The plot of 'Land'..

[SymphonicX]

..Makes absolutly no sense to me, and im not talking about big daddy or other "inteligent" zombies.. i mean why does cholo actually want money? surely there are far more valuable things in the world like food or water? that whole idea is beyond me, the way im looking at it.. the one and only place in the world were money has any value is the city and the green, so by demanding money from its owner, he is excluding himself from it becuase no doubt kaufmann will put a price on his head, so no sooner as he sets foot back in the city, he is going to be arrested or killed. And what is he gonna do with money on the outside? pay big daddy to suck him off? Nah.. it just dosn't make sense, lastly, if he wants money so badly, why not just walk into a bank and take it? in day there are notes floating about the streets in front of a bank but you dont see sarah or miguel running for it.. sure would be much easier and he would be able to safely re-enter the city to spend it. Agreed 100%. There may be a way to fudge a reason for the money, like control of population etc etc, but in reality, I think people are smarter than that, even idiots like those in the Green. I so seriously doubt anyone in that city would have allowed such a huge cultural divide between rich and poor when money was so obviously taking a back seat to survival. Maybe Romero was making them stupid to make a point, either way, it's a bit..."out-landish"

[Danny]

people are greedy and crave comfort and familiarity, im sure that played a major part.

[bassman]

people are greedy and crave comfort and familiarity, im sure that played a major part. There it is. Summed up in one sentence....

[Trin]

I could see the divide existing if Kaufman controlled the guns and the supplies and kept himself surrounded by like-minded lackeys who were very well rewarded. That would be your typical dictatorship. But he didn't. Riley and Cholo and a whole bunch of others appeared to be just as oppressed and excluded as Mulligan and the other street riff-raff. Riley said as much. And on the topic of Riley - what a suck character. I mean, I really loved his character. He was my favorite next to Charlie. He was the good guy, looking out for the kid in the liquor store, looking out for Charlie, looking out for Mulligan's kid, looking out for Slack who he didn't even know, looking out of the residents of the Green as the zombies invaded. He risked his life over and over again for people. But what a dumbass!!! "Derrrrr... It's too bad we can't do anything about Kaufman. Derrrrr... Now let's park Dead Reckoning, turn in our machine guns, and turn over all the food and medicine and guns and ammo and gas to Kaufman. Derrrrr... I wish I could eat some of that caviar, but it's for Kaufman. Derrr....." It was retarded.

[tju1973]

I could see the divide existing if Kaufman controlled the guns and the supplies and kept himself surrounded by like-minded lackeys who were very well rewarded. That would be your typical dictatorship. But he didn't. Riley and Cholo and a whole bunch of others appeared to be just as oppressed and excluded as Mulligan and the other street riff-raff. Riley said as much. And on the topic of Riley - what a suck character. I mean, I really loved his character. He was my favorite next to Charlie. He was the good guy, looking out for the kid in the liquor store, looking out for Charlie, looking out for Mulligan's kid, looking out for Slack who he didn't even know, looking out of the residents of the Green as the zombies invaded. He risked his life over and over again for people. But what a dumbass!!! "Derrrrr... It's too bad we can't do anything about Kaufman. Derrrrr... Now let's park Dead Reckoning, turn in our machine guns, and turn over all the food and medicine and guns and ammo and gas to Kaufman. Derrrrr... I wish I could eat some of that caviar, but it's for Kaufman. Derrr....." It was retarded. I agree 100%-- not that zombies roaming the Earth are very realistic, I have enjoyed his other flicks because SITUATIONALLY they made sense. Land did not-- I like it ok, but no more than a "popcorn flick". It felt rushed, they execution of the story was weak, and I will give you that it may have not been GAR's fault-- but all in all, I rate Land at the bottom of the 4 (now 5) "Dead" movies. It would have made more sense to either a) have the residents of the Green make a fortress and EVERYBODY fight/ contribute, or b) have all the "have nots" take over and either run the Green or go on the move convoy style.....

[Dead Hoosier]

The whole thing was a mess. I know opinions vary, but I don't see how anyone could "care" about any single character. Romero's writing has turned all characters -- and this problem also plagued Diary -- into characatures. They are over-exagerated portraits, with really no practical realism. And ... oh ... the horrific dialogue.

[Danny]

for everyone whos given up a "but it should have happened this way" argument, theres a reason it didn't go that way. A: Any plot development would be redundant, no change, no reason for resolution, no movie. B: Romero always adds a human antagonist, an asshole whos easy to hate, its his typical movie m.o, in this it was kaufman. C: They may be cool ideas of what you would want to happen but they don't work as a movie. especially horror, horror movies are , at there heart, just a 6 point step involving an obstacle, change, isolation and resolution to name a few factors. Having the lower class citizens have it all from the start means there is nothing to strive for, so what's the point? how is there motivation differing from day to day? D: The money can be used as a sign of a hopeful return to some form of normalcy, wich in a world like that, would be constantly in the front of peoples minds. I could go on but there's no other way, given the way romero writes his zombie flicks for land to have worked and not been something you would have seen before.

[SRP76]

I could go on but there's no other way, given the way romero writes his zombie flicks for land to have worked and not been something you would have seen before. Sure there's another way. We just wouldn't have been given a bucket of soapbox rant, weak characters, and a stupid scenario. Follow the progression: 1. Night: Holy ****, zombies are on the loose! 2. Dawn: zombies are taking over 3. Day: the world belongs to the dead ......what would be the logical next step? The living attempt to take back their world, that's what. Our band of folks holed up in a city (who also have the capability to build tanks, missiles, and so forth for some reason) actually break out and try to fight back for what they view as "theirs". Instead, we get some stupidity about a rich guy having sway in a land of no laws, which is the most proven-to-never-happen-with-humans things you can find.

[Trin]

people are greedy and crave comfort and familiarity, im sure that played a major part. Hey Hellsing, didn't mean to breeze past your post with my rant but you were posting as I was ranting. You are definitely correct in this statement, and I'm sure that was the point GAR was driving at. And I believe that argument works for 99% of the people in Land. But the argument doesn't work for Cholo. First, he wasn't interested in the familiar. He wasn't trying to go back to the "old ways." He was trying to be like Kaufman and leverage the new world to his advantage. And while he was definitely greedy, he didn't want money for the sake of having money. He wanted money to buy his way into the Green. He wanted it for the power it would give him. If things had gone his way he would have given all his money right back to Kaufman. As soon as Kaufman pulls the plug the money can no longer satisfy his greed. As for the story only being able to go a certain way, I definitely see what you're saying. It's a boring movie if everyone has everything all figured out and there's no conflict, the zombies are helpless, etc. But I think there's a lot of room for the story to have gone a different way that still would have been a good presentation of horror and antagonism. The conflict between Kaufman and Cholo was good and believable. It doesn't break down until the silly money ransom thing. I've always thought a better Land would've involved Cholo using Dead Reckoning to break down the barriers and allow the zombies into the Green. No ransom. No barter. Cholo goes straight for revenge, and maybe does some looting of the Green along the way. The zombies have a perfectly logical means of entering the city. The conflict and horror are still there and it would've been damned scary.

[Danny]

i liked the whole narrative around khauffman and cholo, they were good characters, better than the protagonists i think. couldnt shake the fact that i was watching the guy who played luigi in the mario bros. movie though.

[Philly_SWAT]

Nah.. it just dosn't make sense, lastly, if he wants money so badly, why not just walk into a bank and take it? in day there are notes floating about the streets in front of a bank but you dont see sarah or miguel running for it.. sure would be much easier and he would be able to safely re-enter the city to spend it. Unlike others who roll thier eyes at discussing an already discussed topic, I enjoy a golden oldie. You are correct. If there are stores close enough to the Green to raid, then surely there would be banks close enough as well. Surely, in the initial outbreak, banks would not be the first item on the agenda of would-be survivors. And even if it were....imagine you could go into banks right now, with no threat of arrest, how easy do you think it would be for you to get into the vault??! Not easy. In the first few days, people would not even have the tolls needed to get into the vault, much less time to screw around under a zombie threat. With the organization that Cholo and crew had, they could spend the time to get into the vault. Dangerous? Of course, but not more so than what they were doing to begin with. * Banks - you mean the places surrounded by zombies, the places that have either: A) Already been heisted. B) Are completely locked - as they should be - therefore making it impossible for some chump to come along and unlock it, which you couldn't because you'd have to find the equipment, gain the knowledge, and have the time - which you don't, because of the zombies being all over the place. *SEE ABOVE. WHy would banks be surounded by zombies? A) As mentioned, they wouldnt already be heisted. Scared people would not have the ability, or desire, to go into banks in the days after an outbreak. B) And yes, they are completely locked, which directly contradicts your assertion in point A that they are already heisted. With the Dead Reckoning, a well organized team used to field operations, and plenty of guns and ammo, Cholo and his crew could have went into the banks and gotten the money. And if it became dangerous at any point, they could simply leave and come back later. It's not like the zeds are gonna finish the heist off. ... As for money and Day: * Day is months after the outbreak, Land is three years. * In Day, they're there to search for survivors, also - they don't get anywhere near the bank - because they're at the other end of the street. We see a shot of the bank, as well as a cinema and other establishments. Sarah and Miguel never proceed down the street. * Also, money is of no use to the characters in Day - why? - because they're a handful of people, stuck in a hole in the ground. In Land, there are hundreds of people who have all shambled back together and been gathered, that's enough for an economy, therefore money now has regained it's status and purpose in society. Day was during the in-between years, the no man's land type years, the whole point of Land is that people are trying to re-establish the society they understand, and that they knew beforehand while forgetting about the zombie threat - which is less so, because they've sealed themselves off from it. It makes no sense that in a short 3 years, remaining human survivors would be ready to have a money based economy again. Money would not magically "regain" its status and purpose in society. Food and shelter and protection would be the only 3 things on peoples minds, and if money would not help you get any of them, money would be worthless. Perhaps people living in the tower itself would still want money to buy the goods that Kaufman had, but why would Kaufman himself even want money? That is a question that I havent ever seen adressed. If Day is indeed 3 years into the outbreak, even if people in the tower are "ignoring" the problem, they would still realize the situation still exists. They can not casually leave the safe area and go elsewhere, they would be killed by zombies, which is why they stay in the safety of the Green. What they are ignoring is not the situation itself, just that they personally should be affected by it. But one answer that adresses the problems of why people would want money when it does them no good, and why the people in Day do not seem interested in money at all, is what I have been saying all along, is that Day is much further into the outbreak than Land. Being only a few months removed from "normal" society, it would be easier to cling to the ideas of the old ways, dont you think? Like wanting money? If you were years in, like in Day, you would be forced to come to the conclusion that money doesnt have any meaning anymore.

[AcesandEights]

People in a relatively stable society clinging to the idea of money as a means of exchange and a tool to climb from their low-rung position in society, all the while frittering their life away toiling for their wealthy masters? Preposterous

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing, In one way or another everyone in this thread is fencing with the core issue and/or flaw (depending on your perspective) that Romero just can't shake. The man consistently chooses to sacrifice pragmatic, realistic and intelligent behavior on the part of his core protagonists and human antagonists in favor of pigeonholing their choices into something that will serve his "message" in each movie. I've heard the argument made that if the characters behaved intelligently and acted to give themselves the best chance to survive that the movie(s) wouldn't be scary etc. I just don't believe that. Land for instance. Endemic complacency and incompetence riddling the security force and those commanding them/designing the Green's defenses wasn't necessary to provide a much more scary means for the zombies to invade. One of the previous posters mentioned Cholo might've caused a large breach for revenge's sake that Big Daddy could've led the zombies through. An uprising by the oppressed lower class that was winning, but only just barely might've caused Kaufman to strip the walls bare for desperately needed reinforcements for his side..the list could go on and on. The point I'm making is that GAR doesn't seem to understand that for many fans of the genre the behavior of the human characters is a make-or-break element of a survival horror film. I don't mean to sound like I don't appreciate the concept that part of what made GAR's movies the wellspring of the zombie genre is his use of the undead as a vehicle for social commentary. Done well, it can be like holding up an evil mirror for the viewer, with its reflections casting everything in a dark and twisted manner yet still familiar enough to make us relate to what we're being shown. The thing is though...it shouldn't be a one or the other issue. I feel Land is the prime example of GAR's penchant for this behavior going several steps too far. After all, if the movie's quality is dramatically lowered by the dumbass moves the characters keep making then no one is going to see/care about his commentary. because no one wants to watch the movie. There were a lot of things I liked about Day and Land, but the Social Activism For Dummies feel has reached the point it grates on me so bad that I'm not sure if I'm willing to give GAR another chance. Portions of World War Z as one example proved that compelling zombie plots can be driven by protagonists making smart pragmatic decisions. I just wish that when GAR wants to have a survivor stronghold overrun he might choose a feel more like the Battle of Yonkers. Sorry, will try to wrap this up. Land could've been a lot better if GAR had focused less on a tired Oppression of the Proletariat message and more on say: A realistic vision of what a community isolated among a sea of the undead would be like, with all the attendant problems and struggles the worsening situation would spawn.

[MinionZombie]

Lads and ladies - I'm officially done with this thread ... bunch of brick walls yelling at each other again. Laterz.

[SymphonicX]

Here's the thing, In one way or another everyone in this thread is fencing with the core issue and/or flaw (depending on your perspective) that Romero just can't shake. The man consistently chooses to sacrifice pragmatic, realistic and intelligent behavior on the part of his core protagonists and human antagonists in favor of pigeonholing their choices into something that will serve his "message" in each movie. I've heard the argument made that if the characters behaved intelligently and acted to give themselves the best chance to survive that the movie(s) wouldn't be scary etc. I just don't believe that. Land for instance. Endemic complacency and incompetence riddling the security force and those commanding them/designing the Green's defenses wasn't necessary to provide a much more scary means for the zombies to invade. One of the previous posters mentioned Cholo might've caused a large breach for revenge's sake that Big Daddy could've led the zombies through. An uprising by the oppressed lower class that was winning, but only just barely might've caused Kaufman to strip the walls bare for desperately needed reinforcements for his side..the list could go on and on. The point I'm making is that GAR doesn't seem to understand that for many fans of the genre the behavior of the human characters is a make-or-break element of a survival horror film. I don't mean to sound like I don't appreciate the concept that part of what made GAR's movies the wellspring of the zombie genre is his use of the undead as a vehicle for social commentary. Done well, it can be like holding up an evil mirror for the viewer, with its reflections casting everything in a dark and twisted manner yet still familiar enough to make us relate to what we're being shown. The thing is though...it shouldn't be a one or the other issue. I feel Land is the prime example of GAR's penchant for this behavior going several steps too far. After all, if the movie's quality is dramatically lowered by the dumbass moves the characters keep making then no one is going to see/care about his commentary. because no one wants to watch the movie. There were a lot of things I liked about Day and Land, but the Social Activism For Dummies feel has reached the point it grates on me so bad that I'm not sure if I'm willing to give GAR another chance. Portions of World War Z as one example proved that compelling zombie plots can be driven by protagonists making smart pragmatic decisions. I just wish that when GAR wants to have a survivor stronghold overrun he might choose a feel more like the Battle of Yonkers. Sorry, will try to wrap this up. Land could've been a lot better if GAR had focused less on a tired Oppression of the Proletariat message and more on say: A realistic vision of what a community isolated among a sea of the undead would be like, with all the attendant problems and struggles the worsening situation would spawn. nicely said, agree 100%