideas put forth in Day with Bub. ...and Romero says as much in his commentary track for the movie.