ENJOY THE MOVIES

1

Hope there's a sequel!!! The film's great!!!

Gary on Jan 19, 2008

2

Yes - the two Easter Eggs are true. Watching the show at midnight on Thursday, we saw the thing drop from the sky (look to the right in the last scene) and check out the reverse recording that my friend gathered from a snippet of the final on the web (http://www.thesocialengineer.com) and you can listen for yourself.

Sanford on Jan 19, 2008

3

I saw the movie last night and even though I knew to look for the splash in the ocean during the Coney Island scene, it was hard to spot. I also stayed until the end but the transmission was very difficult to understand. People have posted both the forward and reverse audio of the transmission at the end of the credits on the Unfiction forums. I would suggest listening to them for yourselves. The Unfiction forums also allude to the possibility that we are seeing a piece of the broken Tagruato satellite falling into the ocean.

REH on Jan 19, 2008

4

( Please Without sequel ) .... I think it will be better to live the movie as it is .... Because it is the best end we can get for now and if it begin again ...it will be finding the origin of the monster and which planet it came from and another Alien vs. Human story that we saw a lot in other movies .... I can advice the audience to have some points in mind before and after watching this movie : 1- ( For fun ) : I don't get it ... why every time in movies the human must win and kill the monsters ? let them win one time 🙂 ... 2- ( Politically ) : Let's we be agree to not have such a big hope in ourselves ...and stop having the believe that human are the best , the strongest ... and specially we are the most peaceful creatures in universe . ...that is not true ... we are one of the worst creatures in universe ... 🙂 ... Let's we have a tragics ends too. Not every story have a happily ever after ending ! 3- ( Technically ) : (as I said in another comment before) .... If you liked Blair Witch project and Godzilla then you will like this too ... 🙂 The movie is great ...... I will watch it again 🙂 and I will have the DVD as soon as it release 🙂 too

shero on Jan 19, 2008

5

Great movie, unfortunately my wife had to walk out because the camera made her sick. I walked out with a headache as well. Plot was great, story great, CGI good, movie was awesome camera yuck!

Hawk on Jan 19, 2008

6

Great movie doesn't make people sick. I thought it was a total waste of $. Cloverfield is over.

David on Jan 19, 2008

7

http://boomp3.com/m/bd034dfca370 thats the link where you can listen to the clip reversed. It clearly says its still alive. I got that link from IMDB

Maxonaplane on Jan 19, 2008

8

i thought cloverfield was a very well done movie, full of suspense and thrills, jj abrams has surely redefined the monster movie genre, but personally i think a sequel would be a mistake. just take it for what it was and enjoy it. i know i am probably in the minority with this opinion, but i think he should take a que from rob zombie and how he ended the new halloween he did recently, i want jj to concentrate on the star trek prequel and deliver another top notch movie that is part of a beloved sci-fi franchise...............

david on Jan 19, 2008

9

Darn, I didn't catch the thing falling from the sky. I was too busy keeping my eye on Beth. I guess I'll have to catch it on DVD.

Peter on Jan 19, 2008

10

Thought the movie was amazing. I'm glad that so many people were able to get past the "home video" feeling of it. I was seriously disappointed with the people I heard walking out of the theater moaning about the ending..I hope that the rest of audiences can get past the fact that if something like that attacked us, we would lose. Period. A sequel would be good..but I hope that they can make it a good one. It would be too easy to just tell it from someone elses point of view in some other city, just putting in different details. And that would suck. So hopefully...they can figure out a new story that will connect with this one.

Josh on Jan 19, 2008

11

All that stuff it true, you do see something fall in the water, and there is a audio clip at the end of the credits.

Stephen on Jan 19, 2008

12

I LOVED the movie and I thought the end was fine...I did catch the thing falling from the sky at the end unfortunatly my husband missed it. And once I got home I found out about the backward whispers...awesome. I would have been ok w/o it but its fun to think it might not be over. I heard somewhere and I'm not sure if it was just a rumor or not but they said the story would continue on other platforms. I hope its true that would be fun. Also did I go to the only theater that didn't have the Star Trek teaser trailer?!? I was so disapointed to have missed that.

Renee on Jan 19, 2008

13

I saw it last night and it was an amazing movie. I'm going to see it again and now i'm just so antsy for the sequel which is going to happen after the large crowds i saw here in Los Angeles.

Eric on Jan 19, 2008

14

I find it hard to believe that the monster comes from outer-space. I only have a friend who has read about the monster's backstory as my source, but from what I know SPOILERS it was awakened when the company producing Slusho was searching for a secret ingredient at the bottom of the ocean (weird, maybe my friend made this up). So in that case the monster didnt come from outer-space, and the object falling from the sky might be a satellite relating to the story as someone mentioned earlier. I personally did not see any object in that final scene but I was unaware that I was supposed to see something. As far as the audio clip at the end of the credits goes, it is very garbled, and most might think it is part of the soundtrack. Matt Reeves said it is "decipherable" and that he didnt want to give away what it said just yet, but played backwards it clearly sounds like "it's still alive," in which case, the bigger question might be which character is saying this? (Reeves claims to have recorded the audio himself) I'm not sure if I would enjoy a sequel, especially if it is footage from the same night, in which case we already know what the ultimate fate of manhattan is (right?). Not watching, but experiencing Cloverfield was truly incredible and at present I do not think a sequel could match it in the least, although I of course I would want it to. With an expected take of $46 mil this weekend, I suspect a sequel.

Keith on Jan 19, 2008

15

The concept for the monster (affectionately known simply as “Clover” in-house) is simple, says Abrams. “He’s a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.” This was said by Abrams in the production notes. I'm assuming they would have a lot of explaining to do if the monster was indeed falling into the ocean at the end of the movie.

REH on Jan 19, 2008

16

An interesting idea would be to make a kind of mockumentary documenting what actually happened, not a sequel just like an hour or so thing like they did with the blair witch project before its release if anyone remembers that.

Alexander on Jan 19, 2008

17

I saw the movie and I agree it was really good. It sort of brought back the fear in monster movies instead of the same old slasher serial killer stuff that seems to be so popular these days. Although it reminded me so much of The Blair Witch Project because of the way it was filmed I still thought the monsters were bad ass and the filming worked really well. As far as the transmission at the end I heard something but the theatre I went to had lots of highschoolers in it and they talked the whole movie (I probably did the same at their age) but they all got up and started talking and leaving during the credits so I couldn't understand the transmission but I thought the voice sounded female. I didn't know to look for anything in the last scene where they showed Coney Island but I naturally thought to look for a swirl in the water but did not see anything....if I had known to look to the sky I probably would have seen it because I was really paying attention. Anyway I'd like to see a sequal but I really don't need one. If this is the beginning and end of Cloverfield I am totally satisfied! - Kevin Johnson Metairie, Louisiana

Kevin Johnson on Jan 19, 2008

18

Initially, I wasn't keen on the idea of a sequel, but thinking about it now, I'm starting to reconsider. So much went on during those seven hours. I'd definitely be interested in seeing more, but then again, they say lightning almost never strikes twice in the same place and I doubt the sequel can be nearly as effective as the first due to diminished returns. Just like bullet time in the Matrix and the realistic dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, they get old after the first film. Here's to hoping though.

John Duong on Jan 19, 2008

19

Let me first apologize for my complete ignorance about this film. I guess everyone else has done some sort of internet search on the background of this story and all the little viral cues and clues as to what certain things in the movie point out. Maybe I'm just not very smart. I didn't get it. In fact, I left the theatre thinking that I'd been robbed. Could someone please explain to me how it is that I'm suppose to like the fact that I was staring at walls and asphalt and shoes and feeling generally like I've only really seen about 30 minutes of actual film. I thought this film was held together by duct tape and paper clips and that people are giving it much more credit than it deserves. A film that's been inflated by lots of clever marketing ploys designed to empty wallets. I mean, by the sound of this board, people have liked it and that's a good thing. I'm not trying to downplay that. I guess I'm just trying to figure out why. Some of what you all have talked about in this board I've only heard for the first time. About the easter eggs and backstory about the monster. Everyone here has made a lot of good observations about the film. I too liked the fact that the monster kicked our ass. Someone said that we don't often let them win. Realisticly, they'd whip our butts. A friend at work and I were discussing how this was a new way to tell a story. Maybe taking a more linear approach isn't always the best way. I understand that its hard to get any kind of character development in that span of time and with the structure of the film. But still, I didn't feel anything for any one of the characters. I also understand that the nature of the storyline sort of locks us into this view of the events in the film. That still doesn't make this any easier to like. I don't think the monster was scary. The lack of monster was. When I didn't see it, I felt better about it (think Jaws). My wife said she was more frightened when the sound of the beast stomping around NYC bashed us through the theatre speakers. I would be inclined to agree. And while I was hoping to get a good look at it, I sort of wanted it to remain a mystery. I'll tell you what was kinda scary, those crab-like spider things. Especially when they were crawling around in the dark. I don't believe Abrams has redefined anything about a monster movie. I think that it's just a new spin. I do think that Abrams and the studio managed to get people involved with this movie in a different way. There a greater sense of participation and interactivity to this film. The markets are changing. Audiences are changing. Marketing has to adapt with it. I'm an indie filmmaker. I'm just getting my feet wet (I've only done three shorts). Maybe I need to do more reading about this "new frontier" that Abrams is crossing into. Maybe I'm so new to this game that I'm not thinking outside the box like Abrams does. I don't know. As a writer, I don't know how this film was written or what it will become (sequels, cross media). But that's another subject. Maybe I'm picking it apart on a purely technical level? All I know is that when I left the theatre, I was pissed off. I felt like the marketing campaign was designed to fill seats and generate dollars purely on the sense that people would feel like they were given something new simply because someone turned off the steadishot option on the video camera. They've sold me a lot of nothing and they hope that will all the "leaked" information and peekaboo tactics I'm going to feel that it's more than it was. And if I gotta go into a theatre looking for shit in the background, well, then let me watch it for again for free. Maybe I need to see it again to get a different perspective? Forgive my rant and its lack of cohesion. Someone please explain this all to me cause I guess I'm just not bright enough to see what you guys see. I guess its safe to say I'd make a bad test audience for movies like this. -30-

Julian in San Antonio on Jan 19, 2008

20

The movie was freakin sweet! I would definately be up for a sequel, but only if the Monster attacks Boston. I can see it coming out of the harbor and picking up "Old Ironsides" and tossing her into the TD Banknorth Garden. Then heading to Fenway Park, Boston Commons, etc.

Jarrod Negri on Jan 19, 2008

21

Sequel??? Why?? Basically all you have here are some dazzling FX, a handful of characters that it is impossible to give a rats ass about, and a nauseating camera effect. What in the world would a sequel have? More monster crashes buildings and kills more young yuppie assholes? The FX are the only saving grace about the film so far and the creature's time onscreen leaves one with a feeling of "I've been had...". To those complaining about the audience groaning over the ending as they leave the theater, this is usually a sign that the movie was not a total success. Overall, it makes no sense to try and go to the well again with this one. The money would be better spent on another project.

Jordan on Jan 19, 2008

22

Okay people my idea to make absolute perfect sense of this movie and to make the transession to a sequel!!! How to explain the lack of explanation, the identity of the monster, the first person perspective, etc.... Wow this sounds great. What we know, the film itself is the property of the Department of Defense and has been collected (Opening credits). (At the end) Something falls from the sky at the end and its still alive is heard. Those 3 things alone can merit a sequel. How to go with it and make it a normal viewing movie is (also make the 2nd movie larger/better then the first),open the second movie with this tape being shut off by military personel reviewing what they have found at the scene of groundzero. Trying to find an explanation how the thing survived, what it is, where it came from, and the larger threat. But what we realize in the second movie is that this Cloverfield monster is just the first wave of an attack from otherworldly beings. The egg shaped object dropped in the ocean was the creature being teleported/transported (to hatch/grow) from more advanced aliens. Also explains the 1 month delay from landing to the attack & the intial earthquake (aliens control the creature/they cause a disturbance(earthquake) to release the thing) The advanced alien race intends to invade our planet but this monster/genetically altered creature was there first wave (Also explains the parasites with the blood-bursting bite). The second movie can bring new sick creatures, the aliens themselves, worldwide attacks/war, $200 million budget. Just relate this idea to other past movies, stories, etc.. Mars Attacks (horrible creatures used in attack) Godzilla (Destroy All Monsters, Mysterians) hopefully but far fetched Starcraft (CLOVERFIELD MONSTER=THE ZERG)

mike on Jan 20, 2008

23

I am so sick of people trying to 'figure out' something for a sequel. Why can't we just have a movie for its own sack. Let Transformers and Saw have all the sequels. I don't care where the monster came from. Do we seriously need to be treated like 5 year olds. The ending was perfect, people died, it's what they went through, etc, etc. Not everything needs to end with a fucking 'The End?'. I'm sure during clean up, the video was found. The movie wasn't all shoes and asphault. When you shoot a home movie, is it perfectly editted? This is a bit of a different approach to making a film to entertain. Like Blair Witch but better. There was a stomach turning scene, though, when they are running from the bridge as it collapses. Alot of shaking. Other than that I was good. I liked the film ALOT. You get caught up in the event and you don't have time to ask why. The end. Period. Go see it with an open mind, be entertained and let it be.

wm on Jan 20, 2008

24

i think a sequel would be interesting but only if they could somehow keep you as entertained as the first time around. It seems that there are too many people overdoing the whole motion sickness thing. the whole video camera action is not as bad as people are making it. get over yourselves. at least you know the sequel wont have the same type of filming so people wont have anything to complain about at least. or will they?

michelle on Jan 20, 2008

25

A sequel showing the military and government's perspective would fill in gaps and give a more detailed viewpoint that was deliberately left vague in this film. Perhaps filmed in a more traditional style

Deeledum on Jan 20, 2008

26

when i heard the clip it sounded o me like someone said help us

Ant on Jan 20, 2008

27

Hey - when I think of what they did - the movie was a great effort in delivering on its premise - and is leaving the door open for more. Every horror movie in the modern era tends to have a chance for a sequel. Why not Cloverfield? And, with all of the ARG effort, it seems like another "universe" is being created for another story. Consider that the idea of this film was not just the scary scenes, but the point-of-view that we were introduced to. Sure, the actors were not name-brands, but the premise was from their POV, which made it intriguing. And I note that there are either strong opinions for and/or strong opinions against. If that is not success, I do not know what is. And, if you listen to the audio track (toward the end) on my site, you can hear the words for yourself. http://www.thesocialengineer.com

Sanford on Jan 20, 2008

28

In the movie we see the Dharma Initiative logo (looked like the Swan station logo to me) when the color bars appear on the screen in the beginning. Could it be possible that EMP that emanated as a result of not pushing the button in the Swan could have woken up the monster?

James on Jan 20, 2008

29

I'm not going to get extensive here, but what I think JJ Abrams, Reeves, and this whole team has put together is phenominal. Is revolutionary? No. They made a perfect ending solely by making, no ending. It leaves room for conspiracies, ideas, rumors, debates, topics that can go off for months. But, what I think is brilliant about this, is that it wasn't ruined. By ending it abruptly there's no room for a "piece-of-shit-cliche-ending". The reason for me, that this isn't revolutionary is: A) No one wants to think. They want their plot and that's that. B) It will get old! It's incredible how smart they were not to ruin it by making a stupid, "Oh, we found the monster's weakness, around it's ballsack" type ending. Agree with me or not though. I though Cloverfield was brilliant.

Brandon on Jan 20, 2008

30

Saw the movie and liked it, but I would have found it perfect if they could have shown us the monster clearly at least once for 20 seconds. If there is to be a sequel ( I think there will), it won't be a handheld camera. JJ will most probably come up with something else. I liked the ending and was pleasantly surprised at the daytime shot of "Clover", you almost never get those (like Godzilla). My uncle though wasn't too happy about that and called it a

TK on Jan 20, 2008

31

BS ending. (sorry bout that!)

TK on Jan 20, 2008

32

I loved the movie. I do think that a sequel is possible but i dont think that many people would like it. Cause it could wind up like a alien vs. human deal and people would loose interrest. but if the thing at the end of the credits that says its still alive is true then i want to see a sequel thats in the military's perspective and i want to get a better glimpse of it and see just how much of a beating it can take. I think they gave it the best ending they could that left it open for possiblities. and the people who complain about the first person camrea thing are really getting on my nerves cause it isnt that bad. it makes it seem more real

Trevor on Jan 21, 2008

33

Is should fight Godzilla if they make a sequel.

Don P. on Jan 21, 2008

34

I agree....I heard "Help us" like they were still alive under the rubble.

Heckle on Jan 21, 2008

35

Maybe the recording sayd we're still alive instead of it's still alive???? - Kevin Johnson Metairie, LA

Kevin Johnson on Jan 21, 2008

36

the movie was fucking great man!!classic if you ask me? Like some one said uptheir no bulls shit cleche ending. Why must we win everytime? That "Clover" was no joke. Give it up to the marines In the movie too thy were going at it boy! But the FACT is its a perfect movie its something different great movie experience! It would be good for a sequel why not? Even though part to could possibly not live up to part one SO WHAT? Part one was still HOT!

king pop'p on Jan 23, 2008

37

I would be fine without a sequel but if they were to do one i like the idea of a documentary style like the indie film "Death Od A President". Have a documentary based like ten years after the cloverfield events, and have it explain what it was like, where it came from, and how it was dealt with. That would be an interesting approach

Alex Mcintyre on Jan 23, 2008

38

I hope they make a sequel filmed like this one. And I also hope it's just as mysterious as this one. Making a sequel to the best movie of the first few months of 2008 seems like a brilliant idea, but do NOT call it Cloverfield 2 or Cloverfield Part 2 or Cloverfield: (enter subtitle). Give it a distinct title that has nothing to do with 'Cloverfield'. Make it... say... 'Tigercage', or 'Beerfest'.

Chade Webb on Jan 23, 2008

39

I thought the film was good. It wasn't excellent but it was entertaining and was overall a good movie, worth your money. The cinematography, with using a handicam, was used to effect a sense of uncertainty and narrow the scope of your vision unlike most monster movies that give you this wide scope of everything thats happening. I got a headache from it as did my wife but it was worth it. I felt that even though it had a sci-fi edge to it, it had a much more grounded feel than movies like Godzilla or similar titles. You feel as though you are in the city, in the thick of it all, surrounded and confronted by something alien. There is tension because you've no idea what it is. We always want answers and things explained and defined (hence forum boards trying to figure out what the creatures origins are). Yet the uncertainty of the whote situation creates terror in the survivors. There are alot of similarities between the movie and 9/11. The panic, the flight of residents the destruction, people blinded and choking, lost and confused it's all there. That's what gave this movie weight; if a creature that size arrived in a city like New York and started rampaging most people wouldn't stand a chance and the idea of that is what makes the story, cinematography and I recommend this movie wholeheartedly.

Steve on Jan 24, 2008

40

somebody's gotta find a frame of that ending scene so i can see the thing in the water

me on Jan 24, 2008

41

Well personally I didn't like the movie. It lost me in the first 30 mins wasted on this party going on and such. There was no way to get engaged in any of the characters. There was some humor with the guy holding the video camera (can't remember his name...or any name as a matter of fact) and some parts scared the heck out of you because of the unknown but please..........I know the idea was suppose to be realtime filming during an attack on NY but the sound was so loud, everything was so fast paced and with the constant jerky motion of the camera I could not enjoy the movie at all. And yeah...I am one of the one's who was disappointed with the ending.

Cheryl A Morse on Jan 25, 2008

42

I loved the idea but thought it was carried out the wrong way. I saw too much of a teen slasher movie mixed with a giant monster movie. Evil thing picks off characters, one by one. I need a sequal, I don't mind being left with questions but I do want them answered. Also, I want a happy ending. You want tragedy, just look around in real life. Why the Hell do I want to fork over money to see the destruction of humanity? I like the human race, we aren't perfect but nothing is. All species look after their own species, Humans look out for humans and we should be proud of our species. If in someone's heart of hearts wants to see humanity destroyed, please get therapy. On the realistic side, if there can be giant freak monsters that can walk away from explosives there can be something to kill it. Realism is thrown out of in the sense of what could happen when you make such a movie. A little girl could jump out at it, go "BUU!" and it drops of a heart attack. Best ending possable IMO would be Rob survive and become something of an American Ultra Man or pilot a giant robot and kill it.

Kev on Jan 25, 2008

43

My brother's friend kept asking, "What's the movie about? What's the movie about?" And I'm trying to explain that you have to see it to experience it, and that's truth I don't care who you are. The fact for me of one time losing my brother because my chick called me up to let me know she can't move, or not my chick or my brother, but I could relate... I don't know about you but I'm still wrangling with that decision of whether or not I go get this girl "On the other side of town?" Are you kidding me? I don't even live in New York. Wild... Wild... On a freak note that would be sick if Beth or Rob or both got supernatural powers from the radiation, or if they told the same story from the same night on somebody else's camera, that would be but stupid, Hear that studio heads? Truth is if some crazy shit like that happened where I'm staying, you can be damn sure I won't be the one stealing Big screen t.v's or standing around like a dumb ass trying to figure out what happened, where did it come from? "It's coming from uptown now get the hell out of the way!" Since college though, and he's going to Japan, and she brought some other goob' to HIS going away party, what kind of ignorant bullshit is that? I'll tell you what though, if you didn't like it, I'm betting you're the type of movie goer that likes to be told your exposition; the fun of this movie was in the imagination of it all. And I look forward to a sequel, because the best part about this experience was not knowing what I was getting into from the very beginning, and hopefully that's the part they'll bring to a sequel. Yours

Ivan on Jan 28, 2008

44

Where can I view the clip of the scene from Coney Island?? Someone please respond!!!

Cloverfanatic on Jan 29, 2008

45

No more Cloverfield! It's a fanboy wet dream, though, so I expect nothing less than another sequel from Hollywood's empty-head of ideas.

avoidz on Jan 31, 2008

46

ok, that took a little to get through all the comments, but here we go. i've read the same message that REH in comment 15 has posted. abrams said that it has been in the water for thousands and thousands of years. so i'm with those that say it's a piece of a satellite the falls in the last scene. (for those that don't near where to look, it's in the last clip of rob and beth on the ferris wheel. it's when rob turns the camera to the fair grounds. you can see something hit the water near the boat in the upper right hand corner of the screen) like comment, 23. why are people complaining that all you see is walls and shoes? i mean, when you're running with the camera, are you always filming perfectly forward? no. and think about it, they're being attack, i don't think they're concern is to film what's in front of them. i do agree that it IS really shakey, i'd like it to be a little more steady when they're not in danger of losing their lives. but when the monster is close, by all means, shake the camera! it makes sense. like comment 26, i too hear "help us" when heard the way it was given. but i personally have the auido on hand, and hear it say "it's still alive" when reversed. so i see it as a double message. telling us, the humans are still alive and need help. as well as the monster is still alive and the humans are still in danger. like comment 38, i too hope they won't call it cloverfield 2. that's just stupid move. fine, call it that while it's in the works. but make the final title "case file:cloverfield" or something. seeing how cloverfield was the name of the case file name of the event. i say name it case file cause i too, would think making the sequel from the pov of the military is a good idea and naming it something without "cloverfield" attached to the name would just confuse people. like, if JP 2 and 3 were named something other than jurrasic park, would you know it was about jurrasic park without seeing the movies? no. you would just think it's another dinosaur movie. i might have left some things out of my comment, so i'll come back if i remember anything. and about getting footage of the last clip with the falling object, i'll work on it and post a link here if i can get it.

crAziemutant on Jan 31, 2008

47

my bad, the object falling into the water is at the center of the right side of the screen, not top right corner. sorry about that. and i am not able to get footage of it cause the version of the movie i found online doesn't show too much detail so the easter egg is really hard to tell it's even an easter egg. if you would like to get the link to it IM me on AIM. my sn is crAziemutant. but please don't just IM me and start demanding and rushing me. thanks.

crAziemutant on Jan 31, 2008

48

It all makes sense now. The object falling into the water is a piece of Flight 815! :p

avoidz on Jan 31, 2008

49

And exactly what is wrong with a fanboys wet dream? - Kevin "A Fanboy That Don't Complain" Johnson

Kevin Johnson on Jan 31, 2008

50

haha, avoidz. i haven't really watched the show since it's first season. but has the island's location been revealed? but that'd be crazy if he were to hide clues in the movie for his other projects. or references to his other projects in the movie. like the lotto numbers were tagged on a wall in some random scene in the movie.

crAziemutant on Feb 1, 2008

51

Unbelievable now that we've seen this movie, we still don't know WHAT it is. We can only tell what it looks like, and how it moves unpredictably, almost seeming to change shape throughout the movie, pouring down pieces of itself as individual creatures, infecting people, causing them to bleed from the eyes and seemingly explode. Has anybody here seen John Carpenter's The Thing? I'm just saying.. It's a theory I'm holding onto until they pull it from my scorched half-alive tentacles. By the way, I don't think it is exactly John Carpenter's The Thing. I'm just saying it's a monster very much like it in characteristics. A spontaneously regenerating mass of alien cells, infecting, devouring, injecting themselves into host organisms to take them over on a cellular level. It doesn't die because it isn't a singular creature capable of dying. It is an alien organism not on the same evolutionary playing field as the life we've shared this planet with until now. it's weird and pissed off, but I think it's also happy to have found us, happy to be back amidst lifeforms that it can take over. I think it infected and took over all the surrounding sea life in the area it splashed down at, amassing a huge amount of biomatter, fish, crabs, turtles, and to some extent, combined elements of those creatures with its own default biology to form itself as a super-creature. And I think that, by the time they decided to use a nuke on it at the end, it was already too late. They may have destroyed the large creature mass, but the infection was widespread enough that it has us owned, literally, no matter what we might do to try to stop it. And yes, I want to see a second one. I think it should take place in a mile-down top secret underground laboratory complex where they have samples and specimens (pieces) of this thing from the "Cloverfield" site. There would be the same kind of isolation, paranoia, and fear that we saw back in 1982. Why would we be studying samples of it? Because we figure out what it is, and that it probably has spread elsewhere on the planet besides the nuked areas, and that we need to find a "vaccination" or secret weapon against it before it "finds us" again.

A theory on Feb 3, 2008

52

As for the name for a second movie, how about some of the poster names? Monstrous or Parasite would be not bad names in my opinion. Slusho, not so much not bad. Or maybe the title for the next one could be something equally as random and meaningless as Cloverfield. JJ Abrams is good at random and meaningless. Has anyone here seen LOST? 😉

Name for the second movie on Feb 3, 2008

53

The movie website is the date of its official release: 1-18-08. If any of you watch LOST on TV, Hurley has a set of lottery numbers which seem to be cursed. They are 4,8,15,16,23,42. When added, we get 4+8+15+16+23+42= 108 (hmmm). When 108 is divided by 18 (hmmm) we get 6. (6+6+6=18). 666 (hmmmm) a number associated with the mark of the beast and the destruction of the earth. There is also the web link Ethanhaaswasright.com. Solve all the puzzles on the webpage and you get "Cthulhu fhtaga". It means Cthulhu sleeps/dreams. Research Cthulhu and you find a world of creatures which make up the Cthulhu Mythos. After studying the Mythos you find many clues: "Skin scrapings which would be as parasites....delivering sickness and death unto mankind." The crab-like creatures which attack the people of New York. Study it further and you find a very vile description of what Cthulhu is and where he rests. He sleeps in a sunken city of R'leyh which will someday rise again out of the sea. He is able to influence mankind through dreams (several of the viral webpages for the movie mention the word dream over and over again). My only question is: If the Abrams team left a clue for the Cloverfield movie in the LOST series, then the island the people are on in LOST might be...???!!!???

Cloverfield explained on Feb 5, 2008

54

Umm dude you're dumb. Ethan haas was right is an ARG FOR the GAME alpha omega. The only reason why it was worth mentioning is the FACT that it was started the same dade transformers came out. Which means that was the first time anyone saw a trailer for Cloverfield. At that time UNTITLED and only KNOWN by 1-18-08. and Cthulu was NOT tied into Ethan Haas. I played the ARG from start to finish. They got lucky that Cloverfields Viral marketing campaign was successful which made them successful to a point. Might I add that on 8-01-07 the same day abrams was supposed to announce the title of the movie, is the same day that the ethan haas ARG ended. If you had done your research better you would have known this. it even says it in the ethan haas was right wiki. Abrams also said in an interview that "ETHAN HAAS IS NO EVEN RELATED TO THIS MOVIE." There IS no cthulu relation EITHER.

Sev on Feb 5, 2008

55

I can, with 85% certainty, confirm that the object falling out of the sky at the end is -not- the monster, and is in fact a satellite. Im one of those nerdy people that does super thorough research on movies that give backstories to their films like Cloverfield has, and i learned about Slusho! and their main company and TIDO wave, and basically the monster was discovered by this Japanese deep sea drilling industry at an extremely deep level of the ocean, which explains why the monster was so strong (a creature thats capable of withstanding the amounts of pressure at that level of the sea would be strong against many things), and the satellite is what hit it and woke it up. The drilling station that found it was even right next to NY, and they are assumed to be the same drilling station that mysteriously was destroyed. So if you put the pieces together, its pretty obvious; drillers found it, satellite woke it up, it got pissed off and destroyed the drillers, and wandered over to NY.

Zibe on Feb 5, 2008

56

Zibe, that sounds more accurate than the falling object being the monster. but your rundown of the back story sounds pretty right to me.

crAziemutant on Feb 6, 2008

57

Okay, so full pics are out now of the detailed Hasbro Cloverfield monster figure. How does this change any opinions about the movie? group of the Hasbro monster pics here: http://www.kidreviewer.com/2008/02/hasbro-cloverfield-monster-figure.html (also includes a very large closeup of the face from HD movie clip) But i didn’t like how Hasbro used small pics, and put light-grey on white background, so I blew up the face and added dark background here: http://www.kidreviewer.com/images/2008/feb/cloverfield-monster-head-2.jpg KidReviewer

KidReviewer on Feb 16, 2008

58

hm...thanks for sharing, kidreviewer. but i don't think the toy's all that great. maybe the monster's just really hard to make a good toy out of. i don't like how the mouth is always open. and what happened to those pulsating orange things on it's head?

craziemutant on Feb 17, 2008

59

Anyone else notice that they are reviewing the video and it is labled something close to "Evidence of *Operation* Cloverfield" sounds a little like the government run operation to me, but on the other hand it would be hard to fit that in with something falling from the sky.. I also have 10 bucks saying that there are waaayyy more easter eggs than this because its the same maker as "Lost" right? Lost is full of these little hints. Can't wait for the DvD then ill have some goo stuff to say.

Jojo on Feb 17, 2008

60

This is deffinetly one of the best movies I have ever saw!!! I was on the edge of my seat wanting to know what was next it was so intense! If there is a sequel I would deffinetly go and watch it!

Douglas Bernadella on Oct 2, 2008

61

I just purchased this film on DVD. I loved it when it came out and still do. It truly keeps you wondering well after the film ends. I sequel is definitely in order. I need my curiosity put at bay! I'm definitely all about the Cloverfield movement! Also, look out for "2012"...another film guaranteed to peek our interests.

Justin "SWIFT" Moorman on Nov 26, 2008

62

The same people that gripe about the shaky camera work are people that watch Steel Magnolias and other still-shot, pulled-back camera movies. A well produced Hollywood musical would probably make them sick. It was a great film. For those that say they keep missing the falling object, the cameraman's alarm goes off on his watch at the exact same moment it comes into frame. It's hard to see on anything less than a 40 inch screen. Listen for the alarm and it falls from the top right corner of the screen. This is said to be a sattellite that falls into the ocean and wakes the Deep One up. (oops - Clover) 🙂 Clovie is alone and confused because when he went into the ocean to sleep, the world did not look as it does today. He knows he belongs in a city but the city's not right. Where is all his kinfolk? He is calling to them with those weird croaking, trumpeting noises he makes. In reply to Umm dude your dumb post, the Ethan Haas website HAD Cthulhu fthagn posted in the top right corner, all you had to do is scroll over it. Just like Aladygma.com has several pictures and clues, all you have to do is Shift+A to reveal the pictures. The picture on the bottom right corner tells a very interesting story. Cheers!

Jdam on Jan 14, 2009