GAR Dead Films - Universe and Timeline

[EvilFlyingCow]

According to you perhaps. It makes no sense that GAR would create a story-telling universe, and then have different stories set within different timelines within that universe. Why bother creating that universe if you are not going to tell a continuing story? Again, what I keep saying that no one responds to is the fact that just because two or more films are not directly connected via a direct timeline, does not mean they dont exist in the same timeline. I'm a bit late on this discussion, so pardon me if this has already been discussed. But, how could it possibly be the same timeline? Night was full of objects and styles clearly from the 1960's. Dawn had things and styles clearly from the 1970's. Day... well it could fit into several eras I suppose. But Land was clearly set in an era many years later. The nostalgia from before the outbreak of the living dead is evident in each of these films. In my opinion, each film is set in the same universe, but are totally unrelated to each other as far as a timeline goes. If you take, for example, a series of movies that were set in the same universe and timeline, look at Back to the Future. The film was made in 1985. The second film in the series was made in 1989, but it was set in the same timeline, and they continued to use the same styles and look of the film from 1985. The same with part 3, which was filmed in 1990.

[EvilNed]

According to you perhaps. It makes no sense that GAR would create a story-telling universe, and then have different stories set within different timelines within that universe. Why bother creating that universe if you are not going to tell a continuing story? Again, what I keep saying that no one responds to is the fact that just because two or more films are not directly connected via a direct timeline, does not mean they dont exist in the same timeline. EvilFlyingCow pretty much hit it spot on, Philly. There's no possible way the dead films CAN exist in the same timeline, no matter how much you want it so. And there's really no way you can realistically interpret it as such, and if you do it's like trying to find the meaning of life in Zardoz. It's simply analyzing a film beyond it's limits.

[Philly_SWAT]

EvilFlyingCow pretty much hit it spot on, Philly. There's no possible way the dead films CAN exist in the same timeline, no matter how much you want it so. And there's really no way you can realistically interpret it as such, and if you do it's like trying to find the meaning of life in Zardoz. It's simply analyzing a film beyond it's limits. I disagree. It is very simple really. GAR just choose to ignore the traditional techniques to make his films look like they are close together timewise instead of decades apart. If we were watching a period fim set in the decade of the 1950's, and way in he background of one scene, we see a 1998 Ford Mustang, should we assume some weird time-traveler must be lurking in the background of the movie, or that the film-maker simply made a mistake by having that car seen on screen? (Or a purposeful decision to leave it in, figuring in the grand scheme of the story it wasnt important, no time or money to reshoot scene, etc). When a new actor plays James Bond, are we supposed to think that the character went thru an elaborate plastic surgery to look different? Or do we suspend our disbelief, and just accept that a new actor is playing James Bond. Same for GAR films, do we assume that he created a story-telling universe, and then created separate timelines for the stories set in that universe, or that he simply ignored any effort to "timestamp" the series in a particular period, and choose to have each film just set in the now, and make social commentary of the time in which they were made. If you take, for example, a series of movies that were set in the same universe and timeline, look at Back to the Future. The film was made in 1985. The second film in the series was made in 1989, but it was set in the same timeline, and they continued to use the same styles and look of the film from 1985. The same with part 3, which was filmed in 1990. Ummmm......if my memory serves me, styles did not change drastically between the years of 1985 to 1990.

[EvilNed]

I disagree. It is very simple really. GAR just choose to ignore the traditional techniques to make his films look like they are close together timewise instead of decades apart. GAR did not choose to ignore the traditional techniques to make his films. That statement would have been true if GAR had actually done that, and intended for the films to be sequels to one-another. But he never did. To GAR, he simply got chances to direct zombiefilms which is what they did. The only thing they have incommon is that they take place further and further down the line of a zombie outbreak, but there's a different zombie outbreak each time. When you say that the director simply didn't find it important to tie the films together in a timelinelike fashion but still intended for each film to be a sequel to the previous one, you pretty much stumble on your own argument. Your center does not hold. If GAR wanted to make another zombieflick, but wasn't ready to sacrifice artifical integrity or his budget to make it visually fit in with the previous film, why was it that he in any way at all tried to tie them together? Because as you can clearly see from the films, there is NOTHING that ties them together. So you're just seeing something you want to see, but isn't there. Like I said. It's like trying to find the meaning of life by watching Zardoz. It's not there. Neither is there a connection between GARs films, and GAR never intended there to be. There is obviously intended to be a connection between the Bond films. You know why? The character Bond appears in all of them as a major character (so don't wave around the "Blades" reference in Land). The Bond films are neither very deep or politically involved films. They're entertainment and everybody knows it. Nobody feels the need to dwelve deep into them and ask why Bond suddenly has blonde hair. Maybe some of us could learn a bit from the Bond fans. Don't overanalyze the Dead series of films. They're unconnected. They're split. They have zombies in them, that's it. Get over it!

[coma]

If we were watching a period fim set in the decade of the 1950's, and way in he background of one scene, we see a 1998 Ford Mustang, should we assume some weird time-traveler must be lurking in the background of the movie, or that the film-maker simply made a mistake by having that car seen on screen? (Or a purposeful decision to leave it in, figuring in the grand scheme of the story it wasnt important, no time or money to reshoot scene, etc). When a new actor plays James Bond, are we supposed to think that the cha Like Basketball Diaries. The filmmaker couldnt afford to do it period style. Contrary to what some have said here , it can cost a ton and eat up the whole budget of low budg film if you do it right without any anachronisms. His compramise was using peroid costumes, modern locations like cars and buildings, but trying to avoid an modern trappings. Before I saw it I thought it was going to be stupid, but I think it worked really well.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Philly, please ... Remember that time you went on and on and on for months about how LAND of the dead happened before DAY of the dead? You got LOT's of so called "evidence" together, and then it all sort of folded in on itself and didn't quite make any sense at all? This is exactly what is happening here ... again! ... go get a beer or something In my opinion, each film is set in the same universe, but are totally unrelated to each other as far as a timeline goes. Better late than never? You made quite a few good points, but all of those good points aside ... you are very correct in your opinion, although, ironically ... you, and myself among others, are STILL in the minority so far as this poll is concerned!

[Philly_SWAT]

Philly, please ... Remember that time you went on and on and on for months about how LAND of the dead happened before DAY of the dead? You got LOT's of so called "evidence" together, and then it all sort of folded in on itself and didn't quite make any sense at all? I do remember that. Well, I remember the discussion, not that it "didnt make any sense at all". I also remember how I repeated over and over that I may in fact be wrong. I was making points to support my theory, points which were roundly ignored, and refuted by arguments that amounted to "you are wrong" rather than sound points. If I was making a complex mathematical argument, for example, and them made the point "well, two plus two equals four, right?" that is an irrefutable fact. It may not prove my overall point, but it is a true fact none-the-less, however, people were refusing to acknowledge the 2+2 points that I was making, and instead, just said the overall point was wrong. I also remember that people who believe Land happens after Day were pointing to the fact that the poll agreed with them, and that should be the end of it. Yet in this case, the poll disagrees with you, yet you continue with your theory, and dispute the poll. Hey pot, the Deadman_Deluxe kettle is calling you black. The question I am trying to find your answer for, which again if you have answered I still havent seen it, is the reason I brought up the Friday the 13th question. Can two movies exist in the same timeline without necesarily relating to each other directly via a direct timeline? For example, Point Break and Flashdance, do they exist in the same timeline, or not? They do not relate to each other in any way whatsoever, yet, I say they exist in the same timeline. What is your opinion on this?

[HLS]

The question I am trying to find your answer for, which again if you have answered I still havent seen it, is the reason I brought up the Friday the 13th question. Can two movies exist in the same timeline without necesarily relating to each other directly via a direct timeline? For example, Point Break and Flashdance, do they exist in the same timeline, or not? They do not relate to each other in any way whatsoever, yet, I say they exist in the same timeline. What is your opinion on this? Well this thread has grown to be so long I am lost in it but in my opinion I think two movies can exist in the same timeline but I think they have to be directly related to one another. I do not think two movies can exist in the same timeline and not be directly related. I would need to see some more examples. I never saw Point Break. As far as Friday the 13th is concerned the series has become some what of a joke. God this thread is giving me a headache. Ugggghh. Peace

[Philly_SWAT]

To GAR, he simply got chances to direct zombiefilms which is what they did. The only thing they have incommon is that they take place further and further down the line of a zombie outbreak, but there's a different zombie outbreak each time. Your first sentence here is exactly what I am saying, he simply got the chance to direct zombie films which is what he did. He didnt put any thought into continuity of time-period stamps, ie clothing styles, technology, etc., he simply made the movies in "the now". When you say that the director simply didn't find it important to tie the films together in a timelinelike fashion but still intended for each film to be a sequel to the previous one, you pretty much stumble on your own argument. Your center does not hold. I have never said, in this thread or any other, that each film was a "sequel" to the others. This goes to what I am saying about people making arguments to a point that someone else is not making. I say that are in the same timeline, not that they are sequels. Flashdance and Point Break occur in the same timeline, but obviously are not sequels. There is obviously intended to be a connection between the Bond films. You know why? The character Bond appears in all of them as a major character (so don't wave around the "Blades" reference in Land). The Bond films are neither very deep or politically involved films. They're entertainment and everybody knows it. Nobody feels the need to dwelve deep into them and ask why Bond suddenly has blonde hair. Yes, the character of Bond appears in all films. Is there are character(s) that appear in the GAR dead films? Hmmm....lemme think.... oh yeah, the walking dead. Not specific, particular flesh-eaters, but the un-named masses that they are. And it is interesting indeed that you would so easily dismiss the "Blades" character as it does not support your argument. The original Star Trek series was set approx. 400 years into the future, yet the "starship technology" appeared to be little more than cheap flashing lights glued to flimsy, cardboard "computers". Was this a result of Gene Rodenberry simply getting the chance to make a futuristic space series, but was limited by budget restrainsts, or was he creating a different timeline whereas in that timeline, computers looked like cheap cardboard boxes with flashing lights glued to them? When the Next Generation show came around, and he had a better budget, and the computers looked more like advanced technology, had he created a different timeline, just based on a similar idea of a Federation with a flagship named Enterprise, or was it the same timeline, and they just used the better technology that they had available to them at the time of production? When they would make the occasional reference to a "Kirk" from the past, is that something you would dismiss the same way you dismiss "Blades", or was it simpy an acknowledgement that they were in the same timeline?

[EvilNed]

Your first sentence here is exactly what I am saying, he simply got the chance to direct zombie films which is what he did. He didnt put any thought into continuity of time-period stamps, ie clothing styles, technology, etc., he simply made the movies in "the now". Great, so you agree that no specific thought was put into the timeline. Which is why they aren't in the same ones, as that would obviously create a bunch of continuity errors. I have never said, in this thread or any other, that each film was a "sequel" to the others. This goes to what I am saying about people making arguments to a point that someone else is not making. I say that are in the same timeline, not that they are sequels. Flashdance and Point Break occur in the same timeline, but obviously are not sequels. So unless a film states that it does not take place in another films timeline, they do for you? That's a bit wierd. Let's take a Bruce Willis movie. Anyone. In that movie, he happens to stumble upon another Bruce Willis film while zapping the television. How can those two films then take place in the same timeline? See, your argument doesn't hold. Point Break and Flashdance don't occur in the same timeline. They're just movies. Yes, the character of Bond appears in all films. Is there are character(s) that appear in the GAR dead films? Hmmm....lemme think.... oh yeah, the walking dead. Not specific, particular flesh-eaters, but the un-named masses that they are. And it is interesting indeed that you would so easily dismiss the "Blades" character as it does not support your argument. No, there are no characters that tie the Dead films together. The Living Dead aren't a character. If that's the case, then xXx and The Bond Films take place in the same timeline! You know why? Both have henchmen in them! Err... That argument just doesn't work. As for Blades. He died in the 70's, yet when he appears 30 years later he hasn't rotted awhole lot. That's why it's a reference, inside joke. Nothing more. I could accept it as an argument if Land took place in 70's. But it doesn't. It takes place "NOW" when the film was made, which happens to be the 00's. Night doesn't take place NOW in that it that it could be anywhere and anytime. It takes place in the 60's. NOW at that time. The original Star Trek series was set approx. 400 years into the future, yet the "starship technology" appeared to be little more than cheap flashing lights glued to flimsy, cardboard "computers". Was this a result of Gene Rodenberry simply getting the chance to make a futuristic space series, but was limited by budget restrainsts, or was he creating a different timeline whereas in that timeline, computers looked like cheap cardboard boxes with flashing lights glued to them? When the Next Generation show came around, and he had a better budget, and the computers looked more like advanced technology, had he created a different timeline, just based on a similar idea of a Federation with a flagship named Enterprise, or was it the same timeline, and they just used the better technology that they had available to them at the time of production? When they would make the occasional reference to a "Kirk" from the past, is that something you would dismiss the same way you dismiss "Blades", or was it simpy an acknowledgement that they were in the same timeline? It was the same timeline because it had the same characters. It was meant to be in the same timeline. It was meant to follow the old series. It was pretty obvious. Duh. You can't apply stuff like that to the Dead series, because it doesn't prove anything about your view of the Dead series. It can prove a point, but no point that is relevant to this discussion.

[Philly_SWAT]

So unless a film states that it does not take place in another films timeline, they do for you? That's a bit wierd. Let's take a Bruce Willis movie. Anyone. In that movie, he happens to stumble upon another Bruce Willis film while zapping the television. How can those two films then take place in the same timeline? See, your argument doesn't hold. Apparently you miss the point entirely of what I am saying. I did not say, nor imply, that unless a film states that it does not take place in another films timeline, they do. I say by using common sense, you can tell if you movie in question is taking place in our timeline or not. I am not sure of your point about a Bruce Willis character seeing himself on TV in a movie. Point Break and Flashdance don't occur in the same timeline. They're just movies. This shows to me that you do not underline the definition of timeline. You and I, as we sit here posting on the HPOTD, exist in a timeline. It is the only definitive, provable timeline that exists. We could make valid scientific points about other timelines exisiting, but that is not proveable. Lets call this timeline the "real" timeline (or anything else you want to call it). Hitler was a real person that led Germany back in the day in THIS timeline. Ronald Reagan was President of the United States in THIS timeline. Now, do Hitler, Ronald Reagan, or you and me sitting here posting have anything at all to do with each other? Of course not. But that are all events that occur in the same timeline, the "real" timeline. The two PARTICULAR movies that I mention, Flashdance and Point Break, exist in the story-telling same timeline. You watch those movies with the inherent understanding that in those movies, Hitler used to lead Germany, Reagan used to be President, etc. Those points are totally unimportant to the movie but they are intented to be set in our timeline, therefore, they are true to the background timeline. If we watched a movie where all of the "real" universe rules appear to apply, except that Reagan never became President but Walter Mondale did, that would be a movie existing in a different timeline. That is why I didnt use, say Blade and Superman as my two examples. They do not exist in the same timeline as us. No, there are no characters that tie the Dead films together. The Living Dead aren't a character. If that's the case, then xXx and The Bond Films take place in the same timeline! You know why? Both have henchmen in them! Err... That argument just doesn't work. Err...that argument does work. The difference is, in the real universe, which both xXx and the Bond movies are set in, henchmen really exist. There are henchmen roaming around in real life as we speak. As far as I know, there are no zombie outbreaks occuring here in this universe. GAR created a universe in which there is a zombie outbreak, and zombies are roaming around. There would be no need to further segregate his story-telling universe to also sub-divide that universe into separate timelines as well. The "living dead" are indeed a "character" within the movies. As for Blades. He died in the 70's, yet when he appears 30 years later he hasn't rotted awhole lot. That's why it's a reference, inside joke. Nothing more. I could accept it as an argument if Land took place in 70's. But it doesn't. It takes place "NOW" when the film was made, which happens to be the 00's. Night doesn't take place NOW in that it that it could be anywhere and anytime. It takes place in the 60's. NOW at that time. Here I disagree. Night could be anyplace, anytime. That is part of its allure and appeal. The idea that it could happen now, tomorrow, that your family and friends could become dead and you would have to kill them or be killed. That is the scariness of the movie. To watch it and think it is something that happened back in the 60's would remove any scariness from it, because obviously it never happened. There is no mention of it in our history. It was the same timeline because it had the same characters. It was meant to be in the same timeline. It was meant to follow the old series. It was pretty obvious. Duh. Duh, indeed. My point exactly in comparing it to the dead series. It is pretty obvious that the Star Trek series were intended to be in the same timeline, despite the differences in real world budgetary constraints. You can't apply stuff like that to the Dead series, because it doesn't prove anything about your view of the Dead series. It can prove a point, but no point that is relevant to this discussion. "Proving" anything to anyone that has already made up their mind, with no openness to changing their mind, is impossible in and of itself. The point here that is very relevant to this discussion is that Rodenberry dealt with the budget he has when he made the original series, and then the budget he had when dealing with the Next Generation. Should he have made the computers crappy looking in his newer shows just so they seemed to be in the same "timeline technology-wise" with the series he previoulsy created, or should he have done what he did? The answer seems obvious. By the same token, "Enterprise" was the newest series set in that universe/timeline, yet it takes place before any of the others, showing that just because a show/movie is made after another show/movie in that same series doesnt necesarily mean that is in cronological order with the rest.

[EvilNed]

I'm sorry, but saying that Star Trek series take place in the same timeline even though they look different is a rather pointless argument in this debate, seeing as how Land could easily have looked 60's if GAR wanted it too. Yet it didn't. In another debate, that point might actually have proven anything. Here, it doesn't. Besides, there is further proof to show that Star Trek actually takes place in the same timeline, whereas no such proof can be found in the Dead series. Accept the fact that there is nothing, apart from Blades character, that ties the movies together. And if you want to link the films together using Blades character, you have a huge continuity error going on. A movie made 20 years after another movie, which makes no effort to link itself with the previous movie, doesn't follow it. What makes Land follow Day? The zombies you say? Does that mean Zombie Flesh Eaters take place in the same timeline as Dawn? Or can only GAR movies that follow his rules take place in the same timeline? Doesn't work, sorry. Your theory falls flat. The problem between the two theories here is that one is based on pure fan speculation, whereas the other one is based on common sense and George A. Romero quotes. One could say that the "One timeline" theory is non-canon, since Romero is the boss of what is canon, and "seperate timeline" is canon. However, your post wasn't complete gibberish. There was a comment I found quite fitting. It was this: ""Proving" anything to anyone that has already made up their mind, with no openness to changing their mind, is impossible in and of itself."

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm sorry, but saying that Star Trek series take place in the same timeline even though they look different is a rather pointless argument in this debate, seeing as how Land could easily have looked 60's if GAR wanted it too. Yet it didn't. In another debate, that point might actually have proven anything. Here, it doesn't. . Ummm...couldnt Star Trek the Next Generation have easily looked like TOS is Rodenberry had wanted it to? Accept the fact that there is nothing, apart from Blades character, that ties the movies together. And if you want to link the films together using Blades character, you have a huge continuity error going on. A movie made 20 years after another movie, which makes no effort to link itself with the previous movie, doesn't follow it. What makes Land follow Day? The zombies you say? I dont say anything makes Land follow Day, I say Day follows Land, but that is a different argument. And also, I didnt say that Blades links the movies, only that it was interesting that you dismiss that so easily. There is nothing other than Blades that ties the movies together? How about a zombie epidemic that is plaguing the world? A movie made 20 years after another does not have to make an effort to link itself with a previous movie if it is obvious. "The Two Jakes" starring Jack Nicholson was a direct sequel to "Chinatown". It was made 16 years after Chinatown, and it makes no effort to link itself to the previous movie, other than the fact that it is obvious. Does that mean Zombie Flesh Eaters take place in the same timeline as Dawn? Or can only GAR movies that follow his rules take place in the same timeline? Doesn't work, sorry. Your theory falls flat. Ummm.....that isnt my theory. Whether ZFE takes place in the same timeline as GAR's movies is a totally different argument. The problem between the two theories here is that one is based on pure fan speculation, whereas the other one is based on common sense and George A. Romero quotes. One could say that the "One timeline" theory is non-canon, since Romero is the boss of what is canon, and "seperate timeline" is canon. I have never seen or heard anything attributed to GAR that the movies are in "separate timelines", other that they are not directly linked within the timeline, the same way Flashdance and Point Break are not directly linked within the timeline, but still exist within the same one. However, your post wasn't complete gibberish. There was a comment I found quite fitting. It was this: ""Proving" anything to anyone that has already made up their mind, with no openness to changing their mind, is impossible in and of itself." I offered that comment as a universal truth, in direct response to your comment that Originally Posted by EvilNed You can't apply stuff like that to the Dead series, because it doesn't prove anything about your view of the Dead series. It can prove a point, but no point that is relevant to this discussion. You say the point is quite fitting because you think it applies to me, yet give no indication that it applies to you as well. You specifically mentioned how what I was saying "doesnt prove anything about" my view, so I responded directly to your comment. You saying how impressed you were with that comment is designed as a sarcastic attack on me. At least I can see where you are coming from with that line of argument.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Just to clarify, you are wrong. Not only that, but this is NOT just my own opinion. This is GAR's own explanation, one which he has already stated MULTIPLE times during the last two decades, including most recently, several times, on the LAND DVD commentary you seem to be avoiding The correct answer is that GAR's movies take place in the same universe, but different timelines, but as i said early on, this poll will serve no purpose other than to further confuse the already confused. You are looking to make an arguement here, when there is really nothing to argue about. GAR has already stated "what is what" regarding timelines, and you still continue to ignore his own words in favour of your own redundant theory. That is just plain old crazy!!!!! Drawing comparissons on GAR's "of the Dead" movies to Friday the 13th, when in reality none actually exist, and then labelling the fact that i have no opinion on friday the 13th, because i am not really a fan of Friday the 13th, as "convenient" is not really a fair way to argue ANY point. Going on further to draw comparrison to NBA coaching tactics and Star Trek timelines, again, when no "real" comparisson can be made, only proves one thing ... you are clutching at straws. You have already been told what GAR himself has said and you STILL choose to believe the exact opposite. Im sorry Philly, But when you start scraping the bottom of the barrel like this, then your case is well and truly lost, and i am out of here. You obviously feel the need to have the last word here ... so go ahead and knock yourself out. No hard feelings

[Philly_SWAT]

Just to clarify, you are wrong. Not only that, but this is NOT just my own opinion. This is GAR's own explanation, one which he has already stated MULTIPLE times during the last two decades, including most recently, several times, on the LAND DVD commentary you seem to be avoiding You are looking to make an arguement here, when there is really nothing to argue about. GAR has already stated "what is what" regarding timelines, and you still continue to ignore his own words in favour of your own redundant theory. That is just plain old crazy!!!!! Drawing comparissons on GAR's "of the Dead" movies to Friday the 13th, when in reality none actually exist, and then labelling the fact that i have no opinion on friday the 13th, because i am not really a fan of Friday the 13th, as "convenient" is not really a fair way to argue ANY point. Going on further to draw comparrison to NBA coaching tactics and Star Trek timelines, again, when no "real" comparisson can be made, only proves one thing ... you are clutching at straws. You have already been told what GAR himself has said and you STILL choose to believe the exact opposite. Im sorry Philly, But when you start scraping the bottom of the barrel like this, then your case is well and truly lost, and i am out of here. You obviously feel the need to have the last word here ... so go ahead and knock yourself out. No hard feelings No hard feelings at all. But not to dissappoint, I will make another comment. Hopefully it is not the last word, but of course, that is up to you. Maybe this is a more accurate analogy than the Star Trek series, Friday series, or NBA coaching strategies, at least on the point where you and I differ. Christains believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. They use "The Bible" as the official canon of their beliefs. That being said, there is great disagreement over what the bible is really saying and what it really means. There are numerous denominations of Christains who differ over the interpretation of the Bible. I could go on, but I would assume that you both understand what I am saying and agree with it. I do not dispute that GAR has said "the movies do not connect directly via a direct timeline" or some such similiar quote. What I disagree with is what does that exactly mean. I say that Flashdance and Point Break exist in the same timeline, even though they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and that the filmmakers gave absolute zero thought to that fact (which, there is no reason to). This is the concept that you have still not responded to (and you may not, given that you are "out of here"). I interpret that as this: if we had seen the Sheriff from Night in the scene in Dawn where the rednecks, local police and National Guard were having coffee, then that would be a DIRECT connection in the timeline. If we would have seen a shot of Fran and Peter flying in a chopper past the Dead Reckoning, that would have been a DIRECT connection in the timeline. Obviously, we dont see things like that, therefore there is no DIRECT connection. But there is an INDIRECT connection of all the events in all the movies. George Washington was dead long before George Bush was even born. There is no DIRECT connection between them to suggest that they exist in the same timeline. But indirectly, if we believe out history books, they both exist(ed) in the same timeline, the one that both you and I are existing in right now. There doesnt have to be a DIRECT connection between any two things in order for them to exist in the same timeline. Everything that has happened in the history of Earth is indirectly connected in the same timeline, but a small fraction are DIRECTLY connected.