Since it doesn't look like anyones taken Maggie up on this challenge I'll throw my hat in. So the question here is to analyze a series of three shots in the opening credit montage of Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead.

I want to preface this by saying I think it's INCREDIBLY disingenuous to pull three shots out of an almost three minute sequence and attempt to build such a major piece of storytelling with them that somehow suggests the directors attitude on a specific subject.

When watched end to end the opening montage shows how current (for '04) concerns around the world are being overtaken by the zombie plague until that's all there is. Yes, the first shot shows prayer in a mosque. In '04 (and still) terrorism in the name of Islam was a big concern.

It's been suggested that it would have been more specific to show, "terrorists fighting soldiers" as a better example. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out in the past, terrorists don't wear uniforms pointing to their allegiances - it's why they're hard to catch.

So unfortunately in order to present concerns about Islam as a general subject you have to broadstroke it. It sucks, and my apologies to my Muslim family out here, but it's fucking hard to communicate a concept that specific in 12 frames - yes, I counted.

So anyway, here are the three shots in question:

According to the OP, these three shots suggest storytelling that Islam, Muslims or some permutation of, are somehow at the root of the zombie plague in the film. The statement is that any religion could have been shown, but it was Islam specifically and that should be noted.

There are two issues I take with this; first, as I said, is the removal of the shots from the greater context of the opening. Placing images one after another in sequence is on of the ways that visual storytelling works - this is pretty basic.

If these three shots were the entire scene, I could follow Maggie's line of thinking. But the fact is these three shots are NOT all there is in the montage. It's like taking a page from a book where a character says, "I hate black people" and making the claim that

the entire book is a racist screed, even though the very next page could have an entire room of people giving this moron all kinds of hell for saying something stupid. It's like I keep saying here and in my other writings; context always matters. IT ALWAYS MATTERS!

The second issue I have is the fact that Maggie's analysis leaves out a piece of footage in the sequence. She suggests that the opening runs the three images one right after another, but the truth is after the moment of prayer, there is a text card.

Why does this matter? First it matters to me, ideologically, because I don't think it's honest to omit data so one can make a point. But it also matters because that title card creates separation between the first moment and the moments that follow before the title reveal.

This is the actual shot sequence from the first 13 seconds of the montage excluding the first production credit:

By placing a non narrative production card in there you've interrupted the creation of linear storytelling between the first and third images. You've broken the link between the initial frames and the ones that follow before the title card.

Additionally, as the remainder of the film contains no further storytelling, either implicit or explicit, to support the claim. Even in the opening there is no further storytelling support for Maggie's claim, making assertion of any specific storytelling created less sustainable.

This is, of course, all my own interpretation and, who knows; maybe I'm the asshole here who is unable to see something that's right in front of my face. I've been a whole lot more wrong about a whole lot less. But if this is all Maggie has to go on to make her claim its not much

But now I put it to you, #OpinionNerds - where do you fall on this? What's your analysis of this, or do you even think it's important to have one at all? How do we use this whole ridiculous episode to further our understanding of visual storytelling?