MovieChat Forums > Day of the Dead (1985) Discussion > The case for Captain Rhodes (he wasn't t...

The case for Captain Rhodes (he wasn't the bad guy.)

posted 15 years ago by user-769
216 replies | jump to latest

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.)

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 Fisher) 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.

While it is stated that the entire operation is civilian based, and the military was there to facilitate the science team -- it's safe to say martial law was in effect. After months and years of the science team failing to produce any applicable results (other than the death of military men, consumption of food and supplies, etc) it's only natural Rhodes, acting in the interest of his men, spoke out against the entire operation.

The very fact Rhodes granted them more time and allowed them to keep their own personal firearms proves he wasn't some tyrannical dictator.

Now, Rhodes was not a particularly good leader. He seemed more logistical than field worthy. For one thing, I'd make the argument he wasn't strict enough. He openly let civilian staff berate him in front of his men, he didn't stick by logical decisions, and he never forced any issue until the end. For instance, his stance on Sarah and Miguel. He should of locked up Miguel for being unstable, and imprisoned Sarah for being insubordinate. If you watch carefully, Dr. Fisher and Rhodes are going over documents without much issue until Sarah walks in and starts problems.

Rhodes was 100% correct when he told them that all they do is use the protection offered by the military, all the while getting his men killed. This was obviously a position held by ALL the soldiers.

With Steele, he obviously didn't like Sarah at all, but their relationship was more of a "You're dumb/You're a bitch" type of irritation. Rickles also had a soft side, you might notice in multiple scenes he had a wedding ring. 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.)

If I were in command, I don't know what exactly I'd have done with Salazar. It was unacceptable for Sarah to sedate him without Rhode's permission. 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.

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.

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.

An argument can be made about Rhodes cowardly behavior at the end. But honestly, all the soldiers suddenly behaved entirely out of character. It's as though Romero was running over-budget and just decided to find a quick way to knock them all off. I know he switched scripts in the beginning due to rating/budget issues, but that ending seemed completely unrealistic. Rhodes was a lot of things but he didn't strike me as a coward. And Steele abandoned his buddy Rickles for really no reason.

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.

[–] Foy518 15 years ago

Great point of view and great post I clearly see your point and even when I was a kid renting this movie non stop not once did I ever not like Rhodes(well being from a armed forces backround I could easily sympathize with his role)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Sorry... everything you said, as well thought out as it is, doesn't change the fact that without response from Mission Command, Rhodes was completely in his authority to take over the operation.

Regarding the assumed futility of Logan's work, no one, not even Sarah believed it had any merit (a surgery that only a hand-full of people can preform and takes hours to complete.)

Regarding Rhodes shooting people? The only thing he did wrong was NOT shooting them. This is an isolated bunker with no more remote command structure, therefore it is now nautical law. This bunker is a ship. What happens on a military ship when ANYONE disobeys orders, or disrespects the captain? Civilian or not, they're going to the brig, and if they're really unlucky, military doctrine allows them to be shot. They're not on "civilian ground." That ground is ordained military. They're in a bunk (aside from that, Martial Law was in effect if you follow the Dawn of the Dead story line.)

[–] ThrashGordon88 15 years ago

lol 'the only thing wrong was NOT shooting them?!' I hope I'm not stuck anywhere with you in the case of a zombie apocalypse!!!!!

My view, on this matter is that the men ceased to be 'soldiers' when the hierarchy of the military, and the government broke down completely. Have any of you read Stephen King's 'The Stand'? After a flu pandemic, where like over 95% of the US (and global) population is wiped out, there is worry from many of the characters as they try to re-build a community, that many survivors no longer recognise the jurisdiction and authority of the United States of America i.e. its laws, constitution and values. Simply, that they are no longer U.S. citizens. Now, from this standpoint, could it not also be argued that, without any support or ratification of proper procedure that these guys are no longer SOLDIERS of the United States Army?

In my opinion, these guys are no longer soldiers, they are just desperate men with guns. And in this scenario the gun = power.

