From the Horse's Mouth....Land IS after Day! Part II

[Philly_SWAT]

This topic was originally started by Svengoolie. There were so many posts there it is hard to navigate, so I thought I would start a new thread and give him cedit for the original topic. Anyway, when I saw the original thread, I thought it was a link to a video interview, seeing as it was titled "Straight from the Horses Mouth", so I intended to watch the video later. I finally clicked on the link to watch the video just now, and discovered that it was not a video, but a written page by a "Rod Whitenack", who works at a video store called "Wild & Woolly Video" located in Louisville, KY. Now I dont know about the rest of you, but I dont know, or have ever heard of, Rod Whitenack. Assuming that he accurately transcribed whatever interview he had with GAR, I noticed that the interview took place before Land had come out, and with no date on the page and no specific reference to it, possibly before it even began shooting. Here is the part about the then upcoming movie, "Dead Reckoning" (Land of the Dead). We pressed Romero for some of the secret details involving the new storyline and he gave us a hint on what to expect: "It's about ignoring the problem. After the events in Day of the Dead, the remaining survivors are living in exclusive gated communities that protect them from the dead outside. They attempt to live normally while ignoring the problem in the world outside their walls." It has been hinted in the media that this storyline was Romero's take on the homeless problem in America. "The real horror and adventure comes into play with the group of people living in the gated city whose job it is to leave the safety of the city and venture out into the dead wasteland to gather supplies and things." Now, GAR does say "after the events in Day of the Dead", but again, the movie had not even come out, and perhaps was not done shooting, or maybe even had not started shooting. I guess we would have to ask Rod Whitenack to be sure. With this in mind, how is this reference any more valid than the 5 years later reference in the original script for Day?

[Brubaker]

This topic was originally started by Svengoolie. There were so many posts there it is hard to navigate, so I thought I would start a new thread and give him cedit for the original topic. Anyway, when I saw the original thread, I thought it was a link to a video interview, seeing as it was titled "Straight from the Horses Mouth", so I intended to watch the video later. I finally clicked on the link to watch the video just now, and discovered that it was not a video, but a written page by a "Rod Whitenack", who works at a video store called "Wild & Woolly Video" located in Louisville, KY. Now I dont know about the rest of you, but I dont know, or have ever heard of, Rod Whitenack. Assuming that he accurately transcribed whatever interview he had with GAR, I noticed that the interview took place before Land had come out, and with no date on the page and no specific reference to it, possibly before it even began shooting. Here is the part about the then upcoming movie, "Dead Reckoning" (Land of the Dead). Now, GAR does say "after the events in Day of the Dead", but again, the movie had not even come out, and perhaps was not done shooting, or maybe even had not started shooting. I guess we would have to ask Rod Whitenack to be sure. With this in mind, how is this reference any more valid than the 5 years later reference in the original script for Day? Unlike Day, Romero DID get to make the movie he wanted when he finished Land, more or less. He didn't have to totally revamp any script. All he did was change the name. What was it Logan said to Rhodes in Day when he wanted to open fire on the zombies? Something about a hopeless situation Would you be willing to admit defeat if you ever find out definitively (enough to satisfy YOU) that Land came before Day and how would you go back and explain all your previous posts? As "research" and "hypothesis"?

[Adrenochrome]

**looks down at that poor, (now, shamefully defenseless) horse.** Screams, "OH, how they beat it so!!!" a tear escapes... bottom lip trembles, ever so slightly... **shakes head**......"that poor, poor horse."

[Philly_SWAT]

Would you be willing to admit defeat if you ever find out definitively (enough to satisfy YOU) that Land came before Day and how would you go back and explain all your previous posts? As "research" and "hypothesis"? If I find out that "Land came before Day" as you suggest, I would not have to go back and explain my posts, that is exactly what I am saying! But regardless of whether Land comes before Day, or Day comes before Land, I think that every point that I have been making is correct and logical, even if my overall idea of Land coming before Day is wrong. Lets assume for a second that I am in fact wrong, and that Day comes before Land. That means that my overall point is totally incorrect. However, quoting an "interview" that was typed up by some guy who works in a video store in Kentucky, and assuming that said interview was transcribed exactly as GAR gave it, and the fact that the interview was done before Land came out, in and of itself seems very dubious as "proof" of the prevailing sentiment that Day comes before Land. And if someone is going to take what Rod Whitenack says as "proof", then how could that same person so easily discount that GAR himself intended Day to take place 5 years after the outbreak? Part of the fun of posting on this forum, or any forum for that matter, is discussing ideas and seeing how others respond to them. If someone makes a point that I had not considered before, sometimes it forces me to realize that I did not have the correct idea and that the other person is right. But in the case of this thread, most people simply said something along the lines of "well GAR said it himself, what more do you need?" In a court of law, when attempting to prove something, an interview from someone with no direct knowledge to begin with, simply typed on a website with no video/audio, pertaining mainly to the idea of an incompleted/unreleased movie, would hardly constitute "proof" of anything. I am simply trying to make my point, and see what counterpoints other might make. I am trying to back up my point with logic, and what the actual movies are, not what someone else says they are. Many people, rather than engaging in a debate, resort mainly to "you are stupid" kind of replies. That seems to go against the spirit of this site.

[TheWalkingDude]

Does it really matter in the scheme of things if Land comes before or after Day????? They are set in different locations anyway. Not likely they would of known or ran into each other anyway.

[Brubaker]

Does it really matter in the scheme of things if Land comes before or after Day????? They are set in different locations anyway. Not likely they would of known or ran into each other anyway. That in itself brings up a totally different topic. It was still early enough that the folks in Day were wondering if they were the only ones left. In Land, the people at the Green didn't spend a lot of time wondering who else was left. That and the Green was located in a better place, geographically. People stuck in Florida have nowhere to go but North, unless they want to hit water. No other choice. People had nowhere to run so a greater number were eaten or zombified. That is why the movie gave off the impression of fewer humans being left. In the state of PA, or surrounding areas, you can go pretty much in any direction you want. Hence, people were more likely to find somewhere to go. Evidence of this on-screen in Land. As for the issue of Land taking place before Day: Romero has spoken. Close your eyes and count backwards from 10. Open your eyes. Now breathe and relax. A video store guy, with a web page, is a lot less likely to fabricate (or confuse) quotes than a large magazine or media outlet.

[EvilNed]

Watch Land with commentary. End of discussion.

[Philly_SWAT]

Many people, rather than engaging in a debate, resort mainly to "you are stupid" kind of replies. Romero has spoken. Close your eyes and count backwards from 10. Open your eyes. Now breathe and relax. The above two quotes seemed to go together. A video store guy, with a web page, is a lot less likely to fabricate (or confuse) quotes than a large magazine or media outlet. Really? Guess I will have to go back and re-read some of the pages I have seen online about the US governmnet being behind 9-11. I was thinking that those guys were crackpots, but maybe they are less likely to fabricate evidence than I thought. Watch Land with commentary. End of discussion. All of GAR's films have commentary....OK Neil, shut the site down!

[Brubaker]

The above two quotes seemed to go together. Really? Guess I will have to go back and re-read some of the pages I have seen online about the US governmnet being behind 9-11. I was thinking that those guys were crackpots, but maybe they are less likely to fabricate evidence than I thought. All of GAR's films have commentary....OK Neil, shut the site down! My quote about counting backwards from 10 was a joke. I never used the word "stupid." I am at least considering your points enough to continue replying. Most people here are no longer debating this with you, on account of those words from Romero. What does 9-11 have to do with any of this? All I was saying was that I doubt this video store guy would misquote Romero. Why on earth would he have an agenda in which he wants people to think Land occured after Day? You seem to imply that Romero admitted to this guy that Land came before Day and this internet guy wanted to cover it up. As far as a date for that interview, all you have to do is go back to when the title Dead Reckoning was first announced and then to when it was changed to Land of the Dead. It falls somewhere between there. I tend to think that the title Dead Reckoning wasn't floating around for about 10-15 years so it can't be THAT old. I bet you can pin down that interview to within a few months. If they say "the truth will set you free" then consider this post your "get out of jail free card."

[Danny]

for the love of god people can we just let it die you beating a bloody pulp now!

[Philly_SWAT]

My quote about counting backwards from 10 was a joke. I never used the word "stupid." I realize that. I am at least considering your points enough to continue replying. Most people here are no longer debating this with you, on account of those words from Romero Well, as of this writing, Svengoolie's original post has 51 replies, and this thread has 10, so that is 61 posts all in this thread about the video guy interview. What does 9-11 have to do with any of this? Similar to your counting to 10 line, that was a joke, based on your idea that a random guy on a website has more cred than more accepted media. Why on earth would he have an agenda in which he wants people to think Land occured after Day? You seem to imply that Romero admitted to this guy that Land came before Day and this internet guy wanted to cover it up. I doubt that he has an agenda to get people to think Land occured before Day. I wasnt implying that the guy is covering up anything. I am saying this: I would think that most people would think that large media outlets are a more legitimate sourse of information that just some guy with a website. Say for example Entertainment Weekly. I would assume, as I think most would also, that you cant just walk in the door and get to be a reporter. You need a combination of experience and education. You have worked your way up as an intern after getting a degree in communication. Something like that. And big companies have deep pockets. They have to be more careful about getting their facts straight or they get sued. A regular guy with no big money behind him isnt going to get sued for a million dollars, you cant get blood from a stone. At worst, he will be informed that he needs to take info off his site or he can expect further legal action. So my point in regards to Rod Whitenack is that no one here knows who he is, what his background is, and how accurately a novice such as he would transcribe an interview, or even if he had an interview. I am sure he probably did, but it wouldnt be the first time that someone posted something on the web to either look more important than they are, or to make their business look more important than it is in order to make more money. Does this prove my point that Land takes place before Day? Of course not. But it shows that you can not automatically take everything you see online as gospel, especially when coming from unknown sources. As far as a date for that interview, all you have to do is go back to when the title Dead Reckoning was first announced and then to when it was changed to Land of the Dead. It falls somewhere between there. I tend to think that the title Dead Reckoning wasn't floating around for about 10-15 years so it can't be THAT old. I bet you can pin down that interview to within a few months. I am sure this is true, but it doesnt change what I am saying, is that at the very least the movie hadnt come out yet. Therefore, who knows what changes were made in the script between then and final shooting. Same holds true for Day. In the script, it says 5 years into the problem. I thought that Romero was already in the production process when he was told that it had to have an R rating, he refused, they cut his money, etc., and the script was changed. Again, does this prove my point? No. But when making a logical argument you have to back up what you are saying and refute what others are saying against your point. A lawyer in court can not assume that facts not in evidence will be assumed by the jury, he must present those facts. And even if the defense attorney trusts and respects the procescutor, he has to try to refute the facts as they are being presented.

[MinionZombie]

*mod cap on* Alright lads, break it up, break it up... I think it's about time we put this "was land before/after day?" thing to rest, it's been discussed enough and it's descending into farce. Discussion is one thing, but I think it's been discussed enough as everyone has said everything they possibly could have said by now and we all know where everybody stands and nobody is budging. Let's call it a day on this issue.

[Philly_SWAT]

Are you serious? No one is name-calling each other, and this appears to be one of the more active threads on the board. I mean, if we closed this topic, how about closing all "which is your favorite GAR movie", "how many times have you seen each GAR movie" threads. They have all been hashed to death, but newcomers like them. In case this thread is closed, I invite everyone to look at this webpage, where GAR says that Land does in fact come before Day. http://home.cfl.rr.com/dawnofthedead/example.html As you can see, anyone can make a site and put whatever they want on it, even unintentionally/intentionally incorrect information.

[Dawg]

That in itself brings up a totally different topic. It was still early enough that the folks in Day were wondering if they were the only ones left. In Land, the people at the Green didn't spend a lot of time wondering who else was left. That and the Green was located in a better place, geographically. People stuck in Florida have nowhere to go but North, unless they want to hit water. No other choice. People had nowhere to run so a greater number were eaten or zombified. That is why the movie gave off the impression of fewer humans being left. In the state of PA, or surrounding areas, you can go pretty much in any direction you want. Hence, people were more likely to find somewhere to go. Evidence of this on-screen in Land. As for the issue of Land taking place before Day: Romero has spoken. Close your eyes and count backwards from 10. Open your eyes. Now breathe and relax. A video store guy, with a web page, is a lot less likely to fabricate (or confuse) quotes than a large magazine or media outlet. I think the real topic should be if DAY actually took place in FLORIDA! Just because it was filmed there partly, doesn't mean it actually took place there, because... THERE CAN NOT BE ANY UNDERGROUND BUNKERS IN FLORIDA due to the below sea level getting in the way! HELLO!? WTF?? At least most of Florida, maybe there are some further north, I don't know? Dawg

[Trancelikestate]

I think the real topic should be if DAY actually took place in FLORIDA! Just because it was filmed there partly, doesn't mean it actually took place there, because... THERE CAN NOT BE ANY UNDERGROUND BUNKERS IN FLORIDA due to the below sea level getting in the way! HELLO!? WTF?? At least most of Florida, maybe there are some further north, I don't know? Dawg good point. plus you can see the layered eath, theres none of that in florida. and no, i'm from north florida and it's all sand also! plus the aquafer in florida is gigantic! maybe it's possible, but it'd have to be re-enforced and you couldn't have exposed walls like you see besides us knowing it was really filmed, underground in PA, and above ground in FL, it's still fun debating the physical possibilities.