Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 2

message: Recently a Call Sheet of the Movie was posted up on NYMag and was taken from the set. Well Today Slashfilms has received a email from one of Paramounts Lawyers ordering it to be taken down As Soon as Possible. Seeing that this is the case, Possible Spoilers were on the call sheet revealing some of the plot. I am not sure if this is liable to now have more information regarding to the films plot be updated on the Actual Article of the Movie. Seeing the sheet itself(not taken down from NYMag....yet) has gotten the Paramount Pictures lawyer's attention and they demand for it to be taken down.
If This was added to the article, I would suggest a spoiler warning and linking the cited source to the Slashfilm link I posted below, seeing that anyone who links the Call sheet from the NYMag site will intertwine with legal issues with Paramount Pictures. 
*J.J. Abrams's ‘Cloverfield’ Wraps — and We've Got the Call Sheet That Might Spoil the Ending
*Paramount Lawyers Confirm Cloverfield/Cheese Call-Sheet is Real 
--Mithos90 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Looking at the call Sheet closely, it shows a lists of 3 cast members where it shows the schedules of their Make-up, Rehearsal and On set Times. Jessica Lucas, on the sheet (Cast number 5), shows she will be staring in the Film as Lily. Was wandering If This sheet can Add Jessica Lucas to the Article...If not We will wait for more sources to come in, though it confirms the other casts members in the film. --Mithos90 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is interesting, but I think we should only post the stuff in the article that IS credible and wasn't taken from a copywright infringement. As a curtasy to Paramount it'd be best not to include anything, since wikipedia might be in violation if any content is posted that Paramount isn't allowing to the public. --207.35.76.163 02:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield Call Sheet 

message: Does Anyone Have Any Actual Proof That There Is A Second Trailer For The Movie Running With Prints Of Stardust?--67.35.104.109 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it's just a rumor.  No second teaser/trailer has been shown anywhere.  KC 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There doesn't seem to be any coverage about this.  The hype would have been rather high about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  we have proof that their isn't since no one has seen it. harlock_jds 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. 72.49.194.69 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It just isn't proof. 64.203.237.248 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree but think whatever you want. Wikipedia isn't about beliefs, it's about citations. So unless someone makes a citation, don't even think about adding info on a second trailer. 'Nuff said. 72.49.194.69 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Trailer 

message: I think the writing on the back on the photographs on the should be included in the discussion about the viral marketing.
The writing on the photos says "Robbie, Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!!!! gonna miss the hell out of you. Lovie Jamie" This writing is present on the back of the photo time marked 12:04.
The other writing says "Dont forget who takes care of you. Love J" This is present on the photo time marked 12:01
The writing can be found if you vigorously shake the photos whie no other photos are overlapping the selected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.248.68 (talk • contribs) 15:07, August 19, 2007
:Until an independent, secondary source that meets reliable source criteria takes the time to describe the writing found on the back of the website's photographs, the information would otherwise be indiscriminate.  If there is a notable enough meaning to these photographs, the messages will be covered and thus be encyclopedic enough to include in the article.  We just need to see what further news items will unfold regarding Cloverfield and the website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your reason for why you think the writing on the back of the photographs should be mentioned, but you have to remember that this is an encyclopedia.  It's not meant to be a news aggregator or a game guide for viral marketing sites.  That's why items like the first-speculated plots (Godzilla, Voltron, etc.) were recorded; these were items that were covered in the mainstream media, so the hype over possibilities was more notable than any other film.  Information in the article needs to be covered by independent, secondary sources that fit the reliable source criteria, so if a newspaper eventually covers the writings on the photographs, that would be considered notable.  There's a similar issue with Slusho -- we've mentioned that the website Slusho.jp has been covered, and that Slusho t-shirts were passed out at Comic-Con.  But we are still short of information about how Slusho is related to the film.  Here, we don't know the notability of the writings -- they could be there to keep us talking about the film, when they may not mean anything at all.  We don't know at this point, and no source so far has bothered to cover the writings.  When one does, such as a newspaper in the mainstream media, then it may be possible to include it.  We just have to be patient and ensure that new content in this article is verifiable and acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back of the photographs 

message: On the IGN website, when you click on Latest Screens for the "Cloverfield" film, it has a poster with the text, "Furious" splayed across the top. The title?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.177.104 (talk) 05:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:No. It's a tag line. DurinsBane87 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just like Monsterous was harlock_jds 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, just curious. Thanks for the clarification :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.144.52 (talk) 00:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
I've heard 'Barbarous' and 'Terrifying' are also in the tagline rotation. Radagast 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Barbarous' has not been seen as a tagline (so far).  The only taglines that we've seen are 'Monstrous', 'Furious', and 'Terrifying'. KC 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All these should be mentioned here in the page. Current one line mention of Monstrous does not make quite a sence. Ad a longer description what it means and how it became known.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.86 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furious? 

message: New to this so bear with me. Can I post this?
If you type [www.youcantdrinkjustsix.com] it will take you to a new possible viral website?
--Nbenos 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not related to the movie (someone else made the site).harlock_jds 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least he asked, unlike some. Nbenos, for future reference, should you come across even a genuine viral website or piece of information about the film, it should not be included in the article unless it has been mentioned as such by a good outside source, such as a trade magazine or film site. But please, come again. Best regards, Liquidfinale 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: weird though how it links to a .gov site... o wel Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: people can redirect pages to whatever they want... It's not that wierd.harlock_jds 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ya ik, but i frequent NOAA's website and i've never really came across that section of it... or just an outta date section at that... o well tho, thats not all too uncommon either, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, no one's verified it as part of the film.  The girl in the trailer/photo wasn't just born to do "Cloverfield", you know.  Until we have verifiable confirmation by a reliable source, the website isn't credible enough to acknowledge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So wait your saying its not reliable because no one has said it official? SO does that mean that 1-18-08.com and Slusho.jp aren't reliable either? I am pretty sure no one has confirmed them either. Also it is viral marketing, They arent going to confirm anyhtign abotut virl marketing. And she is using the same name as her character in it as well as refereing to other chracters from the film. What more do you want? CSpuppydog 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure people have said 1-18-08.com is official.. didn't JJ himself confirm? Rehevkor 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Abrams confirmed 1-18-08.com as official, which is why it exists as an external link.  Slusho.jp has been reported in mainstream media, but it is not confirmed as an official site.  That is why Slusho.jp is not specifically linked to.  This new website has not been covered by independent sources as far as I know, and believe me, we get a lot of dud sites added to the article -- just review the page history.  Viral marketing is a tricky business due to the difficulty of verifying that they are true, but it's necessary.  Sometimes people will pass off a site as viral marketing for a film, which is what happened with Watchmen (film) -- someone from TheOneRing.net created such a site.  In addition, The Dark Knight (film) had a viral marketing campaign of uncertain nature, and it was only when Empire covered it and revealed that it was performed by 42 Entertainment that the information was added to the article.  If you can find reliable sources covering this new website, feel free to provide it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The back of the photo on 1-18-08.com also is addressed to Lascano and the jamieandteddy website says, "Love, your Lil' Lascano". Even if it's not an "official" site it apparently was created with the movie in mind.--Nbenos 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, but it's also Original Research. DurinsBane87 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Viral Website 

message: I thought that it has been proven that the artical from the NYpost was wrong. I have heard that Blake is not in this movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.212.119 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, where did you read that the article from the New York Post was wrong?  We can try to track down the information to see if you're right. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blake Lively 

message: is it just me or has this become some form of an ARG, and if so, wouldnt this mean that it will be possible to find the title of the movie, somewhere online.  it is obvious that they are giving us clues of some form. (Masterxak 09:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ARG? DurinsBane87 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternate Reality Game.  And to the first commenter, I don't think it's up to us to start making guesses about the title based on online clues.  We'll eventually get official comfirmation, one way or another. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARG? 

message: There seems to be an edit war on whether or not Slusho is a relevent enough website to add the link thereof on here or no. Instead of this ongoing nonsense, why not start a civilized Disscussion/Vote to descide how we should go with this?  --209.247.5.131 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion already took place, and the consensus was until there is official confirmation of Slusho.jp as a site relevant to the film, it does not entail linking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see and agree. The page should stay locked, methinks. --63.3.4.129 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the issue of linking Slusho.jp is not a major one on the article.  Page protection is usually reserved for vandalism or heavy edit warring when both parties refuse to break out of a content dispute and enter discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slusho Link: Add or Remove? 

