unforum

[u4ik]

[Obyj34]

Re: EHWR sharing art with "Alpha Omega" RPG?

[goldqmedia]

[JHarmon]

I'm gona play the devil's advocate and say that 1-18-08 is not the release date, and just the title or when things take place (evidenced by the pictures)

If we're getting technical, (and boy am I reaching) "In theaters" and "1-18-08" were on different lines. That's the tiny gap of ambiguity that I'm gonna exploit. Perhaps they're intentionally tricking us.

My proof is fairly weak, and is this: January is where movies go to die. If you're Paramount, and you've got this movie that was made on the cheap by Abras, the next big thing in Hollywood, and with blockbuster features (Monsters, FX, widespread destruction), you, plain and simple, don't release it in January. May at the soonest. The ever-going search for profits in Hollywood demands it.

My money's on 63 degrees being there for numerological significance. Abrams is all about that.

[goldqmedia]

300

[Obyj34]

Isn't 6 months a really short time between announcement and placement in theaters? We usually know about movies years before they are released, especially ones that involve a great deal of post-production work which this definitely will.

But on that same note, 6 months is a hell of a long time to run a teaser to the name of a movie.

[sodak]

???

[u4ik]

[JHarmon]

Re: 300

[u4ik]

Re: ???

[Obyj34]

[Guest]

Good point on the time stamp - it is the 18th, then. Unseasonably warm it is. Given that there is likely to be some manner of giant monster, I think that's the least of our suspension of disbelief.

As to January in recent years it has become a particularly strong release window for horror movies. Just off the top of my head, Hostel and Darkness Falls both debuted in Jan at number one and went on to outperform expectations.

[tinag222]

I think you're missing the obvious on the significance of the 1-18-08 thing. The trailer with no name said "in theaters 1-18-08" and any lucid person will interpret that entirely as a date when the no name move is gonna be in theaters. That's not cryptic.

The cryptic part is that they'd already produced the website from March when it was bought/created, and the domain was 1-18-08. Well it's not a stretch why they did this. They haven't released a name for the mystery movie and if they want a game or just viral marketing they gotta have somewhere to send people TO....so they used that as the domain. It was also cleverly hidden - that this was a url - nobody would've thought that up on their own.

What's to speculate? The photos on the site show a date and timestamp. 01/18/2008 - these are photos, stills, the premise of the trailer is that it's taken footage from a video camera which has a time and date stamp. They're being consistent even tho in real life videorecorder footage isn't out putted in flash images.

So it's what it appears to be - a date/time stamp.

The cryptic part is the way they were presented at all. A picture appears with the above date, and a time of 12:36A...it was speculating it could be biblical reference, until they added the second picture with a time stamp of 12:01A.

Now the fact it is what it's presented to be is clearer....we know this is Rob's party, we recognize the suit guy as Rob, the chick behind him and the guy feeding a drink all from the party during the trailer. So we can presume this is taking place at 12:01am INTO January 18, 2008.

(and don't bother looking for 1-17-08.com, there aint one )

But if you watch the trailer you know this scene wasn't in it anywhere, so it's a timeframe reference AGAIN, it had to have been taken before the events of the trailer. The party, however, had to be going on technically the night of January 17, 2008...that's when it began.

As for the original first photo, given the up close shot and lack of details other than distressed.upset expression, we can see that the shot was taken, if we continue with the timeframe reference, half hour after the photo of Rob taking a drink. We don't know yet for sure if this is one of the girls from the trailer....this could be a parallel sort of thing, someone else's story, or it could be some other shot of the chick upset for whatever reason. Yes, it is an assumption that she was at the party (we didn't see her), that she's frightened (because we are aware of the monster attack), that this shot even came from the same camera.

All we know for sure is that whoever she is, she's upset about something and this shot was taken from whichever camera 30 minutes after Rob's party/drink picture was taken...and there are obviously unknowns so far for January 17 and earlier. We're getting the "result" as of Jan 18. But even the trailer revealed chunks of it were presented in flashback form.

The key here looks more like the clues are in the timing, not the letters/numbers being hidden. They hid something in plain site here....and we're missing it.

[Robin's Minstrel]

Re: ???

[u4ik]

Re: ???