Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 3

Article revision

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

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

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

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

Cloverfield meaning

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

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

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

Actually, I think that site refers to the works of H.P. Lovecraft, which this movie has no confirmed connections to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.66.245 (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The source code of the home page at greatoldone.com list in the meta keyword section "cloverfield" so the author intends it to be connected. Though whether it's in any way official is speculation.Iandorman (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

One possible meaning I have pondered is this: When clover seeds blow into a field, they spring and often taking over quite rapidly. I've also noticed from infestations of clover in my own yard that they are nearly impossible to kill; if even a single fragment of the root is left it will usually regenerate, much like the monster, hence the designation "cloverfield." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.27.87 (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah it could have a few double meanings. one other idea is that is simply what they have renamed central park now that it has become an abandoned wasteland perhaps. the clover seeds make more sense actually but you never know. Madhatter9max (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or...cloverfield is the street where the party starts, given the location of the spring street station off the lex line. Was not impressed with the movie - its a bad ripoff of the old anthony edwards film 'miracle mile', substituting a monster for a nuclear war, but otherwise plot intact. Even the ending was darn near identical. Have producers no original ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaddriver (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

high 5 on that. it's miracle mile, meets godzilla, meets blair witch, meets 9-11, meets youtube. all compelling in their own way, and perhaps all together in one movie, if you're only watching it once. did anyone notice the parasite spiders made a noise like donald duck when he flips out? made me giggle. spoiler prevention: dont sit at the front of the theater, you'll get dizzy following all that scrambly footage.

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

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

Isnt the shape of an Atom bomb often referred to as a clover? Since the movie ends in a field in central park, the title could be refering to that scene. 71.33.38.221 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1/20/2008 JS

Add

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

the explosions at the end were most likely Fuel Air Bombs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grunberg involvement

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

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

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

Tagline

I added the tagline. I thought it was kind of important, but I see you've taken it off. Just wanted to say sorry about adding that. Beachdude0213 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why post an apology for something people didn't want in the article...? Fllmtlchcb (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nokia cellphone Advertisng

The movie showed varios advertising of Nokia cell phone products plus a huge poster when the trio were trapped underneath the Subway Nokia cellphone as the most used phone by both the main char and the extras —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.46.254 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Manga prequel?

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

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

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

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

already showing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the hell happened to the spoiler warnings?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viral website screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quickie consensus

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg

Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

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

Filmed on an SD Card?

Are we sure that all of the events are filmed on an SD card? The fact that the previous recording is being replaced linearly seems to indicate DCC or some other sequential medium was being used. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Meant to get rid of that bit as specifics like that are rarely verifiable. Unless someone knows for sure I just put "on a digital camera".Zelphi (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it said SD Card on the tag at the beginning of the film. ThuranX (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed. It is not necessarily a direction mistake; one may assume that either the handicam used an exotic recording scheme (very unlikely), or there was some in-story mislabeling in the starting segment, or for some reason the SD card is (or includes) a copy of the original recording medium. Luis Dantas (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely a digital tape camera. Michael and JJ explain in the bonus on the DVD that the flashes are due to the camera’s mechanical mechinisms.

The SD card reference at the beginning is because the military has transferred the video from the tape they found to a card for their files. That’s why there is all of the other classification data shown in those screens.

Besides, Rob asks Hudson if he “switched out the tape”. If it were a card, he would have said card instead of tape. Unlike the verb tape which is used as a synonym for record whether on tape or not, the noun is not interchangeable. Synetech (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

This may be unrelated to Wikipedia policy, but does the Reception section really need so much negativity? It seems as if the criticism is very fleshed out and detailed, and the positive aspect is much more sparse in comparison. I propose removing some of it for the sake of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.86.22 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? That section doesn't really seem negative to me. Indeed, much of the bad press the film has been getting is because of the shaky camerawork and the 9/11 subtext, but that's really all that I see that's negative. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Might also be that it's easier to negatively criticize a film than to positively criticize it. It's not as easy to dig out of a review why someone liked it as opposed to disliking it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it got bad reception for it's apparent terrorism feel (bull****), but do we really need lots of different sources just repeating the same stuff? Just because it's easier to find negativity, it doesn't mean we should include as much as we can.

Basically, it appears more like some random guy has decided to use wikipedia as a way of badmouthing the film, rather than creating an actual informative section. (Evidently not the case, but that's its appearence) 195.137.86.22 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation A OK!

For a movie like this, what the makers really want is a bunch of speculation, a "Vantage Point" dealie if you will. in brief cases like this, speculation is fine, once they release an official statement on certain matters we'll change it to whatever they say. so why don't we put the definate plot seen in the movie and have a speculation section on the page listing the other possibilities of any parts with multiple valid reasonings.76.27.215.219 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We could use this in instances like with the transmission at the end. in the plot line we say a transmission plays at the end. in the speculation part we list the possibilities of what it actually said. same goes for the thing that falls in the ocean. anything else people can't agree on we should list there. a film like this is built on speculation and we need to adjust for this one movie.Madhatter9max (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. That would violate tons of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. We do not carve out an exception to core policies just because the creators of a movie chose to be vague in the telling of their story. Pairadox (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it's against their policy which is why I brought it up. I just figured it would be more efficient to have a section stating the alternate possibilities. With wikipedia everything has to be in black and white simply because most movies already have an explanation and back story. with this film there really is no long "star wars"-like back story already thought up. it's not like we're going to see that further on their trip to coney island the monster comes out and smokes a cigarette, therefore making our information dreadfully misleading. what's wrong with a speculation warning like a spoiler warning, so they know not to bond too deeply with these facts? I think the amount of lives lost when we post a speculation warning will be worth it. 76.27.215.219 (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

if we're not going to list what the transmission might have said then don't list it at all. it's pointless to say: there's sounds at the end. if we have a bunch of people agreeing with top 2 choices for what it said, I think it's a reliable enough source and not some sort of devastating flaw that will leave millions emotionally scarred because it didn't say "it's still alive" backwards. 76.27.215.219 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without a list of what the transmission said then it should not be included at all.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Connection between Cloverfield and LOST

At the start of the Cloverfield movie,u can see that there is a Dharma symbol on the screen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.109.1 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a connection between the date the monster attack and the date of the LOST passenger plane crashed

I think information on that should be added somewhere, I saw it too. 142.167.225.156 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Prolly an easter egg guys - same director and all that. I doubt there's a tie in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.33.120 (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it could just be an easter egg, but there is another one. The date the movie came out was January, 2008, or 1/08. 108 is the sum of the numbers on Lost. 24.105.193.227 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It also appears for a single frame in the commercial for "Now on DVD". Seems odd if it was only meant as an easter egg. --Buddy13 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How about giving the sequel its...

...own page? Why not? I mean, it IS going to be made! IMDB or whatever has a page for it, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.158.29 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. But that's IMDB, not Wikipedia. If the sequel had a lot of relevant info (ex. take a look at the 28 Weeks Later Sequel] spot) it doesn't need it's own page until a lot of good info comes in. Or maybe if I'm mistaken. But it doesn't need one right now.Nocarsgo (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The guideline for pending film sequels is to not create it's own page until principle shooting has begun. This is covered in WP:NFF. If a separate page is created, it almost certainly be deleted/remerged. Also see WP:CRYSTAL -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I can summarize the sequel page if it had one right now:

This is the sequel to the 2008 monster movie cloverfield. The end. There is no need right now.--Kondrayus (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Use this section of this talk, if needed, to begin building a case for that new page by listing citations that matter here. Once you've got five or six good solid separate citations, including the 'this project greenlit by studios after fully signed contracts', then we can go live. I'm not any sort of fan of future film pages going live when they're nothing but crystal ball pages. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DVD release.

Can anybody provide a source for this? BeeTh 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything about it. I would like to know where this info came from too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/Hellflyer2 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well now Paramount has confirmed it. Search it or email them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.185.79 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Video Game

Was not Brad Johnson's idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.64.90 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I would Like to add this section is one of the Few sections that has no cited sources. I really want to keep this area of the Article As I added it to the Template on the Bottom. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the video game should be in the article. As much as I would like a cloverfield game, no one besides Brad Johnson has given us information about this game.--Kondrayus (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Woolworth Building

After the Statue of Liberty head falls on the street, the creature walks through downtown again, eventually leading to the collapse of the Woolworth Building. For some reason, one poster on Wiki keeps changing it the Empire State Building (which is located in Midtown, completely different in direction and nowhere close to the creature, Statue of Liberty, or the group.). In fact, I could've swore I saw the Empire State Building in the background as they were walking on the Brooklyn Bridge later on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It waz the ESB That was knocked down. They were in in midtown. You need to get your eyes fixed er somethin cuz it was the ESB. Blue Laser (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BlueLaser, this is a place to discuss, please keep personal attacks to yourself. The first half of the movie takes place downtown (they're by the Brooklyn Bridge, Spring Street Station, etc.) If they were in Midtown, you'd have several building in Union Square and Madison Square blocking the view of downtown. Please refer to http://bp2.blogger.com/_b2IPhbZ-aiw/Rpohx86vloI/AAAAAAAAAD4/QOuos9LEzh0/s1600-h/Buildings.jpg - the building is identified as the Woolworth Building. If you have any way to back up your claim, please show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link on additional references to the Woolworth - in fact, there's a brief discussion by one person who thought it was the Empire State: http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2007/07/401-broadway-found.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC) fine. Blue Laser (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible 2 or 3 monster?

There are many proof that shows there are more than 1 monster.

-You can see that when the monster tail that struck the Brooklyn Bridge is clearly large than the other shot of the monster.

-When the camera shows the head of Statue of Liberty crashing down and the other shot shows the monster leg just a few blocks away,its clearly shows that there are more than 1 monster.Why?Because how can the monster throw the head of SOL that is in the middle of the sea and than appear down the streets a second later?

-Also,when Hud is killed by the monster,why cant they notice the monster arrival?The ground also didnt shake when the monster come by.The only conclusion is that the other monster that killed Hud and not the one that wreck the city.The other monster just come out from the sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.150.124 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Only conclusion? Only speculation. You cite no sources, and if its "CLEARLY" another monster, I'm pretty sure Abrams would mention it. This belong in forums, not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.200 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Cloverfield Monster page Talk. I think it was there. But Abrams confirmed somewhere it is one monster, and it kept exactly the same size. The view point is the only thing that makes it appear larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.28.221 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well,look at the screenshot of Cloverfield at CloverfieldClues.You can clearly see that the first monster has a brown skin while the second one has green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.150.217 (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculation still! Abrams confirmed one monster, and in the movie they NEVER mention more than one. Your reaching for something thats not there.

Abrams did not say there was only 1 monster.He might refer to 1 type of monster or 1 species of monster.Besides,Abrams say that the monster is still a baby,so the other monster might be their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.149.213 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And now your saying might, which is still speculation. I'm going to stop arguing this now because your still reaching out blindly with speculation and no proof. Go to a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.124.243 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he meant 1 type, he would have said 1 type. The first monster was brown because of the lighting.--Kondrayus (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor is speculating based on a personal experience viewing the film. It's not enough to support altering the article, and would require significant Reliable sourcing to include. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever consider that the monster tore the head of the statue, walked onto land, then threw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.240.174 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Poster Info

Why can't the information about the poster posted be kept in the article? A hidden image of the monster is hidden in the clouds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngin211 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anywhere else you can place it? I removed it because it was one bit of info under a trivia section, which generally shouldn't be used per Wikipedia:TRIVIA. If you can find a section in which the poster info would add meaningful substance to the article, then feel free to put it back in (with your sources etc :)). PeterSymonds | talk 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I will try to find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngin211 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield sequel

Another picture has been added to www.01-18-08.com ,viral marketing of cloverfield 2 begins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.79.212 (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well,my answer is YES.Go to http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/ to find the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.63.58 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

King Kong Frames

If you freeze frame towards the end, after Cloverfield knocks the helicopter out of the air, there is a frame of the original King Kong movie during the camera glitches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.88.36 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of this on many forums with picture evidence. If anyone could find a official referrence, I'd add this somewhere. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, stabby!:P http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2008/04/dvd-easter-eggs-monsters.html

Help any? It also mentions that Target is selling the Part Mix, so you might want to add that. I'm not sure if it counts as an "official" source, though... Godzilla's Heir 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Where would we even put it however? Stabby Joe (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section, maybe? Wait, do we even have one? Godzilla's Heir 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't as they're discouraged. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I quit donating my $500 a year to Wikipedia over nonsense like this. King Kong, The Monster From 20,000 Leagues and Them! are all cited in the credits. There are 3 Easter eggs in the film where those 3 monsters are visible. If any of you self important internet Gods want to come over for dinner, I'll show them to you in the disc while the lasagna is in the oven, since apparently ya'll are too busy to actually watch the movie itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.4.76 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and its The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms BTW. We know when Kong appears, what of the other 2? Stabby Joe (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Monster vs. satellite

Requested citation for "satellite falling" bit near end of plot summary. Seems ridiculous to me. "Object" falling from outer space seems more reasonable than the complicated "satellite for Rob's company crashing and releasing toxic waste and giving birth to/awakening the monster" explanation. One question: why the hell would a slushee company need a satellite? - Jombage (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other viral websites (cloverfield related) talk about a satellite falling from orbit. It's not a space alien. Abrams has referenced it coming from the ocean. it's only been talked about on every forum including this talk page.

But Wikipedia is NOT a forum. We require good citation. There IS an object. Whatever the fan theory du jour says, however, we need citation, not guesswork here. ThuranX (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The "slushee" company is owned my Tagruato, a deep sea drilling company. Tagruato was using their new satellite to help locate a part of a Chinese government satellite that fell from orbit into the atlantic ocean. I am not doing any guess work. http://www.tagruato.jp/headlines.php?story=news_08_01_03

Here is a link to a interview with Abrams and Reeves. Abrams states "And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years." http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/09/cloverfield-building-a-better-monster/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NO. The movie does not call it a satellite, nor do we have Abrams or one of the movie creators on record saying, "that thing falling from the sky off Coney Island is a satellite". Anything less is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. (As well as wildly unimportant in a plot summary) --Knulclunk (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically, but the Tagruato site clearly states that a chunk of the Japanese satellite ChimpanzIII broke off and fell into the Atlantic ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the Tagruato site was fictional....?--Knulclunk (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I heard the rest of the movie was, too. Shhh, don't tell anyone. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if thats the case this section should be rewritten.