message: * 'Slusho' can be seen on a t-shirt in the teaser
* 'Slusho' t-shirts were given out at ComicCon
* Said t-shirts are now available for purchase at the 'Slusho' website
* Colorado's 9NEWS claimed that an 'inside source' told him that the Slusho site is official
** AintItCool news claimed that they were the source 
* The Washington Post claims that the 'Slusho' site was registered before the film
* 'Slusho' has had cameos in other J.J. Abrams works before
Add or detract from the list as you see fit.
--209.247.5.131 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slusho facts 

message: I know this will probably never make it to this Cloverfield article's front page, but a new site in the Viral Marketing Campaign/ARG just came up, JamieAndTeddy.com.
It asks for a password: jllovesth. Entering it in, it leads to a video for download of Jamie, a girl from one of the teaser site pictures (the one with 3 people. This is also the same one that, fliped, gave clues to lead to her subsequent MySpace).
If you don't want to bother downloading it, it can likewise be seen here on YouTube. 
I am putting it up here just to note if meantioned, needed, or whatnot at a latter date. --209.247.5.142 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamie+Teddy Site 

message: Any thoughts on the moster whale theory? So far, this seems to make the most sense to me. The moster sound in the movie and the photo site are definitely whale-like. The Slusho site has a lot of references to whales. There's the whale moster picture that is supposedly a fake, but looks pretty darn good, and interestingly enough has little parasites. Maybe an alien parasite or a toxic, mutated louse bites a whale, and turns it into a giant breeding ground that also happens to hate mankind?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."  DurinsBane87 is right; this isn't a forum.  IMDb would be a better place for this speculative topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whales 

message: Is this reliable? A jacked up cell phone pic? BURNyA 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. It's a freakin' Oriental marketing title anyway. No true indication of the film's actual title. Alientraveller 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monstor? 

message: The Protagonist of the movie Cloverfield has the same name as the Omaha Mall Shooter.  A trivia section should be added with this creepy tidbit of information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.65.10 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robbie Hawkins 

message: At 1-18-08.com, there is now a picture of an Asian man holding sushi. On the back there is Asian writing. Can anyone tell what language it is and possibly translate it? Flamingtorch372 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a recipe to me. I can't read muckanji, so I have no what for, but it's definitely a recipe. (This section will probably be removed as it has no bearing on the article.) --Closedmouth 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian man in a picture? 

message: Tagruato.jpis the newest Cloverfield-related site.  Found on Unforum, but it's obviously legit.  Actually provides a lot more information, including a possible monster origin (deep-sea drilling).  This article should probably mention it. --General Holtarna 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it has been mentioned as a possible (and, yes, likely) official viral site, but hasn't been confirmed as such by the filmmakers. However, it does get a good mention at Slashfilm, which may be enough to see it included in the article in the same manner as the Slusho site. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The final ingredient in the recipe provided on the back of the latest official picture is 'one pinch of bottom of the sea nectar/honey' -- which is the same language used on Slusho.jp as their 'secret ingredient.'  And as Slusho.jp and Tagruato.jp link and reference each other, I believe that's evidence to support them as official tie-ins. 63.76.101.71 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear-cut confirmation; common users are basically "sleuthing" out clues to make connections that do not stick out like a sore thumb.  Additionally, Liquidfinale's link also reflects the possibility of Tagruato.jp being a "gamejack", especially considering its creation after the teaser trailer's release.  There's not enough clarity here to tie these sites into the article in the encyclopedic sense.  The article needs to have verifiable content for the long run, not contributions that came from amateur investigators.  If the mainstream media (not a film blog) mentions Tagruato.jp, then it could be identified as a possible site, like Slusho.jp is. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you check the site you can look at where their deep sea drills are located, and the closest one is smack in the middle of the atlantic, they all seem to far away to me, for some monster to pop out and decide i wanna go to newyork city! 71.115.221.2 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Some people would consider it wise to read the relevant section of the instruction manual before using a new tool. Wikipedia is no different. Have a look at WP:V and WP:OR for starters. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I've read it. The policies are fundamentally flawed and enforced nowhere near 100%. --71.236.182.42 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be here. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF, which while not directly relevant, gives good pointers as to the type of argument to avoid using. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No one's in charge of protecting anything.  Viral marketing campaigns are not easy to report because their scope is usually limited to sources that aren't reliable -- movie blogs and Cloverfield-specific blogs.  The detail about the official site was from a reliable source that described it, which is relatively important because the secondary source is displaced.  As for the viral websites, we've already encountered that EthanHaasWasRight was not related to Cloverfield.  Thus due to the potential charade, the article should err on the side of caution.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.  It's not WikiNews that scoops readers with the latest photo that one can flip over on the official site.  If the additional sites are legitimate and/or relevant, reliable sources will be cited.  As you can see, all the speculation mentioned in the article were from such sources.  There was more online speculation, but the specific items of speculation covered by reliable sources are what made it into the article.  The Dark Knight has a viral marketing campaign of its own, but it took waiting for a reliable source, in this case Empire magazine, to cover the user-collaborated unmasking of the Joker.  In addition, TDK's viral marketing campaign at Comic-Con was covered by Variety.  There's no real-world context provided by these sites -- there's no verifiable content that shows how it's related to the film if at all, only speculation on our part.  Is Slusho! really going to be in the film, or is it just added mythology that won't necessarily be covered directly in the film?  I've checked Google News Search every once in a while to see if there is verifiable content to include, but there hasn't been any reliable sources reporting anything new.  The release date is approaching, and there will obviously be fuller development as time goes by. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not common sense at all.  Common sense is identifying Christian Bale as Batman or Brandon Routh as Superman in the new movies.  These bits of information are irrevocably clear.  However, with this viral marketing campaign, to make sense to anyone, facts have to be interwoven in an intricate manner for a presumed understanding of how the websites relate to each other, if at all.  You said that Slusho.jp is confirmed -- is this a result determined by "Internet retards", or is there verifiable content from a reliable source about the website's authenticity?  The manner is not immediately clear, and the fact that one has to explain to another all the possible connections is the behavior of an amateur investigator.  These presumptions about the websites are not as clear as daylight -- bits from the websites are being cross-referenced by Internet users themselves.  The argument that Wikipedia is not paper still has to be in line with policies like verifiability and no original research.  There seems to be an unnecessary rush to get this information out despite the lack of verifiable content from reliable sources about it.  If the information is related and relevant, then it can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagruato 

message: :Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG 

message: Tagruato is named and kind-of linked to on the Slusho! website, yet it is not mentioned on the article.  The evidence is overwhelming for it to be official.  If you refuse to put it up for the reason that It's not been confirmed, then by the same logic we should remove Slusho! --General Holtarna 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slusho.jp isn't mentioned as a confirmed website.  If you read the article, the extent of its confirmation beyond the amateur investigation of Internet users like you and me is the Washington Post saying, "Records showed that the Slusho Web site was registered before the trailer aired, indicating that the site almost had to be official." (bold is mine)  EthanHaasWasRight is mentioned in the article, but we know that it's not an official site.  If there are reliable sources talking about the Myspace website or Tagruato.jp, then they would be mentioned as verifiable content.  Movie blogs aren't reliable sources because they lack reputations for fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHOIS info: 
http://whois.domaintools.com/tagruato.jp 
Domain Information: 
[Domain Name] TAGRUATO.JP 
[Registrant] Daiske Kagashima 
[Name Server] ns51.domaincontrol.com 
[Name Server] ns52.domaincontrol.com 
[Created on] 2007/07/25 
[Expires on] 2008/07/31 
[Status] Active 
[Last Updated] 2007/07/25 23:38:22 (JST)
 
Notice the Creation Date. --General Holtarna 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood -- I don't doubt that the Washington Post made a correct assessment about the website's registration.  It's more a matter of, "How is this connected, if at all?"  Believe me, I've been checking every so often on Google News for more verifiable content about this film, but currently, its impact, whether relevant to the film or not, is solely limited to Internet audiences.  When the scope of the viral marketing encompasses the public sphere in a way that reliable sources cover the campaign as much as they did in the initial onset, then content can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to start an arguement.  I'm merely trying to defend Tagruato as part of the Viral Marketing Campaign and a possible plot-link to the movie.  Hopefully when a new teaser comes out Tagruato will be mentioned.  Until then, I suppose I can back down. --General Holtarna 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to start an argument, either.  I'm sure that I've been perceived as anal, but the reason for the approach is that the nature of this marketing campaign makes for a lot of speculation about the film.  That's why there's a need to follow the verifiability policy as closely as possible, so we can focus on the use of reliable sources.  If a bit of original contribution is permitted, even if it seems to describe the "obvious" such as the presence of an ingredient across a couple of sites, it would open the door to additional original perspectives.  Believe me, I'd like nothing more than someone like Wired to do a full-blown feature article about this film's marketing campaign.  We'll both have to keep our eyes open for some independent coverage of all this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagruato Continued 

message: http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cloverfield-monster-picture.jpg 12.210.209.18 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to think of that. It's maybe too detailed to be fan art. BelligerentJim 12:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised by how much effort fanboys put in their work.  Until we can verify that this concept art is authentic, it's not appropriate to include in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IESB said it was a fake. Alientraveller 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up.  And I was kind of impressed myself... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; fake or not, that's a great drawing. --Closedmouth 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is, even if it does look like someone's stapled a bunch of dolphins to one of the UrRu from The Dark Crystal. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster in Cloverfield 

message: http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.45.1 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. --Closedmouth 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me as well.  Might need to check your settings -- these official sites tend to use media-heavy software. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  01-18-08 website 

message: someone over at CHUD.com posted info on a new trailer nad seemed pretty accurate. I think it's also been confirmed somewhere that the new trailer is going to premier in front of Beowulf. should that be posted up and does anyone have any confirmation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.127.174 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new trailer? 

message: Ok I know this is original research and Erik I know this will not go into the Article....not just yet BUT this site does look like another Puzzle. The site itself the last week(s) has been under construction and has gone offline then online a few times. But I saw this site might be linked to the movie because it mentions the Tagruato Corporation which is the site everyone here as been arguing to add because it is Linked to the Slusho site. Ill quote below as the site is using Flash and I can't copy and paste.
Recent News
August 15, 2007
"Members from the Tagruato Corporation and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program honored chief Executive officer Brandon Takahashi. Director Takahashi was presented with the Tagruato achievement award for his work in the HANDS Initiative and SIB Programs."  
Latter again it mentions the Tagruato Corporation in the History section under "Bold History"
These 3 Sites Seem to be Related each mentioning Each other.
*Boldfutura.jp
*Tagruato.jp
*Slusho.jp
*Rumored BoldFutura is Also related to Aka Parallax as posted Earlier.
There is a little Discussion on a forum about the site's construction, which I know Erik you will not consider...Original Research but they do have records on the site going up and down as of old Whois. If this is all not true in the End. Then post it in the area of the Article "Viral websites" to show how this viral promotion of the Film has gone with fans. 
*BoldFutura in Dept (They get credit if mentions me thinks)
*BoldFutura Whois 
--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, you recognize my stance... but you shouldn't single me out. :-P  I don't own the article; there's been a few other editors who aim to keep the content verifiable.  From looking at these viral websites, though, it doesn't seem that we're any closer to exploring real-world context of the film.  An interview with Abrams would be really helpful at this point... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, ComingSoon.net reports from "a source" about this news, and it's been picked up by other movie websites.  Also, CHUD.com does have a description of the trailer, but considering that the website is basically a movie blog, its information can't be checked out.  Believe me, I'm keeping my ear to the ground to find verifiable information to add. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BoldFutura related to Slusho and Tagruato 

message: in the picture with the statue of liberty there seems to be an eye in the sky  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.23.161 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Let's not continue this discussion further; per the talk page guidelines, we should discuss improving the article with verifiable content from reliable sources.  This course of discussion isn't on par with that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  has anyone notice an eye in the picture 

message: I could be misremembering but doesn't the second teaser begin by talking about the source of the footage, mentioning that cloverfield is the name for "what used to be central park" or something like that. Should this be mentioned, if it is in fact the source of the title of the film. WookMuff (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield = ? 

message: In the trailer Lizzy Caplans characters body swells and the sound of spilling guts is heard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exploding woman is only seen in silhouette. It could be anyone. Should exploding people be mentioned in the plot speculation section? - LeonWhite (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. Byxbee (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure but there is a very brief glimpse of the monster in the latest trailer passing behind a building plus the offical synopsis has stated "a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city". I honestly don't know what to make of the body swelling scene witnessed in the trailer, whether it be a mutation, parasite exploding from host body or some other bizarre event but I believe it is connected to the monster in some way and not the result of a terrorist attack or telekenesis but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong :P - RVDDP2501 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What time does it happen at? or supposedly happens at? I can't find it in the trailer. 74.77.167.175 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to ask on another forum such as IMDb.  These forums are more focused on general discussion about the film.  Talk pages on Wikipedia, per the guidelines, are intended for discussion on how to improve the article.  That's why you won't see a lot of speculative discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swelling Body 

message: In two episodes so far this season on Heroes, one of the characters is clearly seen drinking a Slusho brand slushie. One of the producers has also put pictures of various cast members holding Slusho cups on his blog. I guess this should be mentioned in the article?--68.98.179.2 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JJ Abrams does not work on Heroes.  Tabor (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, but Greg Grunberg (who plays Matt Parkman) does. JJ Abrams uses Grunberg as his "lucky charm"- he was in the pilot of Lost and will probably pop up somewhere in Cloverfield. And no, I don't have any references for this :( MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroes 

message: While sitting on 1-18-08.com a loud roar can be heard but so far ive only heard once. Mrbellcaptain (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is common knowledge, it happens on 6 minutes. This has been the case on the site for several weeks. A suggestion you check some of the cloverfield fan blog sites for such things 195.183.80.133 (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user above is right.  While Wikipedia should contain knowledge, it doesn't serve as a newsstand for the latest details.  The roar has been brought up before, but it hasn't been shown to be anything more than an unacknowledged part of marketing.  There is not much that is verifiably known about the film, and there's a lot of connections that could be made, especially using the website and watching the trailer.  The fan blogs aren't reliable sources for this, but they're a good place for interested people to get together and speculate about the film.  Here, though, we're trying to compile verifiable information leading up to the film's release and beyond.  News reports about a speculated plot are verifiable because they, being reliable sources, publish the information in wide circulation, as opposed to someone who has a newfangled theory about the film on a film forum.  For the roar, if there was a reliable source obsessed with figuring out the film and carried out voice analysis on it and published the results, that could be included.  However, that doesn't mean automatic inclusion, information could be considered indiscriminate.  That's what discussion is for.  A few hoops to jump through for the permission of certain content, obviously. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1-18-08.com roar 

message: I just found this . The FAQ on this site says that it was launched as the internet version of Malaysia's leading english language newspaper. This particular link (Assuming it works) appears to be a review which specifically mentions Tagruato. Can we use this as a source to include Tagruato in the viral marketing section?
I would do it myself except, I haven't yet figured out how to do references.... MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source for adding Tagruato? 

message: Why is that here? I don't believe it can be verified because there no links. I'm going to delete it until some credible sources can be found for it. Dunkerya (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a good call; it was only added about 30 minutes before you caught it, and should be removed by anyone who comes across it. Cheers, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for concept art 

message: Not sure if this has been brought up yet but they released a widget which shows 5 minutes of the movie. There is also a whole contest that goes along with the widget. Here's a site for an overview of whats been released and some details http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40208 and heres the official site with the details and the prizes http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/contest/index.php I think this should be added to the marketing section. I would add it but Im bad at writing descriptions up. Rosario lopez (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Rosario, I removed your contribution because it was too much on the promotional side.  Marketing is sometimes a challenge to tackle in a film article, but mainstream films generally don't get write-ups about contests for fans or products that are made.  A good way to assess a film's marketing is how independent perspectives have covered it.  For example, most films are not unique in releasing trailers, but this one was for its trailer, thus it's appropriate to report on it.  If the contest becomes a big deal, then there should be reliable sources covering it.  However, per WP:IINFO, just because something is verifiable doesn't make it worth adding to the article.  Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes a lot more sense now that I read that. I'm not familair with many of the rules and such but I'm trying to learn. Do you think that we should mention the 5 minutes or not? Rosario lopez (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be honest, there aren't any rules on something like marketing in a film article.  It's actually a section that some other editors and I begun introducing at Spider-Man 3, and for a while, it was really heavy on detail about TV spots and available footage.  We've cut back on that, though I notice we still have a passage about action figures and the like.  To be honest, I probably would want to remove that.  It's tacit knowledge, I suppose -- how important an aspect of marketing is for an encyclopedia.  For example, the Spider-Man 3 article also talks about how they had Spider-Man exhibits all around New York City, which is a pretty unique thing as far as films go.  It actually might be a good idea to bring this up with WikiProject Films to see what other editors' thoughts are on content to include in a marketing section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I initiated discussion at WT:FILM#Marketing.  Feel free to pitch in! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 Minute Sneak Peek 

message: *EXCL: Cloverfield Director Speaks!  There's a lot of great content to implement here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And part two. Alientraveller (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the director keeps chatting, this time with IESB. Check to see if there's anything new. Alientraveller (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've incorporated most of the information from the headlines above.  There may be some detail I neglected because they seemed extraneous.  I believe I've presented the points in the headlines succinctly, but feel free to review them to see if there's anything important that I missed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: I remember seeing that fan-art on someone's Cloverfield blog. It is not the real monster, so whoever added the image to the bottom of the page as a link to the Cloverfield monster, please, DO NOT do that again. It's been debunked numerous times and we have already seen the monster in the second trailer. It does not look like the fan-art. Anyways, I was wondering if we could take the link to the image off the Cloverfield page because it is unnecessary.
Thank you,
- Pr0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not add the FAN art to the Cloverfield page 

message: Now that we have the official title of the movie, is the redirection from 1-18-08, 1/18/08, and 01-18-08 still necessary? I think it'd be better off redirecting back to January 18. Jeztah (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed i doubt many people will be looking for the movie based on the 1/18/08 harlock_jds (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they say redirects are cheap.  My suggestion is to remove the hatnote at the top of the article when the film comes out.  I think that by that point, it'll be pretty well assured that everyone knows it's called Cloverfield.  Until then, there may be people still in the dark about it after seeing the trailer before Transformers.  Not sure about handling the redirects themselves, though... perhaps we can put them up at WP:RFD when the film comes out and see what the appropriate course of action is.  What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the redirects to go toward January 18, now that the movie has a title it is hard to believe that someone would still search the dates looking for this movie.  Rather they would be looking for the date.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect still necessary? 

