no i'm saying no one had them because they were developing them. they weren't being sold then or in 2003-2004. the camera is so obviously a flip cam it hurts.
You didn't respond with the Kirkman quote, good.
In 1958 they looked like that but what about in 2003/2004?
Also many older flip cams … morelook like that too, todays tech has just altered it. (Would find a picture but you know how I can't post pictures)
no i'm saying no one had them because they were developing them. they weren't being sold then or in 2003-2004. the camera is so obviously a flip cam it hurts.
yes you're right about the t.v. but i don't think they looked like that.
trust me that isn't a mansion. its just a really big house. yes it costs a lot but its not a mansion anymore. it was by 1800s standards but not by today's.
Just because the Camera looks like a Flip Camera doesnt mean it IS one.
Also the flat screen Tv anyone could have had in 2003. Considering these people lived in a mansion too it makes it very likely that they owned one.
Just because the Camera looks like a Flip Camera doesnt mean it IS one.
Also the flat screen Tv anyone could have had in 2003. Considering these people lived in a mansion too it makes it very likely that they owned one.
yes you're right about the t.v. but i don't think they looked like that.
trust me that isn't a mansion. its just a really big house. yes it costs a lot but its not a mansion anymore. it was by 1800s standards but not by today's.
those aren't mansion like you think. they're Victorian mansions so they're just really big houses. i know this because i'm Macon( not lying) and my godmother owned one and i went over there often and its just a big house thats it. tho some are bigger than others.
So it's like George Romero's movies - Night Of The Living Dead was meant to be a contemporary story rather than a 1960s period piece, hence why the movie "Diary Of The Dead" was both modern and meant to show the same zombie outbreak that occurred in earlier movies. The date shifts as real-life goes on.
yes i know but robert kirkman has said:
"[The Walking Dead] is set in modern times ... but the book started in 2003 and only a year has p… moreassed in the book. But that doesn't mean it's 2004 in the book ... maybe it 's 2009 ... who knows ... who really cares. I don't want to be specific."
So it's like George Romero's movies - Night Of The Living Dead was meant to be a contemporary story rather than a 1960s period piece, hence … morewhy the movie "Diary Of The Dead" was both modern and meant to show the same zombie outbreak that occurred in earlier movies. The date shifts as real-life goes on.
In real-time, George Romero's zombie quadrilogy spanned almost 4 decades. Within the story itself, the timeline's much more compressed.
Night Of The Living Dead (1968) showed the beginning of the zombie rising
Dawn Of The Dead (1978) began approximately three weeks after the zombie rising, and ends around six months later.
Day Of The Dead (1985) is set one year after the zombie rising.
Land Of The Dead (2005) is three years after the zombie rising.
Kirkman's point is that the setting is meant to be contemporary, making exact dates pointless. The series could be said to be set in 2003 because that was the year when Kirkman started writing it, but like most comic-book continuities the date is fluid. 2003, 2013, it doesn't matter. Batman began in the 1940s, but he's definitely not a grandpa.
Far as I'm concerned, Season 1 of The Walking Dead was set in 2012 (the year it was released) and Season 2 took place in 2014 (two years later), and this doesn't conflict with them existing in the same timeline as Kirkman's comics because of the aforementioned time fluidity.
exactly! this is all i'm trying to say but no one is hearing me out. its fiction so they can be in two different years but still be in same universe because anything can happen in fiction it doesn't always have to make perfect sense.
In real-time, George Romero's zombie quadrilogy spanned almost 4 decades. Within the story itself, the timeline's much more compressed.
… moreNight Of The Living Dead (1968) showed the beginning of the zombie rising
Dawn Of The Dead (1978) began approximately three weeks after the zombie rising, and ends around six months later.
Day Of The Dead (1985) is set one year after the zombie rising.
Land Of The Dead (2005) is three years after the zombie rising.
Kirkman's point is that the setting is meant to be contemporary, making exact dates pointless. The series could be said to be set in 2003 because that was the year when Kirkman started writing it, but like most comic-book continuities the date is fluid. 2003, 2013, it doesn't matter. Batman began in the 1940s, but he's definitely not a grandpa.
Far as I'm concerned, Season 1 of The Walking Dead was set in 2012 (the year it was released) and Season 2 took place in 2014 (two yea… [view original content]
Haggling about the timeline doesn't make sense to me, so long as I don't see i-Phones and other technological markers of our 2014 suddenly poking up in this game.
exactly! this is all i'm trying to say but no one is hearing me out. its fiction so they can be in two different years but still be in same universe because anything can happen in fiction it doesn't always have to make perfect sense.
Haggling about the timeline doesn't make sense to me, so long as I don't see i-Phones and other technological markers of our 2014 suddenly poking up in this game.
Because absolutely nobody would think about that minor detail when designing the levels, especially since level design is done by a different team than the writing
yes you're right about the t.v. but i don't think they looked like that.
trust me that isn't a mansion. its just a really big house. yes it costs a lot but its not a mansion anymore. it was by 1800s standards but not by today's.
You did some good research, but I still believe it's 2003.
There are no mobile phones around (I know they existed but not quite as often).
The gas gas prices in 400 Days are very early 2000ish.
Even if the picture with the camera is true, that could be because most digital cameras looked like this back then. It's just a coincidence.
Flat screens existed in 2003 and looked like in-game.
Also remember Crawford saved their recordings on tape and not digitally, pretty unusual in 2012.
I believe Kirkman just doesn't care about his own canon anymore.
Only thing that indicates it was in 2012 is Duck's mention of a comic that was first released in 2012 in 101. But guess what? It's written by Kirkman, therefore we can savely say it was just advertisement.
You did some good research, but I still believe it's 2003.
* There are no mobile phones around (I know they existed but not quite as of… moreten).
* The gas gas prices in 400 Days are very early 2000ish.
* Even if the picture with the camera is true, that could be because most digital cameras looked like this back then. It's just a coincidence.
* Flat screens existed in 2003 and looked like in-game.
* Also remember Crawford saved their recordings on tape and not digitally, pretty unusual in 2012.
* I believe Kirkman just doesn't care about his own canon anymore.
* Only thing that indicates it was in 2012 is Duck's mention of a comic that was first released in 2012 in 101. But guess what? It's written by Kirkman, therefore we can savely say it was just advertisement.
You did some good research, but I still believe it's 2003.
* There are no mobile phones around (I know they existed but not quite as of… moreten).
* The gas gas prices in 400 Days are very early 2000ish.
* Even if the picture with the camera is true, that could be because most digital cameras looked like this back then. It's just a coincidence.
* Flat screens existed in 2003 and looked like in-game.
* Also remember Crawford saved their recordings on tape and not digitally, pretty unusual in 2012.
* I believe Kirkman just doesn't care about his own canon anymore.
* Only thing that indicates it was in 2012 is Duck's mention of a comic that was first released in 2012 in 101. But guess what? It's written by Kirkman, therefore we can savely say it was just advertisement.
Just because the Camera looks like a Flip Camera doesnt mean it IS one.
Also the flat screen Tv anyone could have had in 2003. Considering these people lived in a mansion too it makes it very likely that they owned one.
Comments
Just because the Camera looks like a Flip Camera doesnt mean it IS one.
Also the flat screen Tv anyone could have had in 2003. Considering these people lived in a mansion too it makes it very likely that they owned one.
no i'm saying no one had them because they were developing them. they weren't being sold then or in 2003-2004. the camera is so obviously a flip cam it hurts.
that doesn't mean anything... most digital cameras looked like that back then
because it looks just like a flip cam.
I would like if it did, though. Having more logic is a good thing.
Like I said good theory but I disagree.
We can never truly say when the timeline is unless Kirkman tells us.
my reply isn't appearing so i am commenting again
that doesn't mean anything... most digital cameras looked like that back then
yes you're right about the t.v. but i don't think they looked like that.
trust me that isn't a mansion. its just a really big house. yes it costs a lot but its not a mansion anymore. it was by 1800s standards but not by today's.
...But weren't they in a neighboring house to the mansion? They easily could've been upper class as well.
flat screen tv 2003:
not really like the one in the picture at all huh?
If you own a house like that you are wealthy. Also
...But regardless of such, it was still an upper class house, no?
those aren't mansion like you think. they're Victorian mansions so they're just really big houses. i know this because i'm Macon( not lying) and my godmother owned one and i went over there often and its just a big house thats it. tho some are bigger than others.
Looks like the one in the house. The time line is same as comics. It is 2003
yeah pretty upper class. i've been in one.
uh..ok?
he is saying that tv looks like the one in the house and it does you can't deny that
i can't see your comment but ok if that's 2003.
yeah it does true.
[removed]
So it's like George Romero's movies - Night Of The Living Dead was meant to be a contemporary story rather than a 1960s period piece, hence why the movie "Diary Of The Dead" was both modern and meant to show the same zombie outbreak that occurred in earlier movies. The date shifts as real-life goes on.
but i still think i'm right.
yeah i think that's it. thanks for understanding.
In real-time, George Romero's zombie quadrilogy spanned almost 4 decades. Within the story itself, the timeline's much more compressed.
Night Of The Living Dead (1968) showed the beginning of the zombie rising
Dawn Of The Dead (1978) began approximately three weeks after the zombie rising, and ends around six months later.
Day Of The Dead (1985) is set one year after the zombie rising.
Land Of The Dead (2005) is three years after the zombie rising.
Kirkman's point is that the setting is meant to be contemporary, making exact dates pointless. The series could be said to be set in 2003 because that was the year when Kirkman started writing it, but like most comic-book continuities the date is fluid. 2003, 2013, it doesn't matter. Batman began in the 1940s, but he's definitely not a grandpa.
Far as I'm concerned, Season 1 of The Walking Dead was set in 2012 (the year it was released) and Season 2 took place in 2014 (two years later), and this doesn't conflict with them existing in the same timeline as Kirkman's comics because of the aforementioned time fluidity.
exactly! this is all i'm trying to say but no one is hearing me out. its fiction so they can be in two different years but still be in same universe because anything can happen in fiction it doesn't always have to make perfect sense.
Haggling about the timeline doesn't make sense to me, so long as I don't see i-Phones and other technological markers of our 2014 suddenly poking up in this game.
oh yeah having that kind of stuff popping up would be weird. people keep saying the game starts in 2003 and i just disagree.
Because absolutely nobody would think about that minor detail when designing the levels, especially since level design is done by a different team than the writing
bump?
Back in 2004 I've seen flat screen which were exactly like the one on the photo.
oh i don't remember flat screens at all back then
No, because the apocalypse in the show started in late 2010 (if you go by the air date of 101).
oh
You did some good research, but I still believe it's 2003.
There are no mobile phones around (I know they existed but not quite as often).
The gas gas prices in 400 Days are very early 2000ish.
Even if the picture with the camera is true, that could be because most digital cameras looked like this back then. It's just a coincidence.
Flat screens existed in 2003 and looked like in-game.
Also remember Crawford saved their recordings on tape and not digitally, pretty unusual in 2012.
I believe Kirkman just doesn't care about his own canon anymore.
Only thing that indicates it was in 2012 is Duck's mention of a comic that was first released in 2012 in 101. But guess what? It's written by Kirkman, therefore we can savely say it was just advertisement.
hmmm good point about the tapes.
i like to think kirkman,amc and telltale mix technology and whatever from both decades so you can't guess when its happening.
Well this isn't the same as our Earth it's a post-apocalyptic Earth, it doesn't HAVE to follow the same timeline as ours.
good point
This issue was actually put to rest a long time ago. Season One begins in July of 2010.
Top 10 anime thread bumps