"At the end of the closing credits, a short radio transmission is played, in which a voice which sounds like Rob's whispers, "Help us." When the clip is played backwards, the voice says "It's still alive."The events may be continued in Cloverfield 2."

It's not a debate over whether the it's a satellite or the monster itself or whatever else. Such speculation has no place in the plot summary as stated above. The fact of the matter is: all we see is some kind of object falling and splashing down. Wiki provides the information, the rest is up to the reader. - Jombage (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Radio Transmission

"a voice whispers what sounds like "Help us" but is actually saying "It's still alive" backwards." Is there a credible citation for that?

i don't know probably the movie Craig Sniffen (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the DVD audio commentary, the voice was none other than that of director Matt Reeves. However, after listening to the sound clip on YouTube, I've come to the conclusion that the clip is intentionally garbled. After listening to it normally several times, I couldn't figure out if he was saying:

1) "Help us."

2) "Help me."

3) "Now what?"

or,

4) "They all watched."

It was too garbled for me to make out with certainty what was being said. Now, after listening to the clip backwards, I came away with only two feasible conclusions about what was being said:

1) "I'm still alive."

or,

2) "It's still alive."

Once again, it was still too brief and garbled for me to clearly figure out what was being said either way. I came away thinking that this was an intentional step on Reeves' and Abrams' part, just so that the gate would still be open for a sequel if the film was a success. The clip seems to have been inserted at the end for the sole purpose of keeping us guessing. -- Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. First of all, the message (and this is OR) is a pretty blatant backwards masking of "It's still alive". Anyone reading anything into the clip as played normally is just having their mind play tricks on them. But what really puzzles me is: What does the audio clip have to do with a sequel? A sequel will be made if the producers deem it will make them money. It is in no way contingent upon any "door left open" in the original movie. Bulbous (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you guys constantly removing the "Help Us" part of the message? Look gee wizz guys, the clip OBVIOUSLY says "Help Us" when played forwards:

I can give you as many opinions as you want, and if you're still not convinced, I'll scour around for a more official source.

• Youtube clip #1
• Youtube clip#2
• I can give you Youtube clips all day
• cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com As much as YTMND is not an official source

How can you NOT think it says "Help Us"?--Little Jimmy (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the references you just gave. They're mostly a bunch of nobodies from YouTube. There are no "official sources" because the message does not say "Help Us" - and it doesn't even remotely sound like it does. Not even close. Bulbous (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you realise that there is no "official source" that when it is played backwards it says, "It's still alive" either. Why do you think it isn't okay to mention it says "Help Us" when it isn't 100% audable, but you think it is okay to have "It's still alive" when it's even more dubious. If you don't want us to say "Help Us", we shouldn't be allowed to say "It's still alive" either.--Little Jimmy (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Perhaps the reason that "Help Us" was removed was because it is a minority opinion, and the audio sounds nothing like those words. However, "It's still alive" is a widely-held view, and it is quite clear on the reverse audio. However, you are correct in that *both* claims are not properly referenced and can be removed. Bulbous (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Love J"

Is this old news? On the 1-18-08 dot com photos, once you find all three of the main pictures, you can shake the mouse on them and reveal a message ..."Don't Forget Who Takes Care of You

-Love J"

After this is revealed, flipping more reveals

"Robbie, Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!! I'm gonna miss the hell out of ya!!

Love, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.233.112 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.

S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.233.112 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article?

I really think that this article would met wiki's requirements for featured article. It's really complete and clarifying! MakE (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the article is very engaging and well-written, I think FA articles are required to be "stable," and I don't think this article is exactly "stable" enough to pass. But, hey, I could be wrong... Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

priority scale

what do you guys think? I can't imagine that this would get a low grade, but I don't know, a lot of people may not think Cloverfield is "important". Cloverfielder (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

F/A 37 Talons

after the chopper crash outside the city, it would appear that f/a 37 talos fly into the city. They at least appear the same as the planes from Stealth. plz comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.167.234 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think identifying the military hardware used is original research and fan cruft and has no place in a plot summary.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Austrailan Attacks

i think the 6 IGN videos about australia being attacked should be added to the cloverfield page somewhere (Link http://au.media.dvd.ign.com/articles/873/873598/vids_1.html) --58.179.224.146 (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete Soundtrack?

It says there's a complete soundtrack on iTunes but I could only find Rob's Party Mix and Roar! -70.51.59.140 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Soundtrack

The soundtrack article is just a stub, and would boost this article with its very small content. It would mean one less Cloverfield article, so closer to a featured topic, and would centralize the content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield userbox

I was bored and decided to create a user box for this film. Anyone who likes it can copy and paste it to their user page. Be aware that this is my first attempt at an userbox, so if you feel like tinkering with it (particularly the pic, which admittedly doesn't seem to fit well), please feel free!

50px|Cloverfield

This user realizes that something has found us.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgins of Clover

I was just checking out the links, and I noticed that there are drilling platforms near Japan and on the mid atlantic ridge ([2]) Should this be noted as a possible orgin of Clover? Some Semi-Random Dude (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ign" :
  • {{cite news | author=Scott Collura | url=http://movies.ign.com/articles/841/841636p1.html | title=Exclusive: ''Cloverfield'' Director Speaks! | publisher=[[IGN]] | date=[[2007-12-14]] | accessdate=2007-12-22 }}
  • {{cite news | url=http://movies.ign.com/articles/801/801593p1.html | title=It's Alive: 1-18-08 | publisher=[[IGN]] | date=[[2007-07-05]] | accessdate=2007-07-10 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic "Special Effects"

Suprised this article does not have a criticism section. The most pathetic part IMHO, is the clearly wrongly scaled head from the statue of liberty. Even Escape From New York managed to get something that was at least in the right ballpark for size!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

? Are you sure? It sure looks like 10'x17' to me. Do you have a published source that says otherwise? --Knulclunk (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Fate of New York

Just curious... am I the only who heard the line about letting Manhattan "go" was "if we have to?" IOW, at that point, they stop worrying about collateral damage and bring in the big guns, not that they LITERALLY level all of New York City? It would utterly idiotic and impractical to think the government would be suicidal enough to annihilate the country's, if not the world's, leading city when Clover was finally confined just to Central Park. Not to mention how many air strikes that would entail to destroy everything on the island. The commentary and the movie itself suggest that the explosion seen at the end kills the monster, and it was obvious conventional since the camera survived and Rob and Beth managed to talk for a moment. As far as I could see, it was a MOAB or saturation bombing that finally killed Clover, certainly not a nuke.--Brad Rousse (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

question for new yorkers

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

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

Thanks. I have found it. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- commons- es)} 12:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I took this picture from the Brooklyn Bridge in Fall, 2005: [3]. Difficult to see at this size, but the black pillar-shaped blur middle-left is the Statue of Liberty. I was still on the Brooklyn side though, but as previously mentioned, there is line of sight from the East once you get a third of the way down the bridge.

FWIW, this is the link to the image. I don't know if it changed over time, but you can make out the SoL. Booglamay (talk) - 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image

Hello, I removed Image:Cloverfeildcloseup.png because there needs to be critical commentary tied with the use of such screenshots; see MOS:FILM#Non-free images. Plot description is just that; it cannot provide critical commentary on itself, and no editor can personally add theirs because it is original research. Thus the need for reliable sources. Also, regarding excessive use, WP:NFC#Unacceptable use under Images, #5, says not to use "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)." There is already an image used at Clover (creature), so this applies. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the long, lit section from Hud's POV is really the first good look at the creature. Clover (creature) is a different article and that image serves a different purpose there. Besides, that article is crap. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Real source critical commentary has been added. This shot is the POINT OF THE MOVIE. We will find more sources if you insist. Please don't WP:Edit war over this. Let's discuss here, other editors are welcome.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the citation, it looks like you're referring to, "In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film." I suppose this could work, but it is a little flimsy. First of all, the Plot section is intended to complement the real-world context in the rest of the article body, so it is not usually a good idea to complement a complementary section with non-free images. MOS:FILM#Images says, "Since a film article's 'Plot' section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." Maybe a compromise we could have is to add James Berardinelli's review to "Reception" and quote him directly about the creature, and move the image to that section. That would fit the MOS. It's a little lower in the article body, but I think would solidify its placement a little. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a second look. The slow revelation of the creature is mentioned in several reviews, it's revelation a factor of the film more than the creature itself. I agree that we should find additional (less flimsy) citations. I think the image location works well in-line with the plot, as long as commentary is in the article it should be fine. If the image is moved lower, its caption might read; "The monster as revealed at the end of the film." I suppose in a perfect article, the plot would be 1/3 of it current size anyway... --Knulclunk (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue with having the image in the Plot section is that the critical commentary is clearly pigeonholed in what should be a basic description of the primary source per WP:PSTS. My experience has been that images don't belong in Plot sections, period. It conveys the impression that you could pick any kind of screenshot as long as it is touched upon in the plot description. (Another minor issue is that Plot sections usually lead the article, and images on the right side will be pushed down the infobox.) See Fight Club (film) as a personal example of how I try to use non-free images. I think that it works better to have the images with the sections that have real-world context. I'm not going to push the specific placement for this article, though... but if this article is going to become a Good Article or Featured Article someday, the change may need to be made. Regarding the size of the Plot section, yeah, it could be shorter... I've seen the film, and I really don't think that it has to be detailed that much. Just enough has to be conveyed to understand what went on in the film, not necessarily replicate the viewing experience. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Cloverfield Monster

Although it has been a while since the release of Cloverfield, I think showing a picture of the Cloverfield Monster is a BIG spoiler if people haven't seen it yet. Part of the movie was the mystery of the monster after all. ---- Iconic_D

I tend to agree. Lots42 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a movie review site. It is not the job of Wikipedia to avoid spoiling movies.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I still think it's possible to have a good promo picture for the movie without showing the monster. Why not an image of the headless Statue of Liberty, like the DVD case? Plus, there is already an article on the monster itself, said monster image can go there. Lots42 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

synopsis

Knulclunk removed this :-

(This is, however, many days before the start of the film and shows the two main characters on Coney island before they meet again at the start of the party).

his reason was "i dont think this is right"

well it is right so i have put it back

opening sequence dated "APR 27 6:41AM" (1min30secs into film) shopping before party dated "MAY 22 6:43PM" (3min58sec) party scene start dated "MAY 22 7:20PM" (5min16sec) end seq (fairground) "APR 27 6:17PM" (1hr13min14sec)

and don't edit this out again thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Chaosdruid but please assume good faith on edits from other editors. Also, capital letters help in ease of reading. Thank you. Lots42 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Monster movie vs. science fiction

I checked through the archives, but didn't find any discussion of this. What exactly makes this a science fiction movie beyond the possibility that the monster might be an alien? MFNickster (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ok - science fiction is generally regarded as being Definitions_of_science_fiction. as for cloverfield, this would fall under several categories of definition, science fiction, speculative fiction or science fantasy

First it involves creatures that are not actual beings of this planet. (One thing important to remember is that there is not just one monster in this film, there are two. those little things falling off the large creature are the ones which make it scary - they are the ones that hunt people and bite them.) - It does not have to be an alien to fall into science fiction, merely a creature that is not really in existence (thus being alien to our world not necessarily from another world).

Secondly it takes a known timeline and puts things into it which did not happen, thus creating a timeline which did not happen

there are other definitions which might apply, namely science fantasy or merely fiction, but we could say that these are subdivisions of science fiction, not necessarily seperate ones. Science fantasy would normally mean something which is impossible put into a work - take for example the Stargate series, here lots of science fiction is mixed with believeable fantasy such as magic and ascendant beings and thus would be called science fantasy whereas goblins and elfs and magic are not - The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are fantasy rather than science fantasy and so it is the mix of science fiction and fantasy which matter.

purest sci-fi is now termed "Hard sci-fi", here scientific reality is taken forwards and no element of fantasy would be allowed. Many older novels would probably fall into those categories now even though they were not previously. Jules Verne wrote of men being fired at the moon out of a cannon, in those days science fantasy - now probably hard science fiction, the only real difference being we fire them there on the end of a huge rocket. frankenstein for example, when written it would have been science fantasy, now we know that you can take my liver and put it in you along with most of my other organs, you can cut off my hand and put it onto your leg in place of your foot things which were imagined are now possible, making it science fiction rather than fantasy

in conclusion i would say that there is enough science fact and reality mixed with "believable science" to include cloverfield as science fiction

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost

who else thinks the two might be taking place in the same universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.101 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Me, but to be fair, this ain't the kind of forum for speculation like this. Lots42 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

88.111.72.29

Hi

I see you have deleted two edits from the Plot section

Normally i would let these go, but the first deletion is part of the plot.
The second deletion may well be better suited to a different section, but it would have been better if you had moved it rather than completely removed it !

This page is for discussion, which is preferable to slash deletion

I will not cite you for vandalism unless you return and do this again

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To Chaosdruid; it is unclear to whom you are talking about, but removing information is not always vandalism. 'Sides, one is supposed to assume good faith, no matter how odd an edit may or may not seem. This page, the one this text is on right now, -is- for discussing various issues related to the main article page. As in, please elaborate your concerns so they can be addressed. Lots42 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet meme?

I know of no reason why this article should be included in Category:Internet memes (such a connection is certainly unmentioned in the article itself), so I've removed it. -- Darthsco (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• You don't recall the HUGE viral campaign in the months before release? --Brad Rousse (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I don't myself. But many movies do such a thing. Do corporate advertising attempts really qualify as a meme? Companies are free to make silly webpages, that doesn't mean they will catch on. Lots42 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound clips

I think we need some citations for the post-credits sound-clips bit. Lots42 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

yes. Like from the production team.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Large object falling from sky?

In the background, a large object can be seen falling from the sky and landing in the ocean.

I don't see any large object falling from the sky in the background of the final scene. This looks like something that should be deleted.--Susurrus (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it happened. :) Check this out. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality of the Youtube clips for this scene suck badly, but on the DVD you can clearly see the object falling and the resulting splash. Coradon (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Marketing! Marketing!! Marketing!!!

Can anyone scream Marketing??...the marketing company for the film/production company has their finger prints over this this page...abd that's for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.189.126 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: Mockumentary???

Currently, this article is categorized as relating to a mockumentary film. I feel this is an incorrect classification as Cloverfield fails to meet the primary criteria of the mockumentary style, namely a fictional and humorous film in the documentary style. Certainly Cloverfield attempts to emulate a "found tape" aspect of realism, but it fails to expand this into the realms of discourse characteristic of documentary. Plus, it's not funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.146.71 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the mockumentary bit. Lots42 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is the voice of Clover? Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no voice of clover. Its just generic sound effects. Also, i have noticed some errors with the end, about what satellite fell into the ocean and other things. I will change these immediately. Zamtam, 4:37 pm Gmt 10+

Sequel

So, the sequel is finally 'in development', huh? Have been waiting for ages to hear another rumor rise =/ Wouldn't really be surprised if the movie would have been finished in secret already and is going to air before summer |D *praying* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.91.62 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bleeding

An anonymous editor keeps editing the article to read that "Marlena begins to bleed profusely", contrarily to the previously existing text: "Marlena's eyes start bleeding". She actually doesn't bleed that much, and what's actually relevant is that she bleeds out of her eyes, so please stop reverting to your text. --uKER (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion that she "doesn't bleed that much" and "what's actually relevant". At this point you have at least two editors opposing your opinions, the editor whose original wording you changed, and now mine. Please wait for consensus before reverting again. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:REVERT, "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." My edit, which happened quite some time ago, was never challenged until you showed up, so being you the one who established the dispute, the article is to stay as it was unless you reach consensus for the change to be made. Don't revert "due to no consensus". Also, your argument for claiming consensus on your side is a blatant fallacy: whoever wrote the text that was there before I edited it never showed up to say they didn't agree with my change, so that makes just you challenging the current text. --uKER (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Reeves on object falling from the sky

Debate has arisen concerning this paragraph. I removed that information since first of all, the first sentence about Reeves acknowledging the object is irrelevant since the object is evident and is duly described in the "Plot" section. Then the next sentence, the one describing the object's relation to the Japanese satellite and the events in the film, is above all things unsourced, but it is also redundant since these facts are described at much greater detail in the third paragraph of the "Viral tie-ins" section, and sourced while at it. --uKER (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity in quoting reviews

The uniformly positive nature of the quoted reviews is at odds with the variety of mixed reviews which exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.87.70 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Terminolgy consistency

I altered two phrases in the first paragraph of the summary to make them more consistent with the rest of the article. The original wording represented the source material as being a 'file' from a 'digital camcorder'. Since the film's interludes are based around later tapings overwriting a previous video, neither of these phrasings are appropriate. A 'file' based camcorder would not have overwritten segments. Also the term 'digital camcorder' is overly specific. The phrase 'video camera' is more generic and would encompass both digital and analog video taping systems. Additionally, I used the term 'personal' to emphasize both the point-of-view of the recording and the pretense that the camera was not a professional grade camera. --RossO (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebar

I don't remember Beth and the rebar bit at all... Lots42 (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Slenderman spamming

Who's the idiot who spammed with Slender Man stuff, Slender Man is a fictional character for the Something Awful forum contest, so just be real who you are. --Wikieditor14 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Strange sound" YouTube videos

Aside from the Slusho, etc. marketing, wasn't the series of videos posted to YouTube in 2009 allegedly featuring strange noises from the sky heard around the world also a tie-in? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Parts of the 'Plot' Section Sound Wrong and Out of Place

The Plot section of a film's Wikipedia article should have a single, simple goal: To tell the reader what happened in the movie.

Anything more than that seems as if it does not belong. For example, take these three sentences:

If you look at it again it looks like a soldier shooting one of the parasites. If you look even more close and pause at the flash, it shows an image of King Kong holding a plane on top of the Empire State Building. This could be a clue to a sequel or it could just be an Easter egg.

These things do not happen during a viewing of "Cloverfield." A person watching the film in a theater cannot "pause at the flash" and "look even more close." (Yes, of course, a person at home could -- but what does that have to do with the plot of the movie?)

Speculation about sequels and/or Easter eggs also do not belong in the discussion of the plot of a film.

These sentences should be removed from the 'Plot' section. They simply do not belong.—108.9.50.18 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I laughed out lout while reading your excerpt. Thanks for reporting it. I just removed that part. BTW, next time, feel free to make the edit yourself. That's what Wikipedia is about. Thanks for helping. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Backstory in progress

This film is heavy on backstory and viral marketing, will try to simplify and also I ask everyone to help with details that are still missing.

Not certain what the “Backstory” section included in the article is about. It’s not clear how the material mentioned bears on the movie as seen, nor from where it comes (presumably viral marketing?). There is no suggestion that the monsters have any connection to the Japanese corporation, their products, or even their space exploration, so why is that “backstory”? Talking about a “raft shot” without telling us that there is ever a raft is also confusing. Without explicit citations to link the detail of the movie, it can’t really be treated as back story at all, just a sequence which shows that monster attacks happen elsewhere in the in-story universe, and unless explicit connection is made to the movie, this reads like OR. This isn’t to run down the interest that information on the viral material would have on the Cloverfield, just that it should be differentiated between information which expands from what we see in the film, and that which is directly related to the narrative. As we are pointed at a specific moment for the “beginning of the end” - the crash into the sea just off Coney Island (and even that isn’t explicit) - it seems superfluous to suppose that the rig sequence is background to the story of the people we follow in the film, or even related to the attack on N.Y.C. Jock123 (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Marlena's Death

I see based on the comment "<--further details on her death are not needed in a plot "summary"-->" that there have already been some changes made to the article. I think the fact that a bite from a parasite creatures results in the bitten becoming a host, who will die shortly after through a dramatic and explosive parasite escape may be a relevant plot detail as it sets the tone for how serious the need to avoid the parasite creatures is as they go to rescue Beth.

172.218.68.48 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Length

The article seems to be larger than it needs to be. There is a fair amount of trivia interspersed within it, and the Critical Response and Marketing sections in particular seem unnecessarily lengthy. They seem well-sourced, but I question the amount of material compared to similar movies. You look at other lengthy articles about movies, and they simply aren't structured this way. A few examples... The MySpace plug seemed outdated, the Merchandise section seems irrelevant, even the Music and Sound section seems like it was written by people affiliated with the film. The "Possible Sequel" section, while well-sourced, is probably not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Anyone looking to make this article GA-quality might want to examine these issues. While we can judge the movie on it's merits, we shouldn't let the article be overwhelmed with unnecessary content. As it is, this article violates NPOV by treating Cloverfield as some kind of epic work of art, when that is not within the purview of the article. End Rant. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

NOT science fiction

This movie is not science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.84.10 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cloverfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090102205252/http://www.metacritic.com:80/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml to http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cloverfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216072151/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=cmcqHP7Vhpt2qhDZG4xPbzSPJJ52gNL5jTbBTlwGl9NrGCtQVQQx!3588094&&rid=10467 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=cmcqHP7Vhpt2qhDZG4xPbzSPJJ52gNL5jTbBTlwGl9NrGCtQVQQx!3588094&&rid=10467

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cloverfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see many sentences are without citations, and there's even a citation needed tag, this all needs to be fixed before I can make a proper review. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Since this quick-fail issue has not been fixed for a week, and the nominator does not seem to have have had a hand in writing this article, I'll fail it now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding a cetrain link.

So I looked through the plot and came across this:

"Unnoticed by the characters, in the distance an object falls from the sky into the ocean."

"an object " is linked to the upcoming film God Particle (film), despite no information on if the movies are connected.

So why was it linked? And is there a source for this?

Cypher7850 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cloverfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001210105/http://laist.com/2008/01/09/laist_interview_88.php to http://laist.com/2008/01/09/laist_interview_88.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217062430/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3945&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3945&Itemid=99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120105037/http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-cloverfield/286254/content to http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-cloverfield/286254/content
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308065656/http://www.thehorrorpress.com/2009/10/bravos-13-scarier-movie-moments.html to http://www.thehorrorpress.com/2009/10/bravos-13-scarier-movie-moments.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308181518/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218204747/http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/10991/ to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10991
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416144348/http://uk.beta.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/news/1706543/ to http://uk.beta.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/news/1706543/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225142147/http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/tv/article/jj-abrams-is-on-the-fringe-70775 to http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/tv/article/jj-abrams-is-on-the-fringe-70775

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Space station crash

"Unnoticed by the characters, an indiscernible object falls from the sky into the ocean"

This links to the space station, but do we know for sure that's what it was in the first film? The viral marketing of the first one claimed it was a satellite, and i didn't hear anything in the 3rd film saying it was the space station. Also, didn't the station only crash in the other dimension (Jensen's)? Is there anything to support the idea that it also occurred in the main reality, and if so, how does one account for the time anomaly of the creature (now multiple ones) being awoken prior to the space station coming back to that reality? I'm going to remove the link for now; unless someone knows of some evidence (or perhaps viral marketing) that said the object in the first film was the space station, it seems like speculation. --Stevehim (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

To me, the scene's pacing looks a lot like the reentry of the capsule at the end of Paradox. --uKER (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

But the monster(s) are already there before the space station even gets back, and we never see anything to suggest that happened in the main reality, afaik. --Stevehim (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The events in the franchise apparently being able to affect the past kinda makes it questionable, or even pointless to make any sense of the sequence of events. The events in Cloverfield, set in 2008, may well be said to have been triggered by those in Paradox, set in 2028. --uKER (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be the case, but I don't think we have that information yet. Maybe Overlord will clear things up (cause Paradox sure didn't...that movie could be replaced with a sentence or two  ;) ). --47.20.121.2 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

smaller creatures

"other smaller creatures that attack the city while they are having a farewell party."

Those little creatures sure know how to party JohndanR (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"January 18, 2008 (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect January 18, 2008 (film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#January 18, 2008 (film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)