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

[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 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?

[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? 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!