PDA

View Full Version : Cloverfield - J.J. Abrams Project



Pages : [1] 2 3

Barty
11-19-2007, 08:11 PM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/

New trailer is up.

They certainly know how to market this film.

Watashi
11-19-2007, 08:25 PM
Indeed.

This and The Dark Knight have had fantastic marketing campaigns.

KK2.0
11-19-2007, 08:40 PM
it's a War of The Worlds type of flick but told with a Blair Witch/Cannibal Holocaust "they found this footage" narrative, nothing new...


I'm so there opening day

Sycophant
11-19-2007, 08:45 PM
I'm really hoping this is good. I'm really, really hoping this is good.

'Cause if it sucks, it's going to suck hard.

The trailer before Beowulf got me all kinds of excited, though.

Henry Gale
11-19-2007, 09:15 PM
I'm actually surprised that I am more excited after this trailer than I was with the title-less Transformers one. But it's a combination of the footage there being even more impressive than before and it only being a couple of months away now.

I can't believe this is only being made for $30 million, some of the shots there look just as good, if not better, than of the devastated NYC shots in something with a huge budget like I Am Legend.

MadMan
11-19-2007, 09:51 PM
Damn that looks awesome and kind of freaky.

Raiders
11-19-2007, 09:51 PM
Whoa. That's one hell of a trailer. I'm looking forward to the film, though I have suspicions that the handheld style may grow tiresome.

megladon8
11-19-2007, 10:44 PM
Anyone else have sneaking suspicions that this will just end up being a Godzilla movie?

Rowland
11-19-2007, 10:51 PM
Anyone else have sneaking suspicions that this will just end up being a Godzilla movie?Literally Godzilla, or a Godzilla-esque monster movie? If it's the latter, awesome. If it's the former... *shrug* Awesome.

megladon8
11-19-2007, 11:01 PM
Literally Godzilla, or a Godzilla-esque monster movie? If it's the latter, awesome. If it's the former... *shrug* Awesome.


I mean literally Godzilla.

Though there's also a significant amount of speculation that the monster will never be shown. I can't seem to find it anywhere, but apparently it has been described as "War of the Worlds meets The Blair Witch Project"...maybe they're hinting that you never see anything?

In that new trailer there's a very quick instant where you see the back of the monster - in the middle of the segment where the infantry and tanks are shooting like mad up into the air.

Maybe shots like that are all we'll get.


Also, has anyone heard anything more to the rumor - or perhaps it was just speculation by MatchCutters on the old forum - that this could be a Cthulhu movie, or at least based on a Lovecraft monster? That would rock...though I never really saw the Lovecraft monsters as daikaiju type beings, destroying cities.

Rowland
11-19-2007, 11:09 PM
Also, has anyone heard anything more to the rumor - or perhaps it was just speculation by MatchCutters on the old forum - that this could be a Cthulhu movie, or at least based on a Lovecraft monster? That would rock...though I never really saw the Lovecraft monsters as daikaiju type beings, destroying cities.It's a rather terrible idea, for the very reason you state, which is that Lovecraft monsters destroying a city Godzilla-style is just a silly misappropriation of Lovecraft mythology.

Anyway, the rumor has been officially denied.

Winston*
11-19-2007, 11:12 PM
I see equal potential for entertainment and annoyance.

Mysterious Dude
11-20-2007, 12:00 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/cloverfield.jpg

Attack of the giant chipmunks?

lovejuice
11-20-2007, 12:37 AM
I see equal potential for entertainment and annoyance.

that's what i'm thinking.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 01:09 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/Isaac3159/cloverfield.jpg

Attack of the giant chipmunks?


I thought that was military guys killing her? Probably wearing HAZMAT suits or something.


EDIT: And upon watching it a third time, I think it'll end up just bing a gimmicky monster movie, with annoyingly stupid pretty-people characters.

Kurosawa Fan
11-20-2007, 01:59 AM
There's a moment in the trailer when the military is on the street firing their guns at it where my wife and I think it looks like a tentacle rips through the top of a building. It's really quick, only a few frames, and if I knew how to post it I'd do it.

I'm in agreement that it'll probably go either way, with very little middle ground. I'm leaning toward it sucking.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 02:04 AM
Pass.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 02:08 AM
There's a moment in the trailer when the military is on the street firing their guns at it where my wife and I think it looks like a tentacle rips through the top of a building. It's really quick, only a few frames, and if I knew how to post it I'd do it.

I'm in agreement that it'll probably go either way, with very little middle ground. I'm leaning toward it sucking.


Yeh, that's the part I was talking about...you think it looks like a tentacle? I thought it was more like an arm or something.

I'm going to be seriously pissed if the monster is never shown. I can understand saving it for later in the film, but if it never appears, that'll be pretty disappointing.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 02:28 AM
I'm more interested in how convincingly it sells this "verite" ground-level perspective of the attack. I've already seen plenty of monsters.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 02:32 AM
I'm more interested in how convincingly it sells this "verite" ground-level perspective of the attack. I've already seen plenty of monsters.


I can't ever imagine a point in my life where something like this or "I've seen enough monsters" will come out of my mouth.

There are never enough monsters :)

Spinal
11-20-2007, 02:36 AM
I'm more interested in how convincingly it sells this "verite" ground-level perspective of the attack. I've already seen plenty of monsters.

And 'splosions.

I agree that this is what will make or break the film. I have little confidence that they will be able to sustain the intensity suggested by the trailer for the length of the film. The dialogue and acting look pretty weak. The creative team does not inspire confidence in me. It's a January release. I think they're relying on the public's fascination with 'splosions, shaky Youtube camerawork and the destruction of American landmarks. Smells like a fraud to me.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 02:38 AM
This kind of reminds me of an idea I once had.

I would love to create a huge, incredibly deceptive marketing campaign, purposely making the film seem like something completely different from what it was.

Sort of like those joke trailers, like the one where they make The Shining look like some coming-of-age, father-son comedy/drama.

I'd love to make trailers for a family film and have it be some brutally violent crime drama ala Goodfellas, or vice versa.

Ezee E
11-20-2007, 03:16 AM
Psh. I think it looks great.

Mysterious Dude
11-20-2007, 03:25 AM
I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.

MadMan
11-20-2007, 03:26 AM
Yeh, that's the part I was talking about...you think it looks like a tentacle? I thought it was more like an arm or something.

I'm going to be seriously pissed if the monster is never shown. I can understand saving it for later in the film, but if it never appears, that'll be pretty disappointing.I can't imagine you liking the films of Jacques Tourneur then meg, because he rarely (if ever) showed the monster or the creature. Sometimes less is more. I mean come on The Blair Witch Project's ending is incredibly scary and disturbing because we don't see any sort of witch, creature or monster. I'll take never seeing the monster and conjoring up what it looks like in my head over seeing a bad CGI creature that looks like the shitty American Godzilla from the 1998 Godzilla flick that was utterly terrible.

Raiders
11-20-2007, 03:31 AM
I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.

Why should this area of science fiction be removed from moral consequence?

Ezee E
11-20-2007, 03:36 AM
I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.
Up until the boy running into the series of explosions, it was realistic. And incredible. Too bad it changed after that. I don't want to argue over this movie again though.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 03:37 AM
I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.You'd rather watch victims die and feel nothing? You're a big ID4 fan, I take it?

megladon8
11-20-2007, 03:38 AM
I can't imagine you liking the films of Jacques Tourneur then meg, because he rarely (if ever) showed the monster or the creature. Sometimes less is more. I mean come on The Blair Witch Project's ending is incredibly scary and disturbing because we don't see any sort of witch, creature or monster. I'll take never seeing the monster and conjoring up what it looks like in my head over seeing a bad CGI creature that looks like the shitty American Godzilla from the 1998 Godzilla flick that was utterly terrible.


There's an enormous difference, though, between a psychological horror like The Blair Witch Project, and a very physical, destruction-based "horror" like a giant monster movie.

There is nothing in any of that footage that leads me to believe this is anything more than a typical "giant monster reaking havoc in a big city" movie. It's just shot on handicams.

It seems like they're trying to revive a 50+ year old genre by making it "realistic". And if by "realistic" that means not showing the monster - which is arguably one of the most entertaining parts of giant monsters movies - I don't see that as a very good idea.

I mean who knows? Maybe they have some brilliant trick up their sleeves and that's why the trailers have not shown much. But from what is shown, I don't think omitting the creature is going to add much to the overall effect of the movie.



Why should this area of science fiction be removed from moral consequence?

I *think* what Antoine is getting at is that generally these giant monster movies are very much a giddy celebration of desctruction and mayhem.

I know I watch Godzilla movies because I love watching guys in giant rubber suits destroying model cities.

Throwing morals in and making you feel bad for all the people kind of takes all the fun and entertainment-value out of it. I suppose it just depends on what you go to these movies for.

I, too, found War of the Worlds quite bothersome. I actually found a lot of it very hard to watch at times, and I consider myself very hard to disturb/gross out.

Ezee E
11-20-2007, 03:39 AM
You'd rather watch victims die and feel nothing? You're a big ID4 fan, I take it?
I'm never affected by these things. It has been done, but I can't really think of a movie that has truly affected me lately. The closest may be a scene in Diving Bell in which the main character asks to be killed, and the Nurse gets depressed

Mysterious Dude
11-20-2007, 03:39 AM
Why should this area of science fiction be removed from moral consequence?
Because the moral consequences of alien invasions just don't strike me as very important in this world of ours, and I think they detract from the potential entertainment value of the film.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 03:41 AM
You'd rather watch victims die and feel nothing? You're a big ID4 fan, I take it?


Let's not get into a huge moral conundrum over this, like what happened in a discussion of Bond movies a long time ago on the old board.

