Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate

[Philly_SWAT]

OK, 85 posts to sift thru was enough. To continue...... If you are contending that the survivors in Land had yet to face any serious zombie threat then I consider the idea far fetched. No, I am not contending that. At this point in the discussion I think it is becoming more difficult to express overall ideas when he get down to discussing minute points related to that idea (although I do enjoy discussing the minute points). Let me try to re-explain what I am saying. I am saying that it only makes sense to me that the Green was HELD, not RETAKEN. If that particular area had been overrun, it would not make much sense to try to retake it...there would be many areas that would be much safer to build a stronghold. If the area was overrun...there would have/could have been zombies in every building....room to room search and destroy would have to be done in every skyscraper....every back alley...much danger would be involved. And do you do this room to room, building to building search before or after erecting a safe perimeter? There would be pros or cons either way, but again I suggest anyone would have been better off picking a different location to build a stronghold than an overrun downtown area. So I firmly believe that regardless of "when" Land is, the Green had to have been held, not retaken. So that would be first and foremost to my thought process. Now I would think it obvious that even to HOLD the Green, that would have taken quite a bit of effort, as well as fortification efforts. So those in the safe zone would have 'serious zombie threat' experience, but different than experiences that others in different circumstances would have had. You are expecting us to believe that the residents of the city allowed themselves to be forced into a shanty town so Kaufman could have a nice quiet area around his shopping and dining mecca. How did he become ruler? With his paid for security force? And why didn't the police or military stop him? And how did he convince the scavengers (who were highly experienced operating in the zombie wasteland) to hand over all their spoils to him? And why did Mulligan have a hard time convincing people to rise against Kaufman? Assumedly, these were all people who were recently screwed by Kaufman, having been displaced from their homes and possessions. And we know that a small untrained group of unarmed stenches could overthrow Kaufman. And the people also never tried to leave? And there were no cars around for them to do so? And no one had guns? They just handed them over to Mr. K in the first couple weeks ("take it out of my cold dead hands" comes to mind). And do we accept that this "ruler" could force women into prostitution, as he did Slack? So civil rights and morality died in the first few weeks? And they just continued to live isolated and without threat even as Dead Reckoning rolls through town after town and never brought back a zombie horde? And all the while money continued to work just fine. Many of these questions could be answered with some form of "GAR did not do a good job of thinking about things when he wrote the script", however, those answers are no fun on a forum such as this. The biggest problem is the one about money, which has been discussed at length previously, and a problem where the aforementioned quote REALLY applies. But in the spirit of discussing it, as it did appear in the movie, I still say this....that the idea that anyone would still think of "money" as some type of useful means of exchange is ludacris...UNLESS they are still close to a pre-outbreak time (such as right now in real life) where everyone chooses to accept that money has value and wants money. Max Brooks does an excellent job in World War Z describing how in the beginning of the outbreak, people were making a lot of money for smuggling people from place to place, providing security, etc., but as the outbreak continued on and on, how money had no value for anyone anymore. I could talk for hours about money, even non-zombie related money, but all I can say is that if everyone in a static community quit accepting the concept that money had value, it would be impossible that everyone would magically start accepting again after years of non-use. As I am already being long-winded, in regards to all your other points, I would say that no one was FORCING anyone in the Green to do anything. I am sure that if a resident inside the safe perimeter wanted to go outside the perimeter, they would have been allowed to. But I doubt that anyone would. So no matter how shitty things were on the inside for some, it would be better than going outside with no protection against the zeds. And again, the zombies. Earlier in the outbreak would mean more zombies, not less. Zombie poplulations would be the highest concentrated in high population areas, like cities, so throw up all the electric fences and block all the bridges you want, in the early days you're not escaping the problem by hiding from it. This depends on how you look at words like "earlier" and "later", which are subjective to the context in which they are used. To me "earlier" in the outbreak, I.E. when there was still a shitload of the living, and the dead had not yet overrun us, THAT is when there would in fact be less zombies, making it easier to HOLD the Green, which again is first and foremost in my thought process. I dont think anyone was attempting to hide from the problem, but specifically to have a safe place where zombie attacks were low/non-existent. Regarding attitudes and demeanor - Cholo and Riley saw a kid bitten and blow his own head off. Cholo was like "wha-eva" and Riley was sympathetic but business-like. They both shook it off by the time they were back at the motorpool. Riley was more pissed at Cholo's attitude than upset over the death. And no one else even reacted. At the penthouse Cholo saw the guy suicide and beat his head in. The wife and son were horrified but Cholo was not. And we know Riley witnessed his brother bitten and turned. These people were not innocents just seeing it all for the first time. I'm sorry man, there's just too much contradicting that theory. I disagree, you are proving my point. Sure CHOLO and RILEY were non-chalant in their attitudes towards things, but they have been in the thick of zombie fighting FROM THE BEGINNING (whenever that was). But the wife and son you mention that were horrified....how did they come to be inside the Green? Had they fought hand to hand against zombie hordes in the wild, and after a few years of miraculous survival stumble upon the Green, were let inside, attained a position of wealth enabling them to live in the highrise, and then forget all they had seen and done in order to be horrified over one zed? Or were they simply lucky enough to be inside the Green when it was HELD, and since they were still relatively close to the start of the outbreak, horrified when actually confronted by something that was happening all over the world? I think it's less far fetched to contend that they were 10 years post-outbreak. That explains a lot more. - They'd whittled away the zombies to the point that they really aren't a threat in the immediate area any longer. "They don't much come around anymore," makes a ton of sense. - The people were still living under the fear and horror of the early outbreak when zombies were prevalent outside. They had become complacent under Kaufman's rule. So much so that they never noticed that the outside world is not so dangerous anymore ("I see those walls as a prison"). Also explains why Mulligan gets no support. - And look at the new recruits. The kid with Cholo and the girl being introduced to the military at the fences. They both seemed like young people who were getting their first job. - The military and guards had been years since facing zombies, thus they were relaxed and out of practice. The defenses were minimal and lax, which explains how Big D gets in so easily. - The scavengers were the experts on zombie killing because they were the only ones still facing the threat week by week. - No one even tries to look for survivors or contact other cities. No radios or helicopters or anything were in use. I think that makes a lot more sense while leaving far fewer holes. I dont want to reply to every one of your ideas above, so I will just say this.....EVEN IF they were 10 years in (which I totally disagree with the concept BTW), I still say then that in Day they would have had to be farther in than that.

[krakenslayer]

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of few zombies around the walls WAS addressed to my satisfaction in the movie: "They've stopped coming around here [the throat]. It's like they've learned they can't get in." So once there were many zombies gathered outside the wall, but they gave up and went away. How did Kaufman get in charge? To me, questions like that are all part of the fun of imagination. I always imagined he was some kind of big businessman with a lot of underworld dealings/connections. He already had a small army of thugs he used for extortion, protection rackets, etc. and owned Fiddler's Green, so he put them to use defending and fortifying his building and gradually added to their numbers with surviving military types and other survivors.

[Andy]

On a side note, how is this "Andy's Thoughts on Land Pt.2" when its nothing like my original topic and not created by me? A Tad misleading dont you think?

[deadpunk]

On a side note, how is this "Andy's Thoughts on Land Pt.2" when its nothing like my original topic and not created by me? A Tad misleading dont you think? Heard.

[Trin]

I am saying that it only makes sense to me that the Green was HELD, not RETAKEN. If that particular area had been overrun, it would not make much sense to try to retake it...there would be many areas that would be much safer to build a stronghold. If the area was overrun...there would have/could have been zombies in every building....room to room search and destroy would have to be done in every skyscraper....every back alley...much danger would be involved. And do you do this room to room, building to building search before or after erecting a safe perimeter? There would be pros or cons either way, but again I suggest anyone would have been better off picking a different location to build a stronghold than an overrun downtown area. So I firmly believe that regardless of "when" Land is, the Green had to have been held, not retaken. So that would be first and foremost to my thought process. Now I would think it obvious that even to HOLD the Green, that would have taken quite a bit of effort, as well as fortification efforts. I tend to subscribe to a HELD over RETAKEN stance as well, but a slightly different version than yours. I tend to believe that the Green (the skyscraper) and perhaps some surrounding area was held throughout. As things began to look like the zombies would win the residents blocked the bridges and put up the electric fences to provide a limited front to defend from the outside. Then the building by building eradication and securing occurred. Kinda like what they did in Dawn to secure the mall. Secure the doors, then hunt down the remaining ones inside. Unlike in Dawn they had to make forays outside, and that required that they eradicate the ones in the surrounding areas as well, which I believe happened over a period of time. If I had to guess (yes, this is pure speculation) I would guess that Kaufman started out owning/controlling the power plant and that served as the basis for him declaring the safe zone his. Many of these questions could be answered with some form of "GAR did not do a good job of thinking about things when he wrote the script", however, those answers are no fun on a forum such as this. Yeah, agreed. I think we're both struggling to reconcile what makes sense vs. what must be discarded as just inconsistent writing. that the idea that anyone would still think of "money" as some type of useful means of exchange is ludacris...UNLESS they are still close to a pre-outbreak time (such as right now in real life) where everyone chooses to accept that money has value and wants money. I agree that money is one of those "soooooo doesn't work" topics in Land. I would also agree that the only time where money works as it did pre-outbreak is close to a pre-outbreak time. But where I disagree is that I think the world was far enough post-outbreak to render money valueless. And it's not about 3 months versus 3 years. It's about looking at the world. If you have no contact outside your city, no contact with government, no contact with anyone anywhere that also still uses money, and your own situation is such that food and water and medicine are scarce, then money is done. Or put another way, if money hadn't failed yet for the residents in Land, when would it? They'd reached a level of sorts, where the food was coming in and the services were being rendered and the money was passing hands. So at what point would their system stop working? ...it would be impossible that everyone would magically start accepting again after years of non-use. Just as point, I'm not suggesting that money went through years of non-use. If fact, I would argue that it continued to be used