Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 95

Thread: New tidbit about the Day vs. Land timeline discussion

  1. #46
    Arcade Master Philly_SWAT's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    2,000
    United States
    1. The calendar on Sarah's wall in her room is for October 1985. The movie was released in 1985 and the calendar clearly matches a 1985 calender. For instance, the first day of the month is a Tuesday and the month is clearly labeled OCTOBER. October 1, 1985 was a Tuesday. See picture below. This is clearly BEFORE the events of Land as is evidenced by various elements of technology, cars, etc. seen in Land.
    You can not use the release date of the movie as a time marker. (BTW, October 1st on a Tuesday also could be 1991,1996,2002, and 2013, just to name a few). But regardless, I think that everyone here agrees that the entire series is timeless. You can not point to better technology in Land anymore than you can point to hairstyles and clothing styles in Dawn. Those are 1979 type clothes and hairstyles...(and why not? The movie was made in 1979). Does that mean Dawn takes place 11 years after Night? Of course not. Without question, these types of things were definately not meant to be used as timeline references.
    2. The military are, in fact, in the bunker with the scientists on orders from the civilian government in Washington. Washington being in control is referenced several times in the two Mess Hall Scences. One of the soldier's laments the recent loss of radio communication with Washington. Plus this dialoguge:

    Rhodes: I'm not down in this cave for my health, I'm down here on orders.
    Fisher: Your orders are to fascilitate the job of this scientific team. This is a civilian team captain, and we don't have to be subjected to your tyranny.
    I never questioned the fact that the military is in the bunker on orders from the civilain government. That would be obvious, unless the United States had become a military dictatorship or something. But when those orders were made is not mentioned. You made direct quotes from the movie here, but not a direct quote about the soldier lamenting the loss of radio communication. I believe it was "we used to talk to Washington all the time". This does not inherently mean the recent past, just the past. COuld be a distant past. Remember, Rhodes had just taken over because Major Cooper died. The civilians acted like they didnt know why they were having these meetings, so it stand to reason that Cooper didnt have them. And the civilians and miltary do not seem very chummy, I dont think they were sitting around a fire roasting masrchmellows together, talking about how the research was going. Therefore, the soldier probably has not heard about or cared about the last time the radio was used, he was too busy saving his own ass when rounding up Zeds in the wild, and smoking weed. His comment can easily be intrepreted as someone who has not paid attention to these things in a vary long time, and now that he is forced to go to a meeting, he is way behind the state of how things are.
    3. The zombie apocalypse is recent enough that Sarah, arguably the most rational human in the movie, believes there still to be people alive in Washington who will send help:

    Sarah: There have to be survivors in Washington. They have more sophisticated shelters than this one. There have to be people in those shelters who know about us -- who know where we are. With no radio contact they'll come looking for us.

    This suggests that radio contact with Washington was lost relatively recently; more evidence that things crumbled in the immediate recent past. Also, Conroy (the radio operator) references that their prior radio contact had been through relays which had failed once the "power went down on the mainland." Hardly an event which would have taken more than weeks to months to occur.
    With no hope that there was even a slight chance of solving the problem, why would anybody do anything? John himself had run out of hope, wanting to "spend what time we have left soaking up some sun". He seemed pretty rational, intelligent and thoughtful. Would someone like him give up so quickly, only a few weeks or months into the problem? Sarah has to hang on to hope, without that, her research is useless, her reason for being is nil. She would have no feelings of self-worth. In order to maintain her sanity, she would have to believe that things were gonna be allright. And it would take a long, long time for those types of radio relays to fail. Why would they not work anymore just because there are zombies around? Do the zombies have two desires, one to seek out warm human flesh to eat, and to use their decayed limbs to destroy radio relays? I think not. Remember in the movie "Indepence Day"? The aliens had destroyed most of the major cities around the world. But everyone was still able to communicate with each other using good old fashioned morse code. Surely, those big ships exploding huge major areas of Earth's technoligical centers would do more harm to any relay system than zombies roaming aimlessly about. And by the way, the radio operator you refer to as "Conroy", do you mean the civilain who lives with John in "The Ritz"? If so, his name is Bill McDermott.
    There's also the issue that in Day they still have a working helicopter, while in Land enough time has elapsed that few cars still run. And its not because they are well-supplied with parts in Day. There are constant references to lack of ammunition, lab equipment, chemicals, and spare parts for the radio. Just more evidence that it just hasn't been that long...
    How are references to lack of ammo, equipement, chemicals, etc. evidence that it hasnt been long? That points to the fact that it has been an extremely long time, not a short one. I mean, what, in a few weeks time in Day, all their equipment is used up, but in Land, they have multiple vehicles hauling ass though the countryside, air conditioning, elevators, electricity, etc? Things were so bad after a short time in Day that not even simple radio relays work anymore, but things improve so much by magic before the start of Land?
    Last edited by Philly_SWAT; 29-Jun-2006 at 10:47 AM.

