Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 1

message: The tone needs clean up. Words like "you" and "We" should not be used in an encyclopedia. There is also still speculation and rumour in the article.--Crossmr 01:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: There is far too much opinion, personal interpreation, and OR in this article.  Clean it up, only include what is known and sourced.  Corvus cornix 03:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: The page is currently almost entirely speculation. There's practically no information. HalfShadow 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested speedy delete for page 

message: I removed a previous link to a trailer. Most of the ones posted online are from people that snuck cameras into the theater. We need an actual link to the real trailer, not from a video-posting site like youtube or myspace. Sadly, that might not happen soon until the official site is put back up or paramount admits involvement with the movie. I keep hearing they have denied that they're involed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigman5 (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 5, 2007
:or wait until the Transformers DVD comes out. Socby19 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trailer 

message: What is this word?  I can't seem to define it or understand why it's there. Originally the website for this djfjenjv movie was located CaffeineJunkie 09:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: prob vandalisim i took it outharlock_jds 11:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Djfjenjv 

message: I've attempted to revise the article to be more centered on the film itself, rather than the unattributable hype that existed before, such as in regard to the ownership of domain names.  I've attempted to use the most attributable sources available and used wording such as "reported" to reflect the uncertain nature of the information.  In fact, the sole source for the director and writer is Ain't It Cool News, and that source does not seem verifiable.  I've used a couple of newspapers as sources to reflect its presence in the public sphere, rather than just movie sites.
Additionally, I would like to request a move for this article to Untitled J.J. Abrams project since Cloverfield is just a working title.  It's not even certain if the two are related, since we're only relying on Ain't It Cool News for attribution.  Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could I guess.  I mean that's what IMDB lists it as.--Anguirus111 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content & Move 

message: Not sure what to do with this page. It is undeniable that there is some sort of major film behind the trailer seen before Transformers. ALL the information is sourced from articles SPECULATING about the upcoming film. The entirety of the article, including the title itself, the content of the film, even release dates and writers is speculative. The reason the article exists, is because a trailer exists. The editing back and forth recently is all speculation by editors... whether or not there is a monster etc... I'd like to tag for speedy deletion until more verifiable sources come out. I imagine that will be soon, but until then, this page is the definition of all wrong with Wikipedia.Gwynand 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Definition of all wrong with Wikipedia" is a little strong -- I've seen much worse.  This is obviously a project produced by J.J. Abrams to be released on 1/18/08, and the delivery makes direct attribution impossible at this point.  I encountered a similar problem with The Dark Knight when its viral marketing campaign to reveal the Joker was surreptitious like this teaser trailer.  I think the article, at this point, is as good as can be, especially with a couple of newspapers reporting on the trailer.  I don't think the article warrants a speedy deletion, but a discussion in how the content should be best addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess my statement may be strong... but I think there will be a lot of traffic here after people get out of Transformers... this article gives off the impression that Wikipedia is doubling as Aint It Cool News. Keep the current tags up there until we get some more reasonable sources and I guess I'm OK with keeping the page up. The speculated "official website" which we ARENT sure is official, has NO CONTENT, and doesnt fit criteria for external links. Please stop adding it.Gwynand 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'll keep an eye on the article.  Future films are my specialty.  I've got RSS feeds and Google Alerts armed to pick up information about this, and will update accordingly.  I've exhausted my reserve of reverts for today, though... didn't realize that there would be this much traffic.  I agree on the websites being added -- neither of them are verifiable as authentic sites for the film, and they should be excluded. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need any help let me know. I'm still new to wikipedia but I want help with improve this. if I can do anything just let me know.Rosario lopez 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, I appreciate the offer to help, Rosario.  If you come across any official headlines like this and not stuff like, "This site is reported to be related to the film," please share them here! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is very bad, poorly sourced, but notable 

message: Who says the whole movie will be shot with a handheld camera? Sure, the trailer was, but the reference article just speculates about the possibility of the whole movie being done the same way. - Nubby 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  It's fixed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hand-held camera? 

message: To minimize edits on the mainspace, I'm placing my proposed rewrite here to be evaluated by others so we can make sure that it addresses proper sources and Wikipedia's policies.
;Rewrite
Following the teaser's release, USA Today reported the hype among moviegoers regarding the lack of title in its screening and the background of the film itself.  Paramount was also reported to have published puzzle websites such as EthanHaasWasRight.com in a viral marketing campaign to promote the film.  Based on the sites, the film was speculated to be about Cthulhu, due to the puzzles possessing Lovecraftian themes.  Other reported speculation included a new Godzilla film or a Lost TV spin-off.  A Paramount spokesperson said that the studio was unfamiliar with the URL of the Ethan Haas Was Right website.  The Star Ledger also reported the "seemingly official" website www.1-18-08.com to have pixilated snapshots of people possibly from the film.  Paramount sources have refrained from any comment with the media about the film.
----
----
Let me know what you think.  Feel free to edit accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I've gone ahead and imported it to be bold. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel this takes us 90% of the way there. I don't think it does quite enough to call into question the contested nature EHWR's involvement with Paramount, but I can't come up with anything better right now. Yookaloco 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here is a site that I feel we can use as a better source for 1-18-08.com - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21748 . By the way, this claim made for the validity and predating of the content on 1-18-08.com cannot be made for any Haas site, from what I have read. Granted, I read them from less reputible sources, and people doing their own original investigation - still, I feel that a source of reknown is going to mention shortly that the Ethan Haas sites cannot be verified as Paramount at this time, based on better investigation than alot of professional journalists have done. Yookaloco 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rewrite

message: Now that the trailer is freely available on Apple.com, perhaps we could use some screencaps to illustrate the article? I'm not sure what all the rules about images are though. ShadowUltra 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if using images with such sparse content at this point would meet fair use guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also wondering if a screencap of the Statue's head could be used in the article The Statue of Liberty in popular culture, because an image of each occurence is in the article. ShadowUltra 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some images? 

message: If this just started filming a few weeks ago, how did they film that scene and add in the special effects so quickly? Particularly the explosion and the Statue's head landing in the street. ShadowUltra 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They filmed the trailer separately. It's just a trailer. It won't be part of the film.--24.197.158.14 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This just started filming? 

message: Can anyone confirm or deny if abz3293.com is official or not? --Piroteknix 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No citable source has surfaced covering this in any way. Original research suggests that since the domain was registered after the trailer hit, it is very unlikely that it's connected with paramount, but that is original research, and inadmissable by wikipedia standards. Yookaloco 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe I saw an SUV outside a Benihana in Century City the other eve (7/11/2007). Twas conspicuous to say the least as the driver had a yellow face and the passenger resembled a Picasso painting where the eyes and nose did not match up accordingly. Fearing that Notre Dame had lost its Bell Master I stepped in front of the SUV with my hand affront of my person (much like The Supremes would do if they were singing Stop in the Name of Love!) The driver stopped short, causing Quasi to spill her beverage that looked very much like a Slurpee, but the name on the cup was different. As she got out of the passenger side of the car 7 cups with the same identification fell upon the tarmac. I said to myself rather smarmily as that is my disposition, “Whoa she could not drink just six!”. Seeing that the monstrosity was bipedal I quickly booked it out of there leaving my 3 year old son to fend for himself. I have neither seen my son, the SUV or the sideshow runaways since yesterday. My wife is starting to ask questions about where the kid is, if you happen to find this SUV with the license plate, please keep me in the loop as they may know the whereabouts of my off spring, he goes by the name Ace. Thanks so much and good luck with your search."
"Seeing that the monstrosity was bipedal" - I think the "Parasite" or the giant monster is bipedal.
"he goes by the name Ace" - Wasn't 2004 Ace spraypainted on the wall at the rooftop party?
* 2004 Ace
"her beverage that looked very much like a Slurpee, but the name on the cup was different. As she got out of the passenger side of the car 7 cups with the same identification fell upon the tarmac. I said to myself rather smarmily as that is my disposition, “Whoa she could not drink just six!" - That's an obvious reference to Slusho.
--When u pause the trailer right when Lady Liberty's head falls to the street, u can see that the SUV parked closest to the camera apears to have the liscense plate ABZ 3293 Firesun 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A professional website wouldn't claim "Template proudly ripped from h4x3d", its not official. 64.140.0.3 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it says something like that doesn't mean that it's not real. Remember that this is all ARGs and the point of them is to give the feel that it's really happening. --Icweiner 14:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to assume that the ARG is done by a legit company, as professional designers it has to do with legality issues. 64.140.0.3 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  abz3293 

message: I just heard that this and the speculators thereof was featured on VH1's "The Best Week Ever." Can anybody confirm or deny such? --68.183.43.101 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, July 13th 2007 Cloverfield had the best day ever. They showed a video of Ethan Haas's site and said it was a fake site. They even showed some of wikipedia's article. --Piroteknix 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Best Week Ever 

message: Should it be put in in the article that the film is actually set on 1-18-08,the same day as it's release date?
The photos on the 1-18-08.com website and the film trailer both seem to suggest that it is. Cm619 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it yourself... '"seem to suggest"'. Hardly verifiable. It will probably be true, but it's better to wait until those sorts of details are confirmed (or at least reported on be an attributable source) before the are placed in a wikipedia article. And not that this is the place for this comment, but the temperature of 63 degrees does add weight to the argument that it takes place in a warmer month than January. So since we can't be certain, we leave it out, and let blogs handle it. Yookaloco 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW while temps in the low 60's at midnight is unusual for January in NYC it is possible and in fact happened this year http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNYC/2007/1/6/DailyHistory.html so the temp says nothing about the time of year it takes place. Also i don't think we can debate that the pictures depict scenes from the trailer and are stamped with the date 0f 01-18-2008 so it's clear that they were all 'done' on the same day as the release of the movie (assuming the movie is really coming out on that day since it's still in production can we really say that?). The larger question is we don't know if the movie actually takes place on 1-18-2008, just starts on that date or what (it's already been said that the events in the trailer were shot just for the trailer... not as part of the movie). So we can't say the film is set on 1-18-08 no matter what the trailer and the pictures tell us because we don't know the relationship of the trailer and pictures to the film. But we could say that the trailer takes place on 1-18-08 since it's verified by the offical site via the time stamps on the pictures.harlock_jds 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Set in the film 

message: Quote:  "So, what more can we actually know about the 1-18-08 movie. For one thing, it goes by severalcodenames, according to IMDB: Clover, Cloverfield and Slusho. Slusho offers some interesting trails. Firstly, in the teaser itself someone is wearing a shirt with a Slusho logo on it. Second, a Slusho website with correlating graphics and a strange back story have also appeared at the same time as the trailer. . . . And Slusho was the name of a fictional drink featured in Abrams' series Alias.
The official site doesn't have much there at present besides a interactive Flash thing with two snapshots supposedly taken on the night of the party featured in the teaser. But more geek sleuthing has revealed that the domain 1-18-08.com is registered to a "Henry Kelvin" at a dummy address in New York. But the technical contact is an "Albert Pike" at an address that corresponds to The George Washington Masonic Memorial. A secondary domain of 01-18-08.com is also registered at that address, but the registrant is listed as "In Hoc Signo Vinces", a latin translation of the phrase attributed to Constantine's vision but also adopted by the Scottish Rite branch of Freemasonry, a branch of the sect notably advanced in America of the 1800s by one Albert Pike, whose name also appears on the secondary domain registration, this time as Administrative Contact! And just to stoke the fires of intrigue Pike was a crafty fellow, apparently with links not only to Freemasonry but also the Illuminati and the Luciferian Society. Oh and the telephone number given on the domain registration belongs to The Barker Hangar, a soundstage at Santa Monica Air Center, formerly known as... wait for it... Clover Field."
Found here: http://ayjay.tumblr.com/ —Eickenberg 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Cloverfield'', Clover Field and the Freemasons connection 

message: According to this guy the Ethan Haas website must somehow (but definitely) be connected to "Cloverfield", although Abrams himself said differently: hddp://blog.myspace.com/godgravity I pinged the sites myself. The information is correct. But the conclusion? By the way: the name server of slusho.jp also runs on the subnet IP 208.109.x.x … hmm… :-) —Eickenberg 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Apple's Network utility. You'll also notice that both slusho.jp and badrobot.com can be traced via mdf001c7613r0004-gig-12-1.phx1.attens.net ... to 63.241.180.250, which is AT&T San Diego, while slusho.jp is further re-routed to 208.109.112.149 & 216.69.188.45. I'm not a pro, but this seems to be the same server, same provider etc. (same goes for ethanhaaswasright.com; see above; same IP/provider/subnet) —Eickenberg 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: eh,i see.Ethan site looks like a nicely done flash site.Slusho is a teaser site cause you can't actually buy it.So you're saying ethan is a legit site?It looks like it has nothing to do with the movie,or is it?--Hitamaru 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Ethan site could be connected to the film in some way. Remember the little note "Exit to Mystery Street?" written on a piece of paper in the film's trailer? Well, exittomysterystreet.com redirects to humidbeings.com, and both humidbeings.com and ethanhaaswasright.com are hosted by mediatemple.net in Los Angeles (incl. also the exittomysterystreet.com). Now, is that just a coincidence? Could be… on the other hand, ABC (the company behind Abram's Lost TV series) is a mediatemple client (see their clients list). In addition the fictional Hanso Foundation from the "Lost" TV series is (like ethanhaaswasright.com etc.) traced through 72.10.63.210 to mediatemple.net. Hmmmm… —Eickenberg 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh come on, loosen up. It's a movie… and a hype… like lots of others here, I'm just having a little bit of fun. —Eickenberg 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides it from being a viral marketing .--Hitamaru 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EthanHaasWasRight.com running from the same server subnet as Abram's Bad Robot 

message: My friend told me he saw this trailer when he saw Live Free or Die Hard. Everyone keeps associating this trailer with Transformers, but was it with any other movies? Our theater is infamous for frequently screwing up trailers, but has anyone heard anything about this? ShadowUltra 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently, this trailer is also with Live Free or Die Hard 

message: On the "Slusho" site, I found that the "flavors" symbol and the symbols used for flavors on the site don't match up using an internet translator. It is in katakana though and using the wikipedia katakana table I figured out three of the symbols. If anyone knows Japanese, please edit it as I don't know Japanese. Thanks. (If these do, in fact, don't mean flavors then maybe the other ones...) --WTRiker 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit as it is clearly original research.  --ElKevbo 01:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in katakana and says "fu re baa" which is as close as you can get to something like flavor (think along the lines of Flava Flav, it's pronounced sort of the same).  There are no clues in the Japanese text.  The "Bet you can't drink just 6" is translated as something like "6 cups won't be enough." --68.82.34.18 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese writing- "flavors" 

message: There were completely valid citations that could have supported the sentence that talked about news outlets covering the trailer, yet they are gone -- USA Today, The Star Ledger, et cetera.  Please realize that such sentences can be contested 20 years down the road -- "Was there really news coverage of this?" and would be invalid without the perfectly acceptable citations to back it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation for USA Today has been re-added. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: Why does this keep on happening? There's no valid reason for it to be removed. Either way, this page should be locked to end the fan speculation and exc.  --68.183.43.131 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every reliable fact that goes to IMDB will be put in this article since its receiving so much attention right now. Honestly IMDB doesn't add anything extra.--Crossmr 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The IMDB link is available in the info box at the top right hand of the page.  Repeating it at the bottom of the page adds nothing to the article. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone removed the link to IMDb 

message: this section does not belong here. first of all as it says in the headline they are unconfirmed. and now where in the linked artical does it mention either name?--Jwein 00:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cameos 

message: what is listed in refrence 4 is absoultely not stated in the article that the link brings you to so it needs to be removed please.--Jwein 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 4 Needs To Be Removed 

message: What is Wiki's policy with respect to ARG's/online or viral marketing?  It seems like this page should stick to the movie, which we don't know a lot lot about so far and another separate page should deal with the ARG (if there even is one).  www.Slusho.jp doesn't seem to have much to do with the movie (Mike Vogel is shown wearing a t-shirt with Slusho on it, but that's pretty much it), but it might turn out to be the rabbithole for the ARG.  KC 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie vs. the ARG? 

message: I read in this morning's paper that there's speculation that the movie will contain several characters from Lost.  In other words, nobody knows anything, but it doesn't stop them from talking.  :)  Corvus cornix 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lost'' 

message: Abrams is quoted as saying, "The only site of ours that people have even found is the 1-18-08.com site," .  Sounds like there are other sites out there that nobody has associated with this film, yet.  Corvus cornix 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Abrams is quoted as saying that in an e-mail that he sent to Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News.  The e-mail (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261) was posted on the AICN web site on Monday, July 9th.  Since then, http://www.Slusho.jp has been found, and most people believe that it is one of those other web sites that Abrams was referring to and is probably part of a Cloverfield ARG.  Other web sites have been found, but do not appear to be related to Cloverfield (so far).  KC 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrams 

message: Currently, someone's placed this figure in the infobox.  Do we have a source which states, unambiguously, that this is the figure (ie. not merely that "the budget is said to be" or "rumours say the budget is" etc)?  Because, if not, it needs to be removed until we get something more concrete. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I reverted that. I'll do it again. DurinsBane87 06:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best source I've found on this is the NBC article by Kirk Montgomery for NBC. I wouldn't say it's entirely reputable as the number comes from a "secret source, who is on the set of the film every day", but it's the only place I've seen that number stated. http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=73653 VerasGunn 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is more or less ok for what the article currently says ("budget estimated at"), but not strong enough for the infobox (official figure). Ok, cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much what I figured, which is why I haven't added the sum to the budget infobox until we get a more definitive answer. VerasGunn 07:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clearing that up. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  $30 Million 

message: I added Slusho Zoom to external links. It links back to Slusho and its page info has 1-18-08, so it appears to be another site involved. Hope that's okay. 67.186.34.123 08:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been known for a while its not an official site, but a fan site 64.140.0.3 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above editor.  There's nothing attributable to indicate that site is in any way associated with the film in an official capacity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slusho Zoom 

message: Why are we continuing to include the slusho website in external links? Before I get into an argument to remove it, I want to see what solid reasoning we have to have it there in the first place.Gwynand 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's discussed in the article and we've made it clear further up that it's not been confirmed as an official movie site.  As such, I don't suppose it does any actual harm to include it.  On the other hand, it's not actually vital; there's already a link in the main article body. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be excluded altogether because no attributable source has said that Slusho.jp definitely relates to this film.  We have 1-18-08.com confirmed, and that's enough for the time being.  If we allow an unconfirmed site like Slusho.jp, we may as well permit the other unconfirmed sites that have attempted to be added. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree with Erik 100%, for the moment I just deleted the link in the external links section, but kept it in the article. At least when reading the article, the reader will understand that it is only speculation that this is an official site. I'm concerned that nothing legitimate confirming it as an official site has popped up, I'm also concerned that the site itself has apparently nothing to do with the movie trailer (other than the concept of slusho being related to Abrams and the T Shirt). While of course it may be legit, I don't think wikipedia should act as a pawn of internet rumors and speculation, no matter how convincing (and I personally dont see all this convincing). Gwynand 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  a NBC News station in CO says it has a source that says they are linked. Is this station no longer considered a attributable source?harlock_jds 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's why it's mentioned in the article, but not 100% confirmed as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning to the Slusho.jp question 

message: Has anyone else noticed how, in the official 1-18-08 trailer, the character Rob is obviously being portrayed by actor Michael Stahl-David while on the IMDB page for Cloverfield the character of Rob is listed as being played by Mike Vogel?  I just thought this was very strange.  Simple mistake?  Or is Mike Vogel replacing Michael Stahl-David as the Rob character?  Maybe Michael Stahl-David was simply being used as Rob in the trailer and they preferred to have Mike Vogel take over the role of Rob in the actual movie?  I don't know... but it still strikes me as odd.  --User:NeoBix 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB itself is known to be inconsistent at times, and let's face it, almost nothing is actually known about the movie itself. HalfShadow 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I had IMDB pegged as a somewhat professionally maintained site.  This type of glaring mistake makes me think otherwise now.  User:NeoBix 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be interested in looking at the proposal at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, then, and plenty of relevant discussion on its talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting.  You learn something new every day I guess.  Thanks!  User:NeoBix 4:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency Between Trailer And IMDB's Page 

message: Any mention of Cthulhu in the discussion page, and the clear links that have been established with the film teaser and Lovecraftian themes, are constantly destroyed or reverted to edits that don't include them.
If people don't want it in the article, fine. But this isn't the Goddamn article. It's where we discuss possible content additions, and what we might have to offer. It's also curious that the Lovecratian portions are being specifically targeted here.
I think we have Abrams damage control messing with our Wiki.
--user:167.1.103.100
Grow up. Anytime you "figure something out" on your own, it's Original Research. There's no need to discuss anything that can't be added. I think we have an arrogant kid messing with the wiki. DurinsBane87 00:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I will say this much.  I see other speculation on here so if Cthulhu theories are being specifically targetted then that is unfortunate, but I don't know why someone would be doing that only for some theories and not others.  User:NeoBix 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cthulhu isn't being specifically targeted so much as being the straw that broke the camel's back. Second, the discusion page is for discussing information that's verifiable, and figureing out how to integrate said VERIFIABLE material into the article. It IS NOT a forum for the article's topic. DurinsBane87 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *"Monstrous Poster": "Warehouse sale called Frank & Son's here in Southern California had a large booth where they sell movie posters. One of the posters there had a snapshot of the statue of liberty overlooking the city of new york. The statue was missing it's head and at the top in large white letters it said "Monstrous". The lower right corner had in smaller white letters, 1-18-08. 
--Mithos90 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The inclusion of unverifiable discussion from forums and such fails to be appropriate for improving the article.  The talk page is not a place for speculation, either by the editor or unverifiable sources.  Any further unhelpful additions will be reverted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That source is even better.  I couldn't find it when I looked earlier, but I didn't realize it was under an article title that would not mention Cloverfield, 1-18-08, or Abrams.  The citation has now been updated.  Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacked by damage controllers? 

message: The entirety of the talk page has been archived because of a persistence by editors to treat the talk page like a forum in which unverifiable information is shared and speculated upon.  Per talk page guidelines, the talk page is meant for discussion about how to improve the article, and this requires reliable sources for implementation.  Fan sites' speculation do not count, forums do not count, and scooper pictures do not count.  There has been many KBs of general discussion, and the article has barely been improved as a result.  It must be understood that the talk page is not a forum, and discussion should be limited to improving the article.  "Understanding" the film does not entail reading others' unverifiable speculation, and thus there is a need to re-focus the discussion.  If you would like to speculate about the film with other Internet users, I would recommend forums at IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parts of this discussion page may need another healthy archiving.  "The Monstrous" section has been debunked, and other sections become less objective as posts increase. --ElectricZookeeper 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion hasn't been as bad as the last archived set, but if you feel the need, go ahead.  I would suggest archiving everything but the last one or two discussions (if my professionalism still needs to be further discussed, and I don't care to give the impression of censorship in that regard).  Colossus may still be a relevant, live discussion for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation needs to be kept to a minimum, not only for credibility reasons.  Before the first archive, a lot of speculative information was brought up, to which others responded with even more speculative information and critiquing others' ideas, which I think was sort of a runaway effect that got out of hand.  In order to prevent this from happening again, its probably best to suppress anything with out a source.  As for the archiving, I'm not sure how to properly archive parts of a discussion page.  Help:Archiving_a_talk_page only gives direction on archiving a whole page.  --ElectricZookeeper 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I'm gonna add a part of the article that isn't just speculation any more.
In the official trailer released to apple.com, there is a spot in the trailer that makes a dirrect link to the Cloverfield project and one of its code names; Slusho.
:Image:slusho2.png
A person can be seen wearing a Slusho t-shirt in the movie trailer. It's visible when he leans toward the camera to ask if anything can be seen from the roof after watching the news broadcast. Slusho is a drink from J.J. Abrams' show "Alias" (2001) as well as this film's codename. Slusho is also a Japanese drink.
Information from a source included in the Cloverfield project reports that all the production vehicles are marked with the word "Slusho", the slogan "You can’t eat more than 6", and a drawing of a slurpee like drink (which is a description similar with the t-shirt seen in the preview). The source claims to be "leaking" information, but with a marketing scheme like this no one can know for sure if it's all part of the game that Paramount has decided to put together.<Br>
Visit the  Slusho website, to see if you can find any "clues". The website is said to contain many.
Yeap --Huper Phuff talk 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It blatantly violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research.  Please read the policy; it fails to be encyclopedic and does not belong in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dam Nothing is Official with you and this Movie Article Erik, the only time this article is going to be updated is After This Thursday after Comic-Con. --74.244.160.39 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the issue with Wikipedia's core policies and viral marketing campaigns -- the uncertainty about what is right or not in relation to the campaign creates an approach of better-nothing-than-everything, 'cause from what you and others have posted in terms of fan sites and forums, there's a whole lot of unverifiable "everything".  Hopefully, we will find out concrete information about the film at Comic-Con and include it in this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slusho Connection... 

message: I think this article should be moved to the article page under "1-18-08"
and that "Cloverfield" should be redirrected to that...seeing as that is the only confirmed promotional title and the rest is just conjecture. --Huper Phuff talk 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting consideration. The thing is, the media (our sources) really are referring to it as "Cloverfield". 1-18-08 is not confirmed, though, as a title of anything, rather it is confirmed as being connected to the film (clearly through the trailer and website).Gwynand 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable. I like your point about how "Cloverfield" is the name it is being known under. But people are going crazy here about what is and is not validated. So I guess it can wait until more information comes out, but I do believe that "1-18-08" will turn into the actual title (my own personal belief), in which case it should be moved there. So I guess we just wait until a title comes out or they state somewhere that "1-18-08" is the title. --Huper Phuff talk 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sweet sweet I'm so exicted to be contributing here in a helpful, organized fashion :D. Oh another thing. Movie theatres (by online box offices like movietickets.com and fandango.com) have no record of this new movie coming out for January 18th, 2008, and the date appears on the time stamp of the photographs at the official site 1-18-08.com it might just be a title for the "day things went to hell". However it does say "in theatres 1-18-08" in the trailer. --Huper Phuff talk 17:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to see what 1-18-08 really means from reliable sources.  No offense, but it's not our place to consider the possibilities without any valid reference at hand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kk, gotcha, so I'll just post here again when I actually hear something about the title or a change in release date with a credible source. --Huper Phuff talk 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Move to 1-18-08 

message: The Washington Post reports that 42 Entertainment was responsible for the alternative reality games that we've seen online, but they are not in relation to the Abrams project.  Furthermore, in regard to Slusho.jp, there was this sentence: "Online sleuthing led to the Web site slusho.jp, a promotional site for the nonexistent Slurpee-like drink. Records showed that the Slusho Web site was registered before the trailer aired, indicating that the site almost had to be official."  Perhaps this can help flesh out the Slusho.jp information, as the Post is reliable.
Also, Entertainment Weekly shows the poster for the image, which I will upload in a second.  But notice that there is no film title on it, contrary to what's been found online.  Also, Michael Stahl-David is reported as the lead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely possible that 1-18-08 is the title. —James Knevitt 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible.  We'll find out the official title from Comic-Con and move/update accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Entertainment Weekly is published by Time Inc. (as in Time-Warner and Time Magazine).  It doesn't get much more verifiable or reliable than that. --ElectricZookeeper 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Entertainment Weekly is a completely reliable source.  They don't post fake images.  Perhaps they cropped it to conceal the title for the time being, but that's what we'll find out from Comic-Con this weekend. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-free images are supposed to be at a low resolution, so I think that the current poster will be fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IT can not be a resourceful article as it is not from the actual radio station site itself. Therefore this is a speculation until the Washington Radio Station Quotes or has a recording of the Audio. Even if they put up an audio recording, the person who called in maybe did a prank call seeing The Comic-Con event was in California and the Radio Station was in D.C. and the guy did not reveal his/her name. There is no Official Info. --Mithos90 06:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News update 

message: I would like to request other editors' opinions about the verifiable speculation that has been reported about this project up to this weekend.  (Please note, this is about what has been reported in the public scope, not what it will be.)  For example, Entertainment Weekly reported that the film was not a live-action adaptation of Voltron.  There have been other reports in popular media of the film being a remake of Godzilla.  My question is, how important is it to mention all the speculated possibilities in popular media (no matter how absurd they may sound to you and me)?  I was thinking that we need to review the existing reliable sources, create a subsection about "Early speculation" before Abrams reveals the title and other details about the project this weekend.  This would help separate the speculation from what will be official. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Abrams will be announcing the movie's title and perhaps some other details later this afternoon (around 4 p.m. EDT) at San Diego's ComicCon.  If you want to include this early speculation, then we'd better hurry!  KC 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've expanded accordingly.  I think that the "Plot speculation" section is a good idea because it is part of the film's marketing, which had reached a point that even popular media was reporting on the possibilities.  This history is now established, and we will find out true details about the film at Comic-Con. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *"Monstrous Poster": "Warehouse sale called Frank & Son's here in Southern California had a large booth where they sell movie posters. One of the posters there had a snapshot of the statue of liberty overlooking the city of new york. The statue was missing it's head and at the top in large white letters it said "Monstrous". The lower right corner had in smaller white letters, 1-18-08. 
--Mithos90 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if that would be acceptable.  ComingSoon.net, while reliable with exclusive content, also reports the findings of scoopers.  That one says it's based on "A user at unfiction," which makes it unverifiable for now.  If a more prominent source reported the possibility, like one of the major newspapers that I listed, then it could be included as reported speculation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah Ok Then We have to wait for Video Mentioning this at Comic Con OR on the NEWS Article about the recent arrest. Ill Keep Looking. Also Need to Mention it was mistaken for the Transformers 2 Trailer? --Mithos90 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So would you suggest hiding the paragraph for the time being?  I don't think that the paragraph is too long; it seems like an appropriate length to reflect how fuss that was raised.  Perhaps we can remove some redundancy, as some items, like Lovecraft lore and Godzilla, that are repeated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why I specified wherever possible where the information came from and used the word "reported".  It's a matter of that speculation seeping into reliable sources such as major newspapers.  There's been a lot of ideas about what the film could be, and the only way to filter out the most recognizable items are the reliable sources' verifiable speculation.  I believe it's worded well enough to indicate that it's not necessarily true, just that they are reported possibilities.  Maybe we can expand it to indicate that these newspapers are noting that the speculation came from online? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voltron 

message: Can some one fix the problem of the two different cloverfield pages. If you type in 1-18-08, you get the old page, and if you type cloverfield, you get the new one, but both are title cloverfield and both have the same talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.65.165 (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 26, 2007
:It's called a redirect, so two articles don't get created.  Also, please leave a signature after your comment by typing four tildes (~) at the end. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing the two pages 

message: Now somebody has written in that Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News has revealed the title of this movie to be "Colossus".  I will agree that Harry is hinting that the title is Colossus, but even so, it seems pretty speculative to me.  At any rate, I don't think the title is verifiable.  Here's the link to the article: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33457 KC 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tough call about AICN is that while it is a fairly prominent movie site, they render the layout crappy on purpose.  I've encountered other editors question the verifiability of information on the site based on its look.  I personally believe that the information should be excluded for now, until there is more coverage -- after all, the official title, which Abrams said he was not going to say, is pretty big news. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it looks like 'Mr. Brownstone' posted the title in the comments section, not Harry in the original scooping article. That'd make it entirely unreilable. ThuranX 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I mean.  Harry says to "go ask, Piotr Nikolaievitch Rasputin", which is the secret identity of the X-Men character, Colossus.  So, Harry doesn't come out and say that the title of the movie is Colossus, but he hints at it.  KC 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, waiting one day for an official announcement is worth it. ThuranX 04:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Where have you heard that they're going to make an official announcement about the title today? KC 10:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems logical that it would follow with the "-us" adjectives, but until it's still unverified.  If true, this brings a new level of meaning to the trailer, as the The Statue of Liberty is often called "The New Colussus." --ElectricZookeeper 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like AICN's theory has been debunked .  The correct words on the posters are "monstrous," "furious," and "terrifying," which is contrary to the article.  Harry based his colossus idea on the fact that all the words ended in us: monstrous - furious - barbarous - COLOSSUS. --ElectricZookeeper 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's more support for the film's name to be something other than "Colossus".  On April 19, 2007, Variety online printed a story about Ron Howard directing a remake of the 1970 sci-fi classic "Colossus: The Forbin Project".  This remake will be called   "Colossus"  KC 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Title = Colossus? 

message: A new picture has been put up on 1-18-08.com.  You can flip the picture over by dragging it in a circle.
The opposite side has a message from "Jamie."  Three names appear at the top: Lascano, Platt and Robbie.
A myspace search yields "Jamie Lascano." She has seven friends: Tom :P, Robbie Hawkins, Lil, HUD, LenaDia, Hawk and Beth.
Lo and behold, most of them (including Rob) are people from the trailer.  The plot thickens... --ElectricZookeeper 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Myspace Sites have not been considerably officially announced yet by Paramount, Bad Robot Productions or J.J. Abrams...yet however though the pictures on the Myspace profiles DO have accurate descriptions of the characters from the movie and the pages did pop up after the new additions to the Official Site, there still has not been official announcement. Right Now, the only thing  Official on the names are the ones mentioned on the back of the two party pictures on the Shockwave Official "Cloverfield" Site To See the Messages on Back (Get the Party Pictures on Top Then move the mouse left,right,up,down quickly while clicked) --Mithos90 06:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the nature of the marketing campaign, I would expect to see more publicity material that is not "official" yet is obviously related to the film.  This makes it difficult for it to fall within WP:V.  Exceptions can be made in Wikipedia policies (although not frequently), and I think this would constitute one.  We must be careful to know where to draw the line as there is a lot of speculation. --ElectricZookeeper 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No this doesn't constitute an exception, and WP:V is a core founding policy of wikipedia, we don't make exceptions because someone is using unusual marketing practices that don't jive with our policies. We don't add the information until it falls within the policies.--Crossmr 13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We've already had examples of things that 'Had to be a part of the campaign' that ended up not being a partof it. WP:V needs to be followed or we'll end up with every crackpot site listed. Yes that means that this wikipedia article is behind the times but so whatharlock_jds 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "exception" was not the right word.  I don't want to poke the bee's nest.  Allow me to justify my position, I'll update this in a moment. --ElectricZookeeper 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob's MySpace account was created before the trailer was released, adding to its authenticity.  However, Jamie's was created afterwards and Hud's is hidden. The Lorax88 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We are questioning the reliability of a source.  A source itself is not original research. --ElectricZookeeper 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at the comments on their walls; the earliest is July 16.  There is not a way for users to change the dates and times.  --ElectricZookeeper 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is Possible to change the Dates of the Posted Blogs from today to back to last week....Comment them selfs can be changed by coding and whats put in them also. --Mithos90 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "A source itself is not original research." I thought a second party had to detect or report a source in order for it to be cited? Otherwise, coming to our own conclusions was considered original research and uncitable on Wikipedia? 72.49.194.69 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but if a reliable source cites them, that would certainly justify mentioning them in the article (in the same fashion as slusho.jp is already mentioned). --ElectricZookeeper 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  I'm just saying that I doubt it will come directly from Paramount, Bad Robot, or J.J. Abrams.  Look at the Slusho.jp site.  We have an anonymous "inside source" quoted by Colorado 9NEWS Kirk Montgomery and we have The Washington Post saying that Slusho.jp "almost had to be official".  KC 15:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How are you suggesting that the myspace pages were NOT made by Paramount? The actors from the trailer are in the pictures, and each one has about 6 picures of them, so they OBVIOUSLY had access to the actors. Also, it would have taken WEEKS to orchestrate all of that detail. How could they have known Jamie's name BEFORE the picture site was updated? I've been around every day on IMDb's forum for a long time, and I was there when they updated the pictures on friday. I was also there when someone went to myspace and entered the names in 8 or so hours after 1-18-08 was last updated. NOT 8 or so days.   Nickdude9110 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if your comment is directed at me or not, but I totally believe that the MySpace pages were put there by Bad Robot and are officially part of the viral marketing campaign or AGR, whatever you want to call it.  KC 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you guys so determined to RIGHT WAY add the Myspace Pages to the article when the movie has about 6-5 Months to go before release also the Myspace Pages are not even a week old them selfs? Within that time, the pages WILL be mentioned at some point but at the moment, it is just too soon and there has not been an Official Announcement yet. If You guys want to discuss this topic further, go to the IMDB Forums. As of Here....Please Be patient for announcements on the Film itself and the Myspace pages from Paramount Pictures, Bad Robot Productions and/or J.J. Abrams soon to come. --Mithos90 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mithos.  Adding information to Wikipedia should not be a foot race.  We're the tortoise in this case; slow and steady development of the article using verifiable information.  That's the pace that's shaped this article so far, and it looks to be very solid.  There's a lot of people on the lookout for information about the film, so it's just a matter of a reliable source surfacing that covers this information about Myspace. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am concerned that people continue to create threads that violate the 'Discussion' board guidelines. There is a great deal of 'original research' in most of these threads, I have tried to be vigilant in deleting them. The ones I have deleted make absolutely no contribution to the article itself, or the improvement thereof. Please don't think I'm trying to sound like a jackass or prick, but alot of people are treating this as a forum and speculation is rampant (though this is at least partly the producer's fault themselves for releasing extremely little information on project 'Cloverfield'). 72.49.194.69 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concern, and I think that discussion about the Myspace pages was necessary due to the more direct connection to the project than previous sites that have been mentioned here.  It seems appropriate to wait for verifiable coverage of these pages, and we have the discussion to point to in case a new editor needs to be caught up to date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: do you have a reliable source saying it's official? not a blog or anything, but an actual reliable source?. DurinsBane87 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, the Slusho shirt that is worn by one of the main party goers, which he is still wearing in the pics I've seen of the on location shoot in NYC. Every account of Comic-Con you can find mentions the Slusho shirts being given away or sold at the Paramount desk at the event. The same shirts that slusho.jp started selling the same day as Comic-Con. Can you just cite the trailer? 24.151.176.32 06:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trailer doesn't specifically state that they're related, that would be like saying that block buster.com is an official website for Donnie Darko simply because the logo is in the movie. You can't just put 2 and 2 together yourself, thats called "Original Research" and is not allowed. You would need to find a reliable source specifically saying that slusho.jp is connected to the movie. DurinsBane87 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I see. Being an ARG/Viral Marketing tactic I doubt we'll get anything official for a while. As obvious as it is that it's connected I understand why we can't jump into conclusions here, that's good. What about the new topic I started down at the bottom asking to add Jessica Lucas to the cast list? Would the same apply to that? As obvious as it is, 2 actors and the director that are confirmed to be in the movie are all together on a set being paid for by Paramount on location in NYC filming along with Jessica, does it have to be an official statement from a production company or does photographic evidence count for anything? 24.151.176.32 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirly sure, but my guess is that since there's no official word she's in cloverfield from a reliable source, it can't be added. If it gets confirmed somewhere, that's a different story. But it'd like to have my statment confirmed before i held you to it. DurinsBane87 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New site(s) found 

message: MTV talks about how "Slusho" t-shirts were distributed at the Paramount panel at Comic-Con.  Is this notable enough to include in Marketing somehow?  Obviously, we shouldn't make the connection between Slusho.jp and these t-shirts, as the reference does not make a connection to the website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Slusho's website Shop Has Gone up Since last weekend plus some of the closed areas of the Slusho site are now open Erik. It is quite Possible to market the Slusho products now because of the Slusho shop now up and running off Comic-con. If we could include that in the Marketing Section of the article. --Mithos90 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true, then let's see if any secondary sources surface making the connection between the film and Slusho.  It could be directly related to the film, or it could just be a marketing plot.  We'll need some verifiable coverage if we want to detail Slusho. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we have a media source reporting that they were giving away the shirts at the panel makes the slusho site an official site... but that's just me. harlock_jds 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume you mean the posters that had the different adjectives at the top of them.  The thing about Marketing, though, is that the information can get too indiscriminate.  For example, it would not be encyclopedic to mention that Stardust had a TV spot last night.  How much detail to be placed in Marketing is a discussion that should take place among editors, and I believe that there is a point where there's too much information that's not necessary for a long-term encyclopedic article.  For example, the teaser trailer should definitely have a place, but it may not be as important to report on new TV spots and trailers if they didn't have the same impact and notability as the first one did. The only thing new with these posters is that they have descriptive words at the top of them, and they don't really give much additional insight about what the film could be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slusho at Comic-Con 

message: Well, base on the film, Rob is the one who was taping that footage. I already revise it thanks.--124.106.123.124 (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hud taping footage at Rob and Beth's Coney Island Date? 

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: 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)

text: VFX Supervisor Kevin Blank calls the creature Clover in the behind-the-scenes footage. It may be unofficial like the term parasites, but that’s what they were using during principal photography. Synetech (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: All he says is "listen, listen to me!" over and over again, asks for "help", "help me" and mentions a "fish". Nothing terribly important. Anything else that he said was inaudible and is just part of someones imagination.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.114.150 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloverfield meaning 

message: They forgot to mention in the "Pre-Release Plot Speculation" Section, that several runors circulated at that time of a possible tie in with the video game, "Gears of War." Can someone add that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.220.153 (talk) 23:07, 24 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: 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)

text: See above. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, how do you expect it to be written? Like the back of a DVD? "Four friends find themselves in New York City the night a monster attacks! Armed with only a camcorder, can they escape alive?!" Sure, it's a brief summary, and it is brief. Sorry for telling you the ending. If you don't want to be spoiled, just don't read, because we're not going to warn you that a plot section has the plot in it.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if someone wants to know what happens in the film to tie into the real-world context present in the article body, leaving out the major scenes from beginning to end would be detrimental. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it would help if you actually put spoiler tags on it.  The guy has a point though, less is more, don't tell the whole story you tards.67.184.114.4 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason for such hostility, people. . . — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use spoiler tags. Blame yourself for reading a section labeled "plot".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell happened to the spoiler warnings? 

message: It should be labeled that there are major plot spoilers in the article for people who have not seen the movie and want to find information, but still be surprised.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.229.10 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major spoilers in this article 

message: To whoever writes the plot summaries for the movies on wikipedia you tell the whole movie. this is so stupid because if no one has seen it you ruin the whole movie for them. a plot is a BRIEF description of os story not a telling of precise details of the movie. WAKE UP IDIOTS!!. who taught you how to write a plot summary a monkey?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.109.130 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how do you expect it to be written? Like the back of a DVD? "Four friends find themselves in New York City the night a monster attacks! Armed with only a camcorder, can they escape alive?!" Sure, it's a brief summary, and it is brief. Sorry for telling you the ending. If you don't want to be spoiled, just don't read, because we're not going to warn you that a plot section has the plot in it.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if someone wants to know what happens in the film to tie into the real-world context present in the article body, leaving out the major scenes from beginning to end would be detrimental. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it would help if you actually put spoiler tags on it.  The guy has a point though, less is more, don't tell the whole story you tards.67.184.114.4 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason for such hostility, people. . . — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use spoiler tags. Blame yourself for reading a section labeled "plot".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop telling 

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)
replies: text: It all has to do with how the destruction was presented. Compare the original Gojira to the Firebombing of Tokyo and, of course, atomic bombings, and see specific images that invoke it. For Cloverfield, the duststorm after the building's colapse in the begining is a direct evocation of it. -- Majin Gojira (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you say that because falling buildings make "dustorms" this film is like 9/11? Does the fact that it have soldiers mean it is just like Iraq? And could breaking glass in the film in fact be a reference to "Kristalnacht", the night when the Nazis broke in the windows of as many Jews as possible? Is this film trying to show us about the shadowy New World order that operates under our very noses, producing conspiracy theory after conspiracy to distract us from the truth? It all becomes so clear...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.193.69 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quickie consensus 

message: "Upon reaching the street, the Statue of Liberty's head suddenly crashes down before them, and everyone witnesses more explosions and a gigantic moving form in the distance."  As the monster continues to attack Lower Manhattan, the Woolworth Building gets hit as well and proceeds to collapse.
After Rob and his friends re-enter Manhattan, Rob realizes that his cell phone is out of battery.  Seeing looters across the street at an electronics store, Rob runs in as well (with Hud chasing behind him) to find a replacement battery.  While in the store Hud takes notice of the news broadcasts that begin to show portions of the creature.  After finding a battery, Rob runs out and listens to Beth's message on voicemail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of these would be appropriate to be added to the plot summary, maybe the last one is OK. Gwynand (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why they shouldn't - at least have the details added in to the plot - the movie was placed specfically in Manhattan.  This is just to replace "building" and "tunnel" with something more specific. Dc82 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary Additions