Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 3

message: Apparently, a satellite falling from the sky is from a company who is in relations with Slusho (the man character's brother who "died" on the bridge was wearing a Slusho shirt.) Rob (main character) is going to Japan to work for the company that funded the satellite that looks for Slusho's key ingredient at the bottom of the ocean. This ingredient made in the Slusho product causes a certain crestacean to grow exponentially. The satellite is the falling object seen in this picture, landing in the site where the key ingredient is found, disturbing this fucked up monster from the bottom of the ocean who then wreaks havoc upon New York City. The monster has been dormant at the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years? I think each clip of video with Beth and Rob before the monster attacked has some signifcance or hidden image. 
Based on the headlines above, I've revised the article accordingly.  The Production section has more "meat" in it with an image of Escape from New York based on the cited connection.  I've also revised the Marketing section now that producer Bryan Burk verified Slusho and Tagruato as part of the viral marketing campaign.  Feel free to review my edits and make the appropriate changes.  Since it's the month leading up to the film, keep an eye out for headlines to help expand the article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just goes to show, patience is a virtue. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revision 

message: I didn't see it mentioning that Cloverfield was a military name for the case of the monster attacking it, and also Incident Site U.S. 447, reffering to Central Park, I can't put it in, I'm not an "established user". So if someone see's that this is liable to submit, please do so. DarthTader90 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it 'could'. Does it have some meaning? SOME meaning. "Does this have a relationship to the Cloverfield film?" you ask? uh... not unless YOU can prove it does. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Since this page is protected, can anyone add the NL wikipedia page to the other languages, being nl:Cloverfield? Thx! 217.136.242.115 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Best regards, Steve T  • C 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add 

message: This has been circulating the internet, is there any truth and should this be noted? It includes set links and a highly detailed review including a description of the monster (warning of possible spoilers)
http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=235157
Also if this turns out to be true should the early review be noted? Mavrickindigo (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source.  We shouldn't sacrifice reliability to rush such details to the forefront of the article.  The film is coming out soon, so there will undoubtedly be reliably sourced reviews and coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Speaking of errors, Greg's not in the movie.  Just thought I'd bring it up here first. I don't have much more in way of a reference. And frankly, I don't feel very "bold". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, Ace.  I'll take care of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; and here's a direct link if anyone for any reason doubts the photo, with it being at a blog and all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunberg involvement 

message: I added the tagline. I thought it was kind of important, but I see you've taken it off.
Just wanted to say sorry about adding that. Beachdude0213 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why post an apology for something people didn't want in the article...?  Fllmtlchcb (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagline 

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

message: Should it be mentioned?
http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/tachiyomi/comic/cloverfield/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.96.132 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering if you have a link or something to where J.J. Abrams mentioned that or where its posted. Rosario lopez (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga prequel? 

