This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Yesterday, CNBC's "On The Money" discussed the possibility of "Overnight" being a title with Peter of /film. -- ElectricZookeeper 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Jessica Lucas My sources for this are pictures from the on location shooting in NYC of this film found at these links: http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002776.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002921.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002785.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002794.jpg, AND the fact that she's in the trailer. Flipping through the album you will find Matt Reeves (Director), many other cast members (including a close up of "Rob," the guy in the Slusho shirt, and Jessica Lucas herself. Also Paramount support trucks, notices of the street not being available for parking due to filming of the Paramount film "Cheese", etc. I would do this myself but I don't know how I would cite these sources. 24.151.176.32 05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Jessica Lucas is starting to appear in news articles as a Cloverfield cast member now. Here's a link to an article at The Hollywood Reporter KC 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Just Wandering, seeing the Film's Distributer is Paramount Pictures, Can We add it to the External Links Area Below? Also I noticed recently, that the Official Paramount Pictures website has added the "1-18-08" Trailer onto the site, then a direct link to the Apple site. Also on the Apple's "1-18-08" Trailer page, on the bottom right hand corner, you can see the Bad Robot Logo and when you click on the logo, it brings you to the Official Bad Robot Site(Currently Has nothing on it) and was also wandering should it be added to the External Links area, seeing that Bad Robot is a production company owned by J.J. Abrams himself. Both Sites/Productions DO Have affiliation with the movie.
-- Mithos90 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently a Call Sheet of the Movie was posted up on NYMag and was taken from the set. Well Today Slashfilms has received a email from one of Paramounts Lawyers ordering it to be taken down As Soon as Possible. Seeing that this is the case, Possible Spoilers were on the call sheet revealing some of the plot. I am not sure if this is liable to now have more information regarding to the films plot be updated on the Actual Article of the Movie. Seeing the sheet itself(not taken down from NYMag....yet) has gotten the Paramount Pictures lawyer's attention and they demand for it to be taken down.
If This was added to the article, I would suggest a spoiler warning and linking the cited source to the Slashfilm link I posted below, seeing that anyone who links the Call sheet from the NYMag site will intertwine with legal issues with Paramount Pictures.
-- Mithos90 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A second teaser trailer is currently said to be running with prints of "Stardust", this is not the same trailer people reported seeing last week when they attended an advanced screening of "Stardust".
If the Slusho.jp site is mentioned in the article and has two citations reporting its probable involvement in the marketing - even if it is not officially confirmed - why does it not merit a link in the text. Such a link neither adds nor detracts from the article, and it allows readers to investigate the site for themselves. If the site has enough merit to be mentioned (by its very address, no less) in the article, then I don't understand what is the bigh deal with actually linking that address to the real site. And I don't see where WP:EL states that these links cannot be used, it only states that they must be used sparingly, and I'm only adding one.-- Qwerty7412369 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)-- Mithos90 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I hope you will all humor me as I make one last-ditch attempt to make my case, afterwhich I will bid you all adieu and allow someone else to take up this fight if they wish - As I see it, the issue is not whether this information, or for that matter any information in wikipedia, has been "officially confirmed" from on high by Paramount or J.J.Abrams or anyone else with access to the undisputed, official "Truth" of the matter. As per WP:V, the official wikipedia criteria is "verifiability, not truth," and verifiability is met if one can sourse the information to "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now what I have tried to highlight again and again is that these are two different criteria - "Official Confirmation" is not the same criteria as "Verifiablilty." "Verifibility" is the criteria which governs us here, and as there are at least four "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" linking Slusho.jp to Cloverfield, I believe the criteria set by Wikipedia's own policies have been met. Nowhere does it state in WP:V that the information must come from "official sources," only from "verifiable sources" - again, please recognize that these two are not the same.
Now, Erik suggests that if we allow slusho as a link, we will step out on a slippery-slope and end up with links to any and every fansite, blog, fake-page, and so forth that any 15-year old fanboy can think up. Following the logic of this argument, the External Links section will eventually be overwhelmed with links to questionable sites and will be rendered unusable. Ok, except the criteria of verifiability was created to deal with such circumstances. First off, someone can't just put up links to any random site that they might come across, as per your slippery-slope assertion, first they have to provide verifiable evidence from a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that the site is connected to the cloverfield project before the can make a link. So if I want to put up a EL to site XYZ.com, I should be able to provide sources such as the Washingtom Post, MTV.com, or NBC, that are both verifiable and meet stated criteria in WP:V which link site XYZ.com to the cloverfield. Of course, the more sources I can provide, the better. If I cannot provide any such sources, then site XYZ.com should not be linked - period. That's how WP:V keeps irrelevant information out of articles without excluding relevant info.
But then, lets say that it is discovered that site XYZ.com, much like the Ethan Haas sites, are later discovered to have no connection to the movie. Has the policy of WP:V failed? Is wikipedia forever stained? No, this is how it works best. There was verifiable information that linked Ethan Haas to the movie, therefore the site was included. Then verifiable sources reported that Ethan Haas was not linked to cloverfield, so the site was removed. Wikipedia is meant to be fluid, evolving, growing - which means that the rules may allow some incorrect info in, but those same rules will also get it out eventually. That's why the criteria is "verifiability, not truth." The "not truth" part is there for a reason. What is " verifiable" changes as knowledge changes, the "truth" is more or less fixed (and I'll leave it to the philosophers to decide if its "more" or "less"). But the point is that the verifiable criteria is loose enough to allow information that may or may not be true, but its also fluid enough to adapt to changes and correct that very information. This is its strenght, not its weakness. That's why I am arguing that verifibility is the criteria which applies here, not "Official Confirmation" from on high. And, I betting, that's why its wikipedia's stated policy as well. If we make a honest mistake based on verifiable sources, so be it - other editors with other verifiable sources will correct it! This is why the first thing we are told when we register is to Be Bold!
This post and the ones which proceeded it in this topic are why I beleive we should include Slusho.jp in the "External Links" section. I don't think it will send us all down a slippery-slope, and I think it is clearly in agreement with wikipedia's own policies, particularly WP:V and WP:EL for the reasons stated. You and any other user are free do take them as you will. Good day -- Qwerty7412369 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Anyone Have Any Actual Proof That There Is A Second Trailer For The Movie Running With Prints Of Stardust?-- 67.35.104.109 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the writing on the back on the photographs on the should be included in the discussion about the viral marketing. The writing on the photos says "Robbie, Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!!!! gonna miss the hell out of you. Lovie Jamie" This writing is present on the back of the photo time marked 12:04.
The other writing says "Dont forget who takes care of you. Love J" This is present on the photo time marked 12:01
The writing can be found if you vigorously shake the photos whie no other photos are overlapping the selected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.248.68 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, August 19, 2007
I Agree. To Many people are referring that the writings were meant for people to go to Myspace and Look for the actual characters of the Movie. It it was added to the article without someone finding the official meaning of the writings, people will start to ask if the Myspace Profiles to be added to the article which has not have a reliable cited source to state that it is Officially part of the films' viral Marketing. -- Mithos90 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But i think that it should be stated in the paragraph about the photographs, maybe not to even quoting it, but not stating it is there is holding back information for people who dont go the website to see it themselves, although i agree it may not having anything to do with the plot (apart from the sexual tension i can obviously see between 'Jamie' and the main character, which is my personal opinion) i still think it should be stated there is writing on the back of the photographs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.51.161 ( talk • contribs) 06:27, August 20, 2007
Also as to Slusho that it might be a possible Covername for the Films' Filming Set which was stated by IGN and also from pictures that were taken on the set which might POSSIBLY be legit but Not Confirmed. As Erik Said We have to wait for all this info that has been flying around the web to be confirmed first before we put it up on the Actual article. -- 72.178.138.105 <<< -- Mithos90 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On the IGN website, when you click on Latest Screens for the "Cloverfield" film, it has a poster with the text, "Furious" splayed across the top. The title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.177.104 ( talk) 05:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
I've heard 'Barbarous' and 'Terrifying' are also in the tagline rotation. Radagast 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The Offical 1-18-08 Site has just been updated and now when you first open the site, after six minutes of leaving the browser open, you will hear the roar of the monster in the Movie. was wondering would this be acceptable to add to the article?
-- Mithos90 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I heard this and it scared me... but yes I do agree this should be added to the article CSpuppydog 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
New to this so bear with me. Can I post this?
If you type [www.youcantdrinkjustsix.com] it will take you to a new possible viral website?
-- Nbenos 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this from a friend: http://jamieandteddy.com Your going to need to se the password: "jllovesth", without the quotations. The girl in the video looks to be the same girl in the trailer, and on one of the photos on 1-18-08.com. Also, on the back of one photo it is signed "Jamie". Should we add this to the official site listing?- user:puddles26
I thought that it has been proven that the artical from the NYpost was wrong. I have heard that Blake is not in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.212.119 ( talk) 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A released date for the UK has been added. Do we have confirmation on this? -- Mark H Wilkinson ( t, c) 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
UK release date (It is still listed as "Untitled JJ Abrams film" and can be found at http://www.launchingfilms.com/releaseschedule/schedule.php?sort=date&date=today&print=1&print=1 . This is the UKs Film Distributors' Association website. Confused coyote 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
is it just me or has this become some form of an ARG, and if so, wouldnt this mean that it will be possible to find the title of the movie, somewhere online. it is obvious that they are giving us clues of some form. ( Masterxak 09:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC))
This does sound to me like an ARG, too, altough I've never experienced one firsthand so I wouldn't know as well. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned under Marketing? I'd implement it in, myself, but I don't know of how it should be worded. -- 63.3.4.2 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war on whether or not Slusho is a relevent enough website to add the link thereof on here or no. Instead of this ongoing nonsense, why not start a civilized Disscussion/Vote to descide how we should go with this? -- 209.247.5.131 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As (I think) mostly agreed on previously, the best solution is to have it mentioned in the "viral marketing" (or other relevant portions) and not linked until 100% official. It obviously SHOULD be in the article. And personally, I feel the site should be in the links, as a lot of traffic going here probably wants to know what slusho is about an the site obviously has SOME relation- but until the controversy dies down, the site has appropriate coverage and doesn't "NEED" a seperate link. Its current setting in full context could be argued as a more appropriate home anyway. 209.153.128.248 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Add or detract from the list as you see fit.
-- 209.247.5.131 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this will probably never make it to this Cloverfield article's front page, but a new site in the Viral Marketing Campaign/ARG just came up, JamieAndTeddy.com. It asks for a password: jllovesth. Entering it in, it leads to a video for download of Jamie, a girl from one of the teaser site pictures (the one with 3 people. This is also the same one that, fliped, gave clues to lead to her subsequent MySpace). If you don't want to bother downloading it, it can likewise be seen here on YouTube.
I am putting it up here just to note if meantioned, needed, or whatnot at a latter date. -- 209.247.5.142 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Theres a new video on the site Smremde 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the moster whale theory? So far, this seems to make the most sense to me. The moster sound in the movie and the photo site are definitely whale-like. The Slusho site has a lot of references to whales. There's the whale moster picture that is supposedly a fake, but looks pretty darn good, and interestingly enough has little parasites. Maybe an alien parasite or a toxic, mutated louse bites a whale, and turns it into a giant breeding ground that also happens to hate mankind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a forum. DurinsBane87 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The section is called "Discussion", so let them discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.98.102 ( talk) 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this reliable? A jacked up cell phone pic? BURNyA 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Google had no hits. This article is the mother of all origonal research... BURNyA 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Those posters are fake, anyway. The eclipse part of the poster was taken from graphic art from the U.S. TV show "Heroes". KC 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The Protagonist of the movie Cloverfield has the same name as the Omaha Mall Shooter. A trivia section should be added with this creepy tidbit of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.65.10 ( talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
At 1-18-08.com, there is now a picture of an Asian man holding sushi. On the back there is Asian writing. Can anyone tell what language it is and possibly translate it? Flamingtorch372 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the recipe translated: Thank you for checking us out! We are Introducing this week's tasty one dish. Make sure you eat it cold!
Skinless chicken breast - 2, cut in halves Sōmen noodles - 10 oz. Watercress - 1/2 cup cut into small strips Turnip - 1/2 cup, thinly sliced Shiitake Mushrooms - 1/2 cup Chicken stock - 1/3 cup Sake - 2 tbsp. Sugar - 1/2 tsp. Deep Sea Nectar - 1 pinch
In a small saucepan, stir together 1/3 cup water, chicken stock, sake, and sugar. Chill it until it becomes cold. Grill the chicken breast on both sides for about 8 minutes, and then chill. Boil the noodles for about 3 minutes, and then run under cold water until chilled. Mix the watercress, radish, and mushrooms into the sōmen. Slice the chicken thinly and arrange on top of the sōmen mix. Just before you serve, put the deep sea nectar in the sauce and pour over the noodles generously.
Go Go Delicious Chef!
This picture led to the Tagruato website, which is apparently the parent company of Slusho. The site was not found until this picture was put up on the site. -- General Holtarna 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagruato.jpis the newest Cloverfield-related site. Found on Unforum, but it's obviously legit. Actually provides a lot more information, including a possible monster origin (deep-sea drilling). This article should probably mention it. -- General Holtarna 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not Sure Erik But Another Possible Site might have found that could be related to the film. The site Registration is ALMOST exactly like the Jamie and Teddy site and is located on the same server on the Jamie and Teddy site also. Its also has some assumption with the Hud character because of his hobbies of comics. But Like as usual cited sources are need to be addressed so it can be added to the article. Found by Stratus on Ethan Haas Fourms Just for reference.
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the Slusho Site links to Tagruato. Still want to say it's not part of the game? --
71.75.131.228 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The WikiSnobs turn a blind eye to the obvious all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If something is flawed, it's relevance is questionable. In that case, whether it "should be there" or not should be analyzed. There's a lot of nonsense going on related to this article (and hundreds more) where someone who has claimed ownership of a page will not allow any changes regardless of hard evidence. Viral marketing is often left "unconfirmed" by official sources because it's meant to be, but some things can be confirmed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or J. J. Abrams himself to indicate that JamieandTeddy.com is a legitimate site; the actress playing Jamie Lascano can clearly be seen in the video as well as one of the pictures on the official site 1-18-08.com. That's not "original research", that's common sense.
Even in the face of the obvious, those "in charge" of "protecting" certain pages exercise their might to keep things the way they want them. Wikipedia wants to be the Akashic Record of the Internet, but as long as it fails to recognize the obvious without having confirmations being spoon-fed to them, it will continue to be nothing more than a place to look at the world through a very narrow, controlled lens. -- Captain Impulse 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What defines reliable? There's a lot of "if" factor from any source, including (and some would argue, especially) the mainstream media. And how does "added mythology" not relate directly to the film in your eyes? The content of these sites contributes to the mythos and the canon of the film's storyline. The drink Slusho may not be present other than merely in name or as "in-game" advertisement, but the link to the mythos and backstory is obvious.
The "Ethan Haas Was Right" fiasco is a familiar fall back argument, but never once was their any evidence directly linking the two projects. It was all speculation by wanna-be internet sleuths that got out of hand. It wasn't a "gamejack", because that implies information was falsified to make it appear related. It was simply a case of internet retards running wild. In the case of Tagruato, Slusho and JamieandTeddy, there are direct connections that can be verified. Matching actors, character names, locales, corporations. This is not original research. This is common sense. This is correlation, which is a huge part of verifiability. These sites verify each other through direct connectivity and simple deductive reasoning, without stemming into the territory of "original research".
