Saturday, February 2, 2008

Cloverfield Monster Revealed



Paramount has officially unveiled the Cloverfield monster.

A quick peek of the monster could be seen in a new TV commercial shown during the season 4 premiere of LOST, and now images and HD video of the monster can be seen at Yahoo! Movies. Check out the 1080p HD version of the video for an amazing close up of the monster, seen just before Rob and his friends take cover in the subway.

BTW, does anyone know what this sign in the new Yahoo! video is from? You can see it on the left, above the graffiti, as they are running towards the stairs.

128 comments:

Master Fetty said...

Now the films out everywhere, I think they'll start showing the monster more...

That high-res image is so cool, it's now my desktop background.

ilomaga1 said...

That Was Amazing...

I am speechless....

I can't wait for the DVD release!

Jester17 said...

Wow that is actually a break through for this movie. The secrecy is finally sort of gone.

Ghost Particle said...

uh!
waitda minute...iz this monster the same as the one towards the end?

Shane said...

i agree. that pic is badass!!!

Kevin said...

i cant find the hd pic of the monster? :[

Miojo aka Igor Araujo said...

when are we gonna be seeing part 2 of Kishin??

Robbie said...

Sure the secrecy of the actual movie is gone, but there are still lots of mysteries to be explored (like what they're going to do for a sequel).

I LOVE CLOVERFIELD!!!!

DaFishies said...

I saw a crappy version of this movie. holy SH-T, the HD VERSION IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't wait to get the dvd, that is friggin sweet. The image is awesome too, so happy HD is available lol.

Fun Box Boards said...

That was Hella-Good

DaFishies said...

srry for double comment, but I'm sorry but I cannot convince myself that is the same monster from the end. No matter what anyone says, I will not believe it. The monster at the end has flappy ears like monkeys. This thing doesn't even HAVE ears, and the eyes are completely diffrent. It's way too big. This cannot be the same monster

aaesir said...

The illustration you're inquiring about is called a "LAD". They are painted in random places by a street art crew called
The London Police(TLP). I've seen the all over NYC, and as far as Berlin, Germany. This particular piece is a small one. I spotted a 20ft, full bodied LAD in Kreuzberg Germany before. Pretty cool eh?

Bubba8193 said...

awsome! but I can't remember if this monster looks exactly the same as the one at the end of the film...I'll have to watch the movie again.

BTW Dennis, where did you see that pic with the happy faces? I can't see it an any of the videos...

Riou27 said...

ghost particle - the monster's head looks different when it's enraged and when it's calm

kevin - click "close up of the monster"

Nicole said...

Hmm now that the movie is out every where, is hasbro showing pics of the action figure?

dtowndude said...

yea what is that symbol?? and i didnt see it in the trailer. how far in is it shown??

dtowndude said...

yea what is that symbol?? and i never saw it in the trailer. how far in it is it shown??

Ken said...

It's the same monster. This is the "agitated" look. It probably has the "calm" look towards the end of the movie.

Fluffy said...

Master Fetty said... "...That high-res image is so cool, it's now my desktop background." is ur pic really big? The 1 that I got is tiny!

fluffy

Dan said...

Heres some HD captures of the monster:

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/faceroar2BIGHD.jpg?t=1201929750
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/faceroar3BIGHD.jpg?t=1201929359
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/faceroarBIGHD.jpg?t=1201929378
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/liftarmBIGHD.jpg?t=1201929491
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/footslamBIGHD.jpg?t=1201929524
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/runningBIGHD.jpg?t=1201929507

Everfalling said...

finally! i was getting tired of that dark close up pic from the end of the movie. it's close up, but there's little to no detail in it. now there'll be no questions about two monsters. just compare the images.

Hara said...

Wait, where's that sign in the video?

Higgins said...

I now seriously need to see this movie again.....because there is NO WAY that the monster shown in the HD photo is the one that *ate* Hud

slimwill1993 said...

YES, NEW COMP. BACKGROUND! AMAZING

Jester17 said...

BTW, where is that sign in the video. I didn't see it, or am I mentally challenged? lol. And what does it mean?

Higgins said...

wait....now i think i'm wrong...darnit, ha

Matthew said...

I still don't by that that monster was the same one that was in central park at the end of the movie.

Everfalling said...

now we just need close-ups of the parasites

corocone said...

Please , tell me: under the central park bridge, when Robert Hawkins talks to the camera, what day he says? ´cause i heard May 23. right? or i wrong...
the date of the last scene video (coney island)is apr 27 , about 26 days before.
in the party someone says that rob and the girl went to coney island some weeks before. so i may confirm what i heard. so what´s the deal with january 18 of 2008 ???

Steve from Dunwich said...

saw the movie yesterday and loved it! That close up HD image makes it look quite bat-like, but I also see now about the "spooked horse eyes" appearance that they were talking about.

I missed the bit in the final scene where something falls into the sea though? Is there any youtube of that??

Erick said...

This is NOT the same monster at the end; my thought is that the monster at the end is one of those "spider-crabs" all growns up.

Michael said...

As for the smiley faces, when I saw the movie I figured they were for a fictional Paul Frank type store. There's a Paul Frank right by where the party is supposed to take place, but since it all wasn't filmed there they probably just made up some fictional versions of storefronts in the neighborhood.

Master Fetty said...

I'd say mid-Fed. a month after the first one.

Kevin, try here...

And I think because we're seeing the monster in a quick flash and from a different angle to the main shot at the end, it may look different, but I'm sure it's the same.

Any ideas of if/when the 'Game' will begin again...?