  2. #47
    Zombie Flesh Eater EvilNed's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,310
    Undisclosed
    Once again, Philly, you ignore the evidence that talks against your argument (Sarah's calender) and simply push it aside, whereas everything that fits your theory, no matter how silly, gets lifted forward.

    I mean, I gave up along time ago, but I'm pretty sure people are getting pretty annoyed at what it is you're doing.

  3. #48
    pissing in your Kool-Aid DjfunkmasterG's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Deadlands, USA
    Age
    53
    Posts
    7,663
    United States
    We interrupt this program for a special announcement...


    Land comes after Day... So Sayeth the Dj!




    We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

    ALWAYS BET ON DEAD!
    Official member of the "ZOMBIE MAN" Fan Club Est. 2007 *FOUNDING MEMBER*

  4. #49
    Just been bitten panic's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    128
    Undisclosed
    Philly_Swat, you're just making **** up at this point. Taking points out of context and blabbering on. Reading your responses to my last post is hilarious -- its like you didn't even read any of it.

    Like the rest of the board, I'm convinced by the evidence that Land comes after Day. Enjoy your fantasy world.

    And Conroy is the actor's name -- I couldn't remember the character's name.
    Last edited by panic; 29-Jun-2006 at 12:12 PM.

  5. #50
    Fresh Meat Sir James Forbes's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Midlands, England
    Age
    50
    Posts
    22
    Undisclosed

    ?

    Coincidentally, I gave Land another go last night in the hope I had come to love it more, but one thought that did strike me was how much 'livelier' the film seemed compared to the 'all hope lost', isolation of Day.

    I do believe Land follows Day but one could argue that the continuity in terms of mood / hope seems unnatural.

    At the end of the day, if this film had've been named 'Dusk of the Dead' (pun intended ), we'd have been without doubt and a more ordered pattern.

  6. #51
    Arcade Master Philly_SWAT's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    2,000
    United States
    EDIT INFO: The first part of this post is an annoying auto-merge of a post I responded to Sir James Forbes. The bulk of this post was supposed to appear in the post tree below the latest post from Griff.
    Coincidentally, I gave Land another go last night in the hope I had come to love it more, but one thought that did strike me was how much 'livelier' the film seemed compared to the 'all hope lost', isolation of Day.
    Exactly what I am talking about. This to me is the most compelling argument that Day happens after Land.
    ___________________________________________

    Not at all. I never said ABSOLUTELY anything but if you're looking for evidence - there it is. Its the sngle most compelling piece of information in LAND to tell us how long into the situation we are.
    It may be true that it is the single most compelling piece of dialogue in Land to tell us how long, but not the most compelling information. The most compelling piece of information if the overall mood of the films. Sir James Forbes knows what I'm talking about when he posted
    Coincidentally, I gave Land another go last night in the hope I had come to love it more, but one thought that did strike me was how much 'livelier' the film seemed compared to the 'all hope lost', isolation of Day.
    Someone said, I thought it was you Griff, but I cant find the quote, that they were more interested in the overall thematic implications rather than specific lines in the movie. That is what I am talking about, overall thematic implications.
    And its THERE - everything you've argued for is based on what HASN'T been said. Well, what they haven't said tells us NOTHING because, potentially, they could have said anything at all.
    Not true. What I am saying if based upon what we see if the films, and how I think that it can be intrepreted.
    Its futile and just plain f*cking arrogant to dismiss it completely without conceding it as being a very strong possibility.
    I have never dismissed it completely. I have consistently said things like "it could mean", "it could be intrepreted this way". I even had a post saying to someone that the difference was that I accepted that it is possible that I am wrong, but that poster was not accepting that I may be right. Also, I have enjoyed our discussion thus far Griff, and I hope that a statement such as this is not a degeneration into "flame" type stuff.
    As for the Venus probe thing, I thought I had clearly pointed out that in light of the other films, its obviously supposed to be regarded as (revisionist) misinformation.
    You didnt even have to point this out, I knew you felt this way, and I assume that everyone feels this way. When I made the statement I did, it was intended as an ironic comment on easily dismissing this piece of information that was specifcally mentioned in a GAR movie, yet refusing to even consider the possibility that the "three years" comments could be seen in the same light. You had posted in an earlier post
    and you can bet Romero or whoever isn't trying to tell us that two separate incidents happened at, oh say, the same time for some random reason - especially when they could point to something else.
    I agree, GAR isnt trying to tell us that two separate incidents happen at the same time, anymore than someone who says "I was born on December 7th, the same day that we were attacked at Pearl Harbour" is trying to tell us that somehow those two events are connected. There are only 7 days a week, 12 months a year, many things happen on the same day, same month, etc. that doesnt mean anything regarding each other. Like I have said before, the Bucs won the Superbowl three years ago, my grandmother died 3 years ago. Both events were memorable things in my life, as a long time Bucs fan, and as a lifelong grandma fan, but by mentioning them, there is no event that ties them together, other than a random fact they occured three years ago. In light as this, I dont see how you cant accept that what I am saying is a possibility, even if you think it is the lowest, most unlikely possibility. I mean, I assume that our universe will continue as normal tomorrow, but I accept a slight possibility that some as-of-today unknown star that went supernova in a neighboring galaxy may start to cause dire consequences to our planet tomorrow. I dont think that is the case, but I dont know enough about the goings-on in the universe to dismiss this out of hand that it is 100% certain that this wont happen.
    Until then, I'll accept that figure and totally ignore whatever your theories are because they are based on 100% SPECULATION which doesn't impress or convince me one bit.
    Anything in any movie that isnt specifically spelled out is always open to intrepretation. That is part of the fun of talking about a movie. Your assertion that the two three years comments point to the start of the outbreak are just that, speculation. It may be very good speculation, speculation based on strong evidence contained in the movies, but speculation nonetheless.
    F*ck, you must be a handful for your parents. "Did your mother say you could set fire to the cat?" "No, but she DIDN'T say I couldn't, either..."

    Use your head, goose
    This points even more strongly to your posts degenerating into a flame type, personal attack type, rather than a good non-personal debate. Rather than respond in kind, I will just say that I enjoyed our discussion so far, and if you want to continue, hopefully it will go back on track and not refer to my ethnic heritage and kinky sexual preferences next time.
    Last edited by Philly_SWAT; 29-Jun-2006 at 07:15 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  7. #52
    Harvester Of Sorrow Deadman_Deluxe's Avatar
    ViP

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    673
    England
    Philly ... go get a beer or something man.

  8. #53
    Just been bitten OddDNA's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    47
    Posts
    217
    Undisclosed

    Better make that...

    a double shot

  9. #54
    Dying Griff's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    388
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Philly_SWAT
    Someone said, I thought it was you Griff, but I cant find the quote, that they were more interested in the overall thematic implications rather than specific lines in the movie. That is what I am talking about, overall thematic implications.
    Yeah, that was me. And, from the zombie evolution perspective, LAND follows on thematically from DAY. It all depends on where your attentions lie, I guess. That said, I'm not arguing over the order of the series, just that, in all likelihood, LAND takes place 3 years after 'The Outbreak'.

    Iagree, GAR isnt trying to tell us that two separate incidents happen at the same time, anymore than someone who says "I was born on December 7th, the same day that we were attacked at Pearl Harbour" is trying to tell us that somehow those two events are connected. There are only 7 days a week, 12 months a year, many things happen on the same day, same month, etc...
    Man, we've gone over this before. I know what you're saying but I just don't find it to be a compelling argument. Once again, its ignoring crucial evidence, not providing any.

    Your assertion that the two three years comments point to the start of the outbreak are just that, speculation. It may be very good speculation, speculation based on strong evidence contained in the movies, but speculation nonetheless.
    Well, that's my kinda speculation - informed speculation. Not "maybe it was an identicle twin who did it"-type speculation, which is poor.

    This points even more strongly to your posts degenerating into a flame type, personal attack type, rather than a good non-personal debate.
    Sorry man, but you're a big boy and it feels like your always beating around the bush when it comes to my points with your bizarre logic rather than addressing them with anything solid. The Superbowl thing ain't a good argument and I'm sorry to hear about your grandma but I just don't find that kind of thinking interesting.

    Like I've said, just put 2 and 2 together and, like me, be happy.

  10. #55
    Arcade Master Philly_SWAT's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    2,000
    United States
    That said, I'm not arguing over the order of the series, just that, in all likelihood, LAND takes place 3 years after 'The Outbreak'.
    Maybe that is where our disagreement lies. I dont think that Land takes place three years in, but even if it does, I still say Day is after Land.
    Man, we've gone over this before. I know what you're saying but I just don't find it to be a compelling argument. Once again, its ignoring crucial evidence, not providing any.
    I dont think that it is ignoring evidence. The arguments that I have made about off-screen happenings (or the lack of showing something on-screen) is in fact providing compelling arguments. For example, if in a movie a man spends the night at a woman's house, and the scene cuts to the morning after with her laying in the bed and him coming out of the bathroom, you can assume that they had sex, even if they dont mention it. Conversely, if the scene cuts to the morning after and you see sheets and pillows on the couch as they are drinking coffee, you can assume that they didnt have sex. Now, in either case, you could say "they slept in the same bed but didnt have sex" or "he slept on the couch, but snuck in and they had sex". To make a case for either of those arguments, which goes against the norm, you would have to have backing from elsewhere in the movie. Perhaps at the end if they shake hands instead of kissing each other goodbye, you could point to that lack of a kiss as evidence that they didnt have sex. I point to the lack of information about the zombies not in captivity in Day to submit that we dont know what they are doing, what they may be learning, etc. This is not ignoring evidence, just trying to logically find some that wasnt shown on screen.
    Well, that's my kinda speculation - informed speculation. Not "maybe it was an identicle twin who did it"-type speculation, which is poor.
    I agree that "maybe it was an identical twin" speculation is poor. That is not what I am doing. If I were to say that I think aliens came down in Land, and helped the humans secure the Green and provided them with an infinate energy source, OK that is wild and crazy speculation that would have no backing whatsoever (although, no direct evidence exists against that). But when I say that it is possible that two characters in the movie say something about "three years" that it doesnt necessarily refer to the start of the outbreak, I dont think that is wild and crazy speculation. I would be just as plausible as the Bucs/grandmother thing I mention. Someone may not agree with it, but I dont see how they could say it was crazy speculation. It is not way out there and hard to believe, it can easily be true. Just as if there was a big banner at the beginning of the movie that stated "THIS MOVIE STARTS ONE YEAR INTO THE OUTBREAK" the two quotes in question would not seem out of place. You wouldnt sit there and think "why did he say no cars had driven out in three years? We are only one year into the outbreak". You would just assume that in an old P-O-S car lot like that, no cars had driven out even two years prior to the outbreak.
    Sorry man, but you're a big boy and it feels like your always beating around the bush when it comes to my points with your bizarre logic rather than addressing them with anything solid. The Superbowl thing ain't a good argument and I'm sorry to hear about your grandma but I just don't find that kind of thinking interesting.
    I am not trying to beat around the bush. When I make a statement that to me would stand up to a legal-argument type of scrutiny, but no one seems to understand (not disagree with, but not understand) I attempt to use analogies to further illustrate my point.
    Like I've said, just put 2 and 2 together and, like me, be happy.
    I am very happy. I am putting 2 and 2 together, and coming up with 4 great movies. You are putting 3 and 3 together, and coming up with.... well I cant think of anything clever enough to write.

  11. #56
    Dead general tbag's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    tbagville
    Posts
    545
    Canada
    i think if this were trial land would win. the evidence is very favorable that land came after day.

    also the whole script 5 year mention isnt a debate, how can you compare something that wasnt even written to challenge the time frame . an example of that is stars wars and luke kissing leia. sure it seemed alright as we didnt know that was his sis, but later when lucas wrote return of the jedi, it turned out to incest. and if not mistaken it was cut from the re-release.

    the only thing that all 4 movies have in common is the outbreak and zombies. those 2 things give a dead give away , that land is after day.

  12. #57
    Just been bitten DeadCentral's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in the deepest dark regions
    Age
    57
    Posts
    237
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie
    *sigh* my two cents...

    1) Why would zombies evolve to leadership and then de-evolve to Bub level miming and book thumbing?

    2) Land is the resurrection of the human race, after all hope was seemingly lost, these gathered clusters of people are rising from the ashes like the Phoenix.

    3) To re-inforce this notion, GAR said that in Land the people are now "ignoring the problem", which clearly illustrates this "rise from the ashes to return to 'normality'" narrative - which again means it's AFTER Day.

    And that, quite simply, is why Land of the Dead comes AFTER Day of the Dead.

    In the words of that blob-of-poop-looking-thing from Total Recall - "open your mind" ... people.
    Great summary Minion...
    designs-n-creations.com

    Sometimes dead is better....

  13. #58
    Dying radiokill's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Martin, LA (the sticks). I'm writing a zombie script to be filmed in this area with cheap DVs!
    Age
    41
    Posts
    319
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by bassman311
    That poor, poor horse.

    It must hurt...
    It's dead (not undead), so no matter how you look at it, that horse can't feel it!
    I Corinthians 1:18-31 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


  14. #59
    Dying Bubdotd's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rhode island
    Age
    34
    Posts
    488
    Undisclosed
    wouldent it be cool if it actually started in the 60s were night started and land is our time now.. imagine wow no technology at all wed be living in the 60s while in the 2000's

    i mean no technology we have now all 60s technology


    X-box live GT: Fallenunder

    My myspace is www.myspace.com/epri

    http://www.thelivingdead.informe.com/
    We're dead, We're all messed up...

  15. #60
    Dying AssassinFromHell's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    364
    United States
    That would mean Jefferson Airplane would have never evolved into Jefferson Starship.

    That's cold...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •