PDA

View Full Version : Cloverfield (spoilers, speculation, clue hunting)



ShadowMaat
July 10th, 2007, 02:22 PM
I was not one of the lucky ones to see the new JJ Abrams mystery movie trailer before Transformers, but I've been hearing snippets about it all week. Anyone else curious?

The most recent revelation is that all of the Ethan Haas stuff- which a lot of people were assuming was tied into the movie- was actually for some new RPG/game thingy coming out this fall. It makes me SO glad that I didn't waste time trying to solve the various puzzles on the Haas site.

If Ethan isn't in the game, though, that discredits a lot of the theories that were being developed, most notably the thoughts of a Cthulhu/Lovecraft connection. There's definitely a monster of some sort, but not necessarily one of the Old Ones.

What I found interesting is that the studio was systematically removing the phone-captured trailer from YouTube. I mean, it's a trailer right? Basically a commercial? You should think they'd want people watching it. Or maybe that was just to help build the hype. The trailer is now available online and let me say that I think it is a MASSIVE help to finally be able to understand what people are saying... and to hear the noises they hear.

Another theory debunked: The voice yells, "It's alive," not "It's a lion," so those who persist in the theory of it being a Voltron movie will have to try their luck somewhere else. :P

And for those attending Comic Con, keep your eyes peeled for unattended items like video tapes, discs and memory sticks. Someone on the promo team for the movie said,


Let me give you a hint: the people behind the marketing for this movie assume that if you see something lying unattended at comic-con, you will assume it's okay to steal

Others have referenced past promotions where memory sticks containing songs from a band's new album were left in the bathrooms of some related venue and another con where copies of The Ring (or probably the movie from The Ring) were left for folks to find.

Another clue may be on the Slusho (http://www.slusho.jp/) site. Maybe that "deep sea ingredient" is the egg sac of some deep sea monster....

Xicer
July 10th, 2007, 02:28 PM
I've been hearing from people that it might be a new Godzilla movie, though I'm not sure I see that happening.

If you haven't seen the trailer, you can watch it here:
http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=966&item=0

ShadowMaat
July 10th, 2007, 02:36 PM
That's been suggested, but Godzilla is owned by Sony, not Paramount. Unless I've missed a memo somewhere. Hard to keep up with some of the companines. ;)

the fifth man
July 10th, 2007, 07:45 PM
The trailer definitely grabbed my attention. I just hope some more info comes out about what this movie is all about.

Oreo
July 12th, 2007, 07:35 AM
It's a Godzilla ripoff, which I love. :-D

Plus it is said that the movie only cost 30 million, looks damn good for 30 million. This should be a hint to every movie maker out there. You do not need 500 million dollars to make a movie!

TheWarrior
July 12th, 2007, 09:27 AM
I saw the trailer this morning on Apple, and it has me wondering what the movie is about.

IGN Movie News (http://movies.ign.com/articles/801/801593p1.html)

Xicer
July 12th, 2007, 09:44 AM
lol I've heard that it could be Ghostbusters 3 :P

ShadowMaat
July 12th, 2007, 09:57 AM
lol I've heard that it could be Ghostbusters 3 :P

Not unless the description given by one of the actors was complete misinformation. GB3 is supposed to take place in some demon version of Manhattan.

I'd prefer it to be something new (relatively speaking) rather than some pre-existing thing like Voltron or Ghostbusters or whatever.

Daniel Jackson
July 12th, 2007, 12:23 PM
I suspect it'll be a sequel to 1998's Godzilla (Sony could have sole Paramount the sequel rights) or something original. Whatever it is, it's almost certainly a monster movie. I enjoy monster movies, so I'll probably see it so long as it's not filmed as a two-hour home video.

ShadowMaat
July 12th, 2007, 01:17 PM
...I'll probably see it so long as it's not filmed as a two-hour home video.
That's pretty much what it's gonna look like. One of the details that is known is that the movie is filmed "primarily" on hand-held cameras. Think Godzilla vs. Blair Witch. ;)

It isn't Godzilla (I highly doubt Sony sold the rights to Paramount), but if it's one of the other classic monsters like Gamera or something (dunno who owns them), that'd be okay. Although I'm still hoping it's an Abrams original monster. :)

Oreo
July 12th, 2007, 08:47 PM
I like the joke I read elsewhere...

It's Lostzilla after it gets of the island and it is pissed. :)

Daniel Jackson
July 12th, 2007, 08:50 PM
That's pretty much what it's gonna look like. One of the details that is known is that the movie is filmed "primarily" on hand-held cameras. Think Godzilla vs. Blair Witch. ;)
Why do you think so? Lots of movies have had previews that barely resembled the finished film. It's entirely possible that there's just this one scene that's shown through a video camera, and that's what they chose for the first preview to keep things vague. :jack: I just don't believe the entire movie will be filmed as if a real person recorded it with a personal video camera. What I saw in the preview as very bad filming. Why would anyone intentionally film the movie poorly? :confused:

Trek_Girl42
July 12th, 2007, 09:03 PM
Why do you think so? Lots of movies have had previews that barely resembled the finished film. It's entirely possible that there's just this one scene that's shown through a video camera, and that's what they chose for the first preview to keep things vague. :jack: I just don't believe the entire movie will be filmed as if a real person recorded it with a personal video camera. What I saw in the preview as very bad filming. Why would anyone intentionally film the movie poorly? :confused:
I thought the filming of the preview was great- but then again, I love hand-held cam.

Acolyte Of Bli'l'ab
July 12th, 2007, 10:33 PM
Doesnt look to bad actually, like the realism of it anyway. If the rumours of it being a remake of Day of the triffids are true it should appeal to me anyway.

Daniel Jackson
July 12th, 2007, 10:59 PM
I thought the filming of the preview was great- but then again, I love hand-held cam.
I can't stand it, I want to scream at the camera man, "Hold still, you moron!" :S

Trek_Girl42
July 12th, 2007, 11:25 PM
I can't stand it, I want to scream at the camera man, "Hold still, you moron!" :S
LOL. I love stuff like that- BSG, Firefly, Children of Men. In my opinion they're the stories that feel the most real. If this film is done all handheld, I'll definitely see it for that alone. :D

Daniel Jackson
July 12th, 2007, 11:32 PM
If I want reality, I'll watch a documentary. I watch movies to see someone's imagination brought to life. The shaking camera work is sloppy at best and makes me dizzy. :S

Exiled Master
July 13th, 2007, 12:05 AM
My God, it's the conclusion of LOST!

TheChosen1
July 13th, 2007, 01:02 AM
There are a couple clues that it's some sort of monster. A. Many people say it's coming this way. Or my god it's huge. Plus Look at the head of the Statue of Liberty. It is sliced off like some razor sharp claws hit or or perhaps maybe even a sword of some type. Not to mention this Monstorous Roar.

Oh btw, this would be cool if this was a live action Voltron movie. That would kick some serious ass. Voltron could have swiped at the monster and missed and hit the Statue of liberty on the uppercut swing, who knows. Also what went through my mind is perhaps another X-Men movie? I doubt it though.

