Cloverfield

[Gringo Loco]

I found some new news courtesy of the OHMB, Thanks OHMB!

Here's a couple of pics. the first one is from the www.1-18-08.com website. And I'm not sure how the this guy Todd Tennart (http://tennart.multiply.com/photos/photo/1/1) got the second pic, but thanks to him, I hope it's the real deal.


First one:

http://i12.tinypic.com/6fsnqys.jpg


Todd Tennart's pic

http://i16.tinypic.com/52z4388.jpg

Also here's a link that talks about the movie, when we might see a title announcement, and a possible set pic.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/07/16/cloverfield-title-revealed-set-photos-the-origin-of-slusho-video-and-more/

[Just Jeans]

The second picture looks like a photoshop to me. I kick around in photoshop a lot, and it's got the hallmarks. For one thing, the second person from the left has a big white blob chopping off their head that isn't there in the original.

[Gringo Loco]

I didn't even notice that person's head was missing, but then again I wasn't looking at them. Good catch Jeans.

[TheShowstoppa]

I seriously can't wait for more on this movie. It's been driving me nuts since the beginning.

[killingvector]

I am leaning heavily toward this being a Cthulhu film. The website www.slusho.jp is tied to this film. The story behind the origins of the drink involve a secret ingredient buried deep under the ocean; when our intrepid explorer finds the ingredient, she turns into a whale and dreams of returning home.

In addition, on the Slusho history page, two sea creatures float by with thoughts encapsulated over their characters. One of the creatures is thinking of an oven mitt while the other dreams of a block of cheese....


oven mitt=gLove
+cheese=kraft


hmmm, kinda says lovecraft.

The creature is referred to as an alien in the NYPost article and a 'parasite' by insiders.

Put it all together and I strongly believe this is a Cthulhu adaptation.

[Dave Dunwoody]

Oooooh, now I'm paying attention. If only...

[Gringo Loco]

http://i14.tinypic.com/4mt7n8j.jpg

[TheShowstoppa]

Brilliant. I love that teaser poster. How much is it to catch on before it comes out? ;)

[Just Jeans]

First official screen cap from Cloverfield. Looks like it's not about a single gigantic creature, but two.





















http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x124/f13thtribute/robotfight.jpg

I'm chuffed. :shy:

[Gringo Loco]

Funny jeans. :)

[MiMania]

stuff

I really hope so. I've always been interested in the Cthulhu story. Whatever the monster turns out to be, though, I'm definitely going to see this.

[CosmoBubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=filMlR3JYVk

I'm gonna have to agree with this guy, because Donkey Kong being the monster would be freaking incredible.

[Gringo Loco]

Nah Jesus giving the bible a twist ending hehe. Now that's funny.

[Killa Pimp]

This movie better be spectacular.

After all this secrecy and hype...
If its even halfway decent, it is going to be trashed.

[Geddy Peart]

I found this theory about the movie on another BBS. Really interesting and plausible in a sense:

The best theory i've read so far, pulled from IMDB and someone's blog:



If you look at the trailer you can see the number 3 being referenced to everywhere. The 63 degrees on the news channel, The 12:36, the 2004 ACE, numbers that are all dividable by 3.

Last, but not least, you hear the thundering monster sound three times, each sound accompanied by a different event.

Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"

So what in biblical mythology has connections to the slew of references in the trailer? The three great monsters.

In Jewish belief, Behemoth is the primal unconquerable monster of the land, as Leviathan is the primal monster of the waters of the sea and Ziz the primordial monster of the sky.

1) The first monster roar is accompanied by an earthquake (Behemoth)
2) The second monster roar is accompanied by a huge fireball (Leviathan, for it can breathe fire)
3) The third monster roar is accompanied by the flying Statue of Liberty head (Ziz).

Not convinced?

The guy who says "maybe we can get a better view from the roof" has the Slusho logo on his shirt. Slusho is a classic J.J. Abrams icon, and it has appeared in both Alias and Lost, which are his shows.

Slusho.jp has, by now, been confirmed as a part of the viral marketing campaign revolving around 1-18-08. Japan. Strangely enough, the character Rob, who is present in the trailer, was gonna fly to Japan a day after that party and the monster events.

Let's have a look around on that site. Not all pages are accessible. But there is an odd feature about the pages that are available. The main page background is on land, the Downloads page background is on air, and the History page background is on sea.

Furthermore, the six buttons on the main page cause popups of various animals, namely a Horse, a Whale and a Bird. Behemoth, Leviathan, Ziz.

GG, J.J. Abrams.


Quite frankly, that's the most reasonable explanation I've heard so far.

I hinted at the Leviathan in a previous blog post, but I admit I didn't pursue it as much as this person did.

Now that I think of it, let's consider the roars...

FIRST ROAR (the party interruption): Very low pitch, three distinct tones (first one apparently an inhale), causes the earthquake. If you go based on the above, this can be attributed to the Behemoth, which is depicted as a giant ox.

SECOND ROAR (on the roof): There is no earthquake; all you see is fire. This can go with the Leviathan, which is sea based and capable of breathing fire.

THIRD ROAR (on the street): This one I haven't been able to analyze along with the video because of system problems, but shortly after the roar, before the SOL hits the first building, you hear a "whoosh, whoosh..." sound. I refuse to believe that the SOL makes that sound spinning through the air, as it doesn't really have anything to cause the kind of air resistance needed for such a powerful sound. When I analyzed it two days ago, it sounded to me similar to the flapping of wings... like Ziz.

Avid Abrams fans will put this off, saying that Abrams would 'never' do anything so blatantly religious, but it makes complete sense and could be done in a way without being overbearing with religious undertones.

Any speculation you hear about this being an "Alien attack" movie is probably complete BS (there's some rumors going around about people who 'witnessed' the movie being shot). This movie is under a strict gag-order. None of the actors knew what the movie was before signing on to it, and everyone involved was forced to sign a strict non-disclosure agreement. One of the special effects guys was fired a few days ago for posting 4 pictures from the set on some semi-private forums.

The actual title of the movie will be released at Comic-Con in two weeks where Abrams is scheduled to appear to talk about the new Star Trek and other projects, and there's rumors that a new trailer will be released with the movie 'Stardust.'

Considering that most of the hype surrounding this movie is based on trying to figure out what the creature/s is/are, I doubt we're going to find out/see the monster until the movie is released- or at least MUCH closer to the release date.

[Just Jeans]

This movie can never live up to the hype, and boy am I ever hyped. This is one of those films you just can't help but get hyped for. :hypno:

Avid Abrams fans will put this off, saying that Abrams would 'never' do anything so blatantly religious...

He's tied to The Dark Tower, and like a lot of King's work, theology plays a big part. It isn't religious per se, but the use of religion does run deep.

[Geddy Peart]

This movie can never live up to the hype, and boy am I ever hyped. This is one of those films you just can't help but get hyped for. :hypno:



He's tied to The Dark Tower, and like a lot of King's work, theology plays a big part. It isn't religious per se, but the use of religion does run deep.

Those weren't my words I found it somewhere else.

Anyway, I agree this movie won't live up to the expectations. But I still wanna see it!

I also like that they seem to be using the stategy of suspensful build-up the 1950s Godzilla movie used: don't immediately show the monster.

Which I like.

[Just Jeans]

Those weren't my words I found it somewhere else.

I realized that, Geddy. I just felt like addressing that point. :)

[Jason's Storm]

To go along with that everything is 3 or divided by 3, 1-18-08, if you put that as 11808 and divide that by 3 you would get 3936. You can also divide that and get 1312. Hmmm???

~JS

[Dave Dunwoody]

I really really really want this to be Lovecraftian.

[Just Jeans]

To go along with that everything is 3 or divided by 3...

01 + 18 + 08 = 27.

27 divided by 3 is 9. 9 divided by 3 is 3.

Not sure that means jack spit, though.

[CosmoBubba]

If we're talking numerology, I'm sure somebody somewhere is trying to figure out a way to connect Cloverfield to the number 23 somehow.

[jayTL]

well if you think about it....alot of numbers can be divided by 3

[Freddy-Fan]

If this were a Cthulhu film, I would shit twice and die.

I have not investigated any of the websites tied to this movie, and I've only seen the trailer once. Regardless, I am sooo excited by the idea that it could be Cthulu. . .if it proves to be anything other than Cthulu, the film will automatically suck in my opinion.

[killingvector]

The three beast theory is very viable and not so great a departure from Cthulhu. The only bit of evidence in favor of a lovecraft beast was the blurb about this being an alien and the filmmakers reference to it as the 'parasite'. Definitely singluar. Not much really to sink your claws into and completely mitigatable if need be.

Frankly, I would prefer this wasn't a Lovecraft based film, simply because it is essentially an ID4 style monster mash; Lovercraft deserves more tender loving and subtle touches than what JJ's guys are doing here. del Toro will have a modern masterpiece when Mountains of Madness is completed. Bank on it.

[Jason's Storm]

If we're talking numerology, I'm sure somebody somewhere is trying to figure out a way to connect Cloverfield to the number 23 somehow.
I doubt it, as 23 is a prime number.

~JS

[Freddy-Fan]

I also heard that this might just turn out to be a trailer for the new season of Lost. I've never seen the show, and it is just another rumor, so who knows.

[Just Jeans]

There's absolutely no way this was a trailer for LOST. Whoever started that rumor has got way too much time on their hands. :lol:

[Geddy Peart]

Why would people think it was a trailer for Lost? The film's about New Yorker being under attack and Lost takes place on an island.

[Gringo Loco]

Why would people think it was a trailer for Lost? The film's about New Yorker being under attack and Lost takes place on an island.'

That's exactly what I was gonna say. There's no way anyone could confuse the two, is there?

[Freddy-Fan]

No idea. As I said, I've never seen Lost. . .it's just another rumor I heard/read some where (don't remember where).

[FreddyKR]

New behind the scenes footage?

http://www.movieweb.com/news/43/21343.php

[jayTL]

B-D also posted a video.

is it the same one, with just people running around?

if so...it doesnt bother me any

Possible Comic-con poster

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20300

[Gringo Loco]

That monstrous poster leaves much to be desired.

[Undrtkerkane]

That monstrous poster leaves much to be desired.

That looks more like for another movie that is coming out, maybe I Am Legend?? like a teaser poster before the actual one came out and that video looked like a test shot for a teaser trailer before they went with the one they have now .....

Maybe its for Ghostbusters 4?? :lmao: :jason:

[jayTL]

I love the poster *shrug*

[FreddyKR]

When is comic con?

[BlakeTyner]

Well, considering the poster contains a decapitated Statue of Liberty and the date 1-18-08, it looks to be legit - Cloverfield = Monstrous.

Paramount registered the domain www.themonstrousmovie.com in early June.

~Blake

[The Dream Master]

When is comic con?

This weekend.

[Just Jeans]

How anyone can love or hate the poster based on a fuzzy mobile phone snap shot is beyond me -- I can't make out any detail, so it's quite hard to form an opinion. :eek: Assuming the monster isn't on the poster, I'll be well pleased.

I hope a high-res scan appears as Comic Con starts. So now we've (possibly) got the poster for Cloverfield (Monstrous?) and WETA will be unveiling their new Doctor Who line... this could be a hell of a fun weekend.

[The Dream Master]

I'd wager that we're going to see a shitload about The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones 4, too. I'd bet we get the official title for the latter, seeing as how Lucas released the titles to the last couple of Star Wars films at comic-con.

[killingvector]

Hi-Res images are up.

It is clearly some three clawed land/sea monster which enters the city and tears things up. There really isn't a need to use the Cthulhu mythos whatsoever; this could be a Rampage film, if you believe the clues over at Slusho. However, Monstrous looks nothing more than a monster mash at this point.

Image found below:

http://www.darkculture.net/cloverfield/monstrous01.jpg

[Gringo Loco]

Can you post the pics or links to the monster?

[Just Jeans]

I'm still not convinced Monstrous is the title. It could be a poster art tag line. We should know soon.

What stands apart about this film -- what makes it special -- is the way they intend to film it. If they actually are planning to film it from the point of view of a guy's camcorder (like the trailer), I'm totally there. If it ends up being made like a traditional big monster movie, my enthusiasm for this film will plummet.
ADDED:
Here's some information I've scrapped together on the film:

From the Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id4ef5b33280f855a6076329c1ca10481):

While unleashing "Transformers" onscreen this week, Paramount also lifted the lid on a top-secret project in the form of a teaser trailer for a new film, "Cloverfield."

"Cloverfield," which revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people, is being produced by J.J. Abrams. It is being directed by Matt Reeves, who co-created "Felicity" with Abrams, and is written by Drew Goddard, who has worked with Abrams on "Lost" and "Alias."

Paramount greenlighted the project under a veil of heavy secrecy in February, about the same time that Abrams agreed to the take over the directing reins of the new "Star Trek" film.

The casting process was just as mysterious. No scripts or even scene pages were sent out; agents who were contacted were simply asked if their client wanted to be in the movie or not. Eventually a cast, made up mostly of relative unknowns, was put together; it includes Michael Stahl-David ("The Black Donnellys"), Odet Jasmin, Mike Vogel ("Supercross") and Lizzy Caplan ("The Class").

The movie, which is believed to have a relatively modest budget of about $30 million, began shooting in mid-June in New York. With "Transformers" generating huge tracking numbers in the weeks before its release, the studio decided to put footage from "Cloverfield" in a teaser in front of "Transformers" to build buzz.

After first presenting the Paramount and Bad Robot logos -- Bad Robot being Abrams' shingle -- the trailer opens with scenes from a surprise going-away party in a New York bar with a view of the city. Before long, a thundering roar is heard, and by the time guests run downstairs, pandemonium and flaming debris are hitting the streets. After a huge explosion at the lower end of Manhattan, what appears to be the head of the Statue of Liberty comes hurtling up the street like a giant projectile.

The trailer's footage is shot by a hand-held camera, home-movie style, giving it a sort of "Armageddon" meets " The Blair Witch Project" feel, though it is not clear if the entire movie follows that style. While the trailer does not reveal the name of the movie, it does announce a release date of Jan. 18.

Several copies of the trailer, seemingly shot in theaters with a camcorder, were posted on YouTube by Thursday morning. But by Thursday afternoon, some links had been taken down, replaced by an advisory saying, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corp."

Producing the movie along with Abrams is Bryan Burk, who has worked on such Abrams shows as "Lost," "Six Degrees" and "What About Brian." Guy Riedel and Sherryl Clark are executive producing.

"Cloverfield" is shooting in New York.


From NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162007/entertainment/movies/bait_balls_of_fire_movies_farrah_weinstein.htm):

IT'S alive. It's huge. And it's top secret.

That's about all we know about pro ducer J.J. Abrams' latest pet project.

"Transformers" theatergoers have been scratching their heads in frustra tion at a grainy, "Blair Witch"-style advertisement for a movie that doesn't even have a name.

Working titles include "The Cloverfield Experiment," "Slusho!" and "1-18-08" (the day the movie will be released).

Last week, the trailer went up on YouTube, and Paramount Pictures was quick to take it down - only to launch its own Web site, 1-18-08.com, which features three overlapping pictures that can be turned upside-down or sideways.

Weird clues such as an imp or a demon can be seen between the faces of two girls. The No. 9 is weirdly placed on a woman's chest in one of the party pictures. Another features people walking through a white cloud of smoke with their noses and mouths covered.

In the trailer, seemingly shot on a shaky, handheld camcorder, Manhattan friends are at a going-away party for a guy named Rob, who is leaving for Japan.

The band Wolfmother blasts in the background, and in a flash the lights go out and a painful background howling is heard. On the TV screen, NY1 reporter Roma Torre reports a "thunderous, roaring sound."

Partygoers head to the roof, where fireballs attack. On the street, the Statue of Liberty's head is thrown to the pavement.

The Hollywood Reporter describes the scene as " 'Armageddon' meets 'The Blair Witch Project'." But there also might be an amusement park twist reminiscent of "Final Destination 2."

A few weeks ago, the movie was shot in Coney Island on the blocks contained by West Eighth Street, West 17th Street, Surf Avenue and the Boardwalk.

A small crew, including Abrams (co-creator of "Lost") and director Matt Reeves ("Felicity"), along with up-and-coming actors Blake Lively and Mike Vogel (both from "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants") came into the park with hand-held video cameras.

They shot several scenes at Deno's Wonder Wheel, a scary swinging Ferris Wheel in which patrons ride in cages as they look out over Brooklyn. They also went on the Scooter bumper cars, played some ticket-stub games in the arcade, and rolled some skee ball.

A member of the Vourderis family, owners of Deno's Wonder Wheel Park, gave authorization to the film crew to shoot there.


From TV Guide.com (http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Heroes-Scoop-Cheerleader/800019243):

Greg Grunberg in Cloverfield
One movie that Abrams is casting Grunberg in is the buzzerific disaster flick known only by its myriad working titles (i.e., Cloverfield, 1-18-08, Slusho). "It'll probably be something where no one will be able to tell it's me," he said. "As you know, J.J. calls me his good-luck charm, so he's got to put me in there somewhere. I actually went to the set the other night, and it was really exciting and cool. The budget is not astronomical. But they're doing incredible things."


Grunberg's involvement is nice. I love that dude.

[Alex DeLarge]

Part of me thinks the title is being withheld because it spoils the monster's identity. Like "Wrath of Cthulhu" or "Donkey Kong Attacks!" ;)

[TheShowstoppa]

Okay... so uh, what part do the Ethan Haas websites play in this movie? I'm confused as to their link.

[Just Jeans]

They don't. The Ethan Haas websites are fan sites that are unrelated to the film. Abrams addressed this in an interview with Ain't It Cool News a couple of weeks back. The only website that ties into this film at all is the Slusho (http://www.slusho.jp/) website.

I've been watching the trailer like a madman. I'm too hyped for this film for my own good.

Version of the poster without Monstrous written on it. It looks like whatever the monster is, it's probably serpent-like (unless what's in the ocean is just it's tail):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Abrams_1-18-08.jpg

Apparently, JJ Abrams will deliver the official title for the film at the Star Trek panel during the San Diego Comic Con.

[TheShowstoppa]

ACK! The comic con is this weekend, right? HOLY CRAP!!!! I so wish I lived in Cali so I could go to all these good comic cons.

[killingvector]

JJ confirmed that the film is NOT called Monstrous. Just a tagline which was ultimately 'shopped out of the poster after unscrupulous fans began selling bootlegged copies. The title of the film will not be announced at Comic-Con. Harry Knowles' spies said that there were to be three posters with different taglines: Monstrous, Barbarous, and Ferocious. Followed by the titled reveal which he hinted was called Colossus.

JJ also said the idea of the film was inspired by a trip to Japan, then dropped a bombshell: "America needs its own Godzilla."

Sounds very much like an original monster film and not Rampage or Cthulhu or a Godzilla remake.

[Just Jeans]

I had a feeling Monstrous was just a tagline.

I really hope the film is being shot in the same manner as the trailer. I don't mind the idea of America having it's own answer to Godzilla, I just hope it's more original than the American Godzilla. I think the "shot by a group of friends trying to survive" approach is the most exciting film idea I've heard in a long time, and I'll be really disappointed if the film ends up being a traditional monster movie.

[Alex DeLarge]

Agreed. I'm looking forward to Diary of the Dead too, for that same reason. The three tag lines leans credence to the "three Biblical monsters" theory. I have a feeling it'll be a bit like Evangelion though. Not literally the Biblical figures, just loosely inspired by and/or named after. Nothing explicably "THIS IS FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE" except for maybe some "Is this the end of the world?" overtones added in movies like this.

[Just Jeans]

I've been watching the trailer today. I've watched it six or seven times. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this film runs the risk of being the most awesome film that we've seen released in the last ten years. Personally, I think it could be bigger than Transformers.

If the film isn't shot in the same manner as the trailer, I might sit it out. I'm so hyped up to see a film shot from the perspective of a group of friend's mini-DV that if the movie ends up being a traditional monster film, there's no way it won't disappoint me.

[BlakeTyner]

Yeah, I'm rather excited about it, too. Now I typically don't like monster movies, not even for their kitsch value, but if this one delivers what the trailer promises, I'm there. The thing that concerns me, though, is the same thing that excites me - the handheld camcorder style. I'm (still) one of the biggest Blair Witch fanboys in existence, but the beauty of it is that there isn't a Blair Witch. Doing a movie where there is, apparently, a monster doesn't exactly scream for shaky cam. It's a double-edged sword, I suppose, because not getting a good look at the monster is most times scarier than actually seeing it.

Really, my only beef with Transformers was that it was so shaky during the fights that you never really got a good look at the robots themselves.

Still, I'm going to withhold judgment until we get a better idea of the movie. I think that it has the potential to be very, very good.

~Blake

[Just Jeans]

I love the idea of Monster Movies, I just think they've gotten terribly generic in the wake of the CGI craze. There's no imagination anymore. Everything is right there for you to see. That's why this trailer appeals to me. I liken what this film appears to be going for more closely to Open Water than The Blair Witch Project (although with the camera being operated by a self aware talking voice, it might actually turn out more like TBWP). It's what we don't see that I'm interested in.

Incidentally, my favorite part of the trailer is the bit after the explosion, before the camera man reaches the street. It's incredibly tense, and I love the way the camera keeps cutting on and off, but I don't think we'll have to worry too much about the camera getting too wild. I noticed that when there's something important going on (the explosion, the State of Liberty head flying through the air) the camera always captures the action. It's all very precisely choreographed, but it feels hectic and out of control.

Suffice to say, I'm totally stoked for more.

[eXile]

POST DELETED

[Jenosis]

Jeno and I decided to give the movie a name, since it didn't have a title. I initially suggested that it be called "Buford", but then Jeno suggested that "from now on it will be known as Sh*tpiece" as a homage to one of the greatest parodies on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1_6D9QS9Y). So, from now on, please refer to this movie as "Sh*tpiece", that way Jeno can be responsible for starting an internet phenomenon. :D

All kidding aside, the teaser for this film has me really excited about it. I'm not really familiar with anything that J.J. Abrams has done, but the teaser is just so awesome and leaves me wanting to see more. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm digging the whole "secrecy" style marketing scheme.

YE LUV DIS MOBIE SHITPIECE!!!
___________________________:shy:

[killingvector]

Something definitely groans horribly before the fire ball erupts....as if awakening.

[TheShowstoppa]

They were supposed to reveal the official title at Comic Con... anyone know what the title was given?

[Gringo Loco]

I think what they said at Comic Con was that they will reveal more about the film in the upcoming months. That includes the title.

[Merf]

Very interested in seeing the flick, but... I have a slight problem with the whole "I hope this is shot from a first-person perspective" thing.

What sane person in his/her right mind would bother to grab a camera and record what could possibly be their last moments alive? If I had a camera and I saw a bear coming at me, much less something large enough to toss the Statue of Liberty's head down Fifth Avenue, I'd drop the camera and run away, screaming like a little girl the whole while.

Doesn't sit right with me at all.

[Just Jeans]

What sane person in his/her right mind would bother to grab a camera and record what could possibly be their last moments alive?

Me. :shy:

The premise is that the cameraman almost never sees the creature. From what I've read, I think the creature is going to feature very little in the film (it's only got a budget of $30 million). It's meant to be the guy documenting the devastation as they attempt to escape New York, while the creature is tearing up other sections of the city.

There's a good moment in the trailer where the camera is dropped while they are running through the stairwell, and the guy dips back in and picks it back up. I would so totally have done that.

The idea that this guy won't put his camera down may even play into the plot of the film. I'm assuming, based on the trailer, that the guy carrying the camera will have dialog and all.

[BlakeTyner]

Agreed. Particularly now that cameras have gotten so small.

There are a few different ways of looking at it, one of which Jeansie's already mentioned. Another way to think about it is the Blair Witch angle - although those characters were ostensibly filming a documentary, the real reason they insist on recording everything is because they a) want to be able to look back on it once out of the woods; and b) want to leave some kind of visual record of what happened to them if they don't make it out of the woods.

Combine that with the fact that looking through a camera lens is a pretty effective way to distance one's self from reality (in that you're able to have a barrier or buffer between you and what's going on) and I think this concept is definitely plausible.

Look at the number of people who run and grab their cameras when they see a UFO (whatever that UFO may happen to be,) which, since they seem to believe it's something unique, also would have the possibility of zooming in and killing them, yet they still film.

Or, to use a more poignant example, look at all the footage of 9/11. Even when the buildings started coming down, people in the path of the debris were still shooting - probably for some of the reasons mentioned above.

~Blake

[Just Jeans]

The 9/11 comparison occurred to me after I'd posted my last reply. Then you've got at least one kid who filmed for quite some time using his camera phone during the attack at Virgina Tech. There's also no end to the footage taken by people who have stood in their plate glass doors to record tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning storms, et cetera.

It's just one of those things about human nature. If a person has got a camera and is capable of filming a devastating event, that's what they'll do.

[The One and Only]

I like the whole Biblical references with these daikaiju. Sounds like Abrams and Co. are trying to establish the U.S.'s very own pantheon of monsters. I also have to wonder if this still unnamed flick is basically a prequel to a planned franchise. With this flick being the introduction of the monsters to the audience, and if this successful, we'll be seeing something really big.:eek:

Also the following has been floating around the Net for awhile now. Its a a bit of fan art based on speculation of what the beastie could be, and its little hangers on. For a bit it was actually thought to be a production sketch of the monster, but that rumor has been shot down. Take a look for yourself at Dougbot's vision of the Terror of Cloverfield.:nervous: (http://www.jjabrams.net/showthread.php?t=118)

[Apocalypto]

I love movies shot in an almost documentary like style that puts you right there in the chase with the victims like TCM, Wolf Creek, and the movie in my username.
This looks like that type of chase/adventure movie, but with a giant monster rather than just bad guys, which is fucking brilliant.
Behind John RAMBO and maybe the new Potter film, this is my biggest event movie of 2008.

Any movie that can have a trailer that shows next to nothing and still be more intriuging than almost every other trailer out there definitely shoots near the top of my list.

If it's as good as I hope it'll be, it should end up being my favorite giant monster movie behind Jackson's Kong.

[The One and Only]

From Arrow In The Head.com. Phil Tippet (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=9490), the effects guru behind flicks such as Starship Troopers, Robocop, and Jurassic Park will be directing the actions of the monster terror in the as of yet unofficially titled "Cloverfield".

[Jigsaw]

I'm looking very forward to this movie ever since seeing the trailer. It looks to have definite potential.

[jayTL]

after going on for a while with no real news...my anticipation is just dying...I need something like a new trailer...

[French Friday]

From Arrow In The Head.com. Phil Tippet (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=9490), the effects guru behind flicks such as Starship Troopers, Robocop, and Jurassic Park will be directing the actions of the monster terror in the as of yet unofficially titled "Cloverfield".

Another good point for that movie.

[TheShowstoppa]

See - You show us something 6 months ahead of time, and then you don't give us shit to keep out lips wet. Plainly, as much as I want to see this movie, I can wait now. We have another 3 months before it comes out, might as well just bide our time.

[The One and Only]

New viral site (http://tagruato.jp/) connected to the flick. Looking at it give us the idea who Rob was going to work for in Japan, and the origin of the Cloverfield Terror.

[The One and Only]

This just in from Arrow In The Head.com (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=9910). Big news. The official title of J.J. Abrams monster flick will be......revealed November 16:lmao:

[Just Jeans]

CLOVERFIELD's title is....

...going to be revealed November 16. Or so ComingSoon.net reports.

According to ComingSoon, a brand new trailer for CLOVERFIELD/1-18-08 will be debuting before BEOWULF. And in this trailer, it will be revealed what the actual title for the film is! Now there hasn't been a whole lot of advertisement for J.J. Abrams' monster movie. The trailer that debuted with TRANSFORMERS got the internet talking, but the buzz quickly died down with the lack of updates. Aside from the fake monster images roaming the net and the few updates from the official website, there hasn't been much of anything. My favorite little bit thus far has been the hidden roar of the monster on the site though.

November 16 will most likely start another buzz about the flick, so we'll wait to see what comes out. The film is directed by Matt Reeves, written by Drew Goddard, and producded by J.J. Abrams. It stars Mike Vogel, the beautiful Lizzy Caplan (below), Jessica Lucas, Michael Stahl-David, T.J. Miller, and Odet Jasmin. The film centers on a group of people that end up in the middle of a monster attack in New York. The film opens January 18, 2008. Check out the official site right over here.

[CosmoBubba]

See, I think this whole "waiting game" thing they've been playing since July is stupid. If they'd done maybe even one little update a month outside of these goddamn stupid viral sites that don't reveal any sort of decent information at all, then maybe I'd give half a damn about the movie right now. But until they start rolling trailers and TV spots or anything worth talking about, my enthusiasm for the movie is super-low.

[Just Jeans]

Mine is still pretty high, but that's only because I've got precious little to do besides sit around and wait for these things. Roll on the 16th!

With luck, the trailer might also appear on The Mist (which is the only film I'll be seeing this month, if I get really lucky.)

[Cody]

CHUD (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12367)'s Devin has seen the trailer, and gives a play-by-play.

[The One and Only]

If your too impatient to see the new trailer clearly, check out Cloverfield here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ncISQypZl0&eurl=)

[Gringo Loco]

If your too impatient to see the new trailer clearly, check out Cloverfield here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ncISQypZl0&eurl=)

http://i2.tinypic.com/6nvxixz.jpg


No really, it is kind of hard to make out what is going on.

[The One and Only]

^I warned you.:p

[Gringo Loco]

^I warned you.:p

I didn't expect it to be that bad, heh.

[The One and Only]

For you complainin' nancies, a clearer trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qLjW1vQBLo)

[Sean [The Wildcard]]

Oh Wow. That just got me even more pumped than I already am.

I want January here.
NOW.

[Just Jeans]

I started to watch the YouTube trailer, but it's just too dark on my monitor. I'm going to wait for it to turn up online in MOV format, which it's bound to soon after Beowolf opens tomorrow.

[Geddy Peart]

I thought I saw something that looked like a tentacle at the very end

Do you guys think we'll actually get to see the monster, or just fleeting glimpses? I hope the latter.

[Voo-doo]

I'll wait till we get a crystal clear trailer on youtube.

[killingvector]

I thought I saw something that looked like a tentacle at the very end

Do you guys think we'll actually get to see the monster, or just fleeting glimpses? I hope the latter.

A tentacle would support the Cthulu theory: I cannot imagine how horrified Lovecraft fans will be if the Cthulu mythos is reduced to a Godzilla monster mash.

[Freddy-Fan]

I do not see a tentacle.

Also, does this mean that the name is Cloverfield after all? If so, that's rather anti-climatic, don't you think?

[The One and Only]

Some new still pics from Cloverfield, plus an interview with one of the flick's stars,Lizzy Caplan. (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=10121)

Also the first pic shown looks like the creature and it's offspring are carriers of some kind of disease as previously speculated.

[Voo-doo]

Also, does this mean that the name is Cloverfield after all? If so, that's rather anti-climatic, don't you think?

very lame after all that secrecy.

[CosmoBubba]

Apparently, the title really is Cloverfield. So says the poster I saw hanging in my local theater's lobby tonight.

But the fact that the code name turned out to be the real one is lame. All that time to think up an awesome title, and they just kept the temporary one?

[killingvector]

I like the name, however the inflated sense of importance these filmmakers seem to possess is not flattering. Their efforts at secrecy seem pointless; just make a good film.

[El Rooto]

I agree.

The marketing's been more annoying than intriguing to me.

[Just Jeans]

I like the name Cloverfield as well... all I can think is that they did have another name for the film, one they were keeping quiet, but when it got down to zero hour they decided that, you know what, Cloverfield is actually a better title.

If that wasn't the case, then I agree: all the secrecy about the film's title was pointless.

[Gringo Loco]

Kinda late, but I think this is the first real clear showing of the trailer. Follow the link.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=21492

[Voo-doo]

for about a half second, you can see the monster's back.

[Geomonic]

Here we go. :)

ufYF0f-zMgY


Looks pretty snazzy, I gotta admit.

[Just Jeans]

I told you it'd pay to wait for a high quality version for download:

Hi-Res (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h640w.mov) (20.1Mb)
HD 480P (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h480p.mov) (31.5Mb)
HD 720P (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h720p.mov) (104Mb)
HD 1080P (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h1080p.mov) (161Mb)

[Gringo Loco]

Thanks for posting that Jeans. I can't wait to watch it in HD later.

[Just Jeans]

I was thinking about downloading the 1080p version, but that would be pointless: I'm watching it on a monitor from 1994 and a TV from 1990. :X

First thing I noticed -- the shot of the head of the Stature of Liberty sliding down the street has been retooled in a major way. It's a higher quality 3D model for one, and the damage on it is quite different.

This trailer has got me totally stoked, because I think they're doing it like I hoped they would -- just brief glimpses of the thing (when the military are firing on it with guns and rocket launchers, you see it kind of sidle past a building).

Can't wait to see this.

Also, people talked about what looks like two smaller creatures attacking a woman -- I think that's just guys in HASMAT suits.

[Gringo Loco]

Hey Jeans, I would say it would be pointless to download the trailer in HD if you're monitor cannot support 1280x720 for the 720p version or 1920x1080 for the 1080p version. Quicktime will make the video window much bigger than your monitor. At least it does that to me whenever I try to watch a 1080p video.

[Just Jeans]

Bah, I don't even use the Quicktime player. Never have. I can't stand it. I have a third party player on which I watch MOVs, so I don't have to worry about that crazy swollen window (and I get to watch in proper full screen). It also works wonders for MKV and MP4 files.

[Gringo Loco]

Nice, more power to you. I didn't even know there was a good program like that out in the internet wilderness.

[killingvector]

Also, people talked about what looks like two smaller creatures attacking a woman -- I think that's just guys in HASMAT suits.

Is it me or does it look like the woman's abdomen is expanding?

[Just Jeans]

Is it me or does it look like the woman's abdomen is expanding?

That's what I thought, too. I did a freeze frame to have a look, and it looks like a couple of guys in HASMAT suits, trying to subdue a woman who is either swelling up or has something exploding out of her.

I've watched it a couple of times now. Either the woman is mutating, or something is moving up behind her really fast, giving the impression that her shadow is expanding in both directions.

It's really a very eerie shot.
ADDED:
I've just created an animated gif of the woman being held by both arms, and I think she's definitely swelling up in an extremely bizarre way.

Looped Gif (http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x124/f13thtribute/Personal%20Avatars/swelling.gif)

Very odd. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe the thing in the film spawns more of its own kind by infecting humans?

[Spade]

I told you it'd pay to wait for a high quality version for download:

Hi-Res (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h640w.mov) (20.1Mb)
HD 480P (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h480p.mov) (31.5Mb)
HD 720P (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h720p.mov) (104Mb)
HD 1080P (http://images.apple.com/movies/paramount/1-18-08/1-18-08-tlr_h1080p.mov) (161Mb)

Thanks for the links James.

The trailer looked great.

[The One and Only]

A video of the Cloverfield Monster.:eek: (http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/serversphere/?action=view&current=monster.flv)

[Just Jeans]

I can't stream anything right now, as my computer is busy uploading to an ftp, so tell me -- is it organic or a robot? And does it appear to be the kind of creature that can infect other things?

[The One and Only]

The Beast is definitly organic my brother from another mother.:cool:

[Just Jeans]

Sweet. :D

Now all I need to know is what the fuck is going on here (http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x124/f13thtribute/Personal%20Avatars/swelling.gif). Seriously. W. T. F.
ADDED:
I was just watching the trailer again, and there's a moment where it shows a soldier with a pixel covered face saying, "There's nothing we can do for her now." I think the "her" he's referring to is the woman who appears to swell up in that gif.

[killingvector]

That's what I thought, too. I did a freeze frame to have a look, and it looks like a couple of guys in HASMAT suits, trying to subdue a woman who is either swelling up or has something exploding out of her.

I've watched it a couple of times now. Either the woman is mutating, or something is moving up behind her really fast, giving the impression that her shadow is expanding in both directions.

It's really a very eerie shot.
ADDED:
I've just created an animated gif of the woman being held by both arms, and I think she's definitely swelling up in an extremely bizarre way.

Looped Gif (http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x124/f13thtribute/Personal%20Avatars/swelling.gif)

Very odd. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe the thing in the film spawns more of its own kind by infecting humans?

The creature has been referred to as the 'parasite'.

From that wonderful gif, it definitely appears as if the girl is expanding

Perhaps the Slush-o tie in has some connection....

[Just Jeans]

That's a good point, vector. Maybe Sluch-o carries a parasite in it, something that causes mutation, and whatever "Cloverfield" is, it got a bad dose of this parasite.

[Voo-doo]

no, the monster was found during deep sea drilling.

[Just Jeans]

Where did you hear that, Voo-doo? I missed that tidbit.

Whatever the case, Slush-o has to be relevant to it somehow, otherwise what was the point of the tie-in website?

[Voo-doo]

there is some website out that relates to the movie, that not only mentions drilling, but a whale like monster as well. I'd look for it, but I'm in school right now.
ADDED:
http://www.tagruato.jp/
found it. this is the site that mentioned the drilling, don't know if it still wroks though.

[Just Jeans]

I think that's one of the fan-made websites that were confirmed to be unrelated to the marketing for the film.

There's only one site believed to be an official tie-in, and that's the Slusho (www.slusho.jp) site. I've not dug too deep on the site, but I don't think it mentions drilling or sea creatures -- it's just a fictitious site to promote the Slusho drink (it should be noted that this site hasn't even been confirmed by Paramount as a tie-in, but the site was registered before the first trailer, so folks in the media are pretty sure it's viral marketing).

[Voo-doo]

“We regard ourselves as explorers, and believe there is much more our planet has to offer than has already been discovered. We view every challenge as an opportunity for innovation. With our groundbreaking deep-sea drilling technology, Tagruato has positioned itself to become a world leader in energy resources, medical research, advanced technology production, and consumable product.”

Created by Tagruato C.E.O. Ganu Yoshida, Slusho! brand happy drink is a icy cool beverage that is rapidly becoming one of the company’s most profitable expenditures. Slusho! contains a “special ingredient” that customers can’t get enough of. Bearing the slogan, “You can’t drink just six!”, Slusho! has grown to the second most popular frozen drink in all Asian markets. Hip adult drinkers have begun concocting deliciously intoxicating alcoholic mix drinks starring Slusho! The beverage’s popularity has spawned overwhelming sales of brand apparel, a hit theme song, and coming soon: an animated television show starring the Slusho! Flavor Droids! The next step is to introduce Slusho! to the rest of the world. A search is on for top marketing professionals who will be tasked with duplicating the drink’s Asian popularity in the Western market. Our aspiration is to one day place Slusho! dispensers in every convenience store and mini mart. Slusho zoom!”

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/drillingstations.jpg

link-http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/09/30/new-cloverfield1-18-08-viral-website-tagruatojp/

[Just Jeans]

Yes, I've seen all that.

The point is, I can find no mention of this site in any of the marketing material, or in any of the articles talking about the marketing. Either it slipped under everyone's noses, or it's just a fan site that picked up on what the Slusho site was doing and expanded on it.

In either case, I'm still waiting for some official word on the Slusho site before I start considering other sites and their relevance.

[Voo-doo]

but is the Slusho! site 100% legit?

[killingvector]

Yes, the Slusho site was confirmed by Abrams to be legitimate.

The Slusho drink contained an ingredient obtained from the depths of the ocean; it could very well be tied to the creature unearthed during one such drilling expedition

[The One and Only]

Why is this starting to saound like a remake of the Larry Cohen thriller The Stuff ?

[Just Jeans]

Yes, the Slusho site was confirmed by Abrams to be legitimate.

Slusho.jp is believed to be official (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502272.html), but it hasn't been confirmed by Paramount or Abrams. The only site to be confirmed so far as I can tell was confirmed in this article (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261), and that's 1-18-08.com (http://www.1-18-08.com/).

[Jack Bauer]

A video of the Cloverfield Monster.:eek: (http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/serversphere/?action=view&current=monster.flv)
Is that....Godzilla?

[CosmoBubba]

Is that....Godzilla?

Somebody call Matthew Broderick, quick! :D

[Jack Bauer]

Screw Ferris, we need Perry Mason!

[The One and Only]

I was thinking Nick Adams would be the solution, but heck what do I know ?;)

Anywho, it looks like that the events of Cloverfield occur in the same world as the show, HEROS, don't believe me, check out the following evidence. (http://www.joblo.com/heros-cloverfield)

[killingvector]

Slusho.jp is believed to be official (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502272.html), but it hasn't been confirmed by Paramount or Abrams. The only site to be confirmed so far as I can tell was confirmed in this article (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261), and that's 1-18-08.com (http://www.1-18-08.com/).


I stand corrected. I mistook Abrams comment on 1-18-08 for slush-o.....

The Post article claimed that since the site was registered before the trailer aired, consensus was that there is a connection. However, slusho had a cameo on the Lost TV show; on second thought, the connection is far from proven.

[Voo-doo]

I

Anywho, it looks like that the events of Cloverfield occur in the same world as the show, HEROS, don't believe me, check out the following evidence. (http://www.joblo.com/heros-cloverfield)

what does Bullitt have to do with anything?

[MiMania]

^ The URL was just mis-typed. This link (http://www.joblo.com/heroes-cloverfield) should work.

A video of the Cloverfield Monster.:eek: (http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/serversphere/?action=view&current=monster.flv)

It's probably just the quality, but it looks a bit like it has some kind of turtle-esque shell to me, haha.

[Just Jeans]

So... Slusho has turned up in both Heroes and Cloverfield? Sweet. Probably nothing more than a bit of cross promotion, but an entertaining one all the same. :)

[Cody]

So... Slusho has turned up in both Heroes and Cloverfield? Sweet. Probably nothing more than a bit of cross promotion, but an entertaining one all the same. :)

Apparently Lost as well, and, with a hyphen and different logo/less snazzy cups, it shows up clear back in season 1, episode 2 (http://www.verydark.com/pix/slusho.jpg) of Alias.

[Just Jeans]

Abrams has kind of got a Stephen King/Kevin Smith thing going, throwing things from previous works into the next.

If Slusho turns up in Star Trek and The Dark Tower, I'll giggle.

[The Dream Master]

I saw the new trailer for this today when I saw The Mist, but the projector was all kinds of fucked up, so I really couldn't see much. From what I could see, I can't say I'm any more excited than I was when I saw the first teaser because it still leaves me with a lot of questions. I'll definately be there opening night, though.

[Just Jeans]

I doubt whether the film proper will answer any of those questions -- it is meant to be "archive footage", after all.

[The Dream Master]

I at least expect the film to tell us what's attacking. The trailer didn't do that (from what I could see, anyway--again, the projector was messed up).

[Freddy-Fan]

I found the following info on Dreadcentral.com (http://www.dreadcentral.com/node/2885). I don't know if you all have discussed this yet or not. Also, I don't know how reliable dreadcentral is. . .I’m sure some of you would know more about that than I do. I am only posting it because it seems to legitimate some of the stuff a few of you are speculating about, particularly the idea of there being smaller creatures. . .

Someone I know to be "in the know" was willing to throw me a bone with some small but interesting tidbits about the mysterious monster movie under the condition of absolute anonymity. With that in mind, let's just call this particular person "Mr. Slusho". Let me preface this by saying I have no way of confirming any of this info, though I've no reason to believe "Mr. Slusho" would feed me false information on purpose.

Anyway, here's what I've been told.

It's not Godzilla or Voltron (duh) or even Cthulu; anyone expecting there to be some sort of elaborately detailed backstory may be in for a disappointment. Expect an old-fashioned monster movie retold in a very modern Blair Witch sort of way - but with a twist. You see that giant monster that emerges from the ocean to begin laying waste to New York City ... it didn't come alone.

According to "Mr. Slusho", much of the movie will revolve around the characters fleeing for their lives, not from the big one stomping the city, but from the "raptor-like" smaller versions hunting them down.

If so, that would make sense. Word from the start has been that this would not be a mega-budget movie and the digital effects work needed for a giant monster trashing New York City would no doubt cost a heck of a lot more than street level action of people being chased by smaller monsters. This would also seem to jive with some of the set footage that's shown up online ... it's just too bad it sounds so much like the Emmerich Godzilla, however.

So there you go, folks. We'll find out how accurate this insider info is soon enough. In the meantime I now return to your regularly scheduled Cloverfield/1-18-08 speculation.

If this is true, I'm disturbed by the idea that what sounded like a cool movie could turn into something as lame as Emmerich's Godzilla. :X

[Cody]

Abrams has kind of got a Stephen King/Kevin Smith thing going, throwing things from previous works into the next.

If Slusho turns up in Star Trek and The Dark Tower, I'll giggle.

I don't think he managed to work it into Mission: Impossible III. Though an early scene is set in a convenience store, the backgrounds are too blurry to tell and Billy Crudup's character namechecks "Slurpee".

I found the following info on Dreadcentral.com (http://www.dreadcentral.com/node/2885). I don't know if you all have discussed this yet or not. Also, I don't know how reliable dreadcentral is. . .

Pretty well reliable, when Rob Zombie isn't lying to them.

[Just Jeans]

I think that the smaller creatures are mutated humans.

[CosmoBubba]

The whole Heroes thing has me thinking that someone will just be watching the show on TV during the movie. I'm don't believe we're going to be seeing Peter Petrelli saving the day from the Slusho monsters or anything like that, only because I don't expect the actual characters from a hit show produced by Universal to show up in a Paramount movie.

Unless either Tim Kring has the final say over how the Heroes property is used or Cloverfield is really a top-secret Heroes movie, that is.

[Dave Dunwoody]

My enthusiasm for this is waning as time goes on. The little monsters angle could be interesting, but again it brings pack bad memories of GINO. Plus, as kv said, the secrecy has gotten to the point where it's no longer intriguing but annoying. Right now I'm thinking this had better be one hell of a movie for all the hype.

[Gringo Loco]

My enthusiasm for this is waning as time goes on. The little monsters angle could be interesting, but again it brings pack bad memories of GINO. Plus, as kv said, the secrecy has gotten to the point where it's no longer intriguing but annoying. Right now I'm thinking this had better be one hell of a movie for all the hype.

Well, I think it only has a $30 million dollar budget, so I doubt we will see anything on a summer blockbuster grand of a scale. That doesn't necessarily mean it will suck though.

[Dave Dunwoody]

I'm not worried about effects or anything, I just worry that it'll be a boring-ass letdown like Godzilla. But at this point, for all we know it's gonna be awesome. That's the problem, I don't know what to think. It would benefit the production to release some more info instead of maintaining the secrecy.

[Geddy Peart]

The Cloverfield Monster Revealed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBOyG5Bgduk

And all I've got to say is WHO YA GONNA CALL?

[Spade]

The Cloverfield Monster Revealed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBOyG5Bgduk

And all I've got to say is WHO YA GONNA CALL?

Greatest Trailer Ever.

[The One and Only]

Although technically not Cloverfield. The following flick is such a flagrant rip-off of J.J. Abrams daikaiju event, that I thought it should be included in this thread just for laughs.:lmao: So I present to you, from the Asylum, the creative juggernaut behind such DTV epics such as King of the Lost World, Alien Vs. Hunter, and The Transmorphers, I present to you....Monster.:twitch: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxMYkXq67A)

[CosmoBubba]

I love how the trailer for Asylum's ripoff of Cloverfield says it's being released on January 15, 2007. :X

[French Friday]

This rip-off looks good. So I suppose the real thing will be great.

[Jigsaw]

Here's an illustration of the monster in the film (major spoilers obviously, click at your own risk):


http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cloverfield-monster-picture.jpg


I think it looks pretty cool. Look forward to seeing it in action.

[Just Jeans]

I'm trying to avoid seeing it before we hit the theater. Only a month and some change to go. I'm hoping the marketing people don't splatter the monster all over the TV spots.

[Jigsaw]

If I should, I can remove the link to the picture. I'm sort of think I should until a while after the movie's been out theatrically :meh:

[Just Jeans]

As long as it's just a link, I don't see why you shouldn't leave it in, Jig. So long as no one pasts it as a picture directly into the thread, everything is groovy.

[Jigsaw]

Alright, I'll keep the link. I posted a spoiler warning too, so anyone who doesn't want it spoiled knows not to look.

[Darth Reaper]

From what I've heard nobody's sure if that picture of the creature is real or not. Apparently, the guy who drew it has said himself that he's just a fan who came up with the design based on the roar that he heard. He wasn't trying to hoax anyone mind you, he was just trying to come up with something that he thought would be cool based on what he heard.

However, I think there are those who are wondering if this is actually legit and the powers that be behind the movie are trying to pull a fast one on us.

[Jigsaw]

From the brief glimpse of the monster seen in one of the trailers, the illustration looks pretty accurate so far. I wouldn't doubt it's the real deal.

[Rick]

I haven't been following this super-close or anything but I do check out the trailers and read through the thread.
I was under the impression we wouldn't be getting a full shot of the creature, just bits and pieces obscured and from a distance.
I thought the audience would be seeing the movie from the ground mostly and through a lot of shaky cam shots.

[Just Jeans]

I was under the impression we wouldn't be getting a full shot of the creature, just bits and pieces obscured and from a distance.

That's the impression I'm under as well, and I have been keeping up with the hype. It makes sense to do it that way as well, because the film doesn't have a very big budget. But I do think there's bound to be at least one full-on money shot.

So far all we've seen in the trailers is a hulking shape lumbering behind a building, moving out of sight far too quickly to make out what in hell it is.

[TheShowstoppa]

The picture of the monster is intreguing. It's kinda cool. I won't say what it looks like, but from the side angle we have there, you will know what I'm talking about when I say it looks like a hybrid of something. You'll find out when you see the picture or the movie.

[Jigsaw]

The monster to me looks like a mutated hybrid of a whale and a turtle. It's very cool-looking and I wonder if some company like NECA, SOTA, Mezco, etc. might make a deluxe figure of it?

[Just Jeans]

Watch 5 Minutes Of ‘Cloverfield’ (http://www.rabiddoll.com/index.php?p=143)

J.J. Abrams has always said how much of a fan he is of viral marketing, well now he’s taken that to a new level with the release of the upcoming monster-mash, “Cloverfield.” Although shorted clips have been popping up on the internet over the last six months, the producer has now officially released 5 minutes of footage for the movie.

In the scenes, viewers can see some of the scenes that have already been revealed in the teaser trailer but also some new footage showing an examination of the Statue of Liberty’s head and also the destruction of a Manhattan skyscraper.

The movie was originally only known as “01-18-08” (the date of release) however Paramount recently confirmed that the project is indeed called “Cloverfield.” It stars Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas and T.J. Miller. The film is based on a screenplay by Drew Goddard with JJ Abrams acting as producer and is directed by Matt Reeves.

Someone watch it and let me know if it shows the monster in any great detail. If it doesn't, then I'll give it a look.

[Gringo Loco]

No they don't show any of the monster that we haven't seen already. It's pretty much like the teaser trailer and some of the current trailer but spread out into 5 minutes.

[Jigsaw]

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/post-cloverfieldfake.jpg


The link to the monster's sketch if the first link doesn't work.

[Just Jeans]

Cloverfield director talks (http://movies.ign.com/articles/841/841636p1.html), and in doing so reveals that initially the film was meant to have a different title, but they ultimately decided to stick with Cloverfield.

Cloverfield. 1-18-08. Slusho. Untitled J.J. Abrams Project. Call it what you want, but there's no getting around the fact that when Paramount's mysterious monster movie first came to the attention of general audiences this past summer with a from-out-of-nowhere trailer that ran before Transformers, it struck a nerve. As sure as the Statue of Liberty's head is removable, Cloverfield instantly had viewers in a tizzy after that clip debut. What exactly was Cloverfield?

Well, it's been about six months since that first trailer and we still know very little about the actual plot of the film aside from the fact that a (presumably giant) monster -- or monsters? -- attacks New York City, the fallout of which is recorded from ground level via camcorder. Fans have done their best to unlock more info about the storyline, pouring over the viral marketing campaigns that have surrounded the picture, mostly to no avail. But IGN Movies got the chance to talk to the film's director, Matt Reeves, in an attempt to get some of the mysteries settled once and for all.

Our chance to talk with Reeves came not so coincidentally with the debut last night of a new Cloverfield widget which includes an introduction from producer J.J. Abrams and five minutes of the film. As part of the ongoing viral campaign to promote the movie, Paramount is offering fans the chance to be the first person to see the movie -- with 30 of their closest friends, of course -- in the city of their choice. Whoever gets the most people to "grab" their widget wins, be it on your Facebook page, your MySpace page, iGoogle, blogs, etc. Check it out:

Back to Reeves, though. He remained pretty tightlipped about plot points throughout our interview, but he did have some very interesting things to say about the project even as he managed to avoid giving up the film's secrets. Which isn't to say that we didn't try.

For starters, we asked him what was up with all the name changes?

"There were various titles along the way, but the first title and the end title has always been Cloverfield," explains Reeves. "When I read the outline it was Cloverfield. And 'Cloverfield' is the case designate. And when the first draft of the script came out it was Cloverfield. It's always been Cloverfield. And then we started changing the name over the course of making the movie because the irony was that when we first started no one knew anything about the movie and there was no danger in people finding out where we were and stuff. But then there was such excitement, and we were just in the early stages of shooting when the trailer came out, and that excitement spread to such a degree that we suddenly couldn't use the name anymore. So we started using all these names like Slusho and Cheese. And people always found out what we were doing!"

Reeves adds somewhat cryptically that there was another title that they almost used…

"There was this other title that we really loved," he recalls. "And it was again another title that had to do with an aspect of the movie… you would have to see the movie to understand what it was called. And so it was in a way another mysterious word. And when it finally came down to it, we thought, 'Well, first of all, it's been Cloverfield in our heads for all this time. And second of all, the idea that everyone already knows that it's Cloverfield, and we're going to change it from one word that people think is mysterious to another word that people think is mysterious? What's the point of that?' So we were like, 'You know what? The movie is Cloverfield.'"

As for that "case designate" reference, anyone who has seen the clips from the film knows that "Cloverfield" is the case name that the government has assigned to whatever or whoever is doing all that destruction in New York.

"In the way that the Manhattan Project was the name of that program, that's what this is," says the director, though he specifies that doesn't mean that it was created by the government the way the Manhattan Project was. "And it's not a project per say. It's the way that this case has been designated. That's why that is on the trailer, and it becomes clearer in the film. It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case."

The top-secret nature of the film has always been a part of the plan. In fact, it came as a reaction of sorts to the current trend (thanks largely to Internet sites like IGN) among movie fans towards knowing everything about a movie long before it ever hits theaters. Cloverfield is an attempt to get back to that youthful innocence about movies that the film's makers recall from their childhood.

"You know what we thought?" asks Reeves. "When I got involved with [the project], one of the things that J.J. was talking about that we all got excited about was the idea that because the film was going to feel realistic, that meant we could cast unknowns. And that meant also that we were going to be making it in a way that would be made quite quickly. And people didn't know about this movie. And we thought, in today's environment … you know everything about every movie before it comes out. There's so much information that comes out, people are so media savvy. And we were just remembering when we were kids and movies would come out and you'd see a trailer and you were like, 'What was that?!' There was that sense of discovery. And so we all got very excited about the idea of putting together this trailer for a movie that no one had heard of. And because of the accelerated schedule and knowing exactly when it was going to come out, we knew that we'd be able to make this trailer and then put out this movie, and people would know nothing about it. And that would enable there to be that sense of discovery from when we were all younger, that there wasn't so much media saturation. And so that was definitely part of the concept."

Adding to the mystery and excitement of that first trailer was the suggestion from Paramount marketing guru Rob Moore to not include a title with the clip. This notion only further excited Reeves and Abrams and the rest of the team, and of course in retrospect we know that it was a decision that added to the allure of the project immensely.

"We thought, 'That's very interesting. Who's ever done that before?'" says the director with a laugh. "And we actually went to the MPAA and said, 'Can we do that?' And they didn't know what to say at first because no one had ever done it. And we thought, 'Well, I guess that makes sense because when you're marketing something you want people to know what it's called.' But this idea of kind of throwing this thing out and seeing people that you didn't know [in it] and seeing them in this story that you've never heard of, and that not even having a title, we just thought that would be incredibly fun for people to discover. And then what we didn't anticipate was that the response to it would be as strong as it was, and that was very exciting."

Part of that response, of course, has been (in some quarters anyway) an almost obsessive attempt to uncover every little detail possible about the story. Is it a giant monster in the film? Monsters, perhaps, as in plural? Little monsters? Voltron? The speculative permutations have been as various as they have at times been ridiculous. Reeves will not confirm or deny any of this talk, besides acknowledging that, yes, Virginia, there is a monster in his movie.

"We really wanted to make a movie where essentially, at the end of the day, it's this giant monster movie, but we really wanted to make it from this point of view," explains Reeves of Cloverfield's point-and-shoot, ground-level technique. "What was interesting to me was the idea of doing what is essentially this epic scale, huge movie, but doing it from this very intimate point of view and very naturalistic point of view. And we thought it would be great, especially since everyone would know going in that it's a monster movie, to start a movie and do it in this very [realistic] style as if it was found footage. [You] get to know these characters, and in a certain way [we got to] make a character relationship film."

In fact, it was Reeves' background in character drama that got him the job on Cloverfield. He's known Abrams since he was a kid, and the two went on to co-create the hit show Felicity together.

"We've known each other for forever and have been friends since we were young and have just always trusted each other creatively," he says. "In college, I would show him my films -- I went to USC's film school -- he would show me his scripts and he wound up being one of the producers on the first film that I directed. Then we decided to do Felicity together. We created the show, and I directed a bunch of those as well and did the pilot. And there's actually a film that I wrote that I'm going to direct which he's involved in producing, and we were talking one day and he said, 'We would really love you to do Cloverfield first.' And my friend [producer] Bryan [Burk] also was like, 'Listen, we think you'd be great for this.' I said, 'Well, first of all I want to make my movie.' And they said, 'Do that after this. Just look at this.'"

So Reeves read the outline for the project which had been put together by Abrams and Drew Goddard, who eventually would go on to write the Cloverfield screenplay. Reeves found it to be "just fantastic," but he wasn't certain as to why they had asked him to direct their monster movie.

"I was very taken with it, but I was like, 'This is huge, it's visual effects, it's a monster movie. Why are you thinking of me?'" he remembers. "The big thing for J.J. and for Bryan was that my concerns primarily -- and everything that I've done so far and everything that I'm interested in and the movie that I was going to make with J.J. that I wrote -- it's been all character-based. I'm very interested in naturalism and realism and we tried to have that kind of tone between the characters on Felicity. They were like, 'Look, there's no question, we know you love movies and you can get the monster part. And there's a million people who you would think of for the monster part, but we're interested in what you would do in terms of the tone. In how you would do that and what you would do with the characters.' And then I got very excited because the idea of doing sort of an outrageous idea, but doing it sort of naturalistically with a real aesthetic, was a real exciting idea. So that got me hooked. I jumped in."

Part 2 of the same interview. (http://movies.ign.com/articles/841/841703p1.html)

December 14, 2007 - In case you haven't heard, Paramount has just debuted a new widget for its much-discussed monster movie Cloverfield, which is hitting theaters in January. This clip, which features an introduction from producer J.J. Abrams and five minutes of the film, is part of the ongoing viral campaign to promote the movie. The studio is offering fans the chance to be the first person to see the film -- with 30 of their closest friends -- in the city of their choice. All you have to do is be the one who gets the most people to "grab" your widget, be it on your Facebook page, your MySpace page, iGoogle, blogs, etc. Check it out here:

But the launch of the widget also means that IGN Movies got a chance to talk to the film's director, Matt Reeves, last night. Click here for the first part of our interview with the helmer, or read on for his take on the 9/11 subtext of Cloverfield, what it was like shooting visual effects Blair Witch style, and where exactly the idea for that Statue of Liberty head from the trailer came from!

"The inspiration came from the poster of Escape from New York," says Reeves of that darn head. "The poster had an image on it of the head of the Statue of Liberty and that image was nowhere in the movie! And it's an incredibly provocative image. And that was the source that inspired [producer] J.J. [Abrams] to say, 'Now this would be an interesting idea for a movie.'"

Reeves and Abrams are both huge Rod Serling fans (remember that Twilight Zone episode of the pair's show Felicity), and since Serling wrote an early draft of the original Planet of the Apes, which of course has its own iconic Statue of Liberty in it, one can't help but wonder if that was an influence too.

"All of that I think has its kind of antecedents and precedents in the Serling Planet of the Apes stuff," says Reeves. "So I think it's all kind of connected in a movie lore sort of way."

But speaking of the destruction of iconic landmarks, if there was one response to the original Cloverfield trailer that was universal, it was the way it stirred up memories of the footage we all watched when the terrorists attacked on 9/11. Reeves is careful to point out that his movie is just that -- nothing more than a movie -- but there's no denying the subtext of the film.

"[It works] in the same way that Godzilla was really a metaphor for its time, and was a sort of movie about the A-bomb and Hiroshima and all of that," he says. "The idea of it dealing with the anxiety of that time and that's why it captured so much attention because it tapped right into people's anxieties… I think that what was really interesting here was knowing that we were going to be dealing with the metaphor of what this was and dealing with the anxieties of our time. We thought that there would be something really sort of powerful about the idea, like in the trailer, having this very naturalistic, realistic vibe, and having you start to say, 'What is going on? This seems like a horrifying event.' And then suddenly when you see the head, everything starts to tilt like a prism. And you're like, 'Wait a minute. That couldn't be terrorism because what did they do, take off the head of the Statue of Liberty and throw it at New York. What's with that?' It evokes these things and in a way enables us -- the fun of it, the idea of it -- it enables you to approach those feelings and deal with it in a safer way. So it ends up being a kind of thrill ride and it's also evocative of those feelings and hopefully has resonance as well. At the end of the day, the movie is this giant monster movie. But there is something in the idea of what monster movies do for us, and how they can deal with our anxieties and our fears, and we really hope that this works in that way."

A key aspect of achieving that you-are-there feel in Cloverfield was by mimicking the man-on-the-street camcorder perspective that has become an everyday part of our lives. The film is shot in such a way as to appear to be "found footage" from just such a camcorder that was in use, on and off, throughout the attack on New York by the monster (or monsters) that has only been hinted at so far in the trailers. The idea, according to Reeves, is that since this footage has been found and is unedited, every time the camera cuts out indicates a jump forward in time. And in fact, the only cuts in the film are when the camera gets turned off.

"You'll be watching a continuous take and all of a sudden you'll jump forward, and the idea was that in those sort of elliptical moments, you suddenly have to piece together what the story is," says the director. "And we thought it would be really great if the first 15 or 20 minutes of the movie are all about meeting these characters in this kind of mysterious, fun way, and you start to get this connection to them, and then all of a sudden have them basically go through this event. … Obviously we have the option of putting jump cuts all over the place, but I thought, 'Well, if I'm one of those characters and some of those things are happening, I wouldn't turn off the camera. I would just keep watching.' And that presented its own challenges because then in a movie you have to bridge together what would be many, many visual effects and do it in one shot."

That proved to be a distinct challenge for Reeves, who had never worked with visual effects before, let alone in such a unique undertaking. He says he worked very closely with the visual effects people, planning and talking about specifically what he wanted, and there was also plenty of choreographing of the shots in question as well. But he also wanted to leave some room for improvisation.

"It was a very unusual style that we did," he recalls. "[Scripter] Drew Goddard wrote an incredible script and we had a ball working on the story and getting all that done. And then when we started shooting, one of the things I wanted to be able to do was to have these actors do the scenes but then do takes where we would just say, 'O.K., you know what the scene is about. You know what's happening here. Now just go off and sort of let go of the words and just play with it for a minute so that we can have that kind of naturalism.' And that sort of worked its way into the visual effects as well. I wanted to be able to use mistakes. Like there are things where we would be shooting a section of a shot and an actor would fall down and then have to get back up and scramble. And in another movie that would be a mistake, but here I felt like that was exactly what we were looking for because it feels authentic. … That means that these people stumble, they overlap, they stumble in their words."

In a regular movie, the director would shoot what is called coverage: He'd get the same scene from a variety of angles, a master shot, close-ups, and so on. But Reeves was working with just the single perspective of his make-believe camcorder, which meant it was all about doing the same shot over and over again until they got it just right.

"I'd have to shoot maybe 50 or 60 takes of the scene to try to get it in a one-er," he recalls. "And just keep refining it and adding improvisations and things like that. So even though it's a studio film, there's a kind of freshness and a kind of independent spirit to it. … It's really been a fun challenge."

Of course, the handheld feel of the film also means that it will draw the inevitable comparisons to The Blair Witch Project, good and bad.

"I think there definitely will be a Blair Witch comparison just because of the handheld [aspects]," says Reeves. "There already has been with the trailer. It was interesting because I hadn't seen Blair Witch, so obviously I wanted to watch it because I thought it was important since there could be comparisons made. And the first thing I thought was that it was a very effective device, but I also thought that it was very interesting that the movie had broken part of its own concept, which is that it's not one Handycam. It's a Handycam and black & white footage, and it actually feels like it's been sort of edited to some degree. So it's like, 'Oh, this is found footage, but from two different cameras that has somehow been edited.' But what we wanted to do was to really use the one camera feeling and really [make it seem] as if there are mistakes, moments where you don't even know the camera is on. And so you're catching like little swinging shots. Make it feel very real, very random, as if you just took a tape out of someone's camera and started watching it."

The other, potentially more damning comparison between Cloverfield and Blair Witch is that audiences might have the feeling from the trailer that perhaps they're getting hoodwinked here, and that maybe, just maybe they aren't going to get to see anything in terms of monster action. After all, Blair Witch pretty much copped out in that regard. Reeves says that's not going to be the case with his film in the slightest, however.

"That's the way that our film is incredibly different from Blair Witch," he says. "They very, very smartly used that aesthetic so that they could avoid showing anything, and what was effective about [that] and what I think is also effective in this film is that you can create a lot of suspense that way. But in this movie, you do see a lot. At the end of the day, it still has that huge scale, it's just that it's shot from this point of view. So you're going to see the monster, you're going to see huge-scale destruction, you're going to see a lot of crazy stuff! … We're a studio film, and we're making this sort of crazy thing, but it's made just from this unique point of view. And really what that adds, again what I think makes the film very different, is this kind of very realistic aesthetic even though it's such an outrageous, outlandish idea. And that makes it a kind of thrilling idea. You wind up getting swept along in the action of the thing and it starts to gain a kind of tremendous momentum, we feel, and that's hopefully how people will react to it."

Cloverfield opens on January 18, 2008, but you knew that already, didn't you?

[Just Jeans]

‘Cloverfield’ Is The American ‘Godzilla’ (http://www.rabiddoll.com/index.php?p=148#more-148)

For months, “Cloverfield” was only the name assigned to J.J. Abrams’ 01-18-08 untitled movie project. But a few weeks ago, Paramount officials confirmed that the movies official title is indeed “Cloverfield” and as predicted does feature a large-scale monster attack on New York City.

In an interview with SciFi Wire, producer Bryan Burk confirmed that the end goal of the film was to make the story into an American equivalent to the Japanese “Godzilla” without resorting to any of the existing plot devices and concepts that other movies have included.

“It’s an entirely original story and monster,” Burk said. “There’s no tie-in to any of our other projects quite yet. We’re obviously fans of the great monster movies. I remember when we were starting ‘Lost,’ and we had references in it to all our favorite things, be it ‘Jaws’ or ‘Alien,’ and this feels like this is the same thing. I don’t think it feels like any other movie you have seen before, but we were definitely inspired by a lot of our favorite films.”

The movie first came to the publics attention following a small teaser trailer attached to “Transformers.” Since then however, the internet has been hit by a viral marketing campaign including false websites, YouTube videos and a lot of hints and nudges about the film.

“The viral stuff online was all done in conjunction with the studio,” Burk continued. “A woman named Amy Powell at Paramount is in charge. She’s [a] genius, to say the least. The whole experience in making this movie is very reminiscent [of] how we did Lost. Everyone jumped on board and said, ‘We see what this is. Let’s do it!’ Once the studio said, ‘OK, we are going to keep this top secret, and nothing is going to get out,’ then it went on to my fellow producers, the cast and the entire crew. Everybody was part of the team, feeling like they were making something special.”

It would be nice if Cloverfield caught on and became a franchise. I always thought we should have our own answer to Godzilla rather than trying to pinch the creature for the American market. And assuming the format of handheld works, I'd like for sequels to be shot the same way.

[Just Jeans]

I was right about the woman in the tent swelling up due to being bitten and the things around her being guys in hazmat suits, but what I wasn't right about was what ultimately happens to her.

You'll be seeing it in one of the oncoming TV spots for Cloverfield (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=13021).

Yesterday we showed you the first TV commercial from Cloverfield, and some folks on our message board commented that it didn't seem like the spot was selling the monster. Well, Paramount ain't that dumb - they've got a second spot and it's all about the monster. It's mostly iterations of the same footage we've seen, but this does include something new - a woman who has been bitten and then explodes. That's actually not totally new - when I ran my trailer description I thought I saw two little monsters tearing this woman apart when it was in fact two guys in hazmat suits around here as she explodes - but in this commercial we hear a guy shouting 'A bite! We've got a bite!' and then everybody else in this makeshift hospital tent freaks out.

I think we're mostly out of the viral marketing woods, and I'm glad to see strong, attention grabbing, Mr. Voice filled commercial selling the movie in the right way.

You can see the TV spot on CHUDs website.

[MiMania]

New TV spot (http://www.movieweb.com/video/V07LbhiknoqrzR) is out.

[Undrtkerkane]

all I have to say is if its done right..it can be huge, but if its Kermit walking around NYC, it will blow :jason:

[The One and Only]

Two new posters for Cloverfield. (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=10615)
(Update:They're fan made. Sorry, my bad.:err:)

[Scarecrow]

Saw the teaser with I Am Legend. Looks Awesome. :D

- Scarecrow

[The One and Only]

This just in from our Italian, German, and Spanish newsrooms. Footage of the destruction of the Chaui Drilling Platform in the Atlantic. Blame has been put on a radical environmental group, Tidowave, which had probaly infiltrated the station among its 300 employees. (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/06/video-footage-of-cloverfield-monster-destroying-chaui-station-rob-hired-by-slusho/)
ADDED:
This might just be for real. The figure for.....the Cloverfield Monster.:eek: (http://www.cloverfieldmonster.ytmnd.com/)

[Fan of Freddy]

That figure is pretty cool, I think. However, it seems like a pretty generic monster; not something I'd imagine it being after all the hype. If that is it, then I'll wait till I see the movie to pass judgement. I will say that it seems to match the brief glimpse of what we've seen in trailers.

Of course, click at your own risk, guys.

[Apocalypto]

Yeah, it does resemble what's shown in the clips pretty closely.

I'm pretty sure that's the real deal, I think he looks cool enough. I doubt we'll see him in more than a few shots anyway.

[Rick]

looks better then what was in that possible storyboard or artist's conception that was posted before.

[The Dream Master]

I think he looks cool enough. I doubt we'll see him in more than a few shots anyway.

Yeah, same here. We might get one or two money shots of it, but I don't think we'll see as much as people might want.

The creature's head reminds me at bit of the reek creature from Attack of the Clones.

As for Cloverfield overall, I have a bad feeling that it's not going to be the huge January blockbuster that everyone's expecting. Let's fact it: most of the buzz for this has been coming from the internet, and we all know how that's worked out for previous films (Snakes on a Plane, for one). Also, I have to wonder how many people actually remember the nameless trailer in front of Transformers and realize this is the movie.

[DrLar]

I'm so going to see it, this kind of suspense kills me (that's why I went running to see the blairwitch project), 1 and 1/2 more weeks to go..

[The 5th Golden Girl]

I kind of hope we don't see the monster. What scared me about the trailer is that I had never even heard of this movie before, and so I didn't know what the hell was going on. I didn't know there was a monster. Then, I saw something move between a building really fast, and that freaked me out. There's something to be said for not showing much, if anything. I know people will bitch and moan if we don't get to see the monster because Heaven forbid we use our own imaginations, but fuck 'em.

Then again, if the monster is really well done, I won't mind seeing it, but not too much.

[Apocalypto]

The running time is 85 minutes.
ADDED:
Here's a very good look at the monster...

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/SouthsideMFKR/1195850829105.gif

[Jason's Storm]

I wouldn't call it very good. You see a blob of a figure, but thats it. No defining features really.

~JS

[TheShowstoppa]

I agree. However, it does more or less resemble the figure that the link is to. However, There's not much else you can see, so I don't know that I would put all of my money on defining that figure as the one in Cloverfield.

[Geddy Peart]

It looks like the hind legs of a T-Rex attached to a turtle shell

[Zombie]

What I'm liking about this movie is how it's stated in the interview that they're trying to keep it tight lipped without any spoilers coming out, and how they were kids they just saw maybe a trailer and that was it so when the movie came out you were amazed. Thats how I remember movies being before the internet. Since then most movies are ruined but that's our fault mostly.

No one out there say's here is the movie and this is what everything looks like right out in the open. We are the one's that get curious and right away start looking for every little thing we can find. When we go to the movie we already know about 75% of what's going to happen or not happen and or have seen the best scenes already wether it be all the trailers that come out or what slips out and people talk about.

Thankfully I've stayed away from knowing what this is as much as I can. Granted I've read some of the spoiler lines but luckily it was something I already knew or pretty much had an idea. This is how I'm trying to look at movies come this year. Granted I've already "ruined" alot of The Dark Knight but that's cause of the trailer attached to I am Legend. So can't really complain but would have been nice if they didn't show to much of Joker as they did.

Also people complain they'll be mad or something if it doesn't show the "enemy" or whatever it is in the movie, yet that's sometimes better and letting people use their imangination. I think sometimes people forget they have one or like to make their brain work sometimes. I thought Blair Witch was great how they did it by not showing anything. I was so freaked out about that movie with the guy just standing in the corner at the end. That just messed me up for awhile at night and the house I was living in at the time I slept towards the wall and wouldnt move just so I didnt see any images just standing in the corner lol.

Jeepers Creepers was doing Excellant untill it showed the creature thing. That was what ultimatley ruined the movie IMO. Had they kept it hidden and not showing it or bringing out the wings and junk I think it would have been alot better. Hell making the most clear shot of the creature at the very end looking through the cut out face would have been perfect. However they ruined it and thats when the movie just goes down hill.

So movies can be good and don't have to show everything or the enemy whatever to be successfull. People just need to try and watch it for what it's worth.

I think it'll do good. I hear alot of people at work talking about it. Also the same people acting like they know what they're talking about like if they know everything is hilarious.

But come next week I'll be there in the theraters. Then the week after I'll be there to welcome back RAMBO!!! Should be a good month of movies even though AvP-R was pretty bad.

[Ron]

I'm still very curious about this film. It could go either way: good or bad.

[DrLar]

Maaan I can't wait one more week! it's been a while since a film intrigued me before it shows on screens.

J.J. Abrams: Hat's off for that..

[The One and Only]

Two new TV spots for the next weeks daikaiju flick. (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=10700)

[El Diablo]

So Paramount has started screening the film this week and will probably continue to do so until it's release date (there's a few promotional screenings here in Los Angeles on the 16th). Some of the early word has been positive and there have been some pretty detailed descriptions of the creature. It apparently has a tail and four legs, two smaller ones in the back which can be seen in the trailer when it passes between two buildings, and two very large arms/legs in the front that are actually facing backward with the elbows/joints protruding in front. Very crab-like, but apparently not resembling any kind of sea creature (no tentacles or fins). It's also said to have three very long fingers attached to each front leg/arm. There are several shots of it's body from different angles but not a full-on shot of the creature as a whole. According to Harry at Ain't It Cool News, you do see a close-up of it's face in full daylight in one scene. Most of the descriptions say that the face is humanoid, with a round head and beady eyes that close diagonally (some reviewer made a comparison to a traditional "Gray" alien or Voldemort from the Harry Potter films but more monstrous). The mouth is said to open wide like a snapping turtle. All the reviews have mentioned these large reddish colored sacs that pulsate on the side of it's head, possibly for breathing on land. It's gray colored with no hair. There are smaller sized creatures or parasites that are said to look like the bugs from Starship Troopers which are dislodged from the giant beastie.

It definitely sounds like it's an original creation. I was expecting something more along the lines of a Godzilla knock-off or a giant sea creature.

AICN review (spoilers):
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35236

Review at Unfiction forums:
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23357

[Just Jeans]

It definitely sounds like it's an original creation. I was expecting something more along the lines of a Godzilla knock-off or a giant sea creature.

Based on the interviews I've read with the director, I would have been very surprised if the creature ended up being a Godzilla knock-off.

Incidentally, I've thus far managed to remain spoiler free. Please folks, continue to employee the spoiler tag feature. :shifty:

[Just Jeans]

You know, I wonder if this film will employ a score? I would think not seeing as it's meant to be found footage, but I suppose it might end up with some music.

[ChoKo]

Harry Knowles' review (http://aintitcool.com/node/35236) says that there's no score.

There’s no score, there’s no rules, there feels like there’s no script and no movie. It feels found, but it is so huge that you can’t ever really believe that… but handheld film just has never had a story of something this fantastical or huge happen. The movie is a landmark genre film. A true milestone in film

Beware, the rest of the review is somewhat spoilerish.

[Just Jeans]

Thanks for the excerpt, Pat.

I'm not one to find myself on the same wavelength as Knowles, but I hope what he says in that excerpt is right. I've got high expectations for this film.

[FreddyKR]

Fuck me, I'm gunna be in Florida next weekend. I was gunna see this at midnight, now I can't. Fuck I need to get to a theatre as soon as possible.

[Killa Pimp]

I may actually leave work early Friday to see this...
or maybe not go in at all.:D

[Violent VictiM]

Remember when I said that I Am Legend will be the end all of end all flicks that would decide whether or not I go see another movie again in my life? Scratch that. I say this movie will own all of your faces and sleep with your grandmothers.

[francesco]

on boxofficemojo say that it could make 40 millions dollars next week-end!

[Lance Lives]

I'm gonna see this this Friday. I hope I'm not disappointed, I've kept myself pretty clean to all the hype.

[El Rooto]

I get the nasty feeling that this isn't going to perform as well as analysts are predicting.

[killingvector]

Apparently, the film will give the audience a great view of the creature, but you have to be patient.

[Just Jeans]

I get the nasty feeling that this isn't going to perform as well as analysts are predicting.

On a budget of $30 million, it doesn't exactly need to do huge bank.

[Jigsaw]

I hope to see this this weekend. This and Untraceable are my two most anticipated movies of the month.

[killingvector]

I think this film will do incredible business; at least two early reviews have hailed this as a landmark film, an amazing compliment. I predict it shatters $150 million easy; there is nothing on TV except reality shows and there is not much out there to see at the cinema.

[Andiac]

Cloverfield was released in Australia today.

It's brilliant! I loved it. Well made. I really liked the handycam stuff. It was done well. I was a little concerned about the whole film being one point of view but it's done so well.

I'll spoil tag info about the monster. But please read this entire post at own risk if you want to know absolutely nothing. I won't ruin the storyline or reveal plot details or say how it ends. But I will reveal monster info (in spoilers)!

Okay, about the Cloverfield monster, for those (like me) who didn't want to have to wait:

None of the pictures released are real. They're all fakes - or at least misdirections.

The monster is rather long and lanky. It has a huge tail. It has two long long front arms. It's head at one stage looked like it had an octupus style beak, with how it opened. But a better look near the finale reveals a bat like face.

It also reminded me of Pumpkinhead a lot. It had a strong resemblence, when it was walking up right, to the stature of Pumpinkhead. That's the closet thing I can compare it to. It moves on all fours or up right. It's a lot skinner than I imagined. I was thinking some huge bulky creature. Don't get me wrong, it's massive. It's just lankier than originally thought.

Very cool monster. It's seen through snippets until near the ending you see more of it. But it's still fleeting glimpses.

It seems very deep sea. It just has a sense of oceanic life to me. I don't think it'd be alien, I think it's just a deep sea dweller that's finally surfaced.

Finally, the parasitic creatures are very crustacean (sp?) like. Very dangerous. Interestingly, a lot of the viral marketing has been suggesting Japanese involvement in the creation of the monster. Wikipedia reveals images the Japanese Spider Crab, which bares a similarity to the parasitic creatures.

Spoilers end.

It's a well crafted movie. There's a good storyline, a good sense of humanity, which I liked.

It delivered some good scares, some creepy atmosphere, and had good characters. A lot of the comments I heard leaving the film was that it sucked. People were expecting a Godzilla remake I think, like monster monster kill. Instead, we get a story about survivors thrown into a world of chaos and how they deal. It's a nice point of view. No talented people surviving rather than Rambos kicking butt. I thought that was very real.

Anyway, I liked it.

Sorry for posting so much spoilery stuff. But this was one of the best marketed films, I wanted to know everything before I saw it. :p

[Just Jeans]

Andi, keeping in mind that I read none of your spoilers, do you think it has the potential to spawn a franchise?

[Jigsaw]

Who knows. If the movie does well enough financially, is received well and suggests a sequel, a series is possible.

[Cody]

Bring on the Godzilla crossover.

Director Matt Reeves said this (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927)

On sequels Reeves confirmed rumors, but was quick to set them aside. “Only time will tell. While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today’s day and age of people filming their lives on their iphones and handy cams, uploading it to youtube…That was kind of exciting thinking about that.”

[The One and Only]

^That's what I've been hoping for with this flick. Heck, I thought the whole incident at the drilling platform could be done as a comic book prequel. And if Godzilla can't crossover with the Cloverfield Beast(is there a proper name for this beast BTW ?), howsabout Fin Fang Foom ? Also this going into franchise would be nice. We've been lacking in the last decade or so for any new monster franchises. I'd like to see a monster boom like the 80's again.

Also those that previewed this puppy. Is there anything after, or doing during the end credits ? This seems like a flick that would have somthing like that.

[Apocalypto]

I liked it, but I wasn't as blown away as I was hoping I'd be.

A really good monster movie mixed in with a terrible script. I didn't really care much for any of the humans and there's alot of out of place mood-killing humor that took me out of the realism.

Whenever the monster(s) onscreen it's pretty intense, whenever they're not it's just headache-inducing and boring.

It's more of a great novelty than a good movie, but atleast I have another giant monster movie to take seriously other than PJ's Kong (although The Host was good).

It does alot better with the documentary style shooting concept than The Blair Witch Project did (which wouldn't take much), but Open Water still nailed that style better than anything else from Hollywood has come close to.
ADDED:
I think this film will do incredible business; at least two early reviews have hailed this as a landmark film, an amazing compliment. I predict it shatters $150 million easy; there is nothing on TV except reality shows and there is not much out there to see at the cinema.

The reviews I've read are pretty lukewarm, none the less it was so packed tonight even at midnight with bad weather that they needed to open another theatre and a fair amount of the crowd seemed to have a blast, so I agree it'll probably be a pretty big hit, even with weak legs it'll be quite profitable since it was fairly inexpensive.

[Andiac]

Andi, keeping in mind that I read none of your spoilers, do you think it has the potential to spawn a franchise?

Yes and no. Cloverfield's story has been told. It documents the attack based on teh footage found. A sequel could be made, but not the way Cloverfield was made. What's the liklihood someone else recorded a similar attack or the same attack start to finish? The only other way would be to do a standard sequel, Blair Witch 2 style, losing the first hand point of view.

I dunno...

Awesome flick tho. Check it out!

[Just Jeans]

I dunno, I'd like to see a franchise developed around found footage. It's an out-there concept, it's not something that would happen in the real world, but that doesn't really matter to me.

[Rick]

I'm sure the characters in this movie wouldn't be the only ones running around with a camera.
However, a whole series filmed this same way would be a little strange. I like the idea but hate shaky cam.
There could be a series made documenting this attack through other camera footage that is found.
Perhaps sequels could be through military video footage, another news media footage, another a combination of news/military/homevideo.

[Apocalypto]

I have no desire to see a rehashed sequel that's just the exact same movie with different people running around with a camera filming the same thing.

I'd be interested in a sequel because they'd have to rely more on good filmmaking than a good novelty, but not a sequel that chronicles the same event.

[El Diablo]

I really enjoyed this movie. I wouldn't exactly praise it as a landmark film or anything like that but it was very well done and it's probably the most successful of the recent fictional "documentary" type of films in terms of execution. It does a terrific job of setting up just enough background information on the main characters so that you're invested in their journey throughout the movie. It's also surprisingly dark, like a more realistic version of a Godzilla flick where the destruction and mayhem is just as devastating emotionally for the characters. There are moments that have a real sense of tragedy, which surprised me, like when Rob is talking to his mother on the phone and has to explain to her that his brother has died. Then there's the flashback scenes, which are perfectly integrated into the movie to show how much the character of Beth really means to Rob and why he would risk everything to save her. The way that stuff is handled in the movie is genius.

The monster was an interesting creation and didn't look anything like I'd imagined. I know it's suggested that he emerges from the ocean and all the viral online stuff points to him being a sea creature, but he doesn't look like any kind of earthbound ocean dweller I've ever seen. In fact, he doesn't really look like he belongs on earth at all. I'm convinced he's an alien of some sort. Plus, he's apparently indestructible so he must be made of some pretty powerful stuff. I don't think a giant humanoid sea beast can deflect every human weapon thrown at him unless he's from Krypton. His face kind of looked like a cross between the Hell Knight from Doom and the Cave Troll from Lord of the Rings, and his body resembled those of the aliens in Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds. I was glad that you do get a few good looks at him since I was afraid he was going to be kept a mystery with maybe one or two quick reveals. The footage from the helicopter where he's being attacked by the bombers was fucking awesome.

By the way, if you're sensitive to motion sickness you might want to think twice about seeing this. I started getting sick during the last half of the film and my friend who was with me was so affected by it that he almost couldn't drive home. I'm usually pretty good with movies that feature handheld camera work but this one and Romero's Diary of the Dead just hit me bad.

[Apocalypto]

The movie made me feel light-headed to the point where I had to stop eating popcorn, and the person I was with felt like she was going to vomit.

[Gringo Loco]

I felt this movie did not live up to the hype before it. That's pretty much what I have to say about it. I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. I will probably catch the sequel on dvd if they decide to make one.

[The Tall Man]

Bring on the Godzilla crossover.
Unless it's a Japanese production, that won't be happening. Toho will not allow Americans near Godzilla again after the 1998 fiasco.

It's also surprisingly dark, like a more realistic version of a Godzilla flick where the destruction and mayhem is just as devastating emotionally for the characters.
So like the Japanese version of the first Godzilla?

T.M.

[killingvector]

Is this film open to the interpretation that there was more than one creature reeking havoc in the city? One early criticism was that the group seems to encounter the creature quite a few times, which would be unlikely if it was a single attacker.

[El Diablo]

I just got back from my second showing. I'd heard a few people mention something about the last scene that I must have missed the first time. I actually caught it the second time around. It's the final scene after the rubble hits the camera and the footage suddenly cuts back to the previous month when Rob is filming himself and Beth at Coney Island. He's got the camera looking out over the ocean when you see something off to the right in the distance fall from the sky and hit the water with a splash. Some people thought this might be a clue that the creature originally arrived from space and not at the bottom of the ocean like the online marketing and press notes have lead us to believe. It could just be a coincidence or one of the many things that the filmmakers put in there to throw you off, but it was too perfect to dismiss. It's almost hidden in the scene and if you're not looking for it, you'll probably miss it.


So like the Japanese version of the first Godzilla?

T.M.

I must confess. I've never seen the original Godzilla. I've watched a handful of the movies, mostly as a kid, but I seem to remember a lot of camp. My first exposure to the big green guy was the movie where he's trying to teach his little googly-eyed spawn how to be a tough monster. I remember the little one riding on his dad's tail. I loved that movie.

[Andiac]

I just got back from my second showing. I'd heard a few people mention something about the last scene that I must have missed the first time. I actually caught it the second time around. It's the final scene after the rubble hits the camera and the footage suddenly cuts back to the previous month when Rob is filming himself and Beth at Coney Island. He's got the camera looking out over the ocean when you see something off to right in the distance fall from the sky and hit the water with a splash. Some people thought this might be a clue that the creature originally arrived from space and not at the bottom of the ocean like the online marketing and press notes have lead us to believe. It could just be a coincidence or one of the many things that the filmmakers put in there to throw you off, but it was too perfect to dismiss. It's almost hidden in the scene and if you're not looking for it, you'll probably miss it.

Interesting. I never noticed that. But it certainly is a good clue. A direct clue.

Now I want to see the movie again just for that bit. :p

[Killa Pimp]

Interesting. I never noticed that. But it certainly is a good clue. A direct clue.

Now I want to see the movie again just for that bit. :p

I noticed this at the very end.

it's when Rob and beth are talking in the final flashback scene and the camera pans to the ferry on the right hand side of the screen, When the camera is moving back to film Beth, you see something fall from the sky and splash in the water just to the left of the ferry. it was a large splashdown but it happened very quickly: so I'm guessing the beast is from space as well.

A lot of people missed this because after the movie ending you could hear a few people asking others if they saw it and the response was almost always no.

[Apocalypto]

This thing that you see off to the right, is it just a splash in the water, or do you actually see an object/creature fall from the sky?

[El Diablo]

It's a light colored streak, very faint, but it does make a splash when it hits the ocean. It was moving too fast to get a good look at it.

[Apocalypto]

Is this shown in the very last segment of that Coney Island footage?

[El Diablo]

Yes. It's in the last minute or so of the movie.

[Just Jeans]

I'd be interested in a sequel because they'd have to rely more on good filmmaking than a good novelty...

To make a movie of this nature work is the mark of a good filmmaker. A good novelty isn't going to succeed if it's executed badly.

[The Dream Master]

I agree with what seems to be the general sentiment here: Cloverfield is a very entertaining, but not necessarily a landmark film. It's basically what the trailers would indicate: Godzilla meets Blair Witch. Of course, it's the execution that sets this apart from other giant monster films, and it delivers for the most part. The sequence involving the military's assault on the creature in the middle of the street is particularly intense. Ultimately, it's a bit like watching a video game (I don't think it's any coincidence that the main cameraman is named Hud (as in Heads-Up-Display), and that's not a particularly bad thing at all. It's disorienting at times, but I'm pretty sure that's what the filmmakers were going for. As for the rest of the characters, the film devotes just enough time so that we care for them enough to want to follow their story. One of the best scenes actually comes at one of the quieter moments during the chaos, when the main character has to inform his mother about the death of his brother. That was well done, I thought.

Now, for what didn't work: the humor is hit or miss. Sometimes it's appropriate, but sometimes it just falls flat. Also, even though the movie is already very short, I actually think it went on a bit too long. To me, Hud carrying the camera around all that time already required a suspension of belief. It's not a big deal because it kind of fits with his character; however, I have no idea why Rob would feel the need to take it after Hud died. It only seemed to serve the purpose of setting up the hackneyed scenes in the final moment, which I didn't think the film needed. I mean, what do they hope to accomplish by telling people who they are? It was pretty much the only crucial moment that didn't work for me, but it was redeemed by the cut to the Coney Island footage from a month before.

Anyway, as for a sequel: I could go either way. I don't really care to see another video that documents the same thing, as it would just feel like more of the same. Then again, I don't really want a standard, straight-ahead sequel, either. In a way, I hope Cloverfield is all we ever get because the mystery is really what works. Then again, we all know that money talks, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequel sooner or later.

[El Diablo]

I think if a sequel is going to happen the best way to approach it is to make it a traditional film, something a little more epic in the way it's presented instead of the "found footage" thing, which would just seem like a gimmick the second time around. I know that the story could very well be told through the eyes of various others who may have captured these events in the same way, but it would make more sense to use another opportunity to revisit this monster as a way to explain a little bit more about him.

[The 5th Golden Girl]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but a general thought:

I hope the creature isn't from space. I think it's scarier if the creature is an unidentified sea creature. Isn't part of the ocean so deep that we really have no idea what could be down there?

Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter. Granted, the creature is scary no matter what, but I just find undiscovered earth-dwelling creatures scarier than random space creatures who just so happen to stumble upon Earth.

[Zarcone]

I thought Cloverfield was amazing, i know the people that have seen it werent extremely impressed but i thought it was very well done and i think a franchise option would be a stupid move, sequels are no option for this flick

[Sean [The Wildcard]]

This movie kicked my ass.

10/10

:D

[TheShowstoppa]

I'm one of those people who, when watching movies like this, I get a very sick feeling in my stomach like motion sickness. However, I sat through this movie. I wanted to sit through it. And sitting through it, I LOVED IT!

Given it was very different or the same as some movies either shot like it or revolve around its genre, it works to its advantage. The movie was captivating and convincing. Without giving a lot away, the monster was NOTHING like any of the "spoiler" pictures, so feel free to look at those with ease. However, the monster was entirely original and that I did love.

I enjoyed the characters and their development throughout the movie were enough to keep you wanting to know more about them, especially Rob and Beth. I will say that in whole, the movie was great and the ending fit it like it was totally meant for it.

Spoilers Now - We don't know if the monster died in the final onslaught, so that's good. As far as the ending, I thought the whole "I love you" finale was well worth it and made you with those characters had not died. I did miss the thing falling from the sky and make a splash. So - with that in mind, I will give my opinion upon seeing that footage one more time. Did anyone notice the Slusho shirt that Rob's brother was wearing at the party? LOVED that link. I want to see a sequel so much. I'm interested in knowing where the monster came from, exactly what those creatures were that dropped from it, and what it is that can actually kill the creature.

[On a Pale Horse]

I dont know about a sequel, but they could definitely make a lot of extras and shorts for a DVD special edition. Like in Dawn of Dead you got that home made video of the guy from the gun store.

They could have some news footage, scientist interviews, and additional found footage as shorts on the dvd.

[Just Jeans]

Sequel: Same Night, Different Camera (http://www.totalfilm.com/movie_news/news_cloverfield_sequel_already_planned)

Despite the fact Cloverfield feels as close to a standalone flick as it's possible to get, director Matt Reeves is already thinking about how he'd helm a follow-up.

"Only time will tell. While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today's day and age of people filming their lives on their iphones and handy cams, uploading it to youtube...That was kind of exciting thinking about that."

[Lance Lives]

I don't know what to think. I heard alot of "Piece of shit" and "Sucked" after the credits started but I didn't really agree. I didn't think it was the second coming either. I know it wouldn't have really made sense to reveal the what the creature was during the course of the footage but damn it I really wanted to know. Also, shaky cam doesn't really make me sick as some of the people here claim, but it does kind of piss me off. There's a quick shot of the monster and all I can think is "HOLD THE DAMN CAMERA STILL!". That's why I can't really dig on found footage stuff that much I guess.

[Rick]

I thought it was great but almost puked from the motion sickness, about 15 or 20 people left the theater for that reason.
I will probably never be able to watch it again.
I figured a sequel would be of the same night from a different camera, it can be done and not be a rehash anymore then any other sequel is a rehash of the first movie (for example the Godzilla series or any horror series we've ever seen).
Showing the same night from a news crew who followed the story or from the military perspective could be very different. Different beginning, different obstacles to over come in order to survive, different version of the ending. A different group of random citizens would be too similar I think, but depending on location and how it's filmed it could work.
I was very surprised with the number of really decent shots we got of the creature, I think it looked great.

[Apocalypto]

I wouldn't see a film showing the exact same night from the military or news crew perspective as anything other than that scene on tv of the military fighting the beast as the news reporters cover it stretched out over 80 minutes, it'd be very much a rehash.

They should do an origin story, or the government trying to stop the creature after the events of the first film, a crossover with him fighting another monster...

pretty much anything other than showing the same film they've already shown only with the camera in somebody elses hand with a "2" after the title.

[Lance Lives]

The best possible "Same Night" scenario for a sequel would be following the news coverage, I would be very interested in seeing that.

[El Diablo]

For those curious about the monster's origin...

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/exclusive-we-know-where-the-cloverfield-monster-came-from.php#

So I guess it did arrive from the skies. ;)

[Just Jeans]

I like the idea of a "Same Night, Different Perspective" sequel. But then again, Back to the Future II is one of my favorite movies ever, so I'm a little biased.

My best friend went to see this on Friday night, and he said he loved it. He was with a group of people from work, and his store manager ended up nearly getting sick several times throughout the film. The best friend and I are going to go see this on Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm going to make sure to sit at least mid-way back through the theater. I'm not prone to motion sickness, but if I sit too close to the screen it might mess with my eyes.

pretty much anything other than showing the same film they've already shown only with the camera in somebody elses hand with a "2" after the title.

"Same Night, Different Perspective" doesn't mean "Same Film We've Already Shown You From Different Angles".

[Freddy-Fan]

For those curious about the monster's origin...

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/exclusive-we-know-where-the-cloverfield-monster-came-from.php#

So I guess it did arrive from the skies. ;)

The editor's note in that post confuses me. . .it seems to contradict itself (is it from space or the water?):

We thought it would make sense, maybe something came down from space and hit. Matt Reeves did indicate this this monster is a baby, a pissed off and confused baby that is looking for mommy. When viewing the scene again, it actually looks just like the monster splashes the water, and not splashes down into it.

[Rick]

I don't know what movie those guys were watching but what my friends and I saw definitely looked like something came out of the sky and splashed into the water, you can see something streaking down toward the water before splashdown.

[Freddy-Fan]

I, myself, didn't see the splash at all, but someone posted the various interpretations of it on the message board connected to the article posted above:

Most Popular Theroies To What It Was Are…
>The Monster Coming From Outer Space
>A Man Jumping Off A Boat

But Mostly It Is Considered To Be:
>A Satellite From The Fictional Company ‘Tagruato’ Which Is The Deep-Sea Drilling Company Which Awoke The Monster From Its Deep Sleep…

Personally, I like the idea that it didn't originate from the water becasue it certainly does not have the features of a sea dweller. However, someone else on that board pointing out the fact that:

"JJ Abrams said himself that the monster was a “baby” and had been “living dormant under the water for thousands of years”…I think this splash was not so much the monster itself dropping into the water, but the satellite piece (as mentioned in the viral marketing) falling into the water and waking it up. That seems to make more sense than a giant monster just falling out of space into the ocean without anyone noticing anything other than a tiny splash…"

I didn't follow all of the viral marketing, but I guess that could have just been false info to throw people off, right?

[Rick]

I didn't follow the viral campaign at all so I took the streak of a falling object and splash-down at face value.

[Killa Pimp]

I'd actually like to see a sequel.
Since its sort of made known at the end of the film that the creature is still alive. Maybe it should hit the seas and "visit" another country. It could be told from the point of view from someone in the know after the creature has been researched and explained. From a news crew or someone who can hold a camera steadier.;)

[El Diablo]

You definitely see something fall down into the water. It's very faint but it is there, the splash is just a little more prominent. When I saw the film again I was specifically looking for this.

[zombie extra 3]

Saw it yesterday. I enjoyed it. To me it was like a cross between Godzilla, Blair Witch Project and Alien.

[Apocalypto]

"Same Night, Different Perspective" doesn't mean "Same Film We've Already Shown You From Different Angles".

Actually it pretty much does, it means the monster fighting the military and destroying NY on the same night that we've already seen him do it, simply with the camera in someone elses hand.

I don't even want the hand-held novelty anymore, this sequel is shaping up to be a direct rehash that's just mildly tweaked.
ADDED:
I, myself, didn't see the splash at all, but someone posted the various interpretations of it on the message board connected to the article posted above:

Most Popular Theroies To What It Was Are…
>The Monster Coming From Outer Space
>A Man Jumping Off A Boat

But Mostly It Is Considered To Be:
>A Satellite From The Fictional Company ‘Tagruato’ Which Is The Deep-Sea Drilling Company Which Awoke The Monster From Its Deep Sleep…

Personally, I like the idea that it didn't originate from the water becasue it certainly does not have the features of a sea dweller. However, someone else on that board pointing out the fact that:

"JJ Abrams said himself that the monster was a “baby” and had been “living dormant under the water for thousands of years”…I think this splash was not so much the monster itself dropping into the water, but the satellite piece (as mentioned in the viral marketing) falling into the water and waking it up. That seems to make more sense than a giant monster just falling out of space into the ocean without anyone noticing anything other than a tiny splash…"

I didn't follow all of the viral marketing, but I guess that could have just been false info to throw people off, right?

But it splashed into the water at an angle, not straight down as an object would've, plus parts of it were moving as it went in, it definitely looked like a living thing diving into the water.

Nobody noticing doesn't mean anything, it was way, way out in the middle of a massive body of water; it was either the creature itself, or an extra-terrestrial being of some sort that went into the water and merged with the beast to awaken it.

[Just Jeans]

Actually it pretty much does...

Actually, it doesn't. You're working on an assumption that has no basis in anything beyond your own notion of what the sequel might be.

I don't even want the hand-held novelty anymore...

I'm sure you knew going in that if the concept was a success they'd want to do it again, in some form or another.

...this sequel is shaping up to be...

I'd wager that it's going to be at least a year before this sequel starts shaping up to be anything more than a vague notion in the director's head.

[Apocalypto]

Actually, it doesn't. You're working on an assumption that has no basis in anything beyond your own notion of what the sequel might be.

My own notion is that a movie taking place on the same night, chronicling the same event is a direct rehash, regardless of who's holding the camera.

I'm sure you knew going in that if the concept was a success they'd want to do it again, in some form or another.

Yes, I was hoping for another, not the same one...on the same night.

I'd wager that it's going to be at least a year before this sequel starts shaping up to be anything more than a vague notion in the director's head.

And hopefully that vague notion isn't even close to what ends up onscreen.

[TheShowstoppa]

I forgot about this, but after the credits (no film or anything) there's a voice that says "What now?" after everything is done rolling. I don't know if it means anything, but it's worth a shot.

[Rick]

I couldn't tell what the voice said after the credits. I heard someone in the audience tell their friend if you played it backwards it says "It's still alive," but i have never heard that anywhere else.

[CosmoBubba]

I couldn't tell what the voice said after the credits. I heard someone in the audience tell their friend if you played it backwards it says "It's still alive," but i have never heard that anywhere else.

I found this (http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com), which is apparently the sound played forwards and backwards. (Spoilers in the link, folks, so click at your own risk.)

[Sketch Sanchez]

I saw this sunday afternoon and I thought it was amazing. At first i was totally freaked out by all the devestation and explosions and then I started getting scared, especially at that last literal jump scare with the heli toward the end. I was holding my girl tight and we both had our mouths hanging open the entire time.

[El Diablo]

I found this (http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com), which is apparently the sound played forwards and backwards. (Spoilers in the link, folks, so click at your own risk.)

Oh, he's definitely "still alive." If the missiles and heavy artillery couldn't take him down, I doubt a few bigger bombs would do the trick.

The guy is completely indestructible. A living weapon of sorts. I wonder if his landing on earth was an accident if indeed he is revealed at some point to be of alien origin. I'm convinced that he is but there's all kinds of conflicting stories due to the viral marketing that has spent months trying to point in the direction of the monster being an ocean dwelling creature from earth, just an ancient one that has slumbered for a while.

[francesco]

ehy guys many said the moster is a baby!

Is it true? and how they know that?!