Author
Message
sami_kaye
Unfettered
Joined: 12 Oct 2007 Posts: 382 Location: Moncton
I might take a pic of it Friday, but I need to play around with my new phone for a while before I get the hang of it.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:08 pm
Pandafarmer
Boot
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
I'd say the best pic we've seen is definitely this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/ignatz/album%2034/cloverfield5flat.jpg
But the shoulders are a bit more "hunched," face is flatter, elbows a bit "out" more like a bat, and it doesn't look so "bad ass." It has a vulnerability that you see despite its size.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:35 pm
TheRic
Boot
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 21
Are the pictures from www.1-18-08.com in the correct order by time stamp? Talking the time NOT the date. They run something like from 12:01 AM to 12:48 AM. Would everything in those pictures (just the time stamped ones) happen in 47 minutes they are showing?
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:53 pm
sami_kaye
Unfettered
Joined: 12 Oct 2007 Posts: 382 Location: Moncton
ugh, I really hate that picture. I know I am going to be disappointed with how the monster looks.
Does it look like this?
http://media.movieweb.com/news/01.2008/clover2.jpg
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:56 pm
Pandafarmer
Boot
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
Nope. Combine the two. The slouching isn't so pronounced that it looks like some kind of weird dog. That and the head is very much apart of the shoulders, like an ape or human.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:01 pm
Cookson
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 115
Are the arms of the real thing about as skinny as the image above though?
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:07 pm
Pandafarmer
Boot
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
Again, you never really get a steady, clear shot of him. Those shots you do get, you're glued to the screen trying your hardest to make out everything you can and take it all in amid the smoke, explosions, and roaring. Out of the 7-8 times you see him, only 2-3 of those times do you ever get a full view that isn't obstructed by buildings or explosions.
So on that note... the legs are more thick and strong like the first picture, but the shoulders are more hunched and the elbows more bent. Literally, think a combination of the two and you got the body. He's really hard to describe because they literally give you very little to work with. Every time you think you have something to run with, it behaves and moves in a different way and you have to rethink what you're seeing a bit.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:18 pm
deadtotheworld564
Decorated
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 Posts: 200
That is another reason i think they will rlease an action figure in the future.=, so you can see a clear detialed full version of the monster.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:55 pm
Pandafarmer
Boot
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
Oh I hope so! That thing would look sweet in McFarlaine style action figure...
http://i16.tinypic.com/6poghg5.jpg
Here is that hand drawn face pic I was refering to. Try this head on the mashup of the two other bodies...
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:27 pm
starshiptrooper
Entrenched
Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 792 Location: Shelbyville, TN
OliMango wrote:
starshiptrooper wrote:
OK... I have found a little problem with one of the reviewers reviews that makes me think he/she hasn't seen the movie.
In one thread they are asked a question, the response is "definitely".
In another thread they make a statement that completely contradicts that. I'm going to bed. See if you guys and girls can figure it out.
Are you talking about when I said the girl on the couch was definitely Jamie? And then someone else said he wasn't sure.
I'm positive it was her. Unless she has a twin or something.
I'm talking about a few days ago you said you were definitely positive Jamie was in the movie, then you posted this on the jamie vid thread yesterday:
Quote:
I hope she kills herself in the next one.
It'd be cool if we saw her shadow or something while she was hanging herself. I would laugh.
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23482&start=105
Now, if you're positive she's in the movie, why would you post that? Either you haven't seen the movie, or like some of us, you believe that the movie is OOG, or the marketing is totally wrong.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:46 pm
mamart90
Boot
Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 16
hey some who reviewed the movie said the monster sort of looks like pumpkinhead just add more bulk and the arms and a bigger tail, is this true?
http://www.mwctoys.com/images/review_pumpkinhead_9.jpg
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:56 pm
starshiptrooper
Entrenched
Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 792 Location: Shelbyville, TN
Who knows?
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:58 pm
Southside
Veteran
Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 131
Pumkinhead has a schlong??? That'd be cool tho if he did sorta look like the MGP.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:32 pm
TPMdm
Veteran
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 85
Southside wrote:
Pumkinhead has a schlong??? That'd be cool tho if he did sorta look like the MGP.
Looks more like a "schmall" in that pic.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:43 pm
Pandafarmer
Boot
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 69
hmmm... The head is too long and the mouth isn't at all the same. The body is way off since Pumpkinhead essentially looks like an upright walking dude in platform shoes.
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 1 Week 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Sort by: Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending