Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-13022928-20171114181433/@comment-13022928-20180108023856

92.234.82.49 wrote: I don't know about it being unrealistic, JCB95- how many apocalypses have you survived? Though I have to admit some of the hard science elements, such as physics and biology, are somewhat contrived, and the timeline a bit "compressed", how are we to know what we'd end up like 100 years after being nuked senseless?

Personally, I thought the idea of Americans ending up living up trees and shooting each other with bows and arrows is pretty realistic, with or without a nuclear war :-p Just by looking at other post apocalyptic shows like TWD I have come to see that this show focuses less on realism and more on relationships.

The scene fiction part is definitely unrealistic especially how the second nuclear apocalypse happened. The timeline is one of the few things that the show has done right. However I don't understand why people keep saying it's been hundreds of years since the first apocalypse because the show has blatantly stated that only 97 years have passed since the first apocalypse.

For that reason alone I don't believe grounders would come up with a whole new language in that time or become immune to radiation in that amount of time.

Unless it's underdeveloped countries I don't believe that random everyday people are hiding in trees shooting arrows at each other.