PDA

View Full Version : Cloverfield (1/18/08)



darko666
07-09-2007, 08:08 PM
Teaser trailer is now online (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/)

the rumours are flying around the net and most all point to Cthulhu (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Cthulhu_and_R%27lyeh.jpg). but time will tell what exactly will be the "monster" or "destroyer" in this movie. people are analyzing the trailer looking for any clues that may give answers to this upcoming movie. i'm enjoying all the hype so far for the movie, but with no real title or info yet, we'll see if it lives up to it.

Beast
07-09-2007, 08:19 PM
I haven't heard the Cthulu rumor.

All I've heard is that it's basically "The Blair Godzilla Project".

A giant monster movie told via the use of handheld cameras.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
07-09-2007, 09:32 PM
THANK YOU. I've been waiting for this trailer to show up in apple quality! I loved this trailer to death before TRANSFORMERS and the crowd loved it too. Lots of folks i work with who saw the film were chatting about the movie too. Frankly, I hope I don't find out anything else about the movie cos i'd LOVE to be surprised.

I read that the production name is something like "Cloverfield" but "Inside sources" say it's named THE PARASITE. I don't see this being GODZILLA project as JJ Abrams is far too geeky and good for that. I really think it'll be a mythical creature of some sort. Plus, it's obvious that another Godzilla flick wouldn't be interesting to audiences due to the failure of the Godzilla remake and Godzilla 2000. I'd love the idea of the Cthulu!! I'm uber giddy about it though!! :thumbsup:

Also, there are two sites up that are supposed to coincide with the film.
Ethan Haas was Right.com- http://www.ethanhaaswasright.com/ It looks to contain some HP Lovecraft style puzzles, so this would add to the idea of the Cthulu. Also, there is a site saying he was wrong: http://ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com/

Interesting stuff....

Beast
07-09-2007, 10:00 PM
Well, I never said it was 'Godzilla'. Just that that's the basic premise. Heh. :)

2-1B
07-09-2007, 10:14 PM
Worst trailer I've ever seen. Put a f***ing title on it already.

Rocketboy
07-09-2007, 10:22 PM
The trailer was the best part of seeing Transformers.

2-1B
07-09-2007, 10:28 PM
And coming from Rocketboy, the relative value of that is...??? lol lol lol

darko666
07-09-2007, 11:39 PM
Also, there are two sites up that are supposed to coincide with the film.Ethan Haas was Right.com- http://www.ethanhaaswasright.com/ It looks to contain some HP Lovecraft style puzzles, so this would add to the idea of the Cthulu. Also, there is a site saying he was wrong: http://ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com/

Interesting stuff....

def interesting, but JJ Abrams recently contacted AICN and those sites have nothing to do with the movie. here is the info: JJ Abrams has more hidden sites to find. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261)

the hype continues.

2-1B
07-10-2007, 12:07 AM
I'm surprised at the January release date...isn't that usually a kiss of death from the studio ?

General_Grievous
07-10-2007, 01:19 PM
I heard that the budget was only $30 million. Let's not expect anything big. I don't like that they're promoting it as "Blair Witch Project" meets "Godzilla". Blair Witch sucked and Godzilla '98 sucked. My expectations are pretty low for this. Not to mention we've already seen Cthulu in a movie this year.....

darko666
07-10-2007, 01:25 PM
theres another movie coming out with the title Cthulhu, but it has nothing to do with the mythos of the Cthulhu. i don't mind the handheld camera look of the film, and i like the fact it's only costing $30 million. low budget seems to fit the style this movie is going for.

but with all these people going crazy trying to figure it out on other message boards, the hype might just ruin this movie after we find out what it's about.

Rocketboy
07-10-2007, 06:49 PM
From Comingsoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21825)


J.J. Abrams Talks 1-18-08
Source: Ain't-It-Cool-News (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261)
July 10, 2007

1-18-08.com (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=21621) producer J.J. Abrams dropped Ain't It Cool News (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261) a line about the secret movie (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21825#) for which the teaser (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=21621) was revealed in front of Transformers. His comments might surprise you:

Regarding the online stuff you posted: yeah, we're doing some fun stuff on the web. But, obviously, if the movie doesn't kick some massive ***, who gives a rat's about what's online? So as you can imagine, we're focusing mostly on THAT. For what it's worth, the only site of ours that people have even FOUND is the 1-18-08.com (http://www.1-18-08.com/) site. The others (like the Ethan Haas sites) have nothing to do with us.

The EthanHaaswasright.com (http://www.ethanhaaswasright.com/) and EthanHaaswaswrong.blogspot.com (http://ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com/) websites are widely believed to be part of the movie, generally because Paramount asked YouTube to remove videos (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21825#) taken from the EthanHaaswasright.com (http://www.ethanhaaswasright.com/). Why they had them removed is a mystery now, much like what or where the other site(s) are that Abrams mentions above.

JimJamBonds
07-10-2007, 11:57 PM
What about the Call of Ktulu?

Jargo
07-12-2007, 12:02 PM
the handheld stuf may only be a part of the movie not the style of the whole thing.
the geeks trying to fathom it out make me giggle. I looked at one vid on youtube last night where some guy was calculating the location of the 'thing' because it throws the statue of liberty head. apparently to reach the apartment block the party at the start of the trailer is at the head has to swing past the woolworth building and curve in the air to land on that street. And i was thinking "jesus! it's just a movie, it's not real. anything can happen in a movie and it doesn't need to make sense or follow real physics. it's just entertainment make believe. get a life"

Personally I was just looking at the trailer thinking it looked cool and how interesting that New York eplodes yet again. Monsters and aliens must be real tourists and just get ****ed at the cost of the souvinirs. "fourty dollars for a t-shirt! Are you crazy? RARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!"

I don't care what the monster is. i just like a big monster stomping around squishing people. Godzilla, cthulthuluthuthulhuhu or whatever. it's got a great roar and it's mighty ****ed. WOOOHOOO!

UKWildcat
07-14-2007, 12:01 AM
Just saw the trailer tonight and I think it looks like it could be pretty cool; definitely got me interested.

JimJamBonds
07-16-2007, 11:22 PM
I don't see what all the hub bub is all about. You can't really see anything happening other then that party.

figrin bran
07-17-2007, 12:05 AM
the handheld stuf may only be a part of the movie not the style of the whole thing.
the geeks trying to fathom it out make me giggle. I looked at one vid on youtube last night where some guy was calculating the location of the 'thing' because it throws the statue of liberty head. apparently to reach the apartment block the party at the start of the trailer is at the head has to swing past the woolworth building and curve in the air to land on that street. And i was thinking "jesus! it's just a movie, it's not real. anything can happen in a movie and it doesn't need to make sense or follow real physics. it's just entertainment make believe. get a life"


I'll bet anything that guy is a Lost fan! That's exactly the sort of over analysis required of that show ;)

Jedi_Master_Guyute
07-17-2007, 12:57 AM
I don't see what all the hub bub is all about. You can't really see anything happening other then that party.

Yeah, and an earthquake followed by a huge explosion with fire infested debris shooting at folks as they run for their lives admist the chaos and let's not forget the head of the Statue of Liberty being tossed down the street like it was a football, bouncing off a building and into the street as NYC panics.......yeah, trailer totally didn't show anything happening......you did watch the trailer we're talking about, right?? Just curious. :thumbsup:

2-1B
07-17-2007, 07:15 PM
Exactly...the trailer showed everything...except the title.

darko666
07-17-2007, 07:54 PM
not giving the title of the move was a refreshing aspect in the teaser.

JimJamBonds
07-18-2007, 09:25 AM
......you did watch the trailer we're talking about, right?? Just curious. :thumbsup:

Yeah I watched that trailer, Boom! Explode! Pow! Seen it all a million times.

As was told to me last night I TOTALLY agree with the below......


Its just like the Gabbo episode from The Simpsons.

Mad mad mad props to my boy Caesar for another wonderful example of a pop culture show coming true.

Rocketboy
07-18-2007, 11:40 AM
That Sneaky J.J. Abrams and His 1-18-08
Source: Advertising Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=119268)
July 18, 2007


Advertising Age (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=119268) has posted a great article summing up the events that led moviegoers to find out about J.J. Abrams' secret movie (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=22205#), 1-18-08 (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=21621), which has brought in more hits at the top of ComingSoon.net's Top Previews (http://www.comingsoon.net/toppreviews/) than the big blockbusters this summer.

The article mentions the Slusho.jp (http://slusho.jp/) tie-in site (read the Slusho company's history for possible clues) and concludes that J.J. Abrams & Co. themselves cut the teaser (normally, trailer companies do):

Who cut the "Cloverfield" trailer? Paramount isn't saying. Execs at and spokesmen for the studio did not return calls seeking comment. But a person at a postproduction house that works closely with Paramount on all its trailers told Ad Age that the trailer "came out of left field for all of us" and that the consensus was Mr. Abrams had cut the trailer himself.

We knew Abrams could keep a secret or two from his "Alias" and "Lost" days, but this is pretty impressive.http://slusho.jp/

A sea monster movie?
Possible, considering something lobbed off the Statue of Liberty's head.

darko666
07-18-2007, 11:59 AM
i'm surprised comingsoon.nest was late with that announcement. ha, most of the crazy fans/geeks already figured out Slusho had something to do with the movie when they watched the trailer a few weeks ago. but from what i read on the Slusho site in the history section, it is leaning towards a monster from the sea. or at least hints at it. i def enjoy a good monster flick, but a monster from the sea, is even better.

Rocketboy
07-26-2007, 06:30 PM
The poster (http://www.comingsoon.net/imageGallery/imageGallery.php?large_image=hr_1-18-08_1.jpg&id=21621) seems to indicate a sea monster is very likely.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
07-26-2007, 07:02 PM
The poster (http://www.comingsoon.net/imageGallery/imageGallery.php?large_image=hr_1-18-08_1.jpg&id=21621) seems to indicate a sea monster is very likely.

awesome, simply awesome. :thumbsup:

Tycho
07-26-2007, 08:16 PM
JJ Abrams was at Comic Con today and promo'd this but still did not announce the title. It IS a monster movie. He was inspired by Godzilla. It is NOT Godzilla. That's all we know. A movie poster without a title is available at Comic Con to people with vouchers for it. I have one but have to pick it up another day. (I have through Sunday). The poster only shows the headless Statue of Liberty.

darko666
07-27-2007, 02:49 AM
source: A.I.C.N. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33457)


Hey folks, Harry here.... I'm on the 101 north of San Francisco headed for Eureka, Ca to settle in tonight - and while driving, I had a bit of a Eureka moment with a spy revealing that the below MONSTROUS poster is the first of 3 teaser posters that will lead to the TITLE reveal poster. First we'll have "MONSTROUS" - next we will have "BARBAROUS" - then we will have "FEROCIOUS" - To me - these phrases are not even spoilers - but if you're like me - if MONSTROUS is a headless Statue of Liberty - what images go with BARBAROUS and FEROCIOUS? -- The title? Well, I don't want to spoil it, so you should go ask, Piotr Nikolaievitch Rasputin! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(comics))

very interesting. can't wait to see the next 2 posters.

Jargo
07-27-2007, 11:05 AM
I find it doubtful that the slusho site reveals stuff. I think rather than a big whale the slusho site is a red herring. And if it isn't then I'm very disappointed. for once it would be nice to have a project completely under wraps until it hits theatres. and whatever the thing is I certainly don't want to see pictures of it. I want to see the movie and be surprised, startled, amazed. the practise of giving the whole plot away through trailers really annoys me. all the movies that seem worth watching get ruined because you see so much in tv spots and trailers it's hardly worth paying to go see the filler bits between the action from the trailers.
Hollywood needs more mystery and movies should be magical experiences.

speculation is fine but people finding the truth and then blabbing it across the web and ruining it for other people is not on.

speaking of speculation. anyone remember that old movie, in black and white where they discover a giant squid and end up sending submarines after it with missiles to destroy it? it has the squid come into the city harbour and it destroys a bridge and stuff. used a stop motion squid. really cheesey 1950's movie.
then of course there's similar ideas like the watcher in the water from LOTR and the kraken for POTC. massive creatures capable of inflicting big damage.

and Collosus as the title? sounds pants.

darko666
07-27-2007, 12:07 PM
my guess for the title is Colossal.

i don't mind knowing what the title is, but they should keep the monster under wraps until the movie comes out. to see the monster for the first time through a handheld cam on the big screen, would be incredible. we need another great sea/land monster movie

Jargo
07-27-2007, 02:26 PM
what if it's just a whale. a big whale. and it's tail flips the statue of liberty head off and through the air and the explosion is it's first bounce and then the second hit is the skyscraper and then it comes to a stop in the street. whales actually have pretty powerful tails. and fins. a modern moby dick. chasing the great whale. submarines and undersea research centres and stuff. nuclear missiles. and all because a food company is farming the special kelp the whale feeds on. but it turns out that humans are addicted to the drink as it gives them extra strength and vitality. so it therefore becomes a case of kill the whale or kill the area the plant grows in. oh but there's bad side effects to the drink if you stop drinking it. gotta kill the whale. or whales. how do you kill giant whales? how do you not destroy the sea and al the other life in the sea. how do you kill the whales and not hardm the plant that people are depending on.

that'd be really dull.

I'm secretly hoping it's a godzilla type movie where the creature rampages across the city and destroys everything and then heads inland. city after city getting stomped on. big big destruction. chaos. death toll to rival star wars.

darko666
07-27-2007, 02:44 PM
if you look at the SOL on the poster, it has claw marks in it, as do the buildings in the background. so my guess is something like Godzilla, but not Godzilla, as JJ confirmed it wasn't him. i just want to see an ancient looking sea monster hell bent on destroying everything. the next posters should help give more clues.

Jargo
07-27-2007, 02:54 PM
A giant lobster? It's a remake of that John Waters movie where Divine gets attacked by the giant mansized lobster lol

Tycho
07-28-2007, 03:40 PM
I just thought of a lame comment to make in jest hoping at least ONE other person laughs at it - even though they won't post it's funny. But I laugh at stupid things, though at least I'm having fun. So here goes:

"It's a giant Rosie O'Donnel and she's gained incredible mass from bottom-feeding and now she's risen to the surface to go on a rampage until she can fight her way to Trump Tower and tear it down!"

OK, I CAN picture that in my mind as a hilarious rip-off of monster movies and I think it's funny. (I'd rent it but likely skip seeing it in the theater).

This has been my first stupid post of the day. I'm going late to Comic Con so I sat at home waiting for maintainance to fix my air conditioner while thinking up this stupid $#$!

Beast
08-20-2007, 03:35 PM
From Dread Central:

Perhaps you've heard some of the rampant speculation regarding a certain JJ Abrams-produced film currently known only as Cloverfield or 1-18-08 that's taken the World Wide Web by storm ever since its trailer premiered before The Transformers? I've seen everything online from it being a new Godzilla movie to being about a giant jellyfish created from soft drink sludge to a live action Voltron flick to it being a big screen version of the video game Rampage and so on... (none of which are true of course)

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; and 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 large 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 also seems to jive with some of the set footage that's shown up online.

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.
So it is a sequel/remake of the craptastic American Godzilla film. ;)

Giant monster menaces New York, while it's babies run wild in the streets. :p

Jargo
08-25-2007, 09:37 AM
at least the action figures will be affordable then lol

Jedi_Master_Guyute
08-27-2007, 03:31 PM
I dunno. I don't think Abrams would go GODZILLA remake on us. Don't buy it.

Also, if you head to the official site and site around for 6 minutes, you can hear the roar of the creature. I however, just went to this site: http://1-18-08.blogspot.com/2007/08/cloverfield-monster-roar-added-to-1-18.html and clicked the play button on the video/audio clip. Very awesome; it shook my speakers. :thumbsup:

Beast
08-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Well, I'm sure it's not an official Godzilla remake. But the premise sounds pretty similar. Especially if there's going to be one huge monster, and then a bunch of babies running loose in the city. It smells like the American Godzilla film. ;)

El Chuxter
08-27-2007, 04:51 PM
And the American Godzilla smelled like a glove full of freshness.

Lord Malakite
08-29-2007, 03:41 AM
It sort of sounds like a remake of The Host.

Jargo
08-29-2007, 08:10 AM
Godzilla meets jurassic park meets predator meets bad idea meets low budget.

RooJay
08-29-2007, 10:27 AM
It sort of sounds like as much a remake of anything else as Star Wars was of Hidden Fortress, any number of westerns, or any sci-fi films that preceded it. It sounds as much like a remake of Godzilla (Gojira) or the Host as either of those two films was of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms or King Kong before it. It sounds like as new and unique an idea as one is likely to expect nowadays. It sounds like people should just sit back and enjoy.

Jargo
08-30-2007, 11:20 AM
i'm sure people will.

General_Grievous
11-20-2007, 12:23 PM
Trailer for "Cloverfield"

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/

Looks like "Blair Witch" meets "Godzilla", as originally guessed.

Exhaust Port
11-20-2007, 01:21 PM
Oooh, I hadn't seen the trailer yet. So it's some big Godzilla thing attacking the city but there also seems to be an "infection" aspect to it as seen by the silhouette of the woman who "exploded" before the camera cut away. Interesting.

2-1B
11-20-2007, 10:50 PM
Those curious little creatures looked hungry as they chomped away. :eek:

Jedi_Master_Guyute
12-14-2007, 05:49 PM
Five minutes of the film up here: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40208

an interview with the director here: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=4027

Just a shade over a month to go!!! :thumbsup:

Rocketboy
01-08-2008, 06:43 PM
LINK-SPOILERS!

Is this the Cloverfield monster? (http://www.movieweb.com/news/38/25538.php)

I think it looks pretty cool if it is.

2-1B
01-08-2008, 07:34 PM
That one guy who posted there said it's not the monster...it's a cool design, though.

RooJay
01-09-2008, 02:16 AM
That looks pretty cool. Still, I can't help shake the feeling that for most people the determination as to whether or not they like the film will be based on the monster (and it even sounds like a lot of people are expecting to be let down if it is a monster rather than something more surprising; as if the movie couldn't be any good if it were just about a giant monster.:cross-eye) It's really a shame in my opinion, as I don't really think this movie should be seen that way. Sure there's going to be a giant monster, but the film seems really more about the folks surviving during this attack; survival horror rather than a Godzilla movie, if that makes any sense. It would seem the whole reason for the the way this movie is being presented - as found after the fact, hand-held, video footage of what could be seen as something that really happened. That, for me, is the allure of Cloverfield (so they decided to stick with that title after all. Interesting choice; wonder if it'll actually play into the plot at all?) The monster is just the icing on the cake, if you will.

Slicker
01-09-2008, 02:50 AM
I saw a trailer for this before National Treasure 2 and it looked really good. I just sat there watching and when it was done I knew that I wanted to see it.

Rocketboy
01-09-2008, 10:09 AM
That looks pretty cool. Still, I can't help shake the feeling that for most people the determination as to whether or not they like the film will be based on the monster (and it even sounds like a lot of people are expecting to be let down if it is a monster rather than something more surprising; as if the movie couldn't be any good if it were just about a giant monster.:cross-eye) It's really a shame in my opinion, as I don't really think this movie should be seen that way. Sure there's going to be a giant monster, but the film seems really more about the folks surviving during this attack; survival horror rather than a Godzilla movie, if that makes any sense. It would seem the whole reason for the the way this movie is being presented - as found after the fact, hand-held, video footage of what could be seen as something that really happened. That, for me, is the allure of Cloverfield (so they decided to stick with that title after all. Interesting choice; wonder if it'll actually play into the plot at all?) The monster is just the icing on the cake, if you will.Also, I have a feeling that everything won't be spelled out or shown in the movie, which'll tick people off. Stuff like: not seeing much of the monster, how/if the monster gets destroyed, and not seeing the monster too much, ect.

RooJay
01-09-2008, 10:12 AM
Also, I have a feeling that everything won't be spelled out or shown in the movie, which'll tick people off. Stuff like: not seeing much of the monster, how/if the monster gets destroyed, and not seeing the monster too much, ect.

Exactly. I'm afraid that today's movie going audience just isn't bright enough to understand the object of this movie. Hopefully they show enough of the monster and explain just enough to appease those for whom this is the only draw.

Rocketboy
01-09-2008, 10:56 AM
Yep, Joe average wouldn't be in-the-know when something like this happens.
Look at the initial homemade footage and confusion on 9/11 for example, then multiply it by 1,000 (based on what the trailers show).

2-1B
01-09-2008, 07:39 PM
The problem this movie has so far is the Blair Witch comparisons, a movie that sucked hard and is not a good measuring stick for anything.

Exhaust Port
01-09-2008, 09:32 PM
LINK-SPOILERS!

Is this the Cloverfield monster? (http://www.movieweb.com/news/38/25538.php)

I think it looks pretty cool if it is.

This is the image I've come across a few times:

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

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-09-2008, 09:36 PM
This is the image I've come across a few times:

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

I've seen that several times too and from what i've read, it too isn't the design. I think they've done a great job keeping it top secret. Although, a mutated/deformed sea creature, in this case, a whale, would be insanely cool.

2-1B
01-09-2008, 10:40 PM
Agreed with JMG, hopefully it will have a very sea monster look to it...get as far away from Godzilla as possible !

Those parasite lice look cool, too.

RooJay
01-10-2008, 02:32 AM
That is also a very cool design, though it looks to me like it's big enough that something that would leave the Statue of Liberty in much worse shape than we see in the trailer. Still, I could definitely see them going this route, and I like it!

P.s. Those are some monster looking Garthim! The Gelfings are gonna be so screwed...

Exhaust Port
01-10-2008, 12:29 PM
That was one creepy movie especially seeing it as a kid for the first time.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-14-2008, 08:15 PM
So, there have been showings of the show in MSU this past weekend. Somebody described the creature to a friend and they whipped up a drawing of the creature. Other folks who have seen it say it looks pretty close. Here is what the author said on Bloody Disgusting:

"Hey all, just letting you know that this is NOT official art
from the film. This was a concept drawing I did based on the
descriptions given by people who supposedly saw the
film. These are the elements that they described - -
red Lungs or airsacks on the sides of its face. - Long whip
like tail. - face, similar to a bulldog - two extremely
long arms with long fingers and reverse elbows. -two
smaller arms protruding from the mid section. -two legs in
the back (smaller than the front arms. - the creature can
stand using it's arms to hold itself upright, and can also
crawl along the ground in a horizontal position."

So, here we go. Take with a grain of salt too. Looks very interesting and creepy. I dig it!:thumbsup:

RooJay
01-15-2008, 02:31 AM
Cool design, but I think I preferred the previous two. This one looks just a bit too ungainly to me. Of course, I don't really care what the monster looks like so it's all good.

DarthQuack
01-18-2008, 02:04 AM
Just got back from seeing this. I was very happy with what I saw, blown away even if I may say so....I just can't even describe how good it was without giving anything away....so I'll wait for a few more forumites to chime in on it......go see it though.....even if you're unsure, hell pay a few bucks cheaper for the matinee showing.

General_Grievous
01-18-2008, 06:23 PM
I just saw it. Before the spoilers start, I'll just say that this was an awesome movie. I think you all should definitely check it out. Having said that...



SPOILERS



I went into "Cloverfield" with mediocre expectations. I wasn't excited about the flick but I wanted to see what all the damn hullabaloo was about. The theater was packed, even for a 3:15 show. I think this movie will become the first January blockbuster ever just because of curiosity. The beginning party scenes were a nice introduction to our characters. The dude who was filming everything (Hud) brought some great comic relief throughout the movie. But as soon as the Statue of Liberty's head flew into the street, the ride started. The movie teased us with glimpses of the monster, but completely made us forget about the big guy during the subway scene. Those little parasites that came from the monster were creepy as hell. But the full view that we got of the monster (which I would say looked most like a dinosaur) was impressive. Its reign of destruction across New York, from what was seen of it, was terrifying. As for the characters, I kept hoping that they would make it. By the time they got in the helicopter, I was thinking "they made it this far, just hang in there a little longer". You want them to survive because it's not like any of them are Joe Everyman who's supposed to save the day. These are regular people who are just trying to survive. The ending, while not a bad one, was still a downer. You come out of the movie feeling a bit depressed, but satisfied anyway. This was one of the most suspenseful movies I've ever seen. It was a fun ride, much better than I had anticipated. It's a short movie, which suits it. If it were a regular monster movie like "Godzilla", which would have added more fluff. There are some mysteries in the movie. We never find out how the monster came to be, but as it's the point of view of people trying to survive, it isn't really necessary. The major mystery is why they called it "Cloverfield". Nowhere in the movie is it spoken, but I took it to mean a military codename for the situation. That was my best guess. It's unfair to compare this movie to "The Blair Witch Project", as originally labeled (which I myself am guilty of). The only similar thing between them is the style of filming with a handheld camera. Other than that, "Blair Witch" was a pile of garbage and this one is anything but. While I'm at it, I'll also say this one was better than the American "Godzilla" (but what movie isn't?). I think this was a unique take on the traditional monster movie, and I was very impressed.

Beast
01-18-2008, 07:39 PM
Well, I'm going the opposite way. If you've seen the American Godzilla movie, that's pretty much what this plays like. All the way down to the little 'Babies'. It's basically a Conan O'Brien sketch of 'If they Mated.... Godzilla and the Blair Witch'. :p

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-19-2008, 02:04 AM
I jsut got back from seeing it and while I don't have a review to post as of yet, I'm easily giving it ***1/2 out of ****. It was brutal, intense, creepy, and a great film. The creature was very very cool and it was great to get random teases throughout the film before a big reveal.

And i'm really kinda irked that this is getting the 'blair witch meets godzilla' treatment as Blair Witch, for what it was, was exciting and original whereas Godzilla might have been original for his VERY first film, but it was always campy and funny. Plus, it was always a dude in a giant lizard suit. This destroys anything Godzilla has ever done as it's actually incredibly intense and suspensful. I thought all of the actors did a great job, especially Rob who had some of the hardest moments of the film, including a gut wrenching scene with his family and with his lady friend. The ending was also brutal and intense.

And for those who stayed after the credits, there is something extra that is giong down. Stay for it and decipher it cos it's backwards speak and it says something....

also, in the last scene they show, I swore I saw something hit the water and after researching it, I was correct. Keep your eyes peeled!

overall, TERRIFIC film! :thumbsup:

Beast
01-19-2008, 04:15 PM
And for those who stayed after the credits, there is something extra that is giong down. Stay for it and decipher it cos it's backwards speak and it says something....
Here's links to what is said. "Help Us" and then "It's Not Dead" backwards.

http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloverfield059fu3.flv

http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370

http://cloverfield.despoiler.org/index.php?title=Miscellaneous#The_Whisper


also, in the last scene they show, I swore I saw something hit the water and after researching it, I was correct. Keep your eyes peeled!
Yes, which makes the movie even more hokey. That the main characters just happened to catch on video the creature's arrival 3 weeks earlier. Feh.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-19-2008, 04:17 PM
Here's links to what is said. "Help Us" and then "It's Not Dead" backwards.

http://img532.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloverfield059fu3.flv

http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370

http://cloverfield.despoiler.org/index.php?title=Miscellaneous#The_Whisper


Yes, which makes the movie even more hokey. That the main characters just happened to catch on video the creature's arrival 3 weeks earlier. Feh.

Yeah, I know Binks. I was gonna wait till more folks started talking about the flick to discuss it.

and it's not the arrival of the creature at all dude. It's something thats hinted at in the viral campaign and leads to the creature emerging. Maybe you should do your research before you go on and ***** about things, Binks. :thumbsup:

General_Grievous
01-19-2008, 04:48 PM
While I didn't actually see the thing hit the water at the end (I'll have to catch that in the second viewing), a lot of internet speculation says that it was a satellite. I don't know if there's any truth to it, but in the meantime, here's a sketch I found of the monster that looks to be fairly accurate, for those of you who want to see a closer look...

SPOILERS AGAIN

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-19-2008, 04:58 PM
While I didn't actually see the thing hit the water at the end (I'll have to catch that in the second viewing), a lot of internet speculation says that it was a satellite. I don't know if there's any truth to it, but in the meantime, here's a sketch I found of the monster that looks to be fairly accurate, for those of you who want to see a closer look...

SPOILERS AGAIN


You're correct sir. According to the viral campaign, it's a satellite belonging to the Taguarato (i know I spelled that wrong) company, who works with Slusho. Their satellite fails to the earth and they go into find it, which leads to the creature emerging, and so forth. It's not crucial to the film, but it's still a cool tidbit to have. I see somebody did their homework. :p

and I like that sketch. :thumbsup:

Beast
01-19-2008, 08:36 PM
and it's not the arrival of the creature at all dude. It's something thats hinted at in the viral campaign and leads to the creature emerging. Maybe you should do your research before you go on and ***** about things, Binks. :thumbsup:
It's still hokey that they catch sight of the satellite. So there. :p

Jangu Fett
01-19-2008, 10:45 PM
I just got back from seeing Cloverfield....................

WOW. That's all I can say, WOW. I won't go into a whole spoiler included review, as I see some already have.:thumbsup:

This is a great movie, intense, lot of action. And yes some white-knuckle moments. The monster was awesome. Original design, and pretty darn scary, if you ask me. Something plucked right out of my nightmares.

I only have 2 minor complaints about the film. 1- there really is no backround info, on what this creature is. Of where it come from, I know something for the sequel. It's hinted that it's a ocean monster, and even a alien. Sorry, I wasn't able to get into the viral campaign, slow computer. My 2nd slight problem, was with the "parasites". I'm sorry they looked like mini Warrior Bugs, from Starship Troopers. And I'm a little confused, after one bits someone, do other parasites explode out of the victim. Or do they just explode?

All in all a great monster movie, and I can't wait to see more.

Beast
01-20-2008, 01:16 AM
My 2nd slight problem, was with the "parasites". I'm sorry they looked like mini Warrior Bugs, from Starship Troopers. And I'm a little confused, after one bits someone, do other parasites explode out of the victim. Or do they just explode?
It seems the 'Babies' lay eggs inside the victim, much like the Alien. That's why after the soldier was rolled by with the exploded stomache, one of the bugs was rolled by in a glass containment case. I assume they captured it after it burst out.

Tonysmo
01-20-2008, 02:51 AM
saw it. liked it.

I could see myself as HUD. off color comments at the wrong time :)

My only complaint was that he didnt film the monster. He'd pan over it. squeal like a woman and keep running... but.. I spose if that was me.



I'd do the same thing.

2-1B
01-20-2008, 04:24 AM
It's only the 20th day of 2008 and the first film on my "Worst of 2008" has already been seen by me, as Cloverfield is quite likely to end up on the Top Ten list of that category. It might not be quite as bad if it wasn't incredibly overblown with the hype surrounding it but kudos to the filmmakers for working that angle successfully because it got me and many other people to go and check out the what all the buzz was about.

I even went into it with REALLY low expectations because of the Blair Witch vs. Godzilla comparisons (the first of which is one of the worst films I have ever seen, the remake of the latter being one I've never seen) and to my dismay, that comparison was unfortunately pretty accurate.

They should have handed out Dramamine with ticket purchases because those opening scenes were ridiculously goofy with how shaky they were. We get it, it's shot on a handheld camera. I can understand the shaky cam when people are being chased by monsters but all that stuff at the beginning? No way, I've shot plenty of home footage of my own and it isn't a tenth as nauseating as that nonsense.

The monster was unimpressive for the most part, just another big bland CGI concoction - nothing we haven't seen in the last 15 years of CGI blockbusters. That artist's rendition a few pages back in this thread looked much better than the one actually in the movie.

Cloverfield did have some redeeming qualities (the sound effects were excellent) but overall I thought it was weak and I don't see what so many people are loving about this movie.

bigbarada
01-20-2008, 10:13 PM
I just watched it tonight and while it was an interesting little film experiment, it just didn't give enough information about where the monster came from and whether or not the monster actually died in the end. When the credits popped up, there was just a collective, "That was it?" reaction in the theater.

Apparently there was some kind of internet campaign for this movie, but I don't care about that kind of stuff. I want to see a movie, not some silly "multimedia event." So, as far as I'm concerned, if it's not onscreen then the writers/directors aren't doing their job.

It's worth a rental, but don't waste your time in the theater.

I agree with Caesar about the monster itself: too generic, nothing really special or original at all. It's almost like they discarded all of the really original designs and let the 3D artists pick what would be easiest and cheapest for them to animate.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-21-2008, 07:38 PM
It's official: Hasbro (of all companies) are making the CLOVERFIELD monster.

http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=863&ID=21030

Here is the info:


Cloverfield Movie Monster product imagery unveiling is coming soon!

Cloverfield Monster Features:

70 points of articulation and incredible life-like detail
Authentic sound
14” tall
10 parasites
Two interchangeable heads
Statue of Liberty head accessory
Special Cloverfield collector’s edition packaging
In conjunction with the launch of the highly anticipated CLOVERFIELD movie release, Hasbro, in a partnership with Bad Robot and Paramount Pictures, has produced a super-articulated and highly detailed limited collector’s edition Cloverfield Monster.

The Cloverfield monster is available exclusively through HasbroToyShop.com. Reserve your Cloverfield monster today to have the opportunity to receive it when it ships later this year. Limited quantities are available.

Cloverfield TM & © 2008 Paramount Pictures.

Dunno what to think of this. I won't pre-order until I see a pic of it. Hasbro has luck/good products with creatures/beasts, most of the time, so i'm still excited. For now. :thumbsup:

General_Grievous
01-21-2008, 07:55 PM
14 inches tall? Interchangable heads? This sounds more like a NECA product to me. And how can it have 70 points of articulation? Furthermore, why does it need three interchangable heads? Either way, I won't be buying it, but I am looking forward to pictures.

bigbarada
01-21-2008, 08:00 PM
Why all the secrecy about the monster? It wasn't even that original of a design. My brother described it as a giant Rancor and that kind of fits.

El Chuxter
01-22-2008, 02:50 PM
So....

1) New York City is apparently invaded by a Sando Aqua Monster?

and...
2) How come they'll make an online-exclusive Cloverfield monster for $100, which won't ship until late September and is based entirely on an unproven film, but won't make stuff like Sandcrawlers and Sail Barges and even Goraxes, which a large existing collectors' market literally clamors for?

decadentdave
01-22-2008, 03:34 PM
What the hell is a Goraxe?

El Chuxter
01-22-2008, 03:53 PM
The Gorax is the giant from the first Ewok movie. Other Goraxes also appear in the Rogue Squadron comics and the Jedi Academy novels.

Maybe not the most popular monster around, but it's certainly a huge one that's not so big it couldn't be done on the 3.75" scale (like a Sando Aqua, which would be the size of a large van, at the very smallest). And it seems like everyone who watched and liked the Ewok movies wants one.

Jangu Fett
01-22-2008, 04:49 PM
How does this- http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16573&d=1200779304 -the Cloverfield Monster, look like the Rancor??? Here's the Rancor- http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/6/6c/Rancor.jpg/800px-Rancor.jpg - some very slight likeness, mainly in the face, but the CM, IMO looks nothing like the Rancor.

2-1B
01-22-2008, 08:27 PM
Agreed, the Rancor is much, much cooler.

Jedi_Master_Guyute
01-22-2008, 08:37 PM
How does this- http://forums.sirstevesguide.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16573&d=1200779304 -the Cloverfield Monster, look like the Rancor??? Here's the Rancor- http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/thumb/6/6c/Rancor.jpg/800px-Rancor.jpg - some very slight likeness, mainly in the face, but the CM, IMO looks nothing like the Rancor.

You're right, they barely look alike, but people just like to ***** and moan. Just gotta learn to ignore them! :thumbsup:

Jangu Fett
01-22-2008, 09:47 PM
Well, I'm not going to debate which is the better monster. I love the Rancor, but after how many years of the Rancor or the original Godzilla, I glad to see something different. And aside from the Americanized Godzilla, cool design, LAME movie. The Cloverfield creature is really cool, IMO. I just really want to know more about it, what it is, and where is comes from. Not just everyones opinion, I want something, canon, I guess you can say.

Like someone says that the Parasites infects people with other parasites, similar to the Aliens, but. There is no clear story or pic showing this, in the movie. And others say that if bitten by a Cloverfield Parasite, the infection causes you to violently explode. I don't think that if bitten you are impregnated with another parasite, because in the film, yes you see a guy who's chest was caved-in. Like it exploded, then you see a parasite in a glass carrier. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that it burst out of the guy chest. But, remember where this make-shift medcenter is. In a mall, right next to a parasite infested subway tunnel. Whats to say that this parasite wasn't already in the medcenter before anyone got there and arracked/bit the guy. The guy could have killed the parasite, then explode. The lack of any solid info, to me is frustrating. I just want to for sure what I was seeing. Now, I'm not saying either theory is right or wrong, and I'm not saying that the Cloverfield Monster or Rancor, is better then the other. I just want to know the story, KWIM.:thumbsup:

Rocketboy
01-23-2008, 04:35 PM
I finally got a chance to see Cloverfield today and I really liked 2/3 of it.

The first half hour is a boring documentary showing how annoying douchebags like to party, but it finally gets interesting once the sh*t hits the fan. I can totally see myself skipping the first half hour every time on DVD.

The monster was cool, but it looks nothing like anything from Star Wars - no idea where people are getting that from - but I did wish we would have gotten better looks at the monster.

Spoilers Ahead.

I loved the fact that all the questions aren't answered, like what happened to Lily after she got on the first helicopter or if Rob and Beth survived. Or what the monster is and where it's from. It made the "tape" feel more real.

Also loved the way they used a cast of unknowns and the way that any one of them could have killed at any time, like Jason, Hud and Marlena.

Looking forward to the DVD. I really hoping for some great docs on how the film was made.

Only one other thing I liked and didn't like: How much the destruction reminded me of 9/11, like the buildings crashing down, the wave of smoke/ash/dust, and people walking around afterward covered in dust. It added a dimension of realism, which was a nice touch, but it was a little too real.

Slicker
01-25-2008, 10:27 PM
I myself saw this last night and thought it was really damned good. Not to sound morbid but I've just always wondered what the destruction of a major metropolitan area would look like and this movie showed it. The monster itself kinda reminded me of the little aliens from War of the Worlds.

Jangu Fett
02-01-2008, 04:44 PM
Well, how about this.....

A number of websites are saying that a 2nd Cloverfield has been greenlit by the studios. I read somewhere that it "will not be a sequel", but a remake, or someone elses take on the same incedent. And it might be out in theaters around the same time as the Cloverfield DVD, is released, sometime this June. And it will not be "Cloverfield 2", but be called "Cloverfield".

I don't know about everyone else, but, I'm extremely psyched out, over this. My birthday, this June is going to rule. If this is true.

General_Grievous
02-01-2008, 05:27 PM
A number of websites are saying that a 2nd Cloverfield has been greenlit by the studios. I read somewhere that it "will not be a sequel", but a remake, or someone elses take on the same incedent. And it might be out in theaters around the same time as the Cloverfield DVD, is released, sometime this June. And it will not be "Cloverfield 2", but be called "Cloverfield".

While I think they can feasibly film it in five-six months, why in the blue hell would they call the sequel "Cloverfield" again? That's confusing and stupid as hell. At least come up with a new codename title, or something.

Jangu Fett
02-01-2008, 07:08 PM
Because technically, it wouldn't be a sequel. It be a different POV of the same story. It did say that the 2nd movie "will not be a sequel". You even quoted me stating that.:thumbsup:

Beast
02-01-2008, 07:14 PM
Yeah. The two films intersect on the bridge. There's a scene where the main character with the camcorder pans over and you see another guy with a camera filming on the other side. Seems pretty silly to do that as a sequel, but oh well.

General_Grievous
02-01-2008, 10:32 PM
Because technically, it wouldn't be a sequel. It be a different POV of the same story. It did say that the 2nd movie "will not be a sequel". You even quoted me stating that.:thumbsup:
Yes, I understand that, BUT that doesn't mean both movies should be called "Cloverfield". It would cause way too much confusion.

Slicker
02-02-2008, 12:25 AM
Yes, I understand that, BUT that doesn't mean both movies should be called "Cloverfield". It would cause way too much confusion.Well, technically it's all the same event. What are all of the videos of Kennedy getting shot lumped under "Kennedy Assassination"? It's because they're all different camera angles of the same event.

bigbarada
02-02-2008, 02:57 AM
I'd watch another movie about this, but if it's just more of the same (ie: told from the one camera POV with no explanations as to what is going on) then I wouldn't go in for a third movie. They can string people along on TV shows like Lost, because those are broadcast for free, but you eventually just have to tell your story if your making films that people are paying to see. Otherwise you just tick everyone off.

Naming the sequel "Cloverfield" is dumb, since that will just cause confusion especially if there is a DVD release of "Cloverfield" at the exact same time. I doubt that is actually going to fly with their marketing people.

And I still think he looks like a Rancor. :p

Rocketboy
02-02-2008, 11:08 AM
I find it extremely hard to believe there will be another movie that soon, especially with the writer's strike and the time it takes for the effects, unless it has been in the works since the current movie.

Jargo
02-02-2008, 01:14 PM
The shakey cam is enough to put an end to any thoughts i may have had about watching this. it's bad enough that tv shows use wild camera swings and erratic jiggling around to convey a fake realism but from the clips I've seen I think I'd just have a seizure watching cloverfield.

I saw an article on the news the other day where a hollywood insider was sayig he anticipated an actors strike following the writers strike. and today i was watching a movie review show and there seemed to be a couple more movies made with non actors and unknowns. maybe there's a pre-empting of the actors strike and we'll see a lot more unknowns in projects like cloverfield til things in hollywood settle down.

bigbarada
02-02-2008, 02:15 PM
The shakey cam is enough to put an end to any thoughts i may have had about watching this. it's bad enough that tv shows use wild camera swings and erratic jiggling around to convey a fake realism but from the clips I've seen I think I'd just have a seizure watching cloverfield.

I saw an article on the news the other day where a hollywood insider was sayig he anticipated an actors strike following the writers strike. and today i was watching a movie review show and there seemed to be a couple more movies made with non actors and unknowns. maybe there's a pre-empting of the actors strike and we'll see a lot more unknowns in projects like cloverfield til things in hollywood settle down.

The handheld cam thing is pretty bad in several parts of this movie; but not as bad as I anticipated.

I actually hope that is the case with an actors' strike. I prefer movies that use unknowns because A. you're not focusing on where you've seen that actore before, you're focusing on the movie; B. it usually makes the story feel more authentic; and C. unknown actors have to take things more seriously and work harder to get noticed, so you won't end up with lazy, phoned-in performances that you sometimes get from the big name stars.

Jargo
02-02-2008, 04:15 PM
I guess it also makes sense to use unknowns and non actors coz you pay them less. and any kind of strike is costing the biz billions so you have to keep product rolling out. and the last thing you want is a big money actor onboard eating up the moolah. get a bunch of college grads and some arthouse director and shove em in virginia and get some horror movie. or shove em in the wilds of canada and get some heartfelt family crisis drama. or shove em on a soundstage with one set and do a period drama.
you could do a hundred meet joe black style movies for the cost of some of those big money actors.

Jangu Fett
02-02-2008, 09:05 PM
The director for the movie, has stated that this may not have been the only film they shot. They could have done a couple of different POV "angles". And, he has mentioned the bridge scene, as a point in the films that interconnect. So, if that's the case, the writers strike wouldn't effect a second movie, or even a remake of the first.

And I'm told that JJ Abrams, is good at doing the same story, from different POV. A friend of mine watches Lost, and has said that they do, do different POV in a number of episodes. Of course, I can't say that's true, as I never seen a single Lost show.

As for more Cloverfield movies, I think that they could get away with one other, as-it-happens, camcorder movie. A third, like that would really be pushing it, and then, after the second film, a regular movie. Me, personally would like to see a millitary POV, of the creatures attack, and them studying the parasites.

Rocketboy
02-02-2008, 11:07 PM
Even though it'd probably work better as a DVD extra I thought it might be cool if they did a "documentary" as if it were created by one of the big networks that takes look back on the attack (similar to some of the 9/11 docs), and use not only clips from the current movie, but new stuff also. They could even throw in some of the conspiracy theorist kooks for good measure.

Rocketboy
03-17-2008, 12:05 PM
The Cloverfield DVD is just around the corner - April 22:

Paramount Home Entertainment has officially announced Cloverfield which stars Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, TJ Miller. The Matt Reeves directed monster flick will be available to own from the 22nd April, and should retail at around $27.95. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a commentary by Director Matt Reeves, 4 featurettes (The Making of Cloverfield, Cloverfield Visual Effects, I Saw It! It's Alive! It's Huge, and Clover Fun), 6 additional scenes (Congrats Rob, When You're in Japan, I Call That a Date, It's Going to Hurt, Alt Ending #1, Alt Ending #2), and multiple eastereggs. We have no word on a Blu-ray release at this time.http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/cloverfield.html

General_Grievous
03-17-2008, 01:28 PM
I'll rent it, but it's not a movie I feel the need to own.

Beast
03-17-2008, 03:52 PM
I'll rent it, but it's not a movie I feel the need to own.
Or one I'd want to. I can get motion sickness for free. ;)

2-1B
03-18-2008, 04:57 AM
Can someone finally please edit the title of this thread to now say Cloverfield ?

Or at least Clusterf*** ? :thumbsup:

JimJamBonds
09-08-2010, 11:26 AM
Yeah this is another shovel job on my part BUT I did watch this movie last night for the first time so I think my diggin' is legit. I thought the film was kinda weird, very little 'monster' and a ton of the party stuff at the start... I thought the monster was kinda weird looking... what was up with those things that came off of it? That was kinda stupid if you ask me. Maybe I should reread this thread for answers.

DarthQuack
09-08-2010, 08:14 PM
I enjoyed it....I really loved seeing what happened to that one girl behind the curtain when she pretty much exploded :)

JimJamBonds
09-09-2010, 07:35 PM
Can't go wrong with a good 'splosion.