Author
Message
tinag222
Unfettered
Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Posts: 521 Location: Here, Now
Thanks - that helps.
And ya know, for what it's worth...whether it's part of the story or not aside, if they want us to suspend disbelief to accept monsters and the SOL head rolling down the street, I think we can accept it being 63deg in January too. I'm okay with it. Just was curious if this was unusual or no big deal.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:29 am
1-18-08.livejournal.com
Boot
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Posts: 53
You guys do realize that there has been nothing to indicate that it takes place on January 18th, right? Other than the timestamp on the pictures on 1-18-08.com. Which are obviously meant just to emphasize the release date. While its possible for it to reach that temperature at night, in the past century that's probably only happened a few times at most. The actual date the film takes place is most likely going to be irrelevant if it's even mentioned. Though if you go by the skyline, it's St. Patrick's Day since the Empire State Building has all three tiers lit green.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:06 am
worngmike
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 99
fair point, plus just had another look through the trailer and there are no sign of cold breath, the girls up on the roof in their party dresses don't look cold (no sign of arm rubbing etc) and the people out on the street don't appear to have any heavy jackets on, t-shirts shirts etc.
unless of course it is actually overly warm for that time of year which could help lead up to the events unfolding.
isn't it the woolworth building though and not the empire state
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:04 pm
ScottBrosius
Boot
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 33
when they're on the roof, you can see the ESB (oh the glaring geographic mistakes in that trailer) in the background if you're watching very closely, but yes, when they hit street level, the lit up building is the Woolworth building.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:24 pm
Ecks51
Unfettered
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 644 Location: The Snow-covered Meadows
1-18-08.livejournal.com wrote:
You guys do realize that there has been nothing to indicate that it takes place on January 18th, right? Other than the timestamp on the pictures on 1-18-08.com. Which are obviously meant just to emphasize the release date.
I don't think that's anywhere near correct. It'd be really pointless to put that date on the pictures if it's only the release date. Who is going to forget the release date; if they're interested in this movie?
_________________
Look out for when you go fishing for clues.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:27 pm
ScottBrosius
Boot
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 33
At the same time, 62 degrees and an emerald ESB seem more indicitive of 3-17-08 than 1-18-08. I'm not sold either way, but I don't think that the time stamp is necessarily proof of date. I mean, I could set the time stamp on my camera to 1-18-08 for every picture I take, if I were so compelled.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:18 pm
tygr20
Unfettered
Joined: 13 Apr 2007 Posts: 554 Location: New Albany IN(READ: Louisville KY)
ScottBrosius wrote:
At the same time, 62 degrees and an emerald ESB seem more indicitive of 3-17-08 than 1-18-08. I'm not sold either way, but I don't think that the time stamp is necessarily proof of date. I mean, I could set the time stamp on my camera to 1-18-08 for every picture I take, if I were so compelled.
But why would this happen in the pictures that are supposed to be essential to this ARG, or as I'm starting to believe, viral marketing campaign? Why provide false information when little to no positive IG info has been offered?
_________________Followed Nate, couldn't find Tom Tooman, anyone got any good leads for someone else to
stalk
help?
@tygr20
www.tygr20.com
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:23 pm
Annanunaki
Guest
The 63 Degree Temp... SET DESIGN????? Now, I have heard a lot of theories, but I have to say, I TOTALLY disagree that the 63* temp on the TV, and the lack of heavy winter wear outside on the streets is a "set design" issue. If the set people are that slack...then someones head ought to roll, (other than the S.O.L.!) Nope, I am afraid that might be something that they would catch before the trailers are out. If it were a lamp on in one scene, then off in the next...maybe . But the entire cast dressed in "spring" like clothing...and the temp n the TV at 63*?? I very highly doubt it...the warmth in Jan. is part of the plot. Any logical person can deduce that...just my opinion of course!
By the way...Rob does take his coat off during the party...it's off in the pic with Jamie & Platt on 1-18-08.com
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:46 pm
ScottBrosius
Boot
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 33
tygr20 wrote:
ScottBrosius wrote:
At the same time, 62 degrees and an emerald ESB seem more indicitive of 3-17-08 than 1-18-08. I'm not sold either way, but I don't think that the time stamp is necessarily proof of date. I mean, I could set the time stamp on my camera to 1-18-08 for every picture I take, if I were so compelled.
But why would this happen in the pictures that are supposed to be essential to this ARG, or as I'm starting to believe, viral marketing campaign? Why provide false information when little to no positive IG info has been offered?
That's basically my point. What if this isn't even an ARG, just JJ Abrams effing with us all so we'll keep talking about this movie that's coming out on January 18th? Not so much why, but why not?
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:56 pm
deletia
Unfettered
Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 304 Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Re: The 63 Degree Temp... SET DESIGN?????
Annanunaki wrote:
...the warmth in Jan. is part of the plot. Any logical person can deduce that...just my opinion of course!
The other possible logical deduction, as has been pointed out just above, is that the date is not 1-18-08. That, however, would be weird and would require further explanation. I mean, the timestamps are really clear. 3-15, the Saturday before St. Patty's, seems a good guess as any, but without more concrete evidence than the color of Woolworth's, I'd say Annanunaki 's take on this is the most sound.
Is there anything else anywhere in the trailer that could indicate another possible date or that would offer more evidence that it was coming up on St. Patty's Day?
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:00 pm
1-18-08.livejournal.com
Boot
Joined: 25 Jul 2007 Posts: 53
Ecks51 wrote:
I don't think that's anywhere near correct. It'd be really pointless to put that date on the pictures if it's only the release date. Who is going to forget the release date; if they're interested in this movie?
If the date is irrelevant (like it is in most movies), what would be the point of putting the actual date on the photos? It's not farfetched at all to think whoever was responsible for the photos on the site needed a date for the timestamp and decided to use 1/18/08 just because it's the release date.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:16 pm
Ecks51
Unfettered
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 644 Location: The Snow-covered Meadows
1-18-08.livejournal.com wrote:
Ecks51 wrote:
I don't think that's anywhere near correct. It'd be really pointless to put that date on the pictures if it's only the release date. Who is going to forget the release date; if they're interested in this movie?
If the date is irrelevant (like it is in most movies), what would be the point of putting the actual date on the photos? It's not farfetched at all to think whoever was responsible for the photos on the site needed a date for the timestamp and decided to use 1/18/08 just because it's the release date.
Eh. That's a big IF. They've made a big fuss over the date. Yes, the date might be irrelivant in most movies, but this isn't most movies.
They didn't HAVE to put a date/time stamp on the photos at all. I have a camera, and I'm sure many of you do, and it's set not to display that. The date is more than a release date. If it wasn't they could've just put January 2008 or Coming 2008 at the end of the teaser instead.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:31 pm
Last edited by Ecks51 on Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
cgsheldon
Boot
Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 15 Location: Dubai, UAE
1-18-08.livejournal.com wrote:
If the date is irrelevant (like it is in most movies), what would be the point of putting the actual date on the photos?
Most movies also include their title in their trailers .
I'm of the opinion that the date is the day of the attack, but it seems this might be an argument that will only be settled once the movie is out.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:33 pm
Ecks51
Unfettered
Joined: 19 Jul 2007 Posts: 644 Location: The Snow-covered Meadows
Well it is a [spec] thread. A lot of the debating will hopefully settle down once we get more info.
_________________
Look out for when you go fishing for clues.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:38 pm
worngmike
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 99
would that be mass debating then.
sorry couldn't resist.
either they have intentionally made it warm for january or it actually another date, but like has been said the release date does seem to suggest that is the date of the film, but why though? cos its shot on a hand held. i think we have taken the 1-18-08 as the date of the film happening rather than its release date as it does clearly say in theatres 1-18-08, not set in.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:08 pm
Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 1 Week 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Sort by: Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending