Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Mon Nov 25, 2024 1:29 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
[SPOILER] Could the dark object falling into the ocean...
View previous topicView next topic
Page 7 of 10 [136 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
ScubaSteve1717
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

 		i thikn i mentioned this in another thread, but i think the best way to go is have it years later and make it a documentray style

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:18 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
YippeeKaiMOFO
Greenhorn

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 4
Quote:

Where do I start?

First off, there hasn't been "almost one year" of hype. And it was a GREAT movie. Anyone bitching should be summarily exeucuted. Period. I don't care about this "in my opinion" crap. If you didn't like the movie, sorry, your opinion is wrong.

Also, just because you didn't see an orange plume from "Hammerdown" at the end doesn't mean Manhattan wasn't obliterated. Also, the camera was focused on the bridge Rob and Beth were hiding in. How can the camera film the explosion you demand as proof while simultaneously being in their possession? That's right, it can't.

If the monster isn't from earth, it can grow as fast as it wants. An creature of extraterrestrial origins has no reason to develop, think, or reason as any earth-based creatures do. It's lifecycle could be radically different from any creature on this planet. Similar to the way some insects progress from larva to "adult" in days or weeks.

I love how apparently you're so omniscient, you know that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in your theatre was OH SO disappointed. Ha. Funny. You must explain to me the origin of this fantastic power you possess.

Even if your theatre was disappointed (which most likely indicates lack of understanding) that doesn't mean anyone HAS to make a sequel or some sort of "other" Cloverfield movie. Sure, rumors are floating about, but disappointment is hardly a reason for them to "remake" the movie.

Your arguments are flawed, and you seem to WANT to dislike the movie. Also, remaking Cloverfield or making any sequel would be a terrible idea. Anyone who really appreciates Cloverfield would know that.


My opinion is wrong? Gee, that's a classic. In truth, I wanted to love the movie. I didn't, I liked it instead. It was a very good movie but unfortunately (I bet) it's going to disappoint a lot of people because: 1. It's not really a monster movie, which moviegoers would expect. It's more like a story of a bunch of college grad's who get inconvienenced by a monster 2. there were too many scenes that made no sense 3. very few walking out of the theatre would be able to properly describe the Clover in detail because Hud would never sit still.

That's my opinion.

The reason I mention the orange plume was not in my movie is because there has been rumor of different versions of Cloverfield. I thought my posting that would help, but I didn't mean to suggest Clover wasn't bombed.

Even alien monsters have to follow the laws of matter. So it must be assumed Clover did not grow from an "easter egg" to a 500 ton (or whatever) skyscrape sized behemonster in a month. Was it living under the ocean for "thousands of years", prehistoric? Sure, why not.

I didn't mean remake. Sequel, obviously.

Also; the theatre I went to "lacks understanding" because they didn't spend the last 6 months of their life following Abram's viral marketting program, and instead just went to a theatre expecting a monster movie? Please,,, don't come off as some kind of movie snob. Some will like the movie, some won't. The theatre I went to was most certainly disappointed, on the whole.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:56 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Trixx
Decorated


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Sydney, Australia
edmundo_dupont wrote:
Hmmm... well, there's quite a long shot looking out into the ocean, there's a boat in the distance, and then SPLASH - something hits the water. If I remember correctly, there's even a bit of a smoke trail behind it.

I'm not sure if you guys have seen a film called 'Clue', but during its theatrical release they'd send out the reels, but different cinemas got a different third reel. There were about four different endings. Anyway, as a result, people used to get into arguments over what happened in the end.

Could this be happening with Cloverfield?

I can tell you right now, something definitely landed in the water when I saw it.


I own Clue on VHS. There's 3 endings to it. The real one is where the butler is actually Mr. Body And Reverend Green (in the movie known as mr green) is an undercover fbi agent. Says it the real ending on the VHS.

Anyway...I don't believe thats what has happened here. I didn't notice anything falling in the ocean the first time. I saw Cloverfield for the second time tonight, I took 4 other people. I told them to look out for something (however didn't know it would be the right side). 3 of us, including myself, saw the thing crash the ocean. The other two didnt notice anything. It was that small and quick it could be easy to miss.

Now from what I saw...it looked long and skinny (however that could easily just be because of a smoke trail) and it definitely made a noticeable splash of a rather large size considering how far out it was...

so either the object is really big...or is falling from an extremely large height

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:27 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
6slushos
Veteran


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 118
Location: Singapore
ScubaSteve1717 wrote:
i thikn i mentioned this in another thread, but i think the best way to go is have it years later and make it a documentray style



if they were really really dying to make a sequel then hell yeah, that is a very good idea!
considering what happened, and all. thats really suitable.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:33 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Dark Kitsune
Boot


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 25

 		i didn't see anything fall into the ocean but i really wasn't looking for something falling out of the sky more something maybe in the water. but then i realized that was stupid. Also why do people keep saying its from outer space? J.J said it was asleep on the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years and this was our godzilla movie. an american monster so why would it come from outer space? maybe the satillite piece i dunno woke it up or something altough that even sounds far fetched but its an idea. As such i personally loved the movie and thought it was great but im not gonna pick on ppl who said they didn't like the movie my bf didn't like it when he went and seen it with me. Also i think you had to maybe know more about it and of been following it from last year to really follow it maybe. thats just my two cents.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:07 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
cowboyfromhell
Veteran


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 130
Location: Tennessee/Alabama

 		I've seen Cloverfield several times now,but it only took the first time to see the object falling.If you're lookin at the right side of the screen you will see it no problem.As to what it is,I'm gonna guess the piece of the Tag satelite.Hell I don't know.We'll find out in time.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:27 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135
YippeeKaiMOFO wrote:
Quote:

Where do I start?

First off, there hasn't been "almost one year" of hype. And it was a GREAT movie. Anyone bitching should be summarily exeucuted. Period. I don't care about this "in my opinion" crap. If you didn't like the movie, sorry, your opinion is wrong.

Also, just because you didn't see an orange plume from "Hammerdown" at the end doesn't mean Manhattan wasn't obliterated. Also, the camera was focused on the bridge Rob and Beth were hiding in. How can the camera film the explosion you demand as proof while simultaneously being in their possession? That's right, it can't.

If the monster isn't from earth, it can grow as fast as it wants. An creature of extraterrestrial origins has no reason to develop, think, or reason as any earth-based creatures do. It's lifecycle could be radically different from any creature on this planet. Similar to the way some insects progress from larva to "adult" in days or weeks.

I love how apparently you're so omniscient, you know that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in your theatre was OH SO disappointed. Ha. Funny. You must explain to me the origin of this fantastic power you possess.

Even if your theatre was disappointed (which most likely indicates lack of understanding) that doesn't mean anyone HAS to make a sequel or some sort of "other" Cloverfield movie. Sure, rumors are floating about, but disappointment is hardly a reason for them to "remake" the movie.

Your arguments are flawed, and you seem to WANT to dislike the movie. Also, remaking Cloverfield or making any sequel would be a terrible idea. Anyone who really appreciates Cloverfield would know that.


My opinion is wrong? Gee, that's a classic. In truth, I wanted to love the movie. I didn't, I liked it instead. It was a very good movie but unfortunately (I bet) it's going to disappoint a lot of people because: 1. It's not really a monster movie, which moviegoers would expect. It's more like a story of a bunch of college grad's who get inconvienenced by a monster 2. there were too many scenes that made no sense 3. very few walking out of the theatre would be able to properly describe the Clover in detail because Hud would never sit still.

That's my opinion.

The reason I mention the orange plume was not in my movie is because there has been rumor of different versions of Cloverfield. I thought my posting that would help, but I didn't mean to suggest Clover wasn't bombed.

Even alien monsters have to follow the laws of matter. So it must be assumed Clover did not grow from an "easter egg" to a 500 ton (or whatever) skyscrape sized behemonster in a month. Was it living under the ocean for "thousands of years", prehistoric? Sure, why not.

I didn't mean remake. Sequel, obviously.

Also; the theatre I went to "lacks understanding" because they didn't spend the last 6 months of their life following Abram's viral marketting program, and instead just went to a theatre expecting a monster movie? Please,,, don't come off as some kind of movie snob. Some will like the movie, some won't. The theatre I went to was most certainly disappointed, on the whole.


Certainly is classic, bro. You're talking about wanting a monster movie. Cloverfield was never meant to be a conventional monster movie. It's ALWAYS been about the plight of Rob and his companions. If you wanted a normal monster movie that is focused on nothing but the military's efforts to defeat a random monster, you picked the wrong movie. That seems to be the case, so I'd say the problem is with you and not Cloverfield. Face it, you're wrong.

Also, I didn't say ANYTHING about the audience needing to be involved in the viral campaign. It's just apparent that anyone who is disappointed with Cloverfield either wanted the lame monster movie you wanted, or didn't like the style. And I'm not a movie snob. I'm just someone who obviously appreciates the film.

Also, about the monster being "alien". Did it ever occur to you that the "laws of matter" as we know them are based purely upon Earth phenomenon, and as soon as the possibly of life on other planets comes into play, you need to realize that planet's are not identical in their properties.

Also, it's a movie, dude. A movie. Learn to just enjoy a movie without "nitpicking".

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:34 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

 		Bit Pretentious Eh, Mate?
And mean.
TheMaximum wrote:
YippeeKaiMOFO wrote:
Quote:

Where do I start?

First off, there hasn't been "almost one year" of hype. And it was a GREAT movie. Anyone bitching should be summarily exeucuted. Period. I don't care about this "in my opinion" crap. If you didn't like the movie, sorry, your opinion is wrong.

Also, just because you didn't see an orange plume from "Hammerdown" at the end doesn't mean Manhattan wasn't obliterated. Also, the camera was focused on the bridge Rob and Beth were hiding in. How can the camera film the explosion you demand as proof while simultaneously being in their possession? That's right, it can't.

If the monster isn't from earth, it can grow as fast as it wants. An creature of extraterrestrial origins has no reason to develop, think, or reason as any earth-based creatures do. It's lifecycle could be radically different from any creature on this planet. Similar to the way some insects progress from larva to "adult" in days or weeks.

I love how apparently you're so omniscient, you know that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL in your theatre was OH SO disappointed. Ha. Funny. You must explain to me the origin of this fantastic power you possess.

Even if your theatre was disappointed (which most likely indicates lack of understanding) that doesn't mean anyone HAS to make a sequel or some sort of "other" Cloverfield movie. Sure, rumors are floating about, but disappointment is hardly a reason for them to "remake" the movie.

Your arguments are flawed, and you seem to WANT to dislike the movie. Also, remaking Cloverfield or making any sequel would be a terrible idea. Anyone who really appreciates Cloverfield would know that.


My opinion is wrong? Gee, that's a classic. In truth, I wanted to love the movie. I didn't, I liked it instead. It was a very good movie but unfortunately (I bet) it's going to disappoint a lot of people because: 1. It's not really a monster movie, which moviegoers would expect. It's more like a story of a bunch of college grad's who get inconvienenced by a monster 2. there were too many scenes that made no sense 3. very few walking out of the theatre would be able to properly describe the Clover in detail because Hud would never sit still.

That's my opinion.

The reason I mention the orange plume was not in my movie is because there has been rumor of different versions of Cloverfield. I thought my posting that would help, but I didn't mean to suggest Clover wasn't bombed.

Even alien monsters have to follow the laws of matter. So it must be assumed Clover did not grow from an "easter egg" to a 500 ton (or whatever) skyscrape sized behemonster in a month. Was it living under the ocean for "thousands of years", prehistoric? Sure, why not.

I didn't mean remake. Sequel, obviously.

Also; the theatre I went to "lacks understanding" because they didn't spend the last 6 months of their life following Abram's viral marketting program, and instead just went to a theatre expecting a monster movie? Please,,, don't come off as some kind of movie snob. Some will like the movie, some won't. The theatre I went to was most certainly disappointed, on the whole.


Certainly is classic, bro. You're talking about wanting a monster movie. Cloverfield was never meant to be a conventional monster movie. It's ALWAYS been about the plight of Rob and his companions. If you wanted a normal monster movie that is focused on nothing but the military's efforts to defeat a random monster, you picked the wrong movie. That seems to be the case, so I'd say the problem is with you and not Cloverfield. Face it, you're wrong.

Also, I didn't say ANYTHING about the audience needing to be involved in the viral campaign. It's just apparent that anyone who is disappointed with Cloverfield either wanted the lame monster movie you wanted, or didn't like the style. And I'm not a movie snob. I'm just someone who obviously appreciates the film.

Also, about the monster being "alien". Did it ever occur to you that the "laws of matter" as we know them are based purely upon Earth phenomenon, and as soon as the possibly of life on other planets comes into play, you need to realize that planet's are not identical in their properties.

Also, it's a movie, dude. A movie. Learn to just enjoy a movie without "nitpicking".



You don't... uh... LIKE Giant Monster movies... do you?

Again. I liked the movie. I understand what they were trying to do. I'm glad they did it. I've been waiting for them to do it probably since before they thought about doing it... unless they've been thinking about it for longer than 5 years...

Anyway.

This IS a giant monster movie. It's simply one filmed from the perspective of people in the city while it attacked. Not the other way around. Now, maybe we never get an explanation as to where it came from, and that's fine with me really since the few vague things we know about it are quite sufficient to justify it's existence. And if all the rest of the sequels they make are all first person I wouldn't mind that. They can box them all together and call them The Cloverfield tapes. Don't mind that either. But you seem to be looking at this in a particularly narrow scope that is difficult to define. As a stand alone movie, while different, and even good on several levels, it really can't meet the standards of the general population, so it stands to reason that the very least people can ask for is more where THAT came from. That doesn't make them stupid or anything, people don't like to be jerked around. And even if that isn't what happened, if they FEEL like they've been jerked around it's the same to them. Giant Monster movies in particular have a kind of "Hell Yeah" about them and while there wasn't a whole lot of that in this movie, it was still great.

But... your horse is high and these stilts are shaky. I'm afraid of heights so I'm gonna... go back down there with the... uh... rest of the world...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:31 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

 		Re: Bit Pretentious Eh, Mate?
And mean.
The Stray wrote:


You don't... uh... LIKE Giant Monster movies... do you?

Again. I liked the movie. I understand what they were trying to do. I'm glad they did it. I've been waiting for them to do it probably since before they thought about doing it... unless they've been thinking about it for longer than 5 years...

Anyway.

This IS a giant monster movie. It's simply one filmed from the perspective of people in the city while it attacked. Not the other way around. Now, maybe we never get an explanation as to where it came from, and that's fine with me really since the few vague things we know about it are quite sufficient to justify it's existence. And if all the rest of the sequels they make are all first person I wouldn't mind that. They can box them all together and call them The Cloverfield tapes. Don't mind that either. But you seem to be looking at this in a particularly narrow scope that is difficult to define. As a stand alone movie, while different, and even good on several levels, it really can't meet the standards of the general population, so it stands to reason that the very least people can ask for is more where THAT came from. That doesn't make them stupid or anything, people don't like to be jerked around. And even if that isn't what happened, if they FEEL like they've been jerked around it's the same to them. Giant Monster movies in particular have a kind of "Hell Yeah" about them and while there wasn't a whole lot of that in this movie, it was still great.

But... your horse is high and these stilts are shaky. I'm afraid of heights so I'm gonna... go back down there with the... uh... rest of the world...


I love giant monster movies. That's not the point.

The majority of your post is saying "It wasn't a normal monster movie, but it was cool". Okay, right on. You're almost agreeing with everything I've been saying. Also, I love how you're telling me that Cloverfield is a monster movie shot from the perspective of people being attacked in the city. As if we all didn't know that months ago. Listen dude, I KNOW this is a monster movie, okay? I just think this movie doesn't need a sequel. And I'm right. That's it. If you understand what they were trying to do, you'd understand that this kind of film can't possibly be helped by a sequel.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:53 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

 		Just Checking
TheMaximum wrote:
The Stray wrote:


You don't... uh... LIKE Giant Monster movies... do you?

Again. I liked the movie. I understand what they were trying to do. I'm glad they did it. I've been waiting for them to do it probably since before they thought about doing it... unless they've been thinking about it for longer than 5 years...

Anyway.

This IS a giant monster movie. It's simply one filmed from the perspective of people in the city while it attacked. Not the other way around. Now, maybe we never get an explanation as to where it came from, and that's fine with me really since the few vague things we know about it are quite sufficient to justify it's existence. And if all the rest of the sequels they make are all first person I wouldn't mind that. They can box them all together and call them The Cloverfield tapes. Don't mind that either. But you seem to be looking at this in a particularly narrow scope that is difficult to define. As a stand alone movie, while different, and even good on several levels, it really can't meet the standards of the general population, so it stands to reason that the very least people can ask for is more where THAT came from. That doesn't make them stupid or anything, people don't like to be jerked around. And even if that isn't what happened, if they FEEL like they've been jerked around it's the same to them. Giant Monster movies in particular have a kind of "Hell Yeah" about them and while there wasn't a whole lot of that in this movie, it was still great.

But... your horse is high and these stilts are shaky. I'm afraid of heights so I'm gonna... go back down there with the... uh... rest of the world...


I love giant monster movies. That's not the point.

The majority of your post is saying "It wasn't a normal monster movie, but it was cool". Okay, right on. You're almost agreeing with everything I've been saying. Also, I love how you're telling me that Cloverfield is a monster movie shot from the perspective of people being attacked in the city. As if we all didn't know that months ago. Listen dude, I KNOW this is a monster movie, okay? I just think this movie doesn't need a sequel. And I'm right. That's it. If you understand what they were trying to do, you'd understand that this kind of film can't possibly be helped by a sequel.


It would seem that YOU don't know what they were trying to do. Also, you keep implying that it's not a monster movie so I had to clarify what the hell you thought it was.

Of course it needs a sequel. Story wise there's no way a writer would open a box like that then decide... nah... that's enough and discard it immediately. Even from a marketing stand point, a sequel not on means more money but it encourages people to watch the first one. Not only that, it assures people who have already seen it that there's more to come. More to the story. The overall story. Because, clearly, where this one ended there are many, many more.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:00 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

 		Alright. I'm done arguing with you and I'm done with this thread. I have to go help my friend with his car's new suspenion. It seems you and I just misunderstanding each other with each post and our debate isn't producing anything positive for people to read. You're wrong. I'm sorry but you are. Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but the story is fine as it is. The story is complete. Have a good day.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:22 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

 		Haha
Awww
TheMaximum wrote:
Alright. I'm done arguing with you and I'm done with this thread. I have to go help my friend with his car's new suspenion. It seems you and I just misunderstanding each other with each post and our debate isn't producing anything positive for people to read. You're wrong. I'm sorry but you are. Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but the story is fine as it is. The story is complete. Have a good day.



No fun when you showdown against someone as stubborn as you is it? Brick walls at a thousand miles an hour. And even though I happen to be right in this instance I don't feel the need to point it out in every post. But, obviously you have more important things to do with your time O Definitive One.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:29 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
lycaonia
Greenhorn

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 3

 		i saw it too id love to see a screen shot of it again as no one i know saw it

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:20 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Dark Kitsune
Boot


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 25

 		i don't get it why are people still saying the monster is from outer space? its from the bottom of the ocean its like everyone saying the mini mons are laying eggs in people when they bite.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:26 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Anteros
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 451
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts

 		Hmmmm...
Question
I have a question for you all that have seen the object falling into the ocean:

Did you watch the film version or the DLP digital projection?

I watched the film and didn't catch the object.
_________________
.
Beware of Geeks bearing Gifs.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:54 am
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 7 of 10 [136 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group