From Romero's films...

[Thorn]

Rhodes is certainly no one worthy of our respect and admiration, and he is no one I would want to follow or work with in any capacity. While some of his behaviors i am sure are tied to the stress of the situation that is no reason to feel sorry for the man or identify with him. I like to think if I was fraying and becoming undone I would have the sense to be aware of it or at least be approachable enough of a person to take the advice of those around me and step aside and get the help I needed. Instead he fostered and cultivated a hostile environment that mirrored in many ways the horrors of the outside world, there were already monsters inside the complex before the elevator lowered unleashing the hounds so to speak and the man in charge of them was Rhodes. He then showed himself even further by turning on the monsters he had controlled (or allowed to run free more aptly). I am sorry I do not see how you can identify with this man or see him as anything more than a monster. It is after all what he was written to be, it was how the actor portrayed him, and I think the end product shows that quite clearly.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

Shooteminthehead & Thorn. I honestly don't see his character as you perceive him, nor do I believe he was intentionally scripted to be the bad guy. I am sure I am not the only person in the world who felt he was the real victim. I guess we all take something different from movies and you have to admit, the Rhodes character was cleverly written and portrayed if we have different opinions of him. Shoot... Reckon you are miles out with the context of his "give the rest of us a shot of some lovin'" statement. I read in to that particular comment as a wake up call of how very different things could be for Sarah if it were not for his command. even though it made Ted pee his pants a little, the comment did not phase Sarah at all. Banter aside, she was assured of her safety by Rhodes and his men. Hell, John openly wanted her to make babies with him, so we know where his mind was at when considering his paradise escape. Again, my outlook is just another example of how we all perceive things and events differently. You guys might very well be right with your interpretation, but I may be equally as right. Now, I will leave you both to write love letters to your penpals on Death Row, you warped individuals... This little debate has got me thinking a poll might be in order. Could someone reading this thread please create a poll to judge the split on who was the real villain in Day of the Dead. (I have no idea how to create such a thing on here) The real villain in Day of the Dead was... Dr. Logan Cpt Rhodes Thank you kind peers.

[shootemindehead]

Shoot... Reckon you are miles out with the context of his "give the rest of us a shot of some lovin'" statement. I read in to that particular comment as a wake up call of how very different things could be for Sarah if it were not for his command. even though it made Ted pee his pants a little, the comment did not phase Sarah at all. Banter aside, she was assured of her safety by Rhodes and his men. Hell, John openly wanted her to make babies with him, so we know where his mind was at when considering his paradise escape. Eh...no. The line "Maybe I should cut off his extra curricular activities (ie his bollocks) and give the rest of us a shot at some lovin'" means one thing. It's a sexual threat upon Sarah. Perhaps Rhodes doesn't actually mean what he is saying, but the sentence is definitely designed very much as a threat to the only female member of the group. It's not shrouded, or even that nuanced. It's very clear. And, as I said earlier, the threat to shoot Sarah for not sitting down when Rhodes told her too, is a very clear statement of intent too. Make no mistake, Romero wrote Rhodes as the villain of the piece. Otherwise those lines of dialogue and especially the "shooting threat" scene have no meaning.

[AcesandEights]

Well, there are a good number of people here sympathetic to either Rhodes or, to a larger extent, the plight of the soldiers in the bunker. Personally, I think the Rhodes character was utterly repellent. But hell, they're both vile, whackos who are dangerous to others...this is not a good choice to be stuck between. I guess I have to choose Rhodes, though. I mean, if you're going to try and be in control of the situation and use your power (ie. armed henchmen and firearms) to do so, then you have to at least try and keep your shit screwed on tight and he couldn't do that.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