message: You have it marked down here that it's February Second, 2008. The actual release date is a day earlier: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/releaseinfo
24.76.186.137 (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up -- I cited http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/intl/uk/ for the release date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Release Date 

message: I think i have the proof to know that its a sea monster in the movie but not exactly sure what type it is. If you go on the slusho website and go to Happy talk one of the charecters says "bloop" and another says something about england. Bloop stands for a underwater sea water device that they used to i think it was measure someting or figure out the sounds of earthquakes and it was made in england.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSskunk (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we can cite that.  It'd be considered synthesis since that's a connection that's being drawn where one didn't exist before.  Don't worry, though -- it's just another month for this film, and I'm sure we will know the monster's origins by then, if not before.  Appreciate the offer of the possibility, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Bloop is a real (but very odd and interesting!) noise. As I understand it, anybody can submit messages to the Happy Talk page, so I'm not sure it would be relevant anyway. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found what appears to be legit concept art for the main monster, as well as the smaller 'parasite' monsters. Just say the word and I'll include it in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.31.22 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's from here, it's fan art.  Also, legit concept art would probably be copyrighted, and we wouldn't have a valid fair use rationale for pushing a non-free image to the forefront of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just my 2 cents: in the trailer, the creatures behind the curtain are deep ones (indeed, marine creatures), and the very big one either Cthulhu or Dagon or I know nothing about Lovecraft writings...  Should've titled it The Shadow Over New York... ;-) Boréal (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the "deep ones" behind the curtain are actually two people in an NBC suit.   If you look at the shadow you can tell.  Compare it to a photo of someone in an NBC suit. Or any environmental suit.  This is further supported by the line "we have a bite" and the woman's shadow seemingly struggling without being bitten or ripped apart, etc.  Suggesting taht somethign smaller and infectious exsist, however those two shadows are without a doubt protective environmental suits.- Thero  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The monster in Cloverfield being a sea monster 

message: Should there be a section on the monster and theories on what it is and what those little parasite bastards are and so on?  There are some really accurate fan-sketches of the monster and parasites floating around online, and I largely came to wikipedia after seeing it for some kind of clues.  --Banyan (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be orginal research. Tabor (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have access to the official production notes.  In them, Matt Reeves is quoted extensively talking about the nature of the monster as "brand-new, a baby," but stuck at the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years.  He also indicates that the parasites are things the monster is shaking off gradually and sending falling into Manhattan.  I'd be more than willing to write it up verbatim in an appropriate section.--Jbt1138 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok...so I think it's agreed that we should make a monster section...there IS a lot to add and I just saw the movie, so it's fresh in my mind. I think I'll star the section, and you guys could start in writing after it, if that's ok, I'll just add some basic stuff like appearence, involvement, abilities. I'm also of addingi n somthing about the monster having a vendetta towards the main characters, because it does seem to chase THEM specifically. But I'm gonna wait for further aproval by you guys on that one.--Kaji13 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Believe me, the reason the monster appears different sizes is not because its a different monster. Heres a link to an article and the exact paragraph that talks about the size difference http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927 (The article also talks about a sequel and that the director wanted the film to be rated R). I also had the chance to speak with Director Matt Reeves about sequels and about a certain shot toward the end of the film that kind of looks as if the monster is smaller than we had seen…possibly implying that there is another monster or baby monster, he had this to say, “The monster has a pretty consistent size in the film, and towards the end even though its shot in such a way that there is a perspective change that makes him look a bit smaller but it is in fact the monster at his biggest.”Rosario lopez (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice. How do you go about meeting Matt Reeves though, just bump into him on the street?--Maceo (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh right, lol! I didn't know you were qouting someone else when you said that "I also had the chance to speak with Director Matt Reeves".--Maceo (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah. I think it's strange that it's not the first conclusion people come to when a monster lunges and the next shot is a dead person, don't you agree?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with this guy, but is it possible that it attacked him near the ground(trying to get him) because of how hud looked a the monster it was as if he was laying on the ground frozen in fear, and I doubt that he was "dropped" but maybe tossed because I don't think rob was right next to the monster but a good distance away. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW, FWIW, I can recall a discussion here of whether Jason is dead or not, but apparently that section has seen been removed. In any case, I've decided to settle the argument.  Freeze frame that scene on the bridge.  Exactly 28 minutes and 17 seconds into the film, you can see the tail of the monster crash down directly upon Jason and the lampost he's standing on at the time. No way he could have survived that. Sorry. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, any which aren't currently covered in the article, and which are mentioned by what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, can certainly be added. Steve T  • C 08:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Its the closest wiki has at the moment until a more accurate picture of the monster comes out, adding a picture of the monster in the article would DEFIANTLY clear up any confusion or theories still made about the monster regarding to the other monsters that people thought that was tied into the film. Also seeing the monster has no name a picture would also help with other stuff. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So cynical! Well if it actually looks good...(I mean, how good can a photo of a silk screen look?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not what it looks like. I'll list reasons why if needed, but the creature is very different looking than that. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say not very different but that is more of a cartoon version of this monter.  Jason 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9291/12009548198761155630tn8.jpg Thats actually what it looks like. No source or anything, but thought it could help.--72.183.47.235 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That 2nd picture is pretty much spot on, but without a source, I don't think we can use it. The first  picture, among other things, has a totally wrong body. The body was not that bulky, didnt have spines, and with a body show in the picture would never be able to turn it's head the way it does in the monvie. Then there's the face.... DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Have you even seen the movie? The second one is most definitely Cloverfield, the first looks wrong in many ways. And sign your comments with four of these: "~", it puts in your data and lowers confusion over who said what. Phi Chi Delta (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The first one is not what it looks like only because of it's head and back. And in the movie it actually has a neck. The second one looks more like it, but until the DVD comes out I don't think any Images should be accepted(we could also have a fan-made link after the DVD comes out). And now I have a question, WTF are those things under it's body(second link), not the under-body,forward-arms but the little fin-like things.71.120.133.171 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe that JJ Abrams went to Japan with his child, and saw all these Godzilla action figures littering the stores, and believed that America should have it's own national monster. I believe that and the obvious Godzilla-like action that the movie contains, that Godzilla should be under "See Also"
(SaturdaysKids (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Godzilla is another iconic movie monster. JJ abrams clearly said he was hoping to follow in the tradion of iconic monsters like Godzilla and King Kong. Wikipedia is about litereay influence, not plot exposition, so actually this makes a lot of sense. besides "See also" enries usually have a lot of leeway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put godzilla AND zilla in, if we're going to make the section, the See Also, because godzilla was the one who inspired the movie and zilla was one of the monster candidates and was the first giant monster in New York city (like the cloverfield monster or Zilla II, as I call him due to the fact that both monsters are, somewhat, alike).--4444hhhh (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First giant monster? King Kong might disagree...HonestTom (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms fits what has been said. Is there any direct link or statment about inspiriation? Stabby Joe (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster 

message: In the main article it says that Hud was killed by the creature... but I have the feeling that it isn't because the size seems too small.. come on, such a huge thing bitting something the size of an ant?
It looks like is another type of creature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.129.226 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, the reason the monster appears different sizes is not because its a different monster. Heres a link to an article and the exact paragraph that talks about the size difference http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927 (The article also talks about a sequel and that the director wanted the film to be rated R). I also had the chance to speak with Director Matt Reeves about sequels and about a certain shot toward the end of the film that kind of looks as if the monster is smaller than we had seen…possibly implying that there is another monster or baby monster, he had this to say, “The monster has a pretty consistent size in the film, and towards the end even though its shot in such a way that there is a perspective change that makes him look a bit smaller but it is in fact the monster at his biggest.”Rosario lopez (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nice. How do you go about meeting Matt Reeves though, just bump into him on the street?--Maceo (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh right, lol! I didn't know you were qouting someone else when you said that "I also had the chance to speak with Director Matt Reeves".--Maceo (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah. I think it's strange that it's not the first conclusion people come to when a monster lunges and the next shot is a dead person, don't you agree?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with this guy, but is it possible that it attacked him near the ground(trying to get him) because of how hud looked a the monster it was as if he was laying on the ground frozen in fear, and I doubt that he was "dropped" but maybe tossed because I don't think rob was right next to the monster but a good distance away. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW, FWIW, I can recall a discussion here of whether Jason is dead or not, but apparently that section has seen been removed. In any case, I've decided to settle the argument.  Freeze frame that scene on the bridge.  Exactly 28 minutes and 17 seconds into the film, you can see the tail of the monster crash down directly upon Jason and the lampost he's standing on at the time. No way he could have survived that. Sorry. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What killed Hud? 

message: Was wondering should we document all the monsters every single fan of Cloverfield thought it was before the movie actually came out? Seeing that Ethanhass was posted so people in the future know for a fact its not Godzilla, Voltron, a Huge Lion, Cthulhu, a New Transformers film, Zig, Behemoth, Laviethen and also that fake concept art which many thought it was the actual monster and how Abrams got the idea of the monster also? Also I think it should be posted b/c this monster in film is unique and there was no actual name given and we don't want it to tie in with other monsters that are out there. I noticed some of it is mentioned in there but not all as others might still cling on to the older ideas on the monster. Also a pic of the smaller versions of the thing might help.  
*Main Monster
*Smaller Parasite Versions
--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, any which aren't currently covered in the article, and which are mentioned by what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, can certainly be added. Steve T  • C 08:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Its the closest wiki has at the moment until a more accurate picture of the monster comes out, adding a picture of the monster in the article would DEFIANTLY clear up any confusion or theories still made about the monster regarding to the other monsters that people thought that was tied into the film. Also seeing the monster has no name a picture would also help with other stuff. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 03:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Pre Release) Monster Speculation 

message: Don't worry my friends, Hasbro will unveil the beast pretty soon. Alientraveller (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster Figure 

message: Thought it might aid in the creature discussions (and help debunk some of the so called 'confirmed' pre production creature sketches) by pointing out that the credited creature designer is Neville Page.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namssorg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creature Designer 

message: If we have a photo of the monster from the movie that isn't hand-drawn, or fan-made, can we put it in the wiki? Or is everyone going to bitch and complain (most likely about the fact that it isn't fair use rationale or something)? SonicNiGHT (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So cynical! Well if it actually looks good...(I mean, how good can a photo of a silk screen look?)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not what it looks like. I'll list reasons why if needed, but the creature is very different looking than that. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say not very different but that is more of a cartoon version of this monter.  Jason 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9291/12009548198761155630tn8.jpg Thats actually what it looks like. No source or anything, but thought it could help.--72.183.47.235 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That 2nd picture is pretty much spot on, but without a source, I don't think we can use it. The first  picture, among other things, has a totally wrong body. The body was not that bulky, didnt have spines, and with a body show in the picture would never be able to turn it's head the way it does in the monvie. Then there's the face.... DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Have you even seen the movie? The second one is most definitely Cloverfield, the first looks wrong in many ways. And sign your comments with four of these: "~", it puts in your data and lowers confusion over who said what. Phi Chi Delta (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The first one is not what it looks like only because of it's head and back. And in the movie it actually has a neck. The second one looks more like it, but until the DVD comes out I don't think any Images should be accepted(we could also have a fan-made link after the DVD comes out). And now I have a question, WTF are those things under it's body(second link), not the under-body,forward-arms but the little fin-like things.71.120.133.171 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield Monster 

message: Why is "Godzilla" listed under See Also? Has it anything to do with this film? --Is this fact...? 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that JJ Abrams went to Japan with his child, and saw all these Godzilla action figures littering the stores, and believed that America should have it's own national monster. I believe that and the obvious Godzilla-like action that the movie contains, that Godzilla should be under "See Also"
(SaturdaysKids (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Godzilla is another iconic movie monster. JJ abrams clearly said he was hoping to follow in the tradion of iconic monsters like Godzilla and King Kong. Wikipedia is about litereay influence, not plot exposition, so actually this makes a lot of sense. besides "See also" enries usually have a lot of leeway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put godzilla AND zilla in, if we're going to make the section, the See Also, because godzilla was the one who inspired the movie and zilla was one of the monster candidates and was the first giant monster in New York city (like the cloverfield monster or Zilla II, as I call him due to the fact that both monsters are, somewhat, alike).--4444hhhh (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First giant monster? King Kong might disagree...HonestTom (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms fits what has been said. Is there any direct link or statment about inspiriation? Stabby Joe (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godzilla? 

message: Godzilla gets a separate listing from Godzilla (1954 film), so I have no problem with separate entries for the monster and the film. </retort>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilwhite (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Godzilla Retort

message: Cloverfield Clues just linked to various Cloverfield related interviews including one confirming that the MySpaces are a part of the advertising campaign. --Is this fact...? 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cloverfeild Clues is a Blog site and not a site that releases verified official information about the film. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 06:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That can work, FINALLY a cited source has been found seeing the actor from the film actually confirmed it is(they are) authentic. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I'm guessing the info from the character's MySpace account are allowed in? Because I don't see any edits on the article about them or some extra information on Rob's VP job.Nocarsgo (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace Confirmed 

message: Does anyone think that the article's plot needs more details. Some of it is missing a lot of details from the movie, like the rats running or her blowing up to blood or they will destroy Manhattan (or by the way, the movie was great! 10 out of 10!).--4444hhhh (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten 

message: I just reverted the Kaiju link from the plot summary... but what is the consensus on this? I think this is still a leap to make this link. I think it's original research, people looking at the plot summary and clicking on that link will be finding something that is basically unique to wikipedia (in us making this connection). Maybe a cite to someone in the media referring to Kaiju?Gwynand (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the Kaiju article itself it states, "King Kong and the monster from the movie Cloverfield are examples of Western kaiju."  I can't tell if that's OR or not, as I am not an expert on the subject. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... seems like that should be changed, although I have no involvement with that article.Gwynand (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like that should be sourced, at the very least.  For now, I've added the  tag to that article. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Giant monsters rampaging through cities are pretty much the definition of kaiju, but I notice that the proper Kaiju article is sorely lacking, almost a stub.  OldSkoolGeek (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaiju? 

message: Reeves also points out that the end scene on Coney Island, shows something falling into the ocean in the background
I didn't keep an eye out for that. But could someone expand on the sentence? What do they mean by "falling"? From the sky or from a cliff or boat or what? If it's from the sky, then it would be an alien.
-G
:I think the sentence is pretty self explanatory. Coney Island or anything in New York doesn't have cliffs. Thats one off. A boat did anyone see a boat the size of a cruse liner in the last scene? Na I thought I saw was a couple of Fair rides and out stands then water. And also from the cited article of what Matt Reeves quotes, he didn't say what it was so if I change the sentence to alien that would turn a sentence that is fact to a theory. As I am seeing from the film's Fans that Abrams has quoted that monster is not a alien and Two it maybe a satellite that have gone missing from one of the films viral sites "Tagruato" --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ :ॐ 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to look really closely to see it, because it is only visible for about one second and it is about the size of a pebble. It is in the top right hand corner. And at this point the only logical way to classify this monster would be alien because clearly, most of its features aren't in any way human, besides its head shape.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So cows, bees, squids, roses, and such are all alien too? Synetech (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: A few days ago, I added a motion sickness warning to the article, but it was removed. It is a verifiable fact that people got motion sickness while watching this movie (give me a bit of time to re-find that source again), and given that most movies don't cause motion sickness (at least not on this scale), I feel that this is notable.
Also, someone removed the talk section about Motion Sickness as well, for some reason.Viltris (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor by the name of CoCoBeast removed a reference regarding motion sickness on 21:55, 1 February 2008.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the movie promoters are responsible for this.Jpetersen46321 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it was all-around amazing, and plan to see it a second time. In regards to the motion-sickness, I heard alot of people had that problem, although I didn't myself, nor did anyone I talked to after the screening, but its got reliable sources so go ahead and add it. (It shouldn't be a warning, just a report that some people did get motion sick) Mad031683 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was great movie, although I think I can understand why you didn't like it, even though I thought it was great. I've only heard things like motion sickness from around the internet. No one I talked to had motion sickness after the movie.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I remember the same complaints about Blair Witch, although the article doesn't cite it. I found this as a potential reference - http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9907/27/blair.witch/. Is this just something that hasn't been added, or is it non-notable? It seems like it would apply to any movie done strictly by handy-cam. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The shaky camera technique is a given when you have a film like this. Some might say it gives the film that realistic, amateurish feel. In any case, I agree, there should be some mention of this induced nausea. After all, such things have already been noted for Blair Witch and the Bourne films. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The theater I saw it in, AMC 24, had a poster that read "any one seeing Cloverfield will experience effect much like riding a roller coster due to shaky camera style" or somthing to that effect. Now if this was company or common practice, then we can find a source and quote it, however if it was just a isolated poster, then no WP:RS will existCoffeepusher (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw that label too, it wasn't isolated (unless you went to the exact same theater as I did, which is very unlikely. Heh heh... Xanofar (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This nausea effect was also reported (and experienced by me) for the Blair Witch Project. 218.167.170.189 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I know this is not a discussion but I have to give my opinion about this. This article is not fact. I am myself a person who easily gets motion sickness and I never ever rode a roller coaster again after riding one in my life. And like I said the reason is that I have a bad case of motion sickness. BUT when I watched the movie I "NEVER EVER" had a feeling that I wanted to vomit. (Not even close of having that sick feeling if you are watching a IMAX movie, seeing its so big) Really b/c how the film was shot I was actually standing in my seat like I was looking into a window to get a better look of what the camera left out on screen. People who is demanding refunds or etc. I say this "If u don't barf don't complain and stop being so dramatic." or I have a better solution CLOSE YOUR DAMN EYES FOR A FEW SECONDS Also research on the damn thing that you are going to watch. This news article I don't think It should go in the article AT ALL. But if it was a bad case like someone had to go to the hospital then yea sure add it seeing the Hostel articles have news facts in it regarding the film. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've seen it covered elsewhere, including TV. It's notabvle because it's far from the norm for a film, and has had WP:RS coverage. ThuranX (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion Sickness not notable? 

message: First off, to any fellow wikipedians that are planning a to see this movie: I think it was all-around horrible. Secondly, this article should probably mention motion sickness, as I left the theater inches away from blowing chunks. Google news agrees more weight to a warning is needed on this. I might add it later tonight if no one else wants too. EvanCarroll (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was all-around amazing, and plan to see it a second time. In regards to the motion-sickness, I heard alot of people had that problem, although I didn't myself, nor did anyone I talked to after the screening, but its got reliable sources so go ahead and add it. (It shouldn't be a warning, just a report that some people did get motion sick) Mad031683 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was great movie, although I think I can understand why you didn't like it, even though I thought it was great. I've only heard things like motion sickness from around the internet. No one I talked to had motion sickness after the movie.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I remember the same complaints about Blair Witch, although the article doesn't cite it. I found this as a potential reference - http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9907/27/blair.witch/. Is this just something that hasn't been added, or is it non-notable? It seems like it would apply to any movie done strictly by handy-cam. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The shaky camera technique is a given when you have a film like this. Some might say it gives the film that realistic, amateurish feel. In any case, I agree, there should be some mention of this induced nausea. After all, such things have already been noted for Blair Witch and the Bourne films. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The theater I saw it in, AMC 24, had a poster that read "any one seeing Cloverfield will experience effect much like riding a roller coster due to shaky camera style" or somthing to that effect. Now if this was company or common practice, then we can find a source and quote it, however if it was just a isolated poster, then no WP:RS will existCoffeepusher (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw that label too, it wasn't isolated (unless you went to the exact same theater as I did, which is very unlikely. Heh heh... Xanofar (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion Sickness 

message: Maybe the motion sickness being experienced by a large amount of viewers is worthy of a mention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.226.119 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This nausea effect was also reported (and experienced by me) for the Blair Witch Project. 218.167.170.189 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion sickness 

message: Warnings Posted After Hit Horror Flick Leaves Some Nauseous - Oklahoma City News
This was also linked to on CNN's homepage
-RunningOnBrains 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is not a discussion but I have to give my opinion about this. This article is not fact. I am myself a person who easily gets motion sickness and I never ever rode a roller coaster again after riding one in my life. And like I said the reason is that I have a bad case of motion sickness. BUT when I watched the movie I "NEVER EVER" had a feeling that I wanted to vomit. (Not even close of having that sick feeling if you are watching a IMAX movie, seeing its so big) Really b/c how the film was shot I was actually standing in my seat like I was looking into a window to get a better look of what the camera left out on screen. People who is demanding refunds or etc. I say this "If u don't barf don't complain and stop being so dramatic." or I have a better solution CLOSE YOUR DAMN EYES FOR A FEW SECONDS Also research on the damn thing that you are going to watch. This news article I don't think It should go in the article AT ALL. But if it was a bad case like someone had to go to the hospital then yea sure add it seeing the Hostel articles have news facts in it regarding the film. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've seen it covered elsewhere, including TV. It's notabvle because it's far from the norm for a film, and has had WP:RS coverage. ThuranX (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article mentioned by news story 

message: Just wondering... how can we say that she exploded? I wasn't paying extremely close attention, but is it not possible that one of the medical officers shot her before she spawned any creatures or something? Anyone notice anything that goes against this? I mean, the black guy says "There was nothing we could do" which could support either of these theories. Just putting it out there...
No, she definitely inflates and bursts into a bloody mess.--Kondrayus (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to suggest they actually kill her. Two assistants wearing hazmat (is it hazmat? Well it's something like a tarp poncho with a hazmat-style glass faceplate) suits drag her behind the curtain where, from what we can see, Marlena just blows up, splattering blood.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically speaking, you can explode as a result of getting killed (shot, etc...). I cleaned up the sentence in the plot to say she was basically dragged off then exploded behind a screen. We certainly can't suggest that she "might have been killed by the soldiers" but at the same time there shouldn't be a line saying that her explosion was directly linked to the parasite bite.Gwynand (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can very clearly see her body expand to a huge degree in the movie before she "explodes." You can even find it in slow motion from the trailers. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is more, just before Marlena's death, there's a brief bit where we see the corpse of a soldier being wheeled out.  Said corpse looked like it had been hollowed out, but in retrospect you realize that the soldier popped the same way Marlena did. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's still speculation, although I agree. We can't say that's actually what happened, but we CAN say she expanded because it was observed. DurinsBane87 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I remember hearing only one "bang" & if it was a gunshot, then the amt of blood we saw splash on the plastic was WAY too much for a single gunshot. Nope, she suffered the same fate as the soldier shown moments before. Tommyt (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that the soldier's missing abdomen could likely have come from the actual bite of the parasitic thing, instead of the suggested explosion. That could've come after they wheeled him away. But yeah, i think the popping of Malena was an "aftereffect" of the original bite, some organ expanding and whatnot.Aeyve (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2jte-PRrmgo seems to show her expanding rapidly. (86.145.122.75 (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marlena Death 

message: The plot section says she is bit while saving Hud... this is minor, but isn't she tackled by one right after she finally clubs the one off of Hud? I mean, either way she was distracted by saving Hud but the way it is now suggests more guilt on Huds part and less possible defense from Marlena than the way I remember it being would. This is really minor, huh? I've been spending way too much time on this page lol... Ryan M. (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marlena Bite 

message: I have heard rumors that there are potential alternates to the ending of this movie. Can anyone confirm or deny?--TheEmpTSet (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you post a source? Please --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Endings? 

message: I think the sequel Section needs to be rewritten and should go a little more in detail with quotes from Matt Reeves, and how they plan to might film it. There are two sources about this that need to be the cited source on this section.
:'Cloverfield' Sequel Talk, Violent Plans!
:Reeves Runs Merrily Through Cloverfield
:--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Planing to rewrite the sequel section latter when I get the time myself on how Reeves went into detail with quotes and etc. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 08:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for whoever put the quotes in the article ^-^ --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel Section 

message: I've made a section about soundtrack, but it was later removed as unsourced section. I agree that "A sampler disc was distributed to guests at Rob's Going Away Party at the Dark Room in New York City on 17 January" (it wasn't written by me, it was added later by another user) lacked a source. But I think that, for example, "Cloverfield, being presented as if it were a recording by one of the characters, has no soundtrack in the usual meaning" doesn't need a source, and even if it does, IMDb trivia can be one, so there was no actual need for the deleting. So maybe it's better to restore the section and delete only the statements that lack sources?
Sorry for my poor English, it's not my native language.
phil (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it back in. seeing this a film there has to be a soundtract section in my opinion. Even if this Section isn't scpurced doesnt mean it can not stay in the article because for a FACT the film does have a score. Just at the moment there is no further information that goes deeper into the films score. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, a lot of critics (if they address it at all) have made that observation. Not sure how to source it, though.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't recall what the title was exactly (it had Roar! and Cloverfield Theme in the title) and was made by Michael Giachano, not sure on the spelling. DurinsBane87 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The point was to have a few songs as examples…I'm just going to remove all of them, it's cruft.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If possible, could you provide a link to the mix? It seems to be impossible to actually find.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Er, I meant the iTunes link. Something we can use that's not illegal. You can get it by right-clicking the cover art and selecting "get iTunes Store URL".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I found it under "What's Hot". Pretty stupid it doesn't show up in searches and the individual tracks don't link back to it, though. Should probably put it on the mix page...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OOOO Sorry lol I dont have a direct link for it(seeing its a program that has it own browser) But put "Cloverfield Mix" in Search Bar or Look on the iTunes homepage it should be posted on there as one of the new Albums --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: I don't know if this would belong in the article, or if anyone else noticed the music during the credits had several allusions to Japanese monster films: the theme resembled the march used in Destroy All Monsters and others, and there was a break with a similar theme to Godzilla's (the one with the lower brass).Bossk538 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a lot of critics (if they address it at all) have made that observation. Not sure how to source it, though.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't recall what the title was exactly (it had Roar! and Cloverfield Theme in the title) and was made by Michael Giachano, not sure on the spelling. DurinsBane87 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music during credits 

message: The song "Grown So Ugly" off of The Black Keys 2004 release Rubber Factory was left out of the articles soundtrack section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roostar (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was to have a few songs as examples…I'm just going to remove all of them, it's cruft.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Keys left out of "soundtrack" 

message: thumb|150px|iTunes Screen of Rob's Party MixOk thanks to the Editor Tommyd84 we Have finally found a ACTUAL CD that came from the Movie itself. Though through my original research this CD was most likely the prize given out during the Real Life Party in New York. So Far I Searched Goggle to look for more info about the Soundtrack and found it's listings. I haven't found out if the CD is a actual OFFICIAL Soundtrack of the film hoping it will contain the score ROAR!(Cloverfeild Overture) but its not on there but only the songs played at Robs Party. Now Because I could not find a ACTUAL Source I found a site(or a couple) that blogs music and one of them state that they are the Blog that uploaded this CD into Itunes. Also there is a article already made for the Mix CD (not made by me) 
I Would Love to get opinions from the other editors about this topic if to add it into the article. Seeing its the only Soundtrack for the film out so far we should also seeing that in the Soundtrack section this is most likely the gift that was given away at the Rob's Party Contest. But then I also consider that there are only few of these in the world and if they were given because of the sweepstakes they most likely wont reveal what the actual prize was. And another thing against adding it to the article there are no "REAL" cites for it but only a blog site which uploaded their CD to Itunes.  I also wanted to know if the article for the Mix tape itself is still in keeps as its a CD related to the film and a track listings are already public. If we don't keep the article at least add the picture of the CD's cover on this page. Links are Below:
* Rob's Party Mix Article
* Rob’s Party Mix from Cloverfield
* Cover Picture
: --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If possible, could you provide a link to the mix? It seems to be impossible to actually find.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Er, I meant the iTunes link. Something we can use that's not illegal. You can get it by right-clicking the cover art and selecting "get iTunes Store URL".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I found it under "What's Hot". Pretty stupid it doesn't show up in searches and the individual tracks don't link back to it, though. Should probably put it on the mix page...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OOOO Sorry lol I dont have a direct link for it(seeing its a program that has it own browser) But put "Cloverfield Mix" in Search Bar or Look on the iTunes homepage it should be posted on there as one of the new Albums --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  THERE IS A SOUNDTRACK 

message: Not including trailers or credits (so from the first Paramount Logo to the directers name) the film lasts only 1 hour and 13 minutes (73 minutes versus the 84 listed in the article).
:Source for this?Gwynand (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While runtimes would not include preceding trailers, they do include credit rolls - for ALL films. 72.179.56.175 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But were the credits really 11 min. long? Or is the first guy just incorrect? 64.65.225.114 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out a few of the citations contained in the reception section. Many of those explicitly mention the short length of the film vs. the unusual length of the credits. All the best, Steve T  • C 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of film 

message: We're getting pretty noisey in here. It's probably time to archive this page at least. I don't know what the official policy is on this, but in my opinion, getting rid of all unsigned comments would drastically improve the wieldliness and appropriateness of the Talk page.Transentient (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap! we don't have an automatic archive box.  I like those alot better.  welllll....I don't know the prosedures from this point. anyone elce?Coffeepusher (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: alright, I see that all the "discussion" has had a snowball effect (with several comments saying "you mean it isn't supposed to be a discussion board, but it is now")  This page has really gone out of controll.  I will go back on my origonal statment, and start deleting comments that are obviously geared to discuss the movie, and not the article (the "oh my god I saw the movie and what did you guys think about that monster...there where two of them right...because she exploded and I thought that was so cool...and then i puked, but htat was fine becasue the movie was so much better than the blair witch..." statements). Coffeepusher (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For transperancy sake, here are the changes I made . Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You deleted not only the forum-like comments, which CAN be appropriate if done in a timely manner, but also can be BITE-y to newcomers, especially on a high traffic article, but you also deleted constructive comments as well. I've deleted forum comments as well, just did, in fact. But the timing matters. Instead, I reverted all your edits, archived all the pre-release conversation, refactored a couple comments, and deleted one obvious non-constructive conversation. The best thing that can actually be done, if you want to help fix the page, is to look for sections posted out of order, and put them in chrono-order by first comment. But rampant deletions of comments is hostile, and removing good and bad together is worse. Finally, your sarcastic attitude towards me, and my efforts, is definitely lacking in AGF. I could also expound upon the value to the project of listening to IP comments, even those not constructive but made in good faith and so on, but I'll leave it at what i've already said.ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Plus you can't spell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.56.109 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having re-read my original comment, I can say that it defiantly doesn’t keep with the spirit in which it was written.  ThuranX was completely justified with believing it was sarcastic, it was not the intent.  Thank you for helping to clean up this page, I was feeling kind of alone in the matter. Oh, and 96.232, that is defiantly not an appropriate comment in either content or spirit.  There are appropriate methods of getting that message across...and that is not one of them. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time to clean up the Talk page yet? 

message: Do you think we should add abit of info for the characters in this movie? Like a good 3-5 sentences.Nocarsgo (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3-5  each???? That seems a bit much (esp if you only rely on the movie and not the my space pages and such)harlock_jds (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that 3-5 is good in some of the main characters, but with people like Jason who is more that likely dead(with JJ nothing is as it seems) within the first half hour, you can't put down too much. 71.120.133.171 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character descrptions? 

message: It sure would be a lot of work, but how about this article eventually having a map and timeline of events?  I'd love to know just what happened where at approximately what time, that is assuming all the locations in the film are real.  Many of the events in the timeline would have to be approximations and such a timeline would be split between the day of the date and night of the attack.  Oh, and how about an overlay on a map of the path the Statue of Liberty head would have traversed.  (A dotted red line leading from the statue to the skyscraper it impacted to the final resting spot on the street.) Just what direction was it thrown and where did it land?  Was the film accurate in that regard? (and by that I mean could it have flown from the statue to those locations in an uninterrupted arc.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.129 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is absolutely not what wikipedia is for. DurinsBane87 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In My opinion I think this article doesn't need a map or Time line really nothing has been proven and this movies just came out as info about the monster itself is slowly revealed. BUT I can not say that Wiki is not for Timelines and Dates. Really Wiki has something historical it always keeps the date on what happens or if you look at the links with the dates it brings you to a article to what significant happened on that day like September 26 something happened in History and etc. There is even a timeline for events that happened with Jason Vorhees and Freddy Kruger before they fought. As also the  Star Wars Timeline A map I never seen a map of a real place on wiki before BUT there are maps on Wikipedia. Like the Star Wars galaxy article which has a map of the "WHOLE" star wars Galaxy. So what you guys are saying really is something that IS on Wiki and if you Noticed THERE is a 100% of a Star Wars Wiki for star wars but details that go really really into the universe is on still on wikipedia as for other movie Series. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map with Timeline? 

