Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Cloverfield Is Dead? Long Live Cloverfield!


In the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, a short Q&A with JJ Abrams may have revealed the ultimate fate of Clover, the Cloverfield monster:

RS: But based on photos on the Website, it looks like the monster eventually gets killed by the army.
JJ: Yes, he's dead. Ultimately the bombs kill him.

I assume that Kevin O'Donnell, who doesn't appear have enough knowledge about the ARG to write a full article, is referring to the dead creature photo on 1-18-08.com. It's also not made clear what the time-frame is for his death - after two or three sequels?

* Thanks to Unfiction and Tagruato Blogspot!

86 comments:

CBC said...

I think there will be pressure from the studios for another movie because of the success of the first (insert dollar signs). Plus Abrams likes to keep us guessing.

Henrik Bäckström said...

This is intresting. Why would even "JayJay" say or reveal that the monster is dead? Sure, we all know the pictures from the official site but still .. I think it's odd.

I would assume or hope that there will be at least two brilliant "Clover" films to come.

US-447 said...

yeah, i dunno about that...lol

Ryan said...

ok that doesn't even make sense. for one the picture they're talking about looks NOTHING like the monster and two it has HUGE bites out of it. what did the monster start chewing on its self or something?

Midgard said...

Put up a comparison pic of a sperm whale and you instantly know what's in those pics. Definitely not a dead monster. I think the key word is ultimately. Otherwise JJ is just playing with us. Either that or he was being sarcastic since the interviewer didn't even take the time to research what the picture actually was.

Ranp101 said...

The creatures from the pictures are whales... (sperm whale).

cody2198 said...

If you read the article JJ say that the Army's bombs ULTIMATLY kills clover. But he did not when. Remenber these pictures came out before the movie and you did not see clover die in the movie. And he did say that clover was a baby so maybe the pictures are of the mother??????

Griffin said...

You could reverse that, Cody – what if the pictures are actually of the Baby Clovie (not saying they are; I don’t think they look anything like the monster) – when Mommie Clovie finds that someone’s killed her baby, won’t she be mad? I’d like to see some type of sequel involving her - maybe reacting to the death of Baby Clovie.

Mike said...

I could be totally lost, but what "PHOTOS"(plural) are the reporter referring to? We've had this one for a long time now with the "whales" or whatever...but it certainly doesn't look like the monster.
I've never seen pics that lead me to believe it was dead...Thats kind of lame. Hopefully it's just one of JJ's jokes.

cody2198 said...

Griffin, That could be a good angle for the sequel. But yeah those pictures do not look like clover. And if they are what took the big bite out of the tail??

Charlie said...

i still like the idea of cloverfield 2 being the same event as the original, but from another point of view. although a new monster would be nice...

zinjak said...

but that doesnt make any sense. then whats the deal with that backwards message at the end of the film that clearly states " its still alive..."?

BLaCKFoG said...

I was going to say the same thing Cody and Griffin mentioned. JJ said the Monster was a baby that was disoriented and scared because it was looking for its mother. So for JJ to say that the Monster was killed by the Army is only half the story. Mom is still out there and coming....probably from Japan. I have my reasons for that theory.

Griffin said...

I don't think the photos themselves are of the dead monster (for one thing, they don't look anything like it; for another, they do look like whales, as some have mentioned).

Notice that JJ says "ultimately". I think it's a given that "ultimately," Baby Clovie is going to be killed - by "bombs". King Kong dies, so does Godzilla - Clovie's next in line. Even if he did survive the 'hammerdown' at the end of the movie, someday, in some sequel, he'll 'ultimately' reach a point where 'the bombs kill him.'

But: I love the fact that our Clovie is a baby. It opens up the whole realm of "Where's Mommie?"

I agree, blackfog - killing 'our' monster (Baby Clovie) is only half the story.

richard said...

Share them.

US-447 said...

yeah, that pic from 1-18-08 does not look anything (in my opinion) of a dead "Clover." It looks like some whales crossed paths with the monster and washed up on shore (or tossed on shore), nothing else.

Maggie said...

J.J. says he's not sure about a sequel, but IMDB has "Untitled J.J. Abrams Cloverfield Sequel" listed and set for 2009.

And hey, just because Clover's dead doesn't mean another can't be born. After all - if Tagruato made it...they could make another. The first monster attack couldn't have hurt them (at least not very much) as they are based in Japan.

Xein said...

There are mutliple clovers
so if the baby is dead there is still mother father MABEY even brother/sister or mabey more!

but yeah it says ultimitly (like many others said) it basiclly says it eventually dies.

Also Maggie Tagruato didn't make it they awoke it. It is a 'natural' animal....thing

zinjak said...

Tag didnt make the monster because Tag is not thousands of years old like jj said the monster is, of course with this current statement of his im not sure i can really beleive anything he says because the message at the end of the film says its still alive, and leads me to beleive that clovie cannot be killed by conventional weaponry at all.
some one mentioned other famous monsters who die , king kong dies because other than being a large gorilla there is nothing particular amazing about him, godzilla was killed by an invention that could never exist in real life (oxygen destroyer) and since clovie is supposed to be more real life than fantasy i would say we cant kill clovie at all.