I think anyone here would be lying if they said that every victim in every movie has their sincerest feelings of remorse.

When executed properly, senseless death, mayhem and destruction can be an entertaining and surprisingly cathartic thing to see on the movie screen.

It's stuff like Hostel that I find morally questionable, not stuff like Bond or Godzilla movies.

Raiders
11-20-2007, 03:43 AM
I *think* what Antoine is getting at is that generally these giant monster movies are very much a giddy celebration of desctruction and mayhem.

I know I watch Godzilla movies because I love watching guys in giant rubber suits destroying model cities.

Throwing morals in and making you feel bad for all the people kind of takes all the fun and entertainment-value out of it. I suppose it just depends on what you go to these movies for.

I, too, found War of the Worlds quite bothersome. I actually found a lot of it very hard to watch at times, and I consider myself very hard to disturb/gross out.

That's unnecessarily pigeon-holing an entire subgenre. Fiction is fiction, whether it be rooted in common events or the fantastical. These films may be less probable, but like all fictional films, they are inventions of the mind and can be used to incite a variety of emotions. I don't understand relegating all films involving aliens as inherently silly just because you don't believe an alien invasion will ever happen.

Ivan Drago
11-20-2007, 03:45 AM
This movie does look great. But, it's coming out in January. That's a bad sign.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 03:46 AM
That's unnecessarily pigeon-holing an entire subgenre. Fiction is fiction, whether it be rooted in common events or the fantastical. These films may be less probable, but like all fictional films, they are inventions of the mind and can be used to incite a variety of emotions. I don't understand relegating all films involving aliens as inherently silly just because you don't believe an alien invasion will ever happen.


Um...I didn't say anything about alien invasions never happening. I think you may have meant to quote Antoine?

While I don't think it's probable, I certainly don't see it being an impossibility - maybe not something ala War of the Worlds, but I could definitely see some sort of conflict with other intelligences in the future.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 03:47 AM
Would Jaws have been a better movie if it was less realistic? These arguments are silly. "Serious" and less "serious" takes on the same genre can co-exist, and likewise, the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

Mysterious Dude
11-20-2007, 03:48 AM
That's unnecessarily pigeon-holing an entire subgenre. Fiction is fiction, whether it be rooted in common events or the fantastical. These films may be less probable, but like all fictional films, they are inventions of the mind and can be used to incite a variety of emotions. I don't understand relegating all films involving aliens as inherently silly just because you don't believe an alien invasion will ever happen.
When I was watching people being vaporized or impaled with mechanical tentacles in War of the Worlds, it made me feel sick. Of course, fiction can be used to incite this emotion in me, but in general, I don't like feeling sick unless there's some good reason for it, and I don't think War of the Worlds gave me a good enough reason.

Raiders
11-20-2007, 03:51 AM
Um...I didn't say anything about alien invasions never happening. I think you may have meant to quote Antoine?

While I don't think it's probable, I certainly don't see it being an impossibility - maybe not something ala War of the Worlds, but I could definitely see some sort of conflict with other intelligences in the future.

No, I was simply extrapolating. You said they were celebrations of destruction and mayhem, and I insinuate that this is because people separate themselves from reality and thus moral consequence. You couldn't make a war film in this mould because people would be completely revolted since war actually happens and to treat those deaths as entertainment would be a morally reprehensible act (though as I say this, plenty of John Wayne-esque war films reveled in destroying the enemy soldiers).

megladon8
11-20-2007, 03:54 AM
When I was watching people being vaporized or impaled with mechanical tentacles in War of the Worlds, it made me feel sick. Of course, fiction can be used to incite this emotion in me, but in general, I don't like feeling sick unless there's some good reason for it, and I don't think War of the Worlds gave me a good enough reason.


I think the reason for this is that with films, there needs to be a specific reason for us to see these people get killed.

When you look at slasher films, the victims are pretty much always the ones who are doing drugs, being assholes, having sex in their parents' bedrooms, whatever.

Then you look at gaint monster movies - you very rarely see an actual person get killed by the monster. It's almost always implied through the destruction of buildings, bridges, etc.

In War of the Worlds, truly innocent people are brutally slaughtered in front of your eyes, and it's very disturbing. There's no rhyme or reason behind them getting killed - it's just done.

This changes the film from being entertainment to something that seems to have a message. But with a film like War of the Worlds, there didn't seem to be a sufficient enough message to justify the killing of innocents that the audience was subjected to.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 03:57 AM
This changes the film from being entertainment to something that seems to have a message. But with a film like War of the Worlds, there didn't seem to be a sufficient enough message to justify the killing of innocents that the audience was subjected to.What would be a sufficient enough message to justify it? Ignoring the various interpretations one can reasonably apply to WotW, is a story about the resiliency of the human spirit against impossible odds not enough?

megladon8
11-20-2007, 04:00 AM
No, I was simply extrapolating. You said they were celebrations of destruction and mayhem, and I insinuate that this is because people separate themselves from reality and thus moral consequence. You couldn't make a war film in this mould because people would be completely revolted since war actually happens and to treat those deaths as entertainment would be a morally reprehensible act (though as I say this, plenty of John Wayne-esque war films reveled in destroying the enemy soldiers).


As I just said in my post to Antoine, I think it comes down to presenting the audience with a reason.

I don't mind seeing sensless violence on the screen.

But I also don't like being subjected to scenes of innocent people being slaughtered for no reason at all.

There's a shot in War of the Worlds where a man is lifted up by a tentacle and thrown on the grown, then a huge tube is inserted in him and removes his blood, which is then sprinkled onto the surrounding fields like fertilizer. There was absolutely no reason why this man had to be subjected to such a horrible fate. It would have been different even if they just edited it differently, so we got the idea that he was killed without having to watch it so graphically. But having it shown so explicitly was quite disturbing.

I gather that was the point of the scene, but having left that out would have totally changed the film. Scenes like that changed the film from an entertaining alien invasion/mass destruction film, to something more along the lines of an alien Holocaust - which, again, I think was the point.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:03 AM
It would have been different even if they just edited it differently, so we got the idea that he was killed without having to watch it so graphically. But having it shown so explicitly was quite disturbing.
Heh. This just illustrates how effectively insinuative and impacting Spielberg's visual storytelling is, because that scene isn't graphic at all. You don't see anything besides the blood being sprayed.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 04:16 AM
What would be a sufficient enough message to justify it? Ignoring the various interpretations one can reasonably apply to WotW, is a story about the resiliency of the human spirit against impossible odds not enough?


It's not enough to justify watching people brutally murdered in front of you.

For the kind of violence against innocents in War of the Worlds, I think there needs to be a strong message related to that violence.

"Resiliency of the uman spirit against impossible odds" just doesn't cut it for me. That same message could easily come across without those scenes.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 04:17 AM
Heh. This just illustrates how effectively insinuative and impacting Spielberg's visual storytelling is, because that scene isn't graphic at all. You don't see anything besides the blood being sprayed.


I just watched it again...it shows the man lifted up, thrown down on the ground, the thing raising up into the air and then jabbing down, blood being sucked up through clear tubing and then sprayed out the top.

The only thing that isn't shown is the tube actually penetrating his body.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:18 AM
Spielberg's War of the Worlds is political allegory. The aliens are not just aliens, but an exaggerated representation of a dominant human military force.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:20 AM
It's not enough to justify watching people brutally murdered in front of you.

For the kind of violence against innocents in War of the Worlds, I think there needs to be a strong message related to that violence.



There is. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2005/08/war-of-worlds-spielberg-2005.html)

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:24 AM
For the kind of violence against innocents in War of the Worlds, I think there needs to be a strong message related to that violence.The movie clearly sympathizes with the people, filtering the carnage through a humanistic lens that doesn't trivialize. How is this less socially responsible than a movie that presents glib violence for yuks?


"Resiliency of the uman spirit against impossible odds" just doesn't cut it for me. That same message could easily come across without those scenes.But then the severity of the situation wouldn't be as incisively expressed and deeply felt.

MadMan
11-20-2007, 04:24 AM
This discussion reminds me that I still haven't gotten around to War of the Worlds. I'll view it eventually but I'm in no rush.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 04:26 AM
There is. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2005/08/war-of-worlds-spielberg-2005.html)


It's a great review and it makes me want to watch the film in its entirety again.

I just remember being thoroughly disturbed by the film, and leaving the theatre thinking "was all that really necessary?"

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:27 AM
Spielberg's War of the Worlds is political allegory. The aliens are not just aliens, but an exaggerated representation of a dominant human military force.I figured that this went without saying by now.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 04:28 AM
But then the severity of the situation wouldn't be as incisively expressed and deeply felt.


I guess I just disagree with you here.

I don't think you need to have people drained of their blood fairly brutally to get the idea across that the situation is severe.

The scene of the bodies floating down the river would have been enough. I also thought it was dramatically much more effective.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:29 AM
I figured that this went without saying by now.

It did not seem to be a given in this particular conversation.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:30 AM
It did not seem to be a given in this particular conversation.True. I just figured we were discussing the movie from an entirely literal perspective.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:33 AM
I guess I just disagree with you here.

I don't think you need to have people drained of their blood fairly brutally to get the idea across that the situation is severe.

The scene of the bodies floating down the river would have been enough. I also thought it was dramatically much more effective.The movie is a horror-show, no doubt. That you were so disturbed illustrates how effective it is. Do you like horror movies that actually shake you? If so, do you believe they must legitimize themselves with a message?

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:33 AM
It's a great review and it makes me want to watch the film in its entirety again.

I just remember being thoroughly disturbed by the film, and leaving the theatre thinking "was all that really necessary?"

I hear ya. If you group War of the Worlds in with films like E.T. or Close Encounters, then it seems kind of vicious. But considered as a part of Spielberg's post-9/11 output, the sorrow and pain in the film makes sense.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:35 AM
True. I just figured we were discussing the movie from an entirely literal perspective.

Well, OK. But sometimes that's like looking at just the flat version of a Magic Eye picture.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:39 AM
Well, OK. But sometimes that's like looking at just the flat version of a Magic Eye picture.But it's still one worth considering. Post-9/11 allegory is something we mostly think about after watching the movie. I'm talking about the very experience of taking in the movie and our direct response to it (because that's what Meg was responding to), which I think is at least as important as any "grand scheme" approach.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:43 AM
But it's still one worth considering. Post-9/11 allegory is something we mostly think about after watching the movie. I'm talking about the very experience of taking in the movie and our direct response to it (because that's what Meg was responding to), which I think is at least as important as any "grand scheme" approach.

But I do think about it while I'm watching the movie. That is the stuff that I respond to. Otherwise, it's just a movie with monsters and 'splosions.

Mysterious Dude
11-20-2007, 04:47 AM
There is. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2005/08/war-of-worlds-spielberg-2005.html)
I have heard the theory that Spielberg intended the film as a parable of U.S. militarism, and I think it's a plausible thoery (and H.G. Wells' book was likewise a parable of British colonialism). I don't think it's very successful, though, because Spielberg is too concerned with a minor story. Metaphors are great, but too much of the story has nothing to do with the metaphor.

I will point to René Laloux's Fanstastic Planet as an example of a far more successful parable, though it is almost exactly as unpleasant as Spielberg's film.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 04:50 AM
But I do think about it while I'm watching the movie. That is the stuff that I respond to. Otherwise, it's just a movie with monsters and 'splosions.The visceral reaction to movies is one that can only be so tempered by a conscious filter. Yes, I was aware of all the allusions to 9/11 being made and the insurgency metaphor being developed while watching the movie, but I think that is secondary to the direct experience of engaging with what is expressly occurring while watching a movie like this. If it doesn't fully engage and "work" on that literal level in the moment without needing to be justified through allegory, then it's hardly a success. One of the reasons I like WotW as much as I do in spite of its glaring faults is that it's so experientially transportive, which I don't think is anything to sneeze at, unless you hold movies featuring aliens in such contempt that you won't allow yourself to be transported.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 04:58 AM
I don't understand why something has to work twice. If it works as allegory and it is meaningful and moving to you while watching it, then it is working. I don't try to imagine how I would respond to the film if it only had a literal layer. Perhaps this is why I like Land of the Dead and no one else seems to.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 05:03 AM
I don't understand why something has to work twice. If it works as allegory and it is meaningful and moving to you while watching it, then it is working. I don't try to imagine how I would respond to the film if it only had a literal layer. Perhaps this is why I like Land of the Dead and no one else seems to.I don't mean to argue that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but you seem to be arguing that WotW wouldn't work without the allegorical perspective. During the brilliantly staged introduction of the first tripod, were you actively thinking about what the sequence meant as subtext?

Regarding LotD, are you suggesting that you are the only person who caught on to Romero's hilariously barefaced political/social allegory? In that case, I'd argue that it was detrimentally in-your-face... though I did like the fireworks metaphor.

Spinal
11-20-2007, 05:14 AM
I don't mean to argue that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but you seem to be arguing that WotW wouldn't work without the allegorical perspective. During the brilliantly staged introduction of the first tripod, were you actively thinking about what the sequence meant as subtext?

Well ... yeah.



Regarding LotD, are you suggesting that you are the only person who caught on to Romero's hilariously barefaced political/social allegory? In that case, I'd argue that it was detrimentally in-your-face... though I did like the fireworks metaphor.

No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I was the only one or that it is even that hard to pick up on. I'm just saying that, for me, that's enough. Others seemed to have other expectations for a zombie movie that were not important to me.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 05:22 AM
No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I was the only one or that it is even that hard to pick up on. I'm just saying that, for me, that's enough. Others seemed to have other expectations for a zombie movie that were not important to me.And on that note, I suppose that obvious political rhetoric isn't enough for me, which is probably why LotD didn't work too well, given that it is at best a moderately effective, and at worst a terribly lame movie, the latter partly because of how Romero often appeared more interested in his Socialist grandstanding than telling a wholly involving cinematic story.

Bosco B Thug
11-20-2007, 05:43 AM
The visceral reaction to movies is one that can only be so tempered by a conscious filter. Yes, I was aware of all the allusions to 9/11 being made and the insurgency metaphor being developed while watching the movie, but I think that is secondary to the direct experience of engaging with what is expressly occurring while watching a movie like this. If it doesn't fully engage and "work" on that literal level in the moment without needing to be justified through allegory, then it's hardly a success. One of the reasons I like WotW as much as I do in spite of its glaring faults is that it's so experientially transportive, which I don't think is anything to sneeze at, unless you hold movies featuring aliens in such contempt that you won't allow yourself to be transported. All this makes sense, but you wouldn't be defending the film if you didn't buy the film's "filtering of the carnage through a human lens" with directorial technique clearly sensitive to the film's tonal aspirations - which is pretty much justifying through allegory the existence of the film's brutality.

War of the Worlds definitely impressed and thrilled me viscerally, but I can't say it hit me with any lasting emotional resonance. Jaws remains Spielberg's best effort in infusing a horror effort with pronounced yet subtle humane pretensions. War of the Worlds is a bit too clear in its efforts.

I give Land of the Dead (which I like/love?) points because it's more idiosyncratic than WotW.

As for Cloverfield... I really don't know what to expect from this. Certainly no more than a satisfactory monster movie, I'd guess. Perhaps some half-hearted attempt at political commentary... maaaybe, it wouldn't be hard to shoe-horn something in a la Transformers. I hope it turns out to be a giant sea creature. Salt-water creature. Though I'd accept a giant mutated turtle... though they have already done that!

Mal
11-20-2007, 07:44 AM
Unless this movie gets earth-shattering reviews, I doubt I'll care in two months time.

jenniferofthejungle
11-20-2007, 05:54 PM
I don't know how long the bandwidth on this video will hold up, but it's the moster in slow motion.

http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/serversphere/?action=view&current=monster.flv

Raiders
11-20-2007, 06:26 PM
I must've looked at that slo-mo shot fifteen times. I got nuthin. Doesn't look like Godzilla though.

EDIT: Actually, kinda looks like a turtle. So, maybe it is a Godzilla-like movie and that is Gamera?

Apparently this is not new news about the potential for Gamera. So, maybe that shot that appears to have a shell comes close to confirming this as a Gamera project.

Mysterious Dude
11-20-2007, 06:39 PM
But Gamera is a friend of all children. :sad:

Scar
11-20-2007, 06:43 PM
But Gamera is a friend of all children. :sad:

He sure is, but his middle name is 'Collateral Damage'.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 08:15 PM
I must've looked at that slo-mo shot fifteen times. I got nuthin. Doesn't look like Godzilla though.

EDIT: Actually, kinda looks like a turtle. So, maybe it is a Godzilla-like movie and that is Gamera?

Apparently this is not new news about the potential for Gamera. So, maybe that shot that appears to have a shell comes close to confirming this as a Gamera project.


I don't see a shell, but I definitely see a leg.

I have no idea what it's going to be.

But we better see it :evil:

Watashi
11-20-2007, 08:18 PM
Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?

Raiders
11-20-2007, 08:20 PM
I don't see a shell, but I definitely see a leg.

Look at the top of the screen. That doesn't look like a shell on top of its back?

Rowland
11-20-2007, 08:23 PM
Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?And even if we do, how good of a view can we possibly get when the entire movie is shot through someone's video camera?

megladon8
11-20-2007, 08:28 PM
Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?


...because I want to see the monster?

number8
11-20-2007, 09:37 PM
Based on budget alone, I'm 92% sure we won't see the monster in full.

MadMan
11-20-2007, 10:11 PM
Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?I sure as hell don't care if I see the monster. If the film isn't scary (I thnk its more in that vein) or entertaining at the least it won't matter if the monster shows up or not. I'd rather have a good film where the monster is rarely shown than a shitty film where we get to see the monster in full view.

As for the Jan. release I'm sure there have been some decent/good films released in that month. But those are far and few between apparently. I don't really know considering the past few years I've only started going to the theater in March or April, with a few exceptions.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 10:40 PM
I find it pretty much un-possible to be frightened by a giant monste tearing a city apart.

So, I am pretty much 99.99999% sure it won't succeed if it attempts to actually scare me.

The trailer really doesn't lead me to believe that it's anything more than an extravaganza of mayhem and destruction - like every other giant monster movie.

I just like seeing the monster. That's how I am, I guess.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 10:47 PM
un-possibleImpossible?

megladon8
11-20-2007, 10:48 PM
Impossible?


Yeh, it was a joke.

Rowland
11-20-2007, 10:52 PM
Yeh, it was a joke.Oh, I didn't get it.

megladon8
11-20-2007, 10:53 PM
Oh, I didn't get it.


Just a reference to Ralph Wiggum.

"I can't read? That's un-possible!"

Ezee E
11-20-2007, 11:42 PM
Just a reference to Ralph Wiggum.

"I can't read? That's un-possible!"
Neg repped for the horrible joke!

J/k.

Mal
11-21-2007, 04:35 AM
Why does it matter if we see the monster or not?

Because the monster will be a better actor, fo sho.

Bosco B Thug
11-21-2007, 05:18 AM
I shall require a full monster shot.

Boo chicken-legged reptile. I'm still holding out for something more amorphous.

Morris Schæffer
11-21-2007, 10:48 AM
some rumours:


I certainly didn't catch it on Monday night while watching HEROES but it seems that events related to the CLOVERFIELD movie are now existing in projects outside of JJ Abrams' reach. One of the film's viral marketing campaigns (and Abrams trademark products) has made its way on the popular NBC program. Heroes producer Greg Beeman updated his official blog with snapshots of the cast holding "Slusho" cups in the latest episode of the show.

When asked if the Heroes world exist within the Cloverfield world or vice versa, Beeman had a "Don't ask, don't tell" answer waiting..

bac0n
11-21-2007, 02:38 PM
But Gamera is a friend of all children. :sad:

Apparently someone hasn't seen Gamera: Revenge of Iris.

As an avowed fan of giant monster cinema, I'm viewing this as a giant monster flick taken from the perspective of those caught in the destruction. If this is the case, I think this will be a fresh take on the genre, and I'm excited about the possibilities.

lovejuice
11-21-2007, 03:55 PM
As an avowed fan of giant monster cinema, I'm viewing this as a giant monster flick taken from the perspective of those caught in the destruction. If this is the case, I think this will be a fresh take on the genre, and I'm excited about the possibilities.

full of potential, indeed.

i however am among a few who's endlessly annoyed watching blair witch. if they go the same route, ie. showing a two hours of mayhem, destruction, and nothing, i think i'll pass.

Henry Gale
11-22-2007, 03:45 AM
Does no one else just see the bottom half of the monster and its legs walking to the right in that 1-second clip everyone is trying to gte down and decipher, slow down, putting backwards, etc. like crazy?

I don't think they meant for it to be that cryptic of an image.

megladon8
11-22-2007, 03:48 AM
Does no one else just see the bottom half of the monster and its legs walking to the right in that 1-second clip everyone is trying to gte down and decipher, slow down, putting backwards, etc. like crazy?

I don't think they meant for it to be that cryptic of an image.


Yeh, that's what I see.

Henry Gale
11-22-2007, 03:56 AM
Yeh, that's what I see.

Okay good.

I guess now we just wait two months to see more of what us sane people already know. :)

Bosco B Thug
11-22-2007, 03:58 AM
Yeh, that's what I see. Chicken-legged reptile! Boo! :cry:

OT: Is there a way to quote (without copy & pasting) so that there's a double-layered quote, so Henry Gales' quote is inserted in megladon8's?

KK2.0
11-23-2007, 06:57 PM
the shell reminded me more of a giant beetle/insect kinda thing.

but i also don't care if the monster shows in full, i'm excited for a new WotW style experience, and the tripods better win this time. :)

Grouchy
12-02-2007, 05:39 PM
I'm really hoping against all odds that it's a Cthulhu movie. Of course, none of the protagonists would be acquainted with Old Ones lore, so they'd never get involved discussing anything Lovecraftian. But the little of the monster you'd see would click in your mind and you'd realize who it is.

I think that would be fucking awesome.

Sven
12-02-2007, 05:45 PM
I'm really hoping against all odds that it's a Cthulhu movie. Of course, none of the protagonists would be acquainted with Old Ones lore, so they'd never get involved discussing anything Lovecraftian. But the little of the monster you'd see would click in your mind and you'd realize who it is.

I think that would be fucking awesome.

But Cthulhu doesn't rampage cities.

Grouchy
12-02-2007, 05:57 PM
But Cthulhu doesn't rampage cities.
It's never too late to start.

Anyway, if it woke up, why wouldn't it? And remember, from the poster, we know the creature comes from the sea.

Sven
12-02-2007, 06:01 PM
Anyway, if it woke up, why wouldn't it? And remember, from the poster, we know the creature comes from the sea.

So did Godzilla.

Cthulhu wouldn't rampage because it controls minds and nightmares, not to mention hordes of minions. Cthulhu sits in a throne and drives men mad. He's too powerful for something as mundane as a rampage.

I doubt its Cthulhu, but if it is, I'm going to be very very sad.

Grouchy
12-02-2007, 06:10 PM
So did Godzilla.

Cthulhu wouldn't rampage because it controls minds and nightmares, not to mention hordes of minions. Cthulhu sits in a throne and drives men mad. He's too powerful for something as mundane as a rampage.

I doubt its Cthulhu, but if it is, I'm going to be very very sad.
Yeah, but imagine it's judgement day and the end of mankind. I guess there would be subtler ways for the Elders to call the whole thing off, but it wouldn't be such a stretch for them to actually wreck everything. Or imagine a cult has summoned Cthulhu and then turned it loose. It's on Earth, a few miles from Ellis Island, and tremendously pissed off.

Of course it'd be a far cry from a serious Lovecraft adaptation. But Cthulhu is fucking pop culture by now. He was on Bill & Mandy, for crying out loud.

Rowland
12-02-2007, 06:30 PM
Trashing a city is just about the least scary thing I can imagine Cthulhu doing. The very notion just doesn't jibe with Lovecraft at all.

megladon8
12-02-2007, 10:39 PM
Yes, putting Cthulhu's power in the same vein as Godzilla or Gamera is insulting to the Elder Gods.

Don't be surprised if you start dreaming about forgotten cities and slowly go insane.

:P

Dukefrukem
12-03-2007, 12:23 PM
i may have missed something, but why areyou guys still calling it the Cthulhu?

i thought that was denouced and this is a new monster creation from JJ?

megladon8
12-03-2007, 02:10 PM
i may have missed something, but why areyou guys still calling it the Cthulhu?

i thought that was denouced and this is a new monster creation from JJ?


It's just 'cause Grouchy said he still hopes it's Cthulhu.

Even though it's not.

Dukefrukem
12-03-2007, 02:40 PM
gotchya...

well theres a few things we know for a fact.. and that is it "infects" humans... or at least penetrates them and eplode from the inside...

my high def screens i took

the last one shows a woman behind the curtain, and her insides are "opening "

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5523/quicktimeplayer20071119zn0.jpg

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1361/quicktimeplayer20071119yi2.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5141/quicktimeplayer20071119ne4.jpg

megladon8
12-03-2007, 02:43 PM
gotchya...

well theres a few things we know for a fact.. and that is it "infects" humans... or at least penetrates them and eplode from the inside...



I don't think we know that for a fact at all.

She's behind the curtain with a couple of guys in HAZMAT suits. For all we know, it could be that they are killing her.

Scar
12-03-2007, 02:45 PM
Duke, put down the pipe.

Dukefrukem
12-03-2007, 03:10 PM
I don't think we know that for a fact at all.

She's behind the curtain with a couple of guys in HAZMAT suits. For all we know, it could be that they are killing her.

If you watch the trailer again. You hear squishy hatching noises and the girl's slim body expands to what i posted... its clearly something coming out of her or hatching inside her

there's a shot of her earlier in the trailer and she looks like this:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/cloverfieldbb3.jpg

Mysterious Dude
12-03-2007, 03:11 PM
Well, there goes my giant chipmunk theory.

Dukefrukem
12-03-2007, 03:12 PM
btw, if im right you all owe me a beer

Grouchy
12-03-2007, 04:47 PM
Yes, putting Cthulhu's power in the same vein as Godzilla or Gamera is insulting to the Elder Gods.

Don't be surprised if you start dreaming about forgotten cities and slowly go insane.

:P
I see beings... too ominous to be described.

I'm sorry. I'M SORRY!

Raiders
12-03-2007, 05:08 PM
The girl's bleeding from the orifices (on her face, anyway) and the haz-mat suits do indicate something more than a giant monster. However, the footage is too inconclusive to make any statements regarding the nature of what it all means. We don't even know it is the same girl in the two shots or that the image of her behind the screen isn't just distorted.

And I still think that thing looks like a freakin' turtle. Maybe it is radioactive and all the haz-mat stuff is from radiation poisoning.

Who knows at this point...

Dukefrukem
12-04-2007, 01:54 AM
The girl's bleeding from the orifices (on her face, anyway) and the haz-mat suits do indicate something more than a giant monster. However, the footage is too inconclusive to make any statements regarding the nature of what it all means. We don't even know it is the same girl in the two shots or that the image of her behind the screen isn't just distorted.

And I still think that thing looks like a freakin' turtle. Maybe it is radioactive and all the haz-mat stuff is from radiation poisoning.

Who knows at this point...

maybe its a remake of the Host? ;)

but watch the trailer again. it goes out of its way to make a point that something is coming out of her, especially with the noises. the two guys in Haz-mat suits are trying to help her.

megladon8
12-04-2007, 02:13 AM
maybe its a remake of the Host? ;)

but watch the trailer again. it goes out of its way to make a point that something is coming out of her, especially with the noises. the two guys in Haz-mat suits are trying to help her.


I got the impression they were killing her with a drill or something.

I thought one of them was holding her while the other one stabbed her from behind with something that came out the front of her.

Dukefrukem
12-04-2007, 02:19 AM
I got the impression they were killing her with a drill or something.

I thought one of them was holding her while the other one stabbed her from behind with something that came out the front of her.

hmmm no that you mention it i do hear a drill like sound and the guy on the right is holding something

Scar
12-04-2007, 11:31 AM
:|

I'll go with they're restraining her against her will, 'cause she doesn't think she needs to be quarantined.

Scar
12-14-2007, 06:12 PM
:|

I'll go with they're restraining her against her will, 'cause she doesn't think she needs to be quarantined.

Watched the HD trailer last night. Sonnofabitch, it looks like she's getting ready to burst.

Shit.

I'll watch it again when I get home.

Ezee E
12-14-2007, 09:12 PM
There's a five-minute preview or scene that you can see now. I'm just going to wait and see it in theaters though.

EvilShoe
12-14-2007, 11:03 PM
Interview with the director:
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=4027

Some interesting stuff:

We're creating great suspense while you see the great features of this monster. The other thing I think is very exciting is this monster is huge and you see everything. You see it in a way that is if you're shooting it with a Handicam. If you're hiding under a car, you see it that way, and there are other moments - I can guarantee you - you are seeing this monster in a huge way.


At the last minute, when we were shooting the trailer, we wanted people to know - 'cause we hadn't created the monster yet - that it was a giant monster movie, we wanted a tease of that. I jumped to the microphone and said the line, "I saw it! It's alive! It's huge!" And one of the most amusing things is I had come home and someone on the web had taken that section and started to do an analysis on it and thought I said, "It was a lion." The way I speak was too fast sometimes and they couldn't make it out.

Sycophant
12-14-2007, 11:14 PM
At the last minute, when we were shooting the trailer, we wanted people to know - 'cause we hadn't created the monster yet - that it was a giant monster movie, we wanted a tease of that. I jumped to the microphone and said the line, "I saw it! It's alive! It's huge!" And one of the most amusing things is I had come home and someone on the web had taken that section and started to do an analysis on it and thought I said, "It was a lion." The way I speak was too fast sometimes and they couldn't make it out.

I hope that's influenced the design of the monster. Has there even been a kaiju film with a giant lion?

Scar
12-15-2007, 02:33 PM
I hope that's influenced the design of the monster. Has there even been a kaiju film with a giant lion?

http://godzilla.monstrous.com/king_caesar_godzilla.jpg

King Caesar is supposedly half lion.

Sxottlan
12-15-2007, 05:30 PM
Watched the HD trailer last night. Sonnofabitch, it looks like she's getting ready to burst.

The shot happens so fast, I really can't see much of anything. The way the sound cued up made me think they had just added it in for more effect. It almost sounded like audio was just intentionally distorted and made to sound like a drill or flesh ripping.

EvilShoe
12-15-2007, 06:36 PM
I hope that's influenced the design of the monster. Has there even been a kaiju film with a giant lion?
There's still a chance this is a production still:
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1319/abramspp9.jpg

Scar
12-15-2007, 10:08 PM
The shot happens so fast, I really can't see much of anything. The way the sound cued up made me think they had just added it in for more effect. It almost sounded like audio was just intentionally distorted and made to sound like a drill or flesh ripping.

I didn't pay attention to the audio, I just focused on the chick. And she was expanding.

megladon8
12-16-2007, 01:02 AM
Why would a giant lion come out of the ocean?

[ETM]
12-16-2007, 01:11 AM
Why would a giant lion come out of the ocean?

http://www.gistimages.co.uk/stock-images/animals/images/sea-lion-08.jpg
"Why is that a problem? Maybe I just don't feel like swimmin."

megladon8
12-16-2007, 01:21 AM
;16763']http://www.gistimages.co.uk/stock-images/animals/images/sea-lion-08.jpg
"Why is that a problem? Maybe I just don't feel like swimmin."


It would actually be hilairous to make the most vicious giant monster ever created, and have it be some giant fuzzy creature.

"Oh my God! It's King Otter!"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/otter-thumb.jpg

MadMan
12-16-2007, 04:02 AM
The giant fuzzy otter is here! And he's really fucking pissed! Run for you lives!

Bosco B Thug
12-16-2007, 04:16 AM
There's a five-minute preview or scene that you can see now. I'm just going to wait and see it in theaters though. Link (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10684)

My favorite part is the "Hey, maybe we could see something from the roof! Yeah, let's go to the roof! Totally we should do that! To the roof!!!" guys and then the girl who's like, "The roof? Maybe we shouldn't, sounds kinda dangerous..." :lol:

That said, I'm really looking forward to this. Again, I hope it's not another giant reptile. I'd take the lion, that picture's pretty cool. It's true we haven't gotten a giant kaiju mammal yet (or have we?).

transmogrifier
12-16-2007, 10:57 AM
Otters are the cutest animals on the planet. They kick the arses of kittens and puppies and what-not.

Sven
12-16-2007, 04:16 PM
Link (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10684)

The acting here is atrocious. This movie will be annoying and awful. Its attempts at immersion will feel more like a failed theme park ride than the Pirates of the Caribbean adaptation. The monster may be something to see, but all that lame shakiness and terrible performances from TV-good-looking people will be ultimately more destructive.

Wryan
12-16-2007, 11:51 PM
Yeah that interview with the director said:

~ We'll see the monster in full, possibly often, in different and intriguing ways. No Blair Witch-hiding-stuff-to-keep-in-budget.

~ The movie is an attempt to give America it's own monster. I.E. it doesn't have a proper "well-known" name. It's new.

~ The director is pretty cagey and smart. I was concerned about him before, but reading that interview gave me hope. Seems to have his eggs together, err, whatever. He's there for character-driven stuff. Abrams is there to blow shit up good and make a good monster. Sounds like a good combo.

MadMan
12-18-2007, 12:32 AM
Link (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10684)

My favorite part is the "Hey, maybe we could see something from the roof! Yeah, let's go to the roof! Totally we should do that! To the roof!!!" guys and then the girl who's like, "The roof? Maybe we shouldn't, sounds kinda dangerous..." :lol:

That said, I'm really looking forward to this. Again, I hope it's not another giant reptile. I'd take the lion, that picture's pretty cool. It's true we haven't gotten a giant kaiju mammal yet (or have we?).Actually after seeing that footage my desire to view the film went up a good couple of notches. It looks really awesome.

PS: iosos how can you be so sure this film is going to suck based on five minutes of footage? For all I know I could be very wrong about the movie being good as much as you are about it being bad.

bac0n
12-18-2007, 01:46 AM
Yeah, I quite enjoyed that clip too. I'll definitely be seeing this

Dukefrukem
12-21-2007, 03:37 PM
you guys see this?

http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/1198131767938.gif

KK2.0
12-21-2007, 04:32 PM
A-ha, now you can see the legs and overall shape slightly better.

It's a Godzilla-like monster but with an Alien-like big head.

Fezzik
12-21-2007, 06:39 PM
you guys see this?

http://www.straferight.com/photopost/data/500/1198131767938.gif

OMG it's a giant Ninja Turtle!

Run for your life, he has a pizza the size of Madison Square Garden!

Wryan
12-22-2007, 07:01 PM
MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!! MAN IN SUIT!!!

MadMan
12-25-2007, 02:03 AM
MAN IN SUIT!!! *times infinity*!I sure hope so :)

Also I'm still not sure what the hell the creature is supposed to be. Slowing that part down still leaves a rather blury and unclear image.

Sven
12-25-2007, 02:07 AM
Saw the trailer again in front of Sweeney Todd and I gotta say... it looks like the chick is going to explode. Still looks kind of terrible, but the concept still intrigues me. I hope they keep the mono sound thing, but I bet they'll cop out.

Raiders
12-26-2007, 02:24 PM
Either explode or turn into another monster (perhaps a smaller version).

I'm still excited simply because I have admittedly bought into the wonderful campaigning for this film. It looks like it could be terrible, but I'll still see it.

megladon8
01-07-2008, 02:51 AM
There are some rumors floating around that the monster is a mutated whale, and that the smaller monsters are mutated, gigantic louses - louses are the small critters which live on the outside of whales.

This is a concept drawing of the monster, as well as the louses...

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5790/cloverfieldmonstertv9.th.jpg (http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cloverfieldmonste rtv9.jpg)


Of course it could be completely false, but a few websites have apparently backed it up as genuine.

Plus when you compare the back-end of the monster from the short clip in the trailer, the shape fits.

Watashi
01-07-2008, 02:53 AM
That's been proven fake.

megladon8
01-07-2008, 02:54 AM
That's been proven fake.


Really?

Damn...sorry if I got anyone's hopes up.

Sven
01-07-2008, 03:42 AM
Despite its fauxness, that Whale monster is friggin' awesome!

megladon8
01-07-2008, 03:48 AM
Despite its fauxness, that Whale monster is friggin' awesome!


Indeed...I was gettin' kind of excited to see that in action.

Bosco B Thug
01-07-2008, 05:24 AM
Indeed...I was gettin' kind of excited to see that in action. Yeah. It'd be cool to get a monster like that which doesn't have a "mean/evil" "look."

I can't believe this is two weeks away.

transmogrifier
01-07-2008, 05:31 AM
Despite its fauxness, that Whale monster is friggin' awesome!

I like the monster louse the best.

Dukefrukem
01-07-2008, 01:57 PM
Anyone read the book Meg (http://www.amazon.com/MEG-Novel-Deep-Terror-Meg/dp/0976165910/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199717745&sr=1-1)?

Thats the first thing i thought of when we hear about a giant create no one has seen then all of a sudden.. BAM!

megladon8
01-07-2008, 02:10 PM
Anyone read the book Meg (http://www.amazon.com/MEG-Novel-Deep-Terror-Meg/dp/0976165910/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199717745&sr=1-1)?

Thats the first thing i thought of when we hear about a giant create no one has seen then all of a sudden.. BAM!


Yep...it's an entertaining read. The sequel, "The Trench", is good as well.

Steve Alten has some convincing theories about megalodon sharks still lurking in the depths of the Mariana Trench.

D_Davis
01-07-2008, 02:27 PM
That guy Steve Alten sure has a niche!

D_Davis
01-07-2008, 02:28 PM
Despite its fauxness, that Whale monster is friggin' awesome!

Yeah, this is one of the best designed movie monsters I've ever seen. Someone needs to make a movie with it.

Unfortunately, I'm sure the monster in the actual film won't be nearly as cool as this fake concept.

Morris Schæffer
01-07-2008, 04:00 PM
I can't believe this is two weeks away.

It's somewhat odd getting such a film in January isn't it? :)

Perhaps this will start a trend.

Sycophant
01-07-2008, 04:03 PM
Weren't there a couple films last year that kind of proved that dead zones in the studio calendar are really just dead zones because they've been decided to be dead zones? It seems to me that Ghost Rider made a decent amount of money in its early winter 2007 release and 300 did well early Spring. Personally, I'd really like the idea that just because it's released in January or February it's junk to go away.

Sven
01-07-2008, 04:11 PM
Weren't there a couple films last year that kind of proved that dead zones in the studio calendar are really just dead zones because they've been decided to be dead zones? It seems to me that Ghost Rider made a decent amount of money in its early winter 2007 release and 300 did well early Spring. Personally, I'd really like the idea that just because it's released in January or February it's junk to go away.

Yeah, I second this.

In the case of Cloverfield, it's not the January element that signals garbage, it's the Abrams element.

number8
01-07-2008, 10:29 PM
The dead zone has always been studio imposed. It's not that they're dead, it's just that they're not as packed as summer as Christmas. So they dump the "lesser" films in these dead zones. Ghost Rider was not considered a huge tentpole, and 300 is R-rated. Non-comedy R-rated big movies tend to go on the March-May slot. It wasn't a fluke by any means.

In any case, Paramount was never expecting Cloverfield to be a big movie. It has a pretty meager budget. The viral marketing success was as much as a surprise to them also. Even now, they're still wary that this is going to be another Snakes on a Plane thing.

number8
01-07-2008, 10:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY

Wryan
01-07-2008, 10:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY

Very slick. Terrible effects though. Scientist girl delivered a perfected noted performance.

number8
01-07-2008, 10:52 PM
I'm pretty sure she's real, actually. End Oil is a real org.

Wryan
01-07-2008, 10:58 PM
I'm pretty sure she's real, actually. End Oil is a real org.

Really? That makes it cooler!

Sven
01-08-2008, 12:49 AM
The effects were blech. Hopefully the film will be less careless.

megladon8
01-08-2008, 01:06 AM
For this kind of thing I'm honestly not that worried about the effects - as long as they're not laughably terrible, I'll be OK with it.

In something like I Am Legend where not only were the CGI effects unnecessary but they also made the entire thing uneffective, that is when I am bugged.

Wryan
01-08-2008, 05:38 PM
POSSIBLE ACTION FIGURE OF MONSTER. IF TRUE, CONSTITUTES A MAJOR SPOILER. LOOK AT YOUR OWN RISK.......BUT PRETTY COOL IMO.

http://i13.tinypic.com/727nwif.jpg

megladon8
01-08-2008, 05:54 PM
...is it bad that I liked the whale better?

Sycophant
01-08-2008, 05:55 PM
...is it bad that I liked the whale better?No. I certainly did, too. This is... alright.

Scar
01-08-2008, 06:07 PM
I dig it.

Wryan
01-08-2008, 08:35 PM
I like that it's not a representative monster type. "Oh a big, weird whale." "A giant mutated octopus." You know? I like that it's unique and it's own creature. So were the aliens. So was the predator.

EvilShoe
01-08-2008, 08:44 PM
It's fake.

transmogrifier
01-08-2008, 08:52 PM
I like that it's not a representative monster type. "Oh a big, weird whale." "A giant mutated octopus." You know? I like that it's unique and it's own creature. So were the aliens. So was the predator.

Really? Looked like an iguana to me.

megladon8
01-08-2008, 08:56 PM
It's always bothered me how humanoid a lot of movie monsters are.

Wryan's comment on the Predator reminded me of this. Don't get me wrong, Predator rocks, but he's just a human with messed up face.

Granted it seems the Cloverfield monster is probably going to be something from Earth, but with aliens and whatnot, why do these designs always assume that beings from other planets will have two arms, and two legs? Or a mouth and two eyes situated on their head, which is located on their neck, which is between their shoulders?

I wish there were some more original design ideas.

lovejuice
01-08-2008, 08:57 PM
from wry's picture.

i hope the head is actually there instead of the left arm. now that's a monster i can endorse. otherwise, it's just another godzilla knock off.

EvilShoe
01-08-2008, 10:00 PM
Seriously, it's fake.
It has been debunked.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35230

Wryan
01-08-2008, 10:06 PM
It's always bothered me how humanoid a lot of movie monsters are.

Wryan's comment on the Predator reminded me of this. Don't get me wrong, Predator rocks, but he's just a human with messed up face.

Granted it seems the Cloverfield monster is probably going to be something from Earth, but with aliens and whatnot, why do these designs always assume that beings from other planets will have two arms, and two legs? Or a mouth and two eyes situated on their head, which is located on their neck, which is between their shoulders?

I wish there were some more original design ideas.

Awwwww. Come on! Predator has a heart of gold! GOLD!

As for being debunked, oh well. I still like the monster. :)

Sycophant
01-08-2008, 10:10 PM
Seriously, it's fake.
It has been debunked.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35230I hate AICN so much.

I just realized this movie's out in ten days. I think I'm going to stop paying any attention to it till then.

Ivan Drago
01-08-2008, 10:15 PM
I found a teaser poster of this on RT...I don't know if it's fake or not but it does have a possible silhouette of the monster.

http://www.cloverfield-movie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/poster2.jpg

But again, it could be fake. Who knows?

EDIT: Yep, it's fake.

Sycophant
01-08-2008, 10:17 PM
It's an Eva?

megladon8
01-08-2008, 10:59 PM
Um..."Hide"??

If there's an enormous monster tearing a city apart, I think hiding is about the stupidest fucking thing anyone could do.

How about "get the fuck out of North America"??

Or better yet...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/mars.jpg

Rowland
01-08-2008, 11:27 PM
Image leak!

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7530/cloverfielddw4.jpg

Henry Gale
01-08-2008, 11:45 PM
Image leak!

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7530/cloverfielddw4.jpg

I really wish I hadn't open that, I didn't want to be spoiled any more. :sad:

Sycophant
01-09-2008, 12:04 AM
Image leak!

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7530/cloverfielddw4.jpg
:eek:
I just laughed out loud for thirty seconds all alone in my office. Either I'm far too sleep-deprived, or that's the funniest thing I've seen in ages.

bac0n
01-09-2008, 03:00 AM
Image leak!

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7530/cloverfielddw4.jpg

Thanks a lot, dude. You just spoiled Godzilla 1988! :P

EvilShoe
01-09-2008, 09:21 AM
I thought that was going to be a joke post.
Fuck you, Rowland.

Scar
01-09-2008, 11:35 AM
I had a dream last night my pops and I were going after the Cloverfield monster..... in a tank. He was driving and working the main gun, and I was on the top working the maching gun.

It was funny that while we were hunting this monster, we were chit chatting away. :lol:

Raiders
01-09-2008, 12:44 PM
I found a teaser poster of this on RT...I don't know if it's fake or not but it does have a possible silhouette of the monster.

Looks like a were-rabbit to me.

D_Davis
01-09-2008, 01:43 PM
...is it bad that I liked the whale better?

I'm telling you. That fake whale picture will be infinitely better and more creative than what ends up in the film. The fans who do that kind of thing are usually way more creative than the people who actually work on the film. They should form a guild, and then go on strike.

Henry Gale
01-10-2008, 06:18 AM
Just curious, who exactly confirmed that the whale-monster sketch was fake?

I mean if it actually is fake then that's fine, but it's kind of weird to me that it not only did it come out at a time when nobody knew for sure that it was even called "Cloverfield" or not and there it is written at the bottom, but now from the fairly spoilerish hints Abrams, Goddard and Reeves dropped here (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/09/cloverfield-building-a-better-monster/) about the monster all describe something oddly close to some of what we saw in that concept art picture.

Oh well, it's only a little over a week before we know what it looks like but that article just put me back to the thinking it will be/wanting it to be the "whale" in the final film.

number8
01-10-2008, 06:23 AM
Because it was a fan art. It wasn't supposed to be a "fake" thing. Some artist got inspired by the teaser and posted it on his blog. Then people took it and claimed it was the real deal.

Sycophant
01-10-2008, 06:54 AM
Because it was a fan art. It wasn't supposed to be a "fake" thing. Some artist got inspired by the teaser and posted it on his blog. Then people took it and claimed it was the real deal.The Internet is ruining everything.

Raiders
01-10-2008, 05:15 PM
:|

Reading that article makes me very uninterested in this film. I'm still going to see it, but inter-splicing of "human" drama to parallel the monster drama? Nevermind turning off the camera would y'know, stop the whole thing, not cut to what is being recorded over.

Whatever. I have waited too long to not see it.

megladon8
01-10-2008, 05:16 PM
For this kind of thing I'm honestly not that worried about the effects - as long as they're not laughably terrible, I'll be OK with it.

In something like I Am Legend where not only were the CGI effects unnecessary but they also made the entire thing uneffective, that is when I am bugged.


What??

I got negative rep for this?

Man, this whole rep thing is getting out of hand. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've got negative rep for a ridiculous reason.

Sven
01-10-2008, 05:18 PM
:|

Reading that article makes me very uninterested in this film. I'm still going to see it, but inter-splicing of "human" drama to parallel the monster drama? Nevermind turning off the camera would y'know, stop the whole thing, not cut to what is being recorded over.

Whatever. I have waited too long to not see it.

For reals. I was chortling and rolling my eyes while reading that article. This movie will bite.

Scar
01-10-2008, 05:22 PM
What??

I got negative rep for this?

Man, this whole rep thing is getting out of hand. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've got negative rep for a ridiculous reason.

Name names.

Raiders
01-10-2008, 05:33 PM
What??

I got negative rep for this?

Man, this whole rep thing is getting out of hand. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've got negative rep for a ridiculous reason.

Are you sure it was negative, and not just a "gray" rep where the giver doesn't have any rep power?

Ezee E
01-10-2008, 05:52 PM
Are you sure it was negative, and not just a "gray" rep where the giver doesn't have any rep power?
Probably that. It's heartbreaking to get rep from those with 0 rep. It's the similar type of thanks that I get while firefighting from those that aren't US citizens. We're grateful but we aren't going to see a dime of that money we should earn.

:)

megladon8
01-10-2008, 06:06 PM
Are you sure it was negative, and not just a "gray" rep where the giver doesn't have any rep power?


I was under the impression grey was neutral/negative, and red was fully negative.

Well, my foot returns to my mouth once again.

Sven
01-10-2008, 06:08 PM
I was under the impression grey was neutral/negative, and red was fully negative.

Well, my foot returns to my mouth once again.

Grey just means that the person doesn't have rep power, but it's positive rep.

megladon8
01-10-2008, 06:09 PM
Grey just means that the person doesn't have rep power, but it's positive rep.


Ah, well, sorry.

Sven
01-10-2008, 06:10 PM
Ah, well, sorry.

No worries. At least now you know that people have been loving you all along. :)

megladon8
01-10-2008, 06:11 PM
No worries. At least now you know that people have been loving you all along. :)


Well, no, I have gotten 2 negative reps for - one for saying I didn't like Bob Dylan, and the other for saying I didn't like "Heroes".

But hey...at least 2 I thought were negative are actually okay!

megladon8
01-10-2008, 06:26 PM
I am really, really surprised that the monster hasn't been leaked yet.

I bet half the budget went into security :)

bac0n
01-10-2008, 06:54 PM
Well, no, I have gotten 2 negative reps for - one for saying I didn't like Bob Dylan, and the other for saying I didn't like "Heroes".

But hey...at least 2 I thought were negative are actually okay!

Wow, people neg-repped you for expressing a dissenting opinion?

LAME

Wryan
01-10-2008, 06:58 PM
Well, no, I have gotten 2 negative reps for - one for saying I didn't like Bob Dylan, and the other for saying I didn't like "Heroes".

But hey...at least 2 I thought were negative are actually okay!

You don't like Dylan!?!?!?!!?!?!

NEGATIVE REP INCOMING!

number8
01-10-2008, 07:27 PM
Yeh, meg said that Dylan's voice is terrible... and that he MOLESTS ORPHANS.

[/plan to thwart meg is complete]

EvilShoe
01-10-2008, 07:34 PM
Well, no, I have gotten 2 negative reps for - one for saying I didn't like Bob Dylan, and the other for saying I didn't like "Heroes".

But hey...at least 2 I thought were negative are actually okay!
I'm surprised you weren't just banned for disliking Dylan.
K_Fan must've had the day off.

Wryan
01-10-2008, 09:13 PM
There's a new tv spot out there somewhere but I can't be arsed to link it at the moment. Slightly newish footage with a new "shot" of the monster being fired upon Godzilla style, so lots of explosions and smoke to conceal it. Can't see anything.

D_Davis
01-10-2008, 10:11 PM
"‘When you have a monster that size how do you keep the characters from seeming totally irrelevant?’” says Abrams."

You don't, dumb ass. I don't go to see a giant monster movie to see the human characters. Who cares.

Raiders
01-10-2008, 10:17 PM
"‘When you have a monster that size how do you keep the characters from seeming totally irrelevant?’” says Abrams."

You don't, dumb ass. I don't go to see a giant monster movie to see the human characters. Who cares.

Pigeon-holing genre films is lame. I have no problems with Abrams and Co. attempting a War of the Worlds style film that uses the invading monster more as a plot impetus rather than a central character. The issue is it sounds like they have chosen to try and tell two parallel stories in a monster film rather than relating them beyond superficial thematics. It sounds like it'll just come off as weird and unnatural.

number8
01-10-2008, 10:19 PM
Well, be prepared for some human drama, at least. I found out that the first 20 minutes of the movie is just that party scene we saw in the trailer, setting up all the characters and their relationships.

Rowland
01-10-2008, 10:20 PM
Pigeon-holing genre films is lame.Absolutely. That doesn't sound much different to me than people who argue that we only watch horror movies for the kills.

Henry Gale
01-10-2008, 10:34 PM
"‘When you have a monster that size how do you keep the characters from seeming totally irrelevant?’” says Abrams."

You don't, dumb ass. I don't go to see a giant monster movie to see the human characters. Who cares.

I think he meant with a movie like this and a monster that big in a setting that is also really large that you need the smaller creatures to always have the danger be more around every corner and keep the characters from being more than just screaming good-looking people walking around being uninteresting.

Buffaluffasaurus
01-10-2008, 10:53 PM
Are you sure it was negative, and not just a "gray" rep where the giver doesn't have any rep power?
Speaking of which, when the hell do I get me some rep power. I feel like an idiot repping people with a grand total of zero. I take it there must be some minimum number of posts before you acquire such a power?

Raiders
01-10-2008, 10:55 PM
Speaking of which, when the hell do I get me some rep power.

You missed the first hazing ceremony, but don't worry, there's another.

You have to repeat after me:

"Godard is the greatest director ever."

Ezee E
01-10-2008, 11:00 PM
The cool thing Buff is you can neg rep all you want as well and not suffer any revenge neg-rep in the future.

D_Davis
01-10-2008, 11:03 PM
Absolutely. That doesn't sound much different to me than people who argue that we only watch horror movies for the kills.


There are all kinds of horror films though. Some don't have any kills at all.

When I see a big, giant monster film, all I care about is the big giant monsters. If that's lame, then so be it, I can only be honest in what I look for in any particular kind of film. What's really lame is when other people tell other people that what they like out of certain kinds of films is lame. That's like, uber-lame.

Besides, who knows, this could be the greatest monster film of all time. I haven't seen it yet.

However, based on what I have seen, and knowing who is involved, I can't help but get the impression of the human drama playing out like some insipid television show.

Buffaluffasaurus
01-10-2008, 11:07 PM
You missed the first hazing ceremony, but don't worry, there's another.

You have to repeat after me:

"Godard is the greatest director ever."
*Leaves for IMDB message boards*

D_Davis
01-10-2008, 11:08 PM
I think he meant with a movie like this and a monster that big in a setting that is also really large that you need the smaller creatures to always have the danger be more around every corner and keep the characters from being more than just screaming good-looking people walking around being uninteresting.

This makes sense. He was probably speaking more about how to make a connection between the two elements; how to ground the small people in the same geography and space as the giant monster, and make it feel immediate and real. This is a good thing.

Rowland
01-10-2008, 11:10 PM
I can only be honest in what I look for in any particular kind of film. What's really lame is when other people tell other people that what they like out of certain kinds of films is lame. That's like, uber-lame.
In that case, you shouldn't resort to calling Abrams a dumb ass for caring about his characters. Who cares, you ask? Some people apparently do. ;)

D_Davis
01-10-2008, 11:19 PM
In that case, you shouldn't resort to calling Abrams a dumb ass for caring about his characters. Who cares, you ask? Some people apparently do. ;)

Fair enough.

I should have just said, "I don't care," and left out the ambiguous, "who cares?"

megladon8
01-11-2008, 12:50 AM
Eh, I'm with D_Davis, I go to giant monster movies to see stuff get BLOWED UP REAL GOOD!

Sure, perhaps this is ushering in a new era of monster movies with important/relevant characters and plots...but if it's just another "cool looking monster wreaks havoc" movie, well, I definitely won't be complaining.

number8
01-11-2008, 01:34 AM
Sure, perhaps this is ushering in a new era of monster movies with important/relevant characters and plots...

I don't think that's new.

Hell, Abrams said that he's a huge fan of The Host and drew a lot of inspiration from it.

Sycophant
01-11-2008, 01:37 AM
Whatever the film has decided it needs to do, I hope it does it well.

megladon8
01-11-2008, 01:54 AM
I don't think that's new.

Hell, Abrams said that he's a huge fan of The Host and drew a lot of inspiration from it.


True...but The Host is a relatively new movie.

I can't really think of any "older" giant monster movies which were more about character and plot than they were about monster action. But I'm probably wrong on this anyways.

In any case, I'm really worried about this idea of the film being deeply character driven, because - if the trailers are any indication - these are really annoying, unlikable characters.

number8
01-11-2008, 03:25 AM
I can't really think of any "older" giant monster movies which were more about character and plot than they were about monster action. But I'm probably wrong on this anyways.

First one that came to my mind? The original Godzilla.

megladon8
01-11-2008, 03:28 AM
First one that came to my mind? The original Godzilla.


Aw, shucks :P

lovejuice
01-11-2008, 03:33 AM
In any case, I'm really worried about this idea of the film being deeply character driven, because - if the trailers are any indication - these are really annoying, unlikable characters.

i agree with you here.

Wryan
01-11-2008, 03:54 AM
Harry loved it. Said some stuff that eases my mind at least. I'm sure I'll have fun at the least.

Scar
01-11-2008, 11:37 AM
First one that came to my mind? The original Godzilla.

Who cares about Raymond Burr?

*runs FAST*

bac0n
01-11-2008, 02:46 PM
Ya know, I love daikaiju (giant monster flicks) for the same reason that other people do - to see stuff blows up - but all my favorite flicks in the genre have always had good human stories to accompany them:

Destroy All Monsters had a great cheesey alien invasion plot.

The Gamera Trilogy all had great human stories to them.

Godzilla Mothra King Ghidorah : Giant Monster All Out Battle (now there's a mouthful) in particular placed a lot of emphasis on the human story, and along with Gamera: Revenge of Iris, is about as close as I've seen to a giant monster movie that shows the human cost of a giant monster rampage. (this is probably why it's my favorite Godzilla film ever)

So, i short, I hope the Cloverfield monster mayhem is kickass, but I also hope the stuff that happens when the monster is not onscreen doesn't suck total ass.

Wryan
01-11-2008, 09:35 PM
Another MAYBE image, concept art of monster. Little more reptilian-ish than the humanoid-esque image I posted last time, still somewhat humanoid though. SPOILERS obv.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/ignatz/album%2034/cloverfield3flat.jpg

And a comparison GIF from last tv spot. Looks fairly close, imo. Might be the right one after all.

http://pixpipeline.com/s/28f094c4c838.gif

Rowland
01-11-2008, 09:54 PM
And a comparison GIF from last tv spot. Looks fairly close, imo.Really? I just stared at that GIF for like a minute, and I can't see a damn thing.

Kurosawa Fan
01-11-2008, 10:00 PM
Really? I just stared at that GIF for like a minute, and I can't see a damn thing.

:lol:

That's two of us.

Wryan
01-11-2008, 10:22 PM
Heh. I see arms and elbows that seem similar to pic. And after the burst of smoke, a dark vertical column that could easily be its tail after it turns to run away. :)

lovejuice
01-11-2008, 10:33 PM
Another MAYBE image, concept art of monster. Little more reptilian-ish than the humanoid-esque image I posted last time, still somewhat humanoid though. SPOILERS obv.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/ignatz/album%2034/cloverfield3flat.jpg


so the thing has two arms. :disappointed:

Scar
01-12-2008, 12:04 AM
Really? I just stared at that GIF for like a minute, and I can't see a damn thing.

My head hurts.

megladon8
01-12-2008, 12:08 AM
I don't see anything in that GIF, either.

Maybe it's the quality of the video?

origami_mustache
01-13-2008, 11:40 AM
I don't really care how much this ends up sucking, the marketing is so brilliant.

Did anyone see these fake news clips?
There are about ten of them each in different languages...here is the American one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY

I saw someone speculating that the film could be an adaptation of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_Cthulhu

It seems to fit, and would make for an interesting adaptation.

megladon8
01-13-2008, 10:16 PM
I don't really care how much this ends up sucking, the marketing is so brilliant.

Did anyone see these fake news clips?
There are about ten of them each in different languages...here is the American one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY

I saw someone speculating that the film could be an adaptation of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_Cthulhu

It seems to fit, and would make for an interesting adaptation.


I'm pretty sure the H. P. Lovecraft connections (at least so far as it being a Cthulhu movie) have been debunked - by Abrams himself, if I'm not mistaken.

I, for one, would hate that. Cthulhu is not the type of monster to go rampaging through a city.

Henry Gale
01-14-2008, 02:33 AM
Two more concept drawings from the same source as the one that Wryan posted a few posts back. The second one has been said to be the real monster design, so... definitely SPOILERS:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/ignatz/album%2034/cloverfield4flat.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/ignatz/album%2034/cloverfield5flat.jpg

D_Davis
01-14-2008, 03:02 AM
Those look cool, much better than that lizard looking dude.

I like the guy with the big arms.

megladon8
01-14-2008, 03:08 AM
Those look cool, much better than that lizard looking dude.

I like the guy with the big arms.


You mean the second image?

Its legs kind of remind me of the behemoth from the end of The Mist

D_Davis
01-14-2008, 03:15 AM
You mean the second image?

Its legs kind of remind me of the behemoth from the end of The Mist

Yes, and yes.

Wryan
01-14-2008, 03:37 AM
I love the first image. Could totally get behind that as the creature. The second image looks odd. Like the creature looks . . . unintelligent. Plus its penis appears to have evolved into an appendage. Perhaps vestigial.

MadMan
01-15-2008, 05:44 AM
If those new pics are correct then the monster that will be featured in this film will look really awesome.

You know what I was thinking: imagine if they made a monster movie where they somehow left you wondering if there was a monster to begin with. I'm reminded of The Blair Witch Project in that:
in some regards The Blair Witch Project did leave open the possibility that the tales of the Witch were just that-stories-and that the kids simply vanished. Although I think the ending pointed to the stories being very, very true.. I don't think such a monster film is possible but that would be sort of cool.

Anyways unless Cloverfield gets terrible reviews I'm going to go see it. I can't remember the last good American monster movie.

megladon8
01-15-2008, 06:18 AM
If those new pics are correct then the monster that will be featured in this film will look really awesome.

You know what I was thinking: imagine if they made a monster movie where they somehow left you wondering if there was a monster to begin with. I'm reminded of The Blair Witch Project in that:
in some regards The Blair Witch Project did leave open the possibility that the tales of the Witch were just that-stories-and that the kids simply vanished. Although I think the ending pointed to the stories being very, very true.. I don't think such a monster film is possible but that would be sort of cool.

Anyways unless Cloverfield gets terrible reviews I'm going to go see it. I can't remember the last good American monster movie.


I don't see how your idea could work.

They would have to throw in some giant deus-ex machina at the end where it turns out the government dropped giant LSD bombs all over the city and everyone just hallucinated the attack. And even that wouldn't make sense, because I doubt 10 million people would have the exact same hallucination.

It's a 500+ foot tall monster destroying a city and killing huge numbers of civillians. Either it's there or it's not...there's nothing ambiguous about that, really.

Ezee E
01-15-2008, 05:50 PM
The only way it could work is if it's a Loch Ness Monster type of thing. No way, in this day and age, could it happen in a major city.

Now, take that thought, and put it in the Middle Ages....

D_Davis
01-15-2008, 06:36 PM
You know what I was thinking: imagine if they made a monster movie where they somehow left you wondering if there was a monster to begin with.

Now this would be awesome.

The whole film could play on a physical manifestation of mass hysteria. Some kind of massive, group hallucination angle would be incredibly provocative, especially in light of the times we live in, with all the fear mongering going on.

TERROR ALERT RED!
Why?
We just need you to be scared.
Oh.

Very cool idea, and again, like the fan-made drawings, probably more creative and inventive than the actual film will be.

This idea would make this for one of the more kick ass examples of science fiction cinema. An absurd premise examined under the light of social hysteria and a real phenomenon magnified to an extreme degree.

megladon8
01-15-2008, 06:39 PM
Now this would be awesome.

The whole film could play on a physical manifestation of mass hysteria. Some kind of massive, group hallucination angle would be incredibly provocative, especially in light of the times we live in, with all the fear mongering going on.

TERROR ALERT RED!
Why?
We just need you to be scared.
Oh.

Very cool idea, and again, like the fan-made drawings, probably more creative and inventive than the actual film will be.


I just don't see how this could work, though. The whole "group hallucination" might work for a short, but for a feature-length film, I think I'd feel pretty cheated if everything is blowing up and being torn to shreds and whatnot, and then at the end it's just "oh, they were all hallucinating and everyone's fine".

It's the equivalent of the dreaded "and it was all a dream" ending.

Like I said, either the monster is there or it's not - if it's not, you need to reveal what it is early on, or else it's all just a big letdown in the reveal.

D_Davis
01-15-2008, 06:45 PM
I just don't see how this could work, though. The whole "group hallucination" might work for a short, but for a feature-length film, I think I'd feel pretty cheated if everything is blowing up and being torn to shreds and whatnot, and then at the end it's just "oh, they were all hallucinating and everyone's fine".

It's the equivalent of the dreaded "and it was all a dream" ending.

Like I said, either the monster is there or it's not - if it's not, you need to reveal what it is early on, or else it's all just a big letdown in the reveal.

You're totally missing the point. Stuff would be exploding, and crashing, but the people would only think they were seeing a monster, when in fact it was just an earthquake, or a real military attack or something. The monster would be a hallucination born from our hysteria and fear conceived from the times we live in now.

It would be an extreme case of mass hysteria and with the social connection, I think it is a fascinating idea. Of course it would be harder to do correctly than just a "monster flick" and herein lies the rub: it's too creative and inventive an idea for a genre film now. They want lazy and easy.

megladon8
01-15-2008, 07:13 PM
You're totally missing the point. Stuff would be exploding, and crashing, but the people would only think they were seeing a monster, when in fact it was just an earthquake, or a real military attack or something. The monster would be a hallucination born from our hysteria and fear conceived from the times we live in now.

It would be an extreme case of mass hysteria and with the social connection, I think it is a fascinating idea. Of course it would be harder to do correctly than just a "monster flick" and herein lies the rub: it's too creative and inventive an idea for a genre film now. They want lazy and easy.


Ah, that could be interesting.

I was more of a Shyamalan-like twist ending...which would be pretty lame. "But there wasn't a monster. It was all a dream, and little Timmy got the money he needed for the surgery on his legs. The end."

The mass hysteria aspect could be great. That's kind of what that Right At Your Door movie seemed to be about - a chemical weapon dropped in downtown L.A., and people freaking the hell out.

Sycophant
01-15-2008, 07:48 PM
This discussion reminded me...

You know what movie's awesome? Matinee is awesome.

megladon8
01-15-2008, 07:51 PM
According to Bloody-Disgusting (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10894), this sketch of the Cloverfield monster was done after seeing the movie, so it is 100% authentic...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/cloverfield3011208.jpg

I call bullshit, and even if it is real...kinda lame. I'm a bit sick of the whole "giant insect" thing.


EDIT: Apparently that's the "small monster" which comes off the big one.

According the Bloody Disgusting, this is the giant monster - again, drawn by a guy who saw the movie...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/cloverfield4flat-1.jpg

Qrazy
01-15-2008, 09:19 PM
Those look like incredibly inefficient feet.