Things That Make You Go Hmmmm....

I think it was just Romero's little bit of humor.
Just look at the look on John's face as the thing goes snapping by. Just a little bit o' levity IMO.

Because mangles zombies would cost more to make...just kidding. Honestly, if these zombies are pretty much all that's left...then they revived intact. Towards the end of the time is taking place, remember that there is not many humans/food left, so anyone they find now would be ripped apart and not much would be left. if these zombies became zombies early on, there would not be a lot of damage to them by other zombies since there were more people left around back then.

The more zombies there are, the less mangled ones you see because they would eat most of their victims and pretty much nothing would be left to revive.

O think he was that fucked up crazy. He used himself as bait to screw over all the "assholes" that screwed with him...and his friends too because he didn't want them to be subjected to abuse , so maybe he thought of it as a mercy killing. Plus, Miguel probably heard Rhodes and the men put Sarah and Mcdermott in the corral and figured they were dead anyway.

Maybe he just wanted revenge.

That's what I think.

Wow, way to phrase a cogent argument. Now I see these movies in a completely different light. And you're right, those military guys and the mad scientist dude way weren't idiot moron bastards. They might have been moron idiots, but bastards? No wayy, my man. Damn these movies provoke some mad thinkin'!

I take all three of Romero's Living Dead movies as completely different animals.
I look at them completely different than I would look at true "sequels."

I don't consider them sequels, but stand alone movies that happen to take place in a certain universe.

True some might be better than others to some ( I love em all), but Dawn and Day follow the reality that was established by NOTLD, not a direct story.

That's why these movies are so much fun - they take a central idea, but can go off on different tangents or stand alone stories.

So when someone says "I like _____ better than the rest," then cool, they can have it because as i said before they are three separate movies to me, not sequels.

That's just one of the many ways it's superior to its sequel. Nothing punches you in the gut like that in Day of the Dead.

You forget. When you die, you shit yourself. You lose muscle control.
Thus, if your a zombie, then lever is switched to full on.

What do you feel about the ending of Day of the Dead?

I've heard critics and fans alike say that they think Sarah, John and McDermott were killed...the zombie in the copter actually happening, and the island ending is where they go after they die.

I personally think that is bullshit.

The zombie in the copter was the dream, the ending is real. They made it.

Any other thoughts?

The zombie in the chopper is a pretty good, cruel scare, but then, what? How much of everything that came before was just a dream? She was dreaming everything as she really remembered it right up to that point? I'm not complaining; as an ending it "feels" right--you want something a little lighter and more optimistc after all the gut-munching grimness. But at the same time if you give this ending a moment's thought it seems a little too flimsy and lightweight a note for this near-epic series of horror movies to close on.

I think they made it and the zombie in the chopper was a dream. It certaintly makes dramatic sense scripting wise as they've already set up Sarah's dreams earlier in the film a couple of times.
As for the question of the bats (yes, I have to go back to it ) In the doc on the DVD some of the actors mentioned that there were bats down there in the old mines so I think Romero just thought it'd be cool to put one or two, albeit fakey looking ones, in the background.
As for Miguel and the end. The man was obviuosly mentally fried and I think he thought it was all over--for the world. With the crucifix and all I'm assuming he was supposed to be religious and he did just seemed disgusted by what had happened tot he world. I'm not saying it was some big religious decision by any way shape or form, but I think it adds to his "damned" mindset and I kind of always took his opening the gate and them using the lift the same way as the Frankenstein Monster saying "we all belong dead" in The Bride of Frankenstien. Kind of, "that's it, it's over, I'm ending it now for all of us."

Good point.

In one scene you see in big white letters: hell as our main character wakes up and is in the cottage.

I figured this one out later that he was seeing the incomplete message they were laying out on the ground for the plane.

Dont zombies still decay even as the live. I know in the god forsaken COTLD that happenes

[quote]Englebert:
It always seemed to be to be a light ending for the series also.

But maybe Romero just wanted to show that it's the simple, little things that go on. After all the carnage and build up all the heros wanted to do was get away. They did, and the ending could show the simpleness of this huge act.

Also, it always seemed to me to be a little anti-climactic, but for a reason. Since Romero scaled down his original version of day, maybe he always intended the movies to be continued.

We always hear the Living Dead series referred as a Trilogy by everyone but Romero hinself. And if he is trying to get another one going, then leaving the ending of Day closer and intimate gives him the freedom to continue.

But I do agree that when it came out, the ending is very abrupt, the action seems to stop after the dream copter zombie and then *bang* they are relaxing on an island.
You're really pumped up for the heros at this point and ready to see a more involved escape, but...

That's one of the most bullshit ideas I've heard associated with Day of the Dead. However, it does suggest a potentially much more interesting alternative interpretation of this movie's otherwise lame and disappointing conclusion.

How about: The serene final shots with Sarah and company living it up in their island paradise aren't meant to be taken at face value. Rather, those images reflect Sarah's dying thoughts, a seductive fever dream of peace and comfort conjured up by whatever's left of her rational mind as a way of shielding her from any awareness of the agony and madness of her death. So while we see her sitting contentedly on the sunny beach, with the other guys off catching dinner in the background, in reality she's still back there with all the zombies, dying on the ground beside the helicopter, her throat torn open and her guts being yanked out of her belly.

Now, some people believe that as your mind approaches death, your perception of time gradually alters and stretches out, so that your final moments extend into eternity--thus granting you a sort of eternal life. What is in your mind when you die is where you will be forever after, amen. This kind of fits in with the interpretation above--Sarah dies seeing herself and her friends on the island, so, in a sense, it is her paradise, or Heaven, or what you will. Her ticking the days off on the calender now seems to reflect this state of permanence, of a timeless existence confined to a dream. There's also a nice symmetry at work here: looked at this way, the movie opens and closes on Sarah's dreams--in the opening dream there's a sense of being permanently trapped, in the conclusion a sense of being permanently free.

Did Romero ever suggest this as a possible interpretation? It pretty much just occurred to me a few minutes ago, but now it seems almost obvious. Anyway, if so, I think it's certainly a much more interesting way to read the end of this movie than just taking it on face value.

I can definitely understand that as an intrepreted ending. It would make sense if that was what Romero intended, but since Romero's Living Dead movies are (fairly)reality based, I don't see him putting that type of spirital/implied ending in.

I think that is the beauty of the ending of Day of the Dead...I might not like how it just ends in the middle of the escape from zombies action, but we are all free to intrepret it as we see fit.

I haven't watched day with the director's commentary yet, but I wonder if Romero mentions anything about it?