Ghost Particle said...

riou27... yes that would explain it...coz the monster at the end is really damn p*ssed and had those air bubble thing red. But again...there issue of one or many monsters is still open right?

Joshftw! said...

i really do believe that there are more than one monster.

the first quick look we get when it passes between the buildings looks nothing like either of the monster(s).

jj abrams has said that we only see the baby in the movie.

i do think that the small monsters maybe grow into some huge ass ones.

me said...

it is so the same monster... you can see the eyes and the air sacks at the side of the head... there seems to be only one monster people... lets get over it

me said...

Okay, so did anyone else notice that in the KISHIN comic there are about 7 or 8 tankers? and three of them seem to be tied to whatever it is they are hauling...

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8655/kishincaptureug9.jpg

am i like the only asshole in the world who didn't notice that?

Matthew said...

No im sorry the angle will not drastically alter the way it looks and if they do thats bunch of bull. I can buy it being the same type of monster but not the same size, just pause it when it screams, if your telling me that mouth is the same size mouth that killed Hud at the end of the movie, then there is something wrong, because he was standing right underneath it both times, even if it leaned over that mouth would swallow anyone whole. Doesn't matter the angle that mouth is huge.

Matthew said...

I'm all down tho for it being one monster that's fine, but as most of my other friends agree, thats pretty bogus that its so hard to tell, it really shouldn't be this hard to tell if there is only one monster. Abrams i think does say that its just one monster but still, also the parasites are parasites they are not babies, none of them are going to grow up into more monsters they are just going to find more hosts to jump on to or eat.

Jester17 said...

ok, now seeing the HD pictures it's VERY clear that they are the same monster at the beginning and the end. When the monster "screams" and opens it's mouth to bite in agitation, it simply looks like it stretches it's mouth mouth as wide as possible to make it's mouth really big. That's what gave people (and myself) the impression that the monster outside the subway at the beginning had a sort of elongated snout, like a snake. It was simply because that scene was so quick and filled with smoke that it looked different. It is definitely the same monster throughout.

Norik said...

Those little faces look like Cyanide and Happiness characters...

-ras said...

Cloverfield II hits the IMDb ...

Untitled Cloverfield Sequel

Brendan said...

Hey all, I saw the movie on Fri nite. It was pretty kick-ass.

I'm not convinced that this monster is the same as the one near the end... I'll have to go see the movie again, i guess :D

And someone asked about the datestamps on the video; well here's what happened. Rob and Beth went to Coney island in April. The same tape/SD card was in the videocam when Rob's bro starts recording. Remember at the party, Rob is bummed out about Beth being with another guy, and HUD videotapes him? Well Rob asks HUD if that's his camera, because he had a tape in there that had something important on it (Rob and Beth's day out in Coney Island). HUD was accidently recording over the Coney Island thing that Rob had previously recorded. That's why the movie cuts from the night of the party (in May) to the Coney Island trip (in April).

Having seen the thing fall into the ocean at the end of the movie, does anyone else think that the Cloverfield monster is a space alien that crash landed in the Atlantic?

Ryan Ferneau said...

It's strange... I saw the movie twice, but I don't remember Hud screaming through the whole scene quite like that. Do you think they got a different take of his voiceover for this? (After all, this is a special effects scene, so it's probably one of the "stunt camera operators" here)

mediumjuggalo said...

maybe theres 2 monsters.....

anterosguard said...

Did i miss one of the million comments on here...
or....

does anyone believe that Marlena got the 'bite/explosion' infection IN THE STAT. of LIBERTY street where she stayed outside while rob and bro were in the convenience store.....

she acts kinda funny HERE rather than in the subway tunnels.....
she got bit pretty bad right?....i'm thinkin its baterial/from the alien's saliva....but if THAT were true...i'm so sure one of the other three if not all DID get a bit of scratching and biting..not as severe as marlena......

I think marlena got 'engaged' in the street. She says 'it was eating people' -- that is undeniable :)

MasqueradeDiva3 said...

I dont know why some people think that the monster throughout the movie and the monster at the end are two different monsters. It's the same monster. How could one of the little parasite ones become as big as the monster so quickly? If that was the case then there would be a whole bunch of big monsters running around. The monster just looks different at the end because it's a lot calmer than it was earlier in the movie.

tuatara said...

That smiley face design is also reminiscent of the work of Takashi Murakami. But yes, it's Paul Frank-esque as well.

Here's an example (much of his work isn't for all audiences, though):

http://www.highsnobiety.com/uploads/pics/murakami_moca_6.jpg

Courtney said...

It is the same monster. If you look very carefully at the hi def pictures you can see the little cheek pouch things that are its gills/lungs/whatev.

Adi said...

The monster in this scene is the same as the monster in the end of the film. If you watch the full scene on yahoo movies, you will see the monster's face from behind a building just before it lets out its chilling raw. At that point, it is calm, just like in the end of the movie and it looks the same. Exactly.

Danny said...

hey how long has that green photo been at 1-18-08.com

Danny said...

oops i guess you've known for quite some time. i just thought since i was such an avid reader, i couldnt have missed an article on 1-18-08.com
anyways srry

dan said...

there is no doubt in my mind that the monster in the HD pic (which is now my background as well) is the same as the monster in the final scene of the movie - think about it:
the monster's mouth is closed in the final scene, and you can see teeth overtop of its lips -> in the pic, its mouth is open but you can see the space on its bottom "lip" where the teeth protrude
in the final scene its earflaps open and close kind of like gills, and reflected against the bright sky they gain a reddish tinge -> in the pic the ears are folded flat against its head like many animals do when threatened or afraid
not to mention it has the same disturbingly almost-cute eyes as in the final scene.
as for the size, it looks pretty much the same to me, but a different zoom could have been used, making the monster seem closer to Hud than before.
All in all, DEFINITELY the same monster.

prove me wrong :P

uekibachi said...