Back to Cpt. Rhodes, he never hints at any long-term goals, only that they should shut down this operation. Which isn't an entirely unreasonable idea, however they have fuel, relative safety and food. Abandoning the base without a well thought out plan seems a little reckless. He is a man under stress, the world is ending around him, he's clinging to a position of power in a militarily unwinnable situation. His actions are entirely understandable under the conditions, thats not to say they're right or honourable however.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Even if you remove the UCMJ, and assume because Sarah and her team were civilians so it wouldn't directly apply -- terms of Martial Law, Command Override, and multiple other military doctrine operations upheld by the US Supreme Court would allow Capt. Rhodes to imprison Sarah at very least, and execute her for instilling "rebellious tendencies" (refusing a lawful order from the base commander while inside a military installation during a time of war, ESPECIALLY when John pulled out his gun, at which point it became mutiny.)

You could make the argument that the civilian team no longer met the requirements the Geneva Convention sets forth to be a "civilian." Since they were working in unit cohesion with an armed group, on military related projects. Once said group began discussing insurrection, you could also make the point they became agent saboteurs and were lawfully permitted to meet the same fate as a soldier not wearing a uniform in combat to conceal his identity, or even as a spy (using a position outside of military conscience to disrupt operations of a military installation.)

[–] Caim 15 years ago

Agreed.

I loved the scene where Rhodes said, "Those are my men in there, my men. THOSE ARE MY MEN IN THERE!". I think that scene made Rhodes finally hit a breaking point and started taking action, finally.

Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Exactly... up until that point Rhodes was too lenient with them. But when he realized what was going on, he had enough.

[–] ThrashGordon88 15 years ago

haha, for the record ffnerdity I am not nationalistic per say.

Cheap shot? what the hell if someone is going to shoot me, because of some archaic honour system or because I don't conform to their military/political beliefs well I'll stay the hell away from them, don't worry about that.

''Nothing is dead as long as one believes in it.''

Yeah, thats what the Neo-Nazis say about an 'impending' fourth reich.

''You need to move out of whatever country you live in if that is how you feel.''

I can't help that I was born here, and I'm not going to go into my beliefs on land ownership and politics. Lets just say I love the culture, the languages and the actual LAND and many of the people. I might die to protect it, because I believe in a more spiritual connection to the earth from where you came, and because I need to live somewhere, may as well be here.

''I would consider you a traitor.''
To what? Your political or Nationalistic beliefs? Those are pretty insignificant in terms of survival of the human race.

What's with all this military jargon? These people are just human beings, they want to survive and should be working together. Unfortunately, some people aren't forward thinking enough to let go of their past alliegences, differences and work together. Having a gun pointed at you and arguing about whos in command of a defunct US army (Rhodes may have seniority by that time) and an obsolete goverment program seems kinda pointless. I think Romero would agree.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-769 15 years ago

And someone such as yourself, who obviously doesn't respect military doctrine/rules/regulation wouldn't have volunteered for this operation. Sarah did, and as such was agreeing to be liable to them.

The threatening to shoot her wasn't because of an 'archaic honor system,' it's because she openly disrespected the CO and that leads to mutiny/open insurrection. It has to be dealt with before it spirals out of control (and obviously it did.)

Regarding the survival of the human race, I don't really see where the science team was assisting their, other than in getting the soldiers killed.

And for the record, the science team had guns, too, until Rhodes discovered they'd been feeding his men to zombies.

[–] ThrashGordon88 15 years ago

guys, guys!

I never said I don't respect military doctrine in general. What I'm saying in this movie, is that there NO LONGER IS A MILITARY, a goverment, hell a society. The machine has broke down, the system has failed. Rhodes command is a charade, a hollow nothing. It is just a delusion. What chain of command? Hes a tyrant, he wants to be in control. He's like someone who's just taken over just before a crushing military defeat, and now wants to be treated in the same way as the previous head honcho, business as usual! Some of you have implied how bad ass he is, his camaraderie with the troops; ''Those were MY men in there'' Yeah, then he drives off and leaves them to die. Is this something, that a CO would do. A CO worth anything?

Yeah, because the logical solution is to shoot people who disagree with you. You see, democracy gives a facade of freedom, society means we must all play nice. We disagree, as we're doing here. Our beliefs are probably so ingrained, that although we're debating things nicely as all democratic people are expected to do, we'll probably never agree on this subject. Now, we might say: Agree to disagree. However, if democracy and civilised society were to, as in Day of The Dead disappear... what would happen? Simply put, society would probably revert to something similar to the dark ages, where, if someone disagreed with something you did you would get rid of them. Comprimise would probably only occur if you were very close to the said individual, owed them a favour or they were of equal power in terms of military, influence etc etc. So yes, as in many Post-Apocalyptic scenarios, Rhodes actions are pretty accurate of what would generally happen I'd say (again, that doesn't justify them imo though).

''Regarding the survival of the human race, I don't really see where the science team was assisting their, other than in getting the soldiers killed.''

Yeah, I agree. I don't support either side particularly (everyone in this movie is pretty unlikeable!!), but I do know that in a situation like that if you don't work together, bad things will happen very soon for everyone. Captain Rhodes doesn't help by introducing a Zero Tolerance policy and further damaging the relations between the two (three if you count radio dude and flyboy the 2nd) factions.

Jeeeeebus..... lol. Funny thing is, I actually think Rhodes is pretty cool (well, interesting and entertaining from the character side of things anyway. And I'm always a sucker for the guy who runs away; Burke from Aliens, what a legend!!).

So yeah. um.
You guys still think Rhodes is alright then?

[–] user-769 15 years ago

When I said you don't respect military doctrine, I don't mean you make fun of it anything. I mean you don't see the point of it. And if you don't see the point of it you wouldn't have joined the military in the first place.

In the military, you lose the right to disobey without consequence. And your assertion the chain of command was gone is an assumption. They simply said their radios couldn't reach DC anymore, not that it wasn't there.

[–] chelms224 15 years ago

just browsing the post here and judging the whole chain of command geneva convention ect ect and to the main topic of rhodes not being a bad guy deal..he was right by taking an alternative approach from what major cooper who apparently was more sympathetic to the scientists needs. rhodes however thinks along the same line i would, they're dead plain and simple the survivors are in the minority there isnt much chance of stopping the infection spread and seeing that the soldiers were doing the grunt work for the scientists it would have made more sense to abandon the post and do what john suggested find an island so on so forth. leave logan if he chose to stay take what they could and forget the actual orders. im all for doing what im ordered to do but given the circumstances having no contact with higher authority and beating a dead horse its best to live than die for a lost cause. also that jet ranger helicopter wouldnt have held the remainding soldiers and john when they planned on bailing anyway one would have had to stay behind my guess would be torres.

im not down in the cave for my health im down here on orders

[–] AlbertWeskerCVX 15 years ago

Great posts here, I love the discussion.
I also kinda felt that the soldiers werent as bad as when i first saw the movie.
And the scientists arent as good as they first appear to be...

"Every day humans come one step closer to self-destruction." - Albert Wesker

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] isamuelson 15 years ago

Have we forgotten 30 minutes into the movie when Sarah got up to leave, Rhodes told her to sit down or "So help me God I'll have you shot".

When she refused, he then told Steele to do it. When Steele jokingly pointed his finger at her and said "Bang", Rhodes then pulled his gun on Steele and told him to shoot her or he'd shoot Steele.

Yeah, he was a nice guy. I guess that's why Bub pointed the empty gun at him and pulled the trigger. Even Bub knew this guy was bad news.

He states that he was following orders, but his orders were to facilitate the team, not order them around. It was a civilian operation, NOT a military operation. They were there to help protect the civilians.

Now, Frankenstein was wrong in using the commander for experiments. The guy was crazy anyways, but he also was on a path to hopefully finding a way to contain the zombies.

In the end, everyone was at wits end, which to me was the complete underlying story. The world has lost controls and people are finally turning against each other because the situation is hopeless.

So, in the end, there really weren't any "good" guys in this at all. The military was using it's "orders" (which are pretty much moot at this point as it can be assumed that the White House is no longer around) and tried to use those "orders" to circumvent what was a civilian operation.

The civilians were trying to do a job to find a way to contain the zombies, even though Frankenstein made some extremely wrong decisions (killing the Captain, feeding the dead soldiers to the zombies, etc).

All semblance of sanity and order is gone. People have to start their lives over, including law and order.

One thing to remember is how John explains to Sarah how Rhodes is human (after she exclaims he can't be so inhuman as to have Steele shoot her) and that is what scares him.

John in the end sees the world the way it is and understands everyone else has a different view on how they see the world and it's time to move on. Start life anew because the current life as we know it (law and order) is gone.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

You're assuming Washington is gone, and Rhodes was in his right legally to assume military control under that situation. When you can't reach HQ, CO can enact Command Override.

[–] isamuelson 15 years ago

How about telling John to get his "black a** out here". Why did he have to go so far as to tell John he was black? Also, why did he tell Steele to knock some sense into his "jungle bunny head"? He also called Miguel a *beep* if I remember correctly. Is that how the good guy talks? Sounds like Rhodes was a little racist to me. But, people seem to gloss over this fact as well as my point 30 minutes into the movie where he was going to have Steele shoot Sarah just for getting up and leaving when he isn't even in charge of the civilians. It was not a military operation and it never was.

Rhodes is FAR from being a nice guy. He was the bad guy, through and through. John was probably the best person there.

In Day, they talk about losing contact with Washington, so the lines are down or else, the worse has happened: our elected officials have abandoned ship.

Besides, even by the end of Dawn of the Dead, the TV signals were gone, etc. And, if Washington was still around, then why couldn't the get ahold of them? They had all the equipment to do so. I mean, it WAS a major storage bunker of everything, from tax records to negatives of your favorite films (per John).

Look at it this way. When the elevator comes down and all the Zombies come stumbling in, what does Rhodes do? He runs for the nearest golf cart and leaves his men behind.

What did John do? After he overtakes Rhodes, he goes back into the fray to help Billy and Sarah out. Instead of running towards safety, he goes into the tunnels where the zombies are, forgoing his own safety to find Billy and Sarah.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Seriously, who the hell cares what Rhodes called John. Lincoln used the n-word. Was he the bad guy in the civil war? God... everyone is a racist now-a-days. I called a guy retarded today, you know why? When you insult someone, you say something you think will make them mad.

Had he said "you *beep* n******" then whipped him or strung him up, maybe you'd have a point.

[–] isamuelson 15 years ago

He also called him a Jungle Bunny. Even the actor said Rhodes was a bad guy, period.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

An insult is designed to piss people off. Did Rhodes DO anything to suggest he was a racist?

No.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShutterShocked 15 years ago

Despite fear of oversimplifying the issue, I must ask how could you ever justify shooting an unarmed man? I guess this all depends on your moral code, but I don't think military doctrine is any sort of moral code (sorry guys).

Rhodes was a fascist. Of course he did what he thought was right. Everyone does what they think is right (assuming the screenplay is well conceived) or at least what they don't think is immoral. This was never a question, so why debate it? The question, I guess, could be if you think his actions were in the best interest of the group. I don't think that's a hard question to answer either.

Who said there needs to be a definite protagonist and antagonist? Life doesn't work that way, so why should the movies?

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Rhodes was a fascist? He let people who openly disobeyed him have guns, he never forced them to obey a single order except for one time, and even then it's debatable if he would have done anything. When he demanded results or he'd "pack up the operation" and they didn't provide anything, he still said "Well ok, you've got more time."

So... he was a Fascist because he yelled all the time. Well... I have to say, when I was in the military there was apparently a Fascist infestation (telling people what to do is the job of the CO.)

[–] isamuelson 15 years ago

I was in the military and orders were orders as long as they were lawful.

Shooting a person because they're leaving a meeting is NOT a lawful order and any court would agree that Rhodes was out of line, especially if he followed through on shooting Steele if he didn't shoot Sarah. Besides, as was stated, he had NO jurisdiction over the civilians.

However, he DID shoot Ted for NO reason. Ted had NOTHING to do with the feeding of the soldiers to Bub. In fact, both he and Sarah were completely shocked and disgusted by it. So, shooting Ted (who had NOTHING to do with the killing of the soldiers) in cold blood is what a bad guy wouldn't do? Nothing that occurred before that justifies what he did to Ted.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

If you were in the military, you know the punishment civilians with weapons and no uniform suffer when involved in insurrection during martial law.

[–] isamuelson 15 years ago

Please tell me how Ted was involved with insurrection? They had just found out that Bub was being fed dead soldiers. They didn't have any idea that was happening.

Then, Rhodes shoots Ted who didn't do anything wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Martial law or not, Ted did NOT deserve to be shot in the head because someone else refused to do something. Maybe shooting the person who refused to do anything, but Rhodes was a chicken and chose to shoot someone who was helpless and wasn't putting up a fight.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

He couldn't shoot John else the helicopter was useless. Ted may have no participated in the action, all Rhodes knew for sure was the science team was actively working against him and had already pulled weapons on him once.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThrashGordon88 15 years ago

''What you THINK is irrelevant . Military law is indisputable.''

oh dear. Yes, well the military law in Nazi Germany stated that Einsatzkommandos could go round and kill innocent civilians. Is it alright, then, by your logic. Because it was a Military order? Same with Martial law, in this case the goverment who imposed it have been dissolved, surely the laws die with the government and legal system?

If we're going to play this by the book (this is getting way too technical and 'law' focused, you guys are drowning the discussion in beaurocracy) surely, even under martial law these 'soldiers' are still bound by the rules of the Geneva Convention with regards to their treatment of civilians?

[–] user-769 15 years ago

They were armed and working with a military body, they don't meet the qualification for civilian. And technically when they turned the guns on the soldiers they were enemy combatants under no flag or marking, thus were not covered by the Geneva Convention at all.

Second, you don't know the government was dissolved. And it if were dissolved, then it's up to the next societal leader to establish a new code.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AlbertWeskerCVX 15 years ago

I enjoy your posts, Full Frontal Nerdity and user-769
It's good reading well thought out posts

"Every day humans come one step closer to self-destruction." - Albert Wesker

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Thanks, I think this is a fascinating discussion. I had no idea it would end up so in depth!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rockhound6165 15 years ago

For starters people, it's a movie, lighten up. Now, as for Rhodes being a bad guy and putting some of the military bashing going on aside, when you're sworn into the military(or law enforcement for that matter) you are bound by an oath to protect and defend the U.S. against all enemies foreign and domestic. In this case it's flesh eating ghouls(they are not zombies in the literal sense but flesh eating ghouls). What the operation was at the mine is never really revealed or explained only that Dr. Frankenstein was performing some pretty radical experiments on the ghouls to understand why they want to eat live flesh and somehow try to stop it. When he gave his summation that the living dead to living ration was 400,000:1, one doesn't need to be a math whiz to ascertain that whatever the science team was trying to accomplish was to put it mildly, futile. Rhodes understood that and when the last commanding officer who was either compliant or sympathetic to what the science team was doing died, Rhodes took over and decided that discretion is the better part of valor and that everyone should just pack up and get out of Dodge. The science team differed in that opinion and even went so far as to convince Rhodes to stay and have his men still help out which eventually went to crap when Miguel's leash snapped killing one soldier and rendering Miguel useless after losing his arm which had to be amputated after being bitten.

Now, that said, Rhodes is the new C.O. for better or worse. And being the *beep* that he is, he does get somewhat drunk with his new found power but he still isn't a villain by any stretch. The fact that Frankenstein would use the corpses of newly killed soldiers as either guinea pigs or worse yet, dinner for Bub really makes him the real villain. Now as for the military, there is no point where you throw up your hands and say, "the leadership is dead so we'll just disband". There is still a need for order and a squad of trained soldiers is far better at handling a situation like that than a bunch of untrained intellectuals. And when these silly experiments gets another soldier killed, to Rhodes, that was the last straw. Apparently many soldiers were killed trying to round up subjects for Frankenstein's experiments and Rhodes had had enough and went over the edge when he saw a cooler filled with dead men in uniform after seeing Bub eating a bucket of guts. I would have shot Frankenstein as well. As for the rape idea, he never implied rape, only that once Miguel was out of the way someone else could hit her up preferably Rhodes himself. Hey, 1 girl with about 10 guys it's bound to get a little tense.

When you steal from Peter and give to Paul, you will always have the support of Paul.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Yep... that pretty much sums it up.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThrashGordon88 15 years ago

dude these two guys really aren't worth arguing with anymore, they're the type of people who will not stop 'debating' and going round in circles until the other party have left in disbelief/disgust/who cares. Which is precisely what I'm doing in after this final, post.

I mean, arguing with people, whose number include such wonderful members of society as to utter:

''If you were a survivor of an apocalypse i would stab you while you slept and watch you bleed out.''

Remarkable. The 'watch' part really makes the difference to me, beautiful, just beautiful.

''Regarding Rhodes shooting people? The only thing he did wrong was NOT shooting them. This is an isolated bunker with no more remote command structure, therefore it is now nautical law. This bunker is a ship. What happens on a military ship when ANYONE disobeys orders, or disrespects the captain? Civilian or not, they're going to the brig, and if they're really unlucky, military doctrine allows them to be shot. They're not on "civilian ground." That ground is ordained military.''

This. This. WHAT? I still don't get it, you are so obsessed by military doctrine, military this, military that. You hide behind these laws, to justify the murder of civilians. You brave son of a gun. Condoning, nay, praising the actions of a deluded, ignorant, racist, power-hungry, cowardly tyrant who rules with an iron fist, jee, I wonder what kind of government you'd like to see in your country? No, on second thought, don't answer that.

''And if they're really unlucky, idiot doctrine allows them to be shot.'' Unlucky?! UNLUCKY? What kind of state of mind, are you in, that you think thats an appropriate term to describe being executed? 'Oh her? Well she got shot because she believed captain rhodes was a twat, yeah, bit unlucky really.'

Have long since given up on nerdity who among other things, thinks I have no idea about my OWN morals, believes in a so stereotypically red-neck I thought it didn't actually exist outside of movies way, that I'm a terrorist because I disagree with some of his views. And believes that, after a country has ceased to exist politically, culturally, militarily and economically, that its laws still stand, with a fluttering flag behind them, and the moans of the million decaying dead, lifting their broken arms to salute the old Stars and Stripes with a tear, in their puss-ridden eyes.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

You can't argue what he did was illegal, then in the next breath condemn me for providing the law that makes it permissible. I also don't believe I have attacked you, or anyone else.

Is what he did immoral, or illegal. This is key to the debate. I completely agree, it's extremely strict and not something I wanted to be subjected to, which is why I got out when my term was up.

I also have no intention of joining back up. By refusing to work for or with the military, I am not subjected to these laws. I am a vehement defender of liberty, I assure you, and if the military came into your home and tried to tell you what to do I would fight them tooth and nail along side you.

BUT if you joined the military and put your name on the dotted line, or if you even took a contracting gig that subjected you knowingly to military command... you made the decision, the military/.gov didn't make it for you. If there is something in this movie that suggests Sarah was forced into the bunker to work with the military, then I will retract my point.

At the end of the day, however, there is nothing to suggest they were all anything but volunteers. And as a former soldier who did read his contract, and as an avid study of military law (as we all may be someday forced to stand up against it) I can tell you what Rhodes did was within the law, and more to the point was done with a purpose of retaining control of his command.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-769 15 years ago

I didn't attack you, and I'd hardly call my responses volatile.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] darylclaytonis 15 years ago

Interesting thoughts, but he showed he was never a good soldier in the end when he abandoned his men. You could argue this was after the *beep* hit the fan, but he should've still had his military principles regarding his men.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ILikeMoviesAndGames 15 years ago

What everyone failed to realize, is that they all had a common goal: to stop the infection. Rhodes believe in violence, Logan believed in training, and Sarah believed in a cure.

Ironically, what failed to occur is that in each viewpoint, they all have limitations against an ever growing number of zombies. According to Logan, the odds are 400,000 to 1. So for Rhodes's plan, it would require massive amount of ammunition. Logan's plan would involve a risky surgery and/or a large number of people to capture and train the zombies. And Sarah's cure, if she finds it, will mean she'd have a limited amount of chemical.

So each plan fails one way or another. However, I agree that Rhodes was a bit aggressive with his standpoint, but that's how you got to make it.

As for Rhodes caring about his men, I disagree with it. I personally think he talks a lot, but runs away when the situation seems hopeless. So I don't think he was noble as you pointed out, as in the end of the movie, he ran away and left everyone to die.

[–] matthewgeary87 15 years ago

Rhodes was an ahole pure and simple. Like everyone there was stressed. How can it be justified him threatening the science team like that? and I also recall him saying "I will leave you, and your high solluting *beep* friends to rot in this sewer" something along those lines. He had no intention of taking the science team. He felt they were of no use to him and their work was pointless. He killed Fisher in cold blood. I'll allow Logans death because he was feeding Rhodes men to Bud. But all he did was say he wanted to leave the base and screw the opperation. Im sorry but how was he NOT a bad guy? Theres no way he can be justified. If he behaved nice and let the team do their work everything would have been fine. He coulda said me and my men will go and raid a drug store and get u medicines and chemicals to do more work. They could have searched for a better location. But no all he did was threaten Sarah (arguably) with rape and treat everyone including his soldiers like crap.

[–] Storm_Thunder_Infantry 15 years ago

Rhodes was particularly stressed since the military still believed in the chain of command present before they ended up in the bunker and I recall, Rhodes only came in command recently as there was a higher officer with the rank of Major among them but was killed before the events of the movie.

With the same typical post-apopcalypse stress he was facing with everyone else, he also was now in command of everyone and had to keep things under control and on top of that, suffering from frustration of being isolated with not a single sign of other survivors joining him and the others.

And the scientists work was actually pointless. They had been trying to find a 'cure' for months and had no favorable results and Rhodes was getting tired of constant failures. Fisher was killed for 2 reasons; he was assisting Logan's research and Rhodes that time had gone quite insane. It would have been advisable to leave the base and forget about finding an impossible cure.

Rhodes also was not in a position to have more of his men killed or in certain danger (its implied there were more soldiers but were all killed and some of their corpses were fed to Bud). He would have threatened Sarah with rape mostly out of frustration and anger.

'treating his soldiers like crap' is mostly because he was an inefficient officer who just recently came into command and a position he was not happy about (possibly due to earlier experience in the outbreak?).

If I was in Rhodes' position, helping the scientist team would have been completely out of hand if they hadn't found a cure for months despite the time and help you gave and one of them was feeding your dead comrades to an experiment.

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Yep, that's a lot how I look at it. No one was bloodless, but Rhodes was constantly being antagonized.

[–] AlbertWeskerCVX 15 years ago

I feel, like some others said in this thread, That rhodes was kind of out of character at the last part of the movie.
Like User-769 said, it almost felt like Romero said at a certain point "Okej, its time to kill the soldiers now"

"Every day humans come one step closer to self-destruction." - Albert Wesker

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Hell, look at how Rhodes died. He was screaming profanities and telling them to choke on it. That's not the kind of guy who runs from combat.

[–] Storm_Thunder_Infantry 15 years ago

Romero probably had little time left to have the movie scheduled to be finished and rated. I did feel the death of Rhodes was rushed a bit.

Rhodes upon the time of his death, was driven insane and plus given the gunshot wounds he suffered from Bud earlier, he would have been brave to get away as far as possible (hence why thats not the kind of guy who runs from combat attitude).

We see Rhodes has a very strong dislike for the zombies since his comrades were killed by them and presumebly he lost more during the earlier stages of the zombie crisis (a little after Dawn of the Dead?). Of course he would be screaming profanities at the zombies even if he was being torn in two.

He hated the zombies with his guts =)

Let the world change the punishment for sexual-related crimes to execution

[–] sharkattack1978 15 years ago

Yeah but don't forget that he left the other soldiers to meet their deaths. He just got in the golf buggy and drove away leaving steele, Rickles and torrez to fight for their lives. Even after Torrez and Rickles meet their gruesome end, Rhodes locks steele out with the zombies and when steele bangs on the door, rhodes doesn't help him, so yes he was the bad guy. all he thought about at that moment was himself. Well we all know what happened to him.......CHOKE ON EM

SharkattackUK- "Shoot me again, I ain't dead yet!"

[–] Jmc489 15 years ago

Really? He wasn't the bad guy? Did you miss the scenes where he started blowing the scientists away, forced people to go into the zombie filled silo, and locked his own men out of the corridor when the zombies invaded?

[–] user-769 15 years ago

Did you read anything or just the title? All of that is explained.