unforum

Whitenoise · Veteran Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 93

I still think that the monster has the ability to rapidly adapt to its environment, meaning in just the few hours it was on land it was able to shrink in size to beable to support its weight in a non aquactic environment, this would also explain how it could see and breath air. My science and reason is kind of flawed, but this is a movie about some giant superbeast, anything goes!

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:04 pm

PocketAssReturn · Greenhorn Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 3

I've been lurking here for quite a while...but after reading this thread, I've decided to register and break my silence.

Hello.

I'm PocketAssReturn.

And, although I'm just as obsessed with the film as the rest of you, I know one thing for sure: The majority of you are overthinking the movie way, way too much.

The monster did not voluntarily (or through 'fast' evolution) change its size or shape during the course of the film.
There are not multiple monsters.

The fact of the matter is this: the monster is never clearly seen for more than a few seconds at a time. Even people who have seen the film 5 or 6 times are debating basic physical features like the number of limbs or the shape of the tail.
We see the monster from several different angles, through a handheld camera, in multiple different light sources and situations. And you know what? Yeah, maybe there were a few slip-ups as far as the monster's size through the course of the movie (and maybe not...after all, how can we argue size if we can't even agree on what it looks like?)...but that definitely doesn't give any of us a reason to hate the movie.
It's hard enough putting a CG creature into a steady shot, so to put one into a crazy, all-over-the-place shot without it looking terrible is an amazing feat...any minor inconsistencies can and should be forgiven.

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:53 pm

SomethingTerrible-AlsoTer · Veteran Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 125

Aboslutley, I agree. Now let's go get some waffles.

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:55 pm

PocketAssReturn · Greenhorn Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 3

Dude I fucking.....LOVE waffles.

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:04 pm

overfiction · Greenhorn Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Posts: 8

PocketAssReturn

i agree-eee
Now if there were more than 1 monster the military would have said we are taking 1 last shot at THESE THINGS

not this thing :/

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:06 pm

Cloverfield92 · Veteran Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 105

Um no, each time u see it u see the monster better and more of it

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:11 pm

Pembroke · Kilroy Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 1

Sup. First post.

As unlikely as it may be, was there any way for Hud to have been able to zoom the camera in on MGP? I've only seen it once (hopefully seeing it again Sunday), so I can't recall if there was any time for him to do that.

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:35 pm

MonTag · Veteran Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 129

I took photography in highschooL(mainly becuase its an easy A) and i can tell you that there are tons of way that light, and perspective can manipulate what your seeing, just google optical illusions to see how easily our eyes are fooled.

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:44 pm

econaz02 · Boot Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Posts: 27

Your not alone on this man. Optical illusion or not.

If that thing was as big as a 40 story sky scraper and the one looking over hud looked tiny compared to it.

Lighting camera angle what ever. Maybe a CGI mess up but that is like saying "o yeah that RC Car was the same size of that Real Car."

**Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:34 pm

SirQuady · Unfettered Joined: 15 Jan 2006 Posts: 576

More than likely, it's purposefully ambiguous to make it seem more intimidating and disturbing.

**Posted:** Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:54 am

_________________
There once was a [person] from [place]
Whose [body part] was [special case].
When [event] would occur,
It would cause [him or her]
To violate [law of time/space].

Animaniac · Unfettered Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 389

The reasons it looked small when towering over Hud was

1) it was taken in daylight against a background of only sky, meaning there was nothing in the shot to show scale,

and...

2) Hud zoomed in on it

It was f'n huge...

and alive..

I saw it..

**Posted:** Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:14 am

Southside · Veteran Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 131

NO

It's A LION, ITS HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Posted:** Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:19 am

avpruler · Unfettered Joined: 09 Jul 2007 Posts: 426

lets just hope some 3d CGI model doesnt get leaked onto the internet, there'll be homemade MONSTER SIGHTINGS coviering you tube, myself included.

**Posted:** Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:05 pm

Richie · Veteran Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 71 Location: Orlando

Angle of the dangle.

**Posted:** Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:31 pm

batsman415 · Boot Joined: 19 Jan 2008 Posts: 11

I saw the movie twice, and tried to notice any differences in the monster. I didnt notice any differences, except the size in the Hud scene, which is due to the perspective of the shot.

**Posted:** Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:07 am