guess i'll be first.and oh yeah, if you anagram "just six", you can get jus st xi.in itself it seems insignificant, but the "st xi" part.....could that be "Star Trek 11"????We know he's working on ST XI, but it doesn't explain the "jus". and i know this is a SEPARATE film, but maybe there's some sort of connection if we go to the star trek site or something??
not seeing much at the star trek site. eh.
Here's a suposed picture of the "cloverfield" poster. It looks cool.http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/07/23/spy-photo-cloverfield-movie-poster/
This comment has been removed by the author.
hmmm.......you know, i don't think "monstrous" would technically be a "bad" title to the film actually. however, i'm thinking it's simply an adjective used for the destructive attack.kinda' like spider-man 1 did. etc, etc.
Hey Dennis,I just replied to you about Comic-Con, sorry it took so long.I also sent you an interesting story about a possible poster leak. It looks rather legit, but who knows, in this day and age it could be a 14 year old with mad Photoshop skills.~Nick
Has anyone besides me noticed that on the 1-18-08 site, if you don't touch the photos, they stay where they are. But if you move them, they start moving themselves in tiny increments. I'm serious, and I don't think that I am imagining it. I haven't let the site sit for very long, so I have no idea where they might be moving to, like for instance, to right themselves back to where they were first positioned or what.Sorry if someone mentioned this already, or if there is a reasonable answer to this.
Hey capcom. I noticed that as well. I left them turning for half and hour, and they just kept turning. So I moved them with the mouse again, and they stopped turning by themselves.
According to Cloverfield News, Paramount has registered the domain www.themonstrousmovie.comSo I guess that poster is legit?
Thanks FLG!! :-)