I do believe it's a monster movie of some sorts with a wild speculation of possible Voltron movie, doubt it and wild speculation on being an X-Men movie.

I have to say when I first saw this trailer at Transformers and I heard the roar and then saw the head of the Statue of liberty fly off. I immediately though of the re-imagined Godzilla with Mathew Brodrick and Hank Azaria. It's NewYork too so that's my take on it. And I'm saying it's a monster movie and it likely being Godzillia. The other stuff was just fancifully speculation.

TheChosen1


P.S. I can't speculate on Lost because I've never seen the show.

ShadowMaat
July 13th, 2007, 04:40 AM
Why do you think so? Lots of movies have had previews that barely resembled the finished film. It's entirely possible that there's just this one scene that's shown through a video camera, and that's what they chose for the first preview to keep things vague. :jack: I just don't believe the entire movie will be filmed as if a real person recorded it with a personal video camera. What I saw in the preview as very bad filming. Why would anyone intentionally film the movie poorly? :confused:

Because as I said, it's one of the details that IS known about the movie. That does not mean that I made it up to fit what I saw in the trailer, it means that it's a fact that has been released from sources within the project. Could it still be wrong? Could it be misinformation? Yeah, I suppose so, but I don't think it is. It's probably one of the ways they kept the costs down and it's a different and seldom-used method of storytelling.

What you saw isn't what I saw; what you call "bad filming" I call an interesting idea. I dunno if it'll play out in the long run, but I've seen "dumber" ideas succeed and I'm curious enough about the movie that I think I can tolerate the camera stuff.


Oh btw, this would be cool if this was a live action Voltron movie. That would kick some serious ass.
IT ISN'T VOLTRON!!! Voltron doesn't even take place on Earth! Wrong time (not the future), wrong place (not Arus), wrong format (hand-helds? with a release in January?). But if they did waste a Voltron movie on a bunch of hand-held cameras from a bunch of random, uninvolved people, that would piss me off. Can you imagine if Transformers had been done that way? Filmed completely with outside characters who had no direct involvement with any of the main leads? JJ Abrams is a pretty smart guy, so let's give him enough credit to not do something that asinine. ;)

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 09:33 AM
Because as I said, it's one of the details that IS known about the movie. That does not mean that I made it up to fit what I saw in the trailer, it means that it's a fact that has been released from sources within the project
Link?

Xicer
July 13th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Oh and here's the website for people who haven't seen it yet:
http://www.1-18-08.com/

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 09:50 AM
There's nothing there but three pictures. Where's the content?

Xicer
July 13th, 2007, 09:54 AM
That's all it's supposed to be. It's all clever marketing. They show a teaser that's gets people talking about it while not giving up virtually any info on the movie, and then create a website that's even more puzzling that the teaser.

ShadowMaat
July 13th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Link?

Ain't it Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33104)

And what makes this different than any other giant monster movie? Well, as I understand it, most of the film is going to be shot using home video cameras, as if from the point of view of real people who are experiencing an attack on New York.

/Film (http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/06/29/jj-abrams-top-secret-cloverfield-movie-trailer-attached-to-transformers/)

So what is Cloverfield? It’s a giant monster movie (refferred internally as “The Parasite”) which is shot using home video cameras from the point of view of real people who are experiencing the attack on New York City.

Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117968123.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

The trailer is apparently for a Bad Robot monster movie code-named "Cloverfield,'' which Paramount will bow Jan. 18. Shot "Blair Witch''-style with handheld cameras, it shows revelers sounding off at a Gotham birthday party until mayhem strikes. The trailer carries no title, but at the end, it flashes "From producer J.J. Abrams,'' then the release date and a quickie credit block.

IGN (http://movies.ign.com/articles/801/801593p1.html)

Early indications are that the film is some sort of giant monster sci-fi movie presented in a "reality" style -- like The Blair Witch Project. And rumor has it that "The Parasite," supposedly what the crew is calling the monster in the film, is another working title for the production.

So you're right- it isn't solid, factual confirmation, but it's being tossed around by a lot of big sites. It's hard to get ANYTHING confirmed, but when folks start going too far off someone gets 'em back on track, as happened with the whole Ethan Haas fiasco.

From what IS being revealed about the movie (in little crumbs and leaks) I'd say the details fit with a home movie-style production. But no, it isn't solid proof yet.

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 02:54 PM
That's all it's supposed to be. It's all clever marketing. They show a teaser that's gets people talking about it while not giving up virtually any info on the movie, and then create a website that's even more puzzling that the teaser.
That's not clever marketting, it's a waste of time. Either show the audience something or don't. This teasing by showing something, but being so vague you only know it was something is utterly retarded. :rolleyes: It makes me think they don't want to show the movie, because it's really bad. lol

Thanks, ShadowMaat, now I know to skip this movie. Filmed with home cameras... wow... talk about lame.

Xicer
July 13th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Ah but you see, it gets people excited and creates a large amount of publicity for the movie without showing much of the actual movie at all. And in this regard, it has done very well as you can see.

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 02:59 PM
I just don't see how people are getting excited over a preview showing a party followed by people feaking out at... something... LAME!

Xicer
July 13th, 2007, 03:05 PM
But they are, and that's why JJ and the gang took this approach. Viral marketing my friend.

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 05:24 PM
I hate viral marketting, it is incredibly annoying. :jack_new_anime25:

Xicer
July 13th, 2007, 05:36 PM
lol yea it's a bit of a trend now, but sometimes it can be pretty cool.

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 05:42 PM
I just want to go to a website and read about the movie. I don't want to play games. :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to the movie. What is this Voltron I keep seeing mentioned?

Xicer
July 13th, 2007, 05:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron

80s Japanese show about a giant robot that can change shape basically.

ShadowMaat
July 13th, 2007, 06:34 PM
I just want to go to a website and read about the movie. I don't want to play games. :rolleyes:
On that point, at least, I agree. Just look at all those people who jumped through flaming hoops trying to track down itty bitty breadcrumbs only to find out they were chasing the wrong trail.

While I appreciate the concept of this whole "interactivity" fad in TV and movies I also don't feel that an audience should be made to work in order to figure out what's going on. That's why I'm willing to sit back and let others follow the leads... then I can read about what they found. ;)

And while you may not appreciate the format of the movie, DJ, and while you may not be able to "get" why people are so excited about the trailer, the fact of the matter is that some people are excited and have every right to feel that way. Folks are no more "lame" for liking the sound of the Abrams movie than they are for loving Stargate. Or Star Trek. Or for looking forward to other projects which are only in the speculation stage.

The idea behind the movie reminds me a bit of that scene in Signs when TV audiences get their first look at one of the aliens via the home video of that birthday party. I thought that brief glimpse was a deliciously spooky moment and if there's going to be a whole movie about the "little guys" vs. the unknown, then I'm all for it. War of the Worlds was an overblown production, but there was still that theme of one lone family vs. the unknown which I really liked. Not ALL movies have to be about Big-time Heroes saving the planet from the aliens/monsters/lawyers, sometimes it's about the small-time heroes- your dad or your neighbor or that weird lady down the road who fight just to protect their families and friends. Big monsters seen through the eyes of innocent bystanders (relatively speaking) seems like a good theme to me and if that means having to put up with shaky cameras and a home movie feel, I'm willing to give it a shot and see what happens.

Plus, of course, it's JJ Abrams. IMO, he's a pretty smart cookie with some interesting ideas and he's almost bound to do something worth watching. :)

Daniel Jackson
July 13th, 2007, 07:02 PM
On that point, at least, I agree. Just look at all those people who jumped through flaming hoops trying to track down itty bitty breadcrumbs only to find out they were chasing the wrong trail. While I appreciate the concept of this whole "interactivity" fad in TV and movies I also don't feel that an audience should be made to work in order to figure out what's going on. That's why I'm willing to sit back and let others follow the leads... then I can read about what they found. ;)
Glad we're on the same page. :D


And while you may not appreciate the format of the movie, DJ, and while you may not be able to "get" why people are so excited about the trailer, the fact of the matter is that some people are excited and have every right to feel that way. Folks are no more "lame" for liking the sound of the Abrams movie than they are for loving Stargate. Or Star Trek. Or for looking forward to other projects which are only in the speculation stage.
People are welcome to be excited about the movie. I never said they were lame for liking it. I sad the preview was lame.


The idea behind the movie reminds me a bit of that scene in Signs when TV audiences get their first look at one of the aliens via the home video of that birthday party. I thought that brief glimpse was a deliciously spooky moment and if there's going to be a whole movie about the "little guys" vs. the unknown, then I'm all for it.
It worked, because one of the characters saw it on TV. ;)


War of the Worlds was an overblown production, but there was still that theme of one lone family vs. the unknown which I really liked.
I loved that movie, and I'm glad they got Tom Cruise to star in it. He was fun to watch. :D


Not ALL movies have to be about Big-time Heroes saving the planet from the aliens/monsters/lawyers, sometimes it's about the small-time heroes- your dad or your neighbor or that weird lady down the road who fight just to protect their families and friends. Big monsters seen through the eyes of innocent bystanders (relatively speaking) seems like a good theme to me and if that means having to put up with shaky cameras and a home movie feel, I'm willing to give it a shot and see what happens.
I agree, it's great to see an epic story through the eyes of a regular person. It's good contrast to the movies that are told through the eyes of the hero. My issue is with the filming technique, not the perspective. They have all this money, and the best they can do is to film it like a home video? To me, that is poor filming, not art. Keep in mind I'm talking about a whole movie, not a mere scene.

the fifth man
July 13th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Big monsters seen through the eyes of innocent bystanders (relatively speaking) seems like a good theme to me and if that means having to put up with shaky cameras and a home movie feel, I'm willing to give it a shot and see what happens.

Plus, of course, it's JJ Abrams. IMO, he's a pretty smart cookie with some interesting ideas and he's almost bound to do something worth watching. :)

The whole "home movie" feel doesn't bother me too much, and it looks like it could be interesting. Depending on what else we learn about this movie before it is released, I'll probably end up giving it a try.

Exiled Master
July 13th, 2007, 08:20 PM
I've watched a video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8471569584976878808&q=1-18-08&total=126&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)that called the Parasite site fake.
Anybody know where I can find a clip of monster sounds from Lost?

TheChosen1
July 14th, 2007, 11:23 AM
I just want to go to a website and read about the movie. I don't want to play games. :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to the movie. What is this Voltron I keep seeing mentioned?


I only speculated on Voltron cause someone else mentioned it. Voltron is an anime cartoon from the 80s. You know how power rangers have their zords and they form together to make this huge Robot. Well that's a rip off of Transformers/Go-Bot's and Voltron of the Early to mid 80s.


TheChosen1

ShadowMaat
July 14th, 2007, 02:31 PM
I still have all the lions. :D

I'd be very leery of a movie being made- even a "proper" movie without the hand-held camera stuff- just because I've seen how they've *******ized other childhood treasures and I wouldn't want to see that happen to my favorite cartoon. I mean, god gods, look what they've done to Underdog! *shudders* They redid the Voltron cartoons at some point, spiffing up the animation and whatnot and I hated it; I can only imagine a live action version would make me hate it even more. Some treasures shouldn't be remade. Which is another reason I don't want this movie to be Voltron.

TheChosen1
July 15th, 2007, 10:12 AM
I still have all the lions. :D

I'd be very leery of a movie being made- even a "proper" movie without the hand-held camera stuff- just because I've seen how they've *******ized other childhood treasures and I wouldn't want to see that happen to my favorite cartoon. I mean, god gods, look what they've done to Underdog! *shudders* They redid the Voltron cartoons at some point, spiffing up the animation and whatnot and I hated it; I can only imagine a live action version would make me hate it even more. Some treasures shouldn't be remade. Which is another reason I don't want this movie to be Voltron.


Sweet. The original metal lion's that can form to make Voltron? My brother used to have that. I imagine that has to be worth something by now. It was a bit bulky to play with but color and chrome looked nice and a the lion's parts moved when Voltron wasn't assembled.


TheChosen1

ShadowMaat
July 15th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Well, my lions were plastic, not metal, and I played with them in the tub and on the beach, so they aren't exactly in pristine condition, but they were a lot of fun to play with and that's what counts. ;)

Haven't heard any new tidbits about the Abrams movie, other than the new pic on the main site (http://www.1-18-08.com/) of the people in the fog/smoke.

Exiled Master
July 15th, 2007, 10:22 AM
I still have all the lions. :D

I'd be very leery of a movie being made- even a "proper" movie without the hand-held camera stuff- just because I've seen how they've *******ized other childhood treasures and I wouldn't want to see that happen to my favorite cartoon. I mean, god gods, look what they've done to Underdog! *shudders* They redid the Voltron cartoons at some point, spiffing up the animation and whatnot and I hated it; I can only imagine a live action version would make me hate it even more. Some treasures shouldn't be remade. Which is another reason I don't want this movie to be Voltron.

I think the movie studios will stop around here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/07/04).

ShadowMaat
July 15th, 2007, 10:28 AM
I think the movie studios will stop around here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/07/04).

LOL! Disturbingly close to the mark, I'm sure. ;)

TheChosen1
July 15th, 2007, 08:33 PM
I think the movie studios will stop around here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/07/04).

LOL, Go Teddy!!!!!!!

Too funny.

:cameron:


TheChosen1

Starxgate
July 15th, 2007, 09:32 PM
The monster in this movie is

http://xenafan.com/movies/ghostbusters/crowd.jpg

:eek:

Exiled Master
July 15th, 2007, 10:20 PM
The monster in this movie is

http://xenafan.com/movies/ghostbusters/crowd.jpg

:eek:

That would give me one more reason to hate marshmallows.

ShadowMaat
January 1st, 2008, 01:40 PM
Figured it was time to resurrect this thread since the day or reckoning release is coming up fast.

Much to my dismay, I completely forgot to keep watching the Dick Clark's New Year thingy to see the new Cloverfield trailer. *hangs head in shame* I also haven't been keeping up with all the various viral campaigns, which seem to be pretty extensive as I skim the Cloverfield news sites.

In addition to Slusho, there's also the Tagruato Corporation (http://tagruato.jp), of which Slusho is a part, and apparently you can see a Tagruato tanker getting blown up in one of the new trailers. There also seems to be a mole/whistleblower trying to expose whatever it is Tagruato's done (such as, for a random example, creating/unleashing calamarian doom upon the city of NY).

Rob has a MySpace page (http://www.myspace.com/robbyhawkins) in which he blogs about it being "time for a change" and mentions hunting for a new job- a step he's taking, I'd guess, after having his heart broken by some girl Beth- probably the one who's building also goes boom in one of the trailers, hence his insistence on going into the city rather than heading for the proverbial hills.

Has anyone been keeping tabs on all this stuff?

the fifth man
January 1st, 2008, 06:04 PM
Unfortunately, I haven't been. However, I am still very interested in what this movie will end up being.

MartianManhunter
January 4th, 2008, 08:22 AM
Unfortunately, I haven't been. However, I am still very interested in what this movie will end up being.

Me too, I really hope its as good as the previews, or better.

the fifth man
January 4th, 2008, 08:41 PM
Me too, I really hope its as good as the previews, or better.

I just hope enough gets explained in the movie. My fear is leaving the theater, and still not knowing exactly what I had seen.

ShadowMaat
January 18th, 2008, 03:35 PM
AAAHHHHHH! *runs around flailing her arms*

We got Cloverfield on opening day. Amazing! Our theaters are utterly random that way. Anyway! Loved the movie. I have a feeling a lot of people are gonna complain, and not just because of the camera stuff, but I liked it. There were a few times when the hand-held stuff got annoying, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been and it really gave you a feel for the situation.

I wanna go see it again. :D

Oh, and just a warning for those wondering who, what, why and where...

You learn nothing. No idea what the monster is, where it came from, who- if anyone- is responsible, and why it chose now to attack. It just happens, and we only know as much as the characters do. Being that they're just Ordinary Citizens and are more interested in survival, there isn't much time for answer-hunting. It's speculated that it could have come out of a trench... or that it could have been man-made, but if you're looking for answer, you'll have to look elsewhere.

kharn the betrayer
January 18th, 2008, 04:39 PM
im going to see this movie tonight with my friend because the cheap cinema near me is showing so yay! movie ticket prices disgust me nowadays but im happy I get to see it

Traveler Enroute1
January 18th, 2008, 08:40 PM
AAAHHHHHH! *runs around flailing her arms*

We got Cloverfield on opening day. Amazing! Our theaters are utterly random that way. Anyway! Loved the movie. I have a feeling a lot of people are gonna complain, and not just because of the camera stuff, but I liked it. There were a few times when the hand-held stuff got annoying, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been and it really gave you a feel for the situation.

I wanna go see it again. :D

Oh, and just a warning for those wondering who, what, why and where...

You learn nothing. No idea what the monster is, where it came from, who- if anyone- is responsible, and why it chose now to attack. It just happens, and we only know as much as the characters do. Being that they're just Ordinary Citizens and are more interested in survival, there isn't much time for answer-hunting. It's speculated that it could have come out of a trench... or that it could have been man-made, but if you're looking for answer, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Hey, I gave it a thumb's up, too. Got two tickets to see it in previews on Monday, courtesy of this year's New York Comic Con people. They told us to "keep it quiet" till today's release but of course by the time I got home there were multiple postings on the internet! And yeah, like they didn't want word of mouth with a preview screening 4 days in advance! ;)

Anyway, it was different. I didn't have much of a problem either with the hand held style. Seems the director had a fairly good idea when to keep the camera steady after an extended au natural run. I came away with a sense of the horror happening to ordinary people, and a definite flashback to Sept. 11. No, those terrorists didn't blow Lady Liberty's head off but the same aura of fear, confusion and what to do or where to go was picked up in the movie. This time there was a real monster to run from; a source of the destruction we didn't get in NY, D.C. PA. It was our deepest fears in a terrible flesh and shrieking alien, and it had help! :eek: I loved the glimpses of it's appendages between skyscrapers - chilling as we (and the citizens) tried to see what the heck it was!

Just sayin', I'd forget the warnings about the camerawork. It fits for the story. And ok, some of the story makes even the staunchest suspension of belief take a hike but it all comes back to a visual experience that managed to engage me most of the time. Oh, and no doubt that the spfx were really On It. Seeing I Am Legend and this movie with NYC trounced for two different reasons, kinda nightmarish for this native New Yorker! My take.

And yep, the monster has no origin and maybe even no ending. It's like the video; a slice of a record of a terrible event. At least we got to see it square on at last.

TheGreatLordGeorge
January 18th, 2008, 08:47 PM
so based on the film (those who saw it) is there promise for star trek 11?

Arative
January 18th, 2008, 09:11 PM
I enjoyed the movie, shaky camera got to me a little bit but not too much. Probably would have prefered the ending as them flying away in the helicopter but the ending as is was fairly good. I like Hud the camera man because I could have imagined myself saying pretty much the same things that he did.

I didn't see it myself but some people on various websites are reporting that the ending day with them at coney island, the upper right corner they saw something crashing into the ocean.

Also a whisper at the end
http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloverfield059fu3.flv

And played backwards, viral marketing out of hand?
http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370

kharn the betrayer
January 18th, 2008, 10:27 PM
ok I Just got back and wow


that was not an ordinary giant monster movie and this is coming from some one who wasnt on the hype wagon


the shaky cam didnt bother me at all

the giant flea's where creepy looking and the fact that their bite made you explode was interesting to say the least (god poor Marlene... she got bit trying to save Huds life and ended up dying in such a horrid manner) though im wondering why they left the crow bar behind just incase they where attacked again

the atmosphere was perfect IMO much better than those so called pg13(yes I know this movie was pg13 as well) horror movies(which I dont exactly classify CF as) that try too hard I felt generally creeped out in this movie especially the subway scene as well as the scene at the end with Hud gets munched on

my one gripe had to be why it had to be set in new york... im getting a bit tired of giant monsters/zombies ect ect attacking new york but thats a very minor gripe

CaldwellForce
January 18th, 2008, 11:57 PM
But they are, and that's why JJ and the gang took this approach. Viral marketing my friend.


Blair Witch meets Godzilla is an accurate description

ShadowMaat
January 19th, 2008, 07:09 AM
so based on the film (those who saw it) is there promise for star trek 11?

The teaser doesn't give you anything. A brief timeline of space flight followed up by a bunch of people working on a big construction project that in the end you realize is the Enterprise.

TheGreatLordGeorge
January 19th, 2008, 09:10 AM
wow, i didjt kow there was a trailer! I was just talking about JJ

Arative
January 19th, 2008, 09:55 AM
The teaser doesn't give you anything. A brief timeline of space flight followed up by a bunch of people working on a big construction project that in the end you realize is the Enterprise.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Star Trek trailer look like they were building the Enterprise on the planet instead of in orbit? Guess it is just the nerd in me, thought all ships were built in orbit.

Anyway, seems to be a love it/hate it with Cloverfield. After sleeping on it, I'm glad they ended it the way they did. Guess a lot of people are wanting things spoonfed to them. Can't imagine the extras they will have on the DVD.

kharn the betrayer
January 19th, 2008, 12:38 PM
hmmm




seems the viral marketing point to the monster being a sea creature

Slusho gets its secret ingredient from the bottom of the ocean the Slusho site itself hints that this secret ingredient being able to make things grow or expand(which could possible explain why Marlene exploded when she was bitten by the parasite... if the two are indeed related somehow)


a few months before the movie takes place an oil tanker(which funnily enough is owned by the same company that owns Slusho) was destroyed somehow and that there was possible an oil spill from it however...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY

I dont remember Oil Spills being able to Roar and spit giant chunks of debris 100's of feet into the air

also that weird picture site... it had a picture of a bunch of dead whales with giant bite Marks in them as well as the Military attacking something at sea

the thing that fell into the ocean near the end of the movie could not have been the monster as the falling object was a month before the movie starts and the attack on the Oil rig(according to the date in the news cast) happened in November and one of the viral sites states it was a satilite...

and the creature it self seemed to not be used to walking on Land... at least to me it didnt

though why would it attack NY? is it possible that the fallen satilite drew the monster here?

Xicer
January 19th, 2008, 04:15 PM
I saw it. I wasn't that impressed and it felt like it dragged on too long (and it was only a 1 and a half hour movie). The documentary idea was kinda cool but after a while the shaky camera was bugging me.

joebags
January 19th, 2008, 04:43 PM
I wanted to see a monster movie, and it delivered. No, all the questions are not answered, and the shaky camera was odd, but I just went with it, and it didn't bother me. It was worth the price of admission. Looking forward to getting the DVD where I can go frame by frame and see what I missed!

MartianManhunter
January 19th, 2008, 05:09 PM
The movie was great and I just hope that the sequel (if they make one) is able to live up to the first, and that it answers questions that the first one didn't answer.

the fifth man
January 19th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Overall, I enjoyed this film. Didn't get all the answers, but I suppose I didn't really expect to. I thought it really ended well.

jds1982
January 19th, 2008, 09:51 PM
hmmm




seems the viral marketing point to the monster being a sea creature

Slusho gets its secret ingredient from the bottom of the ocean the Slusho site itself hints that this secret ingredient being able to make things grow or expand(which could possible explain why Marlene exploded when she was bitten by the parasite... if the two are indeed related somehow)


a few months before the movie takes place an oil tanker(which funnily enough is owned by the same company that owns Slusho) was destroyed somehow and that there was possible an oil spill from it however...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY

I dont remember Oil Spills being able to Roar and spit giant chunks of debris 100's of feet into the air

also that weird picture site... it had a picture of a bunch of dead whales with giant bite Marks in them as well as the Military attacking something at sea

the thing that fell into the ocean near the end of the movie could not have been the monster as the falling object was a month before the movie starts and the attack on the Oil rig(according to the date in the news cast) happened in November and one of the viral sites states it was a satilite...

and the creature it self seemed to not be used to walking on Land... at least to me it didnt

though why would it attack NY? is it possible that the fallen satilite drew the monster here?


You know the funniest thing about that Youtube clip is the people either asking if it's real, or calling it fake.

kharn the betrayer
January 19th, 2008, 10:27 PM
You know the funniest thing about that Youtube clip is the people either asking if it's real, or calling it fake.

well its youtube... it kinda breeds idiocy...(like the people Iv seen say it was a chick flick because it had romance in it...I went with a girl and she laughed when I told her that)


Im so glad I had a decent audience when I went to see the movie the last few movies iv seen have been ruined by Jerks who dont know how to keep their mouths shut

oh and I hope they put all this viral marketing stuff on the DVD for people who wasnt into the hype (I only started looking at the viral stuff after I saw the movie but my freind hasnt seen any and was wondering about the monsters origins...)

FoolishPleasure
January 20th, 2008, 08:18 AM
I really liked this movie, but I love a good monster-on-the-loose story. When you start think of the logistics of lining up the frames for the shots done by the director and camera crew, it had to be a nightmare. How much do you show the audience? What do you frame? How long to you hold the shot? When to you cut and run? How much blurring to you do before the audience reaches for Excedrin? It took a lot of work to get those shaky shots and I give kudos for the folks who worked on this movie.

I felt sorry for the actor who played Hud (the camera dude). We rarely saw him, and you know he had to do his lines in a studio later because the camera was actually held by a professional cameraguy during filming! I actually liked all the actors. For a bunch of no-names, they all did a pretty good job.

Not enough answers? I would have liked more, but I did get enough explanation, with things left open for the imagination, or for a second film.

kharn the betrayer
January 20th, 2008, 10:41 AM
am I the only one who noticed Hud's name is a Pun of the Term H.U.D (heads up Display)

Xicer
January 20th, 2008, 11:44 AM
That's the first thing that came to my mind when I heard his name. :P

SierraGulf1
January 20th, 2008, 02:27 PM
Saw this last night and loved it. I wished they would have kept Marlena around a bit longer, I happened to like her (she and Hud got the coolest deaths, I'd say.


I felt sorry for the actor who played Hud (the camera dude). We rarely saw him, and you know he had to do his lines in a studio later because the camera was actually held by a professional cameraguy during filming! I actually liked all the actors. For a bunch of no-names, they all did a pretty good job.

Actually, in an interview I saw, TJ Miller (guy who plays Hud) said that he was actually filming all of the scenes that didn't involve special effects (early parts of the subway, Beth's building, etc.). Of coruse, there was a crapload of special effects, but in the end he says he filmed about 1/3 of the movie total.

Coco Pops
January 20th, 2008, 07:54 PM
Well I HATE over hype.... I HATE viral marketing.... Who was the dumbass
that invented that?

I don't like stupid games...

I saw the movie and well, wasn't all that impressed. I just couldn't believ
all the hype over christmas about this and as a rule of thumb for me "if a
movie has more hype then factual sites and trailers, more then not it is
going to be a somewhat average affair."

Lo and behold I found a pretty average affair. The shakey cam was a
silly idea and could have been used more sparingly.

Quote from a news website

Quote:
Building a Better Monster


The visual effects for “Cloverfield” were produced under the direction of visual effects supervisors Kevin Blank, Eric Leven of Tippett Studio and Michael Ellis of London-based Double Negative. Tippett created all the shots that include the monsters, while Double Negative was responsible for all of the other destruction and sequences which did not include the monster.

The concept for the monster (affectionately known simply as “Clover” in-house) is simple, says Abrams. “He’s a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.”

And where is he from? “We don’t say – deliberately,” notes Goddard. “Our movie doesn’t have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don’t have that scene.”

Not only is the creature disoriented – he’s downright angry. “There are a bunch of smaller things – humans – that are annoying him and shooting at him like a swarm of bees,” observes Reeves. “None of these things are going to kill the monster, but they hurt it and it doesn’t understand. It’s this new environment that it finds frightening.”

For the monster’s design, Abrams engaged veteran creature designer Neville Page, who had just finished creating characters for James Cameron’s upcoming “Avatar” (and is currently working on Abrams’ “Star Trek”).

“So much has been done in so many different movies with large creatures that the trick was to find a way to create a unique character,” explains Abrams. The producer had first become familiar with Page’s work through the designer’s series of instructional DVDs for The Gnoman Workshop. “One of the things that struck me about Neville’s instructional videos was the way he approaches everything from a realistic point of view. He develops non-existing creatures, but can explain to you their physical makeup, musculature and skeletal structure.”

Adds producer Burk, “Neville was the first person we met with. And he’s amazing. He doesn’t just think about designing the creature, he thinks in terms of how it would walk, how it would breathe, what its skin would be like, how it lives – everything.”

Once Page’s designs were complete, it was up to Tippett Studio to implement and refine the monster for inclusion in the few – but crucial – shots in which he appears. “We did a test, where we inserted him into some background plate shot in downtown L.A.,” explains Leven. “We experimented with different looks, in terms of not only the creature itself, but how it would interact with the camera and with light.”

Another facet of the design was added at director Reeves’ suggestion. “I wanted him to have that sort of spooked feeling, the way, when a horse is spooked, you can see the white of its eyes along the bottom. And you see that when the military is firing on him, where he becomes completely agitated and confused.”

As part of a “post-birth ritual,” as Abrams describes it, the monster is seen early on scratching his back on a building (destroying it in the process), to remove a layer of parasites that are set loose to wreak their own havoc on the city.

“Drew and I were struggling with, ‘When you have a monster that size how do you keep the characters from seeming totally irrelevant?’” says Abrams. “How do you have any one-on-one struggle?” Explains Goddard, “Because he’s so big, we knew it was going to be difficult to have intimate sequences. It’s not like any of the characters could fight him or that anyone could even figure out a way to hurt him.”

And because of that, the idea of the parasites was born. “They’re these horrifying, dog-sized creatures that just scatter around the city and add to the nightmare of the evening,” Abrams says.

“The parasites have a voracious, rabid, bounding nature, but they also have a crab-like crawl,” Reeves explains. “They have the viciousness of a dog, but with the ability to climb walls and stick to things.”

In addition, the parasites also move more rapidly than their giant host counterpart. “Tippett Studio has a lot of expertise with these kinds of fast-moving creatures that can destroy people and rip them to shreds, which is always a lot of fun to work on,” says Leven. “They’re like little whirling dervishes that just destroy anything in their path. They’re totally deadly.”



http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=12419 (http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=12419)




This intrigued me. A baby??????/ What the frick is the adult like
then?



And what was that big cylinder thing falling into the water in the final
video when we see them back at Coney Island on the video?

I wish I could get a refund for seeing a movie I ended up not liking.

kharn the betrayer
January 20th, 2008, 08:00 PM
That's the first thing that came to my mind when I heard his name. :P

yay im not the only one

I also found it funny how out of the main characters

Rob was the only one who Robbed the store >_>

FoolishPleasure
January 21st, 2008, 11:57 AM
Ran across this interview with the director - gives a few new tidbits:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41100

Commander Jumper
January 22nd, 2008, 05:05 AM
I loved this movie. I went and saw it with my brothers, my dad, and my brother's girlfriend on Friday. It was ace! :D. My father hated it because of the camera. I thought that was excellent, a wonderful way of getting the idea that this movie is through the eyes of the victims, not the heroes. I enjoyed the deaths. I enjoyed Marlena's the most. More or less because I really couldn't tell what happened. I loved the end...

Help us. It's Still alive)

That was chilling

I over all enjoyed the intensity, the action, and the bravery of the people. I personally would have just sat at home waiting to die. Anyway it was worth the money.. I only wish I had paid more attention to the last clip. apparently something fell into the water, I missed it.. :(

Traveler Enroute1
January 22nd, 2008, 11:40 AM
I really liked this movie, but I love a good monster-on-the-loose story. When you start think of the logistics of lining up the frames for the shots done by the director and camera crew, it had to be a nightmare. How much do you show the audience? What do you frame? How long to you hold the shot? When to you cut and run? How much blurring to you do before the audience reaches for Excedrin? It took a lot of work to get those shaky shots and I give kudos for the folks who worked on this movie.

<<snips>>
Not enough answers? I would have liked more, but I did get enough explanation, with things left open for the imagination, or for a second film.

Just sayin', I also thought the camera motion was timed pretty well on how long to go and when to steady. Some viewers could endure it while others felt greenish after a minute. And I definitely asked similar logistics qestions, along with "post production must have been a b****!" I think they all did the job well.

DuncTK421
January 22nd, 2008, 06:52 PM
Saw the movie over the weekend. I didn't follow the viral marketing leading up to the release, and enjoyed the movie. Only after did the discover the online aspect, and after looking over it, I think it adds to the film, but wasn't crucial to it. Just the way I like it.

the fifth man
January 22nd, 2008, 07:33 PM
Saw the movie over the weekend. I didn't follow the viral marketing leading up to the release, and enjoyed the movie. Only after did the discover the online aspect, and after looking over it, I think it adds to the film, but wasn't crucial to it. Just the way I like it.

I still haven't looked at much of the marketing for this movie. I enjoyed it without seeing much of this stuff online.

Coco Pops
January 22nd, 2008, 09:05 PM
I've seen the movie and not that wrapt in it...

As for the marketing is that neccessary unless the movie won't do well
without it?

Darkstar 2.0
January 23rd, 2008, 02:42 AM
So which was worse, "Clover" or it's parasites, I've yet to see this movie because of course, I'm in the UK and it's aint out over here yet, but I know what the monster looks like and am impressed, it looks scary.

What is bugging me is, why show a final scene after the credits or where ever it is of something falling into the sea off Coney island when it's of no importance, OR IS IT?

I know it was a video recording and the Coney island bit was a month before hand, but as far as the movie goes, if they wanted to get that Tapped over feel of a video camera, why not just show a little girl who's eating an icecream or the fairground rides, why show something falling into the sea!!?

Coco Pops
January 23rd, 2008, 03:14 AM
So which was worse, "Clover" or it's parasites, I've yet to see this movie because of course, I'm in the UK and it's aint out over here yet, but I know what the monster looks like and am impressed, it looks scary.

What is bugging me is, why show a final scene after the credits or where ever it is of something falling into the sea off Coney island when it's of no importance, OR IS IT?

I know it was a video recording and the Coney island bit was a month before hand, but as far as the movie goes, if they wanted to get that Tapped over feel of a video camera, why not just show a little girl who's eating an icecream or the fairground rides, why show something falling into the sea!!?



I thought it was the thing the creature was inside.. But rabid movie
fans say otherwise..... I can't believe how hyped up people got over such
an ordinary film.....

And if this monster is a baby what is the adult version like?

I just think they say all that because they're talking out of their ringholes.

GateLadyM
January 23rd, 2008, 07:09 AM
What is bugging me is, why show a final scene after the credits or where ever it is of something falling into the sea off Coney island when it's of no importance, OR IS IT?

