Land of the Dead IS 3 years after the outbreak:

[Dawg]

The reason I know? Someone mentioned that they only recall dude working for Kaufman for three years. Okay, but when Riley goes to pick up his car in the beginning of the movie, the guy at the garage says, "What car? The last car drove out of here three years ago." Dawg

[general tbag]

yea but we all knew that was bs as the car was really there, event he little fat man agreed it should of been there. `the whino was hammed .

[FleshMask]

Cholo said he worked for Kaufman for 6 years cleaning up his garbage... So I would rethink that number.

[coma]

Cholo said he worked for Kaufman for 6 years cleaning up his garbage... So I would rethink that number. I just watched it again last night. Cholo says it in the scene with the Champagne and Kaufman. I rewound it twice because I never noticed before. Its THREE years. Sorry Fleshmask

[Philly_SWAT]

"What car? The last car drove out of here three years ago." I guess that depends on what you think he meant by that. Did he mean the last car to drive out of "the Green" was 3 years ago, giving the impression that the zombie outbreak has been going on for three years, or that the last car to drive out of the ...."piece of crap auto graveyard area" was three years ago, giving the impression that the zombie outbreak may have been going on for only 3 months, yet the people there are still trying to live their lives as normal as possible, and even back before the outbreak, the only cars brought there prior to Riley storing his car their were undrivable, therefore the guy was making a normal, every-day kind of smart-ass remark about no cars driving out in three years, the kind of remark a guy might make in a simialiar situation in a non-zombie world. I still say there is much more evidence that Day takes place after Land, and the "three years" comment in this context can not be used as a determing factor in how long the outbreak has been happening. In Dawn, Dr. Foster says "for three weeks, for three weeks you have not listened". IN that statement, he is specifically referring to how long the zombie problem has been going on. The "three years" comment from Land is open to intrepretation, and may not neccesarily be referring to the zombie problem, simply the time that has passed since a car drove out of there. If someone in Land had said "It's been 6 years since we had an honest politician around here", it wouldnt mean that the outbreak was 6 years in, simply that he is unhappy with local politicians, and the last time he remembers on honest one was 6 years ago. Also, same thing holds true for Cholo saying he worked for Kaufman for "three years". He could have easily been working for him prior to the outbreak, and continued his employ after the problem started. That makes more sense to me. With chaos reigning, why would Kaufman, a rich and powerful man, turn to an unknown to help him in his post-outbreak endevours? Wouldnt he rather have someone working for him that he knows and is familiar with how to manipulate and control? I think so. This to me shows that Land is definately not three years into the outbreak.

[EvilNed]

There's no real evidence to support that Day takes place after Land. It's a dead debate. Land of the Dead, states quite clearly throughout the film, takes place three years after the dead rise. As for Cholo working for Kaufman three years AND cars not running for three years... That's one hell of a coincidence! More likely, it's simply that long ago since the dead walked. Open for interpreration if you like, but if you're trying to interpret it in someway that George didn't originally consider, then you're just fooling yourself. It's like watching that old Sean Connery flick Zardoz. It's a wierd flick, and many believe it has many hidden messenges. Fact is that it doesn't, because the director says so. Yet people persist. They're trying to see something the artist doesn't, which is also to fool oneself. No offense, but Land of the Dead clearly takes place 3 years after the outbreak. Your only argument would be that Day takes place further away in the timeline than that, which I can't see any evidence supporting either. They've still got gas. They've obviously just begun to cope with the problem. Etc. etc.

[bassman]

I'm still having trouble understanding why you people think that the films need to be grouped together in a coherent timeline, anyway. They're all seperate films, folks. None of them are intended to be direct sequels.

[Philly_SWAT]

Land of the Dead, states quite clearly throughout the film, takes place three years after the dead rise. Not necesarily so, as I have already stated why. As for Cholo working for Kaufman three years AND cars not running for three years... That's one hell of a coincidence! The Tampa Bay Bucs won the Superbowl three years ago. My grandmother died three years ago. Murder conspiracy from Jon Gruden, or coincidence? No offense, but Land of the Dead clearly takes place 3 years after the outbreak. Your only argument would be that Day takes place further away in the timeline than that, which I can't see any evidence supporting either. They've still got gas. None taken. But correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt there plenty of gas in Land? That cant be the basis of a good argument. Riley wants a car.....presumably he wants gas that he knows exists to go along with it. Dead Reckoning runs on gas. As well as the other support vehicles they use as well. They've obviously just begun to cope with the problem. Etc. etc. What evidence is there to suport that they have just begun to cope with the problem? The fact that they have searched for 100 miles in each direction? THe fact that they have went out in the wild and corraled a crapload of zombies, and installed collars on them? THe fact that John and Billy have made their little trailor into "The Ritz?" The fact that several relatively young, presumably healthy people have died? (and then there were 12...) The fact that Logan was just "advancing theories proved months ago"? The fact that discipline has broken down to the point where they are brazenly growing pot plants right by the elevator? I suggest that the evidence points to the fact that they have been in that underground complex for a long time, not a short one. They're all seperate films, folks. None of them are intended to be direct sequels. Hence the reason for debate about which takes place before another. They are not intended to be direct sequels, but they are intended to take place within the same universe, therefore the time that they take place in relative to each other is a consideration.

[bassman]

Hence the reason for debate about which takes place before another. They are not intended to be direct sequels, but they are intended to take place within the same universe, therefore the time that they take place in relative to each other is a consideration. No, the universe doesn't have to do with the timelines. Universe only means that the situation is the same(dead rising) and the same rules apply. The timeline of the films was never meant to be joined. In fact, I remember reading an interview with Romero where he says that same thing. I'll try to dig it up... One example that I keep comparing this debate to is the "007" or "James Bond" films. They're at about 21 sequels now and have you ever tried placing them into a timeline? True, a few had the same villian or made some references to an earlier film.....but can you create a timeline out of them? No. About the only things that relate the bond films to each other are Bond himself, his crew(Q, Money Penny, M, Etc.), and a few other random things. Just like the only thing that connects Romero's films are the zombies and rules that come along with them.

[Philly_SWAT]

No, the universe doesn't have to do with the timelines. Universe only means that the situation is the same(dead rising) and the same rules apply. The timeline of the films was never meant to be joined. Maybe I am not doing a good job of saying what I am trying to say. I disagree with your definition of "universe". What you say is true, but "universe" also means that it is happening in the same timeline. For example, in our own real universe, there was World War I, World War II, the Viet Nam war, etc. Now, you can discuss any of these wars, and do not necesarily have to mention any of the others to intelligently discuss just one of them. And no world leader ever intended for these wars to be "joined in a timeline", but they existed in real time, and are in fact in the same timeline, the timeline we are living in. Since you mentioned it, in the James Bond films, they all take place in the same universe, and same timeline. In that series, the discusion of "which film takes place before another within the timeline" is of little importance. There is not a continuing problem that progresses as the series goes on. It is a simple storyline actually, a good guy is fighting bad guys. Here is the next story involving that good guy. There isnt an overriding "bad guy force" that is in a constant state of being, that gets worse, and Bond's overall way of dealing with this must change, etc. A bad guy comes along, Bond defeats him, end of that story. Here is another bad guy, new story, same universe, same timeline. But in the Bond universe, it doesnt matter if he defeated Goldfinger last month and Octopussy two months ago, the timeline questions are not relevant. He defeated them both, now on to the next enemy. It is like how Dennis the Menace never gets older....if he did, the reason for the story ends. If Bond becomes an old man bound to a wheelchair, and can not contribute in any way to fending off the bad guys, then there is no reason for another story. Therefore in that universe, he just kind of continues on, and you have to suspend your disbelief about why he never gets older, just like Dennis the Menace. In the GAR zombie universe, there is a continuing problem that is the same in the movies, the fact that the dead are rising and want to eat the living. The problem progresses thruout the series. The more people die, the more zombies there are. The mindset of the people dealing with the problem changes. There is a definately progression of the timeline, unlike in a Bond movie. If there were 30 GAR zombie films made, it wouldnt make sense that the problem never progresses, unless it were obvious that the various movies were taking place at the same time i.e. if another movie were made that starts three weeks in, but say, set in Cleavland, we would have a new set of characters with new problems and new ways of dealing with them, but it would be taking place at the same time the Dawn folks were in the Mall. Basically, you agree with my points about Bond when you say About the only things that relate the bond films to each other are Bond himself, his crew(Q, Money Penny, M, Etc.), and a few other random things. Just like the only thing that connects Romero's films are the zombies and rules that come along with them. however, I do not agree with making the same statement about the GAR zombie universe. There are two different types of universes at play in these two series of films. It is like this....I can remember as a kid reading Spider-Man comic books. But Spider-Man "guest-starred" in other books other than his own, sometimes appearing in Marvel Team-Up, Daredevil, etc. Now, Marvel being far superior to DC imho, realised that some logic problems could exist when in the new edition of "The Amazing Spider-Man" he was fighting the Green Goblin in New York, but in the new "Daredevil" he was fighting the Kingpen in New Jersey. How could he be in two places at the same time? Well, they put little asterics in that would say something like *this takes plave between Spiderman #132 and #133. Logic problem solved. The Bond series decides to ignore the explanation of these possible logic probelms because it is unimportant. The GAR zombie series ignores these problems also, 1) because GAR sometimes did not pay attention to little details and 2) he purposely left things vague to where the viewer could make up his own mind. To try to further clarify my thoughts on how "timeline" relates to "universe", look at it this way. Take two movies...."As Good As it Gets" and "Bridges of Madison County". Both of these movies basically take place in "our universe", the one we exist in in real life. But within the context of those movies, the slight variations in universe could mean that the Clint Eastwood photographer doesnt have to exist in the same universe as the diner where Jack and Helen duke it out. I say that Ben from Night, Peter from Dawn, Logan from Day and Riley from Land are all existing in the same universe. We may not see them at the same time, they may never meet or interact with each other, their actions may have no effect on each other, but they exist in the same timeline. In other words, after leaving Philly, they could have landed the chopper right at the same farmhouse where Ben was, and where he was killed 3 weeks earlier. They might even see the leftover remains in the former fire. But if Clint Eastwood went to New York City and went to that diner, he might not necesarily see Jack Nicholson sitting there taking plastic forks out of a bag in his pocket. Those two stories exist in an almost identical universe, our own, but all the GAR zombie movies exist in the exact same universe, the one GAR created where the dead walk and the lving try to survive. I apologize if there are mispelling in this post, it is quite long, but I am sure you will get what I am saying.

[bassman]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But I'm glad that you brought up the whole comic book thing and how Parker could be in two different situations like that. First, let me say that I'm not a comic book fan by any means. The only comics I ever had were "TMNT" and "The Real Ghostbusters". But I remember hearing someone(Kevin Smith on the "Donnie Darko" commentary, if I'm not mistaken) speak about alternate universes within comics. For instance, Batman could be fighting the villians in, let's say issue # 89 of one particular series and he gets killed. That's it.....no more Batman. So what do the comic book people do when they want to make more Batman comics? They make universe #2(I believe this is what he called it). This is how Smith described the whole "universe" thing(which made perfect sense being that it was commentary for "Donnie Darko") and he made it clear that there is always more than one universe, with similar traits and goings on. I don't know, man. You make a great argument but I just think the films aren't meant to be grouped together at all. Even if they could be grouped together in order to document the progression of the dead rising....do you think we'll ever see a film from Romero that ties all the loose ends and proposes a cure to the dead walking? I seriously doubt it. It just seems to me that if that was something important to the films and something that the creator(Romero) wanted to bring to light....wouldn't it be laid out a bit better for us? Just as I've read Romero saying, he does not intend for any of the movies to be related other than the fact that they contain "zombies". If that's not enough evidence for you....I don't know what is. I guess you guys are just bigger fan boys than myself. You did make a great argument though, man. Reps...

[Philly_SWAT]

You did make a great argument though, man. I couldnt agree more with you on this point!! Even if they could be grouped together in order to document the progression of the dead rising....do you think we'll ever see a film from Romero that ties all the loose ends and proposes a cure to the dead walking? I wouldnt want to see a film like that. Part of the lure of these films it that there seems to be a conscious effort to not tie up loose ends. Like how Romero realised it was a mistake in Night to act like some "Venus probe" caused the problem, and abandoned that line of thought for future installments. Along those lines.... It just seems to me that if that was something important to the films and something that the creator(Romero) wanted to bring to light....wouldn't it be laid out a bit better for us? I dont think that it is very important in the films, just that it is. I mean, it isnt overly important that "Grumpier Old Men" takes place after "Grumpy Old Men", it simply is the way it is. Plus, I like the fact that Romero leaves a lot up to us as viewers, rather than spoon feed us everyting like most Hollywood movies do. Just as I've read Romero saying, he does not intend for any of the movies to be related other than the fact that they contain "zombies". If that's not enough evidence for you....I don't know what is. I would think that by this he just means, as you have already said, that they are not direct sequels, not that they do not exist in the same timeline. I mean, Abraham Lincoln made the great Gettysburg Address in the same timeline where there was a TV show called Three's Company. They are certainly not related to each other in any way, but certainly exist in the same timeline. PLus, remember, Romero is getting on in years....... I guess you guys are just bigger fan boys than myself. As much as I hate that term, I guess I would have to admit that yes, I am a fanboy. (Cripes, did I just say that? )

[MinionZombie]

I thought this was common knowledge, but I guess not (there was all that thread-bashing a while ago regarding it's time setting ... and how on earth could it ever realistically be BEFORE Day of the Dead? Think outside the box people, lol). But yeah, I've always thought Land was 3 years after the outbreak kicked off - well initially I had 5 years floating around in my head, don't know why, must have been off on one of those funky muffin trips of giggling back at uni...

[hadrian0117]

Day certainly looks more desolate than Land, but they did mention that they lost comunication with other outposts. Zombies in FL would likely decay faster than in PA. The original script for Day was set 5 years after the outbreak, but the only reference to time in the film was Sarah telling Logan he was advancing theories advanced months ago.

[Adrenochrome]

The reason I know? Someone mentioned that they only recall dude working for Kaufman for three years. Okay, but when Riley goes to pick up his car in the beginning of the movie, the guy at the garage says, "What car? The last car drove out of here three years ago." Dawg ok, so,....what about the truck that Riley and Charley rode into town in????? What "year was that made"???? LOL