Vulture Lives
Freakzoid
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay. One more post
You initially said that it was definitely a flash forward for the following reasons...
Different length of hair. But, the hair is clearly the same length. Any perceived difference in length is so slight that it's negligible.
The background is different. Even if the background is an entirely different location, such a thing would not be evidence of a flash forward. It would be evidence of nothing more than a change in location. You also ignore the similarities in the background.
The shoulders are more broad. I don't agree that the shoulders are noticeably more broad. You're trying to prove a difference in the size of her shoulders by comparing two figures that were photographed at entirely different distances from the camera. It's a flawed method that is unlikely to produce an accurate result.
The facial structure is different. Her face is too obscured by shadow in the first shot to draw any reasonable conclusions about that.
You've neglected to address any of these points, and now you're trying to sidetrack the discussion by drawing me into a highly subjective debate about her age in each shot. It's problematic because we can't see her face in the first shot, and we can't see her body in the second shot, so the basis of comparison is poor. Trying to draw conclusions from such a poor basis of comparison is an endeavor that would lend itself to far too much subjectivity to be useful. Anyway, if the face on the right is that of a fifteen-year-old, then the figure on the left is fifteen. Happy? I already said, multiple times, that I believe the face on the right could belong to the figure on the left. Whatever her age, I can accept that the figure in both shots is meant to be the same age.
I encourage anyone that's been following this debate to pull up the trailer and watch the moment in question again. This whole argument that it's definitely a flash forward is based on a split second of frenetically edited footage. It's rather absurd.
I'm not even arguing that it definitely isn't a flash forward. I'm simply arguing that there is not enough information in the footage provided to draw the conclusion that it's definitely a flash forward. You're touting it like it's an obvious fact. It's not an obvious fact; it's wild speculation on your part.
Anyway, I don't know what else can be said about it. We're just gonna have to wait for the answer.
You initially said that it was definitely a flash forward for the following reasons...
Different length of hair. But, the hair is clearly the same length. Any perceived difference in length is so slight that it's negligible.
The background is different. Even if the background is an entirely different location, such a thing would not be evidence of a flash forward. It would be evidence of nothing more than a change in location. You also ignore the similarities in the background.
The shoulders are more broad. I don't agree that the shoulders are noticeably more broad. You're trying to prove a difference in the size of her shoulders by comparing two figures that were photographed at entirely different distances from the camera. It's a flawed method that is unlikely to produce an accurate result.
The facial structure is different. Her face is too obscured by shadow in the first shot to draw any reasonable conclusions about that.
You've neglected to address any of these points, and now you're trying to sidetrack the discussion by drawing me into a highly subjective debate about her age in each shot. It's problematic because we can't see her face in the first shot, and we can't see her body in the second shot, so the basis of comparison is poor. Trying to draw conclusions from such a poor basis of comparison is an endeavor that would lend itself to far too much subjectivity to be useful. Anyway, if the face on the right is that of a fifteen-year-old, then the figure on the left is fifteen. Happy? I already said, multiple times, that I believe the face on the right could belong to the figure on the left. Whatever her age, I can accept that the figure in both shots is meant to be the same age.
I encourage anyone that's been following this debate to pull up the trailer and watch the moment in question again. This whole argument that it's definitely a flash forward is based on a split second of frenetically edited footage. It's rather absurd.
I'm not even arguing that it definitely isn't a flash forward. I'm simply arguing that there is not enough information in the footage provided to draw the conclusion that it's definitely a flash forward. You're touting it like it's an obvious fact. It's not an obvious fact; it's wild speculation on your part.
Anyway, I don't know what else can be said about it. We're just gonna have to wait for the answer.