The entire movie was filmed over another film in the camera, and every now and then you get snippets of the other film (which involved two of the main characters). At one point Rob says, "You aren't filming over my other stuff are you?!?" (or something like that).

So the last scene in the movie is actually the last snippet on the "previous" film, which took place in an amusement park a few weeks before the destruction. You do see something fall into the water way out in the distance. There is speculation that it was a meteor carrying the monster, or a satellite falling out of orbit, which woke the monster on the ocean floor. I don't think TPTB have come out and clarified that yet, but the director did say the splash had something to do with the monster.

Empress Vajnraa
January 23rd, 2008, 04:16 PM
I saw Cloverfield yesterday and, while it certainly wasn't worth all of the hype and I really didn't like the handheld camera thing, it was a pretty good film. I have a feeling that it could (potentially, mind you) create one darn good franchise if handled correctly.

the fifth man
January 23rd, 2008, 07:20 PM
I saw Cloverfield yesterday and, while it certainly wasn't worth all of the hype and I really didn't like the handheld camera thing, it was a pretty good film. I have a feeling that it could (potentially, mind you) create one darn good franchise if handled correctly.

I at least see potential for a sequel. Really though, I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.

JohnRico
January 23rd, 2008, 07:44 PM
I guess it is safe to say the two people at the end are dead ? This movie ended so open ended.

eviladam
January 23rd, 2008, 08:23 PM
I loved this movie. It was one if those rare films that I got so into that I half expected things to be blowing up and one of clover's legs to come over the theater as I was walking out.

I didn't keep up with much of the viral campaign, but honestlly there aren't many answers there. One thing I noticed, that I thought was a nice touch is Rob's myspace page. Last online: 1/18/08 the release date. but wait a minute they give the date on the movie right before the end and I forget what it was.

A lot of people have been saying Godzilla vs Blairwitch. I get what they're saying but if you've seen seven days in september that's what the feel of the movie really reminded me of.

So the whisper apparentlly says "Help us, it's still alive." I wonder if a possible sequel would take place in some other nearbye city, or as the interview with the director mention just be another of those movies he talks about. Like we'd catch an instant of Hud being filmed by the guy on the bridge or something.

FireCat
January 24th, 2008, 06:38 AM
The director already said he would like to do a sequel and mentioned the guy filming on the bridge. He said when that guy pointed his camera at Hud, it was like two films intersecting.

I really liked the movie. I didn't know about all the internet sites before I saw it and only heard about the viral campaign when I was reading reviews. Still, the wobbly camera didn't bother me, and I did jump quite a few times. This isn't the best movie ever, but I went to get scared and see monsters and it did the job. I recommend it.

DuncTK421
January 29th, 2008, 09:47 AM
The director already said he would like to do a sequel and mentioned the guy filming on the bridge. He said when that guy pointed his camera at Hud, it was like two films intersecting.


I really like that idea. It would be a neat way to link the two.

Coco Pops
January 29th, 2008, 12:39 PM
The Bloop

See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

Make of that what you will but this isn't the only sea monster movie
ever made. Apparently the Bloop thing is real.

Deep Rising had a giant octopus and partly based on the myth of ships
disappearinng in the South China Sea which is where that movie was set.

kharn the betrayer
January 29th, 2008, 12:56 PM
The Bloop

See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

Make of that what you will but this isn't the only sea monster movie
ever made. Apparently the Bloop thing is real.

Deep Rising had a giant octopus and partly based on the myth of ships
disappearinng in the South China Sea which is where that movie was set.

well I dont think any one was saying this was the only giant sea monster movie...

I mean *looks at Godzilla*

ShadowMaat
January 29th, 2008, 01:57 PM
Most of the classic Japanese monsters were ocean-based, not just Godzilla. And of course there's everybody's favorite Elder God, Cthulhu, as well as some of his kin. And I don't recall anyone trying to claim that Cloverfield was some kind of sooper-dooper 100% original movie, either. That'd be kinda silly, because it's nothing of the sort. It isn't a 100% rip-off, either. It's just a standard monster movie with an American flair. which is pretty much what I thought it was supposed to be. Hyped to hell and generating a LOT of curiosity, but not the cornerstone of a cinematic revolution. ;)

kharn the betrayer
January 29th, 2008, 08:03 PM
I know I picked Godzilla as it was the most recognizable

I mean how many people would recognize Manda, Ebirah, Gezora ect ect?

Coco Pops
January 29th, 2008, 09:03 PM
well I dont think any one was saying this was the only giant sea monster movie...

I mean *looks at Godzilla*


Nooo I meant the bloop thing is real... No one has any idea of what
it could be.

eviladam
January 29th, 2008, 09:31 PM
they found some interesting stuff at lake Champlange too that they couldn't explain. Under water noises I mean.

Oh there are some great pics on some of the Cloverfield sites now of a man in a small boat surrounded by water and whale carcasses with giant Clover sized bites taken out of them.

kirmit
February 1st, 2008, 07:35 AM
Brilliant movie, probably one of the best I've seen since 300. Only problem I had was the guy finding the girl he loved alive, I know alot of the film was about him gettng to her but imo it would've been a better twist if she was dead. Also kind of weird to think that huge monster was only a baby, what bout the mummy and daddy, how big would they be :S.

kharn the betrayer
February 1st, 2008, 11:14 AM
Brilliant movie, probably one of the best I've seen since 300. Only problem I had was the guy finding the girl he loved alive, I know alot of the film was about him gettng to her but imo it would've been a better twist if she was dead. Also kind of weird to think that huge monster was only a baby, what bout the mummy and daddy, how big would they be :S.

not only is it a baby its thousands of years old...


how old must mommy and daddy be as well :X

kirmit
February 2nd, 2008, 05:27 PM
not only is it a baby its thousands of years old...


how old must mommy and daddy be as well :X

Good point, might be something worth including in a sequal. I really hope they do a sequal, I hate not knowing the conclusion :P, there was that guy on the bridge also with a videocamera, might get to see his story and he'll live longer to see what happens to the creature.

Crazy Tom
February 2nd, 2008, 06:14 PM
can somebody post a pic of teh thing? i can't find one:~

the fifth man
February 2nd, 2008, 06:30 PM
not only is it a baby its thousands of years old...


how old must mommy and daddy be as well :X

Very good point. I'd definitely be for a sequel, where hopefully, some more answers would be provided.

eviladam
February 4th, 2008, 10:50 PM
I'm not sure you CAN find a pick of Clover right now. The studio had them all taken down every where they popped up.

Coco Pops
February 5th, 2008, 03:18 AM
Some fan art based on Cloverfield

http://bp3.blogger.com/_Y4zDX_DEIGo/Rrs7ASKJr0I/AAAAAAAAACw/UV-carON85c/s1600-h/ItsTheMonster.jpg

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7329359


I can't vouch for these but they look pretty close

Anyway I wasn't that thrilled with the movie but that's life I guess.

kirmit
February 5th, 2008, 12:36 PM
That second design might be right but the size definately isn't. Look at the size of it's claws, the scene where the statue of liberty's head comes flying down the street we can see clear claw marks on it, if the creature in that design had swiped at the head there wouldn't of been anything left.

kharn the betrayer
February 5th, 2008, 01:59 PM
while I prefer the giant whale monster design the monster in the movie looks nothing like it

http://dokiestudioz.deviantart.com/art/SPOILER-Cloverfield-Monster-75228210

^that is the closest fantart iv seen for the monster(the only thing off is the end of the tail)


and heres asome funny fanart making fun of certain scenes

http://takeru-san.deviantart.com/art/Cloverfield-The-Flaming-Hobo-75727807
http://takeru-san.deviantart.com/art/Cloverfield-Suicidal-Fan-75705432

Coco Pops
February 5th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Well I'm not a big fan of the movie so I can't wait for
someone to take the piss out of it.

Southpark would have a field day with this if they were making
more episodes.

kirmit
February 5th, 2008, 02:59 PM
That lookd closer than the whale but still not right. Like you said the tail is off, the head is too wide aswell, the creature had kind of a mix between the whale and that pic head with the basic shape of the whale but with the puffy cheek things and sharper teeth. Also the small arms weren't that long, they were shaped more like a t-rex's arms, though a tiny bit longer than a T-rex's. I think facially and torso wise this pic is closer VVVV, with the legs of your pic kharn and the t-rexish arms, I'll do a sketch of it sometime.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/kirmit/cloverfield3flat.jpg

kharn the betrayer
February 5th, 2008, 03:05 PM
there is actual artwork for the monster floating about Ill go try dig it up again

and as for the head and legs

Movie SPOILERS

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tw8KwGkraQ4&feature=related


it looked more or less like the picture I posted there except the head is thicker at the back

EDIT:heres a clear shot of the head from the movie

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/joshua13/me.jpg

kirmit
February 5th, 2008, 03:28 PM
Hmmm I'll give you the arms but definately not the head, the pic you posted earlier the shape is all wrong and the eyes are too low down on the face, they're further away from the mouth, nice link though, thanks.

kharn the betrayer
February 5th, 2008, 03:34 PM
did you look at the picture that I added into my last post? those shots are from the movie so we have the head


now the only thing I cant find is that of the tail

kirmit
February 5th, 2008, 03:40 PM
Yeah just saw that, what I was saying was it doesn't match up with your first pic, funnily now I look at it the head shape is kinda human :S, just the shape though nothing else about it is human lol. As for the tail, you can see it quickly in that youtube clip, it looks like a shorter and fatter version of the one in the first pic you posted.

kharn the betrayer
February 5th, 2008, 03:47 PM
im trying to find a picture or clip of the bombing scene you get to see the tail pretty clearly there

Pharaoh Atem
April 20th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Cloverfield DVD Reveals Details


http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=52530

Michael Stahl-David, who starred in J.J. Abrams' monster movie Cloverfield, told SCI FI Wire that the upcoming DVD release will give viewers a chance to catch some of the details they might have missed in the theatrical version.

"The momentum of it and the excitement of it will still be there," Stahl-David said in an interview. "But I also think it's a chance to enjoy some of the nuanced stuff and go back and see more of the world and the stuff that's hidden in it."

Stahl-David said that one of the things viewers can look out for this time is a brief clue in the background of the final scene in the movie, which flashes back to a date between his character, Rob, and his love interest, Beth, played by Odette Yustman.

While the two are on the Ferris wheel at Coney Island, an object can be seen falling from the sky into the ocean. Although this object may play a part in the mythology of the monster that later terrorizes Manhattan, many audience members missed it the first time around, including Stahl-David.

"They didn't even tell me about that," he said. "I didn't see it until the second time I saw [the movie], which was at the premiere. That's when I saw it. And I thought it was a glitch. I was like, 'What was that?' And I found out it was this whole thing that they'd planned."

the fifth man
April 20th, 2008, 08:04 PM
I'm definitely going to give this movie another watch. To see some stuff I may have missed the first time around.

Morbo
April 21st, 2008, 03:01 PM
this was a great, great movie.
truly a theater experience.

DuncTK421
April 22nd, 2008, 09:47 AM
Went and picked it up at Target this morning! None of the pack-ins did anything for me, so I just snagged the standard edition. Looking forward to seeing the movie again later tonight.

the fifth man
April 22nd, 2008, 07:33 PM
I might just watch it tonight too.

FoolishPleasure
April 23rd, 2008, 01:32 PM
Target has it for $16.99. I got the standard widescreen, but they did have a "deluxe" version for more bux. Not sure what extras were on it - I just wanted the plain movie. :)

DuncTK421
April 23rd, 2008, 07:15 PM
Target's extra was a CD of Rob's Going-Away-Party mix.

GateDragon
June 23rd, 2008, 11:26 AM
:ronon: i finally got to see this movie ....wow ....just wow

i love the ending and how it's left so much open but i want more .....MORE!!!!!

Mousie
June 24th, 2008, 08:17 AM
I loved it as well and really hope they make a follow up.

ShadowMaat
June 24th, 2008, 09:44 AM
I loved it as well and really hope they make a follow up.

For a while I was hoping the same thing, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it'd be better to leave Cloverfield as an awesome little gem (at least to those who think so) rather than risk a sequel which could "ruin" everything and be completely stupid.

Bey0nd
June 24th, 2008, 11:43 AM
this movie was very over-hyped and the actors are terrible

but it had some entertaining bits so I give it 3/5

jenks
June 24th, 2008, 12:18 PM
For a while I was hoping the same thing, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it'd be better to leave Cloverfield as an awesome little gem (at least to those who think so) rather than risk a sequel which could "ruin" everything and be completely stupid.

It will. Just like 28 weeks later ruined the original.

the fifth man
June 24th, 2008, 07:31 PM
It will. Just like 28 weeks later ruined the original.

Hmm, I actually liked 28 Weeks Later.:) To each their own.

jenks
June 24th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Hmm, I actually liked 28 Weeks Later.:) To each their own.

It was a decent film in it's own right, but it doesn't do the original justice. They tried to turn it into too much of an action film, the helicopter chopping infected people up was the last straw for me, that totally ruined it in my eyes.

Mousie
June 25th, 2008, 04:37 AM
For a while I was hoping the same thing, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe it'd be better to leave Cloverfield as an awesome little gem (at least to those who think so) rather than risk a sequel which could "ruin" everything and be completely stupid.

I know what you mean. In many respects it's better to leave it alone but I would just love to see it. I want to see them deal with the aftermath, perhaps going into NY so we can see the damage.

Anubis69
June 25th, 2008, 05:01 AM
I know what you mean. In many respects it's better to leave it alone but I would just love to see it. I want to see them deal with the aftermath, perhaps going into NY so we can see the damage.
I'd sure as hell like to know how the monster left NY... Did it die? Did it run? Was it talked round?

But yeah, like folk said... It probably would ruin it.

LtColCarter
July 6th, 2008, 03:57 PM
I was actually quite disappointed with Cloverfield. I'd missed it in the theaters...wish I wouldn't have watched it on PayPerView.