throughout. But I believe the backing for currency changed. As the free market economy failed Kaufman began backing it, at least for use within the Green. I would say that no one was FORCING anyone in the Green to do anything. I am sure that if a resident inside the safe perimeter wanted to go outside the perimeter, they would have been allowed to. But I doubt that anyone would. So no matter how shitty things were on the inside for some, it would be better than going outside with no protection against the zeds. First off, yes, Kaufman was forcing people inside the green to do things as evidenced by Slack being forced to become entertainment for the men. Second, while I agree that ostensibly no one was forcing people to stay, with Kaufman controlling all the guns, ammo, food, medicine, fuel, and transportation it's as good as if he were. Let's not forget he needed all the people. Not just the scavengers and guards, but the service people to keep those folks happy. No entertainment for the troops and they might start rebelling or leaving. No gambling and women waiting at home and the scavengers might just drive off. To me "earlier" in the outbreak, I.E. when there was still a shitload of the living, and the dead had not yet overrun us, THAT is when there would in fact be less zombies I still stumble over the counts. It's a big city. A big EMPTY city. You should have half a million people, half a million zombies, or half a million bodies with destroyed brains. We saw no evidence of the first two, and the last would take a lot longer than a couple months. Or were they simply lucky enough to be inside the Green when it was HELD, and since they were still relatively close to the start of the outbreak, horrified when actually confronted by something that was happening all over the world? I would agree. They were protected from the whole outbreak from the beginning, whether it was 3 months or 3 years. But Riley and Cholo and the scavengers were so used to the zombies that they treated it as another day at the job. Compared with Peter who was putting a gun to his head, and he'd been through a lot himself. I just see the attitudes in Land as ones of people who had long ago gotten past the horror of it. EVEN IF they were 10 years in (which I totally disagree with the concept BTW), I still say then that in Day they would have had to be farther in than that. That's an interesting statement. What's so important about proving one was before or after the other? And if timeline post-outbreak is not the comparison point, then what? The two situations were so vastly different I think any direct comparison would devolve into speculation or nit-picking. Perhaps the thread should be "Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate" -

[Rancid Carcass]

I'm a little bit late to the party but... With regards to Kaufman setting up the city and getting it sealed off I don't think it is over the top at all – if you think back to the beginning of DAWN it was one of the things Dr Foster was talking about: TV Man 2: THERE IS A MARTIAL LAW STATE IN EFFECT IN PHILADELPHIA...AS IN ALL OTHER MAJOR CITIES IN THE COUNTRY... CITIZENS MUST UNDERSTAND THE...DIRE...DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS PHENOMENON...SHOULD WE BE UNABLE TO CHECK THE SPREAD... CHECK... BECAUSE OF THE EMOTIONAL ATTITUDES..OF THE CITIZENRY...TOWARD...THESE ISSUES OF... MORALITY... CHECK HOT D PROPERTY... IT IS THE ORDER OF THE O.E.P. BY COMMAND OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES... CHECK... CITIZENS MAY NO LONGER OCCUPY PRIVATE RESIDENCES, NO MATTER HOW SAFELY PROTECTED OR WELL STOCKED... A murmur in the studio begins to build to an emotional crescendo. Foster tries to talk over the noise... TV Man 2: CITIZENS WILL BE MOVED INTO CENTRAL AREAS OF THE CITY... It seems that walling off large chunks cities was part of the government strategy for dealing with the crisis, which bears out what Philly_SWAT is saying, that in this instance the city held out, the plan worked. The result of which meant that the people there had not really been exposed to threat to any great extent, hence the complacency. If you look at it this way then the secured zone would have already in place, all Kaufman had to do was throw money at maintaining the defenses etc, that way he was effectively buying his influence and buying his survival. I think with the money issue, people would be operating in the hope that one day things will return to normal, it would be very hard to exist in a world overrun by zombies without hope. Not just short term hope of immiediate survival but also a long term hope that civilisation might be rebuilt, the hope of one day having a better life. Money is often seen as the key to achieve that - zombie apocalypse or not.

