unforum

[Fredo52]

[SPEC]MAY 2009

[OliMango]

Re: MAY 2009

[Fredo52]

Re: MAY 2009

[OliMango]

Re: MAY 2009

[Whitenoise]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloverfield&action=edit
its only semiprotected, its possible an "established user" edited it still based some speculation that they believed in.

[Hibari-san]

I don't think it happened in 2009 because I don't remember anyone ever saying what year it was. If it does take place in 2009, it could be when the military finds it and it's a coincidence that it's a year or two after.

Completely unrelated, but the Wikipedia page is now much more detailed. It claims that J. J. confirmed that the dark object was the satalittle and it disturbed MGP's sleep.

[Fredo52]

[starshiptrooper]

[Headman]

Re: MAY 2009

[gigantis2001]

[Transparent Blue]

'2009' was probably based on the "Saturday 23rd May" line, as 23 May falls on a Saturday in a few years, 2009 being one of them, and making more sense than the rest.

[Euchre]

Check the time it was made protected, and compare that to when that information was put in the article. That'll tell you if someone who is 'established' wrote that part. If they can't cite sources, it could be cited as BS anyway, done on Wikipedia by placing the tag [ ^{Citation Needed} ]
The Wikipedia folks are very much subjective humans, as can be demonstrated by them allowing some YouTube 'celebrities' to have articles and not others. There are even more examples. Basically they weasel out of allowing many things to be documented until you can get something that will be arbitrarily accepted as a 'reliable source' to post the information, so you can refer to it. It's been shown that a user created their own sources before. Despite all this, many articles do contain accurate information, mostly because over time revisions tend to be supported not only by truly reliable sources but by wide social consensus. The ARG portion of that article was cut out and prevented from being there because it was deemed to not be worthy, but when the publicity for the film exploded they suddenly allowed it in.

[McPhearson]

The fact that they changed the date without corresponding correctly with the MySpace pages makes some of this a tad bit annoying.

2009, eh? Well shoot. That better not be the next installment's release date. That would suck to wait that long AGAIN.

[OliMango]

[Angstfild]

How much sense does it make for this to have occured in 2009? Logically, it doesn't. Now that doesn't mean that the magic of hollywood cannot say presto! and bam! there, it's 2009 for the year of occurance. I am just saying that with the information on the already confusing dates that we do have, why make it worse?

The myspace pages all were visited and/or updated 1-18-2008. Those that had postings referred to the party as "tonight".

The initial pictures we saw on 1-18-08.com were all dated 1-18-08. Granted the later pictures (Chef - present) have no dates.

Dates in the movie totally contradict the above 2 sources. Reasons unknown.

Was this a continuity error? Writer error? Bizzaro/alternate reality? Does the monster twist time and space? Who knows and do the dates really matter that much?