Jump to content

9:11/21:12


ioc
 Share

Recommended Posts

God I hope this is the shortest thread ever. The question is authoritatively answered by St. Lerxst himself.

 

The artwork as usual is stunning and Hugh Syme has really delivered. Do you all sit down together and discuss ideas or do you give him a brief remit and he goes away, does his work and brings them back to you?

 

Neil and Hugh work very close together at every stage of the development of the graphics. Hugh`s great for the detail like the 2112 time on the clock face. He`s such a great guy, very clever and the master of detail.

 

beathorse.gif bitchslap.gif bolt.gif

Edited by ioc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (rocketom @ May 22 2012, 07:20 AM)
I still think it's 9:11 or 21:11. Maybe "Clockwork Angels" is a 2112 Prequal.

So the band doesn't know what their own album cover is?

 

Interesting theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Gilbertk @ May 22 2012, 07:29 AM)
QUOTE (rocketom @ May 22 2012, 07:20 AM)
I still think it's 9:11 or 21:11. Maybe "Clockwork Angels" is a 2112 Prequal.

So the band doesn't know what their own album cover is?

 

Interesting theory.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is it sounds like Hugh needs a kick in the ass. First off this album cover is not exactly super inspired as many have already discussed.

 

Next we have Alex telling us how he is "really clever" to think of a detail like making the clock time 21:12. Really? I'm sure most of us would have thought of that. Time to get back on the dope Hugh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Khan @ May 22 2012, 08:52 AM)
So much for the shortest thread ever...

 

Silly me. I didn't take into account the one thing you can always count on:

 

 

 

 

 

user posted image

Edited by ioc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's supposed to be 2112, that was plainly obvious. But it's fudged to make it clearer. I'm still arguing that in the real world the clock doesn't say anything, it's broken. Unless the minute hand is pointing straight up to the 12 then the hour hand should not be directly on an hour number, in this case 9. It should be almost a quarter of the way up to the 10. A real working clock would never look like that cover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (friendlyfloridian @ May 22 2012, 08:22 AM)
QUOTE (danielmclark @ May 22 2012, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (rocketom @ May 22 2012, 06:20 AM)
I still think it's 9:11 or 21:11. Maybe "Clockwork Angels" is a 2112 Prequal.

You better be fking joking.

At least it wasn't ME that made that comment. rofl3.gif

rofl3.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Merely Space @ May 22 2012, 09:17 AM)
QUOTE (friendlyfloridian @ May 22 2012, 08:22 AM)
QUOTE (danielmclark @ May 22 2012, 08:29 AM)
QUOTE (rocketom @ May 22 2012, 06:20 AM)
I still think it's 9:11 or 21:11. Maybe "Clockwork Angels" is a 2112 Prequal.

You better be fking joking.

At least it wasn't ME that made that comment. rofl3.gif

rofl3.gif

laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ May 22 2012, 09:51 AM)
Of course it's supposed to be 2112, that was plainly obvious. But it's fudged to make it clearer. I'm still arguing that in the real world the clock doesn't say anything, it's broken. Unless the minute hand is pointing straight up to the 12 then the hour hand should not be directly on an hour number, in this case 9. It should be almost a quarter of the way up to the 10. A real working clock would never look like that cover.

I'm pretty sure there's a clock in my house that has the hour hand designed like a second hand, whenever the hour changes, the hand changes abruptly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ May 22 2012, 10:51 AM)
I'm still arguing that in the real world the clock doesn't say anything, it's broken. Unless the minute hand is pointing straight up to the 12 then the hour hand should not be directly on an hour number, in this case 9. It should be almost a quarter of the way up to the 10. A real working clock would never look like that cover.

Not true. A watchmaker controls the intervals at which the hands move depending on how they want to configure the gears.

 

For a clock to be functional, the minimal requirements is that any hand of the clock must move at least once per unit of time measurement that it is responsible for. An hour hand must move at least once per hour, the minute hand at least once per minute and so on...

 

These micro-intervals of movement depend on the purpose of the clock. For the most part however as the art of watchmaking has evolved this has allowed greater precision and fluidity of the hands.

 

Whether this is all nit-picking baloney on our parts or actually has anything to do with the story, well we'll know soon enough. In the meantime, there is nothing at all "incorrect" about this clock. If anything it is a bit "old school".

 

common001.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (D3strukt @ May 22 2012, 11:38 AM)
QUOTE (snowdog2112 @ May 22 2012, 09:51 AM)
Of course it's supposed to be 2112, that was plainly obvious. But it's fudged to make it clearer. I'm still arguing that in the real world the clock doesn't say anything, it's broken. Unless the minute hand is pointing straight up to the 12 then the hour hand should not be directly on an hour number, in this case 9. It should be almost a quarter of the way up to the 10. A real working clock would never look like that cover.

I'm pretty sure there's a clock in my house that has the hour hand designed like a second hand, whenever the hour changes, the hand changes abruptly.

Yes, this.

 

new_thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Khan @ May 22 2012, 10:38 AM)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/KublaKhan/disgusted.gif

TOTALLY THIS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ioc @ May 22 2012, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (Khan @ May 22 2012, 10:38 AM)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/KublaKhan/disgusted.gif

TOTALLY THIS!

Really? IMO that is in the top 5 dumbest animated gifs I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...