How come Captain Rhodes was a bad guy?
-
SteveResin — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 10:27 AM)
Of course he was a bad guy. He became the big bossman because the Major had died, and one of the first things he does is attempt to have Sarah executed because she wouldn't sit at the meeting any longer. He executes Fisher in cold blood to force John to fly the whirly bird, he throws Sarah and McDermott into the zombie infested mine, and he even deserts his men when he leaves them stranded and runs away on the buggy. The guy was a cowardly, megalomaniac dictator. A fantastic character in the movie for sure but he's the movie's villain.
Duty Now For The Future -
The_Phantom_Critic — 10 years ago(December 29, 2015 11:33 PM)
Rhodes had the best idea in one way. That was that they should just leave. I always wondered if Rhodes wasn't "compensating". He was a little guy who for months had lived in the shadow of the Major, (Who looked to be a big guy-maybe Steele's size-on Logan's slab). Then all the sudden he's put in charge of this "monkey-farm", which by that point would seem more and more like a farce. Think about it, the greatest brains in the world, with the most exotic of equipment and research materials at their disposal couldn't figure out the cause of the Living Dead. What chance does a rag-tag group of crackpots and burnt-out research doctors with antiquated equipment and the most basic and limited of chemicals have? "Stone knives and bear skins" as Mr. Spock would have said.
Rhodes, like many
Dead
characters, cracked under the pressure and had a helluva bad idea about how to go about leaving the complex. And he had no idea where they were going to go once they left. Flying out of there would be a one way trip and they'd better be sure about where they were going to go before they even got started.
Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green Day. -
Daniel11111 — 10 years ago(December 30, 2015 10:10 AM)
I'm trying to say that up to the point where he abandoned his men when the lift was lowering, Captain Rhodes seemed to be spot on with most of his frustration. The men didn't understand what the scientists were doing, and the scientists weren't exactly convincing themselves. Frankenstein even wanted to "make them behave" and they all laughed, rightfully so because even if it worked, the question is how would they apply said treatment to the rest of the zombies? It seems like Captain Rhodes wanted to know what the heck he was doing and nobody could really explain that.
It seems like everyone was losing it and I'm just surprised that Romero chose the side of the scientists to "live" simply because Sarah was a woman. If I had a say in the story, I would have kept Rhodes same behavior up to the scene where the lift was dropping. Instead of abandoning his men, Captain Rhodes rally them and fight back. -
The_Phantom_Critic — 10 years ago(January 02, 2016 01:40 AM)
I'm trying to say that up to the point where he abandoned his men when the lift was lowering, Captain Rhodes seemed to be spot on with most of his frustration. The men didn't understand what the scientists were doing, and the scientists weren't exactly convincing themselves. Frankenstein even wanted to "make them behave" and they all laughed, rightfully so because even if it worked, the question is how would they apply said treatment to the rest of the zombies? It seems like Captain Rhodes wanted to know what the heck he was doing and nobody could really explain that.
One of the things George likes to do in his
Dead
films is show what happens when the status quo is upset and how different groups of people react to the situation.
Despite the fact that Rhodes may have had some good ideas in the beginning, by the time Miguel decides to commit mass suicide Rhodes has pretty much jumped his trolley, mentally speaking. Being faced with possible imminent death while being completely defenseless just exposed his core self to the fore. That of being a loud-mouthed coward with delusions of grandeur. He cut and ran and left his men to die. Enough said.
In the case of Sarah and Fisher, they were trying to maintain this ideal that things could still be fixed. The Holy Grail of Zombiedom was somewhere under the microscope and if they just kept plugging at it they'd find it and everything could go back to the way it was. Dr. Logan was the extreme of this group. While he did realize the futility of their situation, he was pushing as hard as he could for what he thought, (Being by this point well on his way to the Land of Insanity), was the next best thing - Making them "behave".
And yes, that was a lunatic idea. #1. Bub was an exception to the rule as far as aggressive behavior goes. #2. Even if Bub's type wasn't so rare, (As was more implied in Romero's earlier versions of
Day
), it would still take generations to achieve and at the cost of probably a great deal of life.
It seems like everyone was losing it and I'm just surprised that Romero chose the side of the scientists to "live" simply because Sarah was a woman. If I had a say in the story, I would have kept Rhodes same behavior up to the scene where the lift was dropping. Instead of abandoning his men, Captain Rhodes rally them and fight back.
That's just Romero. George is a self-admitted pacifist who hates guns and doesn't really have a lot of nice things to say about the military or government in general. Sarah is actually an "uncomfortable" character for me. In Romero's original script there were two female leads, a Ripley style commando named Sarah who's group had been living "on the road" since the outbreak, (5 years earlier!), and Dr. Mary Henried, a female scientist who was a member of the underground staff at the island base where most of the film was set. When Romero was forced to cut his script back he took those two characters, put them in a blender and created the Sarah we know. And to me she at times comes off as a "Mary-Sue" who's had a little horsesh!t thrown on her. She's a clumsy and often ham-fistedly written character who just doesn't translate for me. Franny in
Dawn
was much more believable and relatable.