message: there were sneak previews all around salt lake city yesterday. surely someone must of posted a blog about what it really is that can be added to the article. 71.219.78.10 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody wants to mention it because it isn't true until the movie comes out. That's the way Wiki is run.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.185.79 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean it isn't true until it's filmed and edited, and any mention of it before it's release is a reflection of the current state of the movie and can be changed accordingly. Then again, that's moot anyways, since the movie did come out. Unless the movie theatre is going to be getting a revised version of the film for tomorrow. --72.137.47.204 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Uhh, the movie is out. In New Zealand. And Stuff is a New Zealand website. (I just saw it today, for instance.) So, now's the time to get started on a plot section. --Dom (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that guy's right but the article is edit protected at the moment! Some user's from Australia and New Zealand have already seen this film but can't add to the article!
Can we get something done about this?--124.176.26.182 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: How long have all the spoiler warnings from TV/Film/Book (etc) articles been gone?! Seriously I just ruined the whole film for myself by accidentally reading something like "removed as this is actually a spoiler without warning". Any chance of getting the warnings back?
FreemDeem (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure exactly, but were you reading the section called "Plot"? If so you should have assumed it would tell you the plot. And that's probably why spoiler warnings aren't needed for a such a section. Just a guess.VatoFirme (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks for the sarcasm guys, much appreciated. I was scrolling down to a section below the plot part and didn't even realise the film had been released yet. Besides, the article had a plot section before it had been released but it was only speculation. Maybe there should be clearly visible spoiler warnings on articles like this, and perhaps even a "hide section" function.
FreemDeem (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was being dead serious.  Sorry if I worded that badly or if it came across like that to you.VatoFirme (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You guys don't think you're pushing it considering the film isn't out until Friday? Alientraveller (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  out in America Friday... it's already out in AZ and AU (if this wasn't the case then i'd agree with you) harlock_jds (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey, FreemDeem, read my reply to you again. I was attempting to genuinely gauge your opinion on the matter, even going so far as to include a caveat to indicate I wasn't being a tool. All the best, Steve T  • C 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment removed by authorGwynand (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment removed by author I'd genuinely like FreemDeem to come back and answer my good faith questions. Steve T  • C 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a little light humor, I couldn't help myself, but now have removed it. Now a more good faith response. It appears that there is a growing consensus leaning towards not containing plot spoiler tags before plot sections. In many cases, I think this is the obvious choice, as to not clutter up thousands and thousands of pages for something that should be obvious. However, in cases such as this, where a movie has yet to be seen by 99% of interested viewers, I'm not sure a plot spoiler tag would be totally inappropriate. The problem then becomes, what is the consensus on how long is should stay up, what films should be included in such a designation, etc. It appears that, for now, the fact that the section is titled "Plot" is considered enough of a spoiler warning on its own.Gwynand (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your reply. I'll be asking similar of all who bring up the issue on the pages I watch. I'm just trying to gauge opinion. To be honest, I'm pretty ambivalent about it, but I wouldn't particularly be against any move to change the manual of style to recommend such titling. All the best, Steve T  • C 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think the "plot" section needs a spoiler warning.  But if other sections outside the plot, such as the production notes, reception, etc. have spoilers they should be labeled.VatoFirme (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Per WP:SPOILER, any spoiler warnings contained in an article are removed. True enough that you ruin a story by reading it's summary on Wikipedia, however, the only advice anyone can give you is to just not read the article. Anything else would be against Wiki Policy. Fox816 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're removed by mainly one editor. That is not consensus. That guideline is disputed and does not describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be disputed but it does describe current practice, that's why the spoiler template was deleted. If their removed mainly by one editor, its because he got there before I did. Mad031683 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually doesn't describe current practice. And the  template was deleted when there was no consensus to delete it. FreemDeem can just paste the text I posted. --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't be current practice if there were still spoiler warnings in articles or they weren't removed on sight. As of now, policy states no spoilers. If it changes then we'll follow that. Either way, I'm just saying there's no point in placing a spoiler tag in an article or encouraging others to place one in since it will be taken out. It'll only start an edit war. The only way to change that is to reform policy. Fox816 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read one plot summery...got pissed off...and learned the policy, now I know what "plot" actually means in wikipedia and read articles accordantly.  This discussion happens on every new movie and new book coming out, and it seems that Spoiler tags don't have a long life span in spite of the frequency in which they are discussed (that may not be consensus, but its pretty damn close).  I just saw the movie, and was about to post a section on this discussion board titled "Plot=Spoiler" as a pre-emptive strike, but it seems someone beat me to the punch.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia. Have you ever read a volume of Encylopedia Britanica that had spoiler warnings? HalfShadow (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever read the ending of a film in Encyclopedia Britannica? --Pixelface (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't even a point. In fact, if anything, it actually makes my point stronger. HalfShadow (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest moving the discussion to WT:SPOILER.  We're not really talking about the film anymore here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd like it if this didn't turn into another Eastern Promises, please. Steve T  • C 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I planned to say. 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I'm not too crazy about this current website screenshot under "Viral tie-in".  Does anyone think it adds much?  There's screenshots to consider from the film itself, and none of the images in the article are from the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure it really harms things either. It seems more prominent because there's a lack of images in most of the other sections, and once this article has expanded it would probably fit in reasonably OK, as long as all fair-use considerations are covered. Best regards, Steve T  • C 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we'll see what can come up.  On a parallel point, I was wondering, could we add a screenshot of the people taking pictures of the severed head of the Statue of Liberty?  It'd be relevant to the context in Production, and it'd be a direct tie to the film.  For the influencing poster, it's easy to access it by visiting the article for Escape from New York. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You thinking a direct comparison, one above the other, like they've got with the images of the gamma-ray machine over on the Hulk article? Steve T  • C 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was referring to the director talking about the contemporary nature of people recording incidents with their own devices and having a screenshot of them doing that for the severed head from the film.  It wouldn't be a rationale related to the Escape from New York poster, but the poster context can still be kept.  There's a wiki-link to Escape from New York so they can view the poster itself there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Have you seen a decent copy of the image lying around anywhere? I'm struggling to find one. Steve T  • C 09:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole bunch here http://projectcloverfield.com/screencaps. None have people taking pictures, just the head sliding with sparks. Hope I helped! Itsjoshyo (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viral website screenshot 

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

message: :Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Cloverfield Mix.jpg 

message: For a movie like this, what the makers really want is a bunch of speculation, a "Vantage Point" dealie if you will. in brief cases like this, speculation is fine, once they release an official statement on certain matters we'll change it to whatever they say. so why don't we put the definate plot seen in the movie and have a speculation section on the page listing the other possibilities of any parts with multiple valid reasonings.76.27.215.219 (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That would violate tons of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. We do not carve out an exception to core policies just because the creators of a movie chose to be vague in the telling of their story. Pairadox (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation A OK! 

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

message: ...own page? Why not? I mean, it IS going to be made! IMDB or whatever has a page for it, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.158.29 (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline for pending film sequels is to not create it's own page until principle shooting has begun.  This is covered in WP:NFF.  If a separate page is created, it almost certainly be deleted/remerged.  Also see WP:CRYSTAL -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I can summarize the sequel page if it had one right now:
This is the sequel to the 2008 monster movie cloverfield.
The end. There is no need right now.--Kondrayus (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Can anybody provide a source for this? BeeTh 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD release. 

message: Was not Brad Johnson's idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.64.90 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I would Like to add this section is one of the Few sections that has no cited sources. I really want to keep this area of the Article As I added it to the Template on the Bottom. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game 

message: After the Statue of Liberty head falls on the street, the creature walks through downtown again, eventually leading to the collapse of the Woolworth Building.  For some reason, one poster on Wiki keeps changing it the Empire State Building (which is located in Midtown, completely different in direction and nowhere close to the creature, Statue of Liberty, or the group.).  In fact, I could've swore I saw the Empire State Building in the background as they were walking on the Brooklyn Bridge later on...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It waz the ESB That was knocked down. They were in in midtown. You need to get your eyes fixed er somethin cuz it was the ESB. Blue Laser (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woolworth Building 

message: There are many proof that shows there are more than 1 monster.
-You can see that when the monster tail that struck the Brooklyn Bridge is clearly large than the other shot of the monster.
-When the camera shows the head of Statue of Liberty crashing down and the other shot shows the monster leg just a few blocks away,its clearly shows that there are more than 1 monster.Why?Because how can the monster throw the head of SOL that is in the middle of the sea and than appear down the streets a second later?
-Also,when Hud is killed by the monster,why cant they notice the monster arrival?The ground also didnt shake when the monster come by.The only conclusion is that the other monster that killed Hud and not the one that wreck the city.The other monster just come out from the sea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.150.124 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Cloverfield Monster page Talk. I think it was there. But Abrams confirmed somewhere it is one monster, and it kept exactly the same size. The view point is the only thing that makes it appear larger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.28.221 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The IP editor is speculating based on a personal experience viewing the film. It's not enough to support altering the article, and would require significant Reliable sourcing to include. ThuranX (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 2 or 3 monster? 

message: Why can't the information about the poster posted be kept in the article?
A hidden image of the monster is hidden in the clouds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngin211 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anywhere else you can place it? I removed it because it was one bit of info under a trivia section, which generally shouldn't be used per Wikipedia:TRIVIA. If you can find a section in which the poster info would add meaningful substance to the article, then feel free to put it back in (with your sources etc :)). PeterSymonds | talk 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: If you freeze frame towards the end, after Cloverfield knocks the helicopter out of the air, there is a frame of the original King Kong movie during the camera glitches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.88.36 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of this on many forums with picture evidence. If anyone could find a official referrence, I'd add this somewhere. Stabby Joe (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure thing, stabby!:P http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com/2008/04/dvd-easter-eggs-monsters.html
Help any? It also mentions that Target is selling the Part Mix, so you might want to add that. I'm not sure if it counts as an "official" source, though... Godzilla's Heir 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Where would we even put it however? Stabby Joe (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia section, maybe? Wait, do we even have one? Godzilla's Heir 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't as they're discouraged. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Requested citation for "satellite falling" bit near end of plot summary. Seems ridiculous to me. "Object" falling from outer space seems more reasonable than the complicated "satellite for Rob's company crashing and releasing toxic waste and giving birth to/awakening the monster" explanation. One question: why the hell would a slushee company need a satellite? - Jombage (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia is NOT a forum. We require good citation. There IS an object. Whatever the fan theory du jour says, however, we need citation, not guesswork here. ThuranX (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. The movie does not call it a satellite, nor do we have Abrams or one of the movie creators on record saying, "that thing falling from the sky off Coney Island is a satellite". Anything less is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. (As well as wildly unimportant in a plot summary) --Knulclunk (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not specifically, but the Tagruato site clearly states that a chunk of the Japanese satellite ChimpanzIII broke off and fell into the Atlantic ocean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I thought the Tagruato site was fictional....?--Knulclunk (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard the rest of the movie was, too. Shhh, don't tell anyone. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Is this old news?  On the 1-18-08 dot com photos, once you find all three of the main pictures, you can shake the mouse on them and reveal a message ..."Don't Forget Who Takes Care of You
-Love J"
After this is revealed, flipping more reveals
"Robbie,
Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!!
I'm gonna miss the hell out of ya!!
Love, Jamie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.233.112 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: S  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.233.112 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Love J" 

message: I really think that this article would met wiki's requirements for featured article. It's really complete and clarifying!   MakE (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the article is very engaging and well-written, I think FA articles are required to be "stable," and I don't think this article is exactly "stable" enough to pass.  But, hey, I could be wrong... Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

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

message: after the chopper crash outside the city, it would appear that f/a 37 talos fly into the city. They at least appear the same as the planes from Stealth. plz comment  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.167.234 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think identifying the military hardware used is original research and fan cruft and has no place in a plot summary.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/A 37 Talons 

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

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

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

message: I was bored and decided to create a user box for this film.  Anyone who likes it can copy and paste it to their user page.  Be aware that this is my first attempt at an userbox, so if you feel like tinkering with it (particularly the pic, which admittedly doesn't seem to fit well), please feel free!
50px|Cloverfield	This user realizes that something has found us.
--Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cloverfield'' userbox 

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

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "ign" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Suprised this article does not have a criticism section.  The most pathetic part IMHO, is the clearly wrongly scaled head from the statue of liberty.  Even Escape From New York managed to get something that was at least in the right ballpark for size!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Are you sure?  It sure looks like 10'x17' to me. Do you have a published source that says otherwise? --Knulclunk (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic "Special Effects" 

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

message: Hello, I removed :Image:Cloverfeildcloseup.png because there needs to be critical commentary tied with the use of such screenshots; see MOS:FILM#Non-free images.  Plot description is just that; it cannot provide critical commentary on itself, and no editor can personally add theirs because it is original research.  Thus the need for reliable sources.  Also, regarding excessive use, WP:NFC#Unacceptable use under Images, #5, says not to use "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)."  There is already an image used at Clover (creature), so this applies. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the long, lit section from Hud's POV is really the first good look at the creature. Clover (creature) is a different article and that image serves a different purpose there. Besides, that  article is crap. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Real source critical commentary has been added. This shot is the POINT OF THE MOVIE. We will find more sources if you insist. Please don't WP:Edit war over this. Let's discuss here, other editors are welcome.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the citation, it looks like you're referring to, "In fact, we never get a completely clear shot of the creature (at least not in the sense one would expect from a traditional motion picture), although there is a very nice close-up headshot late in the film."  I suppose this could work, but it is a little flimsy.  First of all, the Plot section is intended to complement the real-world context in the rest of the article body, so it is not usually a good idea to complement a complementary section with non-free images.  MOS:FILM#Images says, "Since a film article's 'Plot' section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary."  Maybe a compromise we could have is to add James Berardinelli's review to "Reception" and quote him directly about the creature, and move the image to that section.  That would fit the MOS.  It's a little lower in the article body, but I think would solidify its placement a little. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for taking a second look. The slow revelation of the creature is mentioned in several reviews, it's revelation a factor of the film more than the creature itself. I agree that we should find additional (less flimsy) citations. I think the image location works well in-line with the plot, as long as commentary is in the article it should be fine. If the image is moved lower, its caption might read; "The monster as revealed at the end of the film." I suppose in a perfect article, the plot would be 1/3 of it current size anyway... --Knulclunk (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue with having the image in the Plot section is that the critical commentary is clearly pigeonholed in what should be a basic description of the primary source per WP:PSTS.  My experience has been that images don't belong in Plot sections, period.  It conveys the impression that you could pick any kind of screenshot as long as it is touched upon in the plot description.  (Another minor issue is that Plot sections usually lead the article, and images on the right side will be pushed down the infobox.)  See Fight Club (film) as a personal example of how I try to use non-free images.  I think that it works better to have the images with the sections that have real-world context.  I'm not going to push the specific placement for this article, though... but if this article is going to become a Good Article or Featured Article someday, the change may need to be made.  Regarding the size of the Plot section, yeah, it could be shorter... I've seen the film, and I really don't think that it has to be detailed that much.  Just enough has to be conveyed to understand what went on in the film, not necessarily replicate the viewing experience. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free image 

message: Although it has been a while since the release of Cloverfield, I think showing a picture of the Cloverfield Monster is a BIG spoiler if people haven't  seen it yet. Part of the movie was the mystery of the monster after all. ---- Iconic_D
: I tend to agree. Lots42 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a movie review site. It is not the job of Wikipedia to avoid spoiling movies.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yes, but I still think it's possible to have a good promo picture for the movie without showing the monster. Why not an image of the headless Statue of Liberty, like the DVD case? Plus, there is already an article on the monster itself, said monster image can go there. Lots42 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Cloverfield Monster 

message: Knulclunk removed this :-
(This is, however, many days before the start of the film and shows the two main characters on Coney island before they meet again at the start of the party).
his reason was "i dont think this is right"
well it is right so i have put it back
opening sequence dated       "APR 27 6:41AM"  (1min30secs into film)
shopping before party dated  "MAY 22 6:43PM"  (3min58sec)
party scene start dated      "MAY 22 7:20PM"  (5min16sec)
end seq (fairground)         "APR 27 6:17PM"  (1hr13min14sec)
and don't edit this out again thx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Chaosdruid but please assume good faith on edits from other editors. Also, capital letters help in ease of reading. Thank you. Lots42 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  synopsis 

message: who else thinks the two might be taking place in the same universe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.101 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, but to be fair, this ain't the kind of forum for speculation like this. Lots42 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost 

message: Hi
I see you have deleted two edits from the Plot section
Normally i would let these go, but the first deletion is part of the plot.The second deletion may well be better suited to a different section, but it would have been better if you had moved it rather than completely removed it !
This page is for discussion, which is preferable to slash deletion
I will not cite you for vandalism unless you return and do this again
Chaosdruid (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To Chaosdruid; it is unclear to whom you are talking about, but removing information is not always vandalism. 'Sides, one is supposed to assume good faith, no matter how odd an edit may or may not seem. This page, the one this text is on right now, -is- for discussing various issues related to the main article page. As in, please elaborate your concerns so they can be addressed. Lots42 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  88.111.72.29 

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

message: I think we need some citations for the post-credits sound-clips bit. Lots42 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. Like from the production team.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound clips 

message: In the background, a large object can be seen falling from the sky and landing in the ocean.
:I don't see any large object falling from the sky in the background of the final scene. This looks like something that should be deleted.--Susurrus (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it happened. :)  Check this out. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality of the Youtube clips for this scene suck badly, but on the DVD you can clearly see the object falling and the resulting splash. Coradon (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large object falling from sky? 

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

message: Currently, this article is categorized as relating to a mockumentary film. I feel this is an incorrect classification as Cloverfield fails to meet the primary criteria of the mockumentary style, namely a fictional and humorous film in the documentary style. Certainly Cloverfield attempts to emulate a "found tape" aspect of realism, but it fails to expand this into the realms of discourse characteristic of documentary. Plus, it's not funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.146.71 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the mockumentary bit. Lots42 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories: Mockumentary??? 

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

message: An anonymous editor keeps editing the article to read that "Marlena begins to bleed profusely", contrarily to the previously existing text: "Marlena's eyes start bleeding". She actually doesn't bleed that much, and what's actually relevant is that she bleeds out of her eyes, so please stop reverting to your text. --uKER (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion that she "doesn't bleed that much" and "what's actually relevant". At this point you have at least two editors opposing your opinions, the editor whose original wording you changed, and now mine. Please wait for consensus before reverting again. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:REVERT, "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." My edit, which happened quite some time ago, was never challenged until you showed up, so being you the one who established the dispute, the article is to stay as it was unless you reach consensus for the change to be made. Don't revert "due to no consensus". Also, your argument for claiming consensus on your side is a blatant fallacy: whoever wrote the text that was there before I edited it never showed up to say they didn't agree with my change, so that makes just you challenging the current text. --uKER (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleeding 

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: The Plot section of a film's Wikipedia article should have a single, simple goal: To tell the reader what happened in the movie.
Anything more than that seems as if it does not belong. For example, take these three sentences:
If you look at it again it looks like a soldier shooting one of the parasites. If you look even more close and pause at the flash, it shows an image of King Kong holding a plane on top of the Empire State Building. This could be a clue to a sequel or it could just be an Easter egg.
These things do not happen during a viewing of "Cloverfield." A person watching the film in a theater cannot "pause at the flash" and "look even more close." (Yes, of course, a person at home could -- but what does that have to do with the plot of the movie?)
Speculation about sequels and/or Easter eggs also do not belong in the discussion of the plot of a film.
These sentences should be removed from the 'Plot' section. They simply do not belong.—108.9.50.18 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I laughed out lout while reading your excerpt. Thanks for reporting it. I just removed that part. BTW, next time, feel free to make the edit yourself. That's what Wikipedia is about. Thanks for helping. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of the 'Plot' Section Sound Wrong and Out of Place 

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

message: I see based on the comment "<--further details on her death are not needed in a plot "summary"-->" that there have already been some changes made to the article. I think the fact that a bite from a parasite creatures results in the bitten becoming a host, who will die shortly after through a dramatic and explosive parasite escape may be a relevant plot detail as it sets the tone for how serious the need to avoid the parasite creatures is as they go to rescue Beth.
172.218.68.48 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marlena's Death 

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cloverfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090102205252/http://www.metacritic.com:80/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml to http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cloverfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216072151/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=cmcqHP7Vhpt2qhDZG4xPbzSPJJ52gNL5jTbBTlwGl9NrGCtQVQQx!3588094&&rid=10467 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=cmcqHP7Vhpt2qhDZG4xPbzSPJJ52gNL5jTbBTlwGl9NrGCtQVQQx!3588094&&rid=10467
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So I looked through the plot and came across this:
"Unnoticed by the characters, in the distance an object falls from the sky into the ocean."
"an object " is linked to the  upcoming film God Particle (film), despite no information on if the movies are connected.
So why was it linked? And is there a source for this?
Cypher7850 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding a cetrain link. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Cloverfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001210105/http://laist.com/2008/01/09/laist_interview_88.php to http://laist.com/2008/01/09/laist_interview_88.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217062430/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3945&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3945&Itemid=99
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120105037/http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-cloverfield/286254/content to http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-cloverfield/286254/content
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308065656/http://www.thehorrorpress.com/2009/10/bravos-13-scarier-movie-moments.html to http://www.thehorrorpress.com/2009/10/bravos-13-scarier-movie-moments.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308181518/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10927
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218204747/http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/10991/ to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10991
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416144348/http://uk.beta.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/news/1706543/ to http://uk.beta.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloverfield/news/1706543/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225142147/http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/tv/article/jj-abrams-is-on-the-fringe-70775 to http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/tv/article/jj-abrams-is-on-the-fringe-70775
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Unnoticed by the characters, an indiscernible object falls from the sky into the ocean"
This links to the space station, but do we know for sure that's what it was in the first film?  The viral marketing of the first one claimed it was a satellite, and i didn't hear anything in the 3rd film saying it was the space station.  Also, didn't the station only crash in the other dimension (Jensen's)?  Is there anything to support the idea that it also occurred in the main reality, and if so, how does one account for the time anomaly of the creature (now multiple ones) being awoken prior to the space station coming back to that reality?  I'm going to remove the link for now; unless someone knows of some evidence (or perhaps viral marketing) that said the object in the first film was the space station, it seems like speculation.  --Stevehim (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the scene's pacing looks a lot like the reentry of the capsule at the end of Paradox. --uKER (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the monster(s) are already there before the space station even gets back, and we never see anything to suggest that happened in the main reality, afaik.  --Stevehim (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The events in the franchise apparently being able to affect the past kinda makes it questionable, or even pointless to make any sense of the sequence of events. The events in Cloverfield, set in 2008, may well be said to have been triggered by those in Paradox, set in 2028. --uKER (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be the case, but I don't think we have that information yet.  Maybe Overlord will clear things up (cause Paradox sure didn't...that movie could be replaced with a sentence or two  ;) ).  --47.20.121.2 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space station crash 

message: "other smaller creatures that attack the city while they are having a farewell party."
Those little creatures sure know how to party JohndanR (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  smaller creatures 

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