@ DaFishies

It IS the same monster at the end. There is only one monster (besides the parasites), and if you look at one of the pictures that Dan posted (http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/faceroarBIGHD.jpg?t=1201929378) you can clearly see it's "ears" (exteral lung things :P).
Also, the Hasbro toy comes with "two interchangeable heads, each depicting one of the Monster’s moods: calm or agitated" (quoted from the Hasbro Press Release: http://www.hasbro.com/media/default.cfm?page=release&release=566)

Terry Webdesign said...

I took this screenshot of the monster (before the huge "roar") from the HD version of the clip on Yahoo.

http://picasaweb.google.com/terry.webdesign/Cloverfield/photo#5163082641252559506

Hopefully, this will put an end to the "This is not the same monster" rumor (which I also believed for a moment).

NateNYC said...

This is the same monster. He looks completely different with his mouth open then with his mouth closed. When his mouth is closed his jaw and upper lip overlap each other. ;)

Ross said...

Here is a jpg that shows "the sign" with the faces on it, Dan posted it:
http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg195/burninater10/liftarmBIGHD.jpg

aaesir said...

Once again people. The "smiley face" symbol you're asking about is called a "LAD". They are painted in ramdom spots all around the world including NYC by a crew called The London Police. They are a group of street artist that have become very famous within the pop-culture. This piece is a very small one. They usually have full bodied paintd on them with the initials TLP on it. The one on the sign in the movie is has nothing to do with the shop it's located on. Do a search for 'The London Police' and you'll find out more.

Dennis said...

aaesir,

TLP stuff is interesting, but definitely NOT an exact match. I guess it looks kind-of similar, but smiley faces are pretty ubiquitous so it really could be anything. If you find something more specific, please post a link here.

Dennis said...

-ras said... Cloverfield II hits the IMDb ... Untitled Cloverfield Sequel

This just proves that IMDB is an unreliable source of information for movies that haven't been released yet, especially their forums.

aaesir said...

You don't understand, I've follow documented their work for years. They have many variations of the same illustration. They never paint the exact same one. They are all different accept for the smailey face. This is definitely their work. they have been some who've tried to dupe their stuff, but I highly doubt JJ would go so far as to do so in one of his films. It would be pointless. One the same note, if he is familiar with their stuff he probably likes it, but this is all speculation.

Master Fetty said...

Fluffy wrote: is ur pic really big? The 1 that I got is tiny!

If you click the image, it goes to full size.

And I'm so glad everyone's realised the monster is the same. I never saw how you could think it was different.

And now I'd like to address something else...

JJ said something about the monster being like a child - alone and confused (or insane and intense). Many people have taken this as complete fact and saying it is a baby, meaning there is a mother. That idea sucks. Surely Abrams wouldn't ruin this by making the monster a child...? I wouldn't take what he said seriously.

I've also heard of an Abrams/Reeves interview where they mentioned this guy who was also filming on the Brooklyn Bridge - they speculated that could be the premise for the sequel. Does anyone know where that article is/have any thoughts on it?

Matthew said...

Yes we get the point that its the same TYPE of monster, we don't need to keep repeating that it has the air sacks etc. And of course it looks agitated etc. that still doesn't change the fact that the monsters mouth is really big, and the fact that the monsters head is extremely big too, which comes to the point that at the end of the movie its head doesn't even fill up the screen and its a close up view point of it, not to mention if your watching it close enough when he finally throws Hud you can see his mouth and head and its not really that large. (yes i know people read my posts every time and are probably like this kid is a moron, but if there shouldn't be so many people questioning if its a smaller one etc. Like it just is that big of a difference between here and the end of the movie. Also why do you see Jets flying into the city and if hear bombs exploding still....also this giant monster ends up behind them, when it knocked them down it pretty much only spun downwards it really didn't travel that much farther away from it knocked them down. Its just a confusing thing, they were only out for like 15 min or something like that, because it was almost morning. enough of my rant sorry.

Kevin said...

Im guessing its the same monster. Heres an idea, maybe the monster looked bigger in that scene and smaller at the end is because at the end it is calm and relaxed, but during that scene it is angry and agitated and it probably does something to its body to make it look bigger and tougher like certain animals(for example a cat) Thats what i think, maybe its body just sorta "shrinks" when its calmer..

Business Socks said...

I was just wondering, the monster they showed in the city didnt have any tentacles, and it was a giant tentacle that took down the bridge. 2 monsters? Let me know if im just crazy

Joe said...

I also agree the monster's are the same. The only reason it looks different at the end is becouse of it's mood. Also, it looks smalller at the end because it's standing on all four legs where as when it was destroying the city it was standing taller on it's hind legs.
I'm also pretty postitive that the monser is not alien crashing to the water from space. What falls into the water at the end of the movie is more than likely a Bold Futura satillite that somehow awoke the baby, maybe by cracking its shell or just pissing its mom off.

BranJ said...

Smiley Faces have no importance.

Ok on the Cloverfield poster it is May 23, 07 08 or 09(according to the movie) So it must be after New York was leveled or right before.(So if its before the destruction of New York by the military than could the helocopters in the sky be Robs and Lilys). So the monster must be died, But at the end of the movie we get the "its still alive" thing which must be said by Rob. So the monster isnt died but why cant we see him in the poster could he be on the other side of New York.