Patrick said...

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/2005/5/v44n1-briefs13en_10069.jpg

Jei said...

http://www.anon.org/images/deadWhale.jpg

This might even be the actual picture they used for the sperm whale in the background, without the photoshop'd bite and scratches. If it's not, it's at least the perfect angle to see that it's most certainly a sperm whale and not Clover's remains.

emanyalpsid said...

It seems like the idea of Clovie being a baby has been tossed around many times. Hasn't it been stated that Clovie isn't actually a baby, but in the 'child state of mind'?

jasund said...

Actually, I don't believe that we know Tagruato didn't make the monster. Although the "creature" may be thousands of years old, we heard Teddy tell Jamie that they "had made something or found something" on his recorded message to her. Since it appears that seabed's nectar does very strange things, it's not inconceivable that Tagruato did in fact "make" the monster. Or at least, modified in some sort of way.

Either way, it's inconclusive at best.

zizban said...

I guess if they dropped increasingly bigger bombs on it, it would get through, eventually.

Pinkhamster said...

I can't see why people trying to find so much leeway what Abrams said. He said: "Yes HE IS DEAD." He didn't say "yes he WILL ULTIMATELY BE dead." Such a statement would be meaningless because EVERYTHING ultimately dies.

Chris said...

I hope he's not dead. It kind of made me sad.

Hossenfeffer said...

On the DVD extras the guy who designed Clover said it was infact a baby.

Emily said...

emanyalpsid said...
It seems like the idea of Clovie being a baby has been tossed around many times. Hasn't it been stated that Clovie isn't actually a baby, but in the 'child state of mind'?


It has been stated by people here, but it's not correct. Director Matt Reeves has been quoted saying that Clover is a baby.

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10999

I'm actually a little bit heartbroken to find out that Clover is, in fact, killed by the bombs. Not that I doubted the military would eventually take him down, but still. Poor baby.

Brandon said...

Sequels Dennis? Not PREquels? Think about it, the backstory explained, Tag and all, maybe J.J. pulls a Tarantino? (Is that how you spell his name? 0.o)

Kabukiman said...

dude.. the pic of the dead things are sperm whales.. i promise.


http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?id=10069&aid=4720

That link takes you to my point.

Sperm Whales are found REALLY deep in the ocean.. their main diet is Giant Squid, which are really elusive due to the deep depths in which they live.

If Clover is Dead, then any sequel would HAVE to either be of another story from that night with more information revealed, or another story all together involving perhaps a larger version of Clover (mother?). Another theory would be of a prequel involving more of Tagruato/Slusho/Teddy and other characters maybe. Who knows...

We will all find out in time... we only have 4 years left til the world dies anyways, so they better make it quick! 12/21/2012 11:11gmt

Griffin said...

emanyalpsid said...
It seems like the idea of Clovie being a baby has been tossed around many times. Hasn't it been stated that Clovie isn't actually a baby, but in the 'child state of mind'?


On the DVD (I'll have to find the exact quote) it does say that Clovie is a baby. As such, he also has a child-like mind. I'll look for the part where they mention it.

Derek Brink said...

I had assumed that the guy in the article was referring to the ocean pics where the military is bombing the sea and then the water is red with blood. No idea why Dennis chose the whales (though it's certainly his right), or why all of you seem to have forgotten that that's not the only pic on 1-18-08.

Also, I love when directors/producers do that. "Yeah, he's dead." Practically saying, "You're all putting WAY too much time into this. It's just a *&^%&*% movie, and all you really NEED to know is on the screen!!!" :)

The fan-response to this ARG/movie makes me wonder what would've happened if the Internet had existed back when George Bailey sets down the wreath, then has it again in the next cut-away in "It's a Wonderful Life." Would we be over-thinking that and saying he clearly went through a worm-hole or something? :)

Derek Brink said...

Oh...and also...for the umpteenth time, the producers said the monster is "LIKE" a baby. Not that it "IS" a baby. It was a metaphor. It's just another way of saying it's a fish-out-of-water...and no...I'm not saying it's a fish. That's also a metaphor.

zinjak said...

i dont buy it, i dont think clovie can be killed. not by human weaponry anyway. i think clovie totally conquered manhatten and it is now his. other wise the message at the end of the movie is pointless.

maybe someday i will be proved wrong but i think JJ was yanking that guys chain. because the pics on 1-18-08.com are clearly clovies lunch not him.

you cannot kill the clovie...the clovie will live on!

(i actually take offense to him saying the monsters dead because i really like the monster and it makes me kinda sad if hes dead, and because it negates the message at the end of the film, which pisses me off)

emanyalpsid said...

Iighty, if it's coming from the DVD and the director, that would be more believable. Thanks!

Griffin said...

Derek Brink said... Oh...and also...for the umpteenth time, the producers said the monster is "LIKE" a baby. Not that it "IS" a baby. It was a metaphor. It's just another way of saying it's a fish-out-of-water...and no...I'm not saying it's a fish. That's also a metaphor.

For the umpteenth time, it’s been stated that the monster is, in fact, a baby. Read the production notes, page 15, second paragraph under "Building a Better Monster":

The concept for the monster (affectionately known simply as “Clover” in-house) is simple, says Abrams. “He’s a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.”

Notice he doesn't say "He's like a baby. It's like he's brand-new."

In this Neville Page interview (http://io9.com/357856/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-monster-designer-neville-page) the press notes are quoted in one of the questions, and he responds to them as if the monster were indeed a baby, not ‘like a baby’. It's even important to the monster's design that he's a baby.

The monster looks ungainly and J.J. Abrams has said in the press notes that it's a "baby". Was that also part of the design? For it to look a bit clumsy?
I would have preferred that it be even clumsier. But then it can get comical. Yes, it was the intention that it is a baby and it is not only developing its strength, but also its land legs. The proportions are intended to feel a little like a new born deer or horse. Long, thin and slightly awkward.


I’ll post in a little while about the DVD quote, once I relocate it.

Griffin said...

emanyalpsid said... Iighty, if it's coming from the DVD and the director, that would be more believable. Thanks!

Alright, here's the DVD quote. Watch “I saw it! It’s alive! It’s huge!” on the DVD. For an exact location: 3:56-4:23. And here’s the direct quote, from lead designer Neville Page.

It is an infant. It’s newly hatched, newly born. And all the pain that goes with something being exposed to a foreign environment and temperatures, and things and sounds and little pests, almost like ants… People. Having the knowledge that it was a baby really helped me understand a little bit more about what the creature would do.”

I think the reason that a lot of people believe the monster is only “like a baby” or “in a child-like state of mind” is that the monster is described as ‘frightened, scared, rampaging’ – it’s a huge animal that’s spooked. But it is still a baby – like a baby elephant that’s spooked.

Master Fetty said...

What I really hate about the baby jibe is the fact that everyone assumes he's looking for his mother.

How many kids ahs anyone seen who'd try and destroy a garden? I know I've never. But if they've been provoked...? It could be different.

Olivia said...

Hey, what about "It's still alive"? Was that a fake or what? Clover must be alive!

Griffin said...

Olivia said... Hey, what about "It's still alive"? Was that a fake or what? Clover must be alive!

It's entirely possible - perhaps probably - that Clovie survived the first movie (and the 'hammerdown'). The interview only says "ultimately" - not 'in the movie'. Ultimately means that eventually it will happen, in the 'end' (whenever that is - several sequels down the road?). All creatures, even Clovie, die.

Derek Brink said...

The "baby" discussion is, at best, inconsistant. In the same breath where he said, "He's a baby. He's brand new" he also said he's "BEEN DOWN THERE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS." Multi-thousand-year old baby? Ah...no. Then, months later after the Internet has its way with one off-the-cuff quote, they think to push the "fact" that he's a "baby." (Who actually says that on the DVD, btw? Was it a producer/director or was it an actor describing what the director said to give him "motivation?" I don't have the DVD yet. Birthday's at the end of this month, and I'm not desparate to have it...so it's on the birthday list.)

Either way, it doesn't really MATTER if it's a "baby." I don't think we're really supposed to feel sympathetic to the monster or think that somewhere it's mom is wondering why it isn't home from playing in New York yet. I think we're supposed to--y'know--feel for the humans who we saw for more than the like seven-seconds we saw the monster. I find the speculation that we'll be seeing the "mother" later kind of ridiculous and silly--and it's even MORE ridiculous and silly to me that people might be RIGHT about it. If that's where Cloverfield 2 goes, and there's some sort of PETA-vibe to it, you can pretty much colour the franchise "ruined" for me.

Monster movies are supposed to have you feeling relieved when the monster is dead...it's like how Star Wars tried to make you feel bad for Darth Vader by releasing the prequels...ruined Vader for me. Simple evil is ALWAYS more frightening than motivated evil. If the monster is sympathetic, then it's actions are cowardly and or childish (baby-reference not intentional). If it's just big, nuts, and destroying things because it wants to for no good "reason," THAT'S scary...and the monster's "age" is a moot point.

Of course, for me, a movie kind of begins and ends with what's on screen. The viral stuff is fun and interesting, but I really only think of what's in the actual movie as being "canon." ...so take that as you will.

Kottonmouth Kuntryboy said...

i remember readin that it said he was like a baby in the sense that he is experiencing our world for the first time confused scared. it was in the press notes. if they wanted to say he was a baby they would have said the monster IS a baby not compair it to one in a state of mind. this argument has been going on too long. if u go back and read it it says just that.

Jester17 said...

I'm sure it's inevitable that the monster will eventually be killed by the army. Of course J.J. didn't say when the monster will be killed. Clover could have been killed at that last moment we see in Central Park in the first movie and the sequel to the movie could be another group of people's perspective on the event. Maybe they will make another couple movies taking place after the initial attack from the first movie and Clover will be killed at the end of that. No one knows. J.J. doesn't even know yet. He said he has ideas but nothing's in stone.

With regards to the pictures on "the website", since when do whales have big spikes? I'm sure that could be Clover's fate eventually. and that "bite mark" looks too small to be from Clover so my best guess is that's just a small wound from an explosion of a missile hitting Clover. Who knows? Nobody yet, that's who.

Olivia said...

But Abrahms said that like in present time "Yes, he´s dead". O.O? Poor Clovie, I hope we'll meet him again or maybe his mommy. XD

SamSam said...

this might have been said already but I think Abrams was just playing with the interviewer's words. He said, "It looks like the monster is killed based on the pictures" (not exact quote). Abrams obviously knew he was talking about the whales, and so he sarcastically said 'the monster' does die in the bombing, now calling the whale 'the monster' based on what the interviewer said.

sgtrandolph said...

Ok ... english major has to throw in here. If we say Clover is "like a baby" then no, that is not a metaphor, it's a simile. If we say Clover IS a baby (meaning he's brand new to our world and fresh out of the womb of the deep ocean) ... THAT IS A METAPHOR. Besides, who the heck ever heard of a thousand upon thousand of year old baby???

Just a thought ...

And as far as the "evil" thing, it's an animal. It's not evil, it's just an animal. Evil would mean that it knew it was wrong to trash Manhattan and eat Hud, it just didn't care. Why did it bite hud? Maybe because the last few hundred meat sacks it came across were shooting at it and it sensed danger, or maybe because jumping up to grab that helicopter mid air left it with that gnawing sensation, and Hud looked like a big Snickers bar ... I doubt there was any moral dillema when it snapped down for a quick snack.

sgtrandolph said...

Forgot to click the email follow-up comments ... sorry bout that.

Dennis said...

There is an easy answer to how Clover could be a baby AND at the bottom of the ocean for 1000 years... he was in an egg, and "hatched" when he was disturbed by Tagruato.

dino said...

guys..youre trying to rationalize the outcome you want to happen.

"RS: But based on photos on the Website, it looks like the monster eventually gets killed by the army.
JJ: Yes, he's dead. Ultimately the bombs kill him."

clover is dead, not anytime in the future or down the road..but NOW. He is getting bombed at the end of the movie by the army and that kills him. I know it sucks but JJ clearly states this and makes it apparent.

JJ could have given an ambiguous answer if he wanted to like he did for the first question but he chose not to. He knows not everyone who saw the movie was following the ARG. Is he really going to lie to a major magazine for the sake of fucking with fans following the ARG? I doubt it.

Derek Brink said...

I'd like to ask again why everyone thinks the guy in the interview was asking about the whale-photo and not the military strike photos. He said that it looked like the MILITARY killed him, and what with the sequence of bombing and blood photos in the ocean, I'm not sure he was referencing the whales. Why is everyone focusing on THAT picture? Just because that's the one Dennis chose, or because it was the "last" one before the Hanssen photo? (And let's not forget that the pictures are in a non-sequential order, as evidenced by the party-photos...this guy could have been talking about any of the ones that seem to involve the military or destruction.)

Also, my "grammar" was not incorrect when I called it a metaphor. It could be referred to as either a metaphor or similie, since he didn't qualify it by saying "like." Had he said that, then yes, it wouldbe a similie, but he said one statement, then his next sentence (in my mind, anyway) drew attention to him making a comparison between a baby and the monster, which makes it possible to call it either a similie or a metaphor--and I chose the latter, completely based on word-preference. Also, you don't know that the monster ISN'T making rational decisions, or being led to do what it's doing (which is, unfortunately, what the manga seems to be indicating), so "evil" could also very well be the right word. I graduated from college years ago--so I'm kind of done receiving grades on the syntax of things I write, thank you very much.

Griffin said...

For those talking about thousands-of-year-old-babies, it's relative. If something lives for a thousand years, then it's technically a 'baby' for decades. If in Clovie 'universe' (where Clovie actually 'exists') all the Clovie monsters live for millions and millions of years, then technically they can be a baby for thousands and thousands. It's relative.

I think it's hilarious that we're arguing over the validity of a thousands year old 'baby' that doesn't even exist in 'our world'.

@Derek Brink: Now I can understand how we differ in opinion so greatly. I like 'villains' with shades of gray - pure evil is unrealistic and boring. Then again, I'm a story writer. I like characters with character - not just good or evil but somewhere in the middle, some shade of grey. And stories continue long before and end long after the screen time or the pages of the book. Take that as you will, as well.

I don't think a movie based on "Mommie" would ruin the idea of Cloverfield. Maybe for some who just don't like the idea. Tons of people said a monster movie from the viewpoint of a camera was 'silly and ridiculous', but that doesn't mean tons of others didn't enjoy it. There's so much to explore with the ideas presented in the viral marketing.

Returning to the whole true topic of this blog: Clovie's going to die. Whether he died in the hammerdown at the end of the movie or sometime later, 'the bombs' will eventually get him. It's inevitable.

sgtrandolph said...

Derek ... with all the pointless arguing and bickering going on about whether Clover was still wearing toddler clothes, which picture JJ is refering to and honestly, EVERYTHING ELSE folks are arguing about, I figured in my own way to point out the "absurdity" of it all ... unfortunately, you were the target of my sarcasm ... I apologize from the bottom of my little brown handbook ...

Jesus said...

Clover couldn't have been destroyed during Hammer-Down,then why did someone say,It's still alive?

Zaggs said...

Jesus, it may have something to do with him saying the Army killed Clover where as hammer down I was guessing was an Air Force mission. Perhaps chemical or biological warfare?
Or it could be he used Army as a generic term for military and perhaps Clover was not killed immediately after hammer down, but thats when the killing blow was struck and Clover died soon afterward.

Griffin said...

It's entirely possible, based off JJ's wording in the interview, that Clovie's still alive after the hammerdown.

Here's the actual quote:

RS: But based on photos on the Website, it looks like the monster eventually gets killed by the army.
JJ: Yes, he's dead. Ultimately the bombs kill him.


So, based on the photos (including the army bombing the water, maybe even the blood-stained ocean, and possibly the 'dead whale' pic), RS comments that it looks like the monster eventually gets killed by the army. Then JJ says (in reference to RS and the photos) - "Yes, he's dead." Not that he's dead at the end of the hammerdown, but that he's dead at the end of these referenced photos. "Ultimately" (ie, eventually), "the bombs" (probably the ones in the green night photo) "kill him."

That's my analysis.

Jesus said...

True...

sgtrandolph said...

one thing that bugs me. it's been assumed, but near as i can tell not CONFIRMED, that the events of the movie have transpired at this point in the ARG. if they have, how the heck are they keeping it quiet? i mean, if clovie, aka MPG, had eaten a small coastal village, i could understand, but not the BIG F'N APPLE ... if they have, and everyone in the ARG knows (including alyse), why didn't alyse mention it after seeing the usgx pics? she reacted more with disbelief, meaning a) the US gov't just spun the coverup of the century or b) manhattan hasn't been on the dinner plate yet ...

if manhattan isn't dead yet, then certain things start to make more sense.

1) alyse's disbelief in the pics and transcript.
2) the fact that we have news coverage about the very small chuai station disaster but none on the destruction of a major american city.
3) jj saying the monster is dead after the army bombs it may just be at the end of the movie, as assumed by the interviewer ... not really saying it is, but it's a possibility ... that was a lot of freakin ordnance ...
4) the possibility of teddy making an appearance in the movie, on the bridge i believe, which to my knowledge is still up in the air.

this just makes a LOT more sense to me ... it also points to the sequel possibly being a prequel or another story from the same night (possibly both) and answering a lot of the questions that the first movie didn't, such as where did this freakin huge THING that ate new york come from ... and why was it there ...

Griffin said...

I also believe it makes more sense if the attack hasn't 'happened' in the ARG yet, but like you said, it's not really been confirmed either way. I'm hoping that on May 22/23, there's some surge of information (hopefully this year and not next, since 'Saturday the 23' doesn't occur until '09).

If it hasn't happened yet, then yeah - Alyse's disbelief is entirely understandable. In 'her world', with (I'm assuming) all the other monster movies (King Kong, Godzilla) as well as new CGI effects in movies (from Jurassic Park to X-men to Pixar films), 'photoshopped' images pop up everywhere. Take for example the 'shark attacking a helicopter' image that appeared a few years back. It was a fake. Alyse would probably think pictures of the monster and parasites were just creations from somebody's mind - if the attack hadn't happened yet.

I don't know. Maybe it has, and for some reason they're not mentioning it. Or maybe it will happen soon. Though it does explain some things (especially sgtrandolph's four points) if the attack hasn't happened yet.

It'd be great to have some sequel explaining more backstory (though not in a boring way) - possibly using the Tagruato/Slusho/Tidowave stories. There's so much more to explore...

Jesus said...

Maybe it is after the attack,just that she escaped or somethin,idk.

Jesus said...

Probably she just survived the attack and doesn't talk about it since she's so distracted with finding her brother.

Danny-Punishment is due said...

I agree with griffin
to be honest i did the research before it came out then quit after i saw it.
my idea is that the monster, the fearful confused baby, was a missing egg. after it is dead, the mother, still searching for the, lost baby, is aware of whats above.
maybe something like that but i dunno.
also in the tidowave website, if someone didnt mention, the picture of the hands squeezing earth resembles the monster "clover"

Jester17 said...

What's with all this talk lately of a mother? That's got to be the worst idea ever. I'd be really pissed off if i went to a theatre to see the Cloverfield sequel and had to sit there for an hour and a half watching some pissed off mother monster seek revenge. JJ never even said Clover was a baby. He said Clover was like a baby confused about it's new surroundings,

Clover is simply an evolutionary or genetic mistake that made this creature grow over thousands of years and form into this big monster. Then he's suddenly awaken (possibly by tagruato drilling), he gets scared and confused and rages through New York unaware of what's going on or what everything is. Then Clover is attacked by the military which only adds to his confusion and anger. Eventually Clover is killed by the military, whether at the end of the first movie due to the hammer down or at the end of a sequel is undetermined. No one knows yet. End of story.

Fractaljinn said...

Wait! if Clovies a baby and hes the size of a freakin' skyscraper! HOW BIG WOULD HIS MOM BE!

Griffin said...

Not to bring this argument to life again, jester17, but JJ did, in fact, state that Clovie is a baby. Go read the production notes with your own eyes. It's on page 15, under "Building a Better Monster". Note that NOWHERE does ANY ONE state the monster is LIKE a baby.

In fact, if any of you can show a reliable source with JJ, Reeves, or Page (producer/creator, director, or lead creature designer, respectively) stating that Clovie is 'like' a baby, why don't you bring it up? Because all the quotes I've seen from these three state "He's a baby" - NOT he's "like a baby." The fact that he's a baby is even crucial to his design (I point you again to a Neville Page interview - kindly remember that he's the lead creature designer, so don't take his quotes lightly: (http://io9.com/357856/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-monster-designer-neville-page) .


Why can't anyone take evidence at face value? If all three of these people say that Clovie's a baby, then he's a baby. And this will probably play into some future sequel. If you don't like it, go create your own monster movie and stop complaining about how 'such-and-such' plot would 'ruin' Cloverfield. If done right, JJ and the others could make it work. If they don't do it right, it'll flop and everyone can get on with their lives.

Sorry if I seem rude, but I'm tired of all this useless bickering. Why can't anyone take what these three reliable sources have said? Where do they say 'like'? Maybe I'd be more prone to believe you if you could bring up a quote like that. After all, all reliable sources do indeed say "he's a baby".

Fractaljinn: it's possible that the mother wouldn't be very big compared to the Clovie of the movie. Everyone seems to think in terms of human baby-to-adult proportions, but the lead creature designer, Neville Page, stated that the baby is more like a horse or deer:
The monster looks ungainly and J.J. Abrams has said in the press notes that it's a "baby". Was that also part of the design? For it to look a bit clumsy?
I would have preferred that it be even clumsier. But then it can get comical. Yes, it was the intention that it is a baby and it is not only developing its strength, but also its land legs. The proportions are intended to feel a little like a new born deer or horse. Long, thin and slightly awkward.

(http://io9.com/357856/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-monster-designer-neville-page)
Have you seen a baby horse? It's almost as tall as it will be in adulthood, with awkward legs and awkward gait (note that Clovie in the movie is described in the above interview as 'clumsy').

Here's a picture of a mother and foal - the younger horse is still considered a 'baby'. Note that his legs are the same height as his mother's, and that he only has a little more growing to do to reach her height. (http://www.americazoo.com/kids/graphics/horse2.jpg)

Since Page used a horse as one of his examples, it's entirely possible that Clovies grow in a similar way. That they're born nearly as tall as their mothers, and their legs grow thicker and their bodies slightly larger.

Fractaljinn said...

Thank you griffin this ismuch better a visualisation now then before!

me said...

The funny thing is that all of you are arguing over conjecture!!! LMAO!!! no one knows the back story to cloverfield yet all of you are wasting energy over stuff that only neville, jj, and matt know. I say put it to rest already... so we know that ultimately clover will die. We DON'T know if it has a mother and we don't know if it has barely hatched... all we know is that there is only ONE - say it again ONE - monster at this point!

This is worse than the it's a lion debacle...

fr33thought said...

he could totally be telling the truth.. its supposed to be a 'baby' clover right? so that means there is a mom and/or dad (depending on if the creature is manmade or not).. all the reason for them to go on a chaotic rampage. the unclear timeframes make it interesting since cloverfield the movie doesnt take place til 09. so many possibilities it hurts...

sgtrandolph said...

Quite often in literature, the literal truth is not what you should really be focused on. Such is the same with the "baby" reference with Clover. Quite frankly, I could care less if it is or isn't a baby, and the argument here has gone beyond old. I find my answers to these immortal questions within the production notes ... I apply these answers to find the hidden truth to try to give light to it's true nature.

We can say Clover is LIKE a baby in how it stomped and stumbled through the big apple ... it's scared, annoyed, in pain, hungry ... choose your visual metaphor. We can say Clover IS a baby in that it is the birth (as I am certain JJ hopes) of a new legendary movie monster. I think this more than anything is his intent in presenting Clover as a child, a newborn.

“In the same way that ’Godzilla’ was about the anxiety of the nuclear age, and the atomic bomb and Hiroshima, the monster in ‘Cloverfield’ is a metaphor for our times and being able to find a way to approach those feelings without diminishing or exploiting them.” – Matt Reeves, Director, “Cloverfield”

Clover is the child of a new era. Much as TIDOWave may represent an extremist terrorist organization, perhaps not as infamous as some from today. Tagruato may represent the coorporations that seem to tighten their control of our daily lives ... I'm sure if we look at all the pieces in this light, we can probably see a lot of other similar possibilities that mirror our own world. These are the things I think we SHOULD be focusing on, not where Clover's wayward parents may or may not be ... I think that's where our answers will lie.

SO ... I propose that we end this silly and pointless debate ... there are clues that we are overlooking ...

"The nature of new, previously unforeseen threats to our way of life, has led to a new breed of monster movie that reflects not only the uncertainty of our era, but our sense of powerlessness in the face of such daunting obstacles."

So ... quit arguing, pick up a paper and become a student of current events. If we have the pulse of the world, this figuring out what exactly Clover is thing is gonna get a lot easier.

Just a thought.

If nothing else, I'm getting a little tired of watching you guys argue while I sit on the edge of my seat waiting for the next clue. It's killing my buzz.

sillentskills said...

I have two theories. 1.The green night-vision pictures.That could've been the hammer-down in affect.Those whales could've washed up sometime earlier and would've been tall, wet and gruesomes lunch, keeping in mind the pictures wern't released in cronological order. 2.Less belevable whales on beach were a failed attemp on clovers life and they were bombing the whales. Leaving clover to heal.

Jester17 said...

Even if Clover is a baby, the rest of my argument sticks. Why does Clover need a mother? That's just stupid and really destroys the horror of the movie. Then it would just turn into a story about a mother mutant seeking revenge over her dead mutant child. Stupid.

Mel said...

CS1503

i googled the fake permission denied form, after i did that i got a link w/ 1.18.2006 so i clicked it, bunches of dates came up with .cs files, i think ppl should check it out.

Midgard said...

@griffin - *claps* Bravo. I agree completely. I don't understand why people will take these random things and completely warp their intended meaning. If JJ said he's a baby, then he's a baby, why's that so hard?

Derek Brink said...

Meh...don't care if it's a baby, don't care if it's fully grown...but if the sequel is Baby Clovie's mom seeking revenge...well...I've see "Orca" and...uhh...no thanks. ;)

Derek Brink said...

Oh...also, I find anything to do with Mel's post. Link, anyone?

sadclown724 said...

Ok...a bit new to all this stuff, but I was reading the whole baby mother thing and this is my question.

I remember reading the possibility of baby clover could of been a sea creature that had some Kaitei no mitsu and turned into the monster. So...isn't it possible that the tagruato company with all of their scientists and what not were experimenting with Kaitei no mitsu and created baby clover? If this is the case, then baby clover could be the only one. Hence being a tad bigger than he would of naturally been he goes off searching for his mother. In reality he is baby clover. This leaves the possibility of him having a mother, but she is still the normal size.

Another possibility is that both the baby and the mother were experimented on. That there is a giant mother out there and she will eventually be pissed off because of the death of her baby son.

These are just some theories and I admit that they could be completely wrong...

RyanC said...

The whole "It's a baby" thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Didn't JJ also say that the monster had been under the ocean for 10,000 + years. To me that seems like a long time to be a baby, but maybe he meant the race of monsters.

Derek Brink said...

I get the sense that JJ said the "baby" thing and then they were suddenly stuck with it, so they ran with it. We're all WAY over-analyzing it.

sgtrandolph said...

Man, I could really see this being the end for now ... until they figure out which way they may or may not go with a sequel ... too many unanswered questions ... it's really gonna tick me off ...

And you're right ... this baby thing is a dead horse ...

Ddogg said...

I haven't been in this discussion, but from what I've seen, it's not over analyzing, but being overly repetitive and critical. Everyone's said the same things over and over, with a few good ideas here and there. Let's not keep focusing on what's right or wrong, but what could be.
Remember, JJ says they don't even know what they're doing for the sequel (so he says), because they're waiting for the best idea to come along. There are many good ideas, other video from the night, the mother coming to town, and of course the explanation of all the ARG and Kishin magna!

One idea I had personally, which I think would be very intense, is of the monsters progression, through multiple cameras and stories. The videos could connect later in the movie, but that would be traditional. A more intense version would have each video story, end with the monster killing the filmer. Then the video would start again from another camera, at around the same time, putting the sequence of the night in order, from many different perspectives, creating a kind of home movie of the event, from all the best available footage.

The mother sequel theory doesn't have to be as simple and stupid as some of you say. What if she was being controlled by that guy in the Kishin Magna, after the baby already escaped captivity. This could mean she was already on her way, and will discover the dead child, only making her more angry and scary.

During the helicopter shot in the movie, I realized how small clover seemed compared to the city. What if there was a mother that was much taller than any building in the city, now that would be a monster movie!

Griffin said...

sgtrandolph said... If nothing else, I'm getting a little tired of watching you guys argue while I sit on the edge of my seat waiting for the next clue.
You know, I’m sitting at the edge of my seat waiting for the next clue as well. To entertain myself, I signed up with Google so I could post as well. Honestly, all this bickering is ruining Cloverfield for me.

me said... We DON'T know if it has a mother and we don't know if it has barely hatched... all we know is that there is only ONE - say it again ONE - monster at this point!
“Me” – that’s the point of speculation. We take what we know, and try to expand theories, just like a fisherman tosses out his line hoping for the big catch. Sometimes we’re wrong. Sometimes, absurd as a theory may seem, we are right. What else are we going to do in the meantime? Be spoonfed new information without thinking what it may mean for the concept of cloverfield?

Jester17 said...
Even if Clover is a baby, the rest of my argument sticks. Why does Clover need a mother? That's just stupid and really destroys the horror of the movie. Then it would just turn into a story about a mother mutant seeking revenge over her dead mutant child. Stupid.
Derek Brink said...
Meh...don't care if it's a baby, don't care if it's fully grown...but if the sequel is Baby Clovie's mom seeking revenge...well...I've see "Orca" and...uhh...no thanks. ;)

Not necessarily, Jester and Derek. If there is a mommie out there, it’s unlikely she’ll take ‘revenge’.
Let’s say that Clovie is perfectly capable of defending itself even as a baby (which we have seen from the movie and how bombs and guns have little effect on it). There are plenty of animals out there (turtles, spiders, etc) who are born ‘knowing’ what to do – get to the ocean, build a web, etc. There would be no need to turn to mommie for help. And mommie, if she did come up at some point, wouldn’t be ‘seeking revenge’ – she’s an animal! Revenge is a human concept. Animals eat, sleep, breed, die. End of story. Then again, some animals will become ‘enraged’ when they’re trying to protect their child, but it’s not revenge.
If mommie came up, she’d likely do the same thing that baby did – wonder where she was and attack those things that attack back. Except it would be on a grander scale, and likely the military wouldn’t defeat her before she escaped the city and began destroying the rest of the USA.
You know, if all you guys want is to see some great monster destroying a city (eye candy), a bigger clovie whose even more immune to bombs may be just the thing you’re looking for.

Sadclown – I like your theory :)

I have one last argument for the “Clovie is a Baby” theory. I’d like to once again bring up a Neville Page quote. If you don’t remember, Page was the lead creature designer; he designed Cloverfield so that every single part meant something. (The fact that every inch of the monster has some purpose is mentioned on the DVD – I think in “I Saw It! It’s alive! It’s huge!”).
The monster looks ungainly and J.J. Abrams has said in the press notes that it's a "baby". Was that also part of the design? For it to look a bit clumsy?
I would have preferred that it be even clumsier. But then it can get comical. Yes, it was the intention that it is a baby and it is not only developing its strength, but also its land legs. The proportions are intended to feel a little like a new born deer or horse. Long, thin and slightly awkward.

(http://io9.com/357856/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-monster-designer-neville-page)
Let’s just say for a moment that the Baby is a Metaphor is true. This means that Page, who has a good purpose for everything in the creatures design (down to how the lungs work), is saying “I wanted it to look clumsy, like a newborn horse or deer with awkward proportions, because it is new on land.” Or – “I wanted to show it developing its strength and land legs, with its long, thin and slightly legs, because it’s a metaphor for the birth of a legend.”
I’m sorry, but both sound absurd. But maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe Clovie is a real baby.

snkbtho2 said...

I don't care of any of this.I just want a sequel whether the sequel has a monster or not.All that i want is a sequel

xFireflyx said...

Ok, if the second newest picture on 1-18-08 is in fact the monster, why the hell would they let people get that close?

You're the military, you just killed a giant ass new mutant monster that destroyed ALL OF NEW YORK. Now lets just let civilians (who were evacuated, btw, which makes the dead monster theory even more bogus) float on up and have a look.

You're telling me they wouldn't take anything and everything they could find back to a lab somewhere?

And seagulls? You're telling me SEAGULLS would be anywhere near an area that just got hit with a bomb big enough to BLOW UP MANHATTAN?

They're whales. It even looks like whales. End of arguement.

Jesse said...

i dont know if anyone else said this but maybe the "its still alive at the end is some one talking about rob. like they just found something in the rubbel and it starts moving leading to a monsterless sequel

Jesus said...

Jesse,if that happened,they'd be saying:He's still alive.

Nathan Strife said...

Has anyone put forward that maybe were looking at the wrong picture, and that he may be referring to that picture of something in the water getting the s*** blown out of it?

Stephanie said...

First "Clover" is an alien not something from the ocean. I do not think "Clover" is dead because at the end of the credits you can hear a stat icy radio transition saying "It's still alive" meaning that "Clover" is not dead. I think "Clover" came from another solar system fairly close to ours and a huge asteroid hit the planet. When it hit, "Clover" was on the opposite side of the planet shooting him of the surface into space. So he is probably the last of his kind, unless "Clovers’" mother survived, too. So if "Clover" did die his mother would come and kick military ass. If "Clover" didn't die a different monster would come and "Clover" would fight the new monster. As for the picture of this dead thing it is not "Clover". If you were to bring it up to full size you would see bite marks on it, It's not like "Clover" ate him self to death, and this thing is on a beach there are no beaches in New York City. So what ever it is it is not "Clover". Another thing, the reason the movie is called "Cloverfield" is because New York was where he made his first appearance to the world. Also the monster is named "Clover" because when those things on the sides if his head puff up his face looks like a big clover. I know that "Clover" is an alien because right before the credits when Rob and Beth are at an amusement park you can see "Clover" falling into the ocean off the coast of NY. If you don't believe me watch the movie (: