Talk:Cloverfield

Archives
June 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 - September 2007

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 much kanji, 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.

• AKA Parallax
• AKA WhoIS Look Up

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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.

• BoldFutura in Dept (They get credit if mentions me thinks)
• BoldFutura Whois

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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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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)

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.

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)

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)