[Philly_SWAT]

On a side note, how is this "Andy's Thoughts on Land Pt.2" when its nothing like my original topic and not created by me? A Tad misleading dont you think? Heard. OK, I changed the name of the thread. No intention of being misleading, only an accurate description of where the quotes came from. Usually new threads dont start with a bunch of quotes from someone. Sorry if anyone was insulted, confused, or misled. EDIT: OK, I guess I DIDNT change the title of the thread, only of my post. Feel free to change it Andy if you want. I was trying to change it to "Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate". RE_EDIT: Or did I change it? I think I will not use my work computer again for HPOTD.

[AcesandEights]

OK, I changed the name of the thread. No intention of being misleading, only an accurate description of where the quotes came from. Usually new threads dont start with a bunch of quotes from someone. Sorry if anyone was insulted, confused, or misled. I felt betrayed, bewildered and outraged! It was a slap in the face Truth be told, I think I've said all I'm going to on this argument, as I used to find it a very irritating debate, however I will add that I respect the gusto with which you attend your time line theory, Philly. I do not agree with it, but it's a fun take on things. ---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ---------- And I will further add that this round of debates on the topic between you and Trin (including what had gone on in the previous thread), was actually a damn fun read.

[Philly_SWAT]

I felt betrayed, bewildered and outraged! It was a slap in the face Truth be told, I think I've said all I'm going to on this argument, as I used to find it a very irritating debate, however I will add that I respect the gusto with which you attend your time line theory, Philly. I do not agree with it, but it's a fun take on things. And I will further add that this round of debates on the topic between you and Trin (including what had gone on in the previous thread), was actually a damn fun read. Thanks, glad you enjoy it! I am at work, and logged in here, and wrote a time consuming response to Trin's last post, hit Submit Reply......and I WAS LOGGED OUT AND IT DIDNT SUBMIT AND I COULDNT GO BACK AND COPY WHAT I HAD SPENT A LONG TIME TYPING!~!! ARGGH!!!

[AcesandEights]

I am at work, and logged in here, and wrote a time consuming response to Trin's last post, hit Submit Reply......and I WAS LOGGED OUT AND IT DIDNT SUBMIT AND I COULDNT GO BACK AND COPY WHAT I HAD SPENT A LONG TIME TYPING!~!! ARGGH!!! I feel your pain! That happens to me at work at least once a week it seems and happened to me this last Friday.

[Trin]

I'm laughing. But it's a "know that pain" kinda laugh. I started using notepad to form responses and I don't dare close that doc until the post is posted!!

[ProfessorChaos]

whenever i have the log-out screen come up after trying to post a rather thought-out long response, i simply log back in and my post pops up....this doesn't happen for you guys?

[Philly_SWAT]

whenever i have the log-out screen come up after trying to post a rather thought-out long response, i simply log back in and my post pops up....this doesn't happen for you guys? I never log out at home, so I dont know. Wish I had tried it at work and that it had worked. Oh well, next time I will see. ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ---------- OK, let's try this again, THIS time from non-logging-out computer at home.... I tend to subscribe to a HELD over RETAKEN stance as well, but a slightly different version than yours. We are close enough here, we agree. Yeah, agreed. I think we're both struggling to reconcile what makes sense vs. what must be discarded as just inconsistent writing. Complete waste of time, or worthwhile endeavour? Up to the reader to decide.... I agree that money is one of those "soooooo doesn't work" topics in Land. I would also agree that the only time where money works as it did pre-outbreak is close to a pre-outbreak time. But where I disagree is that I think the world was far enough post-outbreak to render money valueless. And it's not about 3 months versus 3 years. It's about looking at the world. If you have no contact outside your city, no contact with government, no contact with anyone anywhere that also still uses money, and your own situation is such that food and water and medicine are scarce, then money is done. Or put another way, if money hadn't failed yet for the residents in Land, when would it? They'd reached a level of sorts, where the food was coming in and the services were being rendered and the money was passing hands. So at what point would their system stop working? Just as point, I'm not suggesting that money went through years of non-use. If fact, I would argue that it continued to be used throughout. But I believe the backing for currency changed. As the free market economy failed Kaufman began backing it, at least for use within the Green. OK, I had a very long, very brilliant reply here before it was lost, I cant attempt to duplicate it. Let me just say this...why do you and I and everyone else think that a $100 bill has more value than a $1 bill? They are both made of the same material, same size, etc. Only some ink difference. The reason is that WE ALL CHOOSE TO ACCEPT that it has more value. Kaufman would have nothing of any 'value' to anyone to 'back' money with. No one would choose to accept that paper money had value because "Kaufman says so". First off, yes, Kaufman was forcing people inside the green to do things as evidenced by Slack being forced to become entertainment for the men. Second, while I agree that ostensibly no one was forcing people to stay, with Kaufman controlling all the guns, ammo, food, medicine, fuel, and transportation it's as good as if he were. Yes, it may have been " as good as if he were" but he wasnt. A minor point here, but Slack was not forced to do anything, che could have left the city. Let's not forget he needed all the people. Not just the scavengers and guards, but the service people to keep those folks happy. No entertainment for the troops and they might start rebelling or leaving. No gambling and women waiting at home and the scavengers might just drive off. Sure he needed the people, but they needed him more. Kaufman would have been inconvenienced if the people left, the people would be more than likely dead if he kicked them out. I still stumble over the counts. It's a big city. A big EMPTY city. You should have half a million people, half a million zombies, or half a million bodies with destroyed brains. We saw no evidence of the first two, and the last would take a lot longer than a couple months. That begs the question then...where were the zombies, or all the dead bodies, if they were so far into the outbreak as you suggest? I would agree. They were protected from the whole outbreak from the beginning, whether it was 3 months or 3 years. But Riley and Cholo and the scavengers were so used to the zombies that they treated it as another day at the job. Compared with Peter who was putting a gun to his head, and he'd been through a lot himself. I just see the attitudes in Land as ones of people who had long ago gotten past the horror of it. I say Peter's situation was far different than Cholo and company. Peter had 3 people only to interact with. With both Roger and Flyboy dead (and you could argue dead because of Peter), 66% of all the people Peter knew were dead, so it is understandable he would be dispondent. Cholo and everyone else had hundreds, if not thousands, or people to interact with, and as hardened soldier types, the loss of one casual-aquaintence individual would be far less devestating than the loss of Roger to Peter. That's an interesting statement. What's so important about proving one was before or after the other? And if timeline post-outbreak is not the comparison point, then what? The two situations were so vastly different I think any direct comparison would devolve into speculation or nit-picking. Not sure if "important" is the word....but it makes for fun discussion and it seems the only logical thing to me. Regardless of all the side points we argue/speculate on, there is an overriding theme that I can not ignore. In Day, the tone/atmosphere is desolate. We see 12 living beings the whole movie, thats it. They have actively looked for over 100 miles in each direction and found no one. They have even landed and called out to find survivors, they find none. It is implied that it is possible that these are the last humans on earth. Nicotero even says "maybe we are the only ones left". In Land, there are people all over the place. The tone/atmosphere is far less dark. People are looking for fun entertainment. People want money to buy things. They think that money will do them good to leave with. Just the look/tone/atmosphere of the films themselves make it seem as if Day happens later in the outbreak. As far as the money goes, think about this...do you think that any of the characters in Day, even John, would want a shitload of money to venture out on their own with? No. They all realize that money would be worthless, except maybe to wipe their asses with. I say that it is highly unrealistic to say that the world went from the way it was in Day to the way in was in Land. I realize that took place in different locales, but there is no reason to think that life would be so much better in one area of the United States vs another. Perhaps the thread should be "Philly and Trin's pointless timeline debate" - Done!

[AcesandEights]

whenever i have the log-out screen come up after trying to post a rather thought-out long response, i simply log back in and my post pops up....this doesn't happen for you guys? Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes I automatically hit my back button and that loses any chance of getting the now-stillborn post back.

[sandrock74]

LOL! I think I am going to become a zombie from willingly following this arguement. I feel like the lone zombie who electrocutes hiself on the fence at the Green.