Land would make a good part 3

[Minerva_Zombi]

After watching Diary yesterday and Survival today. I popped in Land of the dead to find that it would make a great part three for the "New Trilogy". Think about it, Chronologically it works. It has some characters from Diary and Survival in it (Sarge and Tony). It would be a good way to show what happened to these two characters after Diary and Survival. In Survival, they try to teach the Zombies to eat animals, well in Land they obviously are eating animals by then because when the guy asks "whats on the menu tonight cat or dog?" in Land, obviously, zombies have evolved to eating animals too. Plus, in Survival they are also starting to develop intellegence. So if you get a chance, watch these three in that order and tell me THAT doesn't feel like Romero's NEW trilogy.

[JDFP]

So if you get a chance, watch these three in that order and tell me THAT doesn't feel like Romero's NEW trilogy. As far as I'm concerned, it IS. Since seeing "Survival" I've considered "Land" to be the third in the "new" trilogy as it fits in perfectly to first "Diary" then "Survival" and then "Land". "Land" does not work with the original trilogy and I've never considered it to be in the same "zombie timeline" as the original trilogy for various reasons -- good to see I'm certainly not alone with this as you're saying the exact same thing I believe. It's exactly how I consider "Land" to work -- the last film of the new trilogy. j.p.

[Yojimbo]

I agree with this timeline, but it occurs to me that this is exactly what Romero intended, especially considering the timeline he implicitly assigned to Survival, and Diary and Land. The question I have is how one would put the entire series in order given the recent three - or does one just treat the recent three as separate animals from the first three? JD it appears would fall into the category of those who consider the last three to be indepennden from the universe of the first three, and I am inclined to agree. how say the rest of you?

[Minerva_Zombi]

I say the first three are one universe. And the new ones are a completely different... If you think about it, by Day Of The Dead, the world is pretty much over. It almost seemed like Land was a few years BEFORE Day. So lets say Diary happened, then Survival was about a year later, and Land is maybe another year after Survival. Yes?

[CooperWasRight]

I agree with this timeline, but it occurs to me that this is exactly what Romero intended, especially considering the timeline he implicitly assigned to Survival, and Diary and Land. The question I have is how one would put the entire series in order given the recent three - or does one just treat the recent three as separate animals from the first three? JD it appears would fall into the category of those who consider the last three to be indepennden from the universe of the first three, and I am inclined to agree. how say the rest of you? Land is according to George some years into the infection... It isnt till Survival that it is supposed to be a different universe. As to Alan Van Sprang is not the same guy in land as he is in in the others. All that said I like the re-ordering... Thematically I feel Land also works between dawn and day... In fairness alot of un used material in Day's script ended up being retooled into Land.

[Trin]

If you think about it, by Day Of The Dead, the world is pretty much over. It almost seemed like Land was a few years BEFORE Day. I just don't get this opinion at all. Although Philly would be all over this. We had a very long winded thread about all this. I'll sum up my stance on this briefly. Day - Still looking for survivors. Still trying to find a cure. Still adhering to prior jobs and social heirarchy. Still not believing that the old world is dead. Still frightened of and abhored by zombies. Zombies still shambling after humans. Land - Society has rebuilt. New heirarchy established. Never look for survivors. Zombies have stopped caring about humans. Society is no longer frightened of them - using them for games, carnival attractions, and shooting ranges. I just don't see how Land comes before Day given the complete acceptance of the zombie world in Land. I do see some alignment of the Diary, Survival, Land trilogy as separate from the Night, Dawn, Day trilogy. I'll have to think that over some more.

[JonOfTheShred]

Diary, Survival, Land...seems to make perfect sense to me as well. And this is coming from someone that enjoyed the three new movies, despite being a bit disappointed by certain aspects of them. (Sure, they were no OT in terms of awesomeness, they were still pretty good zombie films...just not for GAR) Now maybe he should do one final trilogy, perhaps depicting the outbreak in other parts of the world, and try to go back to the more serious tone of the OT. Maybe get Darabont to Produce and Kirkman to help with the script after he directs and ep or two of TWD.

[bassman]

Ah....the ol' timeline debate. It never dies. Imo, all of the films are different. None of them are truly related, but if you want to put them in some sort of order, Land is part of the original series, while Diary and Survival are the new kids on the block. When Romero went back to square one with Diary, that's when it switched over to a different "universe", if you will. Much like comics, these are all different universes, but just using the same character(The dead).

[JDFP]

I think the reason "Day" feels like the end of things (even if Romero may have 'intended' for "Land" to come after "Day") is because Romero was able to capture something in "Day" that he didn't in "Land" -- the sense of dread and hopelessness. "Land" just didn't have a sense of hopelessness and almost complete despair like "Day" did. It didn't feel like the end whereas "Day" felt like it was truly the end of everything. I chalk this up to the fact that "Day" was just extremely well-made as opposed to "Land" which is... ehhh... Anyway, I'm with the others here that consider "Night" - "Day" as one trilogy and "Diary" - "Land" as a second trilogy. I think it just makes more sense and works better this way. j.p.

[AcesandEights]

I just don't get this opinion at all. Although Philly would be all over this. We had a very long winded thread about all this. I'll sum up my stance on this briefly. Day - Still looking for survivors. Still trying to find a cure. Still adhering to prior jobs and social heirarchy. Still not believing that the old world is dead. Still frightened of and abhored by zombies. Zombies still shambling after humans. Land - Society has rebuilt. New heirarchy established. Never look for survivors. Zombies have stopped caring about humans. Society is no longer frightened of them - using them for games, carnival attractions, and shooting ranges. I just don't see how Land comes before Day given the complete acceptance of the zombie world in Land. I do see some alignment of the Diary, Survival, Land trilogy as separate from the Night, Dawn, Day trilogy. I'll have to think that over some more. I agree! Thank you for summarizing, Trin, as I was about to go look for the previous debates and start linking to them. Day was the darkest hour, but not necessarily the end of the world. Also, I'm not going to ascribe too much forethought to GAR on the timeline for the newest films, as it really seems as though he's proved he doesn't get hung up on that sort of thing the way his fans do. Personally, I think Land makes a fine part 4 of the first series or part 3 of the second, if you're so inclined to view it that way.

[bassman]

I also agree with Trin's thoughts. Why is it that everyone thinks Land is supposed to be the end of the world? It's actually the opposite. They're re-building. They're starting fresh. Making their own little cage so they can ignore the problem and live their lives. Fiddler's Green is on an upswing before Cholo and his gang fuck it all up. It's society starting over AFTER the dire situation we see in day. Things always get worse before they get better. Day was the worst, Land is the beginning of something better.

[Trin]

Day was the darkest hour, but not necessarily the end of the world. Yes!! Exactly!! And taking the thought a step further... how does someone justify the end of Land leading into Day? I get the whole notion that Day is the "end of everything" but how does Land set that up? At the end of Land the zombies have stopped attacking. They literally walk away from dinner. The humans are looking at rebuilding under Mulligan with the Kaufman regime ousted. Riley and crew have things so well handled that they feel safe driving off in DR. It's a pretty bright future. It'd be like a historian looking back at the fall of man and considering today vs. the Dark Ages and contending that clearly the Dark Ages came later since they were, you know, darker. It's a terribly simplistic view of events. Personally, I think Land makes a fine part 4 of the first series or part 3 of the second, if you're so inclined to view it that way. That's a pretty good way of putting it. It really could fit into either. Survival is the one that gets me. I like the idea of all the movies in the same universe, and I can stand a few oddities that crop up between them. Land had some weirdo zombie behavior but given the later timeline and foreshadowing from Bub you can justify it. Diary threw a couple curveballs at us for zombies that were fresh, but nothing that couldn't be chalked up to zombies just being a bit more differentiated than we'd thought all along. But Survival just throws the rules out. Part of me wants to lump Survival into its own universe just to protect the other movies from it. Ponder this everyone. Day and Survival are the two movies that share the whole "if we can feed them we win" theme. And it's a HUGE theme in both of those movies. The central theme, in fact. So far I don't see anyone putting Day and Survival in the same series. ----------- Edit - I simo-posted with Bassman, but I couldn't have put it better. *claps* for Bassman's interpretation!!

[bassman]

So far I don't see anyone putting Day and Survival in the same series. And you never will. The further those two are seperated, the better.

[Trin]

And you never will. The further those two are seperated, the better. But it is odd though, purely from a theme stance. Personally, I think Survival needs to go stand in the corner.

[rongravy]

...well in Land they obviously are eating animals by then because when the guy asks "whats on the menu tonight cat or dog?" in Land, obviously, zombies have evolved to eating animals too. Ummmm, didn't they mean who was going to be thrown in the cage with the zombies to fight over: a man or a woman? I'm pretty sure... Land is according to George some years into the infection... It isnt till Survival that it is supposed to be a different universe. Even though a few people have been in more than one movie, I think each movie is a small peek into different parts of the same world. Diary was a prequel, Survival is nestled in there somewhere around/with/after Night, and the rest you could put in order after that as they are. Geez. And you never will. The further those two are seperated, the better. No one has ever posed this question to the man hisself? I bet he might disagree with y'alls. It's HIS vision, not ours. We are just the ones who are lucky, or according to some here UNLUCKY, enough to get an occasional glimpse into HIS world. Of course his movies are going to be different. Does everyone want him to do the same tired formula over and over? Escape from ___ to ___, then hold out until ___, which doesn't work, then finally escape off in your ___ to ___? I love the original trilogy, but geez. Let goooooo. Dawn still pulls at my heartstrings, but man is it corny as hell to look at the styles of the time and often poor FX compared to today. I'm still glad GAR still makes new ones, and although they don't always completely rock my world, I've not been disappointed yet. Now, let the stoning begin...