Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Sat Nov 23, 2024 1:15 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
[SPEC] Possible creature theory
View previous topicView next topic
Page 14 of 19 [275 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Author Message
SLUSHO_ZOOM!
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 311
Location: NYC/BROOKLYN

 		Reality inconsistent.
The attack "happens" on the 1-18 date... and then we get to see the video the day of?

That's not consistent with the internal reality of the film. Is it?

It would take time to pull the video off the cameras and then just put them together. I don't think that's how it will be presented.

I don't think they can do it like they did Blair Witch. The only witnesses were the crew. Unless the people in the video are special to the attack in some way.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:28 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Melampus
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 653

 		Re: Reality inconsistent.
SLUSHO_ZOOM! wrote:
The attack "happens" on the 1-18 date... and then we get to see the video the day of?

That's not consistent with the internal reality of the film. Is it?

It would take time to pull the video off the cameras and then just put them together. I don't think that's how it will be presented.

I don't think they can do it like they did Blair Witch. The only witnesses were the crew. Unless the people in the video are special to the attack in some way.


Yeah, but, the film-world can't be put forward as being exactly in sync with the real-world, because in the real-world, NYC won't ever be attacked by a monster. So, is this really an 'inconsistency'?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
IronJ146
Unfettered


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 634
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States

 		Re: Reality inconsistent.
Melampus wrote:
SLUSHO_ZOOM! wrote:
The attack "happens" on the 1-18 date... and then we get to see the video the day of?

That's not consistent with the internal reality of the film. Is it?

It would take time to pull the video off the cameras and then just put them together. I don't think that's how it will be presented.

I don't think they can do it like they did Blair Witch. The only witnesses were the crew. Unless the people in the video are special to the attack in some way.


Yeah, but, the film-world can't be put forward as being exactly in sync with the real-world, because in the real-world, NYC won't ever be attacked by a monster. So, is this really an 'inconsistency'?

That's what you think... Wink

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:44 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
SLUSHO_ZOOM!
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 311
Location: NYC/BROOKLYN

 		Hmmm...
I'm just saying having the release date of the movie on the same day as the attack is inconsistent with the reality within the movie... if the incident actually happens on that date.

I would think there would be some kind of set up within the movie that resolves that inconsistency.

Blair Witch was treated as an actual event reviewed later by investigators.
There was a bit of an ARG type thing attatched to it too.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kayberry
Decorated


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 295

 		Re: NY1 is on the story...
Melampus wrote:

The newscast is 12:32.
The closeup pic of the two girls (Lily and LenaDia?) is 12:36.
So, it seems like they couldn't have spent much time on the roof (in fact, did they all sprint up there?!)


Let's assume that Harry @ AICN was right about the basic plot (since he was exactly correct about the poster names) and the movie starts with discovering the camcorder with this footage on it. You'd be able to stop and restart filming at a later time, skipping events you don't find filmworthy. However, because the recording is done in real-time, and assuming there's no opportunity for editing then all of the events are in chronological order. Therefore all of these events have to occur within 5 minutes and 58 second of each other:
- Someone turns on the news, it's 12:32, for at least 6 seconds.
- A small number of people at the party (At least Rob, JJ, Lily, and Hud) plus a few other people whom might have also come from the party ascend the stairs and talk a bit. Explosion, fireballs, everyone runs back down the stairs to the street. This part takes 27 seconds.
- People running, it's a lion! 6 seconds before the next cut.
- Statue's head hits building, rolls down Broadway and teleports to Orchard Street. 14 seconds until the last cut.
- Lily starts crying for some reason, some retard takes her picture for some reason.

So 53 seconds are explained in the trailer, leaving a good 5 minutes to wander out of the apartment, walk leisurely up the stairs, socialize a bit, and still have time to watch people running from a monster before bursting in tears as you discover that the monster is in fact, a giant onion. Alternatively, you could just forget to set the camera's time correctly.
_________________
Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!
The trail always leads into a trap.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:13 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
growler
Guest


 		Re: Reality inconsistent.
IronJ146 wrote:
Melampus wrote:
SLUSHO_ZOOM! wrote:
The attack "happens" on the 1-18 date... and then we get to see the video the day of?

That's not consistent with the internal reality of the film. Is it?

It would take time to pull the video off the cameras and then just put them together. I don't think that's how it will be presented.

I don't think they can do it like they did Blair Witch. The only witnesses were the crew. Unless the people in the video are special to the attack in some way.


Yeah, but, the film-world can't be put forward as being exactly in sync with the real-world, because in the real-world, NYC won't ever be attacked by a monster. So, is this really an 'inconsistency'?

That's what you think... Wink




Has it actually been confirmed anywhere that this movie is being released on Jan 18 of 2008? I know I have seen this title theory around this forum before but couldn't the actual title be "01-18-08"? I mean, considering that's what seems to be the date of all this taking place in the movie. Couldn't this film theoretically be release in Dec of 2007 or Feb 0f 2008? Or did I miss some news?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:18 pm
 Back to top 
Phantomson9
Boot

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 30

 		Re: Reality inconsistent.
growler wrote:
IronJ146 wrote:
Melampus wrote:
SLUSHO_ZOOM! wrote:
The attack "happens" on the 1-18 date... and then we get to see the video the day of?

That's not consistent with the internal reality of the film. Is it?

It would take time to pull the video off the cameras and then just put them together. I don't think that's how it will be presented.

I don't think they can do it like they did Blair Witch. The only witnesses were the crew. Unless the people in the video are special to the attack in some way.


Yeah, but, the film-world can't be put forward as being exactly in sync with the real-world, because in the real-world, NYC won't ever be attacked by a monster. So, is this really an 'inconsistency'?

That's what you think... Wink




Has it actually been confirmed anywhere that this movie is being released on Jan 18 of 2008? I know I have seen this title theory around this forum before but couldn't the actual title be "01-18-08"? I mean, considering that's what seems to be the date of all this taking place in the movie. Couldn't this film theoretically be release in Dec of 2007 or Feb 0f 2008? Or did I miss some news?




IM am almost positive when you watch the trailer at the end it says "In Theaters" 01-18-08

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:24 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
growler
Guest


 		So maybe it is called "01-18-08" and it is "in theaters" now!!! Like maybe it's playing only in 6 smalltown theaters right now! Or maybe the title is "In Theaters"!!! What a shtty title for a monster movie! Eff this... I'm gonna go figure out who offed my robot!!!

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:29 pm
 Back to top 
Henrik
Boot


Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Denmark

 		Itīs all about continuity...
The date and timeframe on the pics from 1-18-08.com - if the "attack" takes place in that time period (and afterwards), I donīt see how the movie could be shown on the 18īth of January without 'detroying' the storyline/build-up...

Itīs really a cool 'universe' they are introducing... the interaction on MySpace lets people communicate with the 'people' in the movie (and can therefore relate to them when the film comes out) - the more you know(about the 'ators'); the more you care (in the theater)!!
Guess itīs about emotion/relation with the people in the movie... to create a bond.
And theyīll have references to all the products (slusho etc.) in the movie.. perhaps even MySpace.. everything they have seen, we have seen.
We are a part of the story as much as the actors..!

(think Iīm tired - itīs past midnight here in Scandinavia )

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:31 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kayberry
Decorated


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 295
growler wrote:
So maybe it is called "01-18-08" and it is "in theaters" now!!! Like maybe it's playing only in 6 smalltown theaters right now!


And now, this exclusive script snippet:
Quote:

Rob: How could there be a showing of Untitled J.J. Abrams Project? We're still in the middle of making it.

Hud: That's true, but there's been a new
breakthrough in video marketing.

Rob: There has?

Hud: Yes. Instant movie reels. They're out in
theaters before the movie is finished.

Rob: ...Naaaaa.

_________________
Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!
The trail always leads into a trap.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Melampus
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 653

 		yeah, but, New York isn't really going to be attacked by a monster.

I keep repeating this obvious fact because it means that it doesn't matter when the movie is released, at least, as far as 'continuity' is concerned.

Put it this way: we can play along w/the myspace thing for now and pretend the characters are real people in the real world; but, once the movie is released - whenever that may be - we can no longer play along w/it as though it's totally real, regardless of who 'survives' in the movie, because ...(drum-roll)... in their world, New York will be in ruins, but in our world, it won't. And, that means that it doesn't matter when the movie is released, and since it doesn't matter, why not release it on 1-18-08.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:03 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Almijisti
Decorated


Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 227

 		Re: Reality inconsistent.
growler wrote:
Has it actually been confirmed anywhere that this movie is being released on Jan 18 of 2008? I know I have seen this title theory around this forum before but couldn't the actual title be "01-18-08"? I mean, considering that's what seems to be the date of all this taking place in the movie. Couldn't this film theoretically be release in Dec of 2007 or Feb 0f 2008? Or did I miss some news?


Actually, on some of the "insider" Hollywood sites, there's been some speculation about the release date (sorry, but I lost the link; it should be easy to find people speculating about this). For one thing, they think it's too close to two other Paramount projects, including at least one which has the same target audience. Secondly, I've also read that ST XI is causing scheduling conflicts for JJA already. The live-action filming isn't even completed yet and it's already August, most of the CGI work hasn't even begun, post production won't begin until probably October or November; January is typically when studios dump their trash (though this is not always true), etc. 1-18-08 leaves little or no room to deal with unexpected snafus. Many have theorized that practically speaking, the actual release won't be till late February at the earliest.

They may be full of sh*t, but most of the sites where this is discussed are peopled by persons in the HW film industry. Release dates change pretty frequently--I think 1-18-08 may well be the title of the film. As for "in theaters", that could just be a message that this is a movie and not a Lost TV episode or some other stuff; it's not uncommon now for theaters to show previews of upcoming tv shows, you know. FWIW, I'm not convinced this isn't somehow related to Lost--"you can't drink just six" may be a reference to the fact that Lost is absolutely locked no more than six total seasons, leaving fans "thirsty" for more.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:15 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Melampus
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 653

 		Re: Reality inconsistent.
Almijisti wrote:
FWIW, I'm not convinced this isn't somehow related to Lost--"you can't drink just six" may be a reference to the fact that Lost is absolutely locked no more than six total seasons, leaving fans "thirsty" for more.


That's pretty good. Wink

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:18 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Henrik
Boot


Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 34
Location: Denmark

 		True, true... but I think they somehow wants to reduce the distance between fiction and reality.. all the hype surrounding the film shows that people care about the product - itīs about the adventure and telling a good story.. to seduce the public (you and me) and they have done this perfectly.. everybodyīs looking for clues etc. and spending time 'solving the puzzle' - itīs entertaiment and people care as long as the build-up 'makes sense' - if the pieces of the puzzle donīt fit together, then people will loose interest.. and thatīs why continuity and consistency is vital!

But it all comes down to how the movie will be presented on 'the big screen' (the climax).. and what the focus of the film will be: 'the monster' or 'the victims' - itīs all about the point-of-view..

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:03 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Calypso
Guest


 		My theory is that Slusho has transformed a person or persons into a large creature. It could work because according to the history part of the website an unknown ingredent was used to make slusho good.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:05 pm
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 14 of 19 [275 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group