I don't expect every single link to be posted (such as the restaurant review that led to the discovery of Tagruato.jp), but people are ignoring facts here. Slusho.jp is a confirmed site; it's relevance has long been established and accepted even amongst mainstream sites. Tagruato links off of Slusho. The character "Jamie Lascano" can be seen in pictures on the confirmed site 1-18-08.com and the same actress appears in videos on Jamieandteddy.com. It's all there, right before your eyes. Does Abrams have to spoil the game for everyone before these clues are accepted as fact? The content of these sites adds a lot of content to the mystery and people looking for answers should be able to find them here. No one's asking for a detailed analysis of the content of these sites, but people should be able to find the answers they're looking for by consulting an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia can't provide all the information, it shouldn't be masquerading as an encyclopedia. -- Captain Impulse 05:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Listen. Tagruato could not be found until the official 1-18-08 site was updated with the picture of the Asian Chef. Google had been tied in as well, as the Chef Review that led to the Tagruato site's discovery could not be found on Google until the picture was put on the official site. Therefore: Tagruato=official. --
General Holtarna 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also: thumb|right|150px|Proof enough for you? It's on the Slusho website. -- General Holtarna 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagruato is named and kind-of linked to on the Slusho! website, yet it is not mentioned on the article. The evidence is overwhelming for it to be official. If you refuse to put it up for the reason that It's not been confirmed, then by the same logic we should remove Slusho! -- General Holtarna 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
http://whois.domaintools.com/tagruato.jp
Domain Information:
[Domain Name] TAGRUATO.JP
[Registrant] Daiske Kagashima
[Name Server] ns51.domaincontrol.com
[Name Server] ns52.domaincontrol.com
[Created on] 2007/07/25
[Expires on] 2008/07/31
[Status] Active
[Last Updated] 2007/07/25 23:38:22 (JST)
Notice the Creation Date. -- General Holtarna 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
seems like it has been 'hacked'. part of the game i'm guessing. eco terrorists!!!-- 69.104.18.133 ( talk) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
ComingSoon.net has reported that, according to their "source," Cloverfield will get a new trailer and a title on November 16, 2007, before Beowulf. I don't know how reputable the site is, considering (a) they won't name the source and (b) they're pretty behind on their Cloverfield info otherwise. Just throwing it out there, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeztah ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cloverfield-monster-picture.jpg 12.210.209.18 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.45.1 ( talk) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
someone over at CHUD.com posted info on a new trailer nad seemed pretty accurate. I think it's also been confirmed somewhere that the new trailer is going to premier in front of Beowulf. should that be posted up and does anyone have any confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.127.174 ( talk) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.57.239 ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok I know this is original research and Erik I know this will not go into the Article....not just yet BUT this site does look like another Puzzle. The site itself the last week(s) has been under construction and has gone offline then online a few times. But I saw this site might be linked to the movie because it mentions the Tagruato Corporation which is the site everyone here as been arguing to add because it is Linked to the Slusho site. Ill quote below as the site is using Flash and I can't copy and paste.
Recent News
August 15, 2007
"Members from the Tagruato Corporation and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program honored chief Executive officer Brandon Takahashi. Director Takahashi was presented with the Tagruato achievement award for his work in the HANDS Initiative and SIB Programs."
Latter again it mentions the Tagruato Corporation in the History section under "Bold History"
These 3 Sites Seem to be Related each mentioning Each other.
There is a little Discussion on a forum about the site's construction, which I know Erik you will not consider...Original Research but they do have records on the site going up and down as of old Whois. If this is all not true in the End. Then post it in the area of the Article "Viral websites" to show how this viral promotion of the Film has gone with fans.
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol sorry. Anyways there has been a "Rumor" also that someone has already seen the Trailer which is showing before Beowulf. Its not a reliable source so I wont post it....for now. But it does go into detail as what is said during the trailer and etc. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
in the picture with the statue of liberty there seems to be an eye in the sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.23.161 ( talk) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol, that's pushing it dude...-- 68.0.155.79 00:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The film is called "Cloverfield". I mention this (hesitantly) because the trailer is identical to how it was described by one who claimed to have seen it before its release with Beowulf.
The trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.24.135 ( talk) 09:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's no longer the reported code name. It's the name.
There are already posters with 'Cloverfield' as the name. The film is Cloverfield.
As for the 'recent' interview, that couldve been conducted weeks before the trailer now showing before Beowulf (and it *is* showing before Beowulf, this is NOT a rumour).
Perhaps we should also mention that they have recently aired a new trailer preceeding Beowulf? 24.76.181.253 ( talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Already Mentioned in Marketing -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The new trailer is now out in HD (up to 1080p), and a good chunk of the monster is visible between some skyscrapers for a second or so (with multiple in-focus frames). Interestingly enough, it doesn't strictly rule out a robot. It seems to look like a sea creature, but could just as easily be a robot with crud on it. Here are screencaps (probably not fair use?): http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220138jx2.jpg http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220120um6.jpg I don't, however, really see any info in the new trailer worth putting in the article, although it's possible that some of the supposition could be updated. - Guspaz ( talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that this monster on the picture, and which you can see in the trailer, looks like a giant Alien from the famous movies. Take a look to the back of the head. It looks like the back of the head of the Alien. Also you can see a tail on the picture, like the same one of an Alien. The Cloverfield monster seems to be very slim and bony... My idea ist, that this could be a giant Alien, perhaps Alien V? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.225.56 ( talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I could be misremembering but doesn't the second teaser begin by talking about the source of the footage, mentioning that cloverfield is the name for "what used to be central park" or something like that. Should this be mentioned, if it is in fact the source of the title of the film. WookMuff ( talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are misremembering - a big strange when you dont have to remember when the trailer is right there on youtube...but anyway - The mention of Project: Cloverfield and the mention of 'what used to be central park' are two unrelated sentence. Cloverfield is the name given at the start of the trailer for the monster attack and/or the recovery operation. '....central park' refers to where the camera containing the films footage is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.183.80.133 ( talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
can you guys put http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ ...........its an official site Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.207.57 ( talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the trailer Lizzy Caplans characters body swells and the sound of spilling guts is heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 ( talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
And you dont know for certainly that she is exploding, you see a silhouette of what *might* be someone swelling. It could be a mutuation, it could be something coming out of her Alien-style. Theres plenty of sites you can happily speculate on, wiki is for facts 195.183.80.133 ( talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is worth mentioning in plot as it's only mentioned that a giant monster attacks, wheread the scene in the trailer supports that there may actually be an epidemic of monsters, a la John Carpenters The Thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 ( talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) for all we know this could be some kind of terrorist/enemy plot, we never see a monster, what if it was like a telekenitic attack, or the little girl for the F.E.A.R. video games?? 71.61.163.146 ( talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry about that, had not seen the official synopsis 71.61.163.146 ( talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's also possible that the other two figures were guys in MOPP suits. Either way, theres not enough info to inculde it.
Dont bother, theres nothing in the article you can add regarding the trailer as it would be speculation. And it clearly states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of for discussing details about the film without the intent of improving the article.". Save your time and energy for when the film is released and you KNOW things as opposed to what you 'think'. 195.183.80.133 08:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In two episodes so far this season on Heroes, one of the characters is clearly seen drinking a Slusho brand slushie. One of the producers has also put pictures of various cast members holding Slusho cups on his [[ blog]]. I guess this should be mentioned in the article?-- 68.98.179.2 ( talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Slusho is a common theme through several of JJ Abrams' projects, I hardly see that its worth mentioning. What benefit would putting a reference to some jokey pictures done in filming downtime have for this article 195.183.80.133 ( talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While sitting on 1-18-08.com a loud roar can be heard but so far ive only heard once. Mrbellcaptain ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Mrbellcaptain
I just found this [3]. The FAQ on this site says that it was launched as the internet version of Malaysia's leading english language newspaper. This particular link (Assuming it works) appears to be a review which specifically mentions Tagruato. Can we use this as a source to include Tagruato in the viral marketing section? I would do it myself except, I haven't yet figured out how to do references.... MorganaFiolett ( talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is that here? I don't believe it can be verified because there no links. I'm going to delete it until some credible sources can be found for it. Dunkerya ( talk) 07:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been brought up yet but they released a widget which shows 5 minutes of the movie. There is also a whole contest that goes along with the widget. Here's a site for an overview of whats been released and some details http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40208 and heres the official site with the details and the prizes http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/contest/index.php I think this should be added to the marketing section. I would add it but Im bad at writing descriptions up. Rosario lopez ( talk) 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In this trailer, they tell some character names. If its okay, I'm going to fill in the character names. Beachdude0213 ( talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok so I did the best I could with adding this info in there. I was trying to add 2 difference references, one directed towards the main contest site and one towards the official rules but for some reason it wouldn't work. I know that it probably needs work so feel free to fix it. Rosario lopez ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont think this too promotional but I'll go with what you guys think is best. Maybe just a brief mention of it will be fine. I tried doing that at first but then I got into too many details, which is how it became what it was. But either way the 5 minute clip should still be mentioned somewhere in the article. Rosario lopez ( talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Similiar interview with IGN here. Alientraveller ( talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember seeing that fan-art on someone's Cloverfield blog. It is not the real monster, so whoever added the image to the bottom of the page as a link to the Cloverfield monster, please, DO NOT do that again. It's been debunked numerous times and we have already seen the monster in the second trailer. It does not look like the fan-art. Anyways, I was wondering if we could take the link to the image off the Cloverfield page because it is unnecessary.
Thank you,
- Pr0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the post from JJ Abrams' website where the creator, an established poster there, discusses his creation: http://www.jjabrams.net/showthread.php?t=118 . Do not add the image, it's jsut fan art. ThuranX ( talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have the official title of the movie, is the redirection from 1-18-08, 1/18/08, and 01-18-08 still necessary? I think it'd be better off redirecting back to January 18. Jeztah ( talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You have it marked down here that it's February Second, 2008. The actual release date is a day earlier: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/releaseinfo 24.76.186.137 ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think i have the proof to know that its a sea monster in the movie but not exactly sure what type it is. If you go on the slusho website and go to Happy talk one of the charecters says "bloop" and another says something about england. Bloop stands for a underwater sea water device that they used to i think it was measure someting or figure out the sounds of earthquakes and it was made in england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSskunk ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Monster here taken form the toys being produced to market for the film. File:Http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg
http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg
- This is not the monster, it's a creation of Peter Konig, the man who is supposedly designing the monster. It's on his website. - D
Yo, people! Wikipedia doesn't care about personal theories/observations as to what the monster is or isn't. If it isn't in a reliable third-party source, it cannot be verified, and any commentary here is just a waste of time. Sorry to sound so harsh, but it appears people continue to remain ignorant of Wikipedia policy on this. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be made clearer that the "It's still alive" line is in fact played _backward_ at the end of the film. There is currently a good bit of dispute about this on the IMDb and similar forums; people are arguing that the line sounds more like "Help us" when heard in this way. 64.247.126.204 ( talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after the final explosion, you hear radio transmissions stating its still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.81.64 ( talk) 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is quite a citable source that mentions this, or at least loops it backwards: http://cloverfieldmessage.y t m nd.com/. I know its not a great source, but it's a source no less (note: ytmnd seems to be blacklisted, so I'm spacing it out. And no this isn't a joke). CPTGbr ( talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
ytmnd is hardly a creadable source (thus the reasion it's blacklisted harlock_jds ( talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can site a reliable source for this audio file, the article should not make any claim as to exactly what it says. -- Erik the guy ( talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If I get a recording of it (with a fair use rationale and a cite), would it be viable to put the recording itself as an .ogg on the wiki?
[[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (
talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Only if the recording comes from a reliable media source. Not if you recorded it in the theater, and not if 'some website' recorded it in the theater. (A recording from the theater would be illegal anyways I think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
...how can you hear it in reverse if its only in theaters, most bootlegs have crappy sound.... i waited and all i herd was an indistinct voice and radio static.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.163.146 ( talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have heard it on youtube, but until the DVD comes out we can't verify it and "It is believed..." would work but because once again it can't be verified yet we can't do anything. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I just listened to it forward. It SOUNDS like it is a cry for help. Some Semi-Random Dude ( talk) 14:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a section on the monster and theories on what it is and what those little parasite bastards are and so on? There are some really accurate fan-sketches of the monster and parasites floating around online, and I largely came to wikipedia after seeing it for some kind of clues. -- Banyan ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a section, but it would be awfully small, as all that is currently known about the monster is what it looks like and that it's otherworldly.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Response To JBT1138. The production notes sound interesting but might not be fully accurate. The original idea for the monster might not be exactly what made it into the movie. For example, the production notes say the monster is ancient, but a scene near the end of the movie suggests that it arrived only a month (or so) before the incident. I'm not saying we KNOW the notes are wrong, I just don't think that it should be on Wikipedia unless a reliable source certifies it as being true to the movie and publishes it. It would be cool to see those notes though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, do you guys think that something stating that there was a second monster in Central Park when Rob and Elizabeth were hiding? The one Hud filmed in Central Park is CLEARLY not the same one that's raging about Manhattan. It's way too small and the bombers pass right over it during the Hammerdown procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 ( talk) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Definately a gooood point...I noticed it too, the monster seemed quite small.-- Kaji13 ( talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the fact it looked smaller and that if you follow the plot the group goes fucking everywhere, but with the second monster theory, though possible I think that maybe because of how it's legs were set up, a zoom out or in function on the camcorder, or it really seemed that the monster depending on it's position it's skin look stretched, so I don't know if we could make any assumptions on it's size. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the main article it says that Hud was killed by the creature... but I have the feeling that it isn't because the size seems too small.. come on, such a huge thing bitting something the size of an ant? It looks like is another type of creature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.129.226 ( talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why the movie was so ridiculous. The monster is in manhattan, then suddenly it's on ellis island and whacks the statue, then it's back in manahatan, then it's tail destroys the brooklyn bridge. At the end the chopper goes up watching the monster fall amid tall buildings, the pilot takes them closer to it and when it crash lands it's in a field? They should have called it the Blair Godzilla Project, the shaking camera was so irritating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.12.153 ( talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussion. This is about improving the article. Slusho42 ( talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just mentioning it because in the article says the monster killed him, which I think is not correct.
With all due respect, unless you have a reputable source that says either a) the main monster did not kill Hud or b) there is enough online speculation to warrant an article about fans thinking there is more than one monster, your opinion alone does not matter here. Slusho42 ( talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, what about all of our speculation? -- Kaji13 ( talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No wait, I think he's on to something there! Althought it seems silly to me that there are two different monsters in Cloverfield, it is not out of the question. From my point of veiw (and from memory) the monster, as well as the smaller monsters that seem to 'spawn' from the main monster, around the start of the movie seems more insect-like. Where as latter on in the film the monster, mostly in the closer up shots (like just before the monster kills Hud) it looks more like a bat or mammal type creature. Also from the sceen when Hud is killed by the monster, the scale of the monster seems to be smaller than previously. I have no sources either, unless you count the movie as a good enough source?-- Maceo ( talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Having seen the film when it opened, it's fairly obvious that the monster killed Hud. Given that it lunges at him and bites, and all. Lawrence § t/ e 06:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It looked smaller because Hud zoomed in on it's face. Them Hud was not bitten, Hud was physically inside of the monster's mouth. He was tossed around in the mouth then dropped from the huge 300 foot drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.18.202 ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there is a very good possibility that Hud is killed by a second monster, and I think there are clues in the film to back this up. First of all, i agree that this monster does look abit undersized when compared to earlier shots of the beast while it smashed around town. Secondly, I think we all noticed those orange/red Lung/sack things on the head of the monster which killed Hud. I argue that in no other point of the movie are these sacks visible, and would go as far as to say that the other monster (building smashing monster) had grey or black sacks, not the vibrant red ones. Third, It seemed strange to me that the monster could simply sneak up on the three of them, especially when each one of the monsters steps shakes the ground. I seem to recall them being near the water when they crash the helicopter, this one could have have been in the water, how sneaky. To go along with this ling of thinking, why was the monster not being bombed as it attacked Hud. Seems strange that there was a lull when it was said in the subway station that the option for a lull was probably not going to happen. Lastly, Since we simply only know the information which is on Hud's tape we only get to see this event from the perspective of these people. This means that even if there were more than one monster how would they know, all they know is that they are running from it. The fact that we as a viewer are not given an "all seeing/all knowing" view point means that there could be vast amounts of information that we are simply oblivious to at this point. Anyways .....fun to speculate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezgordo ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely only one monster. If you pay attention to the news casts when they are in the electronic store, you'll notice that the news caster says that New York is being attacked by a massive creature. Not massive creatures, a massive creature.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also. When Rob and company run into the military after getting out of the subway tunnels, they ask what going on. The military officer replies with, "what ever it is it's winning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering should we document all the monsters every single fan of Cloverfield thought it was before the movie actually came out? Seeing that Ethanhass was posted so people in the future know for a fact its not Godzilla, Voltron, a Huge Lion, Cthulhu, a New Transformers film, Zig, Behemoth, Laviethen and also that fake concept art which many thought it was the actual monster and how Abrams got the idea of the monster also? Also I think it should be posted b/c this monster in film is unique and there was no actual name given and we don't want it to tie in with other monsters that are out there. I noticed some of it is mentioned in there but not all as others might still cling on to the older ideas on the monster. Also a pic of the smaller versions of the thing might help.
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Like the viral promotion of this film it wasn't officially mentioned BUT its in the article anyway as of the mention of Godzilla, Paramount or Abrams did not announce that and etc. as of about 80% of the Pre Plot Speculation. This information i posted about the monsters where given permission to be on the article Right after the film came out to verify this. Now it has and should be in the article to prevent any confusion in the future. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ [[User talk:Mithos90|ॐ]] 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Those pictures are just concept art. The one of the main monster looks close but in the movie the things back didnt have spikes on it. The smaller creatures look completely different as well.
Don't worry my friends, Hasbro will unveil the beast pretty soon. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please add this, as I don't know how to cite sources and put the little numbers next to sentences and what not: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41117 . Hasbro is making figures of the monster to be sold for $99.99 each. Sounds like they come with the figure(70 POINTS OF ARTICULATION), two heads(calm and angry)for the Monster itself, and an SOL head as an accessory. Think it's worth mentioning, no? Slusho42 ( talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think it comes with 10 of the parasites. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, this is my first time posting, so sorry if this isn't supposed to be on the page, but if you have seen the movie, go on Youtube and search Cloverfield monster poster. You can see the head in the clouds. Nikolas3 ( talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thought it might aid in the creature discussions (and help debunk some of the so called 'confirmed' pre production creature sketches) by pointing out that the credited creature designer is Neville Page. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namssorg ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If we have a photo of the monster from the movie that isn't hand-drawn, or fan-made, can we put it in the wiki? Or is everyone going to bitch and complain (most likely about the fact that it isn't fair use rationale or something)? [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] ( talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/cloverfieldmonsterart01.jpg What about this? Roneman90 ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
the first one is more correct and the monster most likley was taller than the statue of liberty
Have YOU seen the movie? The second is completly wrong. The first has it right in more ways than one. The director even said that the first one was closer. there 199.44.20.107 ( talk) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) happy?
Why is " Godzilla" listed under See Also? Has it anything to do with this film? --Is this fact... ? 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
( SaturdaysKids ( talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
Abrams said he went into a store and saw alot of toys monsters in Japan at the 07 Comic-Con , Godzilla has nothing to do with the film though it could maybe inspired him like the other toy figures and made one up. Nothing with the film though it could be mentioned monster toy figures inspired the monster itself. Not Godzilla only. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Godzilla gets a separate listing from Godzilla (1954 film), so I have no problem with separate entries for the monster and the film. </retort> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilwhite ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why were the viral marketing website links (slusho.jp, etc) removed as "spam?" They are all definitely related to the film and I had been relying on this article's handy list of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.2.6 ( talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
SlushoTagratu ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that I personally would add it to the article also seeing this source looks reliable. Not sure what the other editors think seeing if this was added to the article right away someone else would delete it. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad we're making progress on getting these things sourced. I was wondering about the Jamie-Teddy site. Being as the latest video features the actress dressed in the same outfit as her appearance in the film, (and also referring to going to the party in the film, does this make a stronger case for the site to be considered an official part of the viral game? Does the film itself count as an official source? 64.178.99.197 ( talk) 07:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the MySpace pages have been confirmed, doesn't the appearance of the Jamie Lascano character on JamieandTeddy.com confirm it as an official part of the viral marketing? Would one of the main editors of this page get back to us on this? DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Cloverfield Clues just linked to various Cloverfield related interviews including one confirming that the MySpaces are a part of the advertising campaign. --Is this fact... ? 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
However, what they've linked to, http://current.com/items/88818115_cloverfield_s_fake_myspace_pages contains an actual interview in which the actress confirms that the myspace pages for each character were made for the movie by the production company. Surely this cannot be considered Original Research? DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Added the Source link in the article -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, did anyone notice that (Spoiler) the day after the movie came out, Hud's myspace profile changed his height to 2 feet, six inches? This is probably saying that he got bitten in half. Kinda funny. Ark Crow ( talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the article's plot needs more details. Some of it is missing a lot of details from the movie, like the rats running or her blowing up to blood or they will destroy Manhattan (or by the way, the movie was great! 10 out of 10!).-- 4444hhhh ( talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be re-written to cut down on the length of the plot. This is an encyclopedia that notes the main plot points but not every little detail. Those kind of details belong is a Cloverfield specific Wiki. -- Victor (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Victor, the rat thing is a detail added for flavor (so the kids would look behind them) not a crucial plot detail--
Erik the guy (
talk) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Has already been undone, on basais of no orig research. I'll open discussion with these points:
I personally do not think that is original research. i did not fact find, i simply reached the conclusion the movie gave me. my hand is on the undo button but anyone is welcome to rebutt me. Wikipedia:OR is unclear on this. we have the bullshit regarding "its still alive" but this gets removed immediately? opinions plz. Dark0805 ( talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument would be stronger if your facts weren't incorrect. Rob says its the morning of the 23rd at the end of the video, and the timestamp at the beginning of the party the night before says May 22nd. StvnLunsford ( talk) 04:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let people know -- the Plot summary section is the least important section of the film article. It's not worth painstaking discussion over the small details of the film. If there is a part of the film that is in dispute, try your best to make the passage ambiguous. For example, if a certain type of rescue helicopter was used, and people are arguing about its type, then it would be best to call it a rescue helicopter. I haven't seen the film yet, so I'm glazing my eyes over at the specific details, but try to consider that the Plot summary section should only have enough detail to understand the film as a whole from beginning to end. There are many intricacies of any film that will not be easily expressed in the section. It'd be more beneficial to focus on adding real-world context to the article. With the film just out, there should be plenty of coverage besides reviews about its production. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It must have been tape - NO camera which records to SD card will over-tape footage as shown in the film. ALL brands will create seperate files, solid state cameras simply DO NOT produce the kind of footage you see in this film. The "SD" text at the start of the film is most likely refering to "Standard Definition" as opposed to "High Definition" - ie, the footage is not HD, it's regular digital video. I'll give it a couple of days for anyone to point me to something to the contrary or object strongly before I edit. -- 82.32.47.8 ( talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just that I'll either simply take out the direct statement that the footage was recovered from an SD card or put a short sentence in to note the matter unclear. For example, the text could simply read "a series of scenes recovered from a digital video camera".
Whilst the issue itself is extremely trivial, the first thing that struck me about the article was its clear statement that the footage was from an SD card. That statement is so obviously wrong that it undermines the credibility of everything else in what is otherwise a very good article.
On the other hand, the mere absence of a statement about an SD card is not going to negatively impact on the article – as such it's better off without it.
Unless of course someone can identify some source to indicate the makers really did intend people to understand the footage to be from an SD card - in which case this discrepancy is best addressed towards the end of the article in a short gaffes or bloopers section as is commonly found in many other film articles. -- 62.173.76.218 ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted the Kaiju link from the plot summary... but what is the consensus on this? I think this is still a leap to make this link. I think it's original research, people looking at the plot summary and clicking on that link will be finding something that is basically unique to wikipedia (in us making this connection). Maybe a cite to someone in the media referring to Kaiju? Gwynand ( talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no object crashing into the water at the end of the film. The speculation at the end of the plot synopsis noting such an object should be removed unless footage from the film illustrating the object in question can be provided. 137.165.208.48 ( talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a lot of poeple keep saying somthing falls into the water off in the distance, but i saw no such thing.-- Mr. S.C. Shadow ( talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The current article states that there is something moving in the water. This is incorrect, as an object appears to fall out of the sky. Seeing as there was prior viral marketing that reported a sattelite falling into the ocean near NYC at the end of April, it's safe to assume that the object that fell [something did indeed fall, regardless of whether you noticed it or not] was a sattellite beloning to the Tagruato Corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.163.104 ( talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely some object that 1. Comes from the sky and 2. Lands in the water. It's not a matter of interpretation on that... it was quick, and I guess some people may have missed it. That info stays in, any interpretation beyond that would be removed. Gwynand ( talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I watched the movie for the second time today, and can tell you that the object falling from the sky most definitely exists. Furthermore, at that moment, it is the only thin happening in the shot, Rob and Beth are not even on screen, so it is no doubt deliberate by the filmmakers, not incidental like the shooting star caught on film in Jaws. I strongly feel it should be put back in the plot summary. If we needed footage from the fim to verify everything in the plot summary, I expect we'd be having problems with Paramount's legal department. DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The falling object can stay in the plot summary, it definitely exists, but its purpose/identity cannot. Since all theories for the falling objects identity and purpose are based on the viral marketing campaign they are speculation. (The general consensus is that the falling object is a satellite that awoke the monster, which had been sleeping for 1000(s) of years). Do not make any mention of the object's role or identity without citing a reliable resource please!
If there was an object falling from the sky... which side on the horizon was it and how fast or how steep was the drop?
It's hard to see on a regular T.V. It happens from 01:13:15 and 01:13:17. Their camera battery warning beeps just before the splash.
The object enters the screen near the top right corner, 10% from the right edge. It falls down and 20 degrees to the left, splashing on the horizon between the blue and white tent and the Go-Karts sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.178.85 ( talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the supposed object falling into the ocean should be mentioned under a separate section titled easter eggs or something, not the plot synopsis. The object is not part of the plot since the characters do not even acknowledge the event, despite the fact that it supposedly happens right in front of them. If the event were essential to the film's plot, some direct mention of it would have been made within the film itself. My concern is that this whole thing is merely an extension of the viral marketing project, designed to get people to see the movie again and again until they can spot the thing falling into the ocean. Assuming there was something there. 137.165.242.219 ( talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that narratively this is a very important plot point, as it suggests the seminal event leading up to what is depicted in the movie. From a storytelling standpoint, it hints at an answer to the question everyone is asking during the movie..."where did it come from". I'm not going to speculate on what the object really is or how it relates to the monster, but in the context of the fiction that the movie creates, it seems like an important detail and one which may be used to extend the narrative (sequel, anyone?). I would vote for it to be left in the plot summary section. As an aside...for those of you who might want to research it further, it comes in from the right side of the screen at about a 60 degree angle. Blink and you'll miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.141.181 ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I added it into the Sequel section of the article not stating any theories. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tagruato website states that their satellite was used to survey the Japanese satellite ChimpanzIII for damage after a piece of ChimpanzIII broke off and crashed into the Atlantic ocean. It was not the creature; it is not an alien. There are links here to JJ stating that the creature was in the ocean for eons. Synetech ( talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Reeves also points out that the end scene on Coney Island, shows something falling into the ocean in the background I didn't keep an eye out for that. But could someone expand on the sentence? What do they mean by "falling"? From the sky or from a cliff or boat or what? If it's from the sky, then it would be an alien.
-G
A few days ago, I added a motion sickness warning to the article, but it was removed. It is a verifiable fact that people got motion sickness while watching this movie (give me a bit of time to re-find that source again), and given that most movies don't cause motion sickness (at least not on this scale), I feel that this is notable.
Also, someone removed the talk section about Motion Sickness as well, for some reason. Viltris ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a motion sickness warning at the theatre I saw it at today. ... the AMC at the mall of america, and I did get a little sick watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.87.2 ( talk) 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the section Coffeepusher ( talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, to any fellow wikipedians that are planning a to see this movie: I think it was all-around horrible. Secondly, this article should probably mention motion sickness, as I left the theater inches away from blowing chunks. Google news agrees more weight to a warning is needed on this. I might add it later tonight if no one else wants too. EvanCarroll ( talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to
be bold and add the motion sickness note myself. My source probably isn't the best (it only mentions motion sickness in passing) and my phrasing or organization might not be the best (that's a really short section), but I feel that the motion sickness is noteworthy, especially since most movies generally don't cause motion sickness.
Viltris (
talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw it at an AMC too, and they had the exact same sign. I think it's a standardized sign for all AMC theaters. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.58.85.110 (
talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the motion sickness being experienced by a large amount of viewers is worthy of a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.226.119 ( talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Mabie it is just me, but I feel that there are enough personal testimonials about people getting motion sickness, and yet there is nothing in this discussion that can be put into the article unless someone finds a source from the AMC company that talks about that sign everyone read. Please no more personal "someone got sick at my theater" testimonials...this section is well on its way to redundancy if that keeps up.
Coffeepusher (
talk) 07:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Warnings Posted After Hit Horror Flick Leaves Some Nauseous - Oklahoma City News
This was also linked to on CNN's homepage
- Running On Brains 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering... how can we say that she exploded? I wasn't paying extremely close attention, but is it not possible that one of the medical officers shot her before she spawned any creatures or something? Anyone notice anything that goes against this? I mean, the black guy says "There was nothing we could do" which could support either of these theories. Just putting it out there...
No, she definitely inflates and bursts into a bloody mess.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also... the one way I can think of to prove this as fact or false would be to go see the movie and listen for any bang right before the explosion. Although, I doubt it's legal to record even a sound clip... so even if someone found out they couldn't verifiably prove it. 207.7.166.122 ( talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, about the dead soldier, when he is wheeled past, he is referred to as "another bite". How much has to be fed to us before we can agree that a similar thoracic explosion is what happened to Marlena? DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section says she is bit while saving Hud... this is minor, but isn't she tackled by one right after she finally clubs the one off of Hud? I mean, either way she was distracted by saving Hud but the way it is now suggests more guilt on Huds part and less possible defense from Marlena than the way I remember it being would. This is really minor, huh? I've been spending way too much time on this page lol... Ryan M. ( talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
She is tackled by one, but if I remember correctly, Rob kicks it off way to quickly before it could crall onto her back and bite her. I think she was bitten when they were running from them and that one jumps onto her back.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have heard rumors that there are potential alternates to the ending of this movie. Can anyone confirm or deny?-- TheEmpTSet ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
TheNightShift [6]appears to pose a similar question, NyMag.com [7]seems to propose that at least one alternate ending was filmed. My use of the term "global alternates" could be construed as original research, and has been amended.-- TheEmpTSet ( talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you go to the official movie website and click on about the DVD one of the bonus features is alternate endings.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There are specifically two known alternate endings. Saw it on a game site talking about the special edition. The commercials semi-confirm it by stating "alternate endings" Can't find a good source at moment, so we'll just have to wait upon release of the actual DVD. Mcnichoj ( talk) 07:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the sequel Section needs to be rewritten and should go a little more in detail with quotes from Matt Reeves, and how they plan to might film it. There are two sources about this that need to be the cited source on this section.
Done Rewriting it though I was wondering what is the code to add "LARGE" Quotation Marks around Quoted Paragraphs to make the section look neater than italize the whole darn thing. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A) There is no reason why anyone who reads this article is going to care WHAT TYPE OF FIGHTER JET OR HELICOPTER THE ONES IN THE FILM WERE!
B) All the small edits are getting kind of annoying. Im a bit surprised that the admins havent decided to full-block the page.
C) At this point I am just gonna say that Marlena definitely exploded as you saw if you were paying attention. The martial doctors in the hazmat suits DIDNT TOUCH HER and also the small scene before she started bleeding everywhere, with the man with his torso also burst open. Proof enough I think. T3H_CH0Z3N_0N3 ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made a section about soundtrack, but it was later removed as unsourced section. I agree that "A sampler disc was distributed to guests at Rob's Going Away Party at the Dark Room in New York City on 17 January" (it wasn't written by me, it was added later by another user) lacked a source. But I think that, for example, "Cloverfield, being presented as if it were a recording by one of the characters, has no soundtrack in the usual meaning" doesn't need a source, and even if it does, IMDb trivia can be one, so there was no actual need for the deleting. So maybe it's better to restore the section and delete only the statements that lack sources?
Sorry for my poor English, it's not my native language.
phil ( talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this would belong in the article, or if anyone else noticed the music during the credits had several allusions to Japanese monster films: the theme resembled the march used in Destroy All Monsters and others, and there was a break with a similar theme to Godzilla's (the one with the lower brass). Bossk538 ( talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were to put this in, i would suggest the critical reception section and cite the reviews-- Erik the guy ( talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The song "Grown So Ugly" off of The Black Keys 2004 release Rubber Factory was left out of the articles soundtrack section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roostar ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is we have all these songs played at Rob's party but the problem is that there is not cited source to prove that these songs were in the actual movie. Who knows maybe some songs where not in the movie but at the actual party in New York for the contest. We need a source. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[[:Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg|thumb|150px|iTunes Screen of Rob's Party Mix]]Ok thanks to the Editor Tommyd84 we Have finally found a ACTUAL CD that came from the Movie itself. Though through my original research this CD was most likely the prize given out during the Real Life Party in New York. So Far I Searched Goggle to look for more info about the Soundtrack and found it's listings. I haven't found out if the CD is a actual OFFICIAL Soundtrack of the film hoping it will contain the score ROAR!(Cloverfeild Overture) but its not on there but only the songs played at Robs Party. Now Because I could not find a ACTUAL Source I found a site(or a couple) that blogs music and one of them state that they are the Blog that uploaded this CD into Itunes. Also there is a article already made for the Mix CD (not made by me)
I Would Love to get opinions from the other editors about this topic if to add it into the article. Seeing its the only Soundtrack for the film out so far we should also seeing that in the Soundtrack section this is most likely the gift that was given away at the Rob's Party Contest. But then I also consider that there are only few of these in the world and if they were given because of the sweepstakes they most likely wont reveal what the actual prize was. And another thing against adding it to the article there are no "REAL" cites for it but only a blog site which uploaded their CD to Itunes. I also wanted to know if the article for the Mix tape itself is still in keeps as its a CD related to the film and a track listings are already public. If we don't keep the article at least add the picture of the CD's cover on this page. Links are Below:
Just Finish Doing the Soundtrack Article. Edit if you must. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Removed by Editor -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not including trailers or credits (so from the first Paramount Logo to the directers name) the film lasts only 1 hour and 13 minutes (73 minutes versus the 84 listed in the article).
We're getting pretty noisey in here. It's probably time to archive this page at least. I don't know what the official policy is on this, but in my opinion, getting rid of all unsigned comments would drastically improve the wieldliness and appropriateness of the Talk page. Transentient ( talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
we can alter the archive box, I will adjust it to archive faster (posts 15 days or less) but that wont solve the problem for a while because most of this stuff is recent acctivity. I have also been murging relevent sections together (as well as a few other people) like putting the 3motion sickness together etc. but unless it is outright vandalism, I really don't modify or delete other peoples post on talk pages, it just gets tricky. Coffeepusher ( talk) 07:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted...a lot of speculation and discussion (about 25398 bytes, or a fith of the page...but whos counting). I did my best to keep comments that even attempted to work on the article, but alot of stuff was deleted because it responded to the discussion style questions. this page is still huge, but right now it appears more focused and orgonized. I did all my edits in good faith. if you think I was wreckless, please find some examples of stuff that should have been kept and present them to me in a appropriate mannor. don't just go off on me because I deleted one of your posts, tell me why it should have been kept, and find more then one example. Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
an editor removed my changes without explination...only to say that mass blanking needed to stop. I am shure this was done in good faith in order to keep with wikipedia standards, which I also value. I edited the page in accordance with WP:TALK#Editing comments where it states an editor can remove material if s/he is "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article." now I believe that I have kept strictly to this rule, as that is my intention. if I am wrong, could you please post on the talk page with an explination as I am working within good faith and want to work with people. Go figure, that is what a talk page is for right? Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should add abit of info for the characters in this movie? Like a good 3-5 sentences. Nocarsgo ( talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, if you can find enough information about at least Rob, Beth, Hud, Lily, Marlena, Jason, and maybe the Monster and the smaller monsters. Along with good clear pictures of the characters. This would be good, although most of the inforamtion about the characters is already in the Plot, so it may be a bit pointless for all the characters except the Monster and the smaller monsters.-- Maceo ( talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
they all have myspace pages. see if you can either link to each one or just put some select stuff in there. Madhatter9max ( talk) 07:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It sure would be a lot of work, but how about this article eventually having a map and timeline of events? I'd love to know just what happened where at approximately what time, that is assuming all the locations in the film are real. Many of the events in the timeline would have to be approximations and such a timeline would be split between the day of the date and night of the attack. Oh, and how about an overlay on a map of the path the Statue of Liberty head would have traversed. (A dotted red line leading from the statue to the skyscraper it impacted to the final resting spot on the street.) Just what direction was it thrown and where did it land? Was the film accurate in that regard? (and by that I mean could it have flown from the statue to those locations in an uninterrupted arc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 ( talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the place for timelines and maps? Actually, you have a point. Not that Wikipedia shouldn't contain timelines and maps, but that sometimes information can be too detailed, too specific. I was going to counter with links to all the "Lost" content that would have suggested otherwise, such as maps of the Hatch and a timeline of events, but it appears that since I originally saw those things they've since been deleted and now the Lost Wiki handles most of it. There is at least somewhat of a precedent (though perhaps a bad one) for Wikipedia to act as a holding area for content until it can be organized elsewhere. The Cloverfield wiki [10] still hasn't yet matured to the point at which it contains info like this, but I'd in time like to see it there. So I retract the request for Wikipedia and reiterate it for the Cloverfield Wiki. With a lot of work it should be possible to create a timeline of every shot in the film and describe where in New York each event happened, in addition to the Statue of Liberty head flight path. I'm guessing somebody might do it after the DVD release, though it'd be a shame for it to never happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 ( talk) 07:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I know blogs are not reliable sources but cloverfield clues had a link to the production notes of Cloverfield. So technically I found them through a blog but yeah anyway. I was reading the production notes and I noticed it talks about the naming of the movie. Whats said in the notes differs from the whats said here. Yes Cloverfield was the name of the movie from the beginning but it wasnt the official name. The notes say that the offical name was supposed to be Greyshot. Greyshot is the name of the bridge where Beth and Rob hide at the end. They were going to announce that at Comic-Con but didnt because Cloverfield was already well known and felt changing the name would be bad. Heres the link to the site and the exact paragraph http://home.windstream.net/dacevedo/cloverfield/cloverfieldproductionnotes.htm
Now what Im going to say probably falls into orginal research and cant be used but yeah. This makes a lot of sense becuase the director even stated (before Comi-Con) that when we watched the movie we would understand the meaning of the title. I think that was referring to the movie being name GreyShot. But back to the main point, I was going to add the details about Greyshot and some quotes from Abrams but thought I post it here first to see if anybody has any problems with it. Rosario lopez ( talk) 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
May we add the following image of mine that I uplaoded? It is here in Wikipedia titled: Cloverfield blvd-1.jpg. It should be in the "Development" section near the line. "The film's final title, "Cloverfield", is the name of a main street in Santa Monica, CA, near Abrams's office." Thanks. Kevrock ( talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. Sorry for the confusion, I'm new to this. Thanks for placing the request in the proper spot. Kevrock ( talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need a page to contain all the backstory information about Cloverfield you can find online at places like unfiction.com and cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com. We could have the whole story on Tagruato, Slusho! the myspaces, drilling rig news videos, etc... Gimme the go and I'll start on it unless someone else would rather. Morrock ( talk) 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If one were to look at the movie being recorded on a camcorder-one would only see white-ish foam. However, in the movie, if one were to look hard enough, one would see that it is in fact a SATELITE of slusho. Something to do with the secret ingredient. It woke cloverfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.144.210 ( talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't cite this but it has been said that it is a satelite, but it is either slusho or Tagruato(Slusho's father company, that drill for mineral's including your secret ingredient.) 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Er isn't it just a tincy wincy bit obvious that the idea for tyhe film comes from the Korean film The Host, which had loads of people filming the monster on handhelds but we never saw it as they saw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.186.29 ( talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the moster in Cloverfield does bear a slight conceptual resemalence to the moster in The Hosst, but the similarities end there. The movies are stylisicly and narratively completely different and to say the "idea of the film (not the monster) is completely false. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.34.11.170 (
talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We're quoting far too much at length with the Sequel section. I recommend converting the quotes to prose whenever possible. We shouldn't be too lazy to write original sentences based on the available information. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed already somewhere. The "Cast" section of the article states that it is unknown whether Rob and Beth survived. True, we don't actually see their bodies, but surely it is pretty obvious that they both died. I don't think it would violate NPOV to say so. Richard75 ( talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think it's all that "obvious" that they both died. There are no bodies, and there is the garbled message at the end of the credits to consider. I say we leave it as it is until we get official word from the makers of the film wether or not Rob and Beth survived. Slusho42 ( talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are those little creatures parasites?Does the victim have a symbiotic relationship with the creature?The only thing he does is attack and bite people,and then they explode... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.79.26 ( talk) 13:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Because they're parasites of the cloverfield monster, like mites, ticks, or fleas. Or crabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 ( talk) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Totaly Unrealistic.
In today’s day and age of filming I would have thought the film makers would have made a more believable and realistic film. For starters the Creature was clearly biological. The amount of military ordinance they dropped on this thing would have reduced it to paste....Literally. In the movie you can see the explosions on the creature but there is no clear puncture, Scratches, dents, Lacerations etc on its skin.....what is this thing??...coated in a substance stronger then diamond? The creature is left unmarked! The scene where the B2 bombers land a direct hit on it and it’s still unscathed is ridiculous. Now if they altered the plot where several of these creatures were on the loose and they could kill them but there were just too many to kill then all and the army was overwhelmed then fair enough but the way it stands the film is ridiculous to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.41.212 ( talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually diamond will be reduced to dust if burned by a fire strong enough. I just seem to recall Americans love using depleted uranium in a few of their weapons... weapons that should have been fired at the creature. If that hits something the heat it creates would burn diamond. So even with diamond skin it would not have survived that attack
Unrealistic? How would you know, do you have any citations related to actual Cloverfield entities? We don't know any details about damage taken or sustained or anything about the monster. If it can survive deep space or oceanic preasure, maybe it can sustain a nuke. I asked Superman to punch it a bit, he said it was like diamond and had a healing factor? Unfortunately I can't cite my sources. Zelphi ( talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Have you ever been in a helicopter above a massive creature being bombed? Have you ever carpet bombed a huge creature that no one has ever heard of before? I'm guessing your answer is no.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The creature was unaffected by the carpet bombings because it has naturally developed defenses that can endure this type of bombardment. Abrams has stated that the creature has been slumbering under the ocean for thousands of years, and that the heat emanating from the Earth's core here has caused it to adapt a robust hide capable of sustaining this immense heat. Also,(now this is only my own deduction) I believe that because the creature is dominantly aquatic and remains submerged for such extensive periods at a time, it has also developed/retained traits that allow it to absorb water like many other amphibians do, e.g, a selectively permeable skin that allows water to pass through while still remaining so durable. This might explain as to why its skin is so impassable yet also appears somewhat soft and shimmering in sunlight.
Again, the theory on a selectively permeable hide is only my assumption, nothing valid at this point, but the creature's ability to resist massive amounts of firepower is already explained by Abram's own words.
As for the parasites, they do seem more predatory than parasitic to me. In fact, I wonder how it's possible that the creature could even survive for so long with these parasites attached to it. But of course, they have been dubbed parasites by an official source, so I suppose it stands. Godzilla's Heir 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And, if Clover's hide is so tough that rockets and tank shells don't seriously hurt it, then how do the parasites feed off of it? I'm assuming that they're kind of like fleas -- if this isn't correct, then what? Granted, those little buggers are pretty nasty, but still... Afalbrig ( talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted to keep to the facts, which is very little, plot speculation and specific points are somewhat unwarented and open to debate. Zelphi ( talk) 12:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to add more to the summary, and I'm sure I could add details but there are just too many questions. Zelphi ( talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is just silly. The section is titled "Plot Summary" for a reason. The whole "How do you summerise (sic) a plot, when you are not sure what it is about?" is just absurd. Do we change the wikipedia entry for the last Sopranos episode because we just don't know what the director intended for the ending? Wikipedia guidelines make very clear that "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality." If you are concerned that we just "may not know all the facts," then don't come to this article until JJ Abrams and Matt release All The Facts, and then you can clarify to your heart's content. Ishmayl ( talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one's picked up on the fact that this is yet another film about the American fear of terrorism, along the lines of Independence Day. These have had a nasty habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
The subtext is obvious - the USA (which happens to be fighting several wars as we speak) comes under attack by an unknown enemy, and like Sept 11, is turned from aggressor into victim. In this case, the enemy happens to be "invisible", just in the same way that terrorists rarely wear identifiable uniforms and melt into the crowd.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the last paragraph of the summary that Lance1000 has just added:
"Rob and Beth take shelter under a Central Park bridge amid air-sirens, before the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb causes the bridge to collapse around them. The two confess their love for each other before a fire storm ends the recording. With this occurring it is presumed that Manhattan and its remaining occupants were sacrificed to kill the monster to prevent it causing further distruction. The last footage shown depicts Rob and Beth ending their day at Coney Island, in which an object can be seen falling from the sky into the ocean surrounding them.[7] The credits are shown, and a short radio transmission plays."
I think it's a bit much to say "the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb," considering that realistically, a nuclear bomb would have wiped them out without a chance for their subsequent profession of love. Also, so far, the plot summary seems to be based on what we actually do know (for instance, while we don't know why Marlene died, we do know that her chest expanded and exploded, so we put that information in without saying "presumably from the poisonous bite of the creature who was probably affected by the super growth hormones of the Slusho drink"), so I think we should love the "presumably's," "assumptions," and "probably's" out until something more defining has been said by the creators. I'll change the summary back to the previous version, but if you disagree, feel free to say so here. -- Ishmayl ( talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless they were far enough away that it was only second effects that killed them, like overpressure, exploding gas mains, exploding, burning trees, etc. Nothing says the nuke landed right on top of them. The way the monster was moving around it could have been in Harlem or Alphabet City when the bombs hit it, not necessarily Central Park. Either way, it can't be presumed one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 ( talk) 12:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it was a nuke. The memory card would have been wiped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.169.36 ( talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to what Cinemaniac said with how this movie was styled we can't even say that Marlena is dead, chances are she is but that can't be confirmed. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, just to point out someone erased an entry I did months ago as original research or "I wanted to have thought of it first". This movie is VERY much alike Miracle Mile, a 1988 film. At the end of the latter, the leading couple, Anthony Edwards and Mare Whinningham are evacuating LA in a chopper which gets knocked out of the skies as a consequence of a nuclear blast. They are then in complete darkness as the chopper falls into a tar pit. Edwards calms his love interest down and comments that they will then turn into diamonds when the next nuke hits them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.136.49 ( talk) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"the project was released on January 17 in New Zealand and Australia, on January 18 in North America, and on February 1 in the Republic of Ireland and the UK." I understand that the whole Cloverfield thing is a big "project", but what was released on January 18 in the US is simply called a "film" to my knowledge. Should it really be called a "project"? Is it because it's so great and important that it can't be considered as a simple "film"? 86.64.202.161 ( talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Yesterday, CNBC's "On The Money" discussed the possibility of "Overnight" being a title with Peter of /film. -- ElectricZookeeper 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Jessica Lucas My sources for this are pictures from the on location shooting in NYC of this film found at these links: http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002776.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002921.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002785.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view¤t=S5002794.jpg, AND the fact that she's in the trailer. Flipping through the album you will find Matt Reeves (Director), many other cast members (including a close up of "Rob," the guy in the Slusho shirt, and Jessica Lucas herself. Also Paramount support trucks, notices of the street not being available for parking due to filming of the Paramount film "Cheese", etc. I would do this myself but I don't know how I would cite these sources. 24.151.176.32 05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Jessica Lucas is starting to appear in news articles as a Cloverfield cast member now. Here's a link to an article at The Hollywood Reporter KC 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Just Wandering, seeing the Film's Distributer is Paramount Pictures, Can We add it to the External Links Area Below? Also I noticed recently, that the Official Paramount Pictures website has added the "1-18-08" Trailer onto the site, then a direct link to the Apple site. Also on the Apple's "1-18-08" Trailer page, on the bottom right hand corner, you can see the Bad Robot Logo and when you click on the logo, it brings you to the Official Bad Robot Site(Currently Has nothing on it) and was also wandering should it be added to the External Links area, seeing that Bad Robot is a production company owned by J.J. Abrams himself. Both Sites/Productions DO Have affiliation with the movie.
-- Mithos90 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Recently a Call Sheet of the Movie was posted up on NYMag and was taken from the set. Well Today Slashfilms has received a email from one of Paramounts Lawyers ordering it to be taken down As Soon as Possible. Seeing that this is the case, Possible Spoilers were on the call sheet revealing some of the plot. I am not sure if this is liable to now have more information regarding to the films plot be updated on the Actual Article of the Movie. Seeing the sheet itself(not taken down from NYMag....yet) has gotten the Paramount Pictures lawyer's attention and they demand for it to be taken down.
If This was added to the article, I would suggest a spoiler warning and linking the cited source to the Slashfilm link I posted below, seeing that anyone who links the Call sheet from the NYMag site will intertwine with legal issues with Paramount Pictures.
-- Mithos90 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
A second teaser trailer is currently said to be running with prints of "Stardust", this is not the same trailer people reported seeing last week when they attended an advanced screening of "Stardust".
If the Slusho.jp site is mentioned in the article and has two citations reporting its probable involvement in the marketing - even if it is not officially confirmed - why does it not merit a link in the text. Such a link neither adds nor detracts from the article, and it allows readers to investigate the site for themselves. If the site has enough merit to be mentioned (by its very address, no less) in the article, then I don't understand what is the bigh deal with actually linking that address to the real site. And I don't see where WP:EL states that these links cannot be used, it only states that they must be used sparingly, and I'm only adding one.-- Qwerty7412369 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)-- Mithos90 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I hope you will all humor me as I make one last-ditch attempt to make my case, afterwhich I will bid you all adieu and allow someone else to take up this fight if they wish - As I see it, the issue is not whether this information, or for that matter any information in wikipedia, has been "officially confirmed" from on high by Paramount or J.J.Abrams or anyone else with access to the undisputed, official "Truth" of the matter. As per WP:V, the official wikipedia criteria is "verifiability, not truth," and verifiability is met if one can sourse the information to "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now what I have tried to highlight again and again is that these are two different criteria - "Official Confirmation" is not the same criteria as "Verifiablilty." "Verifibility" is the criteria which governs us here, and as there are at least four "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" linking Slusho.jp to Cloverfield, I believe the criteria set by Wikipedia's own policies have been met. Nowhere does it state in WP:V that the information must come from "official sources," only from "verifiable sources" - again, please recognize that these two are not the same.
Now, Erik suggests that if we allow slusho as a link, we will step out on a slippery-slope and end up with links to any and every fansite, blog, fake-page, and so forth that any 15-year old fanboy can think up. Following the logic of this argument, the External Links section will eventually be overwhelmed with links to questionable sites and will be rendered unusable. Ok, except the criteria of verifiability was created to deal with such circumstances. First off, someone can't just put up links to any random site that they might come across, as per your slippery-slope assertion, first they have to provide verifiable evidence from a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that the site is connected to the cloverfield project before the can make a link. So if I want to put up a EL to site XYZ.com, I should be able to provide sources such as the Washingtom Post, MTV.com, or NBC, that are both verifiable and meet stated criteria in WP:V which link site XYZ.com to the cloverfield. Of course, the more sources I can provide, the better. If I cannot provide any such sources, then site XYZ.com should not be linked - period. That's how WP:V keeps irrelevant information out of articles without excluding relevant info.
But then, lets say that it is discovered that site XYZ.com, much like the Ethan Haas sites, are later discovered to have no connection to the movie. Has the policy of WP:V failed? Is wikipedia forever stained? No, this is how it works best. There was verifiable information that linked Ethan Haas to the movie, therefore the site was included. Then verifiable sources reported that Ethan Haas was not linked to cloverfield, so the site was removed. Wikipedia is meant to be fluid, evolving, growing - which means that the rules may allow some incorrect info in, but those same rules will also get it out eventually. That's why the criteria is "verifiability, not truth." The "not truth" part is there for a reason. What is " verifiable" changes as knowledge changes, the "truth" is more or less fixed (and I'll leave it to the philosophers to decide if its "more" or "less"). But the point is that the verifiable criteria is loose enough to allow information that may or may not be true, but its also fluid enough to adapt to changes and correct that very information. This is its strenght, not its weakness. That's why I am arguing that verifibility is the criteria which applies here, not "Official Confirmation" from on high. And, I betting, that's why its wikipedia's stated policy as well. If we make a honest mistake based on verifiable sources, so be it - other editors with other verifiable sources will correct it! This is why the first thing we are told when we register is to Be Bold!
This post and the ones which proceeded it in this topic are why I beleive we should include Slusho.jp in the "External Links" section. I don't think it will send us all down a slippery-slope, and I think it is clearly in agreement with wikipedia's own policies, particularly WP:V and WP:EL for the reasons stated. You and any other user are free do take them as you will. Good day -- Qwerty7412369 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Anyone Have Any Actual Proof That There Is A Second Trailer For The Movie Running With Prints Of Stardust?-- 67.35.104.109 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the writing on the back on the photographs on the should be included in the discussion about the viral marketing. The writing on the photos says "Robbie, Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!!!! gonna miss the hell out of you. Lovie Jamie" This writing is present on the back of the photo time marked 12:04.
The other writing says "Dont forget who takes care of you. Love J" This is present on the photo time marked 12:01
The writing can be found if you vigorously shake the photos whie no other photos are overlapping the selected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.248.68 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, August 19, 2007
I Agree. To Many people are referring that the writings were meant for people to go to Myspace and Look for the actual characters of the Movie. It it was added to the article without someone finding the official meaning of the writings, people will start to ask if the Myspace Profiles to be added to the article which has not have a reliable cited source to state that it is Officially part of the films' viral Marketing. -- Mithos90 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But i think that it should be stated in the paragraph about the photographs, maybe not to even quoting it, but not stating it is there is holding back information for people who dont go the website to see it themselves, although i agree it may not having anything to do with the plot (apart from the sexual tension i can obviously see between 'Jamie' and the main character, which is my personal opinion) i still think it should be stated there is writing on the back of the photographs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.51.161 ( talk • contribs) 06:27, August 20, 2007
Also as to Slusho that it might be a possible Covername for the Films' Filming Set which was stated by IGN and also from pictures that were taken on the set which might POSSIBLY be legit but Not Confirmed. As Erik Said We have to wait for all this info that has been flying around the web to be confirmed first before we put it up on the Actual article. -- 72.178.138.105 <<< -- Mithos90 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
On the IGN website, when you click on Latest Screens for the "Cloverfield" film, it has a poster with the text, "Furious" splayed across the top. The title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.177.104 ( talk) 05:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
I've heard 'Barbarous' and 'Terrifying' are also in the tagline rotation. Radagast 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The Offical 1-18-08 Site has just been updated and now when you first open the site, after six minutes of leaving the browser open, you will hear the roar of the monster in the Movie. was wondering would this be acceptable to add to the article?
-- Mithos90 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I heard this and it scared me... but yes I do agree this should be added to the article CSpuppydog 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
New to this so bear with me. Can I post this?
If you type [www.youcantdrinkjustsix.com] it will take you to a new possible viral website?
-- Nbenos 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this from a friend: http://jamieandteddy.com Your going to need to se the password: "jllovesth", without the quotations. The girl in the video looks to be the same girl in the trailer, and on one of the photos on 1-18-08.com. Also, on the back of one photo it is signed "Jamie". Should we add this to the official site listing?- user:puddles26
I thought that it has been proven that the artical from the NYpost was wrong. I have heard that Blake is not in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.212.119 ( talk) 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A released date for the UK has been added. Do we have confirmation on this? -- Mark H Wilkinson ( t, c) 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
UK release date (It is still listed as "Untitled JJ Abrams film" and can be found at http://www.launchingfilms.com/releaseschedule/schedule.php?sort=date&date=today&print=1&print=1 . This is the UKs Film Distributors' Association website. Confused coyote 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
is it just me or has this become some form of an ARG, and if so, wouldnt this mean that it will be possible to find the title of the movie, somewhere online. it is obvious that they are giving us clues of some form. ( Masterxak 09:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC))
This does sound to me like an ARG, too, altough I've never experienced one firsthand so I wouldn't know as well. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned under Marketing? I'd implement it in, myself, but I don't know of how it should be worded. -- 63.3.4.2 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war on whether or not Slusho is a relevent enough website to add the link thereof on here or no. Instead of this ongoing nonsense, why not start a civilized Disscussion/Vote to descide how we should go with this? -- 209.247.5.131 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As (I think) mostly agreed on previously, the best solution is to have it mentioned in the "viral marketing" (or other relevant portions) and not linked until 100% official. It obviously SHOULD be in the article. And personally, I feel the site should be in the links, as a lot of traffic going here probably wants to know what slusho is about an the site obviously has SOME relation- but until the controversy dies down, the site has appropriate coverage and doesn't "NEED" a seperate link. Its current setting in full context could be argued as a more appropriate home anyway. 209.153.128.248 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Add or detract from the list as you see fit.
-- 209.247.5.131 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this will probably never make it to this Cloverfield article's front page, but a new site in the Viral Marketing Campaign/ARG just came up, JamieAndTeddy.com. It asks for a password: jllovesth. Entering it in, it leads to a video for download of Jamie, a girl from one of the teaser site pictures (the one with 3 people. This is also the same one that, fliped, gave clues to lead to her subsequent MySpace). If you don't want to bother downloading it, it can likewise be seen here on YouTube.
I am putting it up here just to note if meantioned, needed, or whatnot at a latter date. -- 209.247.5.142 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Theres a new video on the site Smremde 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the moster whale theory? So far, this seems to make the most sense to me. The moster sound in the movie and the photo site are definitely whale-like. The Slusho site has a lot of references to whales. There's the whale moster picture that is supposedly a fake, but looks pretty darn good, and interestingly enough has little parasites. Maybe an alien parasite or a toxic, mutated louse bites a whale, and turns it into a giant breeding ground that also happens to hate mankind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a forum. DurinsBane87 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The section is called "Discussion", so let them discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.98.102 ( talk) 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this reliable? A jacked up cell phone pic? BURNyA 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Google had no hits. This article is the mother of all origonal research... BURNyA 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Those posters are fake, anyway. The eclipse part of the poster was taken from graphic art from the U.S. TV show "Heroes". KC 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The Protagonist of the movie Cloverfield has the same name as the Omaha Mall Shooter. A trivia section should be added with this creepy tidbit of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.65.10 ( talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
At 1-18-08.com, there is now a picture of an Asian man holding sushi. On the back there is Asian writing. Can anyone tell what language it is and possibly translate it? Flamingtorch372 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the recipe translated: Thank you for checking us out! We are Introducing this week's tasty one dish. Make sure you eat it cold!
Skinless chicken breast - 2, cut in halves Sōmen noodles - 10 oz. Watercress - 1/2 cup cut into small strips Turnip - 1/2 cup, thinly sliced Shiitake Mushrooms - 1/2 cup Chicken stock - 1/3 cup Sake - 2 tbsp. Sugar - 1/2 tsp. Deep Sea Nectar - 1 pinch
In a small saucepan, stir together 1/3 cup water, chicken stock, sake, and sugar. Chill it until it becomes cold. Grill the chicken breast on both sides for about 8 minutes, and then chill. Boil the noodles for about 3 minutes, and then run under cold water until chilled. Mix the watercress, radish, and mushrooms into the sōmen. Slice the chicken thinly and arrange on top of the sōmen mix. Just before you serve, put the deep sea nectar in the sauce and pour over the noodles generously.
Go Go Delicious Chef!
This picture led to the Tagruato website, which is apparently the parent company of Slusho. The site was not found until this picture was put up on the site. -- General Holtarna 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagruato.jpis the newest Cloverfield-related site. Found on Unforum, but it's obviously legit. Actually provides a lot more information, including a possible monster origin (deep-sea drilling). This article should probably mention it. -- General Holtarna 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Not Sure Erik But Another Possible Site might have found that could be related to the film. The site Registration is ALMOST exactly like the Jamie and Teddy site and is located on the same server on the Jamie and Teddy site also. Its also has some assumption with the Hud character because of his hobbies of comics. But Like as usual cited sources are need to be addressed so it can be added to the article. Found by Stratus on Ethan Haas Fourms Just for reference.
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Now the Slusho Site links to Tagruato. Still want to say it's not part of the game? --
71.75.131.228 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The WikiSnobs turn a blind eye to the obvious all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If something is flawed, it's relevance is questionable. In that case, whether it "should be there" or not should be analyzed. There's a lot of nonsense going on related to this article (and hundreds more) where someone who has claimed ownership of a page will not allow any changes regardless of hard evidence. Viral marketing is often left "unconfirmed" by official sources because it's meant to be, but some things can be confirmed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or J. J. Abrams himself to indicate that JamieandTeddy.com is a legitimate site; the actress playing Jamie Lascano can clearly be seen in the video as well as one of the pictures on the official site 1-18-08.com. That's not "original research", that's common sense.
Even in the face of the obvious, those "in charge" of "protecting" certain pages exercise their might to keep things the way they want them. Wikipedia wants to be the Akashic Record of the Internet, but as long as it fails to recognize the obvious without having confirmations being spoon-fed to them, it will continue to be nothing more than a place to look at the world through a very narrow, controlled lens. -- Captain Impulse 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What defines reliable? There's a lot of "if" factor from any source, including (and some would argue, especially) the mainstream media. And how does "added mythology" not relate directly to the film in your eyes? The content of these sites contributes to the mythos and the canon of the film's storyline. The drink Slusho may not be present other than merely in name or as "in-game" advertisement, but the link to the mythos and backstory is obvious.
The "Ethan Haas Was Right" fiasco is a familiar fall back argument, but never once was their any evidence directly linking the two projects. It was all speculation by wanna-be internet sleuths that got out of hand. It wasn't a "gamejack", because that implies information was falsified to make it appear related. It was simply a case of internet retards running wild. In the case of Tagruato, Slusho and JamieandTeddy, there are direct connections that can be verified. Matching actors, character names, locales, corporations. This is not original research. This is common sense. This is correlation, which is a huge part of verifiability. These sites verify each other through direct connectivity and simple deductive reasoning, without stemming into the territory of "original research".
I don't expect every single link to be posted (such as the restaurant review that led to the discovery of Tagruato.jp), but people are ignoring facts here. Slusho.jp is a confirmed site; it's relevance has long been established and accepted even amongst mainstream sites. Tagruato links off of Slusho. The character "Jamie Lascano" can be seen in pictures on the confirmed site 1-18-08.com and the same actress appears in videos on Jamieandteddy.com. It's all there, right before your eyes. Does Abrams have to spoil the game for everyone before these clues are accepted as fact? The content of these sites adds a lot of content to the mystery and people looking for answers should be able to find them here. No one's asking for a detailed analysis of the content of these sites, but people should be able to find the answers they're looking for by consulting an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia can't provide all the information, it shouldn't be masquerading as an encyclopedia. -- Captain Impulse 05:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Listen. Tagruato could not be found until the official 1-18-08 site was updated with the picture of the Asian Chef. Google had been tied in as well, as the Chef Review that led to the Tagruato site's discovery could not be found on Google until the picture was put on the official site. Therefore: Tagruato=official. --
General Holtarna 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Also: thumb|right|150px|Proof enough for you? It's on the Slusho website. -- General Holtarna 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagruato is named and kind-of linked to on the Slusho! website, yet it is not mentioned on the article. The evidence is overwhelming for it to be official. If you refuse to put it up for the reason that It's not been confirmed, then by the same logic we should remove Slusho! -- General Holtarna 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
http://whois.domaintools.com/tagruato.jp
Domain Information:
[Domain Name] TAGRUATO.JP
[Registrant] Daiske Kagashima
[Name Server] ns51.domaincontrol.com
[Name Server] ns52.domaincontrol.com
[Created on] 2007/07/25
[Expires on] 2008/07/31
[Status] Active
[Last Updated] 2007/07/25 23:38:22 (JST)
Notice the Creation Date. -- General Holtarna 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
seems like it has been 'hacked'. part of the game i'm guessing. eco terrorists!!!-- 69.104.18.133 ( talk) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
ComingSoon.net has reported that, according to their "source," Cloverfield will get a new trailer and a title on November 16, 2007, before Beowulf. I don't know how reputable the site is, considering (a) they won't name the source and (b) they're pretty behind on their Cloverfield info otherwise. Just throwing it out there, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeztah ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cloverfield-monster-picture.jpg 12.210.209.18 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.45.1 ( talk) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
someone over at CHUD.com posted info on a new trailer nad seemed pretty accurate. I think it's also been confirmed somewhere that the new trailer is going to premier in front of Beowulf. should that be posted up and does anyone have any confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.127.174 ( talk) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.57.239 ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok I know this is original research and Erik I know this will not go into the Article....not just yet BUT this site does look like another Puzzle. The site itself the last week(s) has been under construction and has gone offline then online a few times. But I saw this site might be linked to the movie because it mentions the Tagruato Corporation which is the site everyone here as been arguing to add because it is Linked to the Slusho site. Ill quote below as the site is using Flash and I can't copy and paste.
Recent News
August 15, 2007
"Members from the Tagruato Corporation and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program honored chief Executive officer Brandon Takahashi. Director Takahashi was presented with the Tagruato achievement award for his work in the HANDS Initiative and SIB Programs."
Latter again it mentions the Tagruato Corporation in the History section under "Bold History"
These 3 Sites Seem to be Related each mentioning Each other.
There is a little Discussion on a forum about the site's construction, which I know Erik you will not consider...Original Research but they do have records on the site going up and down as of old Whois. If this is all not true in the End. Then post it in the area of the Article "Viral websites" to show how this viral promotion of the Film has gone with fans.
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol sorry. Anyways there has been a "Rumor" also that someone has already seen the Trailer which is showing before Beowulf. Its not a reliable source so I wont post it....for now. But it does go into detail as what is said during the trailer and etc. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
in the picture with the statue of liberty there seems to be an eye in the sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.23.161 ( talk) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol, that's pushing it dude...-- 68.0.155.79 00:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The film is called "Cloverfield". I mention this (hesitantly) because the trailer is identical to how it was described by one who claimed to have seen it before its release with Beowulf.
The trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.24.135 ( talk) 09:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's no longer the reported code name. It's the name.
There are already posters with 'Cloverfield' as the name. The film is Cloverfield.
As for the 'recent' interview, that couldve been conducted weeks before the trailer now showing before Beowulf (and it *is* showing before Beowulf, this is NOT a rumour).
Perhaps we should also mention that they have recently aired a new trailer preceeding Beowulf? 24.76.181.253 ( talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Already Mentioned in Marketing -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The new trailer is now out in HD (up to 1080p), and a good chunk of the monster is visible between some skyscrapers for a second or so (with multiple in-focus frames). Interestingly enough, it doesn't strictly rule out a robot. It seems to look like a sea creature, but could just as easily be a robot with crud on it. Here are screencaps (probably not fair use?): http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220138jx2.jpg http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220120um6.jpg I don't, however, really see any info in the new trailer worth putting in the article, although it's possible that some of the supposition could be updated. - Guspaz ( talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that this monster on the picture, and which you can see in the trailer, looks like a giant Alien from the famous movies. Take a look to the back of the head. It looks like the back of the head of the Alien. Also you can see a tail on the picture, like the same one of an Alien. The Cloverfield monster seems to be very slim and bony... My idea ist, that this could be a giant Alien, perhaps Alien V? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.225.56 ( talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I could be misremembering but doesn't the second teaser begin by talking about the source of the footage, mentioning that cloverfield is the name for "what used to be central park" or something like that. Should this be mentioned, if it is in fact the source of the title of the film. WookMuff ( talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are misremembering - a big strange when you dont have to remember when the trailer is right there on youtube...but anyway - The mention of Project: Cloverfield and the mention of 'what used to be central park' are two unrelated sentence. Cloverfield is the name given at the start of the trailer for the monster attack and/or the recovery operation. '....central park' refers to where the camera containing the films footage is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.183.80.133 ( talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
can you guys put http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ ...........its an official site Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.207.57 ( talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the trailer Lizzy Caplans characters body swells and the sound of spilling guts is heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 ( talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
And you dont know for certainly that she is exploding, you see a silhouette of what *might* be someone swelling. It could be a mutuation, it could be something coming out of her Alien-style. Theres plenty of sites you can happily speculate on, wiki is for facts 195.183.80.133 ( talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is worth mentioning in plot as it's only mentioned that a giant monster attacks, wheread the scene in the trailer supports that there may actually be an epidemic of monsters, a la John Carpenters The Thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 ( talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) for all we know this could be some kind of terrorist/enemy plot, we never see a monster, what if it was like a telekenitic attack, or the little girl for the F.E.A.R. video games?? 71.61.163.146 ( talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry about that, had not seen the official synopsis 71.61.163.146 ( talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's also possible that the other two figures were guys in MOPP suits. Either way, theres not enough info to inculde it.
Dont bother, theres nothing in the article you can add regarding the trailer as it would be speculation. And it clearly states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of for discussing details about the film without the intent of improving the article.". Save your time and energy for when the film is released and you KNOW things as opposed to what you 'think'. 195.183.80.133 08:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In two episodes so far this season on Heroes, one of the characters is clearly seen drinking a Slusho brand slushie. One of the producers has also put pictures of various cast members holding Slusho cups on his [[ blog]]. I guess this should be mentioned in the article?-- 68.98.179.2 ( talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Slusho is a common theme through several of JJ Abrams' projects, I hardly see that its worth mentioning. What benefit would putting a reference to some jokey pictures done in filming downtime have for this article 195.183.80.133 ( talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While sitting on 1-18-08.com a loud roar can be heard but so far ive only heard once. Mrbellcaptain ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Mrbellcaptain
I just found this [3]. The FAQ on this site says that it was launched as the internet version of Malaysia's leading english language newspaper. This particular link (Assuming it works) appears to be a review which specifically mentions Tagruato. Can we use this as a source to include Tagruato in the viral marketing section? I would do it myself except, I haven't yet figured out how to do references.... MorganaFiolett ( talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is that here? I don't believe it can be verified because there no links. I'm going to delete it until some credible sources can be found for it. Dunkerya ( talk) 07:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been brought up yet but they released a widget which shows 5 minutes of the movie. There is also a whole contest that goes along with the widget. Here's a site for an overview of whats been released and some details http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40208 and heres the official site with the details and the prizes http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/contest/index.php I think this should be added to the marketing section. I would add it but Im bad at writing descriptions up. Rosario lopez ( talk) 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In this trailer, they tell some character names. If its okay, I'm going to fill in the character names. Beachdude0213 ( talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok so I did the best I could with adding this info in there. I was trying to add 2 difference references, one directed towards the main contest site and one towards the official rules but for some reason it wouldn't work. I know that it probably needs work so feel free to fix it. Rosario lopez ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont think this too promotional but I'll go with what you guys think is best. Maybe just a brief mention of it will be fine. I tried doing that at first but then I got into too many details, which is how it became what it was. But either way the 5 minute clip should still be mentioned somewhere in the article. Rosario lopez ( talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Similiar interview with IGN here. Alientraveller ( talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember seeing that fan-art on someone's Cloverfield blog. It is not the real monster, so whoever added the image to the bottom of the page as a link to the Cloverfield monster, please, DO NOT do that again. It's been debunked numerous times and we have already seen the monster in the second trailer. It does not look like the fan-art. Anyways, I was wondering if we could take the link to the image off the Cloverfield page because it is unnecessary.
Thank you,
- Pr0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the post from JJ Abrams' website where the creator, an established poster there, discusses his creation: http://www.jjabrams.net/showthread.php?t=118 . Do not add the image, it's jsut fan art. ThuranX ( talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that we have the official title of the movie, is the redirection from 1-18-08, 1/18/08, and 01-18-08 still necessary? I think it'd be better off redirecting back to January 18. Jeztah ( talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You have it marked down here that it's February Second, 2008. The actual release date is a day earlier: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/releaseinfo 24.76.186.137 ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think i have the proof to know that its a sea monster in the movie but not exactly sure what type it is. If you go on the slusho website and go to Happy talk one of the charecters says "bloop" and another says something about england. Bloop stands for a underwater sea water device that they used to i think it was measure someting or figure out the sounds of earthquakes and it was made in england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSskunk ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Monster here taken form the toys being produced to market for the film. File:Http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg
http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg
- This is not the monster, it's a creation of Peter Konig, the man who is supposedly designing the monster. It's on his website. - D
Yo, people! Wikipedia doesn't care about personal theories/observations as to what the monster is or isn't. If it isn't in a reliable third-party source, it cannot be verified, and any commentary here is just a waste of time. Sorry to sound so harsh, but it appears people continue to remain ignorant of Wikipedia policy on this. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be made clearer that the "It's still alive" line is in fact played _backward_ at the end of the film. There is currently a good bit of dispute about this on the IMDb and similar forums; people are arguing that the line sounds more like "Help us" when heard in this way. 64.247.126.204 ( talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after the final explosion, you hear radio transmissions stating its still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.81.64 ( talk) 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is quite a citable source that mentions this, or at least loops it backwards: http://cloverfieldmessage.y t m nd.com/. I know its not a great source, but it's a source no less (note: ytmnd seems to be blacklisted, so I'm spacing it out. And no this isn't a joke). CPTGbr ( talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
ytmnd is hardly a creadable source (thus the reasion it's blacklisted harlock_jds ( talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can site a reliable source for this audio file, the article should not make any claim as to exactly what it says. -- Erik the guy ( talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If I get a recording of it (with a fair use rationale and a cite), would it be viable to put the recording itself as an .ogg on the wiki?
[[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (
talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Only if the recording comes from a reliable media source. Not if you recorded it in the theater, and not if 'some website' recorded it in the theater. (A recording from the theater would be illegal anyways I think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy ( talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
...how can you hear it in reverse if its only in theaters, most bootlegs have crappy sound.... i waited and all i herd was an indistinct voice and radio static.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.163.146 ( talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have heard it on youtube, but until the DVD comes out we can't verify it and "It is believed..." would work but because once again it can't be verified yet we can't do anything. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I just listened to it forward. It SOUNDS like it is a cry for help. Some Semi-Random Dude ( talk) 14:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a section on the monster and theories on what it is and what those little parasite bastards are and so on? There are some really accurate fan-sketches of the monster and parasites floating around online, and I largely came to wikipedia after seeing it for some kind of clues. -- Banyan ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a section, but it would be awfully small, as all that is currently known about the monster is what it looks like and that it's otherworldly.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Response To JBT1138. The production notes sound interesting but might not be fully accurate. The original idea for the monster might not be exactly what made it into the movie. For example, the production notes say the monster is ancient, but a scene near the end of the movie suggests that it arrived only a month (or so) before the incident. I'm not saying we KNOW the notes are wrong, I just don't think that it should be on Wikipedia unless a reliable source certifies it as being true to the movie and publishes it. It would be cool to see those notes though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, do you guys think that something stating that there was a second monster in Central Park when Rob and Elizabeth were hiding? The one Hud filmed in Central Park is CLEARLY not the same one that's raging about Manhattan. It's way too small and the bombers pass right over it during the Hammerdown procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 ( talk) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Definately a gooood point...I noticed it too, the monster seemed quite small.-- Kaji13 ( talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the fact it looked smaller and that if you follow the plot the group goes fucking everywhere, but with the second monster theory, though possible I think that maybe because of how it's legs were set up, a zoom out or in function on the camcorder, or it really seemed that the monster depending on it's position it's skin look stretched, so I don't know if we could make any assumptions on it's size. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the main article it says that Hud was killed by the creature... but I have the feeling that it isn't because the size seems too small.. come on, such a huge thing bitting something the size of an ant? It looks like is another type of creature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.129.226 ( talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why the movie was so ridiculous. The monster is in manhattan, then suddenly it's on ellis island and whacks the statue, then it's back in manahatan, then it's tail destroys the brooklyn bridge. At the end the chopper goes up watching the monster fall amid tall buildings, the pilot takes them closer to it and when it crash lands it's in a field? They should have called it the Blair Godzilla Project, the shaking camera was so irritating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.12.153 ( talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussion. This is about improving the article. Slusho42 ( talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just mentioning it because in the article says the monster killed him, which I think is not correct.
With all due respect, unless you have a reputable source that says either a) the main monster did not kill Hud or b) there is enough online speculation to warrant an article about fans thinking there is more than one monster, your opinion alone does not matter here. Slusho42 ( talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, what about all of our speculation? -- Kaji13 ( talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No wait, I think he's on to something there! Althought it seems silly to me that there are two different monsters in Cloverfield, it is not out of the question. From my point of veiw (and from memory) the monster, as well as the smaller monsters that seem to 'spawn' from the main monster, around the start of the movie seems more insect-like. Where as latter on in the film the monster, mostly in the closer up shots (like just before the monster kills Hud) it looks more like a bat or mammal type creature. Also from the sceen when Hud is killed by the monster, the scale of the monster seems to be smaller than previously. I have no sources either, unless you count the movie as a good enough source?-- Maceo ( talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Having seen the film when it opened, it's fairly obvious that the monster killed Hud. Given that it lunges at him and bites, and all. Lawrence § t/ e 06:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It looked smaller because Hud zoomed in on it's face. Them Hud was not bitten, Hud was physically inside of the monster's mouth. He was tossed around in the mouth then dropped from the huge 300 foot drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.18.202 ( talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there is a very good possibility that Hud is killed by a second monster, and I think there are clues in the film to back this up. First of all, i agree that this monster does look abit undersized when compared to earlier shots of the beast while it smashed around town. Secondly, I think we all noticed those orange/red Lung/sack things on the head of the monster which killed Hud. I argue that in no other point of the movie are these sacks visible, and would go as far as to say that the other monster (building smashing monster) had grey or black sacks, not the vibrant red ones. Third, It seemed strange to me that the monster could simply sneak up on the three of them, especially when each one of the monsters steps shakes the ground. I seem to recall them being near the water when they crash the helicopter, this one could have have been in the water, how sneaky. To go along with this ling of thinking, why was the monster not being bombed as it attacked Hud. Seems strange that there was a lull when it was said in the subway station that the option for a lull was probably not going to happen. Lastly, Since we simply only know the information which is on Hud's tape we only get to see this event from the perspective of these people. This means that even if there were more than one monster how would they know, all they know is that they are running from it. The fact that we as a viewer are not given an "all seeing/all knowing" view point means that there could be vast amounts of information that we are simply oblivious to at this point. Anyways .....fun to speculate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezgordo ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely only one monster. If you pay attention to the news casts when they are in the electronic store, you'll notice that the news caster says that New York is being attacked by a massive creature. Not massive creatures, a massive creature.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also. When Rob and company run into the military after getting out of the subway tunnels, they ask what going on. The military officer replies with, "what ever it is it's winning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering should we document all the monsters every single fan of Cloverfield thought it was before the movie actually came out? Seeing that Ethanhass was posted so people in the future know for a fact its not Godzilla, Voltron, a Huge Lion, Cthulhu, a New Transformers film, Zig, Behemoth, Laviethen and also that fake concept art which many thought it was the actual monster and how Abrams got the idea of the monster also? Also I think it should be posted b/c this monster in film is unique and there was no actual name given and we don't want it to tie in with other monsters that are out there. I noticed some of it is mentioned in there but not all as others might still cling on to the older ideas on the monster. Also a pic of the smaller versions of the thing might help.
-- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Like the viral promotion of this film it wasn't officially mentioned BUT its in the article anyway as of the mention of Godzilla, Paramount or Abrams did not announce that and etc. as of about 80% of the Pre Plot Speculation. This information i posted about the monsters where given permission to be on the article Right after the film came out to verify this. Now it has and should be in the article to prevent any confusion in the future. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ [[User talk:Mithos90|ॐ]] 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Those pictures are just concept art. The one of the main monster looks close but in the movie the things back didnt have spikes on it. The smaller creatures look completely different as well.
Don't worry my friends, Hasbro will unveil the beast pretty soon. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please add this, as I don't know how to cite sources and put the little numbers next to sentences and what not: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41117 . Hasbro is making figures of the monster to be sold for $99.99 each. Sounds like they come with the figure(70 POINTS OF ARTICULATION), two heads(calm and angry)for the Monster itself, and an SOL head as an accessory. Think it's worth mentioning, no? Slusho42 ( talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think it comes with 10 of the parasites. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, this is my first time posting, so sorry if this isn't supposed to be on the page, but if you have seen the movie, go on Youtube and search Cloverfield monster poster. You can see the head in the clouds. Nikolas3 ( talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thought it might aid in the creature discussions (and help debunk some of the so called 'confirmed' pre production creature sketches) by pointing out that the credited creature designer is Neville Page. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namssorg ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If we have a photo of the monster from the movie that isn't hand-drawn, or fan-made, can we put it in the wiki? Or is everyone going to bitch and complain (most likely about the fact that it isn't fair use rationale or something)? [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] ( talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/cloverfieldmonsterart01.jpg What about this? Roneman90 ( talk) 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
the first one is more correct and the monster most likley was taller than the statue of liberty
Have YOU seen the movie? The second is completly wrong. The first has it right in more ways than one. The director even said that the first one was closer. there 199.44.20.107 ( talk) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) happy?
Why is " Godzilla" listed under See Also? Has it anything to do with this film? --Is this fact... ? 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
( SaturdaysKids ( talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
Abrams said he went into a store and saw alot of toys monsters in Japan at the 07 Comic-Con , Godzilla has nothing to do with the film though it could maybe inspired him like the other toy figures and made one up. Nothing with the film though it could be mentioned monster toy figures inspired the monster itself. Not Godzilla only. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Godzilla gets a separate listing from Godzilla (1954 film), so I have no problem with separate entries for the monster and the film. </retort> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilwhite ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why were the viral marketing website links (slusho.jp, etc) removed as "spam?" They are all definitely related to the film and I had been relying on this article's handy list of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.2.6 ( talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
SlushoTagratu ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that I personally would add it to the article also seeing this source looks reliable. Not sure what the other editors think seeing if this was added to the article right away someone else would delete it. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad we're making progress on getting these things sourced. I was wondering about the Jamie-Teddy site. Being as the latest video features the actress dressed in the same outfit as her appearance in the film, (and also referring to going to the party in the film, does this make a stronger case for the site to be considered an official part of the viral game? Does the film itself count as an official source? 64.178.99.197 ( talk) 07:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the MySpace pages have been confirmed, doesn't the appearance of the Jamie Lascano character on JamieandTeddy.com confirm it as an official part of the viral marketing? Would one of the main editors of this page get back to us on this? DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Cloverfield Clues just linked to various Cloverfield related interviews including one confirming that the MySpaces are a part of the advertising campaign. --Is this fact... ? 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
However, what they've linked to, http://current.com/items/88818115_cloverfield_s_fake_myspace_pages contains an actual interview in which the actress confirms that the myspace pages for each character were made for the movie by the production company. Surely this cannot be considered Original Research? DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Added the Source link in the article -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, did anyone notice that (Spoiler) the day after the movie came out, Hud's myspace profile changed his height to 2 feet, six inches? This is probably saying that he got bitten in half. Kinda funny. Ark Crow ( talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the article's plot needs more details. Some of it is missing a lot of details from the movie, like the rats running or her blowing up to blood or they will destroy Manhattan (or by the way, the movie was great! 10 out of 10!).-- 4444hhhh ( talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be re-written to cut down on the length of the plot. This is an encyclopedia that notes the main plot points but not every little detail. Those kind of details belong is a Cloverfield specific Wiki. -- Victor (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Victor, the rat thing is a detail added for flavor (so the kids would look behind them) not a crucial plot detail--
Erik the guy (
talk) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Has already been undone, on basais of no orig research. I'll open discussion with these points:
I personally do not think that is original research. i did not fact find, i simply reached the conclusion the movie gave me. my hand is on the undo button but anyone is welcome to rebutt me. Wikipedia:OR is unclear on this. we have the bullshit regarding "its still alive" but this gets removed immediately? opinions plz. Dark0805 ( talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument would be stronger if your facts weren't incorrect. Rob says its the morning of the 23rd at the end of the video, and the timestamp at the beginning of the party the night before says May 22nd. StvnLunsford ( talk) 04:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let people know -- the Plot summary section is the least important section of the film article. It's not worth painstaking discussion over the small details of the film. If there is a part of the film that is in dispute, try your best to make the passage ambiguous. For example, if a certain type of rescue helicopter was used, and people are arguing about its type, then it would be best to call it a rescue helicopter. I haven't seen the film yet, so I'm glazing my eyes over at the specific details, but try to consider that the Plot summary section should only have enough detail to understand the film as a whole from beginning to end. There are many intricacies of any film that will not be easily expressed in the section. It'd be more beneficial to focus on adding real-world context to the article. With the film just out, there should be plenty of coverage besides reviews about its production. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It must have been tape - NO camera which records to SD card will over-tape footage as shown in the film. ALL brands will create seperate files, solid state cameras simply DO NOT produce the kind of footage you see in this film. The "SD" text at the start of the film is most likely refering to "Standard Definition" as opposed to "High Definition" - ie, the footage is not HD, it's regular digital video. I'll give it a couple of days for anyone to point me to something to the contrary or object strongly before I edit. -- 82.32.47.8 ( talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just that I'll either simply take out the direct statement that the footage was recovered from an SD card or put a short sentence in to note the matter unclear. For example, the text could simply read "a series of scenes recovered from a digital video camera".
Whilst the issue itself is extremely trivial, the first thing that struck me about the article was its clear statement that the footage was from an SD card. That statement is so obviously wrong that it undermines the credibility of everything else in what is otherwise a very good article.
On the other hand, the mere absence of a statement about an SD card is not going to negatively impact on the article – as such it's better off without it.
Unless of course someone can identify some source to indicate the makers really did intend people to understand the footage to be from an SD card - in which case this discrepancy is best addressed towards the end of the article in a short gaffes or bloopers section as is commonly found in many other film articles. -- 62.173.76.218 ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted the Kaiju link from the plot summary... but what is the consensus on this? I think this is still a leap to make this link. I think it's original research, people looking at the plot summary and clicking on that link will be finding something that is basically unique to wikipedia (in us making this connection). Maybe a cite to someone in the media referring to Kaiju? Gwynand ( talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no object crashing into the water at the end of the film. The speculation at the end of the plot synopsis noting such an object should be removed unless footage from the film illustrating the object in question can be provided. 137.165.208.48 ( talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a lot of poeple keep saying somthing falls into the water off in the distance, but i saw no such thing.-- Mr. S.C. Shadow ( talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The current article states that there is something moving in the water. This is incorrect, as an object appears to fall out of the sky. Seeing as there was prior viral marketing that reported a sattelite falling into the ocean near NYC at the end of April, it's safe to assume that the object that fell [something did indeed fall, regardless of whether you noticed it or not] was a sattellite beloning to the Tagruato Corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.163.104 ( talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely some object that 1. Comes from the sky and 2. Lands in the water. It's not a matter of interpretation on that... it was quick, and I guess some people may have missed it. That info stays in, any interpretation beyond that would be removed. Gwynand ( talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I watched the movie for the second time today, and can tell you that the object falling from the sky most definitely exists. Furthermore, at that moment, it is the only thin happening in the shot, Rob and Beth are not even on screen, so it is no doubt deliberate by the filmmakers, not incidental like the shooting star caught on film in Jaws. I strongly feel it should be put back in the plot summary. If we needed footage from the fim to verify everything in the plot summary, I expect we'd be having problems with Paramount's legal department. DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The falling object can stay in the plot summary, it definitely exists, but its purpose/identity cannot. Since all theories for the falling objects identity and purpose are based on the viral marketing campaign they are speculation. (The general consensus is that the falling object is a satellite that awoke the monster, which had been sleeping for 1000(s) of years). Do not make any mention of the object's role or identity without citing a reliable resource please!
If there was an object falling from the sky... which side on the horizon was it and how fast or how steep was the drop?
It's hard to see on a regular T.V. It happens from 01:13:15 and 01:13:17. Their camera battery warning beeps just before the splash.
The object enters the screen near the top right corner, 10% from the right edge. It falls down and 20 degrees to the left, splashing on the horizon between the blue and white tent and the Go-Karts sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.178.85 ( talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the supposed object falling into the ocean should be mentioned under a separate section titled easter eggs or something, not the plot synopsis. The object is not part of the plot since the characters do not even acknowledge the event, despite the fact that it supposedly happens right in front of them. If the event were essential to the film's plot, some direct mention of it would have been made within the film itself. My concern is that this whole thing is merely an extension of the viral marketing project, designed to get people to see the movie again and again until they can spot the thing falling into the ocean. Assuming there was something there. 137.165.242.219 ( talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that narratively this is a very important plot point, as it suggests the seminal event leading up to what is depicted in the movie. From a storytelling standpoint, it hints at an answer to the question everyone is asking during the movie..."where did it come from". I'm not going to speculate on what the object really is or how it relates to the monster, but in the context of the fiction that the movie creates, it seems like an important detail and one which may be used to extend the narrative (sequel, anyone?). I would vote for it to be left in the plot summary section. As an aside...for those of you who might want to research it further, it comes in from the right side of the screen at about a 60 degree angle. Blink and you'll miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.141.181 ( talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I added it into the Sequel section of the article not stating any theories. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Tagruato website states that their satellite was used to survey the Japanese satellite ChimpanzIII for damage after a piece of ChimpanzIII broke off and crashed into the Atlantic ocean. It was not the creature; it is not an alien. There are links here to JJ stating that the creature was in the ocean for eons. Synetech ( talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Reeves also points out that the end scene on Coney Island, shows something falling into the ocean in the background I didn't keep an eye out for that. But could someone expand on the sentence? What do they mean by "falling"? From the sky or from a cliff or boat or what? If it's from the sky, then it would be an alien.
-G
A few days ago, I added a motion sickness warning to the article, but it was removed. It is a verifiable fact that people got motion sickness while watching this movie (give me a bit of time to re-find that source again), and given that most movies don't cause motion sickness (at least not on this scale), I feel that this is notable.
Also, someone removed the talk section about Motion Sickness as well, for some reason. Viltris ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a motion sickness warning at the theatre I saw it at today. ... the AMC at the mall of america, and I did get a little sick watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.87.2 ( talk) 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the section Coffeepusher ( talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, to any fellow wikipedians that are planning a to see this movie: I think it was all-around horrible. Secondly, this article should probably mention motion sickness, as I left the theater inches away from blowing chunks. Google news agrees more weight to a warning is needed on this. I might add it later tonight if no one else wants too. EvanCarroll ( talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to
be bold and add the motion sickness note myself. My source probably isn't the best (it only mentions motion sickness in passing) and my phrasing or organization might not be the best (that's a really short section), but I feel that the motion sickness is noteworthy, especially since most movies generally don't cause motion sickness.
Viltris (
talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw it at an AMC too, and they had the exact same sign. I think it's a standardized sign for all AMC theaters. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.58.85.110 (
talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the motion sickness being experienced by a large amount of viewers is worthy of a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.226.119 ( talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Mabie it is just me, but I feel that there are enough personal testimonials about people getting motion sickness, and yet there is nothing in this discussion that can be put into the article unless someone finds a source from the AMC company that talks about that sign everyone read. Please no more personal "someone got sick at my theater" testimonials...this section is well on its way to redundancy if that keeps up.
Coffeepusher (
talk) 07:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Warnings Posted After Hit Horror Flick Leaves Some Nauseous - Oklahoma City News
This was also linked to on CNN's homepage
- Running On Brains 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering... how can we say that she exploded? I wasn't paying extremely close attention, but is it not possible that one of the medical officers shot her before she spawned any creatures or something? Anyone notice anything that goes against this? I mean, the black guy says "There was nothing we could do" which could support either of these theories. Just putting it out there...
No, she definitely inflates and bursts into a bloody mess.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Also... the one way I can think of to prove this as fact or false would be to go see the movie and listen for any bang right before the explosion. Although, I doubt it's legal to record even a sound clip... so even if someone found out they couldn't verifiably prove it. 207.7.166.122 ( talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, about the dead soldier, when he is wheeled past, he is referred to as "another bite". How much has to be fed to us before we can agree that a similar thoracic explosion is what happened to Marlena? DonSteveO2415 ( talk) 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section says she is bit while saving Hud... this is minor, but isn't she tackled by one right after she finally clubs the one off of Hud? I mean, either way she was distracted by saving Hud but the way it is now suggests more guilt on Huds part and less possible defense from Marlena than the way I remember it being would. This is really minor, huh? I've been spending way too much time on this page lol... Ryan M. ( talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
She is tackled by one, but if I remember correctly, Rob kicks it off way to quickly before it could crall onto her back and bite her. I think she was bitten when they were running from them and that one jumps onto her back.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have heard rumors that there are potential alternates to the ending of this movie. Can anyone confirm or deny?-- TheEmpTSet ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
TheNightShift [6]appears to pose a similar question, NyMag.com [7]seems to propose that at least one alternate ending was filmed. My use of the term "global alternates" could be construed as original research, and has been amended.-- TheEmpTSet ( talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you go to the official movie website and click on about the DVD one of the bonus features is alternate endings.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There are specifically two known alternate endings. Saw it on a game site talking about the special edition. The commercials semi-confirm it by stating "alternate endings" Can't find a good source at moment, so we'll just have to wait upon release of the actual DVD. Mcnichoj ( talk) 07:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the sequel Section needs to be rewritten and should go a little more in detail with quotes from Matt Reeves, and how they plan to might film it. There are two sources about this that need to be the cited source on this section.
Done Rewriting it though I was wondering what is the code to add "LARGE" Quotation Marks around Quoted Paragraphs to make the section look neater than italize the whole darn thing. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A) There is no reason why anyone who reads this article is going to care WHAT TYPE OF FIGHTER JET OR HELICOPTER THE ONES IN THE FILM WERE!
B) All the small edits are getting kind of annoying. Im a bit surprised that the admins havent decided to full-block the page.
C) At this point I am just gonna say that Marlena definitely exploded as you saw if you were paying attention. The martial doctors in the hazmat suits DIDNT TOUCH HER and also the small scene before she started bleeding everywhere, with the man with his torso also burst open. Proof enough I think. T3H_CH0Z3N_0N3 ( talk) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made a section about soundtrack, but it was later removed as unsourced section. I agree that "A sampler disc was distributed to guests at Rob's Going Away Party at the Dark Room in New York City on 17 January" (it wasn't written by me, it was added later by another user) lacked a source. But I think that, for example, "Cloverfield, being presented as if it were a recording by one of the characters, has no soundtrack in the usual meaning" doesn't need a source, and even if it does, IMDb trivia can be one, so there was no actual need for the deleting. So maybe it's better to restore the section and delete only the statements that lack sources?
Sorry for my poor English, it's not my native language.
phil ( talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this would belong in the article, or if anyone else noticed the music during the credits had several allusions to Japanese monster films: the theme resembled the march used in Destroy All Monsters and others, and there was a break with a similar theme to Godzilla's (the one with the lower brass). Bossk538 ( talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you were to put this in, i would suggest the critical reception section and cite the reviews-- Erik the guy ( talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The song "Grown So Ugly" off of The Black Keys 2004 release Rubber Factory was left out of the articles soundtrack section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roostar ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is we have all these songs played at Rob's party but the problem is that there is not cited source to prove that these songs were in the actual movie. Who knows maybe some songs where not in the movie but at the actual party in New York for the contest. We need a source. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[[:Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg|thumb|150px|iTunes Screen of Rob's Party Mix]]Ok thanks to the Editor Tommyd84 we Have finally found a ACTUAL CD that came from the Movie itself. Though through my original research this CD was most likely the prize given out during the Real Life Party in New York. So Far I Searched Goggle to look for more info about the Soundtrack and found it's listings. I haven't found out if the CD is a actual OFFICIAL Soundtrack of the film hoping it will contain the score ROAR!(Cloverfeild Overture) but its not on there but only the songs played at Robs Party. Now Because I could not find a ACTUAL Source I found a site(or a couple) that blogs music and one of them state that they are the Blog that uploaded this CD into Itunes. Also there is a article already made for the Mix CD (not made by me)
I Would Love to get opinions from the other editors about this topic if to add it into the article. Seeing its the only Soundtrack for the film out so far we should also seeing that in the Soundtrack section this is most likely the gift that was given away at the Rob's Party Contest. But then I also consider that there are only few of these in the world and if they were given because of the sweepstakes they most likely wont reveal what the actual prize was. And another thing against adding it to the article there are no "REAL" cites for it but only a blog site which uploaded their CD to Itunes. I also wanted to know if the article for the Mix tape itself is still in keeps as its a CD related to the film and a track listings are already public. If we don't keep the article at least add the picture of the CD's cover on this page. Links are Below:
Just Finish Doing the Soundtrack Article. Edit if you must. -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Removed by Editor -- ҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not including trailers or credits (so from the first Paramount Logo to the directers name) the film lasts only 1 hour and 13 minutes (73 minutes versus the 84 listed in the article).
We're getting pretty noisey in here. It's probably time to archive this page at least. I don't know what the official policy is on this, but in my opinion, getting rid of all unsigned comments would drastically improve the wieldliness and appropriateness of the Talk page. Transentient ( talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
we can alter the archive box, I will adjust it to archive faster (posts 15 days or less) but that wont solve the problem for a while because most of this stuff is recent acctivity. I have also been murging relevent sections together (as well as a few other people) like putting the 3motion sickness together etc. but unless it is outright vandalism, I really don't modify or delete other peoples post on talk pages, it just gets tricky. Coffeepusher ( talk) 07:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted...a lot of speculation and discussion (about 25398 bytes, or a fith of the page...but whos counting). I did my best to keep comments that even attempted to work on the article, but alot of stuff was deleted because it responded to the discussion style questions. this page is still huge, but right now it appears more focused and orgonized. I did all my edits in good faith. if you think I was wreckless, please find some examples of stuff that should have been kept and present them to me in a appropriate mannor. don't just go off on me because I deleted one of your posts, tell me why it should have been kept, and find more then one example. Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
an editor removed my changes without explination...only to say that mass blanking needed to stop. I am shure this was done in good faith in order to keep with wikipedia standards, which I also value. I edited the page in accordance with WP:TALK#Editing comments where it states an editor can remove material if s/he is "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article." now I believe that I have kept strictly to this rule, as that is my intention. if I am wrong, could you please post on the talk page with an explination as I am working within good faith and want to work with people. Go figure, that is what a talk page is for right? Coffeepusher ( talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should add abit of info for the characters in this movie? Like a good 3-5 sentences. Nocarsgo ( talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, if you can find enough information about at least Rob, Beth, Hud, Lily, Marlena, Jason, and maybe the Monster and the smaller monsters. Along with good clear pictures of the characters. This would be good, although most of the inforamtion about the characters is already in the Plot, so it may be a bit pointless for all the characters except the Monster and the smaller monsters.-- Maceo ( talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
they all have myspace pages. see if you can either link to each one or just put some select stuff in there. Madhatter9max ( talk) 07:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It sure would be a lot of work, but how about this article eventually having a map and timeline of events? I'd love to know just what happened where at approximately what time, that is assuming all the locations in the film are real. Many of the events in the timeline would have to be approximations and such a timeline would be split between the day of the date and night of the attack. Oh, and how about an overlay on a map of the path the Statue of Liberty head would have traversed. (A dotted red line leading from the statue to the skyscraper it impacted to the final resting spot on the street.) Just what direction was it thrown and where did it land? Was the film accurate in that regard? (and by that I mean could it have flown from the statue to those locations in an uninterrupted arc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 ( talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the place for timelines and maps? Actually, you have a point. Not that Wikipedia shouldn't contain timelines and maps, but that sometimes information can be too detailed, too specific. I was going to counter with links to all the "Lost" content that would have suggested otherwise, such as maps of the Hatch and a timeline of events, but it appears that since I originally saw those things they've since been deleted and now the Lost Wiki handles most of it. There is at least somewhat of a precedent (though perhaps a bad one) for Wikipedia to act as a holding area for content until it can be organized elsewhere. The Cloverfield wiki [10] still hasn't yet matured to the point at which it contains info like this, but I'd in time like to see it there. So I retract the request for Wikipedia and reiterate it for the Cloverfield Wiki. With a lot of work it should be possible to create a timeline of every shot in the film and describe where in New York each event happened, in addition to the Statue of Liberty head flight path. I'm guessing somebody might do it after the DVD release, though it'd be a shame for it to never happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 ( talk) 07:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I know blogs are not reliable sources but cloverfield clues had a link to the production notes of Cloverfield. So technically I found them through a blog but yeah anyway. I was reading the production notes and I noticed it talks about the naming of the movie. Whats said in the notes differs from the whats said here. Yes Cloverfield was the name of the movie from the beginning but it wasnt the official name. The notes say that the offical name was supposed to be Greyshot. Greyshot is the name of the bridge where Beth and Rob hide at the end. They were going to announce that at Comic-Con but didnt because Cloverfield was already well known and felt changing the name would be bad. Heres the link to the site and the exact paragraph http://home.windstream.net/dacevedo/cloverfield/cloverfieldproductionnotes.htm
Now what Im going to say probably falls into orginal research and cant be used but yeah. This makes a lot of sense becuase the director even stated (before Comi-Con) that when we watched the movie we would understand the meaning of the title. I think that was referring to the movie being name GreyShot. But back to the main point, I was going to add the details about Greyshot and some quotes from Abrams but thought I post it here first to see if anybody has any problems with it. Rosario lopez ( talk) 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
May we add the following image of mine that I uplaoded? It is here in Wikipedia titled: Cloverfield blvd-1.jpg. It should be in the "Development" section near the line. "The film's final title, "Cloverfield", is the name of a main street in Santa Monica, CA, near Abrams's office." Thanks. Kevrock ( talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. Sorry for the confusion, I'm new to this. Thanks for placing the request in the proper spot. Kevrock ( talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need a page to contain all the backstory information about Cloverfield you can find online at places like unfiction.com and cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com. We could have the whole story on Tagruato, Slusho! the myspaces, drilling rig news videos, etc... Gimme the go and I'll start on it unless someone else would rather. Morrock ( talk) 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If one were to look at the movie being recorded on a camcorder-one would only see white-ish foam. However, in the movie, if one were to look hard enough, one would see that it is in fact a SATELITE of slusho. Something to do with the secret ingredient. It woke cloverfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.144.210 ( talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't cite this but it has been said that it is a satelite, but it is either slusho or Tagruato(Slusho's father company, that drill for mineral's including your secret ingredient.) 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Er isn't it just a tincy wincy bit obvious that the idea for tyhe film comes from the Korean film The Host, which had loads of people filming the monster on handhelds but we never saw it as they saw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.186.29 ( talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the moster in Cloverfield does bear a slight conceptual resemalence to the moster in The Hosst, but the similarities end there. The movies are stylisicly and narratively completely different and to say the "idea of the film (not the monster) is completely false. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.34.11.170 (
talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We're quoting far too much at length with the Sequel section. I recommend converting the quotes to prose whenever possible. We shouldn't be too lazy to write original sentences based on the available information. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed already somewhere. The "Cast" section of the article states that it is unknown whether Rob and Beth survived. True, we don't actually see their bodies, but surely it is pretty obvious that they both died. I don't think it would violate NPOV to say so. Richard75 ( talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think it's all that "obvious" that they both died. There are no bodies, and there is the garbled message at the end of the credits to consider. I say we leave it as it is until we get official word from the makers of the film wether or not Rob and Beth survived. Slusho42 ( talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are those little creatures parasites?Does the victim have a symbiotic relationship with the creature?The only thing he does is attack and bite people,and then they explode... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.79.26 ( talk) 13:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Because they're parasites of the cloverfield monster, like mites, ticks, or fleas. Or crabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 ( talk) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Totaly Unrealistic.
In today’s day and age of filming I would have thought the film makers would have made a more believable and realistic film. For starters the Creature was clearly biological. The amount of military ordinance they dropped on this thing would have reduced it to paste....Literally. In the movie you can see the explosions on the creature but there is no clear puncture, Scratches, dents, Lacerations etc on its skin.....what is this thing??...coated in a substance stronger then diamond? The creature is left unmarked! The scene where the B2 bombers land a direct hit on it and it’s still unscathed is ridiculous. Now if they altered the plot where several of these creatures were on the loose and they could kill them but there were just too many to kill then all and the army was overwhelmed then fair enough but the way it stands the film is ridiculous to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.41.212 ( talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually diamond will be reduced to dust if burned by a fire strong enough. I just seem to recall Americans love using depleted uranium in a few of their weapons... weapons that should have been fired at the creature. If that hits something the heat it creates would burn diamond. So even with diamond skin it would not have survived that attack
Unrealistic? How would you know, do you have any citations related to actual Cloverfield entities? We don't know any details about damage taken or sustained or anything about the monster. If it can survive deep space or oceanic preasure, maybe it can sustain a nuke. I asked Superman to punch it a bit, he said it was like diamond and had a healing factor? Unfortunately I can't cite my sources. Zelphi ( talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Have you ever been in a helicopter above a massive creature being bombed? Have you ever carpet bombed a huge creature that no one has ever heard of before? I'm guessing your answer is no.-- Kondrayus ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The creature was unaffected by the carpet bombings because it has naturally developed defenses that can endure this type of bombardment. Abrams has stated that the creature has been slumbering under the ocean for thousands of years, and that the heat emanating from the Earth's core here has caused it to adapt a robust hide capable of sustaining this immense heat. Also,(now this is only my own deduction) I believe that because the creature is dominantly aquatic and remains submerged for such extensive periods at a time, it has also developed/retained traits that allow it to absorb water like many other amphibians do, e.g, a selectively permeable skin that allows water to pass through while still remaining so durable. This might explain as to why its skin is so impassable yet also appears somewhat soft and shimmering in sunlight.
Again, the theory on a selectively permeable hide is only my assumption, nothing valid at this point, but the creature's ability to resist massive amounts of firepower is already explained by Abram's own words.
As for the parasites, they do seem more predatory than parasitic to me. In fact, I wonder how it's possible that the creature could even survive for so long with these parasites attached to it. But of course, they have been dubbed parasites by an official source, so I suppose it stands. Godzilla's Heir 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And, if Clover's hide is so tough that rockets and tank shells don't seriously hurt it, then how do the parasites feed off of it? I'm assuming that they're kind of like fleas -- if this isn't correct, then what? Granted, those little buggers are pretty nasty, but still... Afalbrig ( talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've attempted to keep to the facts, which is very little, plot speculation and specific points are somewhat unwarented and open to debate. Zelphi ( talk) 12:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to add more to the summary, and I'm sure I could add details but there are just too many questions. Zelphi ( talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is just silly. The section is titled "Plot Summary" for a reason. The whole "How do you summerise (sic) a plot, when you are not sure what it is about?" is just absurd. Do we change the wikipedia entry for the last Sopranos episode because we just don't know what the director intended for the ending? Wikipedia guidelines make very clear that "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality." If you are concerned that we just "may not know all the facts," then don't come to this article until JJ Abrams and Matt release All The Facts, and then you can clarify to your heart's content. Ishmayl ( talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one's picked up on the fact that this is yet another film about the American fear of terrorism, along the lines of Independence Day. These have had a nasty habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
The subtext is obvious - the USA (which happens to be fighting several wars as we speak) comes under attack by an unknown enemy, and like Sept 11, is turned from aggressor into victim. In this case, the enemy happens to be "invisible", just in the same way that terrorists rarely wear identifiable uniforms and melt into the crowd.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the last paragraph of the summary that Lance1000 has just added:
"Rob and Beth take shelter under a Central Park bridge amid air-sirens, before the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb causes the bridge to collapse around them. The two confess their love for each other before a fire storm ends the recording. With this occurring it is presumed that Manhattan and its remaining occupants were sacrificed to kill the monster to prevent it causing further distruction. The last footage shown depicts Rob and Beth ending their day at Coney Island, in which an object can be seen falling from the sky into the ocean surrounding them.[7] The credits are shown, and a short radio transmission plays."
I think it's a bit much to say "the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb," considering that realistically, a nuclear bomb would have wiped them out without a chance for their subsequent profession of love. Also, so far, the plot summary seems to be based on what we actually do know (for instance, while we don't know why Marlene died, we do know that her chest expanded and exploded, so we put that information in without saying "presumably from the poisonous bite of the creature who was probably affected by the super growth hormones of the Slusho drink"), so I think we should love the "presumably's," "assumptions," and "probably's" out until something more defining has been said by the creators. I'll change the summary back to the previous version, but if you disagree, feel free to say so here. -- Ishmayl ( talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless they were far enough away that it was only second effects that killed them, like overpressure, exploding gas mains, exploding, burning trees, etc. Nothing says the nuke landed right on top of them. The way the monster was moving around it could have been in Harlem or Alphabet City when the bombs hit it, not necessarily Central Park. Either way, it can't be presumed one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 ( talk) 12:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it was a nuke. The memory card would have been wiped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.169.36 ( talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
To add to what Cinemaniac said with how this movie was styled we can't even say that Marlena is dead, chances are she is but that can't be confirmed. 71.120.133.171 ( talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, just to point out someone erased an entry I did months ago as original research or "I wanted to have thought of it first". This movie is VERY much alike Miracle Mile, a 1988 film. At the end of the latter, the leading couple, Anthony Edwards and Mare Whinningham are evacuating LA in a chopper which gets knocked out of the skies as a consequence of a nuclear blast. They are then in complete darkness as the chopper falls into a tar pit. Edwards calms his love interest down and comments that they will then turn into diamonds when the next nuke hits them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.136.49 ( talk) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"the project was released on January 17 in New Zealand and Australia, on January 18 in North America, and on February 1 in the Republic of Ireland and the UK." I understand that the whole Cloverfield thing is a big "project", but what was released on January 18 in the US is simply called a "film" to my knowledge. Should it really be called a "project"? Is it because it's so great and important that it can't be considered as a simple "film"? 86.64.202.161 ( talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)