• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Cloverfield...

To say something in nature just ... is ... is to say nothing. Everything in nature is; that's obvious. The question is what it is.

And gravity is a force of nature. Electromagnetism is another force of nature. There are two others. To call some big ugly monster a "force of nature" is to not understand what that phrase means.

An original idea from Hollywood: The Blair Witch Project. I'll take my gold star to go. 😀

oh, i understand the phrase quite well. one of the reasons why i used it. that, and i think it desribed the creature accurately.

oh, and no gold star. the idea for the camera was different, but the storyline was ripped from every legend about witches, demons and the supernatural.

thanks for the warning, Alch. that's been pretty much the only constant i have heard about the movie. gonna stock up on some Dramamine before i go.
 
OK, saw it.

*minor spoilers included, skip over now if you don't want to hear them*








It was pretty effective, the filmmakers definitely understand how to build and sustain tension(the subway scenes rank up there with anything from the first two Alien films). Basically, it's a pretty effective thrill-ride with a semi-original spin on it. And that's basically all it is. Which brings us back to the issue of marketing; after all the hype surrounding this flick, it seems like a lot of people aren't looking for just an effective thriller, they want this movie to be a genre-redefining masterpiece, and it's not(though I certainly didn't have the impulse to demand my money back like I did after Blair Witch, either).
 
oh, i understand the phrase quite well. one of the reasons why i used it. that, and i think it desribed the creature accurately.
What you think you know and what you know are clearly two very different things.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force of nature

oh, and no gold star. the idea for the camera was different, but the storyline was ripped from every legend about witches, demons and the supernatural.
Name one, and not some vague bullshit that you heard from a "friend", but a legitimate *documented* witch legend that parallels the Blair Witch Project. You'd be the first to do so, you'll be famous. 🙄
 
OK, saw it.

*minor spoilers included, skip over now if you don't want to hear them*


It was pretty effective, the filmmakers definitely understand how to build and sustain tension(the subway scenes rank up there with anything from the first two Alien films). Basically, it's a pretty effective thrill-ride with a semi-original spin on it. And that's basically all it is. Which brings us back to the issue of marketing; after all the hype surrounding this flick, it seems like a lot of people aren't looking for just an effective thriller, they want this movie to be a genre-redefining masterpiece, and it's not(though I certainly didn't have the impulse to demand my money back like I did after Blair Witch, either).

Cinematography: stolen from the Blair Witch Project.

Monster: stolen from The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.

Mini-monsters: stolen from "Poor Little Warrior" (and I can't wait for the lawsuit over that one.)

Originality: nonexistent.

Amusement at watching people get dragged in by viral marketing: priceless.
 
strong force

so..um...yeah. i have a greater command of the English language most give me credit for. please don't assume you can teach me anything about it.

witches have been in nearly every countries histories, with some being known to disembowel, devour, and otherwise slaughter humans for their own gains of power. as far as Blair Witch goes, all ya gotta do is pick up Hansel and Gretel and see where some of the story was taken from.

now, on to the real topic at hand: Cloverfield's gross today and yesterday was massive...and so many said the hype would lead to bad numbers. the few reviews i have seen calling it a bad movie are outnumbered by those that praise it. i do hope, for my own love for such movies, i am one of the ones singing to the heavens.
 
Just in point of fact, Blair Witch wasn't the first film to present the supposed remains of documentary footage. The Last Broadcast did it first, and both those films obviously owe a debt to Cannibal Holocaust.

And of course, the narrative device of a document of some sort detailing the grisly fate of the character recording it goes back to at least Poe.
 
Last edited:
I fell for the hype...

I just wanted to dig up this thread in order to say one thing:

Save your money!

That is all.
 
I just wanted to dig up this thread in order to say one thing:

Save your money!

That is all.

Really? I watched the movie on sunday and thought it was pretty decent. It wasn't great, but it was good enough for the money i spent.

I'm sure their will be people disapointed in it, as the hype got pretty big, but personally, i thought it was well done and enjoyed the story.
 
The movie was too sad for my taste. I have no use what so ever for sad movies.

I have two other minor problems with it, but above is my major problem with it.

I'd never watch it again, but I'd watch the sequal in hopes of viewing a resolution to the events.
 
I just wanted to dig up this thread in order to say one thing:

Save your money!

That is all.

We must have watched different movies. The one I saw was terrific. I even plan on seeing it again.

I'd never watch it again, but I'd watch the sequal in hopes of viewing a resolution to the events.

The rumor mill is producing tons of possible concepts for sequels. They all involve viewing the same events that night, but through a different camera. The idea that I heard, and like the most, is viewing the events from a reporter embedded with a national guard unit.
 
Last edited:
I guess I should provide more constructive info. lol (Actually I tried once, but for some reason it got lost and I was too lazy to try again.)

Spiffy & Cosmo, we may very well have watched two different things. I personally felt like I'd watched an hour-and-a-half version of the movie trailer--as opposed to the actual movie. The effects were good and the makings of a story were there. I just kept waiting for someone to actually tell it....
 
I loved it, i hated the ending, but that is the point. I hated the ending because of how emotionally invested you are at the end. i don't feel like i watched something as much as i do that i was a part of something. you almost have that same survivor feeling when you get through with it.

the ending in my oppinion was sadistic. it was sadistic psychological torture of the audience plain and simple. there are a lot of directions that you could go for a sequel. I think that the idea of the same night with a different viewpoint would be okay but i want some darn answers and i want them now.
 
I guess I should provide more constructive info. lol (Actually I tried once, but for some reason it got lost and I was too lazy to try again.)

Spiffy & Cosmo, we may very well have watched two different things. I personally felt like I'd watched an hour-and-a-half version of the movie trailer--as opposed to the actual movie. The effects were good and the makings of a story were there. I just kept waiting for someone to actually tell it....

personally,i think it was told, through the view of one of the people who experienced that monster.

IMO this movie is the story of X number of friends who experience an incredible tragedy in NYC. It's not like Die Hard or True lies, where we see a super skilled,Alpha male charactor do things that defy the laws of physics and are secretly ex-cia/special services/marine/green barrete/etc. It'd about average people put in an extrordinary situation.
 
personally,i think it was told, through the view of one of the people who experienced that monster.

IMO this movie is the story of X number of friends who experience an incredible tragedy in NYC. It's not like Die Hard or True lies, where we see a super skilled,Alpha male charactor do things that defy the laws of physics and are secretly ex-cia/special services/marine/green barrete/etc. It'd about average people put in an extrordinary situation.

LOL! An extraordinary situation that defies the laws of physics (and probably some laws of biology as well). 😀
 
I still haven't gone to see it yet.Hopefully since I have Monday off I can get my ass to the theater and check it out.:imouttahe
 
LOL! An extraordinary situation that defies the laws of physics (and probably some laws of biology as well).

Their actually does seem to be a FAQ site that addresses some of the questions about the monster. I thought they did a good job.


Possible spoilers, read thread at your own peril.


Where does the monster come from?

The producer J.J. Abrams says, "The concept for the monster is simple. He's a baby. He's brand-new. He's confused, disoriented and irritable. And he's been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years."

And where is he from? "We don't say deliberately," notes the writer, Drew Goddard. "Our movie doesn't have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don't have that scene."

The film does give us clues. You can clearly see an object flying into the ocean behind Rob and Beth in the closing shot, though Abrams has stated that this is a satellite, which was part of the marketing campaign for the film.

Note that in the "viral" marketing campaign for the film, there were hints concerning the "Bloop" incident. In 1997, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded an ultra-low frequency underwater sound that was never identified. Scientists who studied the phenomenon said that the creature that produced it would be much larger than a blue whale.

Also in the viral campaign were several news reports concerning the destruction of an oil drilling rig, further linking the creature to the deep ocean.

What could account for the monster's size and power?
There is a phenomenon known as deep-sea gigantism. The term means that some creatures, who are relatively small when conceived near to the surface, get progressively larger as they develop deeper and deeper in the ocean. For example, squid are usually a maximum of 60 cm in length, but the Giant Squid, which can reside at depths of over 900 m, can reach up to 13 m in length. As for what kind of creature grew to that size, the monster does somewhat resemble animals in the amphipod order.

It could be posited that the monster was disturbed by the oil drilling rig and then followed a tanker ship to the New York harbor (the first thing it destroyed was a tanker ship), where it then proceeded to rip apart the city, finding it a threat. The little creatures that attached themselves to it could be ectoparasites that live on the monster.

As for the monster's seeming indestructible nature: living at depths near the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean would mean the creature had to live under spectacular pressure, thus making its hide tough enough to withstand heavy rounds of artillery. This would also explain how it could survive so well on land for extended periods. In order to move around properly under the conditions of immense pressure in the deep ocean, it would have had to develop a powerful musculature; and while it is unlikely that it could breathe the air, the deep ocean is a low-oxygen zone, meaning the monster would have had to develop ways to absorb and process what oxygen it had available, as well as store it for long stretches of time.

If you follow the faux sites such as 1-18-08.com they describe a secret ingredient for a drink named Slusho. This ingredient named Seabed Nectar is found deep underwater under awesome pressure and in freezing temperatures. It is possible that this chemical mutated a deep sea animal and created the monster, or that the chemical came from the monster itself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq#.2.1.34
 
Last edited:
Their actually does seem to be a FAQ site that addresses some of the questions about the monster. I thought they did a good job.

Where does the monster come from?

The producer J.J. Abrams says, "The concept for the monster is simple. He's a baby. He's brand-new. He's confused, disoriented and irritable. And he's been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years."

And where is he from? "We don't say deliberately," notes the writer, Drew Goddard. "Our movie doesn't have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don't have that scene."

The film does give us clues. You can clearly see an object flying into the ocean behind Rob and Beth in the closing shot, though Abrams has stated that this is a satellite, which was part of the marketing campaign for the film.

Note that in the "viral" marketing campaign for the film, there were hints concerning the "Bloop" incident. In 1997, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded an ultra-low frequency underwater sound that was never identified. Scientists who studied the phenomenon said that the creature that produced it would be much larger than a blue whale.

Also in the viral campaign were several news reports concerning the destruction of an oil drilling rig, further linking the creature to the deep ocean.

What could account for the monster's size and power?
There is a phenomenon known as deep-sea gigantism. The term means that some creatures, who are relatively small when conceived near to the surface, get progressively larger as they develop deeper and deeper in the ocean. For example, squid are usually a maximum of 60 cm in length, but the Giant Squid, which can reside at depths of over 900 m, can reach up to 13 m in length. As for what kind of creature grew to that size, the monster does somewhat resemble animals in the amphipod order.

It could be posited that the monster was disturbed by the oil drilling rig and then followed a tanker ship to the New York harbor (the first thing it destroyed was a tanker ship), where it then proceeded to rip apart the city, finding it a threat. The little creatures that attached themselves to it could be ectoparasites that live on the monster.

As for the monster's seeming indestructible nature: living at depths near the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean would mean the creature had to live under spectacular pressure, thus making its hide tough enough to withstand heavy rounds of artillery. This would also explain how it could survive so well on land for extended periods. In order to move around properly under the conditions of immense pressure in the deep ocean, it would have had to develop a powerful musculature; and while it is unlikely that it could breathe the air, the deep ocean is a low-oxygen zone, meaning the monster would have had to develop ways to absorb and process what oxygen it had available, as well as store it for long stretches of time.

If you follow the faux sites such as 1-18-08.com they describe a secret ingredient for a drink named Slusho. This ingredient named Seabed Nectar is found deep underwater under awesome pressure and in freezing temperatures. It is possible that this chemical mutated a deep sea animal and created the monster, or that the chemical came from the monster itself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq#.2.1.34

SPOILERS.

great info. i am going to have to see it again to catch not only the object falling into water but from what i heard there is a radio trasmission after credits. what does it say if anyone heard it and what relevance does it have.

also on th wikipedia site it never explicitly said that rob and beth were dead. stranger cra has happened, likea woman survivig in a building that has been knoced over not falling out of the window becaue she landed on a rod that pierced throuhg her shoulder.
 
Their actually does seem to be a FAQ site that addresses some of the questions about the monster. I thought they did a good job.


Possible spoilers, read thread at your own peril.


Where does the monster come from?

The producer J.J. Abrams says, "The concept for the monster is simple. He's a baby. He's brand-new. He's confused, disoriented and irritable. And he's been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years."

And where is he from? "We don't say deliberately," notes the writer, Drew Goddard. "Our movie doesn't have the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that. We don't have that scene."

The film does give us clues. You can clearly see an object flying into the ocean behind Rob and Beth in the closing shot, though Abrams has stated that this is a satellite, which was part of the marketing campaign for the film.

Note that in the "viral" marketing campaign for the film, there were hints concerning the "Bloop" incident. In 1997, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded an ultra-low frequency underwater sound that was never identified. Scientists who studied the phenomenon said that the creature that produced it would be much larger than a blue whale.

Also in the viral campaign were several news reports concerning the destruction of an oil drilling rig, further linking the creature to the deep ocean.

What could account for the monster's size and power?
There is a phenomenon known as deep-sea gigantism. The term means that some creatures, who are relatively small when conceived near to the surface, get progressively larger as they develop deeper and deeper in the ocean. For example, squid are usually a maximum of 60 cm in length, but the Giant Squid, which can reside at depths of over 900 m, can reach up to 13 m in length. As for what kind of creature grew to that size, the monster does somewhat resemble animals in the amphipod order.

It could be posited that the monster was disturbed by the oil drilling rig and then followed a tanker ship to the New York harbor (the first thing it destroyed was a tanker ship), where it then proceeded to rip apart the city, finding it a threat. The little creatures that attached themselves to it could be ectoparasites that live on the monster.

As for the monster's seeming indestructible nature: living at depths near the bottom of the deepest parts of the ocean would mean the creature had to live under spectacular pressure, thus making its hide tough enough to withstand heavy rounds of artillery. This would also explain how it could survive so well on land for extended periods. In order to move around properly under the conditions of immense pressure in the deep ocean, it would have had to develop a powerful musculature; and while it is unlikely that it could breathe the air, the deep ocean is a low-oxygen zone, meaning the monster would have had to develop ways to absorb and process what oxygen it had available, as well as store it for long stretches of time.

If you follow the faux sites such as 1-18-08.com they describe a secret ingredient for a drink named Slusho. This ingredient named Seabed Nectar is found deep underwater under awesome pressure and in freezing temperatures. It is possible that this chemical mutated a deep sea animal and created the monster, or that the chemical came from the monster itself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq#.2.1.34

All that sounds great at first glance but it's all crap. Even ignoring (temporarily) the square-cube law, which emphatically limits the size of land-based lifeforms (sea creatures can grow bigger thanks to water buoyancy), the pressure thing means nothing as long as internal and external pressures are equalized. Deep-sea creatures aren't like submarines that need a strong exterior to keep intense external pressure separated from low internal pressure. Their pressures are equalized, so much so that jellyfish can live at those depths, and I hope J.J. Abrams is smart enough to know that jellyfishes aren't armored. Moreover, many deep-sea lifeforms explode when brought to the surface because they can't (or are too slow to) equalize their intense internal pressure with the low external pressure at the ocean's surface.

But Cloverfield is not merely a deep-sea creature that grew to bigger-than-blue-whale size with super-armored skin (that is curiously penetrable by ectoparasites 😛). It can move around very easily on land, which no real-world deep-sea creature can do. Hell, the f'ing thing can even jump like a flea. Now I'm invoking the square-cube law, big time.

OTOH, it's all make-believe anyway and old mb at that, so it gets a pass as "traditional scifi." But it doesn't bode well to look too closely at Giant Monster movies and to try to use Treknobabble to "explain" everything. Doesn't really help with the required suspension of disbelief.
 
Last edited:
Re: Cloverfield

It was bitchin'. :hipoke:

Blair Witch meets Godzilla meets Alien.

Definitely a must see, IMHO.

Cheers. 😀
 
What's New
1/20/26
Check out Door 44 for a great selection of tickling clips.

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top