Day of the Dead realization (Capt. Rhodes was not a bad guy.)

[LJHolcon]

Now with poll!


Yes, yes. The oft looked upon antagonist Capt. Rhodes. But after giving this movie another viewing, I came to the realization that while certainly not a people person, Capt. Rhodes was just doing what he felt was best for his men.

He was given an absurd situation, exasperated by the fact the so-called science team was doing nothing but getting his men killed. In light of this, instead of even trying to work with Rhodes, the science team (and the pilot/radioman) instead engaged in a multi-tiered mutiny to seize necessary equipment and abandon the soldiers in a tomb.

First off, I agree. Rhodes was a prick. But by the time it came down to brass-tax, he was facing what amounted to a rebellion of support staff. Rhodes wanted to leave the base early on in his taking command. He didn't say he was going to leave the science team behind, only that due to the recent complications that it was time to abandon the mission (as nothing had been accomplished anyway.)
Of course we never learn of Rhode's exact plans because big mouth Sarah wouldn't let him speak for 10 seconds without interrupting him and calling him names.

Ironically, this is precisely what the "protagonist" and her crew were planning on doing only their plan included leaving the soldiers behind. When Rhodes fired shots in anger (at Logan feeding his men to zombies, and then at the other doctor) both of these were simply desperate acts of a commanding officer faced with the situation the so-called protagonist put him in.

Granted, Rhodes became barbaric, but only AFTER the situation realized itself.

If anything, I'd say you could make the case that Logan and crew were the antagonists. They simply had a nicer smile painted on and more screen time. Hell, Steele hesitated to point a gun at Sarah, TWICE. Yet she had no problem drawing down on him multiple times in this movie.

[Thing]

Wow, LJ

Your thesis is certainly sound.

Can one say, perhaps, this aspect of the picture reflects the immiscibity
of civilians and armed forces? Like oil and water the two struggle at maintaining a working relationship.

I for one really did lament the death of Captain Rhodes.
As I did that of Sarah’s man, Pvt. Salazar.

Personally I feel the entire film is poignantly tragic.
But I am glad that ‘Day of the Dead’ is being discussed here in a forum where I believe ‘Day’ gets no love for some reason.
Being, I feel, overshadowed by Romero’s other work.

I think your first post helps show that ‘Day’ is by no means sophomoric.

Glad to see you on board.
Your 1st post was impressive.
You should really post an introduction.

[LJHolcon]

Wow, LJ

Can one say, perhaps, this aspect of the picture reflects the immiscibity
of civilians and armed forces? Like oil and water the two struggle at maintaining a working relationship.

That's certainly an interesting theory. The gruff/crude nature of the soldiers that had a large part in audiences assuming them to be the "bad guys" really is part of being the military.

Another problem I didn't really touch on, was that the military's mission was apparently to facilitate the science team, as it was specifically said in the film. The scientists likely, at least at the beginning were "kings of the castle" so to speak, and you can tell they were accustomed to getting their way (as evidence by their frequent disrespect of military leadership.) Well, enter Captain Rhodes.

He's the new guy in town. Years and years have past, the military men are probably getting a bit tired of doing all the grunt work at the demand of a bunch of lazy scientists/civilian crew who are literally accomplishing NOTHING. So, along with the ascension of Rhodes came a new ideology (that may have subtly began with Maj. Cooper before him.)

Why should the military continue to be the lapdogs of a civilian crew that's doing nothing but getting them killed?

I think what you're seeing is a power struggle that was likely the cause of the original orders from who knows how long prior. Rhodes rudely (though generously) allowed the science team to continue even though he didn't have to (they did, afterall have the guns and manpower, they didn't need the science team.)

While Rhode's might not have been a particularly great leader, it really did seem that he was willing to work with the civilian crew if they would understand his side of the position. Instead, they ignored and belittled him, until the situation escalated into what it did.

Aside from Rhodes, Steele's character is another I held sympathy for. Clearly he was much deeper of a character than what most probably took him at face value for (his hesitance to kill, and clear pain when forced to.)


Edit: And I'll post an intro now!

[MorganaLeFaye]

ANd the whole deal with the soldiers being portrayed as so crude could just be the story from Sarahs POV. It would be interesting to see the entire movie re-shot , but from the POV of the military guys. Have the soldiers still be neat, clean, following military protocol. The scientists, aloof, egotistical, smug, looking down on the lower intellects around them.

[Subgenius]

I agree with you completely, LJHolcon. Day of the Dead (1985) is a very close second, for me, behind Dawn of the Dead (1978). The two films are both great, IMO. And, Captain Rhodes is my favorite character in Day of the Dead (1985). The remake of this film really lost a great opportunity to show Captain Rhodes in more depth. But, then the remake really dropped the ball in most every way, despite it having some good scenes and a few good ideas.

John (Terry Alexander) and Captain Rhodes (Joe Pilato) really made the original Day of the Dead an interesting film. Between them they had most of the best dialogue. It might have been interesting to see Captain Rhodes make a change of mind and escape with John, Sara, and McDermott. Something like how CJ had a change of mind in the Dawn of the Dead remake. That would have made Captain Rhodes more dynamic. It would have also shown that he was more than just a seemingly tyrannical figure.

[LJHolcon]

ANd the whole deal with the soldiers being portrayed as so crude could just be the story from Sarahs POV. It would be interesting to see the entire movie re-shot , but from the POV of the military guys. Have the soldiers still be neat, clean, following military protocol. The scientists, aloof, egotistical, smug, looking down on the lower intellects around them.

That's very true, and another interesting idea.

[LJHolcon]

I agree with you completely, LJHolcon. Day of the Dead (1985) is a very close second, for me, behind Dawn of the Dead (1978). The two films are both great, IMO. And, Captain Rhodes is my favorite character in Day of the Dead (1985). The remake of this film really lost a great opportunity to show Captain Rhodes in more depth. But, then the remake really dropped the ball in most every way, despite it having some good scenes and a few good ideas.

John (Terry Alexander) and Captain Rhodes (Joe Pilato) really made the original Day of the Dead an interesting film. Between them they had most of the best dialogue. It might have been interesting to see Captain Rhodes make a change of mind and escape with John, Sara, and McDermott. Something like how CJ had a change of mind in the Dawn of the Dead remake. That would have made Captain Rhodes more dynamic. It would have also shown that he was more than just a seemingly tyrannical figure.

As stated above, Capt. Rhodes was made to look like a 2d character only through Sarah's perspective. Although by the time it came to the point of leaving, all the characters had crossed the point of no return with each other.

[Victor Clark]

While I agree with everyone that Captain Rhodes could've just been a pissed-off military man who couldn't deal with the scientists' lack of progress (and the fact that Frankenstein was bat-shit insane didn't help either), it still shouldn't excuse him for the things he either did or threatened to do. He threatened to kill the only female in the group, and forced one of his men to shoot (even though he was obviously unwilling to). And that was BEFORE he discovered his dead soldiers were being used as a "reward system" for Frankenstein. All that he did afterward can be understandable, since he didn't know if every scientist was like Frankenstein, and he didn't want to find out the hard way, but he still deserved the death he got simply for his attitude and lack of compassion.

[LJHolcon]

While I agree with everyone that Captain Rhodes could've just been a pissed-off military man who couldn't deal with the scientists' lack of progress (and the fact that Frankenstein was bat-shit insane didn't help either), it still shouldn't excuse him for the things he either did or threatened to do. He threatened to kill the only female in the group, and forced one of his men to shoot (even though he was obviously unwilling to). And that was BEFORE he discovered his dead soldiers were being used as a "reward system" for Frankenstein. All that he did afterward can be understandable, since he didn't know if every scientist was like Frankenstein, and he didn't want to find out the hard way, but he still deserved the death he got simply for his attitude and lack of compassion.

He isn't supposed to have compassion. He's a military officer, and the civilian staff was trying (and ended up accomplishing) destroying the base and killing his men and himself. If he had no compassion he would have shot the woman the moment she ignored his command to sit down.

[ZomCom]

The movie presents the Military and the Scientists as the failure of the Government. This follows the failure of the family in Night, and the failure of the consumerist society in Dawn. Land shows the failure of corporations and all authority. So, the movie shows the Military as bad guys. That’s not Sarah’s point of view, that’s Romero’s point of view.

Rhodes is a failed leader because he is a bad guy. His mission is the survival and protection of everyone in the complex, not just the military. His secondary mission is to support the efforts of the scientist; they are supposed to be mankind’s last hope. He figures out that’s not happening, but it sends him off the deep end. His lack of discipline and his animosity towards the civilians he is charged to protect leads directly to the fall of the complex. Bad guy, but great character.

[LJHolcon]

The movie presents the Military and the Scientists as the failure of the Government. This follows the failure of the family in Night, and the failure of the consumerist society in Dawn. Land shows the failure of corporations and all authority. So, the movie shows the Military as bad guys. That’s not Sarah’s point of view, that’s Romero’s point of view.

Rhodes is a failed leader because he is a bad guy. His mission is the survival and protection of everyone in the complex, not just the military. His secondary mission is to support the efforts of the scientist; they are supposed to be mankind’s last hope. He figures out that’s not happening, but it sends him off the deep end. His lack of discipline and his animosity towards the civilians he is charged to protect leads directly to the fall of the complex. Bad guy, but great character.

You're right, he's a failed leader. He failed because he let the civilians walk all over him and ultimately got him and his men killed.

[Shipwreck]

All of the above might be well and true, but don't forget. Rhodes first action (as a Captain, so concerned for his men) upon seeing a horde of the undead descend down the elevator was to jump into the golf cart and leave his precious men behind. AND, then lock the doors behind him.

[LJHolcon]

All of the above might be well and true, but don't forget. Rhodes first action (as a Captain, so concerned for his men) upon seeing a horde of the undead descend down the elevator was to jump into the golf cart and leave his precious men behind. AND, then lock the doors behind him.

well I think at that point he realized completely that it was all over (and while you're right, consider why they were in that position to begin with.) I would say Rhodes was a poor leader pushed to his limits by a lazy, egotistical science staff.

[LJHolcon]

It was also just pointed out to me (I watched to see) Rickles has a wedding ring in full view twice. That adds more depth to him, as well.

[Dogg Thang]

For me, Shipwreck has nailed Rhodes' defining moment. I think the idea of him having the best interests of his men at heart is probably one he himself wanted to believe and I think that's what makes the character so strong for me.

But it's not true. When that was tested, he abandoned his men and was shown to be a total coward.

That's Rhodes himself though. I do believe there is a good case to be made that the whole science team was a mess and the one leading that certainly turned out to be a fruitloop with really very little to offer by way of a realistic solution. He seemed to more have his own personal pet project on the go. With that in mind, the frustration of Rhodes and the military is perfectly understandable and more may well have survived had they just taken over and shut the science team down.

But I don't think Rhodes himself is all that redeemable.

[neoanderson9318]

Wow. I had never thought of it this way before. Now, after reading your post, and watching the movie yet again, I see that it actually makes sense. Very nice. :)

[retro zombie killer]

I agree Rhodes wasn't a bad man but he was still an asshole, who may have meant well for his men and tried to do a good job but an asshole never the less! If he had tried to to be more fair to the scientists or get on with them more he wouldn't of been in that situation is what I used to think! But considering it some more I think that the situation was just one major screw up to begin with! A SNAFU in that bunker everyday over something I bet! Those folks just couldn't get along or communicate!:x:loon:

[ZomCom]

Rhodes was definately a bad man. He was a bully, maniacal, a murderer, and a coward.

Rhodes was the crazy military leader, Frankenstien was the mad scientist. Naturally, it ends badly. It's Dr. Strangelove with zombies.

[ZombiesAteMyDog]

Rhodes was definately a bad man. He was a bully, maniacal, a murderer, and a coward.

Rhodes was the crazy military leader, Frankenstien was the mad scientist. Naturally, it ends badly. It's Dr. Strangelove with zombies.

wow, never made the dr strangelove connection, but actually thats pretty spot on :clap:

[UNDEAD FRED]

Day of the Dead was a great zombie movie. Cpt Rhodes was a great villian. He is my fav character out of all of Romero's dead films. From his statement about giving someone else a shot at some loving to running out on his men, he was the bad guy. Excellent acting performance by Joe Pilato. To bad he is not in more of Romero's dead films.

[LJHolcon]

From his statement about giving someone else a shot at some loving to running out on his men, he was the bad guy.

I've heard this before, but that was nothing more than a crude comment made in spite as evidence by the fact he didn't remove Miguel (and he could have) from the equation, and never made a pass or anything else at Sarah (and again, he could have.)

[LJHolcon]

For me, Shipwreck has nailed Rhodes' defining moment. I think the idea of him having the best interests of his men at heart is probably one he himself wanted to believe and I think that's what makes the character so strong for me.

But it's not true. When that was tested, he abandoned his men and was shown to be a total coward.

That's Rhodes himself though. I do believe there is a good case to be made that the whole science team was a mess and the one leading that certainly turned out to be a fruitloop with really very little to offer by way of a realistic solution. He seemed to more have his own personal pet project on the go. With that in mind, the frustration of Rhodes and the military is perfectly understandable and more may well have survived had they just taken over and shut the science team down.

But I don't think Rhodes himself is all that redeemable.

I agree with all the above. But my point was really that Rhodes wasn't a protagonist. Neither Rhodes or his men caused the down-fall of that project or the base.

[DarthJoe8]

I agree with all the above. But my point was really that Rhodes wasn't a protagonist. Neither Rhodes or his men caused the down-fall of that project or the base.

:think: Wasn't it Salazar who let all the zombies into the base?? :lol:

[LJHolcon]

:think: Wasn't it Salazar who let all the zombies into the base?? :lol:

He was not part of the soldiers, even if he did wear a uniform :)

[Shipwreck]

The biggest problem that all the characters had (not just Rhodes), was that they were all pulling in different directions, or had different agendas (just as Sarah had stated), and that they seem to be in their own little separate group clicks. (The soldiers, the scientist, and John with Mcdermit) Basically, they really had no real sense of the reality around them.(I'm sure that living people above ground would LOVE to be safe in the bunker) Sure, they ventured out from time to time looking for survivors, but notice that the helicopter was filled with 4 people when they went out looking. If they actually found anybody or even a group, would they be able to really bring them back? I'm willing to bet that each time they went out it was the same 4 people everytime. None of the others seemed to care to venture out. They were in their safe haven.
There was a severe lack of military protocols. The soldiers appearance was disheveled. (The army does not allow beards) They were growing pot. I'm sure that this was something that was going on even when major Cooper was in charge. They seemed more like mercs than soldiers. What they really lacked was proper leadership to unify everybody together, in whatever they chose to do. (continue the research, leave the bunker, or just live out their days there) Rhodes thought that he was in charge, but really it was Logan. As nutty as he was, he was the one person that everyone did stop to listen too. Even Rhodes stopped his rant, and even quieted his men to listen to what Logan had to say. Then he help impliment Logans plan!
What they really needed was a time out! Just a stop to everything that they were doing to reevaluate what was going on. Then maybe someone would have said something like.... " Did you notice that when Logan came to dinner tonight, he was covered with blood? He had Zombie blood all over his fingers when he ate that chicken salad sandwich! Won't that infect him?" or... "Hey Steel, you notice that Rhodes gets more bipolar everyday?"

Or maybe I am just reading too much into this movie.... LOL

[LJHolcon]

The biggest problem that all the characters had (not just Rhodes), was that they were all pulling in different directions, or had different agendas (just as Sarah had stated), and that they seem to be in their own little separate group clicks. (The soldiers, the scientist, and John with Mcdermit) Basically, they really had no real sense of the reality around them.(I'm sure that living people above ground would LOVE to be safe in the bunker) Sure, they ventured out from time to time looking for survivors, but notice that the helicopter was filled with 4 people when they went out looking. If they actually found anybody or even a group, would they be able to really bring them back? I'm willing to bet that each time they went out it was the same 4 people everytime. None of the others seemed to care to venture out. They were in their safe haven.
There was a severe lack of military protocols. The soldiers appearance was disheveled. (The army does not allow beards) They were growing pot. I'm sure that this was something that was going on even when major Cooper was in charge. They seemed more like mercs than soldiers. What they really lacked was proper leadership to unify everybody together, in whatever they chose to do. (continue the research, leave the bunker, or just live out their days there) Rhodes thought that he was in charge, but really it was Logan. As nutty as he was, he was the one person that everyone did stop to listen too. Even Rhodes stopped his rant, and even quieted his men to listen to what Logan had to say. Then he help impliment Logans plan!
What they really needed was a time out! Just a stop to everything that they were doing to reevaluate what was going on. Then maybe someone would have said something like.... " Did you notice that when Logan came to dinner tonight, he was covered with blood? He had Zombie blood all over his fingers when he ate that chicken salad sandwich! Won't that infect him?" or... "Hey Steel, you notice that Rhodes gets more bipolar everyday?"

Or maybe I am just reading too much into this movie.... LOL

I agree with this. I think Rhodes felt he was going to return discipline to the unit and be it because he wasn't a true leader, or just the situation he failed to do so and ultimately allowed everyone to walk all over him.

[Shipwreck]

Another thing about the character of Rhodes that I noticed is that he is more concerned about his command than anything else. When we first see him in the movie, he starts off by pacing around stating that he is in command. Also when he finds that Logan is feeding Bub the dead soldiers he doesn't state... "That's Johnson in there!" Instead he goes into hysterics, screaming "Those are MY Men in there!" He won't salute Bub because it is demeaning to his command. We he talks about "giving some of us a chance at loving" it is clearly directed at himself. He even forces Steel to shoot Sarah because he commanded it. It's funny in a way, but rewatch the movie. Every speech he gives and all of his actions are about one thing only... Himself.

To sum up the theme of this topic... Yes, Rhodes was a bad guy. He was self centered, narcissistic, a murderer, a coward and selfish.

And if that doesn't clear it up, even Joseph Pilato states in the dvd extras that Rhodes was a very bad man.

[LJHolcon]

Another thing about the character of Rhodes that I noticed is that he is more concerned about his command than anything else. When we first see him in the movie, he starts off by pacing around stating that he is in command. Also when he finds that Logan is feeding Bub the dead soldiers he doesn't state... "That's Johnson in there!" Instead he goes into hysterics, screaming "Those are MY Men in there!" He won't salute Bub because it is demeaning to his command. We he talks about "giving some of us a chance at loving" it is clearly directed at himself. He even forces Steel to shoot Sarah because he commanded it. It's funny in a way, but rewatch the movie. Every speech he gives and all of his actions are about one thing only... Himself.

To sum up the theme of this topic... Yes, Rhodes was a bad guy. He was self centered, narcissistic, a murderer, a coward and selfish.

And if that doesn't clear it up, even Joseph Pilato states in the dvd extras that Rhodes was a very bad man.

he was constantly telling people he was in command because no one was respecting his command. When he says "give someone else a chance at some loving" that is obviously just a lewd comment, as he obviously at no point rapes Sarah. He's mad her relationship with Miguel is getting him special treatment.

He orders Steele to shoot Sarah after she ignores his order to sit down, multiple times. Whether or not you think that's extreme, the fact of the matter is in that situation you CANNOT have people ignoring your orders because it leads to wider insubordination (and, as you could see it did. Maybe he have shot Sarah and locked Miguel up, too.) What was the purpose of him being commander if no one would listen to him? It's not Mcdonald's. You don't get to ignore orders.

Rhodes let people walk all over him multiple times.

[Dogg Thang]

And nobody was respecting his command because he was an ass. That's the thing. He wasn't even a good leader even in his small military group. Shouting louder wasn't going to make anyone listen to him any more. Quite the opposite - it just showed everyone around how he was losing control.

[LJHolcon]

And nobody was respecting his command because he was an ass. That's the thing. He wasn't even a good leader even in his small military group. Shouting louder wasn't going to make anyone listen to him any more. Quite the opposite - it just showed everyone around how he was losing control.

So he should have just shot them? Because they didn't listen when he gave them more time, they didn't listen when he wasn't shouting, and they didn't listen when he was shouting. About the only option left was locking people up or executing them.

[Dogg Thang]

Once it's gone that far, it's too late. If he was a good leader, it never would have gone there. It's like when you get a teacher who just shouts and yells. Invariably they are the ones who lose control.

But if Rhodes had led by example, shown he was a smart man with the best interests of everyone at heart, even by demonstrating his own strength if strength was what was needed to get military men on side, he could have earned trust. As it was, even those closest didn't seem to respect him.

He couldn't do those things because he was a selfish ass terrified of losing his power. And, by the time we're in the movie, he's already lost control. He can't win and that's precisely because of who he is.

A real leader simply would not have ended up in the same situation.

[LJHolcon]

Once it's gone that far, it's too late. If he was a good leader, it never would have gone there. It's like when you get a teacher who just shouts and yells. Invariably they are the ones who lose control.

But if Rhodes had led by example, shown he was a smart man with the best interests of everyone at heart, even by demonstrating his own strength if strength was what was needed to get military men on side, he could have earned trust. As it was, even those closest didn't seem to respect him.

He couldn't do those things because he was a selfish ass terrified of losing his power. And, by the time we're in the movie, he's already lost control. He can't win and that's precisely because of who he is.

A real leader simply would not have ended up in the same situation.

When you say "Once it's gone that far" you realize he was in power for literally 15 minutes before the science team began to ignore him and belittle him.

As a military commander (and history supports this argument) you CANNOT allow people to ignore you, so yes. He wasn't a good leader. The first time the woman walked out on him, she should have been put in lock-up and made an example out of.

Second, once the science team started becoming aggressive, they shouldn't have had access to weapons. The fact Rhodes didn't punish them for multiple counts of insubordination, threats of mutiny, etc... you're right. He definitely wasn't a good leader. That's not the point, though.

My point was Rhode's wasn't the antagonist. His actions aren't what lead the down-fall of the situation.

[Subgenius]

It's also important to consider the context of Rhodes outside of the normal world. He's facing a world overrun by zombies and he's just as freaked out and psychotic about that as everybody else in the film. He's in a hopeless situation. Even Doctor Logan points that out when he tells Rhodes that trying to shoot your way out of that situation was not going to work. Rhodes had no real answers for improving the plight of his soldiers or the science team. In fact, NOBODY had any real answers.

Well, John and McDermott had an excellent idea: take that chopper and run for the islands. IIRC, Rhodes also had a similar idea. The real breakdown was that the science team and the military unit could not work together to make that plan happen. If I were Rhodes, then I would have been very friendly with John and McDermott. I would have kept them as friends. I would have gotten them to fly me, and anybody that wants to escape, out to the islands. So, for me this was where Rhodes failed. He did not utilize his assets properly.

He still had almost all of the best lines of dialogue, LOL.

[DarthJoe8]

Well said SG!! :clap:

:drinking:

[UNDEAD FRED]

Zombie movies are not suppose to have happy endings.:roll::lol:

[Shipwreck]

Once it's gone that far, it's too late. If he was a good leader, it never would have gone there. It's like when you get a teacher who just shouts and yells. Invariably they are the ones who lose control.

But if Rhodes had led by example, shown he was a smart man with the best interests of everyone at heart, even by demonstrating his own strength if strength was what was needed to get military men on side, he could have earned trust. As it was, even those closest didn't seem to respect him.

He couldn't do those things because he was a selfish ass terrified of losing his power. And, by the time we're in the movie, he's already lost control. He can't win and that's precisely because of who he is.

A real leader simply would not have ended up in the same situation.


It's funny, but the issue of control is in all of GAR's Dead movies. In Night there was the power struggle between ben and Cooper for control in the farmhouse. In Dawn there was the issue of control in the mall between the biker gang and the fab four. (I'm sure Roger was there in spirit) in Land there was a conflict of control between Kaufman and pretty much everybody else in Fiddlers Green.

And I don't think that the scientific team were belittling Rhodes. Right on the offset of his first appearance in the movie he came across as a tyrant. He was the first to go on the attack and make threats. Which is why Sarah tried to leave in the first place. Rhodes behavior is very reminiscent of popular view of Regans military of the 80's. Let me paraphrase a Dead Kennedys song from that time.

"I am Emperor Capt. Rhodes
Born again with fascist cravings
Still, you made me Captain

Human rights will soon go 'way
I am now your Shah today
Now I command all of you
Now you're going to pray in school
I'll make sure they're Christian too"



GAR has stated that the soldiers in the movie are reminiscent of Reagans Military, and Rhodes does exhibit the characteristics of the above lyrics.

He was a tyrant.
He was a fascist.
Nobody (but his chosen men) had any Human Rights.
He was a racist.

Still, He was the best character in the movie! Great performance! LOL!

[LJHolcon]

He was a tyrant.
He was a fascist.
Nobody (but his chosen men) had any Human Rights.
He was a racist.



What is any of this based on? A tyrant and a fascist? I must have missed the part where he made ANYONE do ANYTHING up until the part he discovered the science team was feeding his men to zombies.

And a racist? Because he called John a jungle bunny? That's stretching it.

[Shipwreck]

He was a tyrant and a fascist. He tried to rule out of fear. His speech at the beginnning was basically "my way or the Highway". Not, "we need to work together". And he did force Steel to pull his weapon on Sarah with the intent on shooting her. You can see the delema on Steel's face on what to do. (Was Rhodes really going to shoot him?) The look on his face when he pulled back the hammer when he was about to reluctantly shoot. The only thing that saved Sarah was when John interveined and got her to take her seat. John knew Rhodes for what he was. I love it at the end of the scene when John sits there and gives Rhodes an innocent smile like "ok you are the boss, I'm not making any trouble.... sir"

and yes, telling Steel to "kick his jungle bunny ass" was racist. He could have easily said, "Steel kick his ass'. or "Steel kick his wise ass"

[LJHolcon]

He was a tyrant and a fascist. He tried to rule out of fear. His speech at the beginnning was basically "my way or the Highway". Not, "we need to work together". And he did force Steel to pull his weapon on Sarah with the intent on shooting her. You can see the delema on Steel's face on what to do. (Was Rhodes really going to shoot him?) The look on his face when he pulled back the hammer when he was about to reluctantly shoot. The only thing that saved Sarah was when John interveined and got her to take her seat. John knew Rhodes for what he was. I love it at the end of the scene when John sits there and gives Rhodes an innocent smile like "ok you are the boss, I'm not making any trouble.... sir"

and yes, telling Steel to "kick his jungle bunny ass" was racist. He could have easily said, "Steel kick his ass'. or "Steel kick his wise ass"

Again, Rhodes is a MILITARY COMMANDER. You don't get to be part of a military operation, and tell the commander to '**** off.' You can't even do that pre-apocalypse. The second you let people ignore your orders, you've failed as a commander. And how many times did he tell Sarah to sit down, the meeting wasn't over BEFORE threatening her?

And no, you have no clue if Rhodes was a racist. I know plenty of people who have used racial slurs in the heat of issues who aren't racist (especially in the military.)

This is exactly the problem with assuming Rhodes is the "bad guy." In your view he's the bad guy because he is trying to force people to listen to him (that's part of the territory with being the COMMANDER.)

I don't know by your name if you've been in the armed forces or not. But when I was in the Air Force, even if a civilian contractor on base assignment/on patrol told a base commander to "**** off" that contractor would be spending the rest of his tour in a cage until his handlers came to get him. Considering this is post-apocalyptic, there's even less room room for that sort of horse-play.

[Shipwreck]

Again, Rhodes is a MILITARY COMMANDER. You don't get to be part of a military operation, and tell the commander to '**** off.' You can't even do that pre-apocalypse. The second you let people ignore your orders, you've failed as a commander. And how many times did he tell Sarah to sit down, the meeting wasn't over BEFORE threatening her?
He wasn't a military commander, he was a dictator. The scientific team gave their reports and all he did was respond with threats. Over and over again, and Sarah didn't get up to leave until he made the "loving" comment. I'm sure in a pre-apocalupse world even a Military Commander cannot do that. (that is considered sexual harrassment, or a hostile workplace).


And no, you have no clue if Rhodes was a racist. I know plenty of people who have used racial slurs in the heat of issues who aren't racist (especially in the military.)

Um... yeah, that is racist... sorry.

This is exactly the problem with assuming Rhodes is the "bad guy." In your view he's the bad guy because he is trying to force people to listen to him (that's part of the territory with being the COMMANDER.)

Basically he is a bad guy because both the writer and the actor of the movie said that he is the bad guy. Plus he was a coward and a murderer. Thats pretty bad. :(

I don't know by your name if you've been in the armed forces or not. But when I was in the Air Force, even if a civilian contractor on base assignment/on patrol told a base commander to "**** off" that contractor would be spending the rest of his tour in a cage until his handlers came to get him. Considering this is post-apocalyptic, there's even less room room for that sort of horse-play.

right, but it's ok for his men not to follow any other type of millitary protical? Growing and smoking pot, not adhearing to dress regulations. Drunkeness.

Rhodes and his men were GAR's vision of the military at that time.... The bad guys.

[LJHolcon]

He wasn't a military commander, he was a dictator. The scientific team gave their reports and all he did was respond with threats. Over and over again, and Sarah didn't get up to leave until he made the "loving" comment. I'm sure in a pre-apocalupse world even a Military Commander cannot do that. (that is considered sexual harrassment, or a hostile workplace).

---------------------------------------
right, but it's ok for his men not to follow any other type of millitary protical? Growing and smoking pot, not adhearing to dress regulations. Drunkeness.


Again, you're rehashing the same old "he's not a good person." That's irrelevant. I never argued he was a good person. I said Rhodes wasn't the antagonist who destroyed the operation, and the only thing you've countered it with is "he's mean and rude!" as though the science team wasn't.

As far as protocol, that changes in the field. In Iraq/Af FOB unit leaders sometimes have beards, dress code adherence is downgraded severally, and yes... POT IS SMOKED! But, you know what doesn't happen? People don't get to tell the commander to **** off. EVER. And if they do, they only do it once. I actually cannot even fathom what would happen even today if that went down. I mean this without exaggeration I know men with stripes who actually might shoot someone who did that. In fact, I take that back. I KNOW for sure that some of the field leaders would have someone shot right in the back for that if they thought they could get away with it.

Regarding him not being a commander, but a dictator because he was demanding people do things... can you define what a military commander is?

And if you want to keep going back to the "he threatened Sarah sexually" comment, she shouldn't have been allowed to be fraternizing with the soldiers to begin with.

Regarding the "sorry, that's racist!" that's nothing more than your opinion. But since I'm not surprised you've pulled the race card, you're a civilian and I wouldn't expect you to understand how things work or happen in the military, and that's your choice. That's why we don't have a draft, so people can choose if they want to join the military or not.

The men and woman in that base chose to be involved in a military operation. And unless Sarah was forced down there, she lost the right to huff off and pout the second she put the pen to the paper and volunteered.



edit: I was once called a "shit stick" and was told (in a much more menacing yell than Rhodes ever did) that if I didn't pull my head out of my ass he was going to have me beaten within an inch of my life. The kicker? It was over something I didn't even do. But... because in the military commanders are always yelling at subordinates, I didn't turn my back on him, tell him to **** off and walk off base. Because that IS NOT how things work in the military. When you are in the military, or working with the military, it is a dictatorship, it's meant to be. I knew it when I signed the paperwork.

[Shipwreck]

But he was equally instramental in destroying the operation. As much as Logan. His entire mentality was shoot first ask questions later.

Commanding Officer - an officer in command; especially : an officer in the armed forces in command of an organization or installation.

I don't see anything here about "by gunpoint" or by threat.

Dictator - : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Tyrant - 1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.

That seems to fit.

"And if you want to keep going back to the "he threatened Sarah sexually" comment, she shouldn't have been allowed to be fraternizing with the soldiers to begin with."

OMG! It's her fault?!? In this day and age.... I'm speechless.....

"Regarding the "sorry, that's racist!" that's nothing more than your opinion. You're a civilian and I wouldn't expect you to understand how things work or happen in the military, and that's your choice. That's why we don't have a draft, so people can choose if they want to join the military or not."

I don't think that i am alone in this thought. We can start a "Is calling a black man a jungle bunny?" poll. Who knows, you might be right on that one........ doubt it, but you never know.


"The men and woman in that base chose to be involved in a military operation. And unless Sarah was forced down there, she lost the right to huff off and pout the second she put the pen to the paper and volunteered."

I think they were forced down there due to the zombie epidemic. Besides it was stated that it was a civilian operation. The military was just a support. And even if she did volunteer, does that mean she looses all her civil and human liberties?

Alrighty, to get back on topic... I would say that Rhodes was the antagonist who destroyed the operation. They operated just fine under Major Cooper, and the bunker did fall under Rhodes command. so......

[Shipwreck]

I would love to have good old Joe read this posting. It would be very interesting to see what his take on Rhodes and this conversation would be.

[LJHolcon]

But he was equally instramental in destroying the operation. As much as Logan. His entire mentality was shoot first ask questions later.

Commanding Officer - an officer in command; especially : an officer in the armed forces in command of an organization or installation.

I don't see anything here about "by gunpoint" or by threat.

Dictator - : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Tyrant - 1 a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution b : a usurper of sovereignty
2 a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.

That seems to fit.

"And if you want to keep going back to the "he threatened Sarah sexually" comment, she shouldn't have been allowed to be fraternizing with the soldiers to begin with."

OMG! It's her fault?!? In this day and age.... I'm speechless.....

"Regarding the "sorry, that's racist!" that's nothing more than your opinion. You're a civilian and I wouldn't expect you to understand how things work or happen in the military, and that's your choice. That's why we don't have a draft, so people can choose if they want to join the military or not."

I don't think that i am alone in this thought. We can start a "Is calling a black man a jungle bunny?" poll. Who knows, you might be right on that one........ doubt it, but you never know.


"The men and woman in that base chose to be involved in a military operation. And unless Sarah was forced down there, she lost the right to huff off and pout the second she put the pen to the paper and volunteered."

I think they were forced down there due to the zombie epidemic. Besides it was stated that it was a civilian operation. The military was just a support. And even if she did volunteer, does that mean she looses all her civil and human liberties?

Alrighty, to get back on topic... I would say that Rhodes was the antagonist who destroyed the operation. They operated just fine under Major Cooper, and the bunker did fall under Rhodes command. so......

Rhodes never fired a shot until he found out the science team was feeding his men to zombies. An military commanders/officers are allowed to shoot men in the field. Again, a military commander calls the rules. If you don't listen, you get punished. That's the way it is on a military base, even if you're just working with the Army.

And again, calling someone a jungle bunny doesn't make them racist, anymore than Sarah calling Steele stupid means she dislikes handicap people. Now, if Rhodes said "I hate that Jungle Bunny" or "Steele, hit that man for being black" I'd see your point.

And he NEVER threatened to rape Sarah. Not even close. It was clearly just stated as a rude insult (one she DID deserve, after all the man she's screwing was getting special treatment and drugs from her.) And he never once made a move or did anything to suggest he wanted to rape her. You keep saying he was doing all of these terrible things, yet he didn't so much as lay a hand on someone UNTIL he discovered what Logan (and in his mind the entire science team) had been up to.

Hell, just the scene before he GAVE THEM MORE TIME. And they were obviously not operating well under Cooper, evidenced by the ever increasing death-toll. The animosity between to groups didn't appear in the 10 minutes after Rhodes took over.

The problem here, is you can't accept that being involved in the military means someone with a gun makes you do things, but the fact of the matter is, it does. I'm a HUGE libertarian. I hate being told what to do, and I hate giving up liberties, that's why I did my 4 years and left.

[LJHolcon]

I would love to have good old Joe read this posting. It would be very interesting to see what his take on Rhodes and this conversation would be.

I emailed him :)

Aside from this debate, I also am waiting on a couple of responses from some officer friends of mine. It has nothing to do with this argument, but I'll post their responses anyway when I get them to see what they would do in the same position just for fun.

[Dogg Thang]

Just on the term 'antagonist', Rhodes is very much the antagonist of the movie in that he is the one opposing our main characters. When they push, he is the one pushing back. And he is the one they effectively have to overcome in order to achieve anything.

Pluck Rhodes out of the movie and the lives of the protagonists instantly get better. Pluck Logan out of the movie and they're still under the thumb of a shouty military captain.

So, in terms of the movie that was made, Rhodes is very much the antagonist.

You could, as you said earlier, tell the story from a different perspective, one from the military point of view and, in that case, yes, Logan would likely end up the antagonist of the movie. But, as it is right now, Rhodes is the antagonist.

[LJHolcon]

Just on the term 'antagonist', Rhodes is very much the antagonist of the movie in that he is the one opposing our main characters. When they push, he is the one pushing back. And he is the one they effectively have to overcome in order to achieve anything.

Pluck Rhodes out of the movie and the lives of the protagonists instantly get better. Pluck Logan out of the movie and they're still under the thumb of a shouty military captain.

So, in terms of the movie that was made, Rhodes is very much the antagonist.

You could, as you said earlier, tell the story from a different perspective, one from the military point of view and, in that case, yes, Logan would likely end up the antagonist of the movie. But, as it is right now, Rhodes is the antagonist.

I agree in the sense that in pure technical terms that's the case as the movie is told from their perspectives. Hell, the zombies would also be antagonists. But I mean if you look at the movie as though it were really happening in front of us. The definition of pro or antagonist would become a matter of some debate.

[Shipwreck]

He never got the chance to shoot Steel. John halted that entire scenario.

I never said he threatened to rape Sarah. But did she deserve his innuendo for having a relationship with someone???? OMFG no!

Again, to say that it was the womans fault is just wrong.

The reason that he gave them more time is because his character was very weak minded. Logan could talk him silly.

The fact that you emailed Joe is very awesome!
Tell him I said hi... and that he was awesome in the movie.....
He was a great bad guy that caused the downfall of the entire operation.

[Shipwreck]

I agree in the sense that in pure technical terms that's the case as the movie is told from their perspectives. Hell, the zombies would also be antagonists. But I mean if you look at the movie as though it were really happening in front of us. The definition of pro or antagonist would become a matter of some debate.

Hey... we are having a debate!

This is actually kinda fun.
lol

[LJHolcon]

Hey... we are having a debate!

This is actually kinda fun.
lol

Yes it is, at least Day of the Dead is getting some action. It's usually forgotten entirely and that's a shame as it's a great movie. And we'll see if he answers back the email! You never know, he might!

[LJHolcon]

He never got the chance to shoot Steel. John halted that entire scenario.

I never said he threatened to rape Sarah. But did she deserve his innuendo for having a relationship with someone???? OMFG no!

Again, to say that it was the womans fault is just wrong.

The reason that he gave them more time is because his character was very weak minded. Logan could talk him silly.

The fact that you emailed Joe is very awesome!
Tell him I said hi... and that he was awesome in the movie.....
He was a great bad guy that caused the downfall of the entire operation.

I didn't say Sarah deserved to be hit on (I think she deserved to be put in a cell.) But you said it was against military protocol for him to have make a sexual reference, and I'm saying it would have been against protocol for her to be having sex with the soldiers entirely.

[Shipwreck]

He better! :zom3:

[LJHolcon]

I know this has nothing to do with the debate... but you'll see what I'm talking about :)


First response from a serviceman:


USAJ.Aston

Online
Posts: 3966
Feedback: 0-0-0

Posted: Today 5:00:34 AM EDT
Bullet to the head. Then use her as zombie bait. Discipline must be maintained.

[Dogg Thang]

And poor ol' Rhodes didn't even get that right.

But, again, that was part of it more being about throwing his weight around and not actually being in control. There are two parts to that. Firstly, he could have done it himself and didn't. And, secondly, Steele hesitated, showing he had already lost control of his closest men.

By the time we actually start the movie, Rhodes has already dug his own grave. At that point, I don't think shooting Sarah in the head would have achieved all that much. Restored discipline? Maybe but to what aim? There was a tiny handful of men that didn't seem to have all that much of a goal. He has lost too much already. There was really very little to save.

Rhodes would have been better just booting the scientists out a long time ago (or integrating them just as lodgers) and keeping his men in the bunker to live in relative peace.

But I think he was irredeemable from the moment the movie begins. I think Rhodes' story actually begins and effectively ends far earlier.

[LJHolcon]

But, again, that was part of it more being about throwing his weight around and not actually being in control. There are two parts to that. Firstly, he could have done it himself and didn't. And, secondly, Steele hesitated, showing he had already lost control of his closest men.

Rhodes ordering Steele to shoot her, at least to me, was to prove that 1: He was serious. Insubordination would meet with death, and 2: That he was in fact, in control. This was about establishing that he was indeed the commander.

Steele hesitating wasn't so much about lack of respect, as it was "oh ****, this guy who I was probably joking around with yesterday is now being deadly serious and ordering me to do something very shocking." It was clear by EVERYONE's attitude that Major Cooper was considerably more lax.

Where Rhodes failed was not levying any punishment what-so-ever on the multiple people who openly disrespected his command.


Rhodes would have been better just booting the scientists out a long time ago (or integrating them just as lodgers) and keeping his men in the bunker to live in relative peace.

I agree with this. Or more aptly, the science team should have simply not argued with Rhodes, and let him leave with his men. Since Sarah wouldn't let him speak for more than 10 seconds I don't know what his plan was specifically, but it sounded as though he wanted to leave and go back to HQ. In my opinion, that really wasn't an awful idea, and the science team could have sat tight if they didn't want to go, and if in fact HQ was there Rhodes I'm sure would have sent word.

[Dubious COmforts]

That's certainly an interesting theory. The gruff/crude nature of the soldiers that had a large part in audiences assuming them to be the "bad guys" really is part of being the military.
So apparently "military discipline" now includes growing pot, being drunk and stoned while on duty, using foul language at every opportunity, not following protocol on assignments to round up dangerous specimens, not keeping an accurate count of how many dangerous specimens stored right next to one's living quarters, and the commanding officer abandoning his men at the first sign of trouble.

The four soldiers still alive at the end of the film should have been able to re-group and destroy the hundred or so zombies that made it into the underground compound. That's what military training is for. Instead, they chose to run around like a bunch of Nancies and get ripped apart.

[LJHolcon]

So apparently "military discipline" now includes growing pot, being drunk and stoned while on duty, using foul language at every opportunity, not following protocol on assignments to round up dangerous specimens, not keeping an accurate count of how many dangerous specimens stored right next to one's living quarters, and the commanding officer abandoning his men at the first sign of trouble.

yea... that about sums up National Guard military service. I did get free college, though!

[Dubious COmforts]

yea... that about sums up National Guard military service. I did get free college, though!
So then you agree that four experienced and well-armed soldiers should have been able to handle the zombie siege had they followed military protocol instead of acting like complete asshats.

Okay, I guess this wraps things up. Next topic.

[LJHolcon]

So then you agree that four experienced and well-armed soldiers should have been able to handle the zombie siege had they followed military protocol instead of acting like complete asshats.

Okay, I guess this wraps things up. Next topic.

No, they were completely ****ed. Their armory was woe-fully empty, I'd estimate they had at most 120 rounds left if even and that was only 5.56mm for Steele and Rhodes weapons (from the armory scene. They had several crates of non-5.56mm, and only two with 20 round m16 magazines, and Rhodes appeared to have taken the last of the ones in that crate) They had zero magazine interchangeability (whatever commander had the bright idea of giving each soldier a different weapon platform screwed the pooch entirely,) and while I don't know how many zombies got into the base exactly, with the mine shaft now open and the main door broken they stood zero chance of doing anything other than locking their office area off and dying of starvation.

Had Sarah's ****ed up boyfriend (That Rhodes and Steele rightfully wanted shot, and Sarah and John said they'd watch) hadn't flipped out and triggered the lock none of it would have happened at all. Yet another example of Rhodes not killing someone who needed killing. You also had Bub on the loose with a gun (another thing Rhodes wanted to kill, but didn't.)

Ironically Rhodes locking Sarah in the shaft was what saved their characters.

[ZombiesAteMyDog]

just because rhodes acted in a "military" manner and what he has done CAN be explained away, does not mean it should and it does not mean its right, people can justify anything, some guy walks up to someone walking down the street and knifes a guy for his shoes, well he wanted his shoes, thats justified in that guys mind, doesnt make it right or legal.

rhodes character was constructed from the ground up for us to hate, and is without a doubt the villain of the movie, and like I said just because his actions can be explained away that is by no means his saving grace.

sure he was losing control of his men, the best way to remedy that is to lose control him self? I think not, if rhodes really was not a bad guy and just a misunderstood military officer he could have handled the whole situation in a very different way - to probably a much better end for him and his men.

at the very best, rhodes was a complete coward who was nothing more then a gas bag full of hot air spouting off at every opurtunity who showed his true colors in the end.

:drinking:

[DarthJoe8]

Rhodes "order" to shoot Sarah was unlawful, Steel had every right not to follow it. The only reason he eventually does so is because his life was threatened by Rhodes. Easy choice there...:think:


:drinking:

[Subgenius]

Don't forget that the movie takes place some time after the initial outbreak that overran the entire world. We are told that nobody is replying to radio message. We are shown an empty, dead city. At that point, for all Steele knew, Sara was the last woman on Earth. That might explain his reluctance to shoot far more than anything else.

As for antagonists, I think the obvious antagonist(s) in the film will always be the zombies. They definitely want to rip apart, kill, and eat the living humans. But, if we have to have a living human antagonist, then I would point a finger at Salazar. He was the one that caused the real end of the lives of most of the people in the underground base. A case could also be made that the mad doctor in Doctor Logan was also an antagonist. So, we could list Rhodes, Salazar, and Logan as the three primary antagonists.

Keep in mind that we are never really told what is killing the soldiers. Were they bitten and then died. What killed the original commander (the Major)? Did Rhodes kill him? Did a zombie bite him? Did Logan kill him?

I think that there is enough antagonism for a lot of these characters to be labeled as the antagonist. But, I point again at Salazar. He caused the end to come by behaving like he did.

[Shipwreck]

Maybe now we need to have a "Night of the Living Dead realization (Harry Cooper was not a bad guy.)" thread? :lol:

or

Dawn of the Dead realization (The Biker Gang was not a bad gang.)

or

Land of the Dead realization (Kaufman was not a bad guy.)

[Subgenius]

I am pretty sure that there is a thread here that defended Harry Cooper.

[UNDEAD FRED]

I am pretty sure that there is a thread here that defended Harry Cooper.

I think it was did Ben murder Harry Cooper?

[LJHolcon]

Rhodes "order" to shoot Sarah was unlawful, Steel had every right not to follow it. The only reason he eventually does so is because his life was threatened by Rhodes. Easy choice there...:think:


:drinking:

Insubordination in the field can be punishable (and in this case maybe he should have) by death.

[LJHolcon]

Maybe now we need to have a "Night of the Living Dead realization (Harry Cooper was not a bad guy.)" thread? :lol:

or

Dawn of the Dead realization (The Biker Gang was not a bad gang.)

or

Land of the Dead realization (Kaufman was not a bad guy.)

Harry Cooper wasn't a bad guy (and he was right. Had they all listened to him they would all be alive.)

[DarthJoe8]

Insubordination in the field can be punishable (and in this case maybe he should have) by death.

She was a civilian. He should have tossed her ass in the brig but to have her executed...please :roll: that was an unlawful order.

Remember, her crime was not sitting down...punishable by death?? Really?? But with Rhodes as a tyrant I guess it doesn't matter much...:guns:

[UNDEAD FRED]

She was a civilian. He should have tossed her ass in the brig but to have her executed...please :roll: that was an unlawful order.

Remember, her crime was not sitting down...punishable by death?? Really?? But with Rhodes as a tyrant I guess it doesn't matter much...:guns:

You try running a monkey farm, and see if you dont become a tyrant. Come on DarthJoe all you are giving us is a mouth full of greek salad.:lol:

[Creeping Death]

I have gotten a lot of crap in the past for saying that he isn't really all bad.
That is still where I stand today.

Rhodes was sick and tired of his soldiers dying with little or no return at all. :drool:
He also despised the zombies with a passion, and had to deal with them living in the same place that he is. :scare:
He is seen as aggresive, and should be. He is defending his position as Captain, and making sure that things don't get out of line. :roll:

[UNDEAD FRED]

You could make a arguement about Ben from NOTLD being the bad guy, he punches Barbarra, beats down Harry Cooper, then murders him.

[Shipwreck]

You try running a monkey farm, and see if you dont become a tyrant. Come on DarthJoe all you are giving us is a mouth full of greek salad.:lol:
Too funny.

[LJHolcon]

She was a civilian. He should have tossed her ass in the brig but to have her executed...please :roll: that was an unlawful order.

Remember, her crime was not sitting down...punishable by death?? Really?? But with Rhodes as a tyrant I guess it doesn't matter much...:guns:

You don't get to tell the commanding officer to **** off. Ever.

[LJHolcon]

I have gotten a lot of crap in the past for saying that he isn't really all bad.
That is still where I stand today.

Rhodes was sick and tired of his soldiers dying with little or no return at all. :drool:
He also despised the zombies with a passion, and had to deal with them living in the same place that he is. :scare:
He is seen as aggresive, and should be. He is defending his position as Captain, and making sure that things don't get out of line. :roll:

Pretty much. The problem is most people don't understand the military, or why it operates the way it does.

[ZomCom]

I have gotten a lot of crap in the past for saying that he isn't really all bad.
That is still where I stand today.

Rhodes was sick and tired of his soldiers dying with little or no return at all. :drool:
He also despised the zombies with a passion, and had to deal with them living in the same place that he is. :scare:
He is seen as aggresive, and should be. He is defending his position as Captain, and making sure that things don't get out of line. :roll:
That’s not leadership, that's holding on by his fingernails. Eventually, he slips over the edge. He has a lousy deal, just like everyone else in the complex. Except, he is in charge. That is his authority. It's his responsibly to maintain order and discipline, and keep the complex secure. He fails on every level. The civilians don’t trust him. Why should they? He is a bully, he plays favorites, and he is barely capable of self-control. He has no integrity. He’s not the commander with a gun; he’s the nut with a gun. He is overly friendly with his men. He keeps them under control by giving them favors and indulging their resentment towards the scientists. No wonder they show such lax discipline. In the Military, respect for rank and position is mandated. Respect for the person is earned (or lost). If it were as easy as threatening “my way or the highway,” anyone could do it. There would not be military leadership courses, and there would not be a library of books written about the subject.

You know you are a sorry leader when you have to threaten someone with execution just to get them to sit down and listen to you.

[Shipwreck]

MThat’s not leadership, that's holding on by his fingernails. Eventually, he slips over the edge. He has a lousy deal, just like everyone else in the complex. Except, he is in charge. That is his authority. It's his responsibly to maintain order and discipline, and keep the complex secure. He fails on every level. The civilians don’t trust him. Why should they? He is a bully, he plays favorites, and he is barely capable of self-control. He has no integrity. He’s not the commander with a gun; he’s the nut with a gun. He is overly friendly with his men. He keeps them under control by giving them favors and indulging their resentment towaMaybe Logan might have found a cure. Just a thought.rds the scientists. No wonder they show such lax discipline. In the Military, respect for rank and position is mandated. Respect for the person is earned (or lost). If it were as easy as threatening “my way or the highway,” anyone could do it. There would not be military leadership courses, and there would not be a library of books written about the subject.

You know you are a sorry leader when you have to threaten someone with execution just to get them to sit down and listen to you.

Thank You!!! And this is why he is responsible for the downfall of the bunker. If he handled the situation differently, things would not have gotten so out of hand. And you never know. Maybe Logan could have found a cure.

[UNDEAD FRED]

Maybe Logan could have found a cure.

I dont think Dr Frankenstien would of found a cure, He was insane. Sarah knew it was a hopeless situation. I think Terry had it right, they were never going to fiqure it out. They had no communications with higher command, or the outside world. From recon flights with the helicopter it was obvious that the world outside the fenced in compound was dead. they were running low on food, ammo, and men. Sarah maybe should of told Cpt Rhodes that the scientific team was never going to find out why the dead were walking, or how to stop the dead from walking so he could of started to make plans for the future. Cpt Rhodes should of shut the scientist down, and had his men destroyed all the specimens. He had orders to support the scientific team, but with lack of communications with higher command he should of gave the orders to his men to begin to shut it down, and make plans for evacuation. But Dr Logan had a good point, where were they going go.

[LJHolcon]

I dont think Dr Frankenstien would of found a cure, He was insane. Sarah knew it was a hopeless situation. I think Terry had it right, they were never going to fiqure it out. They had no communications with higher command, or the outside world. From recon flights with the helicopter it was obvious that the world outside the fenced in compound was dead. they were running low on food, ammo, and men. Sarah maybe should of told Cpt Rhodes that the scientific team was never going to find out why the dead were walking, or how to stop the dead from walking so he could of started to make plans for the future. Cpt Rhodes should of shut the scientist down, and had his men destroyed all the specimens. He had orders to support the scientific team, but with lack of communications with higher command he should of gave the orders to his men to begin to shut it down, and make plans for evacuation. But Dr Logan had a good point, where were they going go.


And how could Rhodes know it was just Logan doing the crazy shit? For all Rhodes knew (and he had good reason to think so) the entire science team was conspiring against him (and they were.)

Everyone keeps saying Rhodes could have handled it differently, and I agree. He should have killed all of them the moment he found out they were planning to **** him.

[Shipwreck]

You should have made this a poll. That would have been interesting

[LJHolcon]

You should have made this a poll. That would have been interesting

I did now, that's a good idea.



Now with poll!

[Shipwreck]

I did now, that's a good idea.



Now with poll!

LMAO. Good Job

[Marhaben]

I chose the first option, but I believe he didn't go far enough. Had he just disposed of the meddlesome protagonists when he had the chance the base may have been saved.

[LJHolcon]

I chose the first option, but I believe he didn't go far enough. Had he just disposed of the meddlesome protagonists when he had the chance the base may have been saved.

I just tried to go back to make a poll options for that but it won't let me.

[ZombiesAteMyDog]

You don't get to tell the commanding officer to **** off. Ever.

the army guys were just there to help the scientists and keep them safe while they tried to find a cure ( even if they were going about it all wrong ), the scientists were never a part of the military or Rhodes unit. Sarah was a civilian , she could tell him to go suck bubs nuts til his teeth fall out and there isnt jack shit he could do about it, since when do civilians have to follow orders from the military? since when was it a ok for a military commander to order one of his men to shoot a CIVILIAN? did we slip into martial law or some sort of dictatorship when I wasn't looking?

this movie has 3 villains or bad guys, Rhodes, Frankenstein , and the zombies, with out any one of the 3 going nuts and going way too far the situation wouldnt have gone as far as it did, sure you can say if rhodes shot frankenstein earlier problem solved, but the same can also be said for if they shot rhodes, or all the zombies , this is a typical romero movie there is no black and white, just a whole bunch of different shades of grey.

this discussion is what romero had in mind when he made this movie the way he did, how much power does the military have, how far is it ok for them to go to keep order, did their cocky bravado hurt them / lead to their downfall , same questions can be applied to the scientists, my guess is if you asked romero if Rhodes was a villain or not you would get a very ambiguous answer that probably just raised more questions then give any true answers.

:drinking:

[Subgenius]

the army guys were just there to help the scientists and keep them safe while they tried to find a cure ( even if they were going about it all wrong ), the scientists were never a part of the military or Rhodes unit. Sarah was a civilian , she could tell him to go suck bubs nuts til his teeth fall out and there isnt jack shit he could do about it, since when do civilians have to follow orders from the military? since when was it a ok for a military commander to order one of his men to shoot a CIVILIAN? did we slip into martial law or some sort of dictatorship when I wasn't looking?

this movie has 3 villains or bad guys, Rhodes, Frankenstein , and the zombies, with out any one of the 3 going nuts and going way too far the situation wouldnt have gone as far as it did, sure you can say if rhodes shot frankenstein earlier problem solved, but the same can also be said for if they shot rhodes, or all the zombies , this is a typical romero movie there is no black and white, just a whole bunch of different shades of grey.

this discussion is what romero had in mind when he made this movie the way he did, how much power does the military have, how far is it ok for them to go to keep order, did their cocky bravado hurt them / lead to their downfall , same questions can be applied to the scientists, my guess is if you asked romero if Rhodes was a villain or not you would get a very ambiguous answer that probably just raised more questions then give any true answers.

:drinking:

First off, martial law was likely declared within just a few days of the zombie outbreak in the Dead trilogy. The military would have had all the authority by the time Day of the Dead (1985) started. Rhodes would have had the full authority in that underground bunker. I think that he did not handle it correctly. He was losing self-control as much as he had been losing control of his men and the civilians. He was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, if you get my meaning. Doctor Logan was able to talk circles around Rhodes.

Second, I think the film had more than three villains. I still say that Salazar qualified as a villain given his unstable behavior and the way that he commits suicide and brings the zombies into the base and essentially dooms everybody else. That was no accident. He did that with intent.

Third, I agree with you about Romero's vision of Rhodes. BTW, I have the original version of the Day of the Dead (1985) screenplay. It is very, very different from what we eventually saw in the film. There was a ton of religious commentary within the original story.

[Creeping Death]

That’s not leadership, that's holding on by his fingernails. Eventually, he slips over the edge. He has a lousy deal, just like everyone else in the complex. Except, he is in charge. That is his authority. It's his responsibly to maintain order and discipline, and keep the complex secure. He fails on every level. The civilians don’t trust him. Why should they? He is a bully, he plays favorites, and he is barely capable of self-control. He has no integrity. He’s not the commander with a gun; he’s the nut with a gun. He is overly friendly with his men. He keeps them under control by giving them favors and indulging their resentment towards the scientists. No wonder they show such lax discipline. In the Military, respect for rank and position is mandated. Respect for the person is earned (or lost). If it were as easy as threatening “my way or the highway,” anyone could do it. There would not be military leadership courses, and there would not be a library of books written about the subject.

You know you are a sorry leader when you have to threaten someone with execution just to get them to sit down and listen to you.



Im pretty sure the rules change when the living dead take over the world.
Ecspecially when there is no more government or military.

By the way, if he would have been a pushover, then nobody would have gotten anything done. :doh:

[Shipwreck]

Im pretty sure the rules change when the living dead take over the world.
Ecspecially when there is no more government or military.

By the way, if he would have been a pushover, then nobody would have gotten anything done. :doh:

Why would that change the rules? Granted he was in a unique situation, but aren't most combat situations unique? I don't think the army trains their officers to act in such a manner during a crisis. I have heard stories of many officers who acted like Rhodes during Vietnam, and a lot of them ended up with a bullet in their back.
I know there was a lot said here about how civilians don't understand how the military works. But at heart of this topic is Rhodes, the man himself.
Lets stretch the imagination for a second, and lets say that Rhodes was a different type of officer. Lets say that he was more like Captain Miller (Tom Hanks character) from Saving Private Ryan. Given the same scenario, everyone was the same, except Rhodes. Would events transpired to the same bloody conclusions? I think not.
Here are two men who were in both unique and desperate situations. One handled himself in every way that exemplifys everything that is good and honorable about our Armys officers. The other was a disgrace and was Eventually torn in half.

[Subgenius]

I agree with Creeping Death. Just the fact of having the walking dead shambling about and overrunning the world is just too different. World War Two just does not compare well. We're talking end of the world zombie apocalypse. No matter how tough most people claim that they would be in that situation, EVERYBODY will be psyched out and psychotic. The very idea of the dead returning to life can drive a person mad. Sure, we can sit back comfortably in our homes in the real world and say, "Not me. I would be just fine." But, that is no proof of what would happen to our mind if the real zombie thing happened.

[Creeping Death]

I agree with Creeping Death.

Holy shit, we agreed! :clap:

Honestly though, good argument with Captain Miller.
He had the respect of his squad, because they knew they could trust him, and because he followed duties, and expected them to do the same.

Rhodes had no orders to follow.
There was no government anymore, and basically no army.
In that situation, he was the law, and had to ensure that his followers knew that. :guns:

[Shipwreck]

Holy shit, we agreed! :clap:

Honestly though, good argument with Captain Miller.
He had the respect of his squad, because they knew they could trust him, and because he followed duties, and expected them to do the same.

Rhodes had no orders to follow.
There was no government anymore, and basically no army.
In that situation, he was the law, and had to ensure that his followers knew that. :guns:

I was thinking the other day (after watching Day again) about the 5 men Rhodes said they lost. You would figure that the Army would not establish such a base with a Major, a Captain and the rest just Privates. Was there a Sargent, Lieutenant and a Corporal among the original crew? And if there was, were they men of a different calliber? (like Capt. Miller) Myabe the Capt. Miller types are gone because they died trying to protect the men or mission? Or maybe Rhodes killed them or let them die to further himself? It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the bunker, lets say a year earlier. Or, at the beginning of the mission.

also, was the one scientific team member that was lost a woman?

I would love to see a prequal
lol

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, that's the thing that I mentioned earlier - I think the real story of Rhodes actually begins and ends much earlier. Long before the movie.

What rank was Rhodes before the military started getting torn to shreds by the zombie horde? Is it that he was thrown into a command position before he was even close to ready and was only a short time before an equal with his men. From buddy to leader with no idea where the line occurs? Was it that, far from being (as suggested) a lax leader, Miller was actually trusted and respected and his loss threw the men into chaos with now nobody to follow or respect? And how much did Rhodes really want that power at first, and how much did he want it once he got a taste for it?

I can't help feeling the story ends before Day, with Rhodes taking charge of his men, thinking he has won. He has command. And yet, what he doesn't see is that he has command of precisely nothing.

There's a story there.

[Subgenius]

I was thinking the other day (after watching Day again) about the 5 men Rhodes said they lost. You would figure that the Army would not establish such a base with a Major, a Captain and the rest just Privates. Was there a Sargent, Lieutenant and a Corporal among the original crew? And if there was, were they men of a different calliber? (like Capt. Miller) Myabe the Capt. Miller types are gone because they died trying to protect the men or mission? Or maybe Rhodes killed them or let them die to further himself? It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the bunker, lets say a year earlier. Or, at the beginning of the mission.

also, was the one scientific team member that was lost a woman?

I would love to see a prequal
lol

Yeah, that's the thing that I mentioned earlier - I think the real story of Rhodes actually begins and ends much earlier. Long before the movie.

What rank was Rhodes before the military started getting torn to shreds by the zombie horde? Is it that he was thrown into a command position before he was even close to ready and was only a short time before an equal with his men. From buddy to leader with no idea where the line occurs? Was it that, far from being (as suggested) a lax leader, Miller was actually trusted and respected and his loss threw the men into chaos with now nobody to follow or respect? And how much did Rhodes really want that power at first, and how much did he want it once he got a taste for it?

I can't help feeling the story ends before Day, with Rhodes taking charge of his men, thinking he has won. He has command. And yet, what he doesn't see is that he has command of precisely nothing.

There's a story there.

We all would love to have had those questions answered. Unfortunately, the Day of the Dead remake completely failed to provide anything even close to that. It was a huge waste of an opportunity to really get in deep with the story behind the first Day of the Dead.

[ZomCom]

Ok, the poll is faulty and biased. It has four choices to answer a yes or no question.

No, he was doing what he felt was needed to hold control.

That’s not pertinent to the original question. We are judging Rhodes actions, not his feelings. Hitler thought he was doing what was needed to hold control.

No, but he really should have been more diplomatic about it.

Lack of diplomacy is not at issue. Lack of leadership and poor decision-making is the question. Besides, which tough guys among you will vote for more “diplomacy?”

Yes, but it wasn't all his doing.

Huh?

Yes completely. He was a monster.

Another pejorative. It sounds limp-wristed to call him a “monster.” He was an idiot and a poor leader.

Methinks this poll reflects the opinions of the poll-maker.

[Shipwreck]

New poll!!!

[LJHolcon]

Ok, the poll is faulty and biased. It has four choices to answer a yes or no question.

No, he was doing what he felt was needed to hold control.

That’s not pertinent to the original question. We are judging Rhodes actions, not his feelings. Hitler thought he was doing what was needed to hold control.

No, but he really should have been more diplomatic about it.

Lack of diplomacy is not at issue. Lack of leadership and poor decision-making is the question. Besides, which tough guys among you will vote for more “diplomacy?”

Yes, but it wasn't all his doing.

Huh?

Yes completely. He was a monster.

Another pejorative. It sounds limp-wristed to call him a “monster.” He was an idiot and a poor leader.

Methinks this poll reflects the opinions of the poll-maker.

No, it reflects the opinion of every one in this thread thus far. And Hitler? Seriously? I, and obviously many others believe Rhodes was doing what he needed to hold control of the base and was not responsible for the downfall.

If you believe he was entirely responsible, choose yes. If you think he was responsible, but not entirely choose that. If you feel he wasn't responsible at all, choose the first one. If you think he wasn't responsible, but could handled it differently, choose that.

The poll results wouldn't be any different adding a dozen more options.

[Shipwreck]

maybe we can do a poll of who had the best hair in Day of the Dead???

[LJHolcon]

maybe we can do a poll of who had the best hair in Day of the Dead???

Definitely Rickles.

[ZomCom]

Not more options. Better options.

Hitler? Um, let’s see if there are any similarities. Hysterical leader holed up in a bunker hoping for his scientists to come up with a wonder weapon, loosing self-control and blaming his followers, threatening to kill his own people, and comes to a messy ending. Yeah, seriously.

For people who believe Rhodes was doing what he felt was needed to hold control. Would you want this man to be your leader in time of crisis (or peacetime, for that matter)? As the man-in-charge, do you hold him responsible for the final outcome?

[Shipwreck]

Watched the movie again with some friends. This time I tried to watch it with a different perspective. You can clearly see Rhodes calmly sitting there going over the paperwork and reports with Fisher. He is quite calm untill Sarah walks into the room. Then you can see him get aggitated as he takes of his jacket, revealing his twin guns. From that point forward every scene has him getting more and more hostile towards the scientific team. And, it is understandable about his reactions. Joe Pilato is a wonderful actor. I love the scene where he finds his men dead in the freezer, and grabs Sarah by the throat screaming about his "men in there". You can see his eyes darting around with rage. I would guess that this is the point where he goes mentaly over the edge. Best performance in any of the Dead movies.

[Shipwreck]

Definitely Rickles.

LMAO!

ok, How about a poll for Best Beard?

[Shipwreck]

Not more options. Better options.

Hitler? Um, let’s see if there are any similarities. Hysterical leader holed up in a bunker hoping for his scientists to come up with a wonder weapon, loosing self-control and blaming his followers, threatening to kill his own people, and comes to a messy ending. Yeah, seriously.

For people who believe Rhodes was doing what he felt was needed to hold control. Would you want this man to be your leader in time of crisis (or peacetime, for that matter)? As the man-in-charge, do you hold him responsible for the final outcome?

Ultimately, he was in command. So all responsability falls onto his shoulders.

[LJHolcon]

Watched the movie again with some friends. This time I tried to watch it with a different perspective. You can clearly see Rhodes calmly sitting there going over the paperwork and reports with Fisher. He is quite calm untill Sarah walks into the room. Then you can see him get aggitated as he takes of his jacket, revealing his twin guns. From that point forward every scene has him getting more and more hostile towards the scientific team. And, it is understandable about his reactions. Joe Pilato is a wonderful actor. I love the scene where he finds his men dead in the freezer, and grabs Sarah by the throat screaming about his "men in there". You can see his eyes darting around with rage. I would guess that this is the point where he goes mentaly over the edge. Best performance in any of the Dead movies.

That's a very good observation. I suspect Sarah and Rhodes had butted heads many time in the past.

[Shipwreck]

That's a very good observation. I suspect Sarah and Rhodes had butted heads many time in the past.

I was thinking the same thing. It almost seemed as if he was fixated on her. At the same time I also got the feeling that he was somewhat afraid of Logan.

[LJHolcon]

Not more options. Better options.

Hitler? Um, let’s see if there are any similarities. Hysterical leader holed up in a bunker hoping for his scientists to come up with a wonder weapon, loosing self-control and blaming his followers, threatening to kill his own people, and comes to a messy ending. Yeah, seriously.

For people who believe Rhodes was doing what he felt was needed to hold control. Would you want this man to be your leader in time of crisis (or peacetime, for that matter)? As the man-in-charge, do you hold him responsible for the final outcome?

I would love to follow Rhodes. He is a no-BS leader, and I saw nothing to suggest he didn't have his men's best interests in view. Honestly, he was more polite than my Flight commander in the Air Force. That being said, I wouldn't count on him to to fight from the front.

And Hitler started the war, Rhodes was merely caught up in someone else's shit.

edit: To clarify, I mean follow Rhodes logistically. He's somewhat of a coward (or at very least not squad leader material.)

[LJHolcon]

I was thinking the same thing. It almost seemed as if he was fixated on her. At the same time I also got the feeling that he was somewhat afraid of Logan.

In my opinion, I think that's because Logan was probably King Shit when this operation started, and I'm sure the Government hoisted him on the up-high when they created this project.

It's also possible everyone knew Logan was quite mad.

As far as Sarah, she was clearly the most out-spoken critic of the military command and I believe she and Rhodes probably had a back-story that led to their hostility towards one another. Something tells me it wasn't the 10 minutes he was in command that led to their fighting. I have nothing to base this on, but if I were to take a guess, Major Cooper probably led a much less "military bearing" installation which is partially why the science team and Rhodes really started going at it early on.

Hell, maybe they used to date? haha

That would REALLY explain a lot.

[Shipwreck]

I saw nothing to suggest he didn't have his men's best interests in view..

Well... he did run off and leave his men behind when the Undead came down the elevator. If he had waited a few seconds for Steel and the rest to get on the golf cart it would have said a lot obout him as a commander.

[Shipwreck]

In my opinion, I think that's because Logan was probably King Shit when this operation started, and I'm sure the Government hoisted him on the up-high when they created this project.

It's also possible everyone knew Logan was quite mad.

As far as Sarah, she was clearly the most out-spoken critic of the military command and I believe she and Rhodes probably had a back-story that led to their hostility towards one another. Something tells me it wasn't the 10 minutes he was in command that led to their fighting.

I think they suspected, but did not actually know. If they did, I think that would have united everyone together to stop Logan and his experiments. Then maybe they would have sat down and charted a new course for their little group.

[LJHolcon]

Well... he did run off and leave his men behind when the Undead came down the elevator. If he had waited a few seconds for Steel and the rest to get on the golf cart it would have said a lot obout him as a commander.

I meant logistically. I fully admit he would be a terrible squad level leader, and would say he's probably a coward.

[LJHolcon]

I think they suspected, but did not actually know. If they did, I think that would have united everyone together to stop Logan and his experiments. Then maybe they would have sat down and charted a new course for their little group.

See this is why I think Logan was the cause of a lot of the problem. It seemed Rhodes (and the soldiers in general) were judging their opinions based on Logan's non-sense. Without Logan I think they would have worked a lot more in tandem.

And I still think Sarah and Rhodes might have had a romantic history. That would explain some of the anger between the two. It would have been an interesting sub-plot. You responded before I had edited my last statement so I had to hurry haha

[Shipwreck]

I was wondering??? Did they ever say how long they were in that bunker for? I heard that maybe it was 5 years?? I kind of doubt that, but I really have no idea. I figured that it was at least a year or two. Otherwise Sarah would not need to create her own calender.

[LJHolcon]

I was wondering??? Did they ever say how long they were in that bunker for? I heard that maybe it was 5 years?? I kind of doubt that, but I really have no idea. I figured that it was at least a year or two. Otherwise Sarah would not need to create her own calender.

I have absolutely nothing to base this on, but I thought I remembered seeing 7 years somewhere. I might be wrong, though.

[Shipwreck]

See this is why I think Logan was the cause of a lot of the problem. It seemed Rhodes (and the soldiers in general) were judging their opinions based on Logan's non-sense. Without Logan I think they would have worked a lot more in tandem.

And I still think Sarah and Rhodes might have had a romantic history. That would explain some of the anger between the two. It would have been an interesting sub-plot. You responded before I had edited my last statement so I had to hurry haha

I do think that Logan was the cause of a lot of the problems between the teams, but I also think that if the Military Command (Cooper and then Rhodes) took a more positive interest in Logan was doing. Then they might have had better control of the situation.

I'm sure the soldiers probably went in (out of boredom) and checked to see what the scientist did. But, I bet the only one who ever went into Logan's work area was Sarah. Nobody really knew what Logan was up to. Only from his reports.

[LJHolcon]

If I were Rhodes, I would have promoted Steele to Sgt, or Squad Leader and let him handle the day-to-day at sub-officer/security level, and then I'd focus on the logistical problems.

I would have approached Fisher and offered him liaison position with authority and basically said

"I don't trust Logan, and Sarah doesn't respect my authority. So Fisher, I am going to grant you military rank, and place you in charge of the science team."

This would have given Fisher a bit more confidence in the military side, and may have made an important ally in keeping Sarah and Logan in check.

[LJHolcon]

I do think that Logan was the cause of a lot of the problems between the teams, but I also think that if the Military Command (Cooper and then Rhodes) took a more positive interest in Logan was doing. Then they might have had better control of the situation.

I'm sure the soldiers probably went in (out of boredom) and checked to see what the scientist did. But, I bet the only one who ever went into Logan's work area was Sarah. Nobody really knew what Logan was up to. Only from his reports.

This I agree with entirely. The military seemed to be taking a "You'd better be doing something in there!" mentality, but never seemed to get involved on any other level. Regardless of who's fault anything is, the self-segregation of the two groups (well three, really) led to a lot of the problems they experienced.

[Shipwreck]

If I were Rhodes, I would have promoted Steele to Sgt, or Squad Leader and let him handle the day-to-day at sub-officer/security level, and then I'd focus on the logistical problems.

I would have approached Fisher and offered him liaison position with authority and basically said

"I don't trust Logan, and Sarah doesn't respect my authority. So Fisher, I am going to grant you military rank, and place you in charge of the science team."

This would have given Fisher a bit more confidence in the military side, and may have made an important ally in keeping Sarah and Logan in check.

Thats funny... When we were watching it today. One of my buds made the comment about Steel... "isn't he kind of old to be a private?" lol

[LJHolcon]

Thats funny... When we were watching it today. One of my buds made the comment about Steel... "isn't he kind of old to be a private?" lol

haha he definitely was, and he seemed to be the "de facto" second in command. There should never be such a huge gap in leadership rank (captain to private is jumping a lot of rank. Someone needed field-promoted, and it seemed only logical to make it Steele, and maybe Rickles up to third in line.)

[Shipwreck]

If I were Rhodes, I would have promoted Steele to Sgt, or Squad Leader and let him handle the day-to-day at sub-officer/security level, and then I'd focus on the logistical problems.

I would have approached Fisher and offered him liaison position with authority and basically said

"I don't trust Logan, and Sarah doesn't respect my authority. So Fisher, I am going to grant you military rank, and place you in charge of the science team."

This would have given Fisher a bit more confidence in the military side, and may have made an important ally in keeping Sarah and Logan in check.

Logan in check... yes. Sarah... I really don't think so. Rhodes just didn't understand Sarah at all. If he just calmed down and spoke to her logically and without threats, then she would have been more acceptable of his views.

[LJHolcon]

Logan in check... yes. Sarah... I really don't think so. Rhodes just didn't understand Sarah at all. If he just calmed down and spoke to her logically and without threats, then she would have been more acceptable of his views.

True, but if he placed Fisher in charge, it would be his job to deal with Rhodes. Sarah would no longer be required to deal with Rhodes at all, and any of her antics would be towards Fisher.

[Shipwreck]

True, but if he placed Fisher in charge, it would be his job to deal with Rhodes. Sarah would no longer be required to deal with Rhodes at all, and any of her antics would be towards Fisher.

So are you saying that if Rhodes took these steps when he took command that things would have been different for the characters?

[LJHolcon]

So are you saying that if Rhodes took these steps when he took command that things would have been different for the characters?

Possibly. Although this suggestion would still be a compromise Rhodes shouldn't have had to made seeing as he was the "boss" so to speak. That's just what I would have done to save me the head-ache.

The trouble is it wouldn't have prevented what happened. Things would have been more pleasant on the inside, but none of this would have stopped what ultimately happened. If anything it just would have meant Rhodes would probably be in the Helicopter with Sarah when they evacuated.

The only way Rhodes could have prevented what happened is jailing/punishing Sarah and locking Salazar up in the infirmary. Sarah because (like it or not) was openly disrespecting the Commander, and Salazar because he clearly had snapped. The key to remember is no-matter what in-fighting was going on, Salazar for essentially no reason did what he did.

[Shipwreck]

The only way Rhodes could have prevented what happened is jailing/punishing Sarah and locking Salazar up in the infirmary. Sarah because (like it or not) was openly disrespecting the Commander, and Salazar because he clearly had snapped. The key to remember is no-matter what in-fighting was going on, Salazar for essentially no reason did what he did.

So if Rhodes took that course of action, then the movie would have ended differently?

[LJHolcon]

So if Rhodes took that course of action, then the movie would have ended differently?

If Rhodes had been more strict, yes. For one, had he locked Salazar up, Salazar wouldn't have been able to let all the zombies in.

But, in this case I feel it was one of those "hind-sight is 20/20."

If I were in command, I don't know what exactly I'd have done with Salazar. I don't know what the day-to-day requirements were of the soldiers, all we know was they were short on men. For all I know, they might not have been able to spare Salazar at all.

One thing is for damn sure, he should have shot Salazar when he was bitten, but for whatever reason he took Sarah at her word. He actually let the Radioman and helicopter pilot threaten them with guns. He was way too lenient with them.

It really goes back to what I said earlier. Rhodes was not a good squad level commander. Steele (and he even said it) would have shot Salazar then and there (or come back with reinforcements.) Rhodes was being soft on Sarah for some reason, multiple times. I still suspect they had a romantic past or at least some level of connection prior to the movie.

[Shipwreck]

If Rhodes had been more strict, yes. For one, had he locked Salazar up, Salazar wouldn't have been able to let all the zombies in.


Thank you.

So by your statement, Rhodes was responsible (the antagonist) for the downfall of the Bunker. :-P

[Shipwreck]

I think that Rhodes let Salazar live out of some kind of punishment for Sarah. He seemed fixated on Salazar sleeping with her, and made the statment about Sarah still wanting to still sleep with Salazar. I think he let him live out of cruelty.

[LJHolcon]

Thank you.

So by your statement, Rhodes was responsible (the antagonist) for the downfall of the Bunker. :-P

I would say Rhodes was responsible for not preventing what happened, but there is distinct difference between non-prevention and responsibility. By that definition, John is equally responsible since he said he'd watch Salazar :)

[LJHolcon]

I think that Rhodes let Salazar live out of some kind of punishment for Sarah. He seemed fixated on Salazar sleeping with her, and made the statment about Sarah still wanting to sleep with Salazar. I think he let him live out of cruelty.

possibly, although he did say "Do you think he wants to be one of those things? Think about it lady!"

[Shipwreck]

I would say Rhodes was responsible for not preventing what happened, but there is distinct difference between non-prevention and responsibility. By that definition, John is equally responsible since he said he'd watch Salazar :)

lmao

so his lack of control and prevention caused the downfall of the bunker.

[LJHolcon]

lmao

so his lack of control and prevention caused the downfall of the bunker.

Again it would depend on your definition of "responsible." My opinion is the person who causes/supports/facilitates an action is responsible. Rhodes didn't cause nor support Salazar doing what he did. Rhodes was not strict enough with the science team and that definitely led to the situations they had inside the bunker, but it's not what destroyed the project.

While Sarah and her team may not have supported Salazar, they definitely (directly or indirectly) facilitated it.

[Shipwreck]

possibly, although he did say "Do you think he wants to be one of those things? Think about it lady!"

I think that was just a taunt to mess with Sarahs mind. Maybe his way to say F U to her.

[LJHolcon]

I think that was just a taunt to mess with Sarahs mind. Maybe his way to say F U to her.

It's possible. Salazar was one of the stranger things about the Romero series. He never actually turned. So is it possible to prevent the infection by amputation? Or did Salazar just not have time to die and come back yet?

[Shipwreck]

Again it would depend on your definition of "responsible." My opinion is the person who causes/supports/facilitates an action is responsible. Rhodes didn't cause nor support Salazar doing what he did. Rhodes was not strict enough with the science team and that definitely led to the situations they had inside the bunker, but it's not what destroyed the project.

While Sarah and her team may not have supported Salazar, they definitely (directly or indirectly) facilitated it.

You can say Rhodes did too. Salazzar was weak (in a lot of ways, except for being eaten by Zombies), and knew he could not fight Rhodes and his men. Fisher was dead, John was beaten up, Sarah and McDermott were thrown into the Zombie Catacombs. For all he knew they were dead too, and he was next. His only way to fight back was to bring the undead onto Rhodes and his men.

[LJHolcon]

You can say Rhodes did too. Salazzar was weak (in a lot of ways, except for being eaten by Zombies), and knew he could not fight Rhodes and his men. Fisher was dead, John was beaten up, Sarah and McDermott were thrown into the Zombie Catacombs. For all he knew they were dead too, and he was next. His only way to fight back was to bring the undead onto Rhodes and his men.

He had no way to know any of this, though. Sarah and McDermott were out investigating, John went to check on them. Salazar woke up and did what he did. He also had no clue what was happening with Rhodes.

I think (my opinion, anyway) he said "Oh man, I've been bit by a zombie. **** everyone here."

[Shipwreck]

It's possible. Salazar was one of the stranger things about the Romero series. He never actually turned. So is it possible to prevent the infection by amputation? Or did Salazar just not have time to die and come back yet?

Unless it's a fatal wound, it usually takes a few hours or days in Romero's movies to come back. It took Roger in Dawn about 3 days to come back. But it only took Cholo hours to come back. So who knows. But Salazzar Did look healthy. um minus the missing arm.

[Shipwreck]

He had no way to know any of this, though. Sarah and McDermott were out investigating, John went to check on them. Salazar woke up and did what he did. He also had no clue what was happening with Rhodes.

I think (my opinion, anyway) he said "Oh man, I've been bit by a zombie. **** everyone here."

John extended the stock of his gun, and cocked it right before he went out. I think they showed Salazzar waking up as John left. Also, the sound in the caverns does carry. We can hear moaning during Johns Speech to Sarah. I think it is possible that Salazzar could hear the shots, and hear Sarah screaming. In his fevered state, he could assume that the crap had hit the fan.

[Shipwreck]

Does anyone else have any opinions or comments? Anyone???

[LJHolcon]

John extended the stock of his gun, and cocked it right before he went out. I think they showed Salazzar waking up as John left. Also, the sound in the caverns does carry. We can hear moaning during Johns Speech to Sarah. I think it is possible that Salazzar could hear the shots, and hear Sarah screaming. In his fevered state, he could assume that the crap had hit the fan.

Then he condemned everyone to murder based on gunshots (including Sarah and John,) when all he had to do was say "hey John, what's going on?" since John was on his way out when he woke up.

[Shipwreck]

Then he condemned everyone to murder based on gunshots (including Sarah and John,) when all he had to do was say "hey John, what's going on?" since John was on his way out when he woke up.

hey, I didn't say that he was the sharpest tool in the shed. :p I think that in his weakened state. (body and mind) He thought that bringing in the undead was his only option. Plus I hink Romero needed a Dramatic way to bring in a whole bunch of Undead.

[LJHolcon]

Plus I hink Romero needed a Dramatic way to bring in a whole bunch of Undead.

Of course, that is possible.

"Oops, over budget. Uhm... ok... uh... yea ok Salazar go ahead and kill everyone!"

That happens a lot in movies, unfortunately. I do think the ending was kind of weak. For instance, Rhodes being a coward aside, why did all the soldiers make no attempt to defend themselves? They just scattered.

[Shipwreck]

Of course, that is possible.

"Oops, over budget. Uhm... ok... uh... yea ok Salazar go ahead and kill everyone!"

That happens a lot in movies, unfortunately. I do think the ending was kind of weak. For instance, Rhodes being a coward aside, why did all the soldiers make no attempt to defend themselves? They just scattered.

I think that was because of the lack of discipline among the soldiers. I was kind of shocked that Steel didn't rally everyone to him to escape together, especially Rickles. They seemed tight.

[LJHolcon]

I think that was because of the lack of discipline among the soldiers. I was kind of shocked that Steel didn't rally everyone to him to escape together, especially Rickles. They seemed tight.

This is why I felt all the soldiers acted out of character at the end. For instance:

Lets take it at face value and say Rhodes was a coward. Even a coward would know waiting the 10 seconds to let everyone come would have been a better option.

And Steele? He obviously cared a great deal about his fellow soldiers. So why did he also pull a Rhodes? Like you said, he and Rickles at very least were good friends. More to the point, why did Rickles not jump on the cart with Steele? He ran straight to the mine shaft for some silly reason. It really seemed Romero said "Ok, well we have to find a way to kill all the soldiers off now."

[Shipwreck]

This is why I felt all the soldiers acted out of character at the end. For instance:

Lets take it at face value and say Rhodes was a coward. Even a coward would know waiting the 10 seconds to let everyone come would have been a better option.

And Steele? He obviously cared a great deal about his fellow soldiers. So why did he also pull a Rhodes? Like you said, he and Rickles at very least were good friends. More to the point, why did Rickles not jump on the cart with Steele? He ran straight to the mine shaft for some silly reason. It really seemed Romero said "Ok, well we have to find a way to kill all the soldiers off now."


Rhodes had the only cart. Steel and the others had to run. It was weird that they all ran in different directions. I am wonder if Steel ran into Rhodes after he shot the locked door down, if he would have shot Rhodes or used him as a way to escape?

[LJHolcon]

Rhodes had the only cart. Steel and the others had to run. It was weird that they all ran in different directions. I am wonder if Steel ran into Rhodes after he shot the locked door down, if he would have shot Rhodes or used him as a way to escape?

Oh you're right, I was thinking Steele had a cart, but that was just because he ran past a lot of them getting to the door.

I would have ended the movie with the extra soldier getting gored by zombies, Steele/Rhodes/Rickles all get top-side and engage Sarah/John/McDermott. McDermott dies (or is mortally wounded,) and someone shoots Rhodes and he falls down the elevator and gets crippled, and zombies rip him to shreds. Steel/Rickles surrender, the helicopter crew let them drive off in a truck, Sarah and crew fly off in the chopper.

This would keep with the story and movie cliches, and be a bit more of a realistic ending in my view. Maybe the ending is John burying McDermott on a beach somewhere. This would have allowed for gore/action and just a generally more acceptable ending.

[Shipwreck]

Oh you're right, I was thinking Steele had a cart, but that was just because he ran past a lot of them getting to the door.

I would have ended the movie with the extra soldier getting gored by zombies, Steele/Rhodes/Rickles all get top-side and engage Sarah/John/McDermott. McDermott dies, and someone shoots Rhodes and he falls and zombies rip him to shreds. Steel/Rickles surrender, the helicopter crew let them and they drive off in a truck, Sarah and crew fly off in the chopper.

This would keep with the story and movie cliches, and be a bit more of a realistic ending in my view. Maybe the ending is John burying McDermott on a beach somewhere. This would have allowed for gore/action and just a generally more acceptable ending.

I think a better ending would be the extra solder (Pvt. Torrez) getting gored, A mexican stand off between Rhodes/Steel/Rickles vs Sarah/John/Mcdermott, Steel spins around and shoots Rhodes (to be ripped in half by Zombies, that is a must in any ending scenario), thus earning the trust of the other. the entire group fight their way to the chopper. On the way Steel and Rickles die defending the group. and they rest go of to an island.

[LJHolcon]

I think a better ending would be the extra solder (Pvt. Torrez) getting gored, A mexican stand off between Rhodes/Steel/Rickles vs Sarah/John/Mcdermott, Steel spins around and shoots Rhodes (to be ripped in half by Zombies, that is a must in any ending scenario), thus earning the trust of the other. the entire group fight their way to the chopper. On the way Steel and Rickles die defending the group. and they rest go of to an island.

That's another good one. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Rhodes, Steele definitely was not a bad guy.

Although I would have still enjoyed a shoot-out.

[Shipwreck]

That's another good one. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Rhodes, Steele definitely was not a bad guy.

Although I would have still enjoyed a shoot-out.

I agree. He didn't like Salazzar because he saw him as weak, and he almost got his buddy Rickles killed. Also if he was a bad guy, he would not have hesitated in shooting Sarah when ordered to do so.

I'm not sure if it was here or another fan site, but I remember reading a quote from Gary Howard Klar about that scene. He was sure that his character of Steel would have spun around and shot Rhodes before he would shoot Sarah.

[LJHolcon]

I agree. He didn't like Salazzar because he saw him as weak, and he almost got his buddy Rickles killed. Also if he was a bad guy, he would not have hesitated in shooting Sarah when ordered to do so.

I'm not sure if it was here or another fan site, but I remember reading a quote from Gary Howard Klar about that scene. He was sure that his character of Steel would have spun around and shot Rhodes before he would shoot Sarah.

The issue was Steele didn't like Sarah at all, but their relationship was more of a "You're dumb/You're a bitch" type of irritation. Rhodes and Sarah seemed to really hate each other, and without knowing the back story, I don't know why Rhodes hatred only seemed to be directed to Sarah. I really wish we knew if they had a massive confrontation before Rhodes became commander, or if they actually did have some romantic relationship prior and he resented the fact she was now with Salazar (though I still don't know why Rhodes didn't shoot her the multiple chances he got if he wanted to kill her so bad.)

Although the next question I'd pose, is why the hell was she with Salazar?!

[Shipwreck]

The issue was Steele didn't like Sarah at all, but their relationship was more of a "You're dumb/You're a bitch" type of irritation. Rhodes and Sarah seemed to really hate each other (though I still don't know why Rhodes didn't shoot her the multiple chances he got if he wanted to kill her so bad.)

Maybe he thought shooter her himself was beneath him. Or maybe he thought he still had a chance with her. lol

[LJHolcon]

Maybe he thought shooter her himself was beneath him. Or maybe he thought he still had a chance with her. lol

You beat my edit again. I really need to proof-read my posts before hitting send. I'm at work so I'm doing a dozen things at once. Although not one of the dozen things I'm doing is ever work. I love my job!

[Shipwreck]

Although the next question I'd pose, is why the hell was she with Salazar?!

At the beginning of the mission, maybe he was a totally different man. And he treated her good.

I remember reading the novel for Dawn, and in it Fran's character was reflecting on her relationship with Steven. He was different from her ex husband. He was confident, strong, and a take charge kind of guy. Then after the Dead came back, he changed. How he orders her to meet him at the helicopter at the beginning of the movie. He says something like "and don't make me come looking for you." Then later how he belittled by Peter, and he takes it. You can see in both the book and movie how Peter walked all over him in the beginning, and Steven was no longer that man.

maybe it was the same thing.

[Shipwreck]

You beat my edit again. I really need to proof-read my posts before hitting send. I'm at work so I'm doing a dozen things at once. Although not one of the dozen things I'm doing is ever work. I love my job!

lol. I had the same problem last night, and I was doing all my posting from my phone!!! O.o

[LJHolcon]

At the beginning of the mission, maybe he was a totally different man. And he treated her good.

I remember reading the novel for Dawn, and in it Fran's character was reflecting on her relationship with Steven. He was different from her ex husband. He was confident, strong, and a take charge kind of guy. Then after the Dead came back, he changed. How he orders her to meet him at the helicopter at the beginning of the movie. He says something like "and don't make me come looking for you." Then later how he belittled by Peter, and he takes it. You can see in both the book and movie how Peter walked all over him in the beginning, and Steven was no longer that man.

maybe it was the same thing.

The novel was better than the movie. It's nice to see another person who picked it up!

I wish there had been as detailed a novel about Day, or maybe if Romero had written a book about what he WANTED Day to have been. And not to get off topic, but when Steven accidentally shot at Peter and then Peter pointed a gun at him, I'm pretty sure I would have either shot Peter in the back, or left his ass right where he stood.

[Shipwreck]

The novel was better than the movie. It's nice to see another person who picked it up!

I wish there had been as detailed a novel about Day, or maybe if Romero had written a book about what he WANTED Day to have been. And not to get off topic, but when Steven accidentally shot at Peter and then Peter pointed a gun at him, I'm pretty sure I would have either shot Peter in the back, or left his ass right where he stood.

lol
Wouldn't it be awesome if we saw Peter and Fran Arrive at the bunker with their chopper! I can see a great power struggle between peter and Rhodes.

[Subgenius]

One thing that may explain the failing in Rhodes as a guy that leads from the front, as well as why Steele and Rickles (and the other privates) seemed older than a private ought to be, may well be that they were not regular US Army. Romero seemed to like using the National Guard. In Dawn of the Dead, Romero used the 28th Infantry Division of the Pennsylvania National Guard as the troops that we see in the apartment building and out on the fields in Pennsylvania. You can tell that they are 28th ID by the black or red (the Nazis called them "Bloody Bucket") Pennsylvania Keystone patches.

The hastily formed science team and soldiers ordered to protect and facilitate that science team might have been merely weekend warriors. The National Guard would have been the primary force called in by State governors to deal with the mass confusion of the zombies appearing everywhere. It would have been treated as a riot situation at first. Eventually, as a national emergency, the US Army, USMC, USAF, and the US Navy would have been deployed. But, that would have not been immediately sanctioned.

I need to watch the film again to see if they actually show us or tell us that they were National Guard, but I suspect that they were...

[Subgenius]

BTW, if you guys want to get a look at what Romero originally had planned for Captain Rhodes and Day of the Dead (1985), then check out the original screenplay. It is really interesting and VERY different from what we see in the completed film. Some elements of the original screenplay did find it's way into the actual film, but the differences are fascinating. Romero described Rhodes as insane. He's much like what we saw in the finished film, but more so as far as his craziness.

Also, that original screenplay offers up an interesting look at what Romero had planned for the zombies. "Bub" in the actual film version is just a peek at what Romero actually wanted. It is also quite revealing with regard to what we saw in Land of the Dead.

Seriously, it's a good read and very interesting.

DAY OF THE DEAD
(The original script)
by George A. Romero
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Day-of-the-Dead.html

[LJHolcon]

BTW, if you guys want to get a look at what Romero originally had planned for Captain Rhodes and Day of the Dead (1985), then check out the original screenplay. It is really interesting and VERY different from what we see in the completed film. Some elements of the original screenplay did find it's way into the actual film, but the differences are fascinating. Romero described Rhodes as insane. He's much like what we saw in the finished film, but more so as far as his craziness.

Also, that original screenplay offers up an interesting look at what Romero had planned for the zombies. "Bub" in the actual film version is just a peek at what Romero actually wanted. It is also quite revealing with regard to what we saw in Land of the Dead.

Seriously, it's a good read and very interesting.

DAY OF THE DEAD
(The original script)
by George A. Romero
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Day-of-the-Dead.html

Thanks for the script!

And yes, they were National Guard.

[MorganaLeFaye]

I know the reason Rhodes was a lousy military leader... he wasn't Rhodes ! The man we THINK was Rhodes was actually a cop from up north , who fled the cities in a police boat with some other officers when the cities started to fall. Making their way down south, they hunted for ammo and supplies at a National Guard staion, 'Rhodes' found a uniform that fit to replace his bloodied clothing. When he bumped into a group of real N.G. working the base in Florida, he was by that time the lone survivor of the cops, and he pretended to be a guardsmen so as to not get in trouble for being in uniform (and being in a Captains uniform to boot) plus he liked giving orders. They took him in and thats how he became part of the Florida group as the 2nd highest officer. :)

[LJHolcon]

I know the reason Rhodes was a lousy military leader... he wasn't Rhodes ! The man we THINK was Rhodes was actually a cop from up north , who fled the cities in a police boat with some other officers when the cities started to fall. Making their way down south, they hunted for ammo and supplies at a National Guard staion, 'Rhodes' found a uniform that fit to replace his bloodied clothing. When he bumped into a group of real N.G. working the base in Florida, he was by that time the lone survivor of the cops, and he pretended to be a guardsmen so as to not get in trouble for being in uniform (and being in a Captains uniform to boot) plus he liked giving orders. They took him in and thats how he became part of the Florida group as the 2nd highest officer. :)

haha that's as good of an explanation as any ;)

[SWAT Zombie]

rewatch 'dawn' and you will see that MorganaLeFaye's scenario could be true. look carefully at the scene when roger and co take off from the police docks near the start. watch the cops as they board the boat. u might recognise someone. nice tie-in morgana

[LJHolcon]

rewatch 'dawn' and you will see that MorganaLeFaye's scenario could be true. look carefully at the scene when roger and co take off from the police docks near the start. watch the cops as they board the boat. u might recognise someone. nice tie-in morgana


I'd seen it before, but she does add an interesting perspective.

http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy183/haraplane/twins.jpg

[SWAT Zombie]

in the director's cut (or extended or whatever its called) joe pilato's character gets some lines and if i remember right his 'dawn' character also seems like a nasty bastard so it kinda makes it work even more.

[MorganaLeFaye]

rewatch 'dawn' and you will see that MorganaLeFaye's scenario could be true. look carefully at the scene when roger and co take off from the police docks near the start. watch the cops as they board the boat. u might recognise someone. nice tie-in morgana

I'd seen it before, but she does add an interesting perspective.

http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy183/haraplane/twins.jpg

:) knew some real zombie fans would get the connection

[Creeping Death]

I'd seen it before, but she does add an interesting perspective.

http://i790.photobucket.com/albums/yy183/haraplane/twins.jpg

I've never noticed that he was in Dawn before.
Hmmmmm.

Im off to verify this for myself! :guns:

[DarthJoe8]

I've never noticed that he was in Dawn before.
Hmmmmm.

Im off to verify this for myself! :guns:


They are one in the same!! :think: interesting....:drinking:

[UNDEAD FRED]

I've never noticed that he was in Dawn before.
Hmmmmm.

Im off to verify this for myself! :guns:

If you watch the european cut there is a longer scene were Joe Pilato is in it. Were Flyboy finds the radio operator dead in the beginning.

[SWAT Zombie]

If you watch the european cut there is a longer scene were Joe Pilato is in it. Were Flyboy finds the radio operator dead in the beginning.

even in the shorter version he's in it. it's just that his bit is so quick you'd miss it if u weren't looking. when the other cops are getting on the boat and i think the dopey one is asking everyone if they have cigarettes (this is after he asks roger), you see him as he gets on the boat. he also pops up very briefly earlier in that scene. he has no lines tho. i've been watching this movie since the mid 80s and i never actually noticed him until i read on the internet somewhere that he had a part in 'dawn' and i looked for him. and that was probably only earlier this year or maybe last year.

[LJHolcon]

BTW, if you guys want to get a look at what Romero originally had planned for Captain Rhodes and Day of the Dead (1985), then check out the original screenplay. It is really interesting and VERY different from what we see in the completed film. Some elements of the original screenplay did find it's way into the actual film, but the differences are fascinating. Romero described Rhodes as insane. He's much like what we saw in the finished film, but more so as far as his craziness.

Also, that original screenplay offers up an interesting look at what Romero had planned for the zombies. "Bub" in the actual film version is just a peek at what Romero actually wanted. It is also quite revealing with regard to what we saw in Land of the Dead.

Seriously, it's a good read and very interesting.

DAY OF THE DEAD
(The original script)
by George A. Romero
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Day-of-the-Dead.html

Ok... I'm going to go against the grain again and say I hated this Day screenplay and I'm glad he didn't make it. The "Redcoat" zombies using rifles and acting as zombie soldiers is really silly to me.

[Subgenius]

Ok... I'm going to go against the grain again and say I hated this Day screenplay and I'm glad he didn't make it. The "Redcoat" zombies using rifles and acting as zombie soldiers is really silly to me.

Romero also saw problems with his original screenplay. I think that his budget for the film also likely had an impact on the decisions that he made. I don't mind the zombie mind control stuff that Romero had in the original script. I just like what he did in the actual film much better. Remember that "Bub" was able to shoot a pistol with fair results in the movie. Doctor Logan was on to something. Romero, it seems, intended on revealing more and more about the zombies. I just think that "Bub" should be a rare type of zombie, and not an army of the dead concept like in the original script.

[Dogg Thang]

I'd agree on the unfilmed screenplay. Though, that said, the ease into it in Day with Bub does lend credibility to it but only really followin Day and I guess we got that with the development of zombies in Land.

From there, maybe you could go the trained zombies route and you might buy it but would it actually be good?

Personally, I far prefer the version of Day that was filmed. It would be hard for me to love it any more than I do actually.

[LJHolcon]

Romero also saw problems with his original screenplay. I think that his budget for the film also likely had an impact on the decisions that he made. I don't mind the zombie mind control stuff that Romero had in the original script. I just like what he did in the actual film much better. Remember that "Bub" was able to shoot a pistol with fair results in the movie. Doctor Logan was on to something. Romero, it seems, intended on revealing more and more about the zombies. I just think that "Bub" should be a rare type of zombie, and not an army of the dead concept like in the original script.

In my opinion, Logan's idea was complete bunk for anything other than pure scientific curiosity. In Romero's original script it just seemed kind of silly.

[Creeping Death]

Whatched it yesterday, and it was so brief I could barely make out his face.
But I could tell it was him. :drool: