unforum

[nooneimportant77]

ok so, slusho causes the whole bursting guts thing....but the drink never did that in japan?

i didn't read all of it, or even that much, but thats my main question. becuse if the drink did that, then why does it still exist ? why didn't we know about it? if that TIDO site (or whatever) is real then wouldn't they say something about it?

[OliMango]

[tMan930]

This forum is cause for many lols, from beginning to end.

Thank you, all, for wasting an hour of my time that could've been spent studying for finals, or playing The Last Stand.

Thank you.
And goodnight.

[DougBThree]

Mr. Whistleblower,
As I stated earlier, I'm skeptical of your synopsis. If you are, as you claim, a longtime member here, you'll understand why I'm sure. However, while skeptical, I also believe it's possible you are telling us exactly what you saw. If so, I have a few burning questions that I hope you'll be kind enough to answer:

1) As a member of this panel or focus group, were you required to sign an NDA or similar agreement stating that you wouldn't reveal or discuss what you saw? If so, as a member of a very small group are you concerned that you might be found out and subject to legal repercussions based on what you signed?

2) Does the movie offer any explanation for the large explosion seen in the distance while the people are on the roof?

3) What, if any, is the role of the "$11 guy"?

4) It was publicly revealed several places (including here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/07/25/greg-grunberg-cast-in-cloverfield1-18-08/) that Greg Grunberg has a role in the movie. What character did he play?

5) The 2nd trailer starts with text saying"Multiple sightings of case designate Cloverfield... etc". Did that show up in the movie, and if so, in what context?

6) There have been several reports of pre-attack footage being filmed at Coney Island? Was any of that in the screening you claim you saw?

7) Is any direct connection made between the chef in the most recent photo on www.1-18-08.com and the events in the movie?

8.) Does the movie do anything to explain or expound on "the Cause" and/or TIDOWAVE?

I look forward to your responses.

Thanks.

[J0shuaKane]

[Euchre]

[J0shuaKane]

[Aurigan]

I embrace the term asshole on these boards. Douchebag to me implies someone who's irritating simply because they're inherently irritating and ignorant. Asshole is someone who goes out of his way to be abrasive.

But I agree with Euchre, having done some skull-bashing on here myself. You need people to do obsessive-compulsive analysis of everything, frankly. Otherwise everyone thinking the people behind the sheets in hazmat suits are still the small monsters and we'd have more trout than a fish hatchery.

Besides from things Euchre's pointed out, the review hasn't been removed, and thewhistleblower hasn't commented since the previous comment.

[Caught Looking]

I guess this adds new meaning to the old phrase "don't drink the the kool aid."

[mercurix]

huh?

[Slusho Addict]

Re: I think the review is fake...

[UnseenPresence]

Just as a note--

While I've actually avoided reading much of this thread in case it turns out to be a legitimate review (so can't comment on whether I actually -believe- it is one as I didn't read it), I should point out--

Most movies -do- have preview screenings. And they often have people sign something that says (paraphrased) things like: 'I promise not to say anything about the movie I am about to see to anyone, especially and including the press and internet blogs and message boards. These films are the work of creative individuals and they deserve to have information about their product kept confidential until it is in its final version and released to the public.' And yes, having signed one you are technically in violation of a legal document if you post on a site such as this...

...and yet people do it all the time, or AICN would never have come into existence. So I don't think many people are all that concerned about posting a review at least somewhat anonymously on the Internet. And I think it's really unlikely that this film is putting THAT stringent an NDA to its viewers -if- it's doing screenings. Most films that want THAT much secrecy don't screen AT ALL these days, rather than chance it.

-IF- this person was actually at a screening at Paramount, moreover, it also means one of two things--either he was in one of the larger screens (and has no real concerns for getting 'caught' as the anonymous poster) OR was in one of the really SMALL screening rooms...in which case he would be effectively in a producers/execs screening. That type of screening is far more likely to take the NDA seriously--and far better capable of tracking down who broke the silence due to the tiny number of people.

So as I see it, this review COULD be completely fake. It COULD be real and he was in a large screening group, in which case he (like most people who do these screenings) feels he can post willy-nilly, regardless of NDA or signed documents. It also COULD be an exec screening, in which case he will be very likely to get in trouble IF he's posted a legit review.

The ultimate point here was to both give people who don't do the screening thing (or don't have the opportunity) some idea of how those screenings actually work and to point out that NDA or no NDA is not a compelling reason to deny this review's validity. People break their signed documents on screenings all the time.

Some movies even count on it.

[Nighthawk]

When a poster with more than a few dozen posts says he's seen it, maybe we'll give it a little more credibility than someone who registered for the specific purpose of posting a "review"...

[detranova]

Boy, am I late. Why does going to a wedding always have to coincide with my chances for being a total asshole (and rightly so)?

Anyways, it really doesn't matter whether mutations or deformities result from noise pollution. That's complete BS either way. No permanent physical change (the qualifier for both of those terms) can occur from noise pollution...unless you count tinnitus to be a physical change. The real problem with noise pollution is the fact that disrupts echolocation and communication, thus keeping whales from mating, and keeping dolphins from dodging out a boat propeller's way. Any damage it may cause to a fetus is either immediately fatal or temporary. Animals don't exactly have the best childcare systems, besides running the f*** away from anything with big teeth and a mean attitude.

Also, why take down Euchre for doing what all of us should be doing? Unfiction is one of the best sources for Cloverfield right now for a reason: we check our facts, and we don't brush aside illogicalities just because we like what we see of the big picture. We have to go by a scientific and logical process, from the smallest details up to said big picture. If the details don't make sense (sound pollution deformities? Marlena dead? Slusho! is Anthrax?), then we must also reject the entire summary. You can't make a good house out of rotten wood.

Finally, advertising a movie with an anti-American image (headless statue of liberty) falls under the category of "it's OK, because we're the ones doing it". Not exactly very politically correct, but that's the same logic behind why Democrats in congress are pissed off by Hugo Chavez summarizing their campaign platform, and why African-Americans use the 'N-word'. And why us Chinks use the C-word. Or, at least I do. Except not really. Is that really how you spell it? That looks more like a game from the Price is Right: the Chinko drop.

[Slusho Addict]

I'm just trying to be open minded, maybe that's a bad thing around here. I've given plenty of good reasons to be very sceptical about this, as has Euchre, but it seems needless to go into the minutiae of the opening scene description, (where we have absolutely nothing to go on) to debunk it.

Hollywood studios incapable of coming up with ludicrous scientific theories?

Cartoon robots are offensive to Americans?

Come on...