At the time
Day of the Dead
was made there was a lot of discussion and debate going between the scientific community and the military complex about the folly of a full scale nuclear war, fostering a kind of Us vs. Them mentality, (This is about when Carl Sagan made his famous "waist deep in gasoline" analogy about nuclear war on TV). This was in part due do to the Reagan Administration beginning a military build up against the Soviet Union. At this time there were several other films such as
Threads
and
The Day After
that dealt with the subject head-on. And on the Anchor Bay copy of the DVD I have Romero even mentions in the commentary that this was on his mind when he was rewriting the script. Also,
Day
is a watered-down version of it's original form. In the original script there was a great deal more to do with classism and again people who've had/ have power doing all they can not only to hang onto that power but exploit it for their own pleasure at every turn. And you can still kinda see that classism/ hierarchy/ caste system with the scientists/ army guys/ "oddballs" (John and Billy).
Lastly, in the original script Rhodes did actually have a "rally the troops" moment towards the end but he still ended up getting gunned down by Bub.
Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green Day. -
view_and_review — 10 years ago(January 03, 2016 09:33 PM)
I love the discussion and I'm with you Daniel. Rhodes may have been boisterous in making his point but it was a valid point nonetheless. I don't even necessarily disagree with him pulling a gun on Sarah at the beginning because you can't have people doing their own thing. Eventually he proved to be harmful but it could have gone another way.
-
sillyspaghetti — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 03:23 PM)
Hi Daniel! I thought Rhodes was right to start with, but lost the plot and messed everything up at the end and was incredibly selfish. However, I love Joe Pilato and wish he hadn't died like that, lol.
I know that the script that appeared on film wasn't the film Romero wanted. I wonder what his original script entailed? If it was up to me, I'd have had Rhodes as the good guy, broken down the door (like the originally scripted Ripley-like character) and rescued Joe!
-
suicidea — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 03:29 PM)
A lot of people start threads like "Rhodes was the good guy" simply for trolling. But since you guys seem to be having an intelligent discussion, I'll reply.
I thought Rhodes was a bastard from the beginning. He was scared to death, which was understandable, but his fear was almost at the breaking point since the first time we see him. He's constantly talking about two things: "I wanna get the hell out of here" and "I rule this place, not you." Power-tripping and panicking fear are not a good combination.
Notice that he's always stiff and extremely nervous when he's around zombies, even when they are chained. Even seeing the scientists walking around them (and one of them is a woman) does not help him relax a bit.
He was also the thickest, I have to say. He doesn't know what sicence is, he wants a magic formula. Logan and Sarah were working on very long shots, but he didn't even want to listen: He wanted some solid solution right there, right then, otherwise he'd have a tantrum (repeatedly adding "I'm running this place, Frankenstein!")
And he keeps saying he wants to get out of there. Someone points out that it's implausible or impossible, he shuts up, then two minutes later again, "I wanna get on the next train out of here."
He has no problem killing an innocent man, and naturally no problem leaving his men too.
He didn't have any qualities necessary to be a leader.
Another point is that (although I'm sure this wasn't a deliberate choice by Romero to make a point, but I'll say it nevertheless) even though all soldiers have given up shaving, either due to having no real reason for it, or for limited supply of water, Rhodes still shaves, always has a clean face. So he always tries to "look" like a soldier, because he knows inside that he's not one. He is, in one word, a scared boy in a man's body, unsure of what to do with this responsibility he suddenly has to carry.
Pilato was absolutely great, though. In a film with some of the goriest scenes ever made until then, he's what stays in your mind more than anything.
Never be complete. -
McQualude — 8 years ago(September 15, 2017 07:37 AM)
The problem with Rhodes is that the portrayal of his character is far more hysterical than his actions, dialog, or motivation. The world was dying, his men were dying, and he wanted to know what they were dying for. But the scientists acted indifferent to the sacrifice and didn't treat the soldiers with respect. Rhodes was an unlikable asshole, afraid, and under great stress. He was in a very difficult circumstance but he wasn't the bad guy. Basically I'm saying that you could get a different actor and director and portray Rhodes completely different without changing any of his dialog. Change a few scenes slightly and he becomes a tragic hero. Romero wanted everyone to hate Rhodes because Romero hated the Army. Many people did then.
-
TaRaNRoD — 5 years ago(September 01, 2020 05:17 AM)
I agree with what people said. He was an asshole, but necessarily a "bad guy". Obviously, he was stressed due to the circumstances and was very loosing his patience. He wanted answers he couldn't get. He certainly had too much pressure on him.
A part of me wants to think that he actually wanted what's best for him men. The other part, however, can't help but see that he was a control freak and a scumbag. It didn't help at the end when he abandoned his men, this also showed that he was a selfish coward.
"You're a disease, and I'm the cure!" - Marion "Cobra" Cobretti