message: I know blogs are not reliable sources but cloverfield clues had a link to the production notes of Cloverfield. So technically I found them through a blog but yeah anyway. I was reading the production notes and I noticed it talks about the naming of the movie. Whats said in the notes differs from the whats said here. Yes Cloverfield was the name of the movie from the beginning but it wasnt the official name. The notes say that the offical name was supposed to be Greyshot. Greyshot is the name of the bridge where Beth and Rob hide at the end. They were going to announce that at Comic-Con but didnt because Cloverfield was already well known and felt changing the name would be bad. Heres the link to the site and the exact paragraph http://home.windstream.net/dacevedo/cloverfield/cloverfieldproductionnotes.htm
:It was, in fact, one of Abrams’ and Burk’s agents, John Fogelman, who, having seen the word “monster” one too many times in private e-mail correspondence, suggested calling the project “Cloverfield,” after a main street near Abrams’ office in West Los Angeles.  “We started working on the movie, and it became like a nickname.  But we thought, ‘There’s no way that’s going to be the title of the movie,’” Abrams recalls.  “We even had another title, ‘Greyshot,’ the name of the bridge that Rob and Beth are hiding under in Central Park at the end of the film, which we were all set to announce at Comic-Con.  But, by that time, the name ‘Cloverfield’ had already leaked out, and the fans already knew it by that name, so we just decided to stick with that.”
Now what Im going to say probably falls into orginal research and cant be used but yeah. This makes a lot of sense becuase the director even stated (before Comi-Con) that when we watched the movie we would understand the meaning of the title. I think that was referring to the movie being name GreyShot. But back to the main point, I was going to add the details about Greyshot and some quotes from Abrams but thought I post it here first to see if anybody has any problems with it.Rosario lopez (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of the movie 

message: May we add the following image of mine that I uplaoded?  It is here in Wikipedia titled: Cloverfield blvd-1.jpg.  It should be in the "Development" section near the line. "The film's final title, "Cloverfield", is the name of a main street in Santa Monica, CA, near Abrams's office."  Thanks.  Kevrock (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, please post new discussion at the bottom of the page, not randomly somewhere near the top.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can see where you're coming from in this idea.  However, the image doesn't really add much to the article does it?  Would anyone upon reading the origin of the title say to themselves, "Gee, that's interesting, I sure wonder what the street sign for that road looks like!" That's my opinion anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield Blvd 

message: I think we need a page to contain all the backstory information about Cloverfield you can find online at places like unfiction.com and cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com. We could have the whole story on Tagruato, Slusho! the myspaces, drilling rig news videos, etc... Gimme the go and I'll start on it unless someone else would rather.Morrock (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good idea. Not everyone wants to (or can) access all of the disparate resources. Plus, there is no guarantee that all the different sites and such will even exist indefinitely. Therefore it would be nice to have all of the available information compiled and presented in a place and manner that viewers can easily consume to fill out their Cloverfield experience. I can provide a summary of all the stuff I’ve learned today (which is a surprisingly lot). Synetech (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viral Marketing and Backstory 

message: If one were to look at the movie being recorded on a camcorder-one would only see white-ish foam.  However, in the movie, if one were to look hard enough, one would see that it is in fact a SATELITE of slusho.  Something to do with the secret ingredient.  It woke cloverfield.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.144.210 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is a part of the Japanese government’s satellite ChimapnzIII that falls into the Atlantic that can be seen in the Coney Island video. The Tagruato satellite was surveying ChimpanzIII for damage. Tagruato drills for oil. Its Yoshida subsidiary researches deep-sea organisms for medical purposes. Its Bold Futura subsidiary provides Tagruato with advanced technology. Slusho! is the subsidiary that uses a secret and addictive deep-sea ingredient in its drinks; an ingredient that apparently causes rapid and massive growth (and tastes great). Teddy, who works on Tagruato’s Chuai station in the Atlantic, sent a sample of the ingredient to his girlfriend Jamie along with a recorded plea for help that mentioned Tagruato finding or creating something there, before he went missing when the creature attacked the rig. Jamie ate a piece of the ingredient (and subsequently went a little crazy and hyperactive), then eventually got over Teddy, whom she thought had dumped her, and went to Rob’s going away party. http://Tagruato.jp http://Slusho.jp http://JamieandTeddy.com Synetech (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: sorry "it has been said that..." should be "I have heard", but for a link to Tagruato, and the Slusho link says something about Tagruato.71.120.133.171 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Orginal Research Tabor (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monster can be seen entering the water" 

message: Er isn't it just a tincy wincy bit obvious that the idea for tyhe film comes from the Korean film The Host, which had loads of people filming the monster on handhelds but we never saw it as they saw it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.186.29 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a secondary source?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Host 

message: We're quoting far too much at length with the Sequel section.  I recommend converting the quotes to prose whenever possible.  We shouldn't be too lazy to write original sentences based on the available information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Erik. I rewrote the section earlier but over the coming weeks after the film's release there has been ALOT of citable articles about there being a possible sequel. We should look over each source and then quote little pieces of it in a 1 to 2 paragraph article. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: Apologies if this has been discussed already somewhere. The "Cast" section of the article states that it is unknown whether Rob and Beth survived. True, we don't actually see their bodies, but surely it is pretty obvious that they both died. I don't think it would violate NPOV to say so. Richard75 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we DON'T know that they're dead or alive & the narrative style of the film is prob trying to leave that deliberately ambiguous. Something interesting to consider here: I stuck around to the end of the credits & heard the ominous voice BUT I also (mistakenly) went to a captioned showing. The voice at the end is NOT ID'd as Rob's, the person speaking is simply given a title of MAN: with no captioned dialog. Anyone else who went to a captioned showing wanna weigh in? Anyone who can remember for certain what the caption read specifically? Tommyt (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that still could be Rob, we don't know. If all it says is man, they could be wanting to make it ambiguous. Zazaban (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then it's glaringly obvious: their fates are UNKNOWN. Let's just leave it at that until we find out for sure. Immblueversion (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the alternate ending, Beth shouts "Rob" just after the final explosion, implying that she might still be alive. Also, somebody took the camera just before the final cut, so they were probably rescued.The Legendary Ranger (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fate of Rob and Beth 

message: Are those little creatures parasites?Does the victim have a symbiotic relationship with the creature?The only thing he does is attack and bite people,and then they explode...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.88.79.26 (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, why are they called parasites in the article? They seem more predatory to me. Mad031683 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're parasites.  They've been referred to as such by the production team.  See Cloverfield (creature) for more info and citations.  -- Vary | Talk 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasites? 

message: I'm surprised no one's picked up on the fact that this is yet another film about the American fear of terrorism, along the lines of Independence Day. These have had a nasty habit of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. 
The subtext is obvious - the USA (which happens to be fighting several wars as we speak) comes under attack by an unknown enemy, and like Sept 11, is turned from aggressor into victim. In this case, the enemy happens to be "invisible", just in the same way that terrorists rarely wear identifiable uniforms and melt into the crowd.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting perspective, however, I'm not sure if the subtext is obvious.  Do you know of any independent sources that comment on this subtext?  Otherwise, it's considered original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this review mentioning several things about the 9/11 subtext, so I think we can cite it as a source. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It was original research, so I put it into the reception again. Supergodzilla20|90 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In the behind-the-scenes footage on the DVD, Michael Stahl-David says that a lot of the research came from footage of 9/11, but he was talking mainly about the style of video. Synetech (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: This is the last paragraph of the summary that Lance1000 has just added:
"Rob and Beth take shelter under a Central Park bridge amid air-sirens, before the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb causes the bridge to collapse around them. The two confess their love for each other before a fire storm ends the recording. With this occurring it is presumed that Manhattan and its remaining occupants were sacrificed to kill the monster to prevent it causing further distruction. The last footage shown depicts Rob and Beth ending their day at Coney Island, in which an object can be seen falling from the sky into the ocean surrounding them.[7] The credits are shown, and a short radio transmission plays."
I think it's a bit much to say "the presumed explosion of a nuclear bomb," considering that realistically, a nuclear bomb would have wiped them out without a chance for their subsequent profession of love.  Also, so far, the plot summary seems to be based on what we actually do know (for instance, while we don't know why Marlene died, we do know that her chest expanded and exploded, so we put that information in without saying "presumably from the poisonous bite of the creature who was probably affected by the super growth hormones of the Slusho drink"), so I think we should love the "presumably's," "assumptions," and "probably's" out until something more defining has been said by the creators.  I'll change the summary back to the previous version, but if you disagree, feel free to say so here. -- Ishmayl (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been noted in a previous discussion, it's quite obvious it wasn't a nuclear explosion, since, as you said, Rob and Beth—as well as the camera itself, probably—would've been wiped out immediately, before expressing their feelings for each other. I'd say your revert is justified. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Nonsense, the movie never introduces any way for her to not die from her injuries. You can safely assume an obviously lethal wound to be a lethal wound if no in-universe way to survive it has ever been presented. Occam's Razor, and all. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumed Nuclear Blast?? 

message: "the project was released on January 17 in New Zealand and Australia, on January 18 in North America, and on February 1 in the Republic of Ireland and the UK."
I understand that the whole Cloverfield thing is a big "project", but what was released on January 18 in the US is simply called a "film" to my knowledge. Should it really be called a "project"? Is it because it's so great and important that it can't be considered as a simple "film"? 86.64.202.161 (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph