Dead Cholo

[The Alive Man]

Not a flub by a mile but I'm just wondering... Why is Cholo decaying so FAST? He looks like one of the "older" Dead... which is truly impossible, since he's supposed to have been bitten one year before (or the same night). On the other hand, a bite should make you "ill", then dead, then LIVING DEAD (as depicted by the original DAWN). I think the whole process on Cholo was way too fast.

[Brubaker]

Not a flub by a mile but I'm just wondering... Why is Cholo decaying so FAST? He looks like one of the "older" Dead... which is truly impossible, since he's supposed to have been bitten one year before (or the same night). On the other hand, a bite should make you "ill", then dead, then LIVING DEAD (as depicted by the original DAWN). I think the whole process on Cholo was way too fast. So? The old man who hung himself and the soldiers who were overrun also returned very quickly. Riley said his brother lasted all of an hour, right? I shrug it off, in the same way I shrugged off the fact that movies like Aliens vs Predator suddenly had aliens bursting out of peoples chests only ten minutes after the face huggers latch onto them. Movie goers of this generation don't like to wait to see the action, don't like to wait while the "drama" and "suspense" builds up. So the rest of us suffer for it. But whatever........ I assume he had a good reason for doing it and didn't suddenly forget the way things ran in previous movies compared to Land.. If the master (GAR) says it, then I accept it because it is "good enough" for me. Bottom line!

[The Alive Man]

Brubaker, We could assume that the "virus" (or whatever turned the Living into Living Dead) speeded-up the whole 'zombification' process in comparison with the early stages of the DAWN era (evolution? again?); however, the corpse rotting appears to slow down when the Living Dead finally "awakes" and his former human self is gone for good.

[deadpunk]

I understand where you're going, Alive. Cholo appears like one of the shamblers that has been rotting away for a great length of time, not someone that has just been turned. Land is chock full of inconsistencies such as these. However, my opinion has always been: they are just movies to entertain you. I feel very strongly that most GAR fans spend entirely too much time dissecting the films to sit back and enjoy them. Give it twenty years or so, and people will appreciate LAND the way they do Night, Dawn or Day. LOL.

[The Alive Man]

I understand where you're going, Alive. Cholo appears like one of the shamblers that has been rotting away for a great length of time, not someone that has just been turned. Land is chock full of inconsistencies such as these. However, my opinion has always been: they are just movies to entertain you. I feel very strongly that most GAR fans spend entirely too much time dissecting the films to sit back and enjoy them. Give it twenty years or so, and people will appreciate LAND the way they do Night, Dawn or Day. LOL. Deadpunk, I think that both of us could agree that dissecting our favourite movies is definitely enough entertaining, as much as watching them! Anyway, I must say that Cholo was't rotting so heavily, but surely rotting at a fastest speed.

[HLS]

Not a flub by a mile but I'm just wondering... Why is Cholo decaying so FAST? He looks like one of the "older" Dead... which is truly impossible, since he's supposed to have been bitten one year before (or the same night). On the other hand, a bite should make you "ill", then dead, then LIVING DEAD (as depicted by the original DAWN). I think the whole process on Cholo was way too fast. I agree. Big daddy looked like a fresher corpse than Cholo. It just did not seem right.

[The Alive Man]

We don't know. Maybe Cholo is truly the next step in the emulation/learning department, and his biology is all fuc*ed-up. Do not forget that he seems to have an even stronger will and intellect than Big Daddy. That's my impression, too.

[coma]

We don't know. Maybe Cholo is truly the next step in the emulation/learning department, and his biology is all fuc*ed-up. Do not forget that he seems to have an even stronger will and intellect than Big Daddy. That's my impression, too. Some want to go shopping, he wanted to kill Kaufman

[The Alive Man]

And when Kaufman shot him (and he was already a Living Dead, at this point) he also "faked" to have been injuried, and sit apart --- that was so "human" and "intelligent" to do! He was cheating, of course. Ordinary Living Dead do not cheat anyone. Cholo was showing an even greater wit than Big Daddy, in my mind.

[EvilNed]

First off, Land of the Dead isn't supposed to take place in the same universe as Dawn. That is, the outbreak you saw in Day is a different scenario as that you saw in Land. It's different takes on what would happen if zombies would take over the world. While you may (and many do) connect them into one coherent timeline if you wish, you'll find many inconsistancies. Such as these. Second off, I agree with you. I think the swiftness of Cholo's turn is acceptable because in Land that's how fast you turn (as opposed to Dawn where it took days). But he rots way to fast! But it was probably more for effect to clarify that Cholo is now a zombie than anything else.

[Philly_SWAT]

First off, Land of the Dead isn't supposed to take place in the same universe as Dawn. That is, the outbreak you saw in Day is a different scenario as that you saw in Land. How do you figure???? On the other hand, a bite should make you "ill", then dead, then LIVING DEAD (as depicted by the original DAWN). I think the whole process on Cholo was way too fast. As someone else has already kinda mentioned, this is due in part to mainstream Hollywood movies "playing down" to the masses. The masses are either too dumb or too impatient to enjoy a longer, well told story, so lets forget some logic and hurry up the movie to take their money. Remember, GAR was working within the system this time. However...... I think you can still say that Cholo did follow the GAR rules. He was bit, therefore he immediately started getting ill. Then they drove from whereever they were to the entrance of the tunnel (taking time, time that the illness was still setting in). Then he walked the distance of the tunnel. And not walked as a healthy person walks, but as a sick, bit person, walking slower than normal (therefore taking more time while being ill). WHo knows, he may have stopped to rest for a while, still alive, and while sitting there died. In any event, he died in the tunnel. We have no idea how long he was dead. We all have no idea how long since he was bitten that he dies, we are given no evidence of that. Just because it seems to be a very quick time later, it could have been hours. I mean, if the spot where Cholo was bitten was an hour away from the tunnel entrance, it would be a pretty boring scene just showing them driving back to the entrance for an hour. It only makes sense that they were far away from the tunnel, they were supposed to be on their way to Cleavland, they wouldnt be hanging around the city. So he was ill, then dead, then the living dead, but not quickly as you suggest, but within normal GAR parameters, we just arent shown or told about all the time that passed between the stages. And when Kaufman shot him (and he was already a Living Dead, at this point) he also "faked" to have been injuried, and sit apart --- that was so "human" and "intelligent" to do! He was cheating, of course. Ordinary Living Dead do not cheat anyone. Cholo was showing an even greater wit than Big Daddy, in my mind. That is the thing that I dislike the most about Land. You are correct, Cholo shows an incredible amount of wit in "cheating" Kaufman. That is the part that seems to break the GAR rules too much. The only way I can reconcile that in my mind is this..... Cholo dies in the tunnel, when he wakes, he is just a regular member of the living dead. He has no memory of his plan to kill Kaufman, no thoughts of revenge, nothing. He is just a zombie in the middle of a tunnel with no one to kill, so he decides to leave the tunnel to look for prey. He could have just as easily went back the way he came (of course, that makes for un-interesting movie making!) but he exits the tunnel coincendentally where Kaufman is (again, movie making coincidence. It would have been quite a coincidence even if Cholo wasnt dead yet that Kaufman just happened to be right there). When he sees Kaufman (to Cholo, just a random living person) he naturally goes to kill him. When he gets shot a few times, he decides to sit/fall whatevet, not in an attempt to "trick" Kaufman into thinking he is dead, just one of those weird things that zombies do, like standing still like a manequin in Dawn, hanging out in a ticket taker booth in Day, etc. Why is Cholo decaying so FAST? He looks like one of the "older" Dead... That is another movie deal. Ever notice the teeth of the dead in Day? All of them have horrible looking teeth. Why is that? The teeth are the last things on our bodies that rot, that is why police have to look for dental records on decayed bodies. It was just the way they were doing makeup. You are right, Cholo did look pretty dead when we see him, but what would you think if he showed up looking like Johnny from Night, basically looking the same as when he was alive, with just a smatter of blood on him? You wuold say "why doesnt he look very dead". I think we have to ignore the "Cholo looks too dead" just the same that we have to ignore "the styles have changed too much in three weeks" between Night and Dawn.

[capncnut]

Ever notice the teeth of the dead in Day? All of them have horrible looking teeth. Why is that? Well if you ate raw flesh every day without using toothpaste, I'm sure they'd rot pretty quickly!

[EvilNed]

How do you figure???? Because Romero said so. He doesn't view his films as taking part in one timeline, as most fans do. Listen to the Land commentary. This also explains why in some films, the zombie rules are a bit different.

[Adolf Kitler]

First off, Land of the Dead isn't supposed to take place in the same universe as Dawn. That is, the outbreak you saw in Day is a different scenario as that you saw in Land. It's different takes on what would happen if zombies would take over the world. While you may (and many do) connect them into one coherent timeline if you wish, you'll find many inconsistancies. Such as these. Second off, I agree with you. I think the swiftness of Cholo's turn is acceptable because in Land that's how fast you turn (as opposed to Dawn where it took days). But he rots way to fast! But it was probably more for effect to clarify that Cholo is now a zombie than anything else. Yep, that was my take on Cholo. If he looked freshly turned, the general audience would have assumed he was still alive, only a lil' battered up.

[Philly_SWAT]

In your intial post, the one I responded to by saying "How do you figure??" you said : First off, Land of the Dead isn't supposed to take place in the same universe as Dawn. Then you just said: Because Romero said so. He doesn't view his films as taking part in one timeline, as most fans do. Listen to the Land commentary. This also explains why in some films, the zombie rules are a bit different. In one post you say "universe" and in another you say "timeline". Two different concepts. If I recall, GAR says something to the effect that they arent meant to be directly following a specific timeline, but they are definately within the same universe. Why would anyone make a series of movies like this, and have them set in slightly different universes? That would make zero sense. The "zombie rules being a bit different" is due to lack of perfection in movie making continuity, not purposely setting the movies in different universes.