Talk:Cloverfield

Archives
June 2007 - July 2007 August 2007 - January 2008

Article revision

Apparently, a satellite falling from the sky is from a company who is in relations with Slusho (the man character's brother who "died" on the bridge was wearing a Slusho shirt.) Rob (main character) is going to Japan to work for the company that funded the satellite that looks for Slusho's key ingredient at the bottom of the ocean. This ingredient made in the Slusho product causes a certain crestacean to grow exponentially. The satellite is the falling object seen in this picture, landing in the site where the key ingredient is found, disturbing this fucked up monster from the bottom of the ocean who then wreaks havoc upon New York City. The monster has been dormant at the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years? I think each clip of video with Beth and Rob before the monster attacked has some signifcance or hidden image.

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)

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

-Hey I found this website after going to Slusho... http://slusho.mblade.iloopmobile.com/History.ftl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtrooper (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Park, 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)

Cloverfield actually refers to Central Park after the monster attacks.--Kondrayus (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says: The director said that "Cloverfield" was the government's case designate for the monster, comparing the titling to that of the Manhattan Project. "And it's not a project per se. It's the way that this case has been designated. That's why that is on the trailer, and it becomes clearer in the film. It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case," said the director. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As it says lower down on the talk page at the moment, Cloverfield is the name of the MONSTER, not the site of the video. The article currently says otherwise. Correction needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.248.60 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

During the opening graphical sequence the line "Incident:Cloverfield" is seen near the bottom left. I assumed the Cloverfield designation was a case file designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandorman (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

When they are heading uptown, a man speaking a foreign language (Russian?) stops them and says something, but the characters appologize and they don't understand. Has anybody been able to get a translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.72.59 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Add

They forgot to mention in the "Pre-Release Plot Speculation" Section, that several runors circulated at that time of a possible tie in with the video game, "Gears of War." Can someone add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.220.153 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Done. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also add the details of the MySpace promotional campaign and preview screening which can be found at www.myspace.com/blackcurtainuk where MySpace uses can win tickets to a screening on the 27th January. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James2howard (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add that in the last scene of the movie, something is clearly seen falling from the sky into the water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoonishere (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate the previous statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.5.209 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been some argument over the ending of the film. I think that it should be mentioned in the article

It's being disputed elsewhere on this page. DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Right now this is being regarded as the most credible review: http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23357

SPOILERS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.227.3 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AICN has a more detailed review as well. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35236 --68.97.75.170 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since all the bullshit reviews above have been debunked, can this section be erased?137.165.208.48 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, Neil Cumpston's review is the best - http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/35100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.56.109 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

The page states that after the credits the audio of "It's still alive" can be heard in reverse. What you hear in the theatre is "Help us," and when reversed, the sound is "It's still alive." I thought this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.134.174 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for alerting that! I changed it. =] --Wachapon² 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another review. http://www.joblo.com/arrow/reviews.php?id=1222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aus simon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a wikipedia account, but in the Plot Summary, there's a line to the effect that"A presumably nuclear explosion rocks all of Manhattan and seems to kill them both, and the camera is covered in rubble." If this was the case, shouldn't an electromagnetic pulse have wiped the video tape that was found? Should that line be changed to "A large explosion" or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.61.204 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. The explosion at the end of the film was absolutely not a nuclear explosion. The monster was right over them at the ending and if it was a nuclear weapon, the screen would have just gone blank. Also, the tape would have been completely incinerated. It was heavy, heavy bombing, not a nuclear option. Perhaps multiple JDAMS? At any rate, I agree that the wiki should be corrected accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.249.250 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

the explosions at the end were most likely Fuel Air Bombs

Another bit... the site isn't designated Cloverfield. It's designated "US-433, formally Central Park" (or Manhatten, can't remember which). The monster is designated as "Cloverfield". Just thought that was worth correcting. As for the bomb... definiately not nuclear. Actually, the most likely bomb is the MOAB. Aruisdante (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on both accounts. US-433 used to be central park, which is presumably where the video was found. (in fact, i think they might say that in the opening sequence, i can't remember.) Also, the bomb can't be nuclear, as the emp from the blast would have wiped out the tape. It was just a hell of a lot of conventional bombs. Fuel air bombs aren't unlikely either, those would cook the beast to death.

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone could change the last bit where it says the monster resembles Sin and whatnot. Either put in a note saying that one of the CONCEPT monsters resembled it or remove it entirely, maybe? Because the actual monster looked nothing at all like Sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen the movie yet, but if it has spawns that leap out of it, its at least noteworthy--Pyrzqxgl (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but spawning creatures hardly means it resembles Sin. It's just not important enough to note. I mean, you could say that those crabs and scorpions that carry eggs on their back until they hatch resemble Sin if you want to be that vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like Sin!--Pyrzqxgl (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why argue over whether it's a nuclear explosion or not? Electromagnetic pulse? If talk about logic, the video cam would've already been damaged few times, and the batteries, etc.

Nuclear or not, the soldier stated clearly at 0600 hours, they'll bomb the area completely since they already LOST. I'm not sure if they soldier meant nuclear (I cannot recall), but if he does, then EVEN if then it was not a nuclear explosion, there will still be a nuclear explosion later.

The point is, why argue over "electromagnetic pulse" logic? Is so, you can argue many other things... 60.49.178.117 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Grunberg involvement

Speaking of errors, Greg's not in the movie. [1] Just thought I'd bring it up here first. I don't have much more in way of a reference. And frankly, I don't feel very "bold". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Ace. I'll take care of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done; and here's a direct link if anyone for any reason doubts the photo, with it being at a blog and all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The power of the explosion at the end suggests its a nuke, no question, that's why there's the fire-storm under the bridge, the area was nuked to kill the monster no doubt about it.

Manga prequel?

Should it be mentioned? http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/tachiyomi/comic/cloverfield/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.96.132 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be put in as J.J. Abrams did actually ask for the manga to be created so people would know the origins of the monster and what happened before it attacked, however it will only be released in Japanese and it will be a series of 4 books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.64.7 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have a link or something to where J.J. Abrams mentioned that or where its posted. Rosario lopez (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It says on page 22 of the manga 'Produced by: JJ Abrams' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.64.7 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

already showing

there were sneak previews all around salt lake city yesterday. surely someone must of posted a blog about what it really is that can be added to the article. 71.219.78.10 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4359287a1860.html

"Eager fans will be pleased that they get to see the monster that’s terrorising New York – although they might have wished otherwise afterwards. It’s an almost indescribable stumpy behemoth, and he’s invited a few smaller friends along for his trail of terror."

http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/archives/2008/01/cloverfield.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.78.10 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to mention it because it isn't true until the movie comes out. That's the way Wiki is run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.185.79 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean it isn't true until it's filmed and edited, and any mention of it before it's release is a reflection of the current state of the movie and can be changed accordingly. Then again, that's moot anyways, since the movie did come out. Unless the movie theatre is going to be getting a revised version of the film for tomorrow. --72.137.47.204 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the movie is out. In New Zealand. And Stuff is a New Zealand website. (I just saw it today, for instance.) So, now's the time to get started on a plot section. --Dom (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that guy's right but the article is edit protected at the moment! Some user's from Australia and New Zealand have already seen this film but can't add to the article!

Can we get something done about this?--124.176.26.182 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the entire plot revealed on Wikipedia? That's just bullshit. Thank christ I saw the film before reading.220.239.27.85 (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I avoided this page until I saw a sneak preview on Wednesday. If you don't want to know the plot why would you go on the internet and read a section entitled "Plot"? Mad031683 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened to the spoiler warnings?

How long have all the spoiler warnings from TV/Film/Book (etc) articles been gone?! Seriously I just ruined the whole film for myself by accidentally reading something like "removed as this is actually a spoiler without warning". Any chance of getting the warnings back? FreemDeem (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly, but were you reading the section called "Plot"? If so you should have assumed it would tell you the plot. And that's probably why spoiler warnings aren't needed for a such a section. Just a guess.VatoFirme (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I ask you this out of a genuine desire to gauge your opinion on the spoiler issue, which has been the subject of much debate in recent weeks (and months): firstly, reading the Plot section, what was it you expected the section to contain? Secondly, do you think the same thing would have occurred were the section to have been titled Plot summary or similar? Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm guys, much appreciated. I was scrolling down to a section below the plot part and didn't even realise the film had been released yet. Besides, the article had a plot section before it had been released but it was only speculation. Maybe there should be clearly visible spoiler warnings on articles like this, and perhaps even a "hide section" function.

FreemDeem (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was being dead serious. Sorry if I worded that badly or if it came across like that to you.VatoFirme (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys don't think you're pushing it considering the film isn't out until Friday? Alientraveller (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

out in America Friday... it's already out in AZ and AU (if this wasn't the case then i'd agree with you) harlock_jds (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, FreemDeem, read my reply to you again. I was attempting to genuinely gauge your opinion on the matter, even going so far as to include a caveat to indicate I wasn't being a tool. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed by authorGwynand (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)(talk) 12:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed by author I'd genuinely like FreemDeem to come back and answer my good faith questions. Steve ^{T • C} 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a little light humor, I couldn't help myself, but now have removed it. Now a more good faith response. It appears that there is a growing consensus leaning towards not containing plot spoiler tags before plot sections. In many cases, I think this is the obvious choice, as to not clutter up thousands and thousands of pages for something that should be obvious. However, in cases such as this, where a movie has yet to be seen by 99% of interested viewers, I'm not sure a plot spoiler tag would be totally inappropriate. The problem then becomes, what is the consensus on how long is should stay up, what films should be included in such a designation, etc. It appears that, for now, the fact that the section is titled "Plot" is considered enough of a spoiler warning on its own.Gwynand (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Replying to comment by Steve, I think Plot Summary is better than Plot because Plot could be speculation as to what the plot of a film contains but Plot Summary makes it clear that it is actually a detailed outline of the plot. FreemDeem (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'll be asking similar of all who bring up the issue on the pages I watch. I'm just trying to gauge opinion. To be honest, I'm pretty ambivalent about it, but I wouldn't particularly be against any move to change the manual of style to recommend such titling. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the "plot" section needs a spoiler warning. But if other sections outside the plot, such as the production notes, reception, etc. have spoilers they should be labeled.VatoFirme (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FreemDeem, if you want to add a spoiler warning to the plot section, put this

:'''Note''': ''This section contains spoilers''

under the ==Plot summary== heading. Be advised than an editor will likely remove it in a day or so, but it can be done. --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, any spoiler warnings contained in an article are removed. True enough that you ruin a story by reading it's summary on Wikipedia, however, the only advice anyone can give you is to just not read the article. Anything else would be against Wiki Policy. Fox816 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They're removed by mainly one editor. That is not consensus. That guideline is disputed and does not describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be disputed but it does describe current practice, that's why the spoiler template was deleted. If their removed mainly by one editor, its because he got there before I did. Mad031683 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It actually doesn't describe current practice. And the {{spoiler}} template was deleted when there was no consensus to delete it. FreemDeem can just paste the text I posted. --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be current practice if there were still spoiler warnings in articles or they weren't removed on sight. As of now, policy states no spoilers. If it changes then we'll follow that. Either way, I'm just saying there's no point in placing a spoiler tag in an article or encouraging others to place one in since it will be taken out. It'll only start an edit war. The only way to change that is to reform policy. Fox816 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I read one plot summery...got pissed off...and learned the policy, now I know what "plot" actually means in wikipedia and read articles accordantly. This discussion happens on every new movie and new book coming out, and it seems that Spoiler tags don't have a long life span in spite of the frequency in which they are discussed (that may not be consensus, but its pretty damn close). I just saw the movie, and was about to post a section on this discussion board titled "Plot=Spoiler" as a pre-emptive strike, but it seems someone beat me to the punch.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy is stupid. A lot of people who might not know about this movie or heard about it from a friend might goggle and click directly here. Then they get the entire film ruined for them. The plot should be a summary of what the movie is basically about without ruining the fun parts of it. I read this after seeing the movie last night and said, crap I could have saved myself $8. Not everyone who googles and clicks wikipedia knows your bad policy at least offer the plot on a 2nd page with a warning link at the minimum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.87.31 (talk • contribs) 17:42, January 19, 2008

This is an encyclopedia. Have you ever read a volume of Encylopedia Britanica that had spoiler warnings? HalfShadow (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read the ending of a film in Encyclopedia Britannica? --Pixelface (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even a point. In fact, if anything, it actually makes my point stronger. HalfShadow (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving the discussion to WT:SPOILER. We're not really talking about the film anymore here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like it if this didn't turn into another Eastern Promises, please. Steve ^{T • C} 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all I planned to say. 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs)

No, we're not talking about the film — we're talking about this article, which is what talk pages are for. I've already explained how what FreemDeem wants can be done and that's the last I'll say about it here. --Pixelface (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i just checked back and noticed someone had edited the spoiler out of my original comment. That made me laugh. No other real point to this comment. FreemDeem (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Major spoilers in this article

It should be labeled that there are major plot spoilers in the article for people who have not seen the movie and want to find information, but still be surprised. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.229.10 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop telling

To whoever writes the plot summaries for the movies on wikipedia you tell the whole movie. this is so stupid because if no one has seen it you ruin the whole movie for them. a plot is a BRIEF description of os story not a telling of precise details of the movie. WAKE UP IDIOTS!!. who taught you how to write a plot summary a monkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.109.130 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, how do you expect it to be written? Like the back of a DVD? "Four friends find themselves in New York City the night a monster attacks! Armed with only a camcorder, can they escape alive?!" Sure, it's a brief summary, and it is brief. Sorry for telling you the ending. If you don't want to be spoiled, just don't read, because we're not going to warn you that a plot section has the plot in it.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if someone wants to know what happens in the film to tie into the real-world context present in the article body, leaving out the major scenes from beginning to end would be detrimental. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

it would help if you actually put spoiler tags on it. The guy has a point though, less is more, don't tell the whole story you tards.67.184.114.4 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No reason for such hostility, people. . . — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't use spoiler tags. Blame yourself for reading a section labeled "plot".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

> a plot is a BRIEF description of os story

A plot is a plot. a summary is a summary. If you want to, add a summary above the Plot. i like the FULL MOVIE, it's good if I can't see the movie but what to know what it's about. if I can't find the movie in my country/time i'd like to know more about the script then "boy meets grils and wacky things happens"

Viral website screenshot

I'm not too crazy about this current website screenshot under "Viral tie-in". Does anyone think it adds much? There's screenshots to consider from the film itself, and none of the images in the article are from the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it really harms things either. It seems more prominent because there's a lack of images in most of the other sections, and once this article has expanded it would probably fit in reasonably OK, as long as all fair-use considerations are covered. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll see what can come up. On a parallel point, I was wondering, could we add a screenshot of the people taking pictures of the severed head of the Statue of Liberty? It'd be relevant to the context in Production, and it'd be a direct tie to the film. For the influencing poster, it's easy to access it by visiting the article for Escape from New York. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You thinking a direct comparison, one above the other, like they've got with the images of the gamma-ray machine over on the Hulk article? Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the director talking about the contemporary nature of people recording incidents with their own devices and having a screenshot of them doing that for the severed head from the film. It wouldn't be a rationale related to the Escape from New York poster, but the poster context can still be kept. There's a wiki-link to Escape from New York so they can view the poster itself there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have you seen a decent copy of the image lying around anywhere? I'm struggling to find one. Steve ^{T • C} 09:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch here http://projectcloverfield.com/screencaps. None have people taking pictures, just the head sliding with sparks. Hope I helped! Itsjoshyo (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The photos flip over (hold on to the photo and move the mouse up and down like you are shaking the photo). Two are in English and one is in an Asian Language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quickie consensus

An editor removed the line in the reception section which related to Scott Foundas' criticisms of the 9/11 allusions. Had he not mentioned the World Trade Center in his review, I'd perhaps agree with the removal of the line, but I think his statements are unambiguous enough to let it stand. It's a trivial matter, but I'd still like to open this one out to the floor... Steve ^{T • C} 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary Additions

"Upon reaching the street, the Statue of Liberty's head suddenly crashes down before them, and everyone witnesses more explosions and a gigantic moving form in the distance." As the monster continues to attack Lower Manhattan, the Woolworth Building gets hit as well and proceeds to collapse.

After Rob and his friends re-enter Manhattan, Rob realizes that his cell phone is out of battery. Seeing looters across the street at an electronics store, Rob runs in as well (with Hud chasing behind him) to find a replacement battery. While in the store Hud takes notice of the news broadcasts that begin to show portions of the creature. After finding a battery, Rob runs out and listens to Beth's message on voicemail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In the section where "Rob and his friends descend into the subway for safety and decide to walk the tracks to Beth’s building." - they descending specifically into the Spring Street station (6 line), although the station is clearly a fake given the short size of the platform, poor positioning of the turnstiles and the large columns that do not exist in the real station.

In the section where "They escape and, fortunately, rendezvous with military officers." They exit the station at 59th street - though not said explicitly, this should be the 59th Street and Lexington station (6) where they somehow walk straight into what would be Bloomingdale's on 59th and Lex(they enter a large department store and are told that they can exit right onto 58th street). This would make sense since their original plan was to walk up the 6 line until they hit 59th/Central Park.

"The remaining three arrive at Beth’s partially toppled building, but must access it through another building and dangerously cross damaged rooftops high above Manhattan." Beth's apartment (revealed from the beginning) is the right tower of the Time Warner Center by Columbus Circle (59th Street/Broadway/8th Avenue). It looks like the right tower has collapsed onto the left tower of the building.

"After freeing her and fending off another parasite, they escape the buildings and board evacuation helicopters just as the giant creature attacks nearby." They are told to meet on 40th Street and Park Avenue, where they meet the evacuation helicopters. As they reach the site, the monster is scene coming across 42nd Street, knocking down Grand Central Station as the military continues to fire down on the creature.

Dc82 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of these would be appropriate to be added to the plot summary, maybe the last one is OK. Gwynand (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they shouldn't - at least have the details added in to the plot - the movie was placed specfically in Manhattan. This is just to replace "building" and "tunnel" with something more specific. Dc82 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"...As they reach the site, the monster is scene coming across 42nd Street, knocking down Grand Central Station as the military continues to fire down on the creature."
It's a Terminal, not a "station." C d h (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! This is much more interesting than the short and brief plot that is shown on the Cloverfield page. I think you should, without question, add it. Also you should make sure that all of those locations are linked to their wiki page (like Time Warner Center or Grand Central Station, or Terminal if you wanna be a dick about it!). Unfortunatly it is highly likly that it would be changed back to as it was before. You'd think the best encyclpedia in the world would have an attention to this kind of important detail!--Maceo (talk) 06:40, 23 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)

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? [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (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)

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)

(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.

• Main Monster
• Smaller Parasite Versions

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _{[[User talk:Mithos90|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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)

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. [2] —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)? [[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (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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)

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. </retort> —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)

• 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

SlushoTagratu (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an actress from the film confirmed the Slusho website and the MySpace pages: [3]. 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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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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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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added the Source link in the article --^҉ რ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)

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:

• hudson at party:"They had sex a month ago"
• Rob under bridge:"It's may 27th"
• DATE ON CAMERA DURING FINAL SCENE:"april 27th"

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. Wikipedia: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)

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 {{refimprove}} 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)

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?

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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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:04, 23 January 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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ :_ॐ 23:12, 23 January 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)

I remember the same complaints about Blair Witch, although the article doesn't cite it. I found this as a potential reference - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2FSHOWBIZ%2FMovies%2F9907%2F27%2Fblair.witch%2F&ei=uieRR5mCHaHAiAHzkOXzDw&usg=AFQjCNF-Gc70ntnJmg_K7L6ZD9WPgQRg1A&sig2=qW7iBuJbHEQ1WD4P6v1DiA. 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)

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

-RunningOnBrains 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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...

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)

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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TheNightShift [4]appears to pose a similar question, NyMag.com[5]seems 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)

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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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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for whoever put the quotes in the article ^-^ --^҉ რ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)

box office dollar sign link?

Is this really necessary? I think it should be removed. Not only is it not the first dollar sign, it should just say "$Whatever USD" and USD be linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 23:40, 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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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS A SOUNDTRACK

File:Cloverfield Mix.jpg

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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just Finish Doing the Soundtrack Article. Edit if you must. --^҉ რ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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".[6] 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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 [7]. 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#Editing comments 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)

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 [8] 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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)

"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)

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)

iPhones can't record video.

The quote at the end of the article states otherwise. 24.174.111.197 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently Matt Reeves doesn't know that, because it's a direct quote. Pairadox (talk) 02:11, 30 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)

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ɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

rating

it should have ratin for the movie eg 16+ 15+ etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.195.252 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because each nation is different, and it's not particularly notable that it recieved a standard rating without much controversy. ThuranX (talk) 22:18, 3 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)

question for new yorkers

In the spanish version of this article we have a section of "goofs" and other errors of continuity. A user has pointed out that actually the Statue of Liberty cannot be seen from Brooklyn Bridge. ¿is this right or wrong? thank you! ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- commons- es)} 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The statue can be seen from the Brooklyn Br. I've been to the park in Bklyn that's btwn the 2 bridges & I've seen the statue from that point. If you can see it from the ground, then you can see it from the bridge itself. Also, the walkway is a good 10 ft above the traffic level. In the film they may have altered the perspective a bit so the statue was larger & more visible. Also checked it on Google Earth (prob not the best method but the best I could come up with) & there's a clear line of sight from Liberty Island to the eastern half of the bridge. Tommyt (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have found it. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- commons- es)} 12:39, 5 February 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)

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)

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)

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)

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|90 15:14, 11 February 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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg

Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)