MovieChat Forums > Go (1999) Discussion > No Mobile Phones

No Mobile Phones

posted 17 years ago by bigbud_120
144 replies | jump to latest

Did anyone else notice that even though the film was shot in 1999 and focused on young people that no mobile phones appeared in the film.

Unless I missed something it seems like this was a deliberate decision by makers of the film. I like the choice.

Edit: The stripclub guy who Simon shot may have used a mobile phone to call the Rivierra to find out which room Simon and his friends were staying in. I don't recall, it may have been a carphone.

It still doesn't explain why no other characters in the movie use a mobile when they had the opportunity.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Monster-17 16 years ago

If you want a plot involving kids and cell phones then you should watch 'Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist'. Albeit, 'Go' is a much better movie.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MayorGoldieWilson 16 years ago

Yah in High school/ Early College days , which for me was 99-2002 timeframe..some of us had cells, but not everybody

[–] autoswerving 16 years ago

just watched & i can't believe nobody mentioned there was a cell in the stolen car! they even talked about how it could be traced even if they didn't answer it. the fact that they knew these details even though cell phones were uncommon is inconsistent.

[–] anfeargal 16 years ago

I am about the same age as Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf -- I got my first cell phone right around the beginning of 2000. They were not around that much (even amongst professionals) in 1999 (comparitively).

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soco-81 15 years ago

Mobile Phones were not big in 1999, especially amongst the type of ppl portrayed in this film.

*****

[–] luvbulmers01 15 years ago

I find it crazy that america would be so late to mobile phones, I live in Ireland and everyone had mobile phones in 99 i got my first mobile phone in 98 when i was 14 and it wasnt my parents who bought it, i did out of money from a part time job i had. Mobiles were readily availaible to the masses by then here.

[–] holyspicoli 15 years ago

Folks, this is no goof or deliberate move on the filmmakers' part to make some sort
of social comment by not featuring cel phones. Its simply a reflection of the culture
at the time. I was 20 when this movie came out, living in LA, and working in youth/teen oriented
fields, and I can tell you that they just weren't very common yet. They were around a bit,
which is accurately portrayed in the film, with a couple characters using them here and
there (the word "landline" is even used meaning the cel phenom was right on the verge
of breaking through). '00 was when it really kicked in fast and everybody in LA started
getting them. Plus I don't see why the filmmakers would choose to omit a key part of
youth culture in a film so clearly aimed at being hip and appealing to teens.

[–] maia_sayet 15 years ago

Yup. I was 20 at the time. I didn't know anyone with a cell. I knew some people who's *parents* had them. But, not the starving student types I was around at the time.

[–] meggy_m 15 years ago

I was in 11th grade in '99 and I remember like two friends having a mobile, and it was their parents that they borrowed. I live in PA.

Even if you had a cell back then, it wasn't like it is now. Everyone is addicted to their cell's now. Back then, it wasn't like that at all. I really don't think the teens would have a cell. I could see maybe the dealer and the cop having one, or a pager. But like I said, they weren't such a huge part of our culture back then as they are now.

On another note, the movie was released in '99, which means it was written and shot maybe even two years before that.

[–] Mor_Oghma 15 years ago

weird
everybody in my high school class had them, and im from croatia, "non-communist" for only 10 years" croatia
our biggest sports star was sponsored by a mobile phone company and the music from one of the commercials was the most catchy tune of the year.
mobiles were everywhere and not having one would be weirder than this thread is. and thats a lot of weirdness

Mor

[–] pas_si_simple 15 years ago

that is strange...perhaps it has more to do with infrastructure and the like. it's cheaper to have cell phone infrastructure put in and may make more sense if you don't have an extensive landline network already in place? i'm just guessing...obv i have no idea. but in 1999 cellphones weren't really as widespread or accessible to youth.

[–] Mor_Oghma 15 years ago

"...if you don't have an extensive landline network already in place?"

lol, i'm from croatia not ethiopia

Mor

[–] Noufa (400) 10 months ago

Bit of a tangent but phone companies in America were pretty monopolistic. They were seen as a basic necessity, so their 'turf' was protected by the state.

My father told me how they billed customers for hooking up a 2nd landline phone in their houses. They had some way of testing the resistance on the line & could "see" the additional phone. I'm also old enough to remember when there were surcharges for caller ID. A normal company would roll out these features as standard to attract/keep customers. American phone companies didn't because they didn't have to.

This might explain why post-communist countries were faster switching to cellular. They were in the process of rejecting the command economy.

[–] holyspicoli 15 years ago

America is notoriously one of the last developed nations to see widespread cel-phone use: many countries in Europe and Asia had cel-phones for years before they became common in the US

[–] smeagolisfree99 15 years ago

This thread is laughable. Cell phones were just starting to catch on, high school students not having them is not a big deal.

"Dumbledore's got style."Kingsley Shacklebolt