Shoot, Why would he waste his time designing a threat during an exchange of disrespectful banter when he lives in a world where he could pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted? I believe the perceived threat was an undermining of her status on a more basic level. Bear in mind, Sarah is the brains, Rhodes the braun in this personality battle. As for the threat to shoot her for not sitting in her chair. He is the commanding officer of the group as a whole and he was chairing a meeting of all personnel. He was forced to excerpt his authority because Sarah blatantly undermined his command in front of everyone. Order must be maintained if Rhodes is to ensure the safety of everyone in his group. No sexual threats, just a plain ol' shooting. While you are giving my view a bit more thought, I need to point out another of your misconceptions about the movie. Eh...no. The line "Maybe I should cut off his extra curricular activities (ie his bollocks) and give the rest of us a shot at some lovin'"... When Rhodes stated he would cut off Miguel's Extra Curricular Activities, he meant he would no longer permit Miguel and Sarah to have a sexual relationship. (i.e. the act of sex), it didn't mean he'd lop off Miguel's manhood. Aces, I personally think under the circumstances witnessed through the movie, Rhodes did a Sterling job of keeping 'his shit screwed on tight' for the most part. Even after the loss of Johnston and Miller, Rhodes didn't lose the plot entirely. He even let those that would undermine his authority keep and care for their wounded, even though it was made clear that Miguel was partially responsible for the deaths due to his failure to act after the worn strap broke from the neck of the zombie. Granted, Rhodes harboured a desire for Miguel to turn on his saviours. Rhodes finally lost the plot when he bore witness to what was actually going on within his charges. I believe in Rhodes' mind, when he saw his men lying in the freezer and the realisation of what Logan was "...giving him in there", he blamed the whole scientific element. Sarah herself did defend Logan by stating that there had "been some progress" at the earlier meeting. Rhodes believed that the scientists were working as a team. Even after the discovery of the crimes committed by Logan, neither Ted or Sarah tried to distance themselves from Logan, or McDermotts rant of "He killed Logan in cold blood. He executed Logan for being a criminal. A butchering, lunatic, criminal. Logan was the cause of Rhodes' breakdown and his subsequent acts of violence. Logan was the villain of the movie and Rhodes' mind was Logan's victim.

[ProfessorChaos]

3M, that's quite a theory you've formed. think i'll be sitting down for a viewing of day sometime soon taking this into consideration.... EDIT: i'd like to add that this "who's the real villain" discussion has pretty much become a and could be debated enough that it warrants its own thread, including the poll.

[shootemindehead]

Shoot, Why would he waste his time designing a threat during an exchange of disrespectful banter when he lives in a world where he could pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted? I believe the perceived threat was an undermining of her status on a more basic level. Bear in mind, Sarah is the brains, Rhodes the braun in this personality battle. Rhodes wasn't really in a position where he could "...pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted" though. He only became the commanding officer of the unit that morning, after Major Cooper died. So, he was still pretty new to the position of command and clearly way out of his depth. I read somewhere that the military unit in 'Day of the Dead' was a National Guard unit, so god knows what Rhodes was in real life. He certainly didn't possess good leadership skills, that's for sure. Yes, you're correct that Rhodes is "undermining" Sarah's status, but it's still a violent sexual threat (whether he means to actually carry it out or not) and is un-necessarily issued too. The scene is written to show that Rhodes is an unsavory character and is portentous of the events to come. As for the threat to shoot her for not sitting in her chair. He is the commanding officer of the group as a whole and he was chairing a meeting of all personnel. He was forced to excerpt his authority because Sarah blatantly undermined his command in front of everyone. Order must be maintained if Rhodes is to ensure the safety of everyone in his group. No sexual threats, just a plain ol' shooting. Sorry Monkey, but that's neither here nor there. Rhodes is the leader (since that morning) of the MILITARY unit, not the CIVILIAN one. As Fisher points out, the orders of the military unit was to "...facilitate the job of this scientific team". Rhodes has no "authority" over the civilian team in the bunker, except for the one he has designed for himself. Another point is that he threatens to shoot Steele, if Steele doesn't shoot Sarah. One of his own men that you say he "cares" about. Again, everything in the script points to Rhodes as being a tyrant. Even the music is dramatic for a reason. It's letting you know that Rhodes is a dangerous character. One that everyone in the compound, including his own men is afraid of. Sure, his situation is an extremely harsh one, with very little hope for the future. But that can be said for every character in the film. Rhodes actions, however, are unhelpful and incredibly dangerous to everyone involved, including the military personnel he is in charge of. Just because Romero hasn't drawn a one dimensional, cardboard cutout, nazi badguy for his script, doesn't mean that Rhodes isn't the villain of piece. While you are giving my view a bit more thought, I need to point out another of your misconceptions about the movie. When Rhodes stated he would cut off Miguel's Extra Curricular Activities, he meant he would no longer permit Miguel and Sarah to have a sexual relationship. (i.e. the act of sex), it didn't mean he'd lop off Miguel's manhood. Ok, he probably doesn't mean he's going to cut off Miguel Salazar's meat and two veg (I may have been a little too facetious about that), but when he looks Sarah up and down and says his "lovin'" line, it's very clear what's going on in his head. Rhodes, as a character, is part of the "non-co-operation" shtick that Romero has been pushing since 'Night of the Living Dead'.

[Yojimbo]

As for the threat to shoot her for not sitting in her chair. He is the commanding officer of the group as a whole and he was chairing a meeting of all personnel. He was forced to excerpt his authority because Sarah blatantly undermined his command in front of everyone. Order must be maintained if Rhodes is to ensure the safety of everyone in his group. No sexual threats, just a plain ol' shooting. Have you ever worked for a manager or boss that keeps his folks "in line" by threats and intimidation? The kind of boss who says things to his staff like "Because I'm the boss and I say so, that's why!" or "You better do what I order you to do, or you are fired! My way or the highway!" Worst working situation ever, and fosters a toxic environment. This is the little napoleon who was Rhodes. A good commander who was doing his best in a tough situation to protect his men? Far from it, IMO. Rhodes was a man drunk on power, a man who threatened to shoot a civilian and then one of his own soldiers not to ensure his authority in front of everyone but simply because he could and wanted to show everyone that it was his command, proving to everyone in his kingdom that they live or die at his discretion. He was a sexist - who threatened to punatively rape a civilian- a racist - who not only used racist terms himself, but also allowed his men to do so - an overbearing control freak - practically everything he did labels him thus - AND a fucking coward - any decent soldier, let alone a commander, would not have abandoned his fellow soldiers, leaving them to fend for themselves, while fleeing alone in a golf cart in total panic. (I have never served in the millitary, so I am not certain, but is not cowardice considered to be a crime in the millitary? Perhaps one of our resident veteran brothers would be kind enough to clarify what happens to cowards in the Army or the Marine Corp) Dr. Logan was a nutcase in his own right, to be sure, and not a guy I would want to hang out with in a cave either. But compared to Rhodes, he was relatively harmless, albeit out of touch with reality. A good commander does not let his station get to his head, leads his team not through fear and intimidation but through communication and respect, and a good commander always looks out for his men. Rhodes failed to be a good leader, and therefore he gets my vote for lead asshole.

[krakenslayer]

Yojimbo - spot on. Rhodes was a first rate asshole. Yes, his assholishness was understandable under the circumstances, but he was an asshole nonetheless. He tried to get his way through bullying tactics and when the shit hit the fan, he let his rage do the thinking and became a murderer. Was he a villain? No, but he was dangerously unstable. Did he deserve to go out the way he did? Probably not. But neither did Fisher...

[SRP76]

Yeah, Logan and Rhodes were the whole problem. The flesh-eating dead are really a great bunch of people once you get to know them. Fuck the stupid "message" Romero wants to drill into us. Zombies aren't fun-loving, wonderful folks that just need a hug. Zombies are BAD. Without hordes of freaks trying to eat these people every second of every day, none of this shit would have happened.

[krakenslayer]

Yeah, Logan and Rhodes were the whole problem. The flesh-eating dead are really a great bunch of people once you get to know them. Fuck the stupid "message" Romero wants to drill into us. Zombies aren't fun-loving, wonderful folks that just need a hug. Zombies are BAD. Without hordes of freaks trying to eat these people every second of every day, none of this shit would have happened. I don't really think that's what Romero was trying to say, at least in Day. Yeah, the zombies are bad, in the sense that a shark or a hungry alligator is - they're dangerous but that's their nature, they're not morally bad, eating people is just what they do and they just don't really know any better. However, Bub aside, you are right that the zombies certainly are the villains of the film and no one is saying that they should not be put down in the same fashion as you would a rabid dog. The human characters, on the other hand, are more interesting to examine because they still possess moral reason so we can assess why they do things and if they were right or wrong to do them.

[Andy]

Have you ever worked for a manager or boss that keeps his folks "in line" by threats and intimidation? The kind of boss who says things to his staff like "Because I'm the boss and I say so, that's why!" or "You better do what I order you to do, or you are fired! My way or the highway!" Worst working situation ever, and fosters a toxic environment. This is the little napoleon who was Rhodes. Neil!

[MagicMoonMonkey]

Have you ever worked for a manager or boss that keeps his folks "in line" by threats and intimidation? The kind of boss who says things to his staff like "Because I'm the boss and I say so, that's why!" or "You better do what I order you to do, or you are fired! My way or the highway!" Worst working situation ever, and fosters a toxic environment. This is the little napoleon who was Rhodes . I understand what you are saying, but I have never personally worked in an environment where the living dead waited hungrily at the gates of my place of work and everything & everyone I once knew appeared to be gone. We don't know how Rhodes would act in a normal working environment. I feel his command style was justified for the situation in which he was ultimately placed A good commander who was doing his best in a tough situation to protect his men? Far from it, IMO. Rhodes was a man drunk on power, a man who threatened to shoot a civilian and then one of his own soldiers not to ensure his authority in front of everyone but simply because he could and wanted to show everyone that it was his command, proving to everyone in his kingdom that they live or die at his discretion. He was a sexist - who threatened to punatively rape a civilian- a racist - who not only used racist terms himself, but also allowed his men to do so - an overbearing control freak - practically everything he did labels him thus - AND a fucking coward - any decent soldier, let alone a commander, would not have abandoned his fellow soldiers, leaving them to fend for themselves, while fleeing alone in a golf cart in total panic. Yojimbo, he was hardly a coward. He had broken down and was terrified. God knows what was swirling through his mind. Terror drove him to flee, not cowardice, IMO. Dr. Logan was a nutcase in his own right, to be sure, and not a guy I would want to hang out with in a cave either. But compared to Rhodes, he was relatively harmless, albeit out of touch with reality . Relatively harmless? He was feeding the enemy and taught him the re-use of firearms along with a newly instilled loathing of the military. Who in their right mind would return a salute from a zombie??? He was also more insane than a whole psychi ward at Carstairs!!. Rhodes did not commit any act of actual physical violence until he jumped to his trauma induced conclusion that the entire scientific team were involved in the butchering of his dead men to feed the enemy. Yojimbo, bear in mind that I am not trying to make you alter your actual perspective of the character, I am just trying to let you know why I see what I do in him. Rhodes wasn't really in a position where he could "...pretty much do what ever, when ever he wanted" though. He only became the commanding officer of the unit that morning, after Major Cooper died. Hmm, I suppose you are right with regards to his term of command, but bear in mind the whole sexual threat was used whilst they both fought over the status of Miguel's mental health. I still think it was just a typical comeback - perhaps fuelled by some resentment of the fact that Miguel was getting some lovin' - by someone losing a fight with the only girl in class. So, he was still pretty new to the position of command and clearly way out of his depth. I read somewhere that the military unit in 'Day of the Dead' was a National Guard unit, so god knows what Rhodes was in real life. He certainly didn't possess good leadership skills, that's for sure. As I mentioned in my response to Yojimbo, He has command of a group that live and work underground with an enemy at the gates that wants to devour them. I don't think the power had gone to his head, I think he wanted to use his new power to stop the scientific element pissing around and producing nothing in way of an answer to the problem that is decaying and hungry outside the base (and within). Another point is that he threatens to shoot Steele, if Steele doesn't shoot Sarah. One of his own men that you say he "cares" about. Again, everything in the script points to Rhodes as being a tyrant. Even the music is dramatic for a reason. It's letting you know that Rhodes is a dangerous character. One that everyone in the compound, including his own men is afraid of. Sure, his situation is an extremely harsh one, with very little hope for the future. But that can be said for every character in the film. Rhodes actions, however, are unhelpful and incredibly dangerous to everyone involved, including the military personnel he is in charge of.. Rhodes gave an order to Steele and Steele mistook that order for banter. He couldn't very well threaten to execute one member of the team for undermining his command without threatening to execute the other. Just because Romero hasn't drawn a one dimensional, cardboard cutout, nazi badguy for his script, doesn't mean that Rhodes isn't the villain of piece. I dont understand what that statment has to do with how I perceive Rhodes. You perceive him as a bad guy, I don't. I think the fact we both have entirely different opinions of the character's motivations and mindset proves his design was unique, whether that was intentional or not. As I explained to Yojimbo, I am not trying to force you to see the character from my perspective, I am just trying to let you understand why I see what I do in the character. 3M, that's quite a theory you've formed. think i'll be sitting down for a viewing of day sometime soon taking this into consideration... Prof, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on your viewing whilst using the character mindset I have presented. I would urge those that disagree with my assessment to give it a shot also.

[Yojimbo]

I understand what you are saying, but I have never personally worked in an environment where the living dead waited hungrily at the gates of my place of work and everything & everyone I once knew appeared to be gone. We don't know how Rhodes would act in a normal working environment. I feel his command style was justified for the situation in which he was ultimately placed Yojimbo, he was hardly a coward. He had broken down and was terrified. God knows what was swirling through his mind. Terror drove him to flee, not cowardice, IMO. Relatively harmless? He was feeding the enemy and taught him the re-use of firearms along with a newly instilled loathing of the military. Who in their right mind would return a salute from a zombie??? He was also more insane than a whole psychi ward at Carstairs!!. Rhodes did not commit any act of actual physical violence until he jumped to his trauma induced conclusion that the entire scientific team were involved in the butchering of his dead men to feed the enemy. Yojimbo, bear in mind that I am not trying to make you alter your actual perspective of the character, I am just trying to let you know why I see what I do in him. Your comments are welcome, well written and understandable, and I respect you for speaking your mind, even in the face of those of us who disagree. As you say, it is true that the circumstances presented to Rhodes were very unusual. In my mind stress is always simply stress to varying degrees, be it from worrying about Jihadists blowing up your men using IEDs strapped to the backs of pregnant women, or hungry and angry looters in the aftermath of a natural disaster, or snipers firing across the no-man's land at your entrenched position. A good commander is a good commander in spite of the hardships their particular situation presents to them, just as a bad commander will be a bad commander be it a life threatening situation or a sunny, beautiful 72 degree weather day. In my mind, if you point a gun at me and threaten to shoot me, however, this alone is an act of violence. But I do hear what you are saying, and it is true, that Rhodes did not shoot anyone until he discovered that Dr. Frankenstein was feeding Bub body parts from his dead soldiers. Obviously, I agree that Logan was insane. But he was not teaching Bub how to use a firearm - Bub already knew how to do this, and Logan handing Bub an unloaded firearm in the interests of science is an understandable move. Asking Rhodes to salute Bub was also reasonable in this context - he was exploring how much memory of his past life in the millitary Bub had retained. Whether or not this research was, in the final analysis actually useful is a moot point, mind you, but the actions that Logan took with Bub were understandable, though dangerous and distasteful considering the circumstances. You infer that Logan was not harmless, and I can also understand where you are coming from, especially considering that it was Logan's actions (feeding dead soldiers to Bub) which inevitably pushed Rhodes over the edge. In my mind, however, Rhodes was in car, pushing the accelerator pedal headed for the cliff in a roadtrip which would have inevitably led him to take the plunge into the deep all the same. Had it not been the bodies Logan was feeding to Bub, it would have been the useless research that Logan was doing, or Sarah's snotty comments and the way her ass looked, or Billy's alcohol fueled humor, or, Rickle's annoying laugh, or simply a boredom fueled desire to show everyone who is in control of the monkey farm. Left to his own devices, Logan would have gone on and on with his misguded experiments and attempts to rehumanize Bub. By way of contrast, I believe Rhodes would have imploded eventually, with or without a push from someone else. Was Rhodes a coward? You say it was terror that made him run, however I say terrified or not, he is still a coward for running. Sure, it would really be scary to face a crowd of ghouls coming at you, but I heave read enough of your posts to get a sense of the dude that you are, and you certainly do not seem the type of person who would abandon your cohorts leaving them to fend for themselves against the oncoming hordes simply out of a sense of terror and self preservation. Terror is a normal emotion, it is understandable and can happen to everyone -- but what you do when you experience sheer terror defines whether or not you are a coward. For this, I say Rhodes was defintely not only a coward, but a big sissy, yellow-belly, pantywaist of a coward, and a disgrace to the memory of soldiers who have served in the armed forces.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

Your comments are welcome, well written and understandable, and I respect you for speaking your mind, even in the face of those of us who disagree. As you say, it is true that the circumstances presented to Rhodes were very unusual. In my mind stress is always simply stress to varying degrees, be it from worring about Jihadists blowing up your men using IEDs strapped to the backs of pregnant women, or hungry and angry looters in the aftermath of a natrual disaster, or snipers firing across the no-man's land at your entrenched position. A good commander is a good commander in spite of the hardships their particular situation presents to them, just as a bad commander will be a bad commander be it a life threatening situation or a sunny, beautiful 72 degree weather day. In my mind, if you point a gun at me and threaten to shoot me, however, this alone is an act of violence. But I do hear what you are saying, and it is true, that Rhodes did not shoot anyone until he discovered that Dr. Frankenstein was feeding Bub body parts from his dead soldiers. Obviously, I agree that Logan was insane. But he was not teaching Bub how to use a firearm - Bub already knew how to do this, and Logan handing Bub an unloaded firearm in the interests of science is an understandable move. Asking Rhodes to salute Bub was also reasonable in this context - he was exploring how much memory of his past life in the millitary Bub had retained. Whether or not this research was, in the final analysis actually useful is a moot point, mind you, but the actions that Logan took with Bub were understandable, though dangerous and distasteful considering the circumstances. You infer that Logan was not harmless, and I can also understand where you are coming from, especially considering that it was Logan's actions (feeding dead soldiers to Bub) which inevitably pushed Rhodes over the edge. In my mind, however, Rhodes was in car, pushing the accelerator pedal headed for the cliff in a roadtrip which would have inevitably led him to take the plunge into the deep all the same. Had it not been the bodies Logan was feeding to Bub, it would have been the useless research that Logan was doing, or Sarah's snotty comments and the way her ass looked, or Billy's alcohol fueled humor, or, Rickle's annoying laugh, or simply a boredom fueled desire to show everyone who is in control of the monkey farm. Left to his own devices, Logan would have gone on and on with his misguded experiments and attempts to rehumanize Bub. By way of contrast, I believe Rhodes would have imploded eventually, with or without a push from someone else. Was Rhodes a coward? You say it was terror that made him run, however I say terrified or not, he is still a coward for running. Sure, it would really be scary to face a crowd of ghouls coming at you, but I heave read enough of your posts to get a sense of the dude that you are, and you certainly do not seem the type of person who would abandon your cohorts leaving them to fend for themselves against the oncoming hordes simply out of a sense of terror and self preservation. Terror is a normal emotion, it is understandable and can happen to everyone -- but what you do when you experience sheer terror defines whether or not you are a coward. For this, I say Rhodes was defintely not only a coward, but a big sissy, yellow-belly, pantywaist of a coward, and a disgrace to the memory of soldiers who have served in the armed forces. Yojimbo, Totally agree that had Rhodes not witnessed his men in the freezer, some other event would have triggered him eventually. I think everone within that base danced in the mouth of madness from time to time. Who wouldn't in an undead world though? Hmm, I kind of agree with your assessment of the cowardly element in Rhodes to an extent now that you spell it out in the fashion quoted. Terrified or not, perhaps Rhodes should have regrouped along with his men within the tight corridors of the inner complex. (Imagine the beginning of Starwars and the rebel soldiers in the corridors of the blockade runner). I will compromise my initial stance and declare he was a mentally broken, terror fuelled coward from the moment he saw the lift decend with hundreds of undead onboard only.