Ok why did the movie take place on May 08 or 09 well i think it could have been May 07 and 1-18-08 is the date the military reviews Robs tape.

What could be going on in other parts of the world while New York is being destroyed.

I think in Cloverfield 2 it will be either a different view of the events by different people or be a new story where Rob for some reason is the only one who remembers everything and hes telling them that something attacked the city in May 07 and he comes across the tape that will make everyone believe him and gives it to the military and while looking at his tape on "1-18-08" The monster attacks a city maybe newyork maybe not.

Marj said...

It is possible it's from the London Police. I went down to the Spring Street Subway station to check out how close they got to the real street.... Here's what i found:

Crappy video here from my cell phone.
Pics on PhotoBucket here.

And.... there was an Wooster Collective art exhibit (including the London Police smiley face) at 11 Spring Street, down the block where the station is. Perhaps it wasn't exact because they didn't want to infringe on artists' rights. But the locations match up, and there is grafitti similar to the photos i've taken.

There's scaffolding now, but you can still see part of the artwork.

Here's a blog post that's even more defined while they had the exhibit.

I can take more pics if needed.

~Marj ^_^

Wolfgang said...

Okay, look. To anyone who thinks this is not the same monster as the one at the end... use the bleeping high-def pictures posted throughout this comment page.

First off, look at the way the jaws are formed. The teeth clearly interlock, just as they did when we see it at the end of the movie.

Second, the "ears"? Okay, first those aren't ears. Those are air sacs, and are part of its breathing mechanism, and may even be connected to how it smells. Second, notice how they bulge in the pictures, just as they did at the end of the movie.

And finally, look at the arms and how this creature moves. Same thing.

Sheesh.

Ghost Particle said...

well...if its more than one monster...then for sure they've ganged up to attack NY and this is improbable because the monster just trashed the whole place like there's no tomorrow. So most probably its the same guy.
The question is, the monster is a mutation, then the parasites are mutations too...then why cant more than one monster evolve?

OR

it is genetically engineered by someone and unleashed on NY?!

Looney said...

OMG, I can't believe it. It's the SAME monster. It's *clearly* the same monster. :roll eyes:

And not to repeat myself redundantly repetitively again and again, but the 1-18-08 was the viral *game* date designed to give those of us playing along the feel of immediacy, but the actual event dates are those in the movie. If the movie took place on May 27 of whatever, then that date takes the place of 1-18-08. You can count backwards from the May date to see when the platform collapsed, when Jamie posted her vids, whatever.

me said...

dude you guys are so funny! everyone who has read the jj and matt materials say the following:

it was not a tentacle that took down the bridge, it was a tail.

the monster is the same monster.

the monster came from the deep of the ocean and is agitated as a baby woken up.

the sequel will be a new cast. it will not be the same people.

the guy on the bridge with the other camera will be like a hint and was just proof that there are other people's stories too.

Doesn't anyone pay attention?!

Fluffy said...

BranJ said... "Ok why did the movie take place on May 08 or 09 well i think it could have been May 07 and 1-18-08 is the date the military reviews Robs tape."

great theory, but what about the MySpace pages? the last time everyone was on was 1/18/08. And if the Monster attacked in May of 07, how can everyone be alive to do myspace? its just to confusing to figure out. I would say that the date 1/18/08 is just the date that the movie was released, but still the myspace pages! if the Monster attacked in May in what-ever-year why would the Myspace just go dark on 1/18/08? it could be a mistake, idk.

-Fluffy

Riou27 said...

Everybody should listen directly to master fetty, Terry Webdesign, and looney to clear up some misconceptions about the movie. The monster is LIKE a baby, but also likely one-of-a-kind. With a wide open mouth it looks different than with it's lips together, and I think it either voluntarily shows it's air sacks or they were just more visible when it chomps Hud.

Kevin said...

Business Socks said...
I was just wondering, the monster they showed in the city didnt have any tentacles, and it was a giant tentacle that took down the bridge. 2 monsters? Let me know if im just crazy


I also thought i saw a tentacle hit the bridge, when the scene at the bridge happened and something hit the bridge i saw a tentacle and suction cup thingies, and i remember saying "oh so it has tentacles.." but when i saw the monster in the city it didnt have tentacles and it confused me a lot, im not saying theres another monster that has tentacles but its really weird how a lot of other people saw a tentacle too...this movie has a lot of confusing things, and another thing, at the end when the monster "ate" Hud why didnt it go for Rob and Lily? i mean they were like 20 feet away? and right after Hud fell on the ground Rob went and got the camera..so where did the monster go? wouldnt it still be standing over them since it IS like 500 feet tall? So did it just chew on Hud and fly away and Rob got the camera? It doesnt really make sense to me..

Connie said...

It's the same monster. I've said this before, when the whale picture came out, that people need to learn a thing or two about perspective.
The monster looks to have an almost reptilian/bird like head in structure so it's longer than it is wide. When you look at it from the side, and especially when it's mouth it open, the head looks much larger and pointed than when looked at from directly in front.

Philip said...

There's some interesting stuff about the cloverfield VFX shots here Dennis:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/headlines/9017.html

Jester17 said...

Just a quick post from me this time. Here we go:

It's the same monster in the whole movie. it has the air sacks, the big bulging eyes, the interlocking teeth, the inverted elbows, the retarded feet. It's the same guy.

Next, I just had to comment on the fact that someone though it was a tentacle that smashed the bridge. IT'S THE MONSTER'S TAIL. read the productions note out there on the net. The notes even say it's a tail.

aaesir said...

Marj,

I understand that the design isn't the same. TLP does this for the simple fact that the design is a concept. It wasn't meant to be duplicated exactly the same way. Nevertheless, I'm glad you were able to check the out the area where they shot the film to see what was what. As for infringment, I really don't think that's possible for the simple fact that it's on public property. Which makes it fair game. Also, one of the points of the film was to make it seem as realistic as possible. Meaning JJ wanted what ever occured naturally in the urban, NYC environment to remain as is to that effect. I understand a few shops and whatnot are created for every movie set these days, but to go so far as to reproduce an artists work for a film in itself would be considered infringment.
Know what I mean?

Sanjaya said...

Doesn't anyone find it just a bit too coincidental that Rob is on this tape and the company he's going to be working for is, presumabaly, the cause of this creature?

I'm still holding out for the idea that the thing that crashed into the water at the end of the film ties in directly to the arrival of this creature.

Dennis said...

Sanjaya... The thing that crashed in the water is not the monster, but is likely what woke up the monster.


Jester17 said... Next, I just had to comment on the fact that someone though it was a tentacle that smashed the bridge. IT'S THE MONSTER'S TAIL. read the productions note out there on the net. The notes even say it's a tail.

You can read the production notes here: Cloverfield Production Notes

Shaun said...

I will agree with everyone about it being the same "TYPE" of monster, but nothing will convince me that it was the same exact one. You cannot honestly believe that something that crumbles whole 60 Story Buildings wouldn't have teeth the size of a human. The sizes are too inconsistent from when they're on the roof of Beth's APT to when they see it on the ground from the helicopter. It was either laziness from the VFX creators to not stay consistent or theres two monsters, one being larger than the other.

It's undeniable, it's like a human only mauling a raisin without utterly destroying it, HUD was in one piece...

That being said I LOVED THIS FREAKIN MOVIE!!!

Gdawg said...

if they are going to use a new cast in the sequel then does anybody think they will explain what happended to rob and beth, or even lilly?

Dennis said...

Shaun said... I will agree with everyone about it being the same "TYPE" of monster, but nothing will convince me that it was the same exact one.

Nothing? Did you read the production notes, specifically the Building A Better Monster section? It's pretty clear from their comments that there is just one monster.

I think it just looks different when you see it from different perspectives. I guess you can blame the SFX people, but practically speaking, in order for it to actually BE two different monsters, they would have had to program two different monster models in their 3D program instead of one.

Matthew said...

Wow, Shaun thank you so much for your comment cause that's exactly what I have been trying to say. But i keep getting the same ignorant response. ONce again, we know that it is the same "Type" of monster it has all the same features, we are arguing the size difference, it is a vast vast difference, its not just an angle difference there is a big difference. No where does it say that because it was angry or agitated or whatever that it changes what it looks like. Also Abrams does not say that there is only one, he only refers to the one everyone is talking about which was the one destroying the city. Also, he does say "you get a more intimate view of the what the monster looks like" this man is the king of spin when it comes down to this stuff. Yes i'm more than likely reading into it but yes nothing really has me convinced that the monster was "leaning over" in central park....that is a bunch of crap, a monster standing 5ft in front of you 300 ft tall would be more than overlooking you, because it would be 260ft or more without counting its tail. It was standing straight up, and it just decides to bite Hud and throw him after being bombed hardcore you don't think it was agitated anymore? Your insane if you don't believe this, if there is only one shame on the Effects, but still an amazing movie.

Dennis said...

Matthew said... i keep getting the same ignorant response....nothing really has me convinced ...bunch of crap ...Your insane if you don't believe this

Nice.

I really think you are making a big deal out of nothing, but there's no point in continuing to argue with someone who will never be convinced otherwise.

This is the whole "It's A Lion" thing all over again.

ReverendShaneX said...

Matthew said... i keep getting the same ignorant response....nothing really has me convinced ...bunch of crap ...Your insane if you don't believe this


Dennis said...
Nice.

I really think you are making a big deal out of nothing, but there's no point in continuing to argue with someone who will never be convinced otherwise.

This is the whole "It's A Lion" thing all over again.
......


Jesus Christ people, just read the production notes and the interveiws
and if you think it's more than one monster loosen the chin straps on your helmet and read them all again. They always call the monster "it" or "clover". The production notes notes say it's tail knocks down the bridge but still people wanna say tenticles. It was one tail and a bunch of wires from the bridge. This is pretty much the perfect movie (and to a greater degree the whole ARG) to show the people will see and hear what they want.... "it's 2 lions with tenticles!!"

LOLtrain said...

i don't beleive the multiple monster theory, the production notes are right.
i just blame some mistakes on the special effects team.
The monester doesn't have ears, its the air sacks. the airs sack seem to expand undernear a shell or horns at the end, this one they're just up. same monster.
there's only one obvious error that i see in the effects.
At the end, you can clearly see when the monster looks around (go look at that loose gif running around the web) that the monster has an elbow joint and another joint where the long part of the arm goes vertically down.
The thing is, i noticed, in other scenes (especially when it was bombs by the B2) you see its only the shoulder and that longarm joint. They added in another joint in its arm in central park. If anyone wants i'll post some images showing what i'm trying to explain.
otherwise, the HD pic of clover is sweet. wasn't as sure what i saw in the movie, but i'm glad it's a more reptillian jaw than a humanoid one. also solves some anatomy problems i keep having when trying to draw it.

Sanjaya said...

Dennis said, "The thing that crashed in the water is not the monster, but is likely what woke up the monster."

I'd like to believe that something attached to the "thing that crashed into the water" is somehow behind the arrival of this creature. Is this supposed to be the piece of the satellite that crashed?

Most of all, I like the idea that nothing is explained... even with the online stuff, there is still much to speculate about. Sometimes, in movies, it's nice not to have everything explained. An explanation would sort of ruin the effect of the film.

Just like Blair Witch, the idea of what you don't see adds to the atmosphere of the film.

I'm very much looking forward to the DVD for all the bonus material. I'm assuming they are going to compile all the internet stuff on it. I love watching the Jamie videos... especially the Hate Dance one.

me said...

Once again... as per the time of the incident... the event takes place in a nameless year in the movie on may 23 leading to may 24. But in our time the incident happened on jan 18 leading to 19. the times of the arg match with the timeline of the movie. everyone knows who read jj and matts interviews that the date was not going to be the same in the movie. that would be inconsiderate to the rest of the world where the movie was being released on different dates. be reAl here people!!! the arg follows the timeline of the actions in the movie... just in our time... thank you good night... stop with the damn timeline questioning...

and may i ask... when the f*ck is the new comic gonna be released already?? damn!!!

dolly said...

i saw this trailer early this morning and i woke up thinking i dreamt it all - right, like they'd show the monster on tv - so i thought i was going bananas. lol.
then i checked here and i wasn't crazy afterall.
those are awesome pics of the monster. am i the only one who thinks its a gorgeous monster? rather than be scared, i'm in awe. lol

Master Fetty said...

me said and may i ask... when the f*ck is the new comic gonna be released already?? damn!!!

The first one came about this time last month, so I'd say any time soon...

Dennis said...

It says on the website that the next comic will be released in LATE February.

Looney said...

Matthew wrote: But i keep getting the same ignorant response.

Yeah, that JJ Abrams and Matt Reeves are, like, totally SO ignorant! We can only imagine how they pulled those production notes out of their rear ends...

Master Fetty said...

Really? That's a shame...I can't wait.

Jester17 said...

Dennis, I'm with you on this. It's the same monster throughout the movie.

Read the productions notes people.

Wolfgang said...

There are no mistakes in the CGI. Do some research, and then think about it.

1) The Statue of Liberty is 305' 1" with the pedestal. The monster, on all fours, is probably just a few feet shorter than the pedestal. Standing upright, it's probably up to Lady Liberty's waste.

2) The creatures arms, if they were completely straightened out from shoulder to fingertips, are longer than the creature's body, not counting the tail but including the head.

3) Godzilla was 164 feet tall in 1954. That was his smallest, but that is beside the point. The point is that it's entirely possible for a monster only half the size of the Statue of Liberty to cause that much destruction.

Now, about the thing that fell in the water at Coney Island. That happened about a month before the attack.

The monster was already on its way to Manhattan. The Chuai incident occurred December 27th, if my research is correct.

I doubt it did anything to disturb the monster.

aaesir said...

Ah well, I stand corrected. I just received an email from The London Police themselves stating that the 'smilie faces' that appear in the film have nothing to do with them. I sent them the link to this site for them to have a gander themselves, and they're making no claim to the illustration. Oh well, thought I knew what I was talking about. If I were the artist who's work was in question I probably wouldn't make claim either do to the nature of the art being painted without permission. Nevertheless, I'll take their word for it. I will say that it is definitely a rip-off of their work if I haven't seen one before.
Once again, sorry gang....

Redee said...

Hi man!

cloverfield-italia.blogspot.com

NateNYC said...

I believe the monster "climbed" the statue of liberty thinking it was a huge green person. It then ripped off her head in pure enjoyment.

nick88 said...

Ok... wats the whole story about tagruato, the sea bed necter and everythingh else related to that, that i didnt see any reference to in the movie?

carlos andres said...

Same monster at the beggining and at the end.
Final scene with falling into ocean bonus.
Credits with great score and also a final bonus!!!

Loved the movie 10/10

The audio is the real experience!!!

Wolfgang said...

I rather doubt the monster climbed the Statue. It doesn't look like much of a climber. Then again, it doesn't look like much of a swimmer either, but it must have gotten to the surface of the water somehow.

In any case, I believe that the monster and its arms are big enough for it to reach up to the top of the Statue of Liberty.

I think that it got to Liberty Island, and surfaced behind the statue.

Now, there are three possibilities here. Either it saw the head and ripped it off voluntarily, it tripped, or it was hit by a really big piece of ammunition (remember the end of the movie when they carpet bombed it and its arm flailed up against that building?). The first case is the most likely one in my opinion.

In any of the three cases, the head was ripped off from behind, as evidenced by the huge gouges in Lady Liberty's back. Judging by the scratches on the head after it landed, it also seems like the creature chewed on it a little before throwing it, probably in frustration.

Matthew said...

I really believe the monster thought it was a threat possibly, and it more than likely just took a chunk out of the statue of liberty and then probably through the head which ran into several buildings, so they could be teeth marks but it also did crash through several buildings which more than likely impaled many pieces through the statues face.

There's only 2 references in the entire movie to anything we have really seen for tagruato and stuff like that. The oil rig tanker that was capsized or more like destroyed which I have a theory on that sort of. Was owned by Tagruato, if you look close enough you can see the Tagruato symbol on it when Hud looks at it from the bridge. Also Jason is wearing a Slusho T-shirt those are pretty much the only references to any of it.

Also the tanker was capsized first when they were watching it on television then when they went to the roof there was a giant explosion, and then you get to the bridge and the suppoesdly capsized oil tanker is totally decimated and all the oil or supposed oil is on fire. Is it possible this monster followed the oil tanker to the shores of New York? Then to cover up whatever it has inside of it the tanker crew destroyed the Ship. The military didn't get there and start attacking till after the bridge incident. It's all hypothetical but I don't think its just on a rampage for rampages sake. I have other little theories but ive said enough for now. I was thinking this "deep sea nectar" was used for anything other than slusho, put into natural resources because it sounded like they were using it for multiple purposes not just bodily consumption, possibly putting it into oil maybe and its possible it is the monsters diet other than just whales and other snacks such as us.

-ras said...

wolfgang Said:
"Judging by the scratches on the head after it landed, it also seems like the creature chewed on it a little before throwing it, probably in frustration."

It looked, to me, like the monster 'sucked' all the people out of it first! (then tossed it).

Raf Basanez said...

What happened to Jamie Lascano... What happened to Rob's place...

Wolfgang said...

nick88 said...

Ok... wats the whole story about tagruato, the sea bed necter and everythingh else related to that, that i didnt see any reference to in the movie?

Well, if you remember, Rob had accepted a job offer that required him to move to Japan. This job involved a popular drink called "Slush-o". That is why his friends were throwing him a going away party.

Slush-o is actually a subsidiary of Tagruato, a Japan-based marine drilling company. They discovered "Deep Sea Nectar" and found that it had an amazing taste, and so decided to make it the secret ingredient of their drink.

Now, there's some conspiracy going on about this ingredient. An extremist environmentalist group called TIDOwave managed to get their hands on it and one of their members sent the sample to his girlfriend. He also sent a recording explaining everything, but she didn't believe it.

In any case, this all has something to do with the Chuai station, an off-shore rig/research station built by Tagruato. It was destroyed completely by the monster, though Tagruato blames TIDOwave. Probably to cover their tracks.

In the recording, the TIDOwave boyfriend mentioned that they had "found something, or they're making something."

The guys who made Gamera were commissioned by Abrams to write up a four-part prequel manga called "Cloverfield: Kishin". The first part has already been released on the web, with the second part on its way. It implies that there is some connection between a Japanese boy called "Kishin", his mother, and the creature. One of the panels also shows several Tagruato freighters, three of them towing something under the water with chains. The last panel shows a pair of eyes rising out of the water, so it is obviously either the creature or the creature's mother.

(It should be noted that one of the definitions for the word "kishin" is "fierce god".)

Based on all of this, I have theorized that this creature is a mutation. Tagruato discovered it and took it to the Chuai research station, where they began experimenting on it with Deep Sea Nectar.

Deep Sea Nectar is known to cause increased strength, sharper eyesight, smoother skin, and a "wave of pure happiness" in humans. It is unknown what it would do to other animals.

Anyway, I believe that the people at Chuai were experimenting on the Cloverfield monster with Deep Sea Nectar, causing it to mutate into the huge beast that attacked Manhattan. It escaped from whatever prison they kept it in, continued to grow larger and larger, until it finally escaped into the water. It then destroyed the station in a fit of rage and set out in the direction of New York for whatever reason. It is possible that it only intended to get back home, but home was on the other side of the continent.

Matthew said...

Just my 2 cents:

So I think that by definition, we can assume that the ARG can be the same world just in a different time. This would mean that 1-18-08 for us is homologous with 5-23-xx for the characters. In this case april 27 would be 12-22-07 in our time. This would be plenty of time for the bold futura satellite to have awakened/hatched/"spawned" the monster and still have it be able to go and destroy Chuai on 12/27/07.

Secondly, I think the pictures on 1-18-08.com shed light on why the monster felt agitated enough to rip the head off of the statue of liberty. Particularly the night vision shot.

Lastly did anybody else notice the tag on the wall by the two smilies that read "Kings and Gods of OIL." It looks like it is signed TLP to support aaesir's original theory, but if its an homage inserted by the filmmakers it could be a reference to Tagruato (though I'll admit it's pretty weak)

Capcom said...

Any truth to the rumors in the news for the past few days about a sequel out in April? Sorry in advance if I missed mention of it when I skimmed the comments.

Dennis said...

I don't see how that is possible, since there has been a writers strike. Unless they filmed two movies at the same time, but it doesn't sound like that's what they did, based on comments by Matt Reeves, etc.

Laura Byrnes said...

Weird fact..

The original creator of Canon Cameras in 1930 was Goro Yoshida.

Austin said...

Hey guys! Today in the mail I FINALLY got my...

SLUSHO! LAPTOP!!!

It was a good day!
Here's a link to my picasa album with a few pics:
http://picasaweb.google.com/theamazingaustin/SlushoLaptop

If you have any ??'s about specs or anything, you can ask me at: theamazingaustin(at)gmail(dot)com

There was absolutely nothing cloverfield-related included in the package, except the laptop cover (duh) and that everythig was registered to Paramount and Bad Robot and stuff.

Der Merzmensch said...

Hi Dennis,

I've got that cool Japanese Cloverfield gadget, I've told about for weeks.

Check it out
http://merzmensch.blogspot.com/2008/02/cloverfield-its-gadget-time.html

Greetings, Merzmensch aka kosmopol

Jester17 said...

Just a thought here that seems to make pretty good sense, well at least to me it does. Couldn't it be that the Cloverfield DVD will be coming out in May? I mean, it takes a while for a movie to go through the movie theater, and then through cheepy movie theaters after that, and then a few months later it's out on DVD.

When the Rob Zombie version of Halloween was made, it came out in August and wasn't out on DVD till December, in time for Christmas. That was four months after it's debut in theaters. Just think, Cloverfield came out in January. Four months after that is May. And what's the date on the movie when Clover attacks? May 22. So I'm guessing we should be getting Cloverfield on DVD May 22? Here's hoping I'm right. :)

Master Fetty said...

Many people have said that before, but I hope your right...

Wolfgang said...

I hear tell that the second part of Cloverfield: Kishin will be available soon.

Do you think it might confirm, or at least encourage, my theory of the monster being a mutation accidentally created at Chuai?

If you're wondering, my theory is that Tagruato captured the creature (as shown in part one of Kishin), and then took it to Chuai for scientific experimentation. The Chuai scientists used Seabed's Nectar on it.

The Nectar has some pretty positive effects on humans, like smoother skin, increased strength, and sharper eyesight. It could be that the substance mutated the creature completely, causing it to grow much faster- and much larger- than it should have. The creature escaped, destroyed Chuai Station, and then headed to New York, probably disoriented and trying to get back home.

What do you think?

Fluffy said...

Jester17 sadi: ..."Cloverfield came out in January. Four months after that is May. And what's the date on the movie when Clover attacks? May 22. So I'm guessing we should be getting Cloverfield on DVD May 22? Here's hoping I'm right. :)"

Great theroy Jester17! It makes since, a lot of since actually! But it still doesn't explain the MySpace pages. Why would they go dark on 1/18/08 if the monster attacked on May 22-23? Or it could be that something happened that no one can get on. Lets hope that this will clear up near the DVD releas.

Master Fetty said...

What's not to get about the MySpace pages. It's the same as Chaiu collapsing in our time - 1-18-08 in our time is 5-22-09 for Rob and co. You can use everything else to piece togther what happened. That's why a satelite piece that fell in December fell in April.

And on the idea tha Tag made/mutated the monster - nice idea, but remember Abrams said it was under the sea for years.

me said...

STOP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE DATE OF THE MOVIE ALREADY!!!! you guys are seriously making too big of a deal about this already... we all (who read jj and matt's interviews) know that the movie arg dates have nothing to do with the dates in the movie... there is no more arg updates on the myspace pages or jamieandteddy and there will not be any updates on tagruato or tidowave... its over... NY was attacked already... we overlapped time wise... Jan 18=May 22 (or 23rd i forgot already) ... stop being so damn amerocentric!!! they didnt keep the date in the movie as jan 18 because it would throw off the rest of the releases across the world. all that is left to tell the story is the manga... the manga will tell us something... but i am so sick of reading complaints about the 18th... get over it already... old news... OLD NEWS!!!

i just want to know when the hell the image of the hasbro toy is being released... i ordered mine and i want it now!!

Fluffy said...

Me said... "...its over... NY was attacked already..."


ok, first, LOL! that hade me laugh:) second, it looks like your mad, and that half my fault, sorry "me".
I know about the jj and matt interviews and that they said that the movie release date had nothing to do with the movie cause that the release date was different in other places in the world. i just wish that the manga would come out already! hopefully it would clear thing up a bit. again, sorry to upset u "me". Hope u have fun when u get your action figure.

-Fluffy

Master Fetty said...

Actually, if there is another film, odds are Tag/TIDO will still be updated...

Wolfgang said...

Master Fetty said...

And on the idea tha Tag made/mutated the monster - nice idea, but remember Abrams said it was under the sea for years.

I know, and I've taken that into account. But remember, the manga shows several Tagruato freighters heading in the same direction, with three of them chained to something under the water.

My theory is that while this creature has been down there for thousands of years, as Abrams said, Tagruato discovered it and took it to Chuai for research and experimentation. There's been a lot of emphasis in the viral campaign on Seabed's Nectar, so I suspect that it's part of the reason the creature is as big as it is.

In short, Tagruato found this ancient creature, took it to Chuai, and experimented. Creature mutated, escaped, and destroyed Chaui. A lot of what happened after that can only be speculated about. All we know is that for some reason, it headed for Manhattan, and had apparently run into the Navy on the way. This prior encounter could have led to a warning being sent to the mainland, which would explain how the military could get up such sizable forces so quickly.

rob t said...

omg guys it's soooo not the same monster at the end! haha

just kidding. having read all the arguments above and looked at the pictures it still looks like 2 separate albeit similar things to me...

so what i'm saying is, fine it is the same monster, but i don't think they did the close-ups very well at the end.

i mean the thing may not have a very wide head in comparison to it's body, but it's still huge. so surely when it moves in to kill hud it would have filled the picture and gone out of focus much quicker than it did.

it just seems to me like they said 'let's give the audience a cool close-up shot of the whole thing before the end of the movie' and in trying to get the whole thing in the picture for me they failed and that kinda ruined it for me. (not the film, just the monster)

Wolfgang said...

It's the same monster, man. Hasbro just released pictures of their toy of Mr. Grumpy Pants. Go have a look.

Jacob said...

you people are mad crazy.

its a movie. relax.

Guajars said...

Can anyone tell what the Japanese say at the alley? Is the man they don't understand.

Crypto said...

Sorry but that is not the monster that bit Hud k this thing just isn't him and I'm dissapointed that they just through some crappy piece of crap into the scene OK. And that trailer completly took away the thing that made everyone see it...

2 SEE THE MONSTER!!!!!!!

Wolfgang said...

Crypto, you're an idiot if you think there are two monsters. I've already explained multiple times why there is only one monster, and I don't even need to refer to the production notes, or the interview with the guy who designed the dang thing.

I am a kaiju zoologist. I know more about giant monsters than most of the people posting here. Don't argue with me about this unless you want to embarrass yourself.