Talk:Cloverfield

; Archives
	June 2007 - July 2007; August 2007 - December 2007;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cloverfield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the film. Fan sites and forums are unverifiable. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the film. Fan sites and forums are unverifiable at the Reference desk.

Film Unassessed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I initiated discussion at WT:FILM#Marketing. Feel free to pitch in! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

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

Similiar interview with IGN here. Alientraveller (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And part two. Alientraveller (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Monster here taken form the toys being produced to market for the film. File:Http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg

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

Article revision

Based on the headlines above, I've revised the article accordingly. The Production section has more "meat" in it with an image of Escape from New York based on the cited connection. I've also revised the Marketing section now that producer Bryan Burk verified Slusho and Tagruato as part of the viral marketing campaign. Feel free to review my edits and make the appropriate changes. Since it's the month leading up to the film, keep an eye out for headlines to help expand the article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just goes to show, patience is a virtue. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield meaning

I didn't see it mentioning that Cloverfield was a military name for the case of the monster attacking it, and also Incident Site U.S. 447, reffering to central oark, I can't put it in, I'm not an "established user". So if someone see's that this is liable to submit, please do so. DarthTader90 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could this have some meaning? http://www.greatoldone.com Kams912 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it 'could'. Does it have some meaning? SOME meaning. "Does this have a relationship to the cloverfield film?" you ask? uh... not unless YOU can prove it does. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this helps, but I saw the preview when I went to see I am Legend and from what I could put together, Cloverfield IS the name of the case. It could be like a cover name for what happened in New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.223.186 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add

Since this page is protected, can anyone add the NL wikipedia page to the other languages, being nl:Cloverfield? Thx! 217.136.242.115 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review?

This has been circulating the internet, is there any truth and should this be noted? It includes set links and a highly detailed review including a description of the monster (warning of possible spoilers)

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=235157

Also if this turns out to be true should the early review be noted? Mavrickindigo (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source. We shouldn't sacrifice reliability to rush such details to the forefront of the article. The film is coming out soon, so there will undoubtedly be reliably sourced reviews and coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That review's fake, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.95.177 (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Sorry; dont have a wikipedia account, but noticed an error in the article someone may want to correct. There is no such thing as 'argnet.com'. The name of the site is ARGNet, but the URL is argn.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.115.81 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]