Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 2

Overnight Rumor
Yesterday, CNBC's "On The Money" discussed the possibility of "Overnight" being a title with Peter of /film. --ElectricZookeeper 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also Announced on IGN and SlashFilms. It is a Rumor still though I am puzzled Why these Reliable Sites posted info like these.


 * "Sleuthing done by the Slashfilm.com website reveals that a new trademark for the title "Overnight" was recently registered. The "Cloverfield" connection is that attorneys registering the trademark are known associates of J.J. Abrams, and have previously registered the Slusho.jp website, along with the trademarks "Slusho!," "Slusho! You can't drink just six," and the name of Abrams' production company, Bad Robot."


 * IGN: Cloverfield Called Overnight?
 * Could Cloverfield/1-18-08 be titled Overnight?
 * /Film’s Peter Sciretta talks Cloverfield on CNBC’s On The Money
 * --Mithos90 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also puzzled why these reliable sites posted this rumor. Also, the "sleuthing" was done by "malemunyon", a member of the unfiction forums.  But now we start running into discussions of truth vs. verifiability.  unfiction.com ARG: 1-18-08/(Cloverfied)  KC 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is getting out of hand. I don't think that this title needs to be reported.  In fact, I'd like to suggest removing IGN's suggested possibility of The Parasite as a title, since IGN isn't like the published newspapers.  Unlike the plot, that we know about more and can refute the rumors before, the title is constantly being gossiped, and the gossip should be capped for the most part.  The film's title is the least of the article's concerns; what matters is what is involved in the making of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Inclusion is based on verifiability, rather than truth. Maybe we should wait and see if more sources pick up on this? --ElectricZookeeper 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We can do that. I've been using Google News Search with keywords like overnight abrams to see what comes up, but nothing's shown up besides movie sites at this time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lucas Should Be Added As a Cast Member
Jessica Lucas My sources for this are pictures from the on location shooting in NYC of this film found at these links: http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002776.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002921.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002785.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002794.jpg, AND the fact that she's in the trailer. Flipping through the album you will find Matt Reeves (Director), many other cast members (including a close up of "Rob," the guy in the Slusho shirt, and Jessica Lucas herself. Also Paramount support trucks, notices of the street not being available for parking due to filming of the Paramount film "Cheese", etc. I would do this myself but I don't know how I would cite these sources. 24.151.176.32 05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't. YOu wait for a reliable source to establish the fact, and then you add it, citing the article. Thank you. ThuranX 15:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How reliable is this source? NY Magazine's Vulture  KC 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The address for the New York Production Office in that call sheet (above) is actually the address for National Lampoon Networks. So, I don't know if that makes it a fake that was given to NY Magazine or not.  MediaPost.com  KC 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that it dons the NY Magazine's logo, the Vulture is just a blog and the editors can write what they want without backing up claims. For example, yesterday, they stated that Slusho is made of people.  They got this idea from 1-18-08news.com (they put their video in the article, too), which makes some outrageous claims and lost credibility even from other cloverfield bloggers. --ElectricZookeeper 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! KC 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the call sheet was planted by the National Lampoon as a prank. --205.128.3.172 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Call Sheet is Real. Paramount is taking legal actions right now to take it off the web which shows it is legit. The forums where I post most of my info. about the movie has gotten an email from Paramount Pictures also stating about all the info I posted and cited about the film to be taken down IMMEDIATELY, same as SlashFilm and the Cloverfield Clues Blog.
 * Paramount Lawyers Confirm Cloverfield/Cheese Call-Sheet is Real
 * --Mithos90 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lucas is starting to appear in news articles as a Cloverfield cast member now. Here's a link to an article at The Hollywood Reporter KC 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a Plausible Source --Mithos90 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's been worked in. See, we just gotta wait for these sources to come up. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield Call Sheet
Recently a Call Sheet of the Movie was posted up on NYMag and was taken from the set. Well Today Slashfilms has received a email from one of Paramounts Lawyers ordering it to be taken down As Soon as Possible. Seeing that this is the case, Possible Spoilers were on the call sheet revealing some of the plot. I am not sure if this is liable to now have more information regarding to the films plot be updated on the Actual Article of the Movie. Seeing the sheet itself(not taken down from NYMag....yet) has gotten the Paramount Pictures lawyer's attention and they demand for it to be taken down.

If This was added to the article, I would suggest a spoiler warning and linking the cited source to the Slashfilm link I posted below, seeing that anyone who links the Call sheet from the NYMag site will intertwine with legal issues with Paramount Pictures.

--Mithos90 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * J.J. Abrams's ‘Cloverfield’ Wraps — and We've Got the Call Sheet That Might Spoil the Ending
 * Paramount Lawyers Confirm Cloverfield/Cheese Call-Sheet is Real

A second teaser trailer is currently said to be running with prints of "Stardust", this is not the same trailer people reported seeing last week when they attended an advanced screening of "Stardust".


 * Ok Looking at the call Sheet closely, it shows a lists of 3 cast members where it shows the schedules of their Make-up, Rehearsal and On set Times. Jessica Lucas, on the sheet (Cast number 5), shows she will be staring in the Film as Lily. Was wandering If This sheet can Add Jessica Lucas to the Article...If not We will wait for more sources to come in, though it confirms the other casts members in the film. --Mithos90 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is interesting, but I think we should only post the stuff in the article that IS credible and wasn't taken from a copywright infringement. As a curtasy to Paramount it'd be best not to include anything, since wikipedia might be in violation if any content is posted that Paramount isn't allowing to the public. --207.35.76.163 02:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slusho Link
If the Slusho.jp site is mentioned in the article and has two citations reporting its probable involvement in the marketing - even if it is not officially confirmed - why does it not merit a link in the text. Such a link neither adds nor detracts from the article, and it allows readers to investigate the site for themselves. If the site has enough merit to be mentioned (by its very address, no less) in the article, then I don't understand what is the bigh deal with actually linking that address to the real site. And I don't see where WP:EL states that these links cannot be used, it only states that they must be used sparingly, and I'm only adding one.--Qwerty7412369 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're arguing from the wrong direction: adding the links, then arguing why they should be kept while reverting legitimate edits. How about you keep them out of the article, and argue why they should be included in the first place. --Closedmouth 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow,Closedmouth, I don't remember reading that rule when I signed up for wikipedia - I thought the policy was to Be Bold and make edits, well, boldly and not quitely sit back and wait for others to give me permission to edit. Also, please Assume Good Faith and recognize that I, much like you, am simply trying to improve what is, after all, a community project.  Now I still think that the Slusho.jp link should be included, either in the article itself or in the External Links section, seeing as Slusho.jp is already mentioned in the article and there are two sources attesting to its involvement in the marketing.  Users can go and check out the site themselves - I'm not arguing that we should add a Slusho section, or that we should make a seperate Slusho article, I just think there should be one little link.  I'm not trying to add links to random sites here.


 * No one has given me an adequate explination as to why a link to Slusho.jp should not be included.--Qwerty7412369 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I'm sorry, the Cloverfield article currently cites three articles that identify Slusho.jp as part of the marketing, not two:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * --Qwerty7412369 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok to go ahead and add a direct link to the Slusho Site in to article but a link to Slusho in the external links area is still not allowed until a cited source states the Slusho Web site is also part of this Viral Marketing Campaign, as this was mentioned before and but somehow the link to the Slusho site was removed from the article. What do the other editors think about the idea?

--Mithos90 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's guidelines: "External links should not be used in the body of an article." --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 04:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets say that point is given (though, I would like to point out that "should not" is not the same as "must not") - Why is a external link to slusho not merited when (1) the article plainly discussed the site, (2) as I detailed above the article has three references which identify slusho with the marketing for "cloverfield," and (3) what I see as the key point, the last article cited verifies that during J.J. Abrams appearence at Comic-Con, Paramount was distributing the same "Slusho" merchendice that the "Slusho" website sells in its online store! Same Logo! Same Slogan! Same Stuff! At the table where J.J. Abrams was discussing "Cloverfield!" This is not some anonymous sourse suggesting a connection, this is evidence of a direct connection! Don't take my word on it, check it out yourself: www.slusho.jp,


 * This is all verifiable, which I understand to be the criteria for wikipedia, so whats the big dead with puting a link somewhere, anywhere in the article? Trustworthy, verifiable sources have linked the two, so why can't we? If not the article itself, why not the "External links" section? --Qwerty7412369 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate as an external link because it's not a link that provides any kind of supplementary content about the film. The official website has screenshots available to visitors.  I agree with other editors that the website is not quite verifiable in the sense of being directly tied to the film.  There's no differentiating the available information to Slusho having relevant ties to what the film is about or if it's just a parallel marketing ploy.  The role of Slusho.jp remains to be seen, basically.  When the specific nature of Slusho in Cloverfield is determined, we can decide whether or not if it's appropriate as an external link.  Otherwise, it could be like external linking to Mountain Dew at Transformers (film) because a robot was a Mountain Dew machine, and hypothetically, they passed out Mt. Dew to fans at some pre-release conference.  (All this speculation on my part, but the open-ended possibilities are why it doesn't fit for now.)  Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "role of" alot of things in this article "remain to be seen," and if that is the criteria for inclusion used here, then we ought to delete large portions of the whole article - For instance, the movie's title is not "Cloverfield," The movie's title has not been officially determined, it "remains to be seen."  Why then is there even a wikipedia article titled "Cloverfield?"  That seems very un-encyclopedic.  And you claim that the 1-18-08.com official website is vaild because it offers screen-shots, but until the movie comes out it "remains to be seen" if those are really screeenshots or what if any relation they have to the movie.  Its just your interpertation (correct or incorrect is irrelevant) that this information is "supplementary" to the movie and that the information provided in slusho.jp is not. There are plenty of people who, by there own interpertation (also correctly or incorrectly) are finding "supplementary" information for the movie at Slusho.jp.  So why should one interpertation be privelaged over the other?  They both have verifiable sources to back up their positions.  Either they should both be in or they should both be out.


 * Another point, if screenshots of the actors in what appears to be the film (which of course, "remains to be seen" as the movie itself is months away from opening) are all thats needed to be included, then why don't we add the character's "official" myspace pages - they have what appears to be screenshots of the actors form the movie, same as the "official" 1-18-08.com site. (See: 1-18-08pedia Character page for more info) Many, many, people (whether correctly or incorrectly "remains to be seen") have found "supplementary" information.


 * See this is the problem with articles about future events and about viral marketing schemes - with future events everything "remains to be seen," and with viral marketing, the connections are not "officially" made until after its over. So if we are really making this the criteria for the article, then the whole thing should be nominated for deletion, and the whole thing started from scratch once we are a lot closer to 1/18/08.--Qwerty7412369 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1-18-08.com is the official site because Abrams confirmed it to be the case, not because of the existence of the screenshots. With that said, that's why we're not including the Myspace.com link -- it has not been confirmed as an official site, despite the existence of screenshots.  Furthermore, the title of the article isn't that important; I would be fine with titling it like IMDb has done so, "Untitled J. J. Abrams project".  That's something that can be discussed separately, with Cloverfield redirecting there.  I provided an interpretation not to directly exclude Slusho.jp, but to show that the ambiguous nature of the site makes determining its specific purpose impossible right now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But you have not addressed what I intended to be the two main thrusts of my previous post - First, most of the information provided here is ambiguous and "remains to be seen" because the very movie which is the subject of theis article does not yet exist! Therefore, I have to ask, what is the criteria for inclusion of this information? If it is verifiable, then the link between Slusho and Cloverfield is verifiable and its ambiguity is irrelevant.  Again, I see this as the fundamental problem with articles about future events. Second, You and other editors have previously opened the door for discussions of viral marketing sites like slusho.jp by inserting them in the article and allowing them to stand uncontested long before I showed up, so why are you suddenly upset that I am trying to walk through the door you opened?  If you are going to mention the viral marketing, then you should follow through on it and allow editors to add information that is verifiable, and now I have four sources identifying slusho.jp as part of the Cloverfield marketing.  If you are not comfortable with this, then the entire "Viral Marketing" entry should be removed, because any and all information that could be placed there at this time will likely be of the same caliber until long after the viral marketing campaing is over and either Paramount of some entertainment-news outlet offers an "official" retrospective.  Again, I see this as the fundamental problem with articles about viral marketing schemes.
 * Remeber, the criteria for wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." WP:V--Qwerty7412369 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria is verifiable coverage by mainstream media. If you look at the References section, many references that are linked to speculated content of the film are drawn from mainstream media.  These are reliable sources as opposed to the multiple movie sites that can convey any kind of claim they desire about the film.  Some of these claims enter the public scope, so that's why these claims are reported, as opposed to lesser ones.  Slusho.jp is the only site (to my knowledge) that has a case of being linked to the film, and the verifiable information from reliable sources is available in the article.  In my experience, some future films have promotional content to get users involved but do not get widely reported, and Cloverfield has demonstrated that its viral marketing has received heavy reporting from reliable sources in the mainstream media.  This kind of attention warrants inclusion for the long-term.  Abrams himself has said that he wants to focus on making a good movie, otherwise this campaign would have been all for nothing, which seems to demonstrate the effective scale of the attention this project has drawn.  Believe me, I've had to deal with viral marketing situations at The Dark Knight with the first official picture of the Joker, which we did not include in the article until later when it was covered by Empire. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm a bit confused, but it almost seems like your last post is in agreement with my stated position. You state that "the criteria is verifiable coverage by mainstream media" when you know I can produce with articles from MTV.com, The Washington Post, The Courier-Mail, and a local NBC affiliate linking Slusho to Cloverfield, all of which are "verifilabe coverage by mainstream media". Indeed, further down in your post you state "Slusho.jp is the only site (to my knowledge) that has a case of being linked to the film, and the verifiable information from reliable sources is available in the article," which seems to back up my argument for the inlusion of a Slusho link in the article. If I have correctly understood your post, then I hope you will support me when I post up a Slusho.jp link in the "Links" section of the article (I say this evening in order to comply with the 24-hour criteria of the WP:3RR).  If I have not properly understood your intent, please correct me where necessary, though I ask that you please provide a valid rebuttal to my two points above concerning future articles, viral marketing, and the slusho.jp link. Thank you --Qwerty7412369 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We can source the speculation. We can't source that the site is official.  As we're guided to keep external links to a minimum, while we have some justification to discuss the speculation within the article, there's no real mandate to include the link as it's not proven to be a vital exterior resource. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I do not oppose mention of Slusho.jp in the article, just as I do not oppose mention of Ethan Haas Was Right in the article. However, can we agree that Slusho.jp is not verifiably official?  Per WP:EL, articles should link to official sites, but this has not been proven to be the case with Slusho.jp.  While this is speculation on my part, it could match #3 or #4 of "Links normally to be avoided".  It has been covered in mainstream media, so it is relevant to mention in the body of the article, but as an external link, its actual purpose remains to be seen.  I will have to oppose the inclusion of the site as an external link until there is direct confirmation, as Abrams gave for 1-18-08.com, that this is an official site.  I believe that the other editors who have reverted you are thinking along the same lines, and I'm pretty positive that if Slusho.jp was indeed confirmed, we'd be fine with its inclusion in an official capacity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the central issue here is what is meant by "verifiably official" - As per my reading or WP:V, I take verifiability to mean that material can be sourced to reputable outlets, and that the "truth", or the "ambiguity," or the amount of "supplemental information" involved is irrelevant. Since it is a fact that there are multiple mainstream verifiable sources linking slusho with cloverfield, enought to include mentioning of slusho.jp and, in a larger context, to include an entry the whole viral marketing scheme itself within the article, I don't understand why there is not enough to add a link in the External links page.  Mind you, I not trying to foster an "anything goes" attitude with the article, and I am aware the WP:EL suggests that such links be kept to a minimum - but I still don't see why this link should be excluded.  If you think its ambigious, or if you think it doesn't have enough "supplementary information," thats fine - but, again, there are multiple mainstream verifiable sources linking slusho with cloverfield, so why is this an issue, especially if, as I have stated, you and other editors have already opened the door to this issue by allowing the "Viral Marketing" section to stand and include references to slusho.jp within it?  I feel that for the sake of consistantcy, we should either provide a link so users can access the site themselves, much as you have with the apple 1-18-08 trailer site, the 1-18-08.com site, and the IMDB page, or remove the whole "viral marketing" section and seriously scrutinize the entire article with these standards in mind.  Thanks --Qwerty7412369 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Including Slusho.jp as an external link opens an unnecessary can of worms. Since it's not confirmed as an official site, its inclusion would mean that any other unconfirmed site would be just as acceptable.  In the long run, information about Slusho is bound to change.  Existing references will give way to specific mention of what Slusho is supposed to be.  Depending on Slusho's prominence in regard to the film and general encyclopedic nature, there may or may not be detailed mention of the site.  I don't think your ultimatum to either remove "Viral Marketing" or include Slusho.jp as an EL is really appropriate; the marketing section clearly denotes that there are other sites besides 1-18-08.com, and Slusho.jp has been mentioned as a possibility.  It seems that the general impression is that linking Slusho.jp crosses the threshold into linking other unconfirmed sites.  Ethan Haas Was Right received a lot of coverage in being linked to the film, though ultimately there was no actual connection.  Because of that zero bearing, that site is not linked in the article.  The existing information about Slusho.jp indicates a stronger possibility, but all the wording from mainstream coverage denotes that its official capacity is not confirmed.  Thus enters the previous argument about external links, and that Slusho.jp would probably be included under the criteria as an official site when the time comes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will all humor me as I make one last-ditch attempt to make my case, afterwhich I will bid you all adieu and allow someone else to take up this fight if they wish - As I see it, the issue is not whether this information, or for that matter any information in wikipedia, has been "officially confirmed" from on high by Paramount or J.J.Abrams or anyone else with access to the undisputed, official "Truth" of the matter. As per WP:V, the official wikipedia criteria is "verifiability, not truth," and verifiability is met if one can sourse the information to "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now what I have tried to highlight again and again is that these are two different criteria - "Official Confirmation" is not the same criteria as "Verifiablilty." "Verifibility" is the criteria which governs us here, and as there are at least four "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" linking Slusho.jp to Cloverfield, I believe the criteria set by Wikipedia's own policies have been met. Nowhere does it state in WP:V that the information must come from "official sources," only from "verifiable sources" - again, please recognize that these two are not the same.

Now, Erik suggests that if we allow slusho as a link, we will step out on a slippery-slope and end up with links to any and every fansite, blog, fake-page, and so forth that any 15-year old fanboy can think up. Following the logic of this argument, the External Links section will eventually be overwhelmed with links to questionable sites and will be rendered unusable. Ok, except the criteria of verifiability was created to deal with such circumstances. First off, someone can't just put up links to any random site that they might come across, as per your slippery-slope assertion, first they have to provide verifiable evidence from a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that the site is connected to the cloverfield project before the can make a link. So if I want to put up a EL to site XYZ.com, I should be able to provide sources such as the Washingtom Post, MTV.com, or NBC, that are both verifiable and meet stated criteria in WP:V which link site XYZ.com to the cloverfield. Of course, the more sources I can provide, the better. If I cannot provide any such sources, then site XYZ.com should not be linked - period. That's how WP:V keeps irrelevant information out of articles without excluding relevant info.

But then, lets say that it is discovered that site XYZ.com, much like the Ethan Haas sites, are later discovered to have no connection to the movie. Has the policy of WP:V failed? Is wikipedia forever stained? No, this is how it works best. There was verifiable information that linked Ethan Haas to the movie, therefore the site was included. Then verifiable sources reported that Ethan Haas was not linked to cloverfield, so the site was removed. Wikipedia is meant to be fluid, evolving, growing - which means that the rules may allow some incorrect info in, but those same rules will also get it out eventually. That's why the criteria is "verifiability, not truth." The "not truth" part is there for a reason. What is "verifiable" changes as knowledge changes, the "truth" is more or less fixed (and I'll leave it to the philosophers to decide if its "more" or "less"). But the point is that the verifiable criteria is loose enough to allow information that may or may not be true, but its also fluid enough to adapt to changes and correct that very information. This is its strenght, not its weakness. That's why I am arguing that verifibility is the criteria which applies here, not "Official Confirmation" from on high. And, I betting, that's why its wikipedia's stated policy as well. If we make a honest mistake based on verifiable sources, so be it - other editors with other verifiable sources will correct it! This is why the first thing we are told when we register is to Be Bold!

This post and the ones which proceeded it in this topic are why I beleive we should include Slusho.jp in the "External Links" section. I don't think it will send us all down a slippery-slope, and I think it is clearly in agreement with wikipedia's own policies, particularly WP:V and WP:EL for the reasons stated. You and any other user are free do take them as you will. Good day --Qwerty7412369 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why WP:V is invoked for matters of linking outside the article body. The proper course of action was taken to cover Slusho.jp in the body, and the link, not being official (and apparently not entailing WP:V to permit it) does not meet WP:EL criteria.  I've reverted accordingly, and if anyone is in support of Qwerty's stance, discussion can resume.  A reminder: When and if Slusho.jp is indeed confirmed to be official, it can be included per WP:EL criteria.  WP:V does not seem to apply here, and Slusho.jp is already mentioned in the article based on that policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a disinterested 3rd party, I must say that Qwerty makes a much more intriguing arguement. His comments seem far, FAR more intelligent and thought out, and has been verbally running circles out of his detracters. (I edited my previous comment, since it apparently hurt someones sensitive feelings, and they deleted it)Cobratom 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Trailer
Does Anyone Have Any Actual Proof That There Is A Second Trailer For The Movie Running With Prints Of Stardust?--67.35.104.109 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it's just a rumor. No second teaser/trailer has been shown anywhere.  KC 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. There doesn't seem to be any coverage about this.  The hype would have been rather high about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * we have proof that their isn't since no one has seen it. harlock_jds 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. 72.49.194.69 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua


 * Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It just isn't proof. 64.203.237.248 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree but think whatever you want. Wikipedia isn't about beliefs, it's about citations. So unless someone makes a citation, don't even think about adding info on a second trailer. 'Nuff said. 72.49.194.69 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Back of the photographs
I think the writing on the back on the photographs on the should be included in the discussion about the viral marketing. The writing on the photos says "Robbie, Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!!!! gonna miss the hell out of you. Lovie Jamie" This writing is present on the back of the photo time marked 12:04.

The other writing says "Dont forget who takes care of you. Love J" This is present on the photo time marked 12:01

The writing can be found if you vigorously shake the photos whie no other photos are overlapping the selected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.248.68 (talk • contribs) 15:07, August 19, 2007


 * Until an independent, secondary source that meets reliable source criteria takes the time to describe the writing found on the back of the website's photographs, the information would otherwise be indiscriminate. If there is a notable enough meaning to these photographs, the messages will be covered and thus be encyclopedic enough to include in the article.  We just need to see what further news items will unfold regarding Cloverfield and the website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. To Many people are referring that the writings were meant for people to go to Myspace and Look for the actual characters of the Movie. It it was added to the article without someone finding the official meaning of the writings, people will start to ask if the Myspace Profiles to be added to the article which has not have a reliable cited source to state that it is Officially part of the films' viral Marketing. --Mithos90 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But i think that it should be stated in the paragraph about the photographs, maybe not to even quoting it, but not stating it is there is holding back information for people who dont go the website to see it themselves, although i agree it may not having anything to do with the plot (apart from the sexual tension i can obviously see between 'Jamie' and the main character, which is my personal opinion) i still think it should be stated there is writing on the back of the photographs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.51.161 (talk • contribs) 06:27, August 20, 2007


 * I understand your reason for why you think the writing on the back of the photographs should be mentioned, but you have to remember that this is an encyclopedia. It's not meant to be a news aggregator or a game guide for viral marketing sites.  That's why items like the first-speculated plots (Godzilla, Voltron, etc.) were recorded; these were items that were covered in the mainstream media, so the hype over possibilities was more notable than any other film.  Information in the article needs to be covered by independent, secondary sources that fit the reliable source criteria, so if a newspaper eventually covers the writings on the photographs, that would be considered notable.  There's a similar issue with Slusho -- we've mentioned that the website Slusho.jp has been covered, and that Slusho t-shirts were passed out at Comic-Con.  But we are still short of information about how Slusho is related to the film.  Here, we don't know the notability of the writings -- they could be there to keep us talking about the film, when they may not mean anything at all.  We don't know at this point, and no source so far has bothered to cover the writings.  When one does, such as a newspaper in the mainstream media, then it may be possible to include it.  We just have to be patient and ensure that new content in this article is verifiable and acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also as to Slusho that it might be a possible Covername for the Films' Filming Set which was stated by IGN and also from pictures that were taken on the set which might POSSIBLY be legit but Not Confirmed. As Erik Said We have to wait for all this info that has been flying around the web to be confirmed first before we put it up on the Actual article. --72.178.138.105 <<< --Mithos90 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Furious?
On the IGN website, when you click on Latest Screens for the "Cloverfield" film, it has a poster with the text, "Furious" splayed across the top. The title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * No. It's a tag line. DurinsBane87 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * just like Monsterous was harlock_jds 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, just curious. Thanks for the clarification :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I've heard 'Barbarous' and 'Terrifying' are also in the tagline rotation. Radagast 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Barbarous' has not been seen as a tagline (so far). The only taglines that we've seen are 'Monstrous', 'Furious', and 'Terrifying'. KC 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All these should be mentioned here in the page. Current one line mention of Monstrous does not make quite a sence. Ad a longer description what it means and how it became known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.86 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1-18-08 Site Sound
The Offical 1-18-08 Site has just been updated and now when you first open the site, after six minutes of leaving the browser open, you will hear the roar of the monster in the Movie. was wondering would this be acceptable to add to the article?

--Mithos90 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Monsters Roar (Right click and press play)

Yeah I heard this and it scared me... but yes I do agree this should be added to the article CSpuppydog 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * since we describe the pictures i don't see why a description of the sound shouldn't be added. I know wikipedia is not a manual but we should be able to at lease describe things here (or we should take off the bit about the pictures being on the site too). Perhaps the editor that is opposed to adding this to the description of the site can explain why. harlock_jds 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is not a game guide. This teaser site in which visitors participate with the content would qualify as such.  If you notice, the description of the images came from a reliable source, as the purpose of the images was explained by that source.  The sound effect is not a vital piece of information right now; if a reliable source can cover the relevance of this sound effect in an encyclopedic sense, such as verifiable speculation of it sounding like so-and-so, it could be included.  Just need to remember that the article should be developed for the long term; this sound effect may not be worth covering based on what is yet to come.  I mean, when the film comes out, there's very little weight in saying that the official site had a sample of the roar when we'd supposedly get plenty of that from the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * so we can only put descriptions that come from verifiable sources? if we are going to describe the web page (which may or may not be pointless) i don't see why we can't make mention that it now has a sound that plays. You make it sound like we need a verifiable source to say ANYTHING on wikipedia... i can say the sky is blue without a source since pretty much anyone can go outside and see that the sky is blue for verification... the same logic applies here. Of course we can't say what the sound file is or anything but saying "a sound is played on the page if left open for x amount of time) is fine.


 * also wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we should leave things out of the article because it "may not be worth covering based on what is yet to come" if we have a description of the web page their is no issue in adding to that description as new features are added. If in the future this is seen as trivial then it can be removed at that point but we can't refuse to add it because it one day MIGHT be trivial harlock_jds 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more reasonable to focus on using reliable sources to verify content for a couple of reasons. First of all, using reliable sources helps "cap" information that may be considered indiscriminate, such as detail about every aspect of this official site.  The description on what to do with the photos provides a real-world purpose.  Also, another good reason for using independent sources is that the site is highly likely to evolve -- by the time the film comes out, the site will be fleshed out in all kinds of content and not just set up like a teaser.  When this happens, readers cannot at all verify that in the past, the site had a monster sound.  The proof needs to lie somewhere published outside of this site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * again wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we shouldn't limit the information based on "it might not be there in the future". it's currently verifiable and the article currently has a description of the site up (which means we must agree that a description of the site is notable enough to be a part of the article) so it should currently be included. If in the future it is no longer verifiable (by going away) then we'll take it out (if no citation comes along that says it was a part of the site at one time). Same goes for the picture flipping BTW.harlock_jds 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Viral Website
New to this so bear with me. Can I post this?

If you type [www.youcantdrinkjustsix.com] it will take you to a new possible viral website?

--Nbenos 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * not related to the movie (someone else made the site).harlock_jds 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At least he asked, unlike some. Nbenos, for future reference, should you come across even a genuine viral website or piece of information about the film, it should not be included in the article unless it has been mentioned as such by a good outside source, such as a trade magazine or film site. But please, come again. Best regards, Liquidfinale 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * weird though how it links to a .gov site... o wel  Ancientanubis ,  talk  Editor Review 04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * people can redirect pages to whatever they want... It's not that wierd.harlock_jds 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ya ik, but i frequent NOAA's website and i've never really came across that section of it... or just an outta date section at that... o well tho, thats not all too uncommon either,  Ancientanubis ,  talk  Editor Review 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this from a friend: http://jamieandteddy.com Your going to need to se the password: "jllovesth", without the quotations. The girl in the video looks to be the same girl in the trailer, and on one of the photos on 1-18-08.com. Also, on the back of one photo it is signed "Jamie". Should we add this to the official site listing?-user:puddles26


 * No, no one's verified it as part of the film. The girl in the trailer/photo wasn't just born to do "Cloverfield", you know.  Until we have verifiable confirmation by a reliable source, the website isn't credible enough to acknowledge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So wait your saying its not reliable because no one has said it official? SO does that mean that 1-18-08.com and Slusho.jp aren't reliable either? I am pretty sure no one has confirmed them either. Also it is viral marketing, They arent going to confirm anyhtign abotut virl marketing. And she is using the same name as her character in it as well as refereing to other chracters from the film. What more do you want? CSpuppydog 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure people have said 1-18-08.com is official.. didn't JJ himself confirm? Rehevkor 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Abrams confirmed 1-18-08.com as official, which is why it exists as an external link. Slusho.jp has been reported in mainstream media, but it is not confirmed as an official site.  That is why Slusho.jp is not specifically linked to.  This new website has not been covered by independent sources as far as I know, and believe me, we get a lot of dud sites added to the article -- just review the page history.  Viral marketing is a tricky business due to the difficulty of verifying that they are true, but it's necessary.  Sometimes people will pass off a site as viral marketing for a film, which is what happened with Watchmen (film) -- someone from TheOneRing.net created such a site.  In addition, The Dark Knight (film) had a viral marketing campaign of uncertain nature, and it was only when Empire covered it and revealed that it was performed by 42 Entertainment that the information was added to the article.  If you can find reliable sources covering this new website, feel free to provide it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The back of the photo on 1-18-08.com also is addressed to Lascano and the jamieandteddy website says, "Love, your Lil' Lascano". Even if it's not an "official" site it apparently was created with the movie in mind.--Nbenos 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great, but it's also Original Research. DurinsBane87 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blake Lively
I thought that it has been proven that the artical from the NYpost was wrong. I have heard that Blake is not in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.212.119 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, where did you read that the article from the New York Post was wrong? We can try to track down the information to see if you're right. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

UK release date
A released date for the UK has been added. Do we have confirmation on this? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have time to waste this morning. Google finds nothing confirmatory about the UK release date, nor does Google News or the Google News archive. I think we can safely say that this has been cribbed from the imdb - the one source which does state various release dates. I suppose all that remains is to decide whether this is credible enough information to go in. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) 10:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that IMDb has user-submitted information, it's not best to rely on it so far in advance before a film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've heard you say that before, and I'm sure it's true, but do they not verify the information elsewhere? I mean, it's not as if it's Wikipedia, where anyone at all can add every half-a**ed rumour about a film the minute it appears online. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Castlevania (2009) might disagree with you. :) (I've worked on Castlevania (film), and I can tell you that there is nothing verifiable about these casting possibilities.)  From my understanding of how IMDb works, anyone can submit information to it, but there are gatekeepers who check and finalize that information.  I've had an account myself, and when I try to add a new cast member, willing to provide a reliable source for it, I find that I'm only able to give the name and nothing more.  IMDb seems to operate instead on a credit system -- I think that the more credits you have, the more credible you are, though I may be wrong on this.  In a sense, IMDb is like a guarded wiki.  There is a famous instance of when there was the listing of "Aunt May / Carnage" at Spider-Man 3, which is quite absurd to anyone familiar with Spidey lore.  I've personally seen Ed Norton listed to be in a 24 episode as "John Bauer", purportedly Jack's brother.  A couple of other tidbits:
 * Director Mark Steven Johnson has said, "IMDB is a bizarre site that tends to get a lot wrong." The IMDb page for his film, Ghost Rider, once listed David Arnold as the composer, where Johnson refuted this information and said he had never met Arnold.  (Christopher Young was the actual composer.)
 * IMDb listed director Alfonso Cuarón to helm Magneto, but the name has been removed since.
 * Another issue is that IMDb estimates its release years -- you won't see a TBA, they always take it on themselves to pick a year, and unfortunately, users cite them. I've tracked films like Logan's Run (2010 film), which was listed to be released in 2007 even at the beginning of 2007 itself, with no production being underway.  It was eventually updated to be 2010, which of course is not relied on anything specific.  Lastly (but not the final straw), Spider-Man 4 has a release date for 2009, even though we have a citation at Spider-Man film series that indicates the target release year for the studio is 2010.  I tried to add this information, but I didn't find a place to provide the link, just the new release year.  In summary, I have not found much reliability with upcoming films at IMDb -- information is constantly changing, and the problem is, there are no citations to follow, no way to tell which changes are right.  For sections like Cast, I find it better to piece it together out of other sources, like Speed Racer (film).  There's a few more casting mentions at IMDb, but they don't appear to be published anywhere outside of the site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Erik's pipped me to the post on this one, but here goes... Previous delights from IMDB include: John Barrowman credited for episodes of Doctor Who in which he didn't appear; Kevin Eldon as "Bad Wolf" for the first part of the Series One finale of the aforementioned programme; Norman Lovett cast as Davros; Hawk the Slayer's John Terry credited for a silent movie made several decades before he was born. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough :) - for some reason, and despite being a heavy user for many years, I always assumed the IMDB was maintained to a much stricter standard of verifiability. Now I know better! The lunatic way in which they accept submissions comes as a genuine surprise. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One last thing to note: I think that IMDb is generally acceptable for its cast and crew information following a film's commercial release -- from what I've seen, the listing is an electronic copy of the film's credits. (Which is why you'll see folks listed either prominently or alphabetically.)  I would definitely eschew the trivia pages of films, though.  I think part of the reason for such mistakes is that IMDb's staff is not very large, hence the system which they use.  It's possible that not as much weight is given to the reliability of information in future films, since that information would be corrected by its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * IMDB is still listing Mike Vogel as "Rob" for Cloverfield, when that role is being played by Michael Stahl-David. I agree that the cast and crew listing is fairly reliable after a film's release, but not so reliable before release.  KC 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

UK release date (It is still listed as "Untitled JJ Abrams film" and can be found at http://www.launchingfilms.com/releaseschedule/schedule.php?sort=date&date=today&print=1&print=1 . This is the UKs Film Distributors' Association website.  Confused coyote 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, this works. I've reverted myself with the citation added.  We may need to re-format the way it's listed, in terms of using flag images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ARG?
is it just me or has this become some form of an ARG, and if so, wouldnt this mean that it will be possible to find the title of the movie, somewhere online. it is obvious that they are giving us clues of some form. (Masterxak 09:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC))


 * ARG? DurinsBane87 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternate Reality Game. And to the first commenter, I don't think it's up to us to start making guesses about the title based on online clues.  We'll eventually get official comfirmation, one way or another. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This does sound to me like an ARG, too, altough I've never experienced one firsthand so I wouldn't know as well. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned under Marketing? I'd implement it in, myself, but I don't know of how it should be worded. --63.3.4.2 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slusho Link: Add or Remove?
There seems to be an edit war on whether or not Slusho is a relevent enough website to add the link thereof on here or no. Instead of this ongoing nonsense, why not start a civilized Disscussion/Vote to descide how we should go with this? --209.247.5.131 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion already took place, and the consensus was until there is official confirmation of Slusho.jp as a site relevant to the film, it does not entail linking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see and agree. The page should stay locked, methinks. --63.3.4.129 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue of linking Slusho.jp is not a major one on the article. Page protection is usually reserved for vandalism or heavy edit warring when both parties refuse to break out of a content dispute and enter discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As (I think) mostly agreed on previously, the best solution is to have it mentioned in the "viral marketing" (or other relevant portions) and not linked until 100% official. It obviously SHOULD be in the article. And personally, I feel the site should be in the links, as a lot of traffic going here probably wants to know what slusho is about an the site obviously has SOME relation- but until the controversy dies down, the site has appropriate coverage and doesn't "NEED" a seperate link. Its current setting in full context could be argued as a more appropriate home anyway. 209.153.128.248 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Slusho facts

 * 'Slusho' can be seen on a t-shirt in the teaser
 * 'Slusho' t-shirts were given out at ComicCon
 * Said t-shirts are now available for purchase at the 'Slusho' website
 * Colorado's 9NEWS claimed that an 'inside source' told him that the Slusho site is official
 * AintItCool news claimed that they were the source
 * The Washington Post claims that the 'Slusho' site was registered before the film
 * 'Slusho' has had cameos in other J.J. Abrams works before

Add or detract from the list as you see fit.

--209.247.5.131 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamie+Teddy Site
I know this will probably never make it to this Cloverfield article's front page, but a new site in the Viral Marketing Campaign/ARG just came up, JamieAndTeddy.com. It asks for a password: jllovesth. Entering it in, it leads to a video for download of Jamie, a girl from one of the teaser site pictures (the one with 3 people. This is also the same one that, fliped, gave clues to lead to her subsequent MySpace). If you don't want to bother downloading it, it can likewise be seen here on YouTube.

I am putting it up here just to note if meantioned, needed, or whatnot at a latter date. --209.247.5.142 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres a new video on the site Smremde 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whales
Any thoughts on the moster whale theory? So far, this seems to make the most sense to me. The moster sound in the movie and the photo site are definitely whale-like. The Slusho site has a lot of references to whales. There's the whale moster picture that is supposedly a fake, but looks pretty darn good, and interestingly enough has little parasites. Maybe an alien parasite or a toxic, mutated louse bites a whale, and turns it into a giant breeding ground that also happens to hate mankind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. DurinsBane87 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The section is called "Discussion", so let them discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.98.102 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review the talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." DurinsBane87 is right; this isn't a forum.  IMDb would be a better place for this speculative topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Monstor?
Is this reliable? A jacked up cell phone pic? BURNyA 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It's a freakin' Oriental marketing title anyway. No true indication of the film's actual title. Alientraveller 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Google had no hits. This article is the mother of all origonal research... BURNyA 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Those posters are fake, anyway. The eclipse part of the poster was taken from graphic art from the U.S. TV show "Heroes". KC 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Hawkins
The Protagonist of the movie Cloverfield has the same name as the Omaha Mall Shooter. A trivia section should be added with this creepy tidbit of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.65.10 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Asian man in a picture?
At 1-18-08.com, there is now a picture of an Asian man holding sushi. On the back there is Asian writing. Can anyone tell what language it is and possibly translate it? Flamingtorch372 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a recipe to me. I can't read muckanji, so I have no what for, but it's definitely a recipe. (This section will probably be removed as it has no bearing on the article.) --Closedmouth 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the recipe translated: Thank you for checking us out! We are Introducing this week's tasty one dish. Make sure you eat it cold!

Skinless chicken breast - 2, cut in halves Sōmen noodles - 10 oz. Watercress - 1/2 cup cut into small strips Turnip - 1/2 cup, thinly sliced Shiitake Mushrooms - 1/2 cup Chicken stock - 1/3 cup Sake - 2 tbsp. Sugar - 1/2 tsp. Deep Sea Nectar - 1 pinch

In a small saucepan, stir together 1/3 cup water, chicken stock, sake, and sugar. Chill it until it becomes cold. Grill the chicken breast on both sides for about 8 minutes, and then chill. Boil the noodles for about 3 minutes, and then run under cold water until chilled. Mix the watercress, radish, and mushrooms into the sōmen. Slice the chicken thinly and arrange on top of the sōmen mix. Just before you serve, put the deep sea nectar in the sauce and pour over the noodles generously.

Go Go Delicious Chef!


 * 1) 3912 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.120.147 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This picture led to the Tagruato website, which is apparently the parent company of Slusho. The site was not found until this picture was put up on the site. --General Holtarna 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagruato
Tagruato.jpis the newest Cloverfield-related site. Found on Unforum, but it's obviously legit. Actually provides a lot more information, including a possible monster origin (deep-sea drilling). This article should probably mention it. --General Holtarna 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, it has been mentioned as a possible (and, yes, likely) official viral site, but hasn't been confirmed as such by the filmmakers. However, it does get a good mention at Slashfilm, which may be enough to see it included in the article in the same manner as the Slusho site. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The final ingredient in the recipe provided on the back of the latest official picture is 'one pinch of bottom of the sea nectar/honey' -- which is the same language used on Slusho.jp as their 'secret ingredient.' And as Slusho.jp and Tagruato.jp link and reference each other, I believe that's evidence to support them as official tie-ins. 63.76.101.71 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not clear-cut confirmation; common users are basically "sleuthing" out clues to make connections that do not stick out like a sore thumb. Additionally, Liquidfinale's link also reflects the possibility of Tagruato.jp being a "gamejack", especially considering its creation after the teaser trailer's release.  There's not enough clarity here to tie these sites into the article in the encyclopedic sense.  The article needs to have verifiable content for the long run, not contributions that came from amateur investigators.  If the mainstream media (not a film blog) mentions Tagruato.jp, then it could be identified as a possible site, like Slusho.jp is. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check the site you can look at where their deep sea drills are located, and the closest one is smack in the middle of the atlantic, they all seem to far away to me, for some monster to pop out and decide i wanna go to newyork city! 71.115.221.2 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure Erik But Another Possible Site might have found that could be related to the film. The site Registration is ALMOST exactly like the Jamie and Teddy site and is located on the same server on the Jamie and Teddy site also. Its also has some assumption with the Hud character because of his hobbies of comics. But Like as usual cited sources are need to be addressed so it can be added to the article. Found by Stratus on Ethan Haas Fourms Just for reference. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AKA Parallax
 * AKA WhoIS Look Up

Now the Slusho Site links to Tagruato. Still want to say it's not part of the game? --71.75.131.228 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The WikiSnobs turn a blind eye to the obvious all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people would consider it wise to read the relevant section of the instruction manual before using a new tool. Wikipedia is no different. Have a look at WP:V and WP:OR for starters. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've read it. The policies are fundamentally flawed and enforced nowhere near 100%. --71.236.182.42 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be here. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF, which while not directly relevant, gives good pointers as to the type of argument to avoid using. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If something is flawed, it's relevance is questionable. In that case, whether it "should be there" or not should be analyzed. There's a lot of nonsense going on related to this article (and hundreds more) where someone who has claimed ownership of a page will not allow any changes regardless of hard evidence. Viral marketing is often left "unconfirmed" by official sources because it's meant to be, but some things can be confirmed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or J. J. Abrams himself to indicate that JamieandTeddy.com is a legitimate site; the actress playing Jamie Lascano can clearly be seen in the video as well as one of the pictures on the official site 1-18-08.com. That's not "original research", that's common sense.

Even in the face of the obvious, those "in charge" of "protecting" certain pages exercise their might to keep things the way they want them. Wikipedia wants to be the Akashic Record of the Internet, but as long as it fails to recognize the obvious without having confirmations being spoon-fed to them, it will continue to be nothing more than a place to look at the world through a very narrow, controlled lens. --Captain Impulse 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one's in charge of protecting anything. Viral marketing campaigns are not easy to report because their scope is usually limited to sources that aren't reliable -- movie blogs and Cloverfield-specific blogs.  The detail about the official site was from a reliable source that described it, which is relatively important because the secondary source is displaced.  As for the viral websites, we've already encountered that EthanHaasWasRight was not related to Cloverfield.  Thus due to the potential charade, the article should err on the side of caution.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.  It's not WikiNews that scoops readers with the latest photo that one can flip over on the official site.  If the additional sites are legitimate and/or relevant, reliable sources will be cited.  As you can see, all the speculation mentioned in the article were from such sources.  There was more online speculation, but the specific items of speculation covered by reliable sources are what made it into the article.  The Dark Knight has a viral marketing campaign of its own, but it took waiting for a reliable source, in this case Empire magazine, to cover the user-collaborated unmasking of the Joker.  In addition, TDK's viral marketing campaign at Comic-Con was covered by Variety.  There's no real-world context provided by these sites -- there's no verifiable content that shows how it's related to the film if at all, only speculation on our part.  Is Slusho! really going to be in the film, or is it just added mythology that won't necessarily be covered directly in the film?  I've checked Google News Search every once in a while to see if there is verifiable content to include, but there hasn't been any reliable sources reporting anything new.  The release date is approaching, and there will obviously be fuller development as time goes by. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What defines reliable? There's a lot of "if" factor from any source, including (and some would argue, especially) the mainstream media. And how does "added mythology" not relate directly to the film in your eyes? The content of these sites contributes to the mythos and the canon of the film's storyline. The drink Slusho may not be present other than merely in name or as "in-game" advertisement, but the link to the mythos and backstory is obvious.

The "Ethan Haas Was Right" fiasco is a familiar fall back argument, but never once was their any evidence directly linking the two projects. It was all speculation by wanna-be internet sleuths that got out of hand. It wasn't a "gamejack", because that implies information was falsified to make it appear related. It was simply a case of internet retards running wild. In the case of Tagruato, Slusho and JamieandTeddy, there are direct connections that can be verified. Matching actors, character names, locales, corporations. This is not original research. This is common sense. This is correlation, which is a huge part of verifiability. These sites verify each other through direct connectivity and simple deductive reasoning, without stemming into the territory of "original research".

I don't expect every single link to be posted (such as the restaurant review that led to the discovery of Tagruato.jp), but people are ignoring facts here. Slusho.jp is a confirmed site; it's relevance has long been established and accepted even amongst mainstream sites. Tagruato links off of Slusho. The character "Jamie Lascano" can be seen in pictures on the confirmed site 1-18-08.com and the same actress appears in videos on Jamieandteddy.com. It's all there, right before your eyes. Does Abrams have to spoil the game for everyone before these clues are accepted as fact? The content of these sites adds a lot of content to the mystery and people looking for answers should be able to find them here. No one's asking for a detailed analysis of the content of these sites, but people should be able to find the answers they're looking for by consulting an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia can't provide all the information, it shouldn't be masquerading as an encyclopedia. --Captain Impulse 05:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not common sense at all. Common sense is identifying Christian Bale as Batman or Brandon Routh as Superman in the new movies.  These bits of information are irrevocably clear.  However, with this viral marketing campaign, to make sense to anyone, facts have to be interwoven in an intricate manner for a presumed understanding of how the websites relate to each other, if at all.  You said that Slusho.jp is confirmed -- is this a result determined by "Internet retards", or is there verifiable content from a reliable source about the website's authenticity?  The manner is not immediately clear, and the fact that one has to explain to another all the possible connections is the behavior of an amateur investigator.  These presumptions about the websites are not as clear as daylight -- bits from the websites are being cross-referenced by Internet users themselves.  The argument that Wikipedia is not paper still has to be in line with policies like verifiability and no original research.  There seems to be an unnecessary rush to get this information out despite the lack of verifiable content from reliable sources about it.  If the information is related and relevant, then it can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen. Tagruato could not be found until the official 1-18-08 site was updated with the picture of the Asian Chef. Google had been tied in as well, as the Chef Review that led to the Tagruato site's discovery could not be found on Google until the picture was put on the official site. Therefore: Tagruato=official. -- General Holtarna 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also: thumb|right|150px|Proof enough for you? It's on the Slusho website. -- General Holtarna 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG
Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagruato Continued
Tagruato is named and kind-of linked to on the Slusho! website, yet it is not mentioned on the article. The evidence is overwhelming for it to be official. If you refuse to put it up for the reason that It's not been confirmed, then by the same logic we should remove Slusho! --General Holtarna 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Slusho.jp isn't mentioned as a confirmed website. If you read the article, the extent of its confirmation beyond the amateur investigation of Internet users like you and me is the Washington Post saying, "Records showed that the Slusho Web site was registered before the trailer aired, indicating that the site almost had to be official." (bold is mine)  EthanHaasWasRight is mentioned in the article, but we know that it's not an official site.  If there are reliable sources talking about the Myspace website or Tagruato.jp, then they would be mentioned as verifiable content.  Movie blogs aren't reliable sources because they lack reputations for fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WHOIS info:

http://whois.domaintools.com/tagruato.jp

Domain Information:

[Domain Name] TAGRUATO.JP

[Registrant] Daiske Kagashima

[Name Server] ns51.domaincontrol.com

[Name Server] ns52.domaincontrol.com

[Created on] 2007/07/25

[Expires on] 2008/07/31

[Status] Active

[Last Updated] 2007/07/25 23:38:22 (JST)

Notice the Creation Date. --General Holtarna 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood -- I don't doubt that the Washington Post made a correct assessment about the website's registration. It's more a matter of, "How is this connected, if at all?"  Believe me, I've been checking every so often on Google News for more verifiable content about this film, but currently, its impact, whether relevant to the film or not, is solely limited to Internet audiences.  When the scope of the viral marketing encompasses the public sphere in a way that reliable sources cover the campaign as much as they did in the initial onset, then content can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to start an arguement. I'm merely trying to defend Tagruato as part of the Viral Marketing Campaign and a possible plot-link to the movie.  Hopefully when a new teaser comes out Tagruato will be mentioned.  Until then, I suppose I can back down. --General Holtarna 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to start an argument, either. I'm sure that I've been perceived as anal, but the reason for the approach is that the nature of this marketing campaign makes for a lot of speculation about the film.  That's why there's a need to follow the verifiability policy as closely as possible, so we can focus on the use of reliable sources.  If a bit of original contribution is permitted, even if it seems to describe the "obvious" such as the presence of an ingredient across a couple of sites, it would open the door to additional original perspectives.  Believe me, I'd like nothing more than someone like Wired to do a full-blown feature article about this film's marketing campaign.  We'll both have to keep our eyes open for some independent coverage of all this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'''seems like it has been 'hacked'. part of the game i'm guessing. eco terrorists!!!--69.104.18.133 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)'''

Reported date for new trailer and title
ComingSoon.net has reported that, according to their "source," Cloverfield will get a new trailer and a title on November 16, 2007, before Beowulf. I don't know how reputable the site is, considering (a) they won't name the source and (b) they're pretty behind on their Cloverfield info otherwise. Just throwing it out there, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeztah (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * that makes what the 4'th movie said to have a new trailer for the movie (Stardust, Saw iV and i think some other movie). Given the history of this not being true for the other movies said to have a new trailer i wouldn't put much weight into this. harlock_jds 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Beowulf and Cloverfield are not only both Paramount movies, but the digital effects are done by the same company for both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.131.228 (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i think the trailer will come out with Margot at the Wedding :D Anyhow it's silly to speculate about the new trailer... esp since EVERYONE has been wrong quite a few times already. harlock_jds 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12367


 * Comingsoon.net was completely accurate. Both the name of the film and the trailer preceded Beowulf on Nov. 16. I think they've proven that they're a reliable source once again. And FYI, ComingSoon never reported the trailer being released with any of those other rumored movies (Stardust, etc..). Byxbee (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Monster in Cloverfield
http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cloverfield-monster-picture.jpg 12.210.209.18 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to think of that. It's maybe too detailed to be fan art. BelligerentJim 12:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised by how much effort fanboys put in their work. Until we can verify that this concept art is authentic, it's not appropriate to include in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IESB said it was a fake. Alientraveller 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. And I was kind of impressed myself... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed; fake or not, that's a great drawing. --Closedmouth 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, even if it does look like someone's stapled a bunch of dolphins to one of the UrRu from The Dark Crystal. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

01-18-08 website
http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.45.1 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. --Closedmouth 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me as well. Might need to check your settings -- these official sites tend to use media-heavy software. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

new trailer?
someone over at CHUD.com posted info on a new trailer nad seemed pretty accurate. I think it's also been confirmed somewhere that the new trailer is going to premier in front of Beowulf. should that be posted up and does anyone have any confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.127.174 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.57.239 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BoldFutura related to Slusho and Tagruato
Ok I know this is original research and Erik I know this will not go into the Article....not just yet BUT this site does look like another Puzzle. The site itself the last week(s) has been under construction and has gone offline then online a few times. But I saw this site might be linked to the movie because it mentions the Tagruato Corporation which is the site everyone here as been arguing to add because it is Linked to the Slusho site. Ill quote below as the site is using Flash and I can't copy and paste.

''Recent News August 15, 2007 "Members from the Tagruato Corporation and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program honored chief Executive officer Brandon Takahashi. Director Takahashi was presented with the Tagruato achievement award for his work in the HANDS Initiative and SIB Programs."''

Latter again it mentions the Tagruato Corporation in the History section under "Bold History"

These 3 Sites Seem to be Related each mentioning Each other.
 * Boldfutura.jp
 * Tagruato.jp
 * Slusho.jp


 * Rumored BoldFutura is Also related to Aka Parallax as posted Earlier.

There is a little Discussion on a forum about the site's construction, which I know Erik you will not consider...Original Research but they do have records on the site going up and down as of old Whois. If this is all not true in the End. Then post it in the area of the Article "Viral websites" to show how this viral promotion of the Film has gone with fans. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BoldFutura in Dept (They get credit if mentions me thinks)
 * BoldFutura Whois


 * Obviously, you recognize my stance... but you shouldn't single me out. :-P I don't own the article; there's been a few other editors who aim to keep the content verifiable.  From looking at these viral websites, though, it doesn't seem that we're any closer to exploring real-world context of the film.  An interview with Abrams would be really helpful at this point... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry. Anyways there has been a "Rumor" also that someone has already seen the Trailer which is showing before Beowulf. Its not a reliable source so I wont post it....for now. But it does go into detail as what is said during the trailer and etc. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ComingSoon.net reports from "a source" about this news, and it's been picked up by other movie websites. Also, CHUD.com does have a description of the trailer, but considering that the website is basically a movie blog, its information can't be checked out.  Believe me, I'm keeping my ear to the ground to find verifiable information to add. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

has anyone notice an eye in the picture
in the picture with the statue of liberty there seems to be an eye in the sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.23.161 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's pushing it dude...--68.0.155.79 00:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's not continue this discussion further; per the talk page guidelines, we should discuss improving the article with verifiable content from reliable sources.  This course of discussion isn't on par with that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The new trailer is available on the 'tube.
The film is called "Cloverfield". I mention this (hesitantly) because the trailer is identical to how it was described by one who claimed to have seen it before its release with Beowulf.

The trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.24.135 (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no longer the reported code name. It's the name.


 * Just because it says so on the trailer? I think it wise not to jump the gun until official confirmation from the director, writer, producers, studio or cast. After all, Lizzy Caplan indicated in a recent interview that she still wasn't allowed to tell the real title - "real title" an odd thing to say if it is indeed Cloverfield. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got an email from Support@slushozoom.com saying that more was to come in December. That may be a day to watch for the real title?

There are already posters with 'Cloverfield' as the name. The film is Cloverfield.

As for the 'recent' interview, that couldve been conducted weeks before the trailer now showing before Beowulf (and it *is* showing before Beowulf, this is NOT a rumour).

Inclusion of information regarding the Second Trailer
Perhaps we should also mention that they have recently aired a new trailer preceeding Beowulf? 24.76.181.253 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Already Mentioned in Marketing --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The new trailer is now out in HD (up to 1080p), and a good chunk of the monster is visible between some skyscrapers for a second or so (with multiple in-focus frames). Interestingly enough, it doesn't strictly rule out a robot. It seems to look like a sea creature, but could just as easily be a robot with crud on it. Here are screencaps (probably not fair use?): http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220138jx2.jpg http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220120um6.jpg I don't, however, really see any info in the new trailer worth putting in the article, although it's possible that some of the supposition could be updated. - Guspaz (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this monster on the picture, and which you can see in the trailer, looks like a giant Alien from the famous movies. Take a look to the back of the head. It looks like the back of the head of the Alien. Also you can see a tail on the picture, like the same one of an Alien. The Cloverfield monster seems to be very slim and bony... My idea ist, that this could be a giant Alien, perhaps Alien V? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.225.56 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum for your speculation. Besides the fact that a 5th Alien movie wouldn't involve a giant alien, and besides the fact that Abbrams said it was new, thats all complete speculation. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks a ton like USA Godzilla design meets Xenomorphs design (Alien series). I think we can confirm it is at least reptilian in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.57.184 (talk • contribs) 22:48, November 30, 2007


 * I understand that you're trying to help out, but considering that this film is not publicly available, the only verifiable information we can use are those from secondary sources. We can't interpret only from the trailer what certain aspects of the film will be about.  Hopefully, we can get some reliable sources to explain what the monster looks like, but in the meantime, we're just grasping at straws. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield = ?
I could be misremembering but doesn't the second teaser begin by talking about the source of the footage, mentioning that cloverfield is the name for "what used to be central park" or something like that. Should this be mentioned, if it is in fact the source of the title of the film. WookMuff (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are misremembering - a big strange when you dont have to remember when the trailer is right there on youtube...but anyway - The mention of Project: Cloverfield and the mention of 'what used to be central park' are two unrelated sentence. Cloverfield is the name given at the start of the trailer for the monster attack and/or the recovery operation. '....central park' refers to where the camera containing the films footage is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.183.80.133 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

can you guys put http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/   ...........its an official site Thank You  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.207.57 (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Swelling Body
In the trailer Lizzy Caplans characters body swells and the sound of spilling guts is heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The exploding woman is only seen in silhouette. It could be anyone. Should exploding people be mentioned in the plot speculation section? - LeonWhite (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Byxbee (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And you dont know for certainly that she is exploding, you see a silhouette of what *might* be someone swelling. It could be a mutuation, it could be something coming out of her Alien-style. Theres plenty of sites you can happily speculate on, wiki is for facts 195.183.80.133 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is worth mentioning in plot as it's only mentioned that a giant monster attacks, wheread the scene in the trailer supports that there may actually be an epidemic of monsters, a la John Carpenters The Thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) for all we know this could be some kind of terrorist/enemy plot, we never see a monster, what if it was like a telekenitic attack, or the little girl for the F.E.A.R. video games??71.61.163.146 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure but there is a very brief glimpse of the monster in the latest trailer passing behind a building plus the offical synopsis has stated "a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city". I honestly don't know what to make of the body swelling scene witnessed in the trailer, whether it be a mutation, parasite exploding from host body or some other bizarre event but I believe it is connected to the monster in some way and not the result of a terrorist attack or telekenesis but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong :P - RVDDP2501 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What time does it happen at? or supposedly happens at? I can't find it in the trailer. 74.77.167.175 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to ask on another forum such as IMDb. These forums are more focused on general discussion about the film.  Talk pages on Wikipedia, per the guidelines, are intended for discussion on how to improve the article.  That's why you won't see a lot of speculative discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that, had not seen the official synopsis71.61.163.146 (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the swelling body thing has to do with something the monster brings with it. One of the rumored names for it is "The Parasite", so I'm guessing it brings some sort of disease along with it. OR, because smaller monsters are said to also be a part of the movie, maybe their attacks spread the disease. Look at this video: Cloverfield screencaps. Several notable shots near the middle feature a girl being held/restrained by two guys in biosuits, and she's deathly white and spewing blood - both signs of a rather serious infection, methinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SigmaX54 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that the other two figures were guys in MOPP suits. Either way, theres not enough info to inculde it.
 * If I can find where those stills I mentioned come from, I'll post links up here so you guys can look at them. Then we can decide.--SigmaX54 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont bother, theres nothing in the article you can add regarding the trailer as it would be speculation. And it clearly states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of for discussing details about the film without the intent of improving the article.". Save your time and energy for when the film is released and you KNOW things as opposed to what you 'think'. 195.183.80.133 08:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes
In two episodes so far this season on Heroes, one of the characters is clearly seen drinking a Slusho brand slushie. One of the producers has also put pictures of various cast members holding Slusho cups on his [[blog]]. I guess this should be mentioned in the article?--68.98.179.2 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Slusho is a common theme through several of JJ Abrams' projects, I hardly see that its worth mentioning. What benefit would putting a reference to some jokey pictures done in filming downtime have for this article 195.183.80.133 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JJ Abrams does not work on Heroes. Tabor (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but Greg Grunberg (who plays Matt Parkman) does. JJ Abrams uses Grunberg as his "lucky charm"- he was in the pilot of Lost and will probably pop up somewhere in Cloverfield. And no, I don't have any references for this :( MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1-18-08.com roar
While sitting on 1-18-08.com a loud roar can be heard but so far ive only heard once. Mrbellcaptain (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Mrbellcaptain


 * Yes, this is common knowledge, it happens on 6 minutes. This has been the case on the site for several weeks. A suggestion you check some of the cloverfield fan blog sites for such things 195.183.80.133 (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The user above is right. While Wikipedia should contain knowledge, it doesn't serve as a newsstand for the latest details.  The roar has been brought up before, but it hasn't been shown to be anything more than an unacknowledged part of marketing.  There is not much that is verifiably known about the film, and there's a lot of connections that could be made, especially using the website and watching the trailer.  The fan blogs aren't reliable sources for this, but they're a good place for interested people to get together and speculate about the film.  Here, though, we're trying to compile verifiable information leading up to the film's release and beyond.  News reports about a speculated plot are verifiable because they, being reliable sources, publish the information in wide circulation, as opposed to someone who has a newfangled theory about the film on a film forum.  For the roar, if there was a reliable source obsessed with figuring out the film and carried out voice analysis on it and published the results, that could be included.  However, that doesn't mean automatic inclusion, information could be considered indiscriminate.  That's what discussion is for.  A few hoops to jump through for the permission of certain content, obviously. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A source for adding Tagruato?
I just found this. The FAQ on this site says that it was launched as the internet version of Malaysia's leading english language newspaper. This particular link (Assuming it works) appears to be a review which specifically mentions Tagruato. Can we use this as a source to include Tagruato in the viral marketing section? I would do it myself except, I haven't yet figured out how to do references.... MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Source for concept art
Why is that here? I don't believe it can be verified because there no links. I'm going to delete it until some credible sources can be found for it. Dunkerya (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's a good call; it was only added about 30 minutes before you caught it, and should be removed by anyone who comes across it. Cheers, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

5 Minute Sneak Peek
Not sure if this has been brought up yet but they released a widget which shows 5 minutes of the movie. There is also a whole contest that goes along with the widget. Here's a site for an overview of whats been released and some details http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40208 and heres the official site with the details and the prizes http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/contest/index.php I think this should be added to the marketing section. I would add it but Im bad at writing descriptions up. Rosario lopez (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In this trailer, they tell some character names. If its okay, I'm going to fill in the character names. Beachdude0213 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I did the best I could with adding this info in there. I was trying to add 2 difference references, one directed towards the main contest site and one towards the official rules but for some reason it wouldn't work. I know that it probably needs work so feel free to fix it.Rosario lopez (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this too promotional but I'll go with what you guys think is best. Maybe just a brief mention of it will be fine. I tried doing that at first but then I got into too many details, which is how it became what it was. But either way the 5 minute clip should still be mentioned somewhere in the article.Rosario lopez (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Rosario, I removed your contribution because it was too much on the promotional side. Marketing is sometimes a challenge to tackle in a film article, but mainstream films generally don't get write-ups about contests for fans or products that are made.  A good way to assess a film's marketing is how independent perspectives have covered it.  For example, most films are not unique in releasing trailers, but this one was for its trailer, thus it's appropriate to report on it.  If the contest becomes a big deal, then there should be reliable sources covering it.  However, per WP:IINFO, just because something is verifiable doesn't make it worth adding to the article.  Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes a lot more sense now that I read that. I'm not familair with many of the rules and such but I'm trying to learn. Do you think that we should mention the 5 minutes or not? Rosario lopez (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, there aren't any rules on something like marketing in a film article. It's actually a section that some other editors and I begun introducing at Spider-Man 3, and for a while, it was really heavy on detail about TV spots and available footage.  We've cut back on that, though I notice we still have a passage about action figures and the like.  To be honest, I probably would want to remove that.  It's tacit knowledge, I suppose -- how important an aspect of marketing is for an encyclopedia.  For example, the Spider-Man 3 article also talks about how they had Spider-Man exhibits all around New York City, which is a pretty unique thing as far as films go.  It actually might be a good idea to bring this up with WikiProject Films to see what other editors' thoughts are on content to include in a marketing section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I initiated discussion at WT:FILM. Feel free to pitch in! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

 * EXCL: Cloverfield Director Speaks! There's a lot of great content to implement here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Similiar interview with IGN here. Alientraveller (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And part two. Alientraveller (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the director keeps chatting, this time with IESB. Check to see if there's anything new. Alientraveller (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It Was Always Cloverfield —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Producer Talks Cloverfield —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated most of the information from the headlines above. There may be some detail I neglected because they seemed extraneous.  I believe I've presented the points in the headlines succinctly, but feel free to review them to see if there's anything important that I missed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Scare films use 'Blair Witch' playbook
 * Exclusive: Cloverfield Actor Readies for Destruction

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add the FAN art to the Cloverfield page
I remember seeing that fan-art on someone's Cloverfield blog. It is not the real monster, so whoever added the image to the bottom of the page as a link to the Cloverfield monster, please, DO NOT do that again. It's been debunked numerous times and we have already seen the monster in the second trailer. It does not look like the fan-art. Anyways, I was wondering if we could take the link to the image off the Cloverfield page because it is unnecessary.

Thank you,

- Pr0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the post from JJ Abrams' website where the creator, an established poster there, discusses his creation: http://www.jjabrams.net/showthread.php?t=118. Do not add the image, it's jsut fan art. ThuranX (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect still necessary?
Now that we have the official title of the movie, is the redirection from 1-18-08, 1/18/08, and 01-18-08 still necessary? I think it'd be better off redirecting back to January 18. Jeztah (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * agreed i doubt many people will be looking for the movie based on the 1/18/08 harlock_jds (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they say redirects are cheap. My suggestion is to remove the hatnote at the top of the article when the film comes out.  I think that by that point, it'll be pretty well assured that everyone knows it's called Cloverfield.  Until then, there may be people still in the dark about it after seeing the trailer before Transformers.  Not sure about handling the redirects themselves, though... perhaps we can put them up at WP:RFD when the film comes out and see what the appropriate course of action is.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the redirects to go toward January 18, now that the movie has a title it is hard to believe that someone would still search the dates looking for this movie. Rather they would be looking for the date. Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Release Date
You have it marked down here that it's February Second, 2008. The actual release date is a day earlier: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/releaseinfo 24.76.186.137 (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up -- I cited http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/intl/uk/ for the release date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The monster in Cloverfield being a sea monster
I think i have the proof to know that its a sea monster in the movie but not exactly sure what type it is. If you go on the slusho website and go to Happy talk one of the charecters says "bloop" and another says something about england. Bloop stands for a underwater sea water device that they used to i think it was measure someting or figure out the sounds of earthquakes and it was made in england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSskunk (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we can cite that. It'd be considered synthesis since that's a connection that's being drawn where one didn't exist before.  Don't worry, though -- it's just another month for this film, and I'm sure we will know the monster's origins by then, if not before.  Appreciate the offer of the possibility, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bloop is a real (but very odd and interesting!) noise. As I understand it, anybody can submit messages to the Happy Talk page, so I'm not sure it would be relevant anyway. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found what appears to be legit concept art for the main monster, as well as the smaller 'parasite' monsters. Just say the word and I'll include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.31.22 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's from here, it's fan art. Also, legit concept art would probably be copyrighted, and we wouldn't have a valid fair use rationale for pushing a non-free image to the forefront of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Monster here taken form the toys being produced to market for the film.

http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg

- This is not the monster, it's a creation of Peter Konig, the man who is supposedly designing the monster. It's on his website. - D
 * Just my 2 cents: in the trailer, the creatures behind the curtain are deep ones (indeed, marine creatures), and the very big one either Cthulhu or Dagon or I know nothing about Lovecraft writings... Should've titled it The Shadow Over New York... ;-) Boréal (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the "deep ones" behind the curtain are actually two people in an NBC suit.  If you look at the shadow you can tell.  Compare it to a photo of someone in an NBC suit. Or any environmental suit.  This is further supported by the line "we have a bite" and the woman's shadow seemingly struggling without being bitten or ripped apart, etc.  Suggesting taht somethign smaller and infectious exsist, however those two shadows are without a doubt protective environmental suits.- Thero  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo, people! Wikipedia doesn't care about personal theories/observations as to what the monster is or isn't. If it isn't in a reliable third-party source, it cannot be verified, and any commentary here is just a waste of time. Sorry to sound so harsh, but it appears people continue to remain ignorant of Wikipedia policy on this. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The After-credits Line
It should be made clearer that the "It's still alive" line is in fact played _backward_ at the end of the film. There is currently a good bit of dispute about this on the IMDb and similar forums; people are arguing that the line sounds more like "Help us" when heard in this way. 64.247.126.204 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after the final explosion, you hear radio transmissions stating its still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.81.64 (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited the page to reflect this, and took out "is believed to be" because if you listen to it in reverse, it's clear as day. --Banyan (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * isn't listening to it in reverse considered original research? Esp as the movie isn't available legally in a way where someone could verify it. Shouldn't we wait until a citeable source mentions this?harlock_jds (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the illegally downloaded copy I have, Rob says "It's still alive" normally, and NOT when it is played in reverse. I'm not sure if they just sound similar or if someone mixed up the "Help us" and "It's still alive" the wrong way round?--Hamster X (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How are people listening to this in reverse? Is there a recording of it somewhere, or are people sneaking tape decks into the movie? I'm kinda confused. --Rayt5 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, it could very well have been faked easily. Xanofar (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a citable source that mentions this, or at least loops it backwards: http://cloverfieldmessage.y t m nd.com/. I know its not a great source, but it's a source no less (note: ytmnd seems to be blacklisted, so I'm spacing it out. And no this isn't a joke). CPTGbr (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ytmnd is hardly a creadable source (thus the reasion it's blacklisted harlock_jds (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can site a reliable source for this audio file, the article should not make any claim as to exactly what it says. --Erik the guy (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Siting opinion or unreliable information would not be helpful to this article. Jason 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

If I get a recording of it (with a fair use rationale and a cite), would it be viable to put the recording itself as an .ogg on the wiki? &#91;&#91;User:SonicNiGHT&#124;SonicNiGHT&#93;&#93; (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a recording of it if you want it. Don't know how to upload it here thoughXatticus 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.251.204 (talk)

Only if the recording comes from a reliable media source. Not if you recorded it in the theater, and not if 'some website' recorded it in the theater. (A recording from the theater would be illegal anyways I think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...how can you hear it in reverse if its only in theaters, most bootlegs have crappy sound.... i waited and all i herd was an indistinct voice and radio static.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.163.146 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard it on youtube, but until the DVD comes out we can't verify it and "It is believed..." would work but because once again it can't be verified yet we can't do anything. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the DVD audio commentary, the voice was none other than that of director Matt Reeves. However, after listening to the sound clip on YouTube, I've come to the conclusion that the clip is intentionally garbled.  After listening to it normally several times, I couldn't figure out if he was saying:
 * 1) "Help us."
 * 2) "Help me."
 * 3) "Now what?"
 * or,
 * 4) "They all watched."
 * It was too garbled for me to make out with certainty what was being said. Now, after listening to the clip backwards, I came away with only two feasible conclusions about what was being said:
 * 1) "I'm still alive."
 * or,
 * 2) "It's still alive."
 * Once again, it was still too brief and garbled for me to clearly figure out what was being said either way. I came away thinking that this was an intentional step on Reeves' and Abrams' part, just so that the gate would still be open for a sequel if the film was a success.  The clip seems to have been inserted at the end for the sole purpose of keeping us guessing. --Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just listened to it forward. It SOUNDS like it is a cry for help.Some Semi-Random Dude (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Monster
Should there be a section on the monster and theories on what it is and what those little parasite bastards are and so on? There are some really accurate fan-sketches of the monster and parasites floating around online, and I largely came to wikipedia after seeing it for some kind of clues. --Banyan (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be orginal research. Tabor (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have access to the official production notes. In them, Matt Reeves is quoted extensively talking about the nature of the monster as "brand-new, a baby," but stuck at the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years.  He also indicates that the parasites are things the monster is shaking off gradually and sending falling into Manhattan.  I'd be more than willing to write it up verbatim in an appropriate section.--Jbt1138 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok...so I think it's agreed that we should make a monster section...there IS a lot to add and I just saw the movie, so it's fresh in my mind. I think I'll star the section, and you guys could start in writing after it, if that's ok, I'll just add some basic stuff like appearence, involvement, abilities. I'm also of addingi n somthing about the monster having a vendetta towards the main characters, because it does seem to chase THEM specifically. But I'm gonna wait for further aproval by you guys on that one.--Kaji13 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a section, but it would be awfully small, as all that is currently known about the monster is what it looks like and that it's otherworldly.--Kondrayus (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Response To JBT1138. The production notes sound interesting but might not be fully accurate. The original idea for the monster might not be exactly what made it into the movie. For example, the production notes say the monster is ancient, but a scene near the end of the movie suggests that it arrived only a month (or so) before the incident. I'm not saying we KNOW the notes are wrong, I just don't think that it should be on Wikipedia unless a reliable source certifies it as being true to the movie and publishes it. It would be cool to see those notes though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the guy (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you guys think that something stating that there was a second monster in Central Park when Rob and Elizabeth were hiding? The one Hud filmed in Central Park is CLEARLY not the same one that's raging about Manhattan. It's way too small and the bombers pass right over it during the Hammerdown procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Definately a gooood point...I noticed it too, the monster seemed quite small.--Kaji13 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact it looked smaller and that if you follow the plot the group goes fucking everywhere, but with the second monster theory, though possible I think that maybe because of how it's legs were set up, a zoom out or in function on the camcorder, or it really seemed that the monster depending on it's position it's skin look stretched, so I don't know if we could make any assumptions on it's size. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What killed Hud?
In the main article it says that Hud was killed by the creature... but I have the feeling that it isn't because the size seems too small.. come on, such a huge thing bitting something the size of an ant? It looks like is another type of creature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.129.226 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why the movie was so ridiculous. The monster is in manhattan, then suddenly it's on ellis island and whacks the statue, then it's back in manahatan, then it's tail destroys the brooklyn bridge. At the end the chopper goes up watching the monster fall amid tall buildings, the pilot takes them closer to it and when it crash lands it's in a field? They should have called it the Blair Godzilla Project, the shaking camera was so irritating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.12.153 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for discussion. This is about improving the article. Slusho42 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just mentioning it because in the article says the monster killed him, which I think is not correct.

With all due respect, unless you have a reputable source that says either a) the main monster did not kill Hud or b) there is enough online speculation to warrant an article about fans thinking there is more than one monster, your opinion alone does not matter here. Slusho42 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Well, what about all of our speculation? --Kaji13 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No wait, I think he's on to something there! Althought it seems silly to me that there are two different monsters in Cloverfield, it is not out of the question. From my point of veiw (and from memory) the monster, as well as the smaller monsters that seem to 'spawn' from the main monster, around the start of the movie seems more insect-like. Where as latter on in the film the monster, mostly in the closer up shots (like just before the monster kills Hud) it looks more like a bat or mammal type creature. Also from the sceen when Hud is killed by the monster, the scale of the monster seems to be smaller than previously. I have no sources either, unless you count the movie as a good enough source?--Maceo (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me, the reason the monster appears different sizes is not because its a different monster. Heres a link to an article and the exact paragraph that talks about the size difference http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927 (The article also talks about a sequel and that the director wanted the film to be rated R). I also had the chance to speak with Director Matt Reeves about sequels and about a certain shot toward the end of the film that kind of looks as if the monster is smaller than we had seen…possibly implying that there is another monster or baby monster, he had this to say, “The monster has a pretty consistent size in the film, and towards the end even though its shot in such a way that there is a perspective change that makes him look a bit smaller but it is in fact the monster at his biggest.”Rosario lopez (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. How do you go about meeting Matt Reeves though, just bump into him on the street?--Maceo (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right, lol! I didn't know you were qouting someone else when you said that "I also had the chance to speak with Director Matt Reeves".--Maceo (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the film when it opened, it's fairly obvious that the monster killed Hud. Given that it lunges at him and bites, and all. Lawrence §  t / e  06:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I think it's strange that it's not the first conclusion people come to when a monster lunges and the next shot is a dead person, don't you agree?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It looked smaller because Hud zoomed in on it's face. Them Hud was not bitten, Hud was physically inside of the monster's mouth. He was tossed around in the mouth then dropped from the huge 300 foot drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.18.202 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this guy, but is it possible that it attacked him near the ground(trying to get him) because of how hud looked a the monster it was as if he was laying on the ground frozen in fear, and I doubt that he was "dropped" but maybe tossed because I don't think rob was right next to the monster but a good distance away. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is a very good possibility that Hud is killed by a second monster, and I think there are clues in the film to back this up. First of all, i agree that this monster does look abit undersized when compared to earlier shots of the beast while it smashed around town. Secondly, I think we all noticed those orange/red Lung/sack things on the head of the monster which killed Hud. I argue that in no other point of the movie are these sacks visible, and would go as far as to say that the other monster (building smashing monster) had grey or black sacks, not the vibrant red ones. Third, It seemed strange to me that the monster could simply sneak up on the three of them, especially when each one of the monsters steps shakes the ground. I seem to recall them being near the water when they crash the helicopter, this one could have have been in the water, how sneaky. To go along with this ling of thinking, why was the monster not being bombed as it attacked Hud. Seems strange that there was a lull when it was said in the subway station that the option for a lull was probably not going to happen. Lastly, Since we simply only know the information which is on Hud's tape we only get to see this event from the perspective of these people. This means that even if there were more than one monster how would they know, all they know is that they are running from it. The fact that we as a viewer are not given an "all seeing/all knowing" view point means that there could be vast amounts of information that we are simply oblivious to at this point. Anyways .....fun to speculate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezgordo (talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely only one monster. If you pay attention to the news casts when they are in the electronic store, you'll notice that the news caster says that New York is being attacked by a massive creature. Not massive creatures, a massive creature.--Kondrayus (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also. When Rob and company run into the military after getting out of the subway tunnels, they ask what going on. The military officer replies with, "what ever it is it's winning." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, FWIW, I can recall a discussion here of whether Jason is dead or not, but apparently that section has seen been removed. In any case, I've decided to settle the argument. Freeze frame that scene on the bridge.  Exactly 28 minutes and 17 seconds into the film, you can see the tail of the monster crash down directly upon Jason and the lampost he's standing on at the time. No way he could have survived that. Sorry. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Pre Release) Monster Speculation
Was wondering should we document all the monsters every single fan of Cloverfield thought it was before the movie actually came out? Seeing that Ethanhass was posted so people in the future know for a fact its not Godzilla, Voltron, a Huge Lion, Cthulhu, a New Transformers film, Zig, Behemoth, Laviethen and also that fake concept art which many thought it was the actual monster and how Abrams got the idea of the monster also? Also I think it should be posted b/c this monster in film is unique and there was no actual name given and we don't want it to tie in with other monsters that are out there. I noticed some of it is mentioned in there but not all as others might still cling on to the older ideas on the monster. Also a pic of the smaller versions of the thing might help. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Main Monster
 * Smaller Parasite Versions


 * Well, any which aren't currently covered in the article, and which are mentioned by what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, can certainly be added. Steve  T • C 08:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Like the viral promotion of this film it wasn't officially mentioned BUT its in the article anyway as of the mention of Godzilla, Paramount or Abrams did not announce that and etc. as of about 80% of the Pre Plot Speculation. This information i posted about the monsters where given permission to be on the article Right after the film came out to verify this. Now it has and should be in the article to prevent any confusion in the future. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pictures are just concept art. The one of the main monster looks close but in the movie the things back didnt have spikes on it. The smaller creatures look completely different as well.


 * Its the closest wiki has at the moment until a more accurate picture of the monster comes out, adding a picture of the monster in the article would DEFIANTLY clear up any confusion or theories still made about the monster regarding to the other monsters that people thought that was tied into the film. Also seeing the monster has no name a picture would also help with other stuff. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Monster Figure
Don't worry my friends, Hasbro will unveil the beast pretty soon. Alientraveller (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please add this, as I don't know how to cite sources and put the little numbers next to sentences and what not: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41117. Hasbro is making figures of the monster to be sold for $99.99 each. Sounds like they come with the figure(70 POINTS OF ARTICULATION), two heads(calm and angry)for the Monster itself, and an SOL head as an accessory. Think it's worth mentioning, no? Slusho42 (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it comes with 10 of the parasites. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is my first time posting, so sorry if this isn't supposed to be on the page, but if you have seen the movie, go on Youtube and search Cloverfield monster poster. You can see the head in the clouds.Nikolas3 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Creature Designer
Thought it might aid in the creature discussions (and help debunk some of the so called 'confirmed' pre production creature sketches) by pointing out that the credited creature designer is Neville Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namssorg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield Monster
If we have a photo of the monster from the movie that isn't hand-drawn, or fan-made, can we put it in the wiki? Or is everyone going to bitch and complain (most likely about the fact that it isn't fair use rationale or something)? &#91;&#91;User:SonicNiGHT&#124;SonicNiGHT&#93;&#93; (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So cynical! Well if it actually looks good...(I mean, how good can a photo of a silk screen look?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/cloverfieldmonsterart01.jpg What about this? Roneman90 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what it looks like. I'll list reasons why if needed, but the creature is very different looking than that. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say not very different but that is more of a cartoon version of this monter. Jason 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9291/12009548198761155630tn8.jpg Thats actually what it looks like. No source or anything, but thought it could help.--72.183.47.235 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That 2nd picture is pretty much spot on, but without a source, I don't think we can use it. The first picture, among other things, has a totally wrong body. The body was not that bulky, didnt have spines, and with a body show in the picture would never be able to turn it's head the way it does in the monvie. Then there's the face.... DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

the first one is more correct and the monster most likley was taller than the statue of liberty
 * Have you even seen the movie? The second one is most definitely Cloverfield, the first looks wrong in many ways. And sign your comments with four of these: "~", it puts in your data and lowers confusion over who said what. Phi Chi Delta (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have YOU seen the movie? The second is completly wrong. The first has it right in more ways than one. The director even said that the first one was closer. there 199.44.20.107 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) happy?


 * The first one is not what it looks like only because of it's head and back. And in the movie it actually has a neck. The second one looks more like it, but until the DVD comes out I don't think any Images should be accepted(we could also have a fan-made link after the DVD comes out). And now I have a question, WTF are those things under it's body(second link), not the under-body,forward-arms but the little fin-like things.71.120.133.171 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Godzilla?
Why is "Godzilla" listed under See Also? Has it anything to do with this film? --Is this fact...? 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that JJ Abrams went to Japan with his child, and saw all these Godzilla action figures littering the stores, and believed that America should have it's own national monster. I believe that and the obvious Godzilla-like action that the movie contains, that Godzilla should be under "See Also"

(SaturdaysKids (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

Abrams said he went into a store and saw alot of toys monsters in Japan at the 07 Comic-Con, Godzilla has nothing to do with the film though it could maybe inspired him like the other toy figures and made one up. Nothing with the film though it could be mentioned monster toy figures inspired the monster itself. Not Godzilla only. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Godzilla is another iconic movie monster. JJ abrams clearly said he was hoping to follow in the tradion of iconic monsters like Godzilla and King Kong. Wikipedia is about litereay influence, not plot exposition, so actually this makes a lot of sense. besides "See also" enries usually have a lot of leeway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should put godzilla AND zilla in, if we're going to make the section, the See Also, because godzilla was the one who inspired the movie and zilla was one of the monster candidates and was the first giant monster in New York city (like the cloverfield monster or Zilla II, as I call him due to the fact that both monsters are, somewhat, alike).--4444hhhh (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First giant monster? King Kong might disagree...HonestTom (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms fits what has been said. Is there any direct link or statment about inspiriation? Stabby Joe (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Godzilla Retort
Godzilla gets a separate listing from Godzilla (1954 film), so I have no problem with separate entries for the monster and the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilwhite (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Viral marketing websites
Why were the viral marketing website links (slusho.jp, etc) removed as "spam?" They are all definitely related to the film and I had been relying on this article's handy list of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.2.6 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC) SlushoTagratu (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but I am similarly pissed about it. I can't remember the link to that page where the girl posted the 10 videos, and apparently an 11th video is up now.  Here are the websites again if anyone cares, and if anyone with skills would like to add them to the main page again.
 * Teaser website (Requires Adobe Flash Player)
 * JamieAndTeddy.com, a viral tie-in website (Password: jllovesth)
 * Slusho.jp, a viral tie-in website
 * Tagruato.jp, a viral tie-in website
 * TidoWave.com, a viral tie-in website


 * No one from Bad Robot Productions or Paramount as of Abrams himself said these sites are official...not yet wait till he does announce it. We know its about a 99% chance for it to be related to the movie but you guys have to wait until someone from the film officially announces it. The only site that was officially announced was 1-18-08.com which Abrams himself said was part of the movie. IF You guys wait a little while longer like when the DVD comes out then someone most likely from the film will SAY its officially and its a viral tie-in to the film itself. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, an actress from the film confirmed the Slusho website and the MySpace pages: . Slusho links to Tagurato which links to Tidowave. The MySpaces link to Jamie+Teddy. --Is this fact...? 03:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that I personally would add it to the article also seeing this source looks reliable. Not sure what the other editors think seeing if this was added to the article right away someone else would delete it. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress on getting these things sourced. I was wondering about the Jamie-Teddy site. Being as the latest video features the actress dressed in the same outfit as her appearance in the film, (and also referring to going to the party in the film, does this make a stronger case for the site to be considered an official part of the viral game? Does the film itself count as an official source? 64.178.99.197 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Film partly, why I said partly because half of the film or a film of this kind, more than half raises more questions the needs to be confirmed as confirming other stuff made before the film came out. If you see where I am coming from. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 08:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the MySpace pages have been confirmed, doesn't the appearance of the Jamie Lascano character on JamieandTeddy.com confirm it as an official part of the viral marketing? Would one of the main editors of this page get back to us on this? DonSteveO2415 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I may Like to Add this. Not a OFFICIAL source but here is a list from a news site source.
 * IGN's viral List
 * --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

MySpace Confirmed
Cloverfield Clues just linked to various Cloverfield related interviews including one confirming that the MySpaces are a part of the advertising campaign. --Is this fact...? 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cloverfeild Clues is a Blog site and not a site that releases verified official information about the film. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

However, what they've linked to, http://current.com/items/88818115_cloverfield_s_fake_myspace_pages contains an actual interview in which the actress confirms that the myspace pages for each character were made for the movie by the production company. Surely this cannot be considered Original Research? DonSteveO2415 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That can work, FINALLY a cited source has been found seeing the actor from the film actually confirmed it is(they are) authentic. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added the Source link in the article --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So I'm guessing the info from the character's MySpace account are allowed in? Because I don't see any edits on the article about them or some extra information on Rob's VP job.Nocarsgo (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, did anyone notice that (Spoiler) the day after the movie came out, Hud's myspace profile changed his height to 2 feet, six inches? This is probably saying that he got bitten in half. Kinda funny. Ark Crow (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten
Does anyone think that the article's plot needs more details. Some of it is missing a lot of details from the movie, like the rats running or her blowing up to blood or they will destroy Manhattan (or by the way, the movie was great! 10 out of 10!).--4444hhhh (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be re-written to cut down on the length of the plot. This is an encyclopedia that notes the main plot points but not every little detail. Those kind of details belong is a Cloverfield specific Wiki. -- Victor  (talk)  01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Victor, the rat thing is a detail added for flavor (so the kids would look behind them) not a crucial plot detail--Erik the guy (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit i just made
Has already been undone, on basais of no orig research. I'll open discussion with these points: I personally do not think that is original research. i did not fact find, i simply reached the conclusion the movie gave me. my hand is on the undo button but anyone is welcome to rebutt me. OR is unclear on this. we have the bullshit regarding "its still alive" but this gets removed immediately? opinions plz.Dark0805 (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hudson at party:"They had sex a month ago"
 * Rob under bridge:"It's may 27th"
 * DATE ON CAMERA DURING FINAL SCENE:"april 27th"

Your argument would be stronger if your facts weren't incorrect. Rob says its the morning of the 23rd at the end of the video, and the timestamp at the beginning of the party the night before says May 22nd.StvnLunsford (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost entirely sure he said 27th. i'll be following up on this as soon as the script is available, which is soon, one can hope. i may be seeing it again with a friend, and i will brign a recorder for the purpose of that scene.70.21.239.250 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw the movie a few hours ago, and the footage time-coded April 27th is the footage from a month before the attack on New York, from the morning after Rob and Beth slept together and the day they spent at Coney Island afterward. Early in the film, Rob is concerned as to whether or not there was a new tape put in the video camera before Jason and Hud started filming--and rightly so, since, from the different footage that "peeks" through between that from the night of the attack, precious (to Rob) moments of the time he and Beth spent together were taped over.  I'm planning on seeing the film again tomorrow, just to cement in my mind how much of the opening scenes were Rob and Beth, and how much were Jason and Lily prepping for the party--until I put the pieces together, I thought that was a continuous sequence of the same couple.  (Shows how much I pay attention--though perhaps it was deliberate, and not so coincidental that the actresses playing Beth and Lily resemble each other somewhat?)
 * Something occured to me, though--Rob clearly asks if they had changed "the tape" in the camera, but the identifying text at the beginning of the film states that the footage was from an SD card. The fact that the prior footage on the camera's recording medium was leaking through gaps in the attack footage seems to confirm that a tape was used....in my experience, digital cameras don't "tape over" existing material in memory or on a memory card, they use whatever space is still free and then inform the user that all available memory is full.  One has to delete the existing material or remove it to another storage medium to free up space to record on.  A minor gaffe on the filmmakers' part?  I suppose one could argue that whoever retrieved the footage dug deep for all available data on the card, and fragments of the prior footage remained, but that's speculation....(Edit: and I see that this has already been discussed above, sorry). -- Pennyforth (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the SD card is the Department of Defense card that the footage is being viewed from. Am I right?  The film was transfered over to the SD card by the government.  This is how the movie starts with "do not copy" stamped over the front of the film. drew 76.122.237.83 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, even if it was an SD card, tape is somewhat ambiguous and much easier to say. Also, whether or not a digital camera will allow one to tape over existing material is probably based on brand or model, and not so universal as you suggest, so the flipping between scenes still makes sense. 207.7.166.122 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let people know -- the Plot summary section is the least important section of the film article. It's not worth painstaking discussion over the small details of the film. If there is a part of the film that is in dispute, try your best to make the passage ambiguous. For example, if a certain type of rescue helicopter was used, and people are arguing about its type, then it would be best to call it a rescue helicopter. I haven't seen the film yet, so I'm glazing my eyes over at the specific details, but try to consider that the Plot summary section should only have enough detail to understand the film as a whole from beginning to end. There are many intricacies of any film that will not be easily expressed in the section. It'd be more beneficial to focus on adding real-world context to the article. With the film just out, there should be plenty of coverage besides reviews about its production. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It must have been tape - NO camera which records to SD card will over-tape footage as shown in the film. ALL brands will create seperate files, solid state cameras simply DO NOT produce the kind of footage you see in this film. The "SD" text at the start of the film is most likely refering to "Standard Definition" as opposed to "High Definition" - ie, the footage is not HD, it's regular digital video. I'll give it a couple of days for anyone to point me to something to the contrary or object strongly before I edit. --82.32.47.8 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you implying that you are going to edit? Any discussion in the article of whether it is "tape" or something else is pure wp:or and doesn't belong. Gwynand (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just that I'll either simply take out the direct statement that the footage was recovered from an SD card or put a short sentence in to note the matter unclear. For example, the text could simply read "a series of scenes recovered from a digital video camera".

Whilst the issue itself is extremely trivial, the first thing that struck me about the article was its clear statement that the footage was from an SD card. That statement is so obviously wrong that it undermines the credibility of everything else in what is otherwise a very good article.

On the other hand, the mere absence of a statement about an SD card is not going to negatively impact on the article – as such it's better off without it.

Unless of course someone can identify some source to indicate the makers really did intend people to understand the footage to be from an SD card - in which case this discrepancy is best addressed towards the end of the article in a short gaffes or bloopers section as is commonly found in many other film articles. --62.173.76.218 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaiju?
I just reverted the Kaiju link from the plot summary... but what is the consensus on this? I think this is still a leap to make this link. I think it's original research, people looking at the plot summary and clicking on that link will be finding something that is basically unique to wikipedia (in us making this connection). Maybe a cite to someone in the media referring to Kaiju?Gwynand (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, at the Kaiju article itself it states, "King Kong and the monster from the movie Cloverfield are examples of Western kaiju." I can't tell if that's OR or not, as I am not an expert on the subject. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... seems like that should be changed, although I have no involvement with that article.Gwynand (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like that should be sourced, at the very least. For now, I've added the  tag to that article. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Giant monsters rampaging through cities are pretty much the definition of kaiju, but I notice that the proper Kaiju article is sorely lacking, almost a stub. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UFO
There is no object crashing into the water at the end of the film. The speculation at the end of the plot synopsis noting such an object should be removed unless footage from the film illustrating the object in question can be provided.137.165.208.48 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of poeple keep saying somthing falls into the water off in the distance, but i saw no such thing.--Mr. S.C. Shadow (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is something falling into the water at the end. I don't think that it's safe to say that it's a UFO, because from how far away they are, it just looks like a pebble and is only visible for one second before it crashes into the water, but there is definitely something crashing into the water although it's not clearly visible.--Kondrayus (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The current article states that there is something moving in the water. This is incorrect, as an object appears to fall out of the sky. Seeing as there was prior viral marketing that reported a sattelite falling into the ocean near NYC at the end of April, it's safe to assume that the object that fell [something did indeed fall, regardless of whether you noticed it or not] was a sattellite beloning to the Tagruato Corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.163.104 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Slight correction, minutia really, but Tatruago did not own the satellite in question. In a Tatruago press release, they reported that one of their satellites detected a falling UFO, which they guessed was a piece of another doomed satellite.  This object could still end up being the monster, and if they deliberately put this in the film, it could serve as evidence supporting the monster as an alien theory.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.184.57 (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely some object that 1. Comes from the sky and 2. Lands in the water. It's not a matter of interpretation on that... it was quick, and I guess some people may have missed it. That info stays in, any interpretation beyond that would be removed.Gwynand (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I watched the movie for the second time today, and can tell you that the object falling from the sky most definitely exists. Furthermore, at that moment, it is the only thin happening in the shot, Rob and Beth are not even on screen, so it is no doubt deliberate by the filmmakers, not incidental like the shooting star caught on film in Jaws. I strongly feel it should be put back in the plot summary. If we needed footage from the fim to verify everything in the plot summary, I expect we'd be having problems with Paramount's legal department. DonSteveO2415 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The falling object can stay in the plot summary, it definitely exists, but its purpose/identity cannot. Since all theories for the falling objects identity and purpose are based on the viral marketing campaign they are speculation. (The general consensus is that the falling object is a satellite that awoke the monster, which had been sleeping for 1000(s) of years). Do not make any mention of the object's role or identity without citing a reliable resource please!

If there was an object falling from the sky... which side on the horizon was it and how fast or how steep was the drop?

It's hard to see on a regular T.V. It happens from 01:13:15 and 01:13:17. Their camera battery warning beeps just before the splash.

The object enters the screen near the top right corner, 10% from the right edge. It falls down and 20 degrees to the left, splashing on the horizon between the blue and white tent and the Go-Karts sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.178.85 (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a video about this issue as there is a link to a picture of it from the Film. Not sure if this can be cited as a source for the article.
 * The Splash
 * --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the supposed object falling into the ocean should be mentioned under a separate section titled easter eggs or something, not the plot synopsis. The object is not part of the plot since the characters do not even acknowledge the event, despite the fact that it supposedly happens right in front of them. If the event were essential to the film's plot, some direct mention of it would have been made within the film itself. My concern is that this whole thing is merely an extension of the viral marketing project, designed to get people to see the movie again and again until they can spot the thing falling into the ocean. Assuming there was something there.137.165.242.219 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw the film, knowking in advance to look for the falling object at the end, and didn't see it. Could it be that the ending was different based on where it was shown?76.176.21.123 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that narratively this is a very important plot point, as it suggests the seminal event leading up to what is depicted in the movie. From a storytelling standpoint, it hints at an answer to the question everyone is asking during the movie..."where did it come from". I'm not going to speculate on what the object really is or how it relates to the monster, but in the context of the fiction that the movie creates, it seems like an important detail and one which may be used to extend the narrative (sequel, anyone?). I would vote for it to be left in the plot summary section. As an aside...for those of you who might want to research it further, it comes in from the right side of the screen at about a 60 degree angle. Blink and you'll miss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.141.181 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This link (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41100) has director Matt Reeves verifying that something falls in the water. StvnLunsford (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I added it into the Sequel section of the article not stating any theories. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tagruato website states that their satellite was used to survey the Japanese satellite ChimpanzIII for damage after a piece of ChimpanzIII broke off and crashed into the Atlantic ocean. It was not the creature; it is not an alien. There are links here to JJ stating that the creature was in the ocean for eons. Synetech (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused
Reeves also points out that the end scene on Coney Island, shows something falling into the ocean in the background I didn't keep an eye out for that. But could someone expand on the sentence? What do they mean by "falling"? From the sky or from a cliff or boat or what? If it's from the sky, then it would be an alien.

-G


 * I think the sentence is pretty self explanatory. Coney Island or anything in New York doesn't have cliffs. Thats one off. A boat did anyone see a boat the size of a cruse liner in the last scene? Na I thought I saw was a couple of Fair rides and out stands then water. And also from the cited article of what Matt Reeves quotes, he didn't say what it was so if I change the sentence to alien that would turn a sentence that is fact to a theory. As I am seeing from the film's Fans that Abrams has quoted that monster is not a alien and Two it maybe a satellite that have gone missing from one of the films viral sites "Tagruato" --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ :ॐ 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd have to look really closely to see it, because it is only visible for about one second and it is about the size of a pebble. It is in the top right hand corner. And at this point the only logical way to classify this monster would be alien because clearly, most of its features aren't in any way human, besides its head shape.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So cows, bees, squids, roses, and such are all alien too? Synetech (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Motion Sickness not notable?
A few days ago, I added a motion sickness warning to the article, but it was removed. It is a verifiable fact that people got motion sickness while watching this movie (give me a bit of time to re-find that source again), and given that most movies don't cause motion sickness (at least not on this scale), I feel that this is notable.

Also, someone removed the talk section about Motion Sickness as well, for some reason.Viltris (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a motion sickness warning at the theatre I saw it at today. ... the AMC at the mall of america, and I did get a little sick watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.87.2 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the section Coffeepusher (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An editor by the name of CoCoBeast removed a reference regarding motion sickness on 21:55, 1 February 2008. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the movie promoters are responsible for this.Jpetersen46321 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion Sickness
First off, to any fellow wikipedians that are planning a to see this movie: I think it was all-around horrible. Secondly, this article should probably mention motion sickness, as I left the theater inches away from blowing chunks. Google news agrees more weight to a warning is needed on this. I might add it later tonight if no one else wants too. EvanCarroll (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it was all-around amazing, and plan to see it a second time. In regards to the motion-sickness, I heard alot of people had that problem, although I didn't myself, nor did anyone I talked to after the screening, but its got reliable sources so go ahead and add it. (It shouldn't be a warning, just a report that some people did get motion sick) Mad031683 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was great movie, although I think I can understand why you didn't like it, even though I thought it was great. I've only heard things like motion sickness from around the internet. No one I talked to had motion sickness after the movie.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember the same complaints about Blair Witch, although the article doesn't cite it. I found this as a potential reference - http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9907/27/blair.witch/. Is this just something that hasn't been added, or is it non-notable? It seems like it would apply to any movie done strictly by handy-cam. joshschr  ( Talk  |  contribs ) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The shaky camera technique is a given when you have a film like this. Some might say it gives the film that realistic, amateurish feel. In any case, I agree, there should be some mention of this induced nausea. After all, such things have already been noted for Blair Witch and the Bourne films. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The theater I saw it in, AMC 24, had a poster that read "any one seeing Cloverfield will experience effect much like riding a roller coster due to shaky camera style" or somthing to that effect. Now if this was company or common practice, then we can find a source and quote it, however if it was just a isolated poster, then no WP:RS will existCoffeepusher (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that label too, it wasn't isolated (unless you went to the exact same theater as I did, which is very unlikely. Heh heh... Xanofar (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and add the motion sickness note myself. My source probably isn't the best (it only mentions motion sickness in passing) and my phrasing or organization might not be the best (that's a really short section), but I feel that the motion sickness is noteworthy, especially since most movies generally don't cause motion sickness.Viltris (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw it at an AMC too, and they had the exact same sign. I think it's a standardized sign for all AMC theaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.85.110 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Motion sickness
Maybe the motion sickness being experienced by a large amount of viewers is worthy of a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.226.119 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mabie it is just me, but I feel that there are enough personal testimonials about people getting motion sickness, and yet there is nothing in this discussion that can be put into the article unless someone finds a source from the AMC company that talks about that sign everyone read. Please no more personal "someone got sick at my theater" testimonials...this section is well on its way to redundancy if that keeps up. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This nausea effect was also reported (and experienced by me) for the Blair Witch Project. 218.167.170.189 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article mentioned by news story
Warnings Posted After Hit Horror Flick Leaves Some Nauseous - Oklahoma City News

This was also linked to on CNN's homepage

- Running On  Brains  15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is not a discussion but I have to give my opinion about this. This article is not fact. I am myself a person who easily gets motion sickness and I never ever rode a roller coaster again after riding one in my life. And like I said the reason is that I have a bad case of motion sickness. BUT when I watched the movie I "NEVER EVER" had a feeling that I wanted to vomit. (Not even close of having that sick feeling if you are watching a IMAX movie, seeing its so big) Really b/c how the film was shot I was actually standing in my seat like I was looking into a window to get a better look of what the camera left out on screen. People who is demanding refunds or etc. I say this "If u don't barf don't complain and stop being so dramatic." or I have a better solution CLOSE YOUR DAMN EYES FOR A FEW SECONDS Also research on the damn thing that you are going to watch. This news article I don't think It should go in the article AT ALL. But if it was a bad case like someone had to go to the hospital then yea sure add it seeing the Hostel articles have news facts in it regarding the film. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen it covered elsewhere, including TV. It's notabvle because it's far from the norm for a film, and has had WP:RS coverage. ThuranX (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Marlena Death
Just wondering... how can we say that she exploded? I wasn't paying extremely close attention, but is it not possible that one of the medical officers shot her before she spawned any creatures or something? Anyone notice anything that goes against this? I mean, the black guy says "There was nothing we could do" which could support either of these theories. Just putting it out there...

No, she definitely inflates and bursts into a bloody mess.--Kondrayus (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also... the one way I can think of to prove this as fact or false would be to go see the movie and listen for any bang right before the explosion. Although, I doubt it's legal to record even a sound clip... so even if someone found out they couldn't verifiably prove it. 207.7.166.122 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to suggest they actually kill her. Two assistants wearing hazmat (is it hazmat? Well it's something like a tarp poncho with a hazmat-style glass faceplate) suits drag her behind the curtain where, from what we can see, Marlena just blows up, splattering blood.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, you can explode as a result of getting killed (shot, etc...). I cleaned up the sentence in the plot to say she was basically dragged off then exploded behind a screen. We certainly can't suggest that she "might have been killed by the soldiers" but at the same time there shouldn't be a line saying that her explosion was directly linked to the parasite bite.Gwynand (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can very clearly see her body expand to a huge degree in the movie before she "explodes." You can even find it in slow motion from the trailers. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is more, just before Marlena's death, there's a brief bit where we see the corpse of a soldier being wheeled out. Said corpse looked like it had been hollowed out, but in retrospect you realize that the soldier popped the same way Marlena did. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's still speculation, although I agree. We can't say that's actually what happened, but we CAN say she expanded because it was observed. DurinsBane87 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I remember hearing only one "bang" & if it was a gunshot, then the amt of blood we saw splash on the plastic was WAY too much for a single gunshot. Nope, she suffered the same fate as the soldier shown moments before. Tommyt (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, about the dead soldier, when he is wheeled past, he is referred to as "another bite". How much has to be fed to us before we can agree that a similar thoracic explosion is what happened to Marlena? DonSteveO2415 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the soldier's missing abdomen could likely have come from the actual bite of the parasitic thing, instead of the suggested explosion. That could've come after they wheeled him away. But yeah, i think the popping of Malena was an "aftereffect" of the original bite, some organ expanding and whatnot.Aeyve (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * http://youtube.com/watch?v=2jte-PRrmgo seems to show her expanding rapidly. (86.145.122.75 (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Marlena Bite
The plot section says she is bit while saving Hud... this is minor, but isn't she tackled by one right after she finally clubs the one off of Hud? I mean, either way she was distracted by saving Hud but the way it is now suggests more guilt on Huds part and less possible defense from Marlena than the way I remember it being would. This is really minor, huh? I've been spending way too much time on this page lol... Ryan M. (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

She is tackled by one, but if I remember correctly, Rob kicks it off way to quickly before it could crall onto her back and bite her. I think she was bitten when they were running from them and that one jumps onto her back.--Kondrayus (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Endings?
I have heard rumors that there are potential alternates to the ending of this movie. Can anyone confirm or deny?--TheEmpTSet (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you post a source? Please --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TheNightShift appears to pose a similar question, NyMag.comseems to propose that at least one alternate ending was filmed. My use of the term "global alternates" could be construed as original research, and has been amended.--TheEmpTSet (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the official movie website and click on about the DVD one of the bonus features is alternate endings.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are specifically two known alternate endings. Saw it on a game site talking about the special edition. The commercials semi-confirm it by stating "alternate endings" Can't find a good source at moment, so we'll just have to wait upon release of the actual DVD. Mcnichoj (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sequel Section
I think the sequel Section needs to be rewritten and should go a little more in detail with quotes from Matt Reeves, and how they plan to might film it. There are two sources about this that need to be the cited source on this section.
 * 'Cloverfield' Sequel Talk, Violent Plans!
 * Reeves Runs Merrily Through Cloverfield
 * --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Planing to rewrite the sequel section latter when I get the time myself on how Reeves went into detail with quotes and etc. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 08:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Rewriting it though I was wondering what is the code to add "LARGE" Quotation Marks around Quoted Paragraphs to make the section look neater than italize the whole darn thing. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for whoever put the quotes in the article ^-^ --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Seriously?!
A) There is no reason why anyone who reads this article is going to care WHAT TYPE OF FIGHTER JET OR HELICOPTER THE ONES IN THE FILM WERE!

B) All the small edits are getting kind of annoying. Im a bit surprised that the admins havent decided to full-block the page.

C) At this point I am just gonna say that Marlena definitely exploded as you saw if you were paying attention. The martial doctors in the hazmat suits DIDNT TOUCH HER and also the small scene before she started bleeding everywhere, with the man with his torso also burst open. Proof enough I think. T3H_CH0Z3N_0N3 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A) Agreed. Crap like what type of fighter jet, etc., should be in a trivia section if at all.
 * C) Also true. The man with his non-existant torso combined with the quote "another bite" or something like that referring to him should be proof enough. I wonder what the point of quarantining was though... I guess her blood might've spread her condition (rapid bloodcell production, I suppose) to anyone who got her blood in one of their own wounds. Ryan M. (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, having blood of indeterminate quality exploding everywhere tends to defeat the purpose of a sterile and clean operating theatre. Quarantine prevents the rest of the field hospital from getting contaminated in just a general sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldSkoolGeek (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I figure once the excitement from the movie goes down the Plot summery will get trimmed to a reasonable amount of detail. Right now i don't have time to revert war over all the crap. harlock_jds (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack
I've made a section about soundtrack, but it was later removed as unsourced section. I agree that "A sampler disc was distributed to guests at Rob's Going Away Party at the Dark Room in New York City on 17 January" (it wasn't written by me, it was added later by another user) lacked a source. But I think that, for example, "Cloverfield, being presented as if it were a recording by one of the characters, has no soundtrack in the usual meaning" doesn't need a source, and even if it does, IMDb trivia can be one, so there was no actual need for the deleting. So maybe it's better to restore the section and delete only the statements that lack sources?

Sorry for my poor English, it's not my native language.

phil (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added it back in. seeing this a film there has to be a soundtract section in my opinion. Even if this Section isn't scpurced doesnt mean it can not stay in the article because for a FACT the film does have a score. Just at the moment there is no further information that goes deeper into the films score. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Music during credits
I don't know if this would belong in the article, or if anyone else noticed the music during the credits had several allusions to Japanese monster films: the theme resembled the march used in Destroy All Monsters and others, and there was a break with a similar theme to Godzilla's (the one with the lower brass).Bossk538 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of critics (if they address it at all) have made that observation. Not sure how to source it, though.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recall what the title was exactly (it had Roar! and Cloverfield Theme in the title) and was made by Michael Giachano, not sure on the spelling. DurinsBane87 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you were to put this in, i would suggest the critical reception section and cite the reviews--Erik the guy (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Black Keys left out of "soundtrack"
The song "Grown So Ugly" off of The Black Keys 2004 release Rubber Factory was left out of the articles soundtrack section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roostar (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point was to have a few songs as examples…I'm just going to remove all of them, it's cruft.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have all these songs played at Rob's party but the problem is that there is not cited source to prove that these songs were in the actual movie. Who knows maybe some songs where not in the movie but at the actual party in New York for the contest. We need a source. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS A SOUNDTRACK
thumb|150px|iTunes Screen of [[Rob's Party Mix]]Ok thanks to the Editor Tommyd84 we Have finally found a ACTUAL CD that came from the Movie itself. Though through my original research this CD was most likely the prize given out during the Real Life Party in New York. So Far I Searched Goggle to look for more info about the Soundtrack and found it's listings. I haven't found out if the CD is a actual OFFICIAL Soundtrack of the film hoping it will contain the score ROAR!(Cloverfeild Overture) but its not on there but only the songs played at Robs Party. Now Because I could not find a ACTUAL Source I found a site(or a couple) that blogs music and one of them state that they are the Blog that uploaded this CD into Itunes. Also there is a article already made for the Mix CD (not made by me)

I Would Love to get opinions from the other editors about this topic if to add it into the article. Seeing its the only Soundtrack for the film out so far we should also seeing that in the Soundtrack section this is most likely the gift that was given away at the Rob's Party Contest. But then I also consider that there are only few of these in the world and if they were given because of the sweepstakes they most likely wont reveal what the actual prize was. And another thing against adding it to the article there are no "REAL" cites for it but only a blog site which uploaded their CD to Itunes. I also wanted to know if the article for the Mix tape itself is still in keeps as its a CD related to the film and a track listings are already public. If we don't keep the article at least add the picture of the CD's cover on this page. Links are Below:
 * Rob's Party Mix Article
 * Rob’s Party Mix from Cloverfield
 * Cover Picture
 * --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just Finish Doing the Soundtrack Article. Edit if you must. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If possible, could you provide a link to the mix? It seems to be impossible to actually find.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Removed by Editor --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, I meant the iTunes link. Something we can use that's not illegal. You can get it by right-clicking the cover art and selecting "get iTunes Store URL".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found it under "What's Hot". Pretty stupid it doesn't show up in searches and the individual tracks don't link back to it, though. Should probably put it on the mix page...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OOOO Sorry lol I dont have a direct link for it(seeing its a program that has it own browser) But put "Cloverfield Mix" in Search Bar or Look on the iTunes homepage it should be posted on there as one of the new Albums --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Length of film
Not including trailers or credits (so from the first Paramount Logo to the directers name) the film lasts only 1 hour and 13 minutes (73 minutes versus the 84 listed in the article).
 * Source for this?Gwynand (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While runtimes would not include preceding trailers, they do include credit rolls - for ALL films. 72.179.56.175 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But were the credits really 11 min. long? Or is the first guy just incorrect? 64.65.225.114 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out a few of the citations contained in the reception section. Many of those explicitly mention the short length of the film vs. the unusual length of the credits. All the best, Steve  T • C 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to clean up the Talk page yet?
We're getting pretty noisey in here. It's probably time to archive this page at least. I don't know what the official policy is on this, but in my opinion, getting rid of all unsigned comments would drastically improve the wieldliness and appropriateness of the Talk page.Transentient (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

we can alter the archive box, I will adjust it to archive faster (posts 15 days or less) but that wont solve the problem for a while because most of this stuff is recent acctivity. I have also been murging relevent sections together (as well as a few other people) like putting the 3motion sickness together etc. but unless it is outright vandalism, I really don't modify or delete other peoples post on talk pages, it just gets tricky. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Crap! we don't have an automatic archive box. I like those alot better.  welllll....I don't know the prosedures from this point. anyone elce?Coffeepusher (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * alright, I see that all the "discussion" has had a snowball effect (with several comments saying "you mean it isn't supposed to be a discussion board, but it is now") This page has really gone out of controll.  I will go back on my origonal statment, and start deleting comments that are obviously geared to discuss the movie, and not the article (the "oh my god I saw the movie and what did you guys think about that monster...there where two of them right...because she exploded and I thought that was so cool...and then i puked, but htat was fine becasue the movie was so much better than the blair witch..." statements). Coffeepusher (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted...a lot of speculation and discussion (about 25398 bytes, or a fith of the page...but whos counting). I did my best to keep comments that even attempted to work on the article, but alot of stuff was deleted because it responded to the discussion style questions. this page is still huge, but right now it appears more focused and orgonized. I did all my edits in good faith. if you think I was wreckless, please find some examples of stuff that should have been kept and present them to me in a appropriate mannor. don't just go off on me because I deleted one of your posts, tell me why it should have been kept, and find more then one example. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For transperancy sake, here are the changes I made . Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

an editor removed my changes without explination...only to say that mass blanking needed to stop. I am shure this was done in good faith in order to keep with wikipedia standards, which I also value. I edited the page in accordance with WP:TALK where it states an editor can remove material if s/he is "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article." now I believe that I have kept strictly to this rule, as that is my intention. if I am wrong, could you please post on the talk page with an explination as I am working within good faith and want to work with people. Go figure, that is what a talk page is for right? Coffeepusher (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You deleted not only the forum-like comments, which CAN be appropriate if done in a timely manner, but also can be BITE-y to newcomers, especially on a high traffic article, but you also deleted constructive comments as well. I've deleted forum comments as well, just did, in fact. But the timing matters. Instead, I reverted all your edits, archived all the pre-release conversation, refactored a couple comments, and deleted one obvious non-constructive conversation. The best thing that can actually be done, if you want to help fix the page, is to look for sections posted out of order, and put them in chrono-order by first comment. But rampant deletions of comments is hostile, and removing good and bad together is worse. Finally, your sarcastic attitude towards me, and my efforts, is definitely lacking in AGF. I could also expound upon the value to the project of listening to IP comments, even those not constructive but made in good faith and so on, but I'll leave it at what i've already said.ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus you can't spell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.56.109 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Having re-read my original comment, I can say that it defiantly doesn’t keep with the spirit in which it was written. ThuranX was completely justified with believing it was sarcastic, it was not the intent.  Thank you for helping to clean up this page, I was feeling kind of alone in the matter. Oh, and 96.232, that is defiantly not an appropriate comment in either content or spirit.  There are appropriate methods of getting that message across...and that is not one of them. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Character descrptions?
Do you think we should add abit of info for the characters in this movie? Like a good 3-5 sentences.Nocarsgo (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, if you can find enough information about at least Rob, Beth, Hud, Lily, Marlena, Jason, and maybe the Monster and the smaller monsters. Along with good clear pictures of the characters. This would be good, although most of the inforamtion about the characters is already in the Plot, so it may be a bit pointless for all the characters except the Monster and the smaller monsters.--Maceo (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 3-5 each???? That seems a bit much (esp if you only rely on the movie and not the my space pages and such)harlock_jds (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that 3-5 is good in some of the main characters, but with people like Jason who is more that likely dead(with JJ nothing is as it seems) within the first half hour, you can't put down too much. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

they all have myspace pages. see if you can either link to each one or just put some select stuff in there.Madhatter9max (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Map with Timeline?
It sure would be a lot of work, but how about this article eventually having a map and timeline of events? I'd love to know just what happened where at approximately what time, that is assuming all the locations in the film are real. Many of the events in the timeline would have to be approximations and such a timeline would be split between the day of the date and night of the attack. Oh, and how about an overlay on a map of the path the Statue of Liberty head would have traversed. (A dotted red line leading from the statue to the skyscraper it impacted to the final resting spot on the street.) Just what direction was it thrown and where did it land? Was the film accurate in that regard? (and by that I mean could it have flown from the statue to those locations in an uninterrupted arc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely not what wikipedia is for. DurinsBane87 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for timelines and maps? Actually, you have a point. Not that Wikipedia shouldn't contain timelines and maps, but that sometimes information can be too detailed, too specific. I was going to counter with links to all the "Lost" content that would have suggested otherwise, such as maps of the Hatch and a timeline of events, but it appears that since I originally saw those things they've since been deleted and now the Lost Wiki handles most of it. There is at least somewhat of a precedent (though perhaps a bad one) for Wikipedia to act as a holding area for content until it can be organized elsewhere. The Cloverfield wiki still hasn't yet matured to the point at which it contains info like this, but I'd in time like to see it there. So I retract the request for Wikipedia and reiterate it for the Cloverfield Wiki. With a lot of work it should be possible to create a timeline of every shot in the film and describe where in New York each event happened, in addition to the Statue of Liberty head flight path. I'm guessing somebody might do it after the DVD release, though it'd be a shame for it to never happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In My opinion I think this article doesn't need a map or Time line really nothing has been proven and this movies just came out as info about the monster itself is slowly revealed. BUT I can not say that Wiki is not for Timelines and Dates. Really Wiki has something historical it always keeps the date on what happens or if you look at the links with the dates it brings you to a article to what significant happened on that day like September 26 something happened in History and etc. There is even a timeline for events that happened with Jason Vorhees and Freddy Kruger before they fought. As also the Star Wars Timeline A map I never seen a map of a real place on wiki before BUT there are maps on Wikipedia. Like the Star Wars galaxy article which has a map of the "WHOLE" star wars Galaxy. So what you guys are saying really is something that IS on Wiki and if you Noticed THERE is a 100% of a Star Wars Wiki for star wars but details that go really really into the universe is on still on wikipedia as for other movie Series. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming of the movie
I know blogs are not reliable sources but cloverfield clues had a link to the production notes of Cloverfield. So technically I found them through a blog but yeah anyway. I was reading the production notes and I noticed it talks about the naming of the movie. Whats said in the notes differs from the whats said here. Yes Cloverfield was the name of the movie from the beginning but it wasnt the official name. The notes say that the offical name was supposed to be Greyshot. Greyshot is the name of the bridge where Beth and Rob hide at the end. They were going to announce that at Comic-Con but didnt because Cloverfield was already well known and felt changing the name would be bad. Heres the link to the site and the exact paragraph http://home.windstream.net/dacevedo/cloverfield/cloverfieldproductionnotes.htm
 * It was, in fact, one of Abrams’ and Burk’s agents, John Fogelman, who, having seen the word “monster” one too many times in private e-mail correspondence, suggested calling the project “Cloverfield,” after a main street near Abrams’ office in West Los Angeles. “We started working on the movie, and it became like a nickname.  But we thought, ‘There’s no way that’s going to be the title of the movie,’” Abrams recalls.  “We even had another title, ‘Greyshot,’ the name of the bridge that Rob and Beth are hiding under in Central Park at the end of the film, which we were all set to announce at Comic-Con.  But, by that time, the name ‘Cloverfield’ had already leaked out, and the fans already knew it by that name, so we just decided to stick with that.”

Now what Im going to say probably falls into orginal research and cant be used but yeah. This makes a lot of sense becuase the director even stated (before Comi-Con) that when we watched the movie we would understand the meaning of the title. I think that was referring to the movie being name GreyShot. But back to the main point, I was going to add the details about Greyshot and some quotes from Abrams but thought I post it here first to see if anybody has any problems with it.Rosario lopez (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield Blvd
May we add the following image of mine that I uplaoded? It is here in Wikipedia titled: Cloverfield blvd-1.jpg. It should be in the "Development" section near the line. "The film's final title, "Cloverfield", is the name of a main street in Santa Monica, CA, near Abrams's office." Thanks. Kevrock (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, please post new discussion at the bottom of the page, not randomly somewhere near the top.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. Sorry for the confusion, I'm new to this. Thanks for placing the request in the proper spot. Kevrock (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from in this idea. However, the image doesn't really add much to the article does it?  Would anyone upon reading the origin of the title say to themselves, "Gee, that's interesting, I sure wonder what the street sign for that road looks like!" That's my opinion anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Viral Marketing and Backstory
I think we need a page to contain all the backstory information about Cloverfield you can find online at places like unfiction.com and cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com. We could have the whole story on Tagruato, Slusho! the myspaces, drilling rig news videos, etc... Gimme the go and I'll start on it unless someone else would rather.Morrock (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea. Not everyone wants to (or can) access all of the disparate resources. Plus, there is no guarantee that all the different sites and such will even exist indefinitely. Therefore it would be nice to have all of the available information compiled and presented in a place and manner that viewers can easily consume to fill out their Cloverfield experience. I can provide a summary of all the stuff I’ve learned today (which is a surprisingly lot). Synetech (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Monster can be seen entering the water"
If one were to look at the movie being recorded on a camcorder-one would only see white-ish foam. However, in the movie, if one were to look hard enough, one would see that it is in fact a SATELITE of slusho. Something to do with the secret ingredient. It woke cloverfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.144.210 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't cite this but it has been said that it is a satelite, but it is either slusho or Tagruato(Slusho's father company, that drill for mineral's including your secret ingredient.)71.120.133.171 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is a part of the Japanese government’s satellite ChimapnzIII that falls into the Atlantic that can be seen in the Coney Island video. The Tagruato satellite was surveying ChimpanzIII for damage. Tagruato drills for oil. Its Yoshida subsidiary researches deep-sea organisms for medical purposes. Its Bold Futura subsidiary provides Tagruato with advanced technology. Slusho! is the subsidiary that uses a secret and addictive deep-sea ingredient in its drinks; an ingredient that apparently causes rapid and massive growth (and tastes great). Teddy, who works on Tagruato’s Chuai station in the Atlantic, sent a sample of the ingredient to his girlfriend Jamie along with a recorded plea for help that mentioned Tagruato finding or creating something there, before he went missing when the creature attacked the rig. Jamie ate a piece of the ingredient (and subsequently went a little crazy and hyperactive), then eventually got over Teddy, whom she thought had dumped her, and went to Rob’s going away party. http://Tagruato.jp http://Slusho.jp http://JamieandTeddy.com Synetech (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry "it has been said that..." should be "I have heard", but for a link to Tagruato, and the Slusho link says something about Tagruato.71.120.133.171 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Orginal Research Tabor (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Host
Er isn't it just a tincy wincy bit obvious that the idea for tyhe film comes from the Korean film The Host, which had loads of people filming the monster on handhelds but we never saw it as they saw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.186.29 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a secondary source?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the moster in Cloverfield does bear a slight conceptual resemalence to the moster in The Hosst, but the similarities end there. The movies are stylisicly and narratively completely different and to say the "idea of the film (not the monster) is completely false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.11.170 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sequel
We're quoting far too much at length with the Sequel section. I recommend converting the quotes to prose whenever possible. We shouldn't be too lazy to write original sentences based on the available information. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Erik. I rewrote the section earlier but over the coming weeks after the film's release there has been ALOT of citable articles about there being a possible sequel. We should look over each source and then quote little pieces of it in a 1 to 2 paragraph article. --҉ რ&#xF755;ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The fate of Rob and Beth
Apologies if this has been discussed already somewhere. The "Cast" section of the article states that it is unknown whether Rob and Beth survived. True, we don't actually see their bodies, but surely it is pretty obvious that they both died. I don't think it would violate NPOV to say so. Richard75 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think it's all that "obvious" that they both died. There are no bodies, and there is the garbled message at the end of the credits to consider. I say we leave it as it is until we get official word from the makers of the film wether or not Rob and Beth survived. Slusho42 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, we DON'T know that they're dead or alive & the narrative style of the film is prob trying to leave that deliberately ambiguous. Something interesting to consider here: I stuck around to the end of the credits & heard the ominous voice BUT I also (mistakenly) went to a captioned showing. The voice at the end is NOT ID'd as Rob's, the person speaking is simply given a title of MAN: with no captioned dialog. Anyone else who went to a captioned showing wanna weigh in? Anyone who can remember for certain what the caption read specifically? Tommyt (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But that still could be Rob, we don't know. If all it says is man, they could be wanting to make it ambiguous. Zazaban (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then it's glaringly obvious: their fates are UNKNOWN. Let's just leave it at that until we find out for sure. Immblueversion (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the alternate ending, Beth shouts "Rob" just after the final explosion, implying that she might still be alive. Also, somebody took the camera just before the final cut, so they were probably rescued.The Legendary Ranger (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Parasites?
Are those little creatures parasites?Does the victim have a symbiotic relationship with the creature?The only thing he does is attack and bite people,and then they explode... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.79.26 (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, why are they called parasites in the article? They seem more predatory to me. Mad031683 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're parasites. They've been referred to as such by the production team.  See Cloverfield (creature) for more info and citations.  -- Vary | Talk 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Because they're parasites of the cloverfield monster, like mites, ticks, or fleas. Or crabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Totaly Unrealistic.

In today’s day and age of filming I would have thought the film makers would have made a more believable and realistic film. For starters the Creature was clearly biological. The amount of military ordinance they dropped on this thing would have reduced it to paste....Literally. In the movie you can see the explosions on the creature but there is no clear puncture, Scratches, dents, Lacerations etc on its skin.....what is this thing??...coated in a substance stronger then diamond? The creature is left unmarked! The scene where the B2 bombers land a direct hit on it and it’s still unscathed is ridiculous. Now if they altered the plot where several of these creatures were on the loose and they could kill them but there were just too many to kill then all and the army was overwhelmed then fair enough but the way it stands the film is ridiculous to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.41.212 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually diamond will be reduced to dust if burned by a fire strong enough. I just seem to recall Americans love using depleted uranium in a few of their weapons... weapons that should have been fired at the creature. If that hits something the heat it creates would burn diamond. So even with diamond skin it would not have survived that attack

Unrealistic? How would you know, do you have any citations related to actual Cloverfield entities? We don't know any details about damage taken or sustained or anything about the monster. If it can survive deep space or oceanic preasure, maybe it can sustain a nuke. I asked Superman to punch it a bit, he said it was like diamond and had a healing factor? Unfortunately I can't cite my sources.Zelphi (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do. 'But still, technically, there is no way this could be.' Know who said that? The lead creature designer. He's right, it's physically impossible for a creature the size of Clover to even stand upright without dying, let alone resist nuclear attacks. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Have you ever been in a helicopter above a massive creature being bombed? Have you ever carpet bombed a huge creature that no one has ever heard of before? I'm guessing your answer is no.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The creature was unaffected by the carpet bombings because it has naturally developed defenses that can endure this type of bombardment. Abrams has stated that the creature has been slumbering under the ocean for thousands of years, and that the heat emanating from the Earth's core here has caused it to adapt a robust hide capable of sustaining this immense heat. Also,(now this is only my own deduction) I believe that because the creature is dominantly aquatic and remains submerged for such extensive periods at a time, it has also developed/retained traits that allow it to absorb water like many other amphibians do, e.g, a selectively permeable skin that allows water to pass through while still remaining so durable. This might explain as to why its skin is so impassable yet also appears somewhat soft and shimmering in sunlight.

Again, the theory on a selectively permeable hide is only my assumption, nothing valid at this point, but the creature's ability to resist massive amounts of firepower is already explained by Abram's own words.

As for the parasites, they do seem more predatory than parasitic to me. In fact, I wonder how it's possible that the creature could even survive for so long with these parasites attached to it. But of course, they have been dubbed parasites by an official source, so I suppose it stands. Godzilla's Heir 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And, if Clover's hide is so tough that rockets and tank shells don't seriously hurt it, then how do the parasites feed off of it? I'm assuming that they're kind of like fleas -- if this isn't correct, then what? Granted, those little buggers are pretty nasty, but still... Afalbrig (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary, stripped down
I've attempted to keep to the facts, which is very little, plot speculation and specific points are somewhat unwarented and open to debate.Zelphi (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a bit of an edit war on the plot summary. You should probably allow it to be restored to the longer version and discuss your feelings here, so no one gets nailed with a 3RR lock. But debatable plot points should be removed, of course.--Knulclunk (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Although a plot reduction is needed, Zelphi's version is too extreme. Further, since he admits to doing it that way in part to avoid spoilers (per his edit summaries), he's doing it for a purpose agaisnt policy. Finally, his version reads like a precis, not a summary, and one which speaks more heavily to NOT revealing the monster in it than anything else. That said, his refocus on the premise as 'Four people avoiding the monster while rescuing another friend' isn't a bad direction to focus on in a rewrite. ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no way you can write a movies plot without containing spoilers. Attempting to write a plot without spoilers is basically writing about the trailer.--Kondrayus (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't just to avoid spoilers (the summary field was a bit short), but repetition and over statement of unciteable plot details. Given the nature of the film there are so many questions as to what is actually going on, we don't even have a first person account of events of the film, all we see is what a camera sees. It is a bit short; however note that character points are covered in cast, monster points are covered in the monster section and there isn't much else in terms of essential plot details, I would certainly support expansion, but not to the same extent or in any grand detail.Zelphi (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other points to consider, the focus of the movie isn't clear. Is it about these people or is it about the creature? The characters are kept in contact with the creature via Deus Ex Machania, which allows further exploration of this monster, but it also turns focus away from the monster and gives more time to focus on the characters. How do you summerise a plot, when you are not sure what it is about?

I've tried to add more to the summary, and I'm sure I could add details but there are just too many questions.Zelphi (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just silly. The section is titled "Plot Summary" for a reason. The whole "How do you summerise (sic) a plot, when you are not sure what it is about?" is just absurd. Do we change the wikipedia entry for the last Sopranos episode because we just don't know what the director intended for the ending? Wikipedia guidelines make very clear that "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality." If you are concerned that we just "may not know all the facts," then don't come to this article until JJ Abrams and Matt release All The Facts, and then you can clarify to your heart's content.Ishmayl (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to guideline WP:FilmPlot:
 * The summary should be between 400 and 700 words long. It is approximately 230 as I write this.
 * The summary should contain spoilers.
 * Details open to interpretation are allowed to be described. Any interpretations themselves must be sourced.
 * To reiterate, we don't need a source for plot details. The film is the source.
 * The plot section should be self-contained. We can't omit details such as characters and actors just because it's listed elsewhere; in fact, since the guideline calls for main characters and actors to be identified in the beginning of the plot summary, the other sections should be changed, if anything.
 * Please make changes as necessary. -- Viewdrix (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, nowhere in there does it state, and I quote: "The summary should contain spoilers.". It states that you should read WP:SPOILER, which in turn states that you should not AVOID spoilers. there's a significant difference. ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More to the point, it does say "Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted," which was one of the issues brought up earlier, since someone seemed to be deleting information for the wrongful sake of people having the movie spoiled for them. Similarly, (note: the emphasis is my addition,) "you should include plot twists and a description of the ending," which are spoilers, implies that the summary should contain spoilers, though I never claimed to be quoting directly in my previous edit. I am quoting the guideline directly now. Sorry if my vague previous wording was unclear. -- Viewdrix (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed Viewdrix' revision of the plot summary, which added about 3700 bytes of information, and far more than the needed 'word count', I've reverted to the brevity of the previous version, which encapsulates the plot, and allows the article to focus on the real-world content of production and reactions. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My version was approximately 700 words, which fits into the guideline of between 400 to 700 words, with 900 as a preferred maximum. You reverted it back to the 230 word version, and expanded it to about 265 words, which again goes against the guideline. Please expand it or give reason why it should be an exception; cutting it down beyond what is necessary because a fictional plot isn't entirely relevant to the real world is not a viable explanation. Looking through some Featured Articles on films, I could easily summarize Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, The Simpsons Movie and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, as examples, in as few words as the Cloverfield summary currently contains (or a few brief sentences, for that matter), but those articles have been marked out as the best of the best, and don't demand less than what I edited into the Cloverfield summary section. Though they certainly demand more than what is there now. -- Viewdrix (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As an example, lets say a bunch of rats run past. Where they controlled by the parasites, do people who get bitten turn into rats, was their a rat party they were going to? What we know is that there's a bunch of rats going past and it alerts them to the parasites, that's it. I intended to add to it, but keep to what we know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelphi (talk • contribs) 12:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't hypothesize anything about the rats other than they were running away from the direction of the parasites, and that that's a good example of the kind of interpretation we want to stay away from. But I don't think that's an issue right now. And the rats themselves are pretty non-notable, even in describing the tunnel scenes. Nothing's lost just by saying the characters get attacked. -- Viewdrix (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point being that there are so many points at which we just don't know what's going on, and this is a film where deception is a fundamental. However have you considered that the plot may not be that complex? Further more, is cloverfield an excuse to explore these characters (a MacGuffin if you will), or are the characters an excuse to explore Cloverfield? This is a film that's not easily detailed, but I don't object to more being added, just that the focus be very strict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelphi (talk • contribs) 10:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point fails to clarify how taking out endings and known plot points is "unknown" or "not easily detailed," especially such things as "there is an explosion at the end, XXX and YYY express their love from each other, then another explosion blacks out the camera," which is clearly easy to explain. -- Ishmayl (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to get rid of the eye-candy (love scenes) and cruft. The summary is way too long. A couple weeks ago I looked at this article, the plot summary was short and to the point; now it takes up a huge chunk of the page. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been a staunch supporter of a well-detailed plot summary from the beginning, but I'm starting to think it's a bit over the top. Too many people are adding fluff to the summary that has no purpose to actually explain the plot of the movie.  I don't think there should be these constant changes and reverts because one person wants to mention Marlene bleeding out of her "orifices," and someone else wants it to say she's "bleeding from nose and mouth."  These kinds of things don't matter.  I think this summary could be well-written much more succinctly, but still retain all necessary plot elements so that a reader knows exactly what happens in the movie, without all the needless fluff. --Ishmayl (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, now we have the overblown version again. Seriously, this is exactly why I shortened it down. How important is it that Hud mentions superman? Is it important that rats run past or that eyes bleed? It was an explosion? From what? Some bits are plain and can be included, others aren't; what's important is what is clear. None of you can say that certain things are important or just plot devices. The focus should not be on every single detail, but on basic occurances. How is it a plot summary when you can read it and now exactly what happend for pretty much all of the movie?Zelphi (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The pair immediately take shelter under a bridge in Central Park as air raid sirens begin to blare in the distance. The ground shakes as the Air Force begins a last ditch effort to eliminate the creature with massive quantities of explosives. Amidst the confusion and fiery explosions, Rob holds Beth close and confesses his love for her, and as she returns the sentiment, rubble falls on them and the camera is presumably destroyed while leaving the two lovers' fates ambiguous".


 * For example is completely presumed, for all we know a much delayed superman comes in and causes the explosions, maybe the creature guffs explosions? There is so much in the plot "summary" now that is just unciteable, and by unciteable I mean you could watch the film and say it didn't happen like that.Zelphi (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Edited again, this time just to remove a lot of conjecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelphi (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism
I'm surprised no one's picked up on the fact that this is yet another film about the American fear of terrorism, along the lines of Independence Day. These have had a nasty habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.

The subtext is obvious - the USA (which happens to be fighting several wars as we speak) comes under attack by an unknown enemy, and like Sept 11, is turned from aggressor into victim. In this case, the enemy happens to be "invisible", just in the same way that terrorists rarely wear identifiable uniforms and melt into the crowd.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting perspective, however, I'm not sure if the subtext is obvious. Do you know of any independent sources that comment on this subtext?  Otherwise, it's considered original research. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found this review mentioning several things about the 9/11 subtext, so I think we can cite it as a source. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was original research, so I put it into the reception again. Supergodzilla  20 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the behind-the-scenes footage on the DVD, Michael Stahl-David says that a lot of the research came from footage of 9/11, but he was talking mainly about the style of video. Synetech (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumed Nuclear Blast??
This is the last paragraph of the summary that Lance1000 has just added:

"Rob and Beth take shelter under a Central Park bridge amid air-sirens, before the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb causes the bridge to collapse around them. The two confess their love for each other before a fire storm ends the recording. With this occurring it is presumed that Manhattan and its remaining occupants were sacrificed to kill the monster to prevent it causing further distruction. The last footage shown depicts Rob and Beth ending their day at Coney Island, in which an object can be seen falling from the sky into the ocean surrounding them.[7] The credits are shown, and a short radio transmission plays."

I think it's a bit much to say "the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb," considering that realistically, a nuclear bomb would have wiped them out without a chance for their subsequent profession of love. Also, so far, the plot summary seems to be based on what we actually do know (for instance, while we don't know why Marlene died, we do know that her chest expanded and exploded, so we put that information in without saying "presumably from the poisonous bite of the creature who was probably affected by the super growth hormones of the Slusho drink"), so I think we should love the "presumably's," "assumptions," and "probably's" out until something more defining has been said by the creators. I'll change the summary back to the previous version, but if you disagree, feel free to say so here. -- Ishmayl (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As has been noted in a previous discussion, it's quite obvious it wasn't a nuclear explosion, since, as you said, Rob and Beth—as well as the camera itself, probably—would've been wiped out immediately, before expressing their feelings for each other. I'd say your revert is justified. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless they were far enough away that it was only second effects that killed them, like overpressure, exploding gas mains, exploding, burning trees, etc. Nothing says the nuke landed right on top of them. The way the monster was moving around it could have been in Harlem or Alphabet City when the bombs hit it, not necessarily Central Park. Either way, it can't be presumed one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it was a nuke. The memory card would have been wiped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.169.36 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to what Cinemaniac said with how this movie was styled we can't even say that Marlena is dead, chances are she is but that can't be confirmed. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, the movie never introduces any way for her to not die from her injuries. You can safely assume an obviously lethal wound to be a lethal wound if no in-universe way to survive it has ever been presented. Occam's Razor, and all. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to point out someone erased an entry I did months ago as original research or "I wanted to have thought of it first". This movie is VERY much alike Miracle Mile, a 1988 film. At the end of the latter, the leading couple, Anthony Edwards and Mare Whinningham are evacuating LA in a chopper which gets knocked out of the skies as a consequence of a nuclear blast. They are then in complete darkness as the chopper falls into a tar pit. Edwards calms his love interest down and comments that they will then turn into diamonds when the next nuke hits them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.136.49 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph
"the project was released on January 17 in New Zealand and Australia, on January 18 in North America, and on February 1 in the Republic of Ireland and the UK." I understand that the whole Cloverfield thing is a big "project", but what was released on January 18 in the US is simply called a "film" to my knowledge. Should it really be called a "project"? Is it because it's so great and important that it can't be considered as a simple "film"? 86.64.202.161 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)