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 Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:13 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
[Spec][Spoilers] More Than 1 "Mother Monsters"?
View previous topicView next topic
Page 12 of 12 [179 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12 
Author Message
gigantis2001
Decorated


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 282
Location: Columbus, Ohio

 		Re: Okay.
The Stray wrote:
tMan930 wrote:
Mr. Page (basically the creator of MGP) acknowledges size and scale changes throughout the movie, to "suit the particular moment or narrative".


http://io9.com/357856/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-monster-designer-neville-page


Oh. Well then. That settles it.


I think he means to suit the draft of the story at the time. They were asking him if the monster had ever been intended to be larger or smaller than in the movie, and he basically says that they changed it as the plan for the movie changed. That's how I interpret it.

Edit: Just re-read it and am not sure...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:15 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

 		Re: Okay.
gigantis2001 wrote:
The Stray wrote:
tMan930 wrote:
Mr. Page (basically the creator of MGP) acknowledges size and scale changes throughout the movie, to "suit the particular moment or narrative".


http://io9.com/357856/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-monster-designer-neville-page


Oh. Well then. That settles it.


I think he means to suit the draft of the story at the time. They were asking him if the monster had ever been intended to be larger or smaller than in the movie, and he basically says that they changed it as the plan for the movie changed. That's how I interpret it.

Edit: Just re-read it and am not sure...


Those ambiguous bastards.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:21 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
davianny
Greenhorn

Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 4

 		Monster height and Rivers/Harbor Depth
Since its determine that the height of the monster is 250 feet tall when on all fours legs/arms, IMO then that opens another can of worms.

(Mind you, I searched the forum and did not see any reference to this, if there is go ahead and trout me but here goes.)

Looking up the depths of the East River in NYC, I find its between 41 and 105 feet deep (depending on location). see 1 and 2 for ref.
At the Brooklyn Bridge area, the depth of the water is 44 feet on the Brooklyn side and 78 feet on the Manhattan side.
The roadway is exactly 119 feet about high water. See 3 for reference.

So, taking all of this into account, if the monster is 250 feet tall resting on all fours, wouldn't it be sticking out of the water?
Lets say it does not walk in the water like it does on land, but rather swims like a fish which would make the creature have its legs and arms at its side with only the tail as its thrusting source. I figure it would still make the creature half as tall, still making it 125 in height when swimming. The creature would still be sticking out the water if swimming (in the East River) since the river is not that deep at that point.

Now I figure if it wasn't swimming (since its height keeps it out of the water), why didn't anyone see it getting close to the bridge and most importantly why didn't the news copter capture the rest of the body when its tail hit the bridge since the creature can't really be submerged in the water at that point.

The same can be said of New York harbor. The harbor is naturally 17 feet deep in most places. Its been deepened by the US Army Corps of Engineers throughout the years up to 50 deep. See 4 for ref. So its even less deep than the East River. True its at night and its dark but I still can't see how something so big can not be seen in the waterways.

Thoughts?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:32 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

 		Re: Monster height and Rivers/Harbor Depth
davianny wrote:
Since its determine that the height of the monster is 250 feet tall when on all fours legs/arms, IMO then that opens another can of worms.

(Mind you, I searched the forum and did not see any reference to this, if there is go ahead and trout me but here goes.)

Looking up the depths of the East River in NYC, I find its between 41 and 105 feet deep (depending on location). see 1 and 2 for ref.
At the Brooklyn Bridge area, the depth of the water is 44 feet on the Brooklyn side and 78 feet on the Manhattan side.
The roadway is exactly 119 feet about high water. See 3 for reference.

So, taking all of this into account, if the monster is 250 feet tall resting on all fours, wouldn't it be sticking out of the water?
Lets say it does not walk in the water like it does on land, but rather swims like a fish which would make the creature have its legs and arms at its side with only the tail as its thrusting source. I figure it would still make the creature half as tall, still making it 125 in height when swimming. The creature would still be sticking out the water if swimming (in the East River) since the river is not that deep at that point.

Now I figure if it wasn't swimming (since its height keeps it out of the water), why didn't anyone see it getting close to the bridge and most importantly why didn't the news copter capture the rest of the body when its tail hit the bridge since the creature can't really be submerged in the water at that point.

The same can be said of New York harbor. The harbor is naturally 17 feet deep in most places. Its been deepened by the US Army Corps of Engineers throughout the years up to 50 deep. See 4 for ref. So its even less deep than the East River. True its at night and its dark but I still can't see how something so big can not be seen in the waterways.

Thoughts?


Easy. They decided to risk nobody noticing (or caring).

But they didn't count on us.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:52 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
suckaH
Unfettered

Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 672

 		Re: Monster height and Rivers/Harbor Depth
davianny wrote:
Since its determine that the height of the monster is 250 feet tall when on all fours legs/arms, IMO then that opens another can of worms.

(Mind you, I searched the forum and did not see any reference to this, if there is go ahead and trout me but here goes.)

Looking up the depths of the East River in NYC, I find its between 41 and 105 feet deep (depending on location). see 1 and 2 for ref.
At the Brooklyn Bridge area, the depth of the water is 44 feet on the Brooklyn side and 78 feet on the Manhattan side.
The roadway is exactly 119 feet about high water. See 3 for reference.

So, taking all of this into account, if the monster is 250 feet tall resting on all fours, wouldn't it be sticking out of the water?
Lets say it does not walk in the water like it does on land, but rather swims like a fish which would make the creature have its legs and arms at its side with only the tail as its thrusting source. I figure it would still make the creature half as tall, still making it 125 in height when swimming. The creature would still be sticking out the water if swimming (in the East River) since the river is not that deep at that point.

Now I figure if it wasn't swimming (since its height keeps it out of the water), why didn't anyone see it getting close to the bridge and most importantly why didn't the news copter capture the rest of the body when its tail hit the bridge since the creature can't really be submerged in the water at that point.

The same can be said of New York harbor. The harbor is naturally 17 feet deep in most places. Its been deepened by the US Army Corps of Engineers throughout the years up to 50 deep. See 4 for ref. So its even less deep than the East River. True its at night and its dark but I still can't see how something so big can not be seen in the waterways.

Thoughts?

The only thought i have is that the creature definitely wouldn't still be 125 feet tall when swimming. It's front arms are the main thing that makes it so tall; if they were at his side, he is incredibly thin.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:05 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Lambo_Diablo_Svtt
Entrenched


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 914

 		Also keep in mind... during the bridge scene, people DO see the monster. You hear people like, "Do you see that?" "What is that thing?"... and then he decides to smack his tail on the bridge because he doesnt want anyone to see the big zit on his nose.

Also... Matt Reeves said it was around 350 feet tall...

Im gonna guestimate and say he is 300 ft on average.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:50 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
econaz02
Boot

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 27

 		This is confusing.

I cant wait for a sequel.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:44 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141
I'm Kidding.
This is bullshyte. He should have been 1000 feet tall and long as hell with a long face like a whale or something... with tentacles biting the heads of statues and tossing steel gurters into the air...

But, you know, it's not bad the way it is now...

If there's sequel that takes place at a later date, there's a chance it might look way different than it does now since it's just a "baby"

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:04 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
SlushomakesMEhappy
Decorated


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 164
I'm Kidding.
The Stray wrote:
This is bullshyte. He should have been 1000 feet tall and long as hell with a long face like a whale or something... with tentacles biting the heads of statues and tossing steel gurters into the air...

But, you know, it's not bad the way it is now...

If there's sequel that takes place at a later date, there's a chance it might look way different than it does now since it's just a "baby"
Your theory of a monster sucks, and I'm glad you didn't design the monster in this movie.

Facts hurt sometimes. Let it out.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:46 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
I'M HUGE!
Decorated


Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 215
Location: U.S. 447
Quote:
More Than 1 "Mother Monsters"?

How can this be? Two mothers? Well, at least it's not two dads. Laughing
Lulz, just pulling your leg, man.
_________________
Your retarted.

An anagram for JJ Abrams is Cloverfield. Shocked

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:55 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
guerra001
Unfettered

Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 420
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
I'm Kidding.
SlushomakesMEhappy wrote:
The Stray wrote:
This is bullshyte. He should have been 1000 feet tall and long as hell with a long face like a whale or something... with tentacles biting the heads of statues and tossing steel gurters into the air...

But, you know, it's not bad the way it is now...

If there's sequel that takes place at a later date, there's a chance it might look way different than it does now since it's just a "baby"
Your theory of a monster sucks, and I'm glad you didn't design the monster in this movie.

Facts hurt sometimes. Let it out.





Ahh slusho...your stay this time seems to be turning out better than your last Wink
_________________
"Im not gonna take the bus, You take the bus"

Best Avatars by Lambo_Diablo_Svtt

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:47 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

 		No U.
I'm Kidding.
SlushomakesMEhappy wrote:
The Stray wrote:
This is bullshyte. He should have been 1000 feet tall and long as hell with a long face like a whale or something... with tentacles biting the heads of statues and tossing steel gurters into the air...

But, you know, it's not bad the way it is now...

If there's sequel that takes place at a later date, there's a chance it might look way different than it does now since it's just a "baby"
Your theory of a monster sucks, and I'm glad you didn't design the monster in this movie.

Facts hurt sometimes. Let it out.


Heh. It doesn't suck. Your imagination sucks. But that's okay, I wasn't being serious in the first place. The monster I just described coincides with a concept drawing I saw of a monster an easy 10 times bigger than the one we got in the movie (sans the tentacles though... sort of). On the other hand if it had been that monster the movie probably would have been a lot shorter as it would have destroyed most of the city in a few hours just by being there...

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:11 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
SlushomakesMEhappy
Decorated


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 164

 		Re: No U.
I'm Kidding.
The Stray wrote:
SlushomakesMEhappy wrote:
The Stray wrote:
This is bullshyte. He should have been 1000 feet tall and long as hell with a long face like a whale or something... with tentacles biting the heads of statues and tossing steel gurters into the air...

But, you know, it's not bad the way it is now...

If there's sequel that takes place at a later date, there's a chance it might look way different than it does now since it's just a "baby"
Your theory of a monster sucks, and I'm glad you didn't design the monster in this movie.

Facts hurt sometimes. Let it out.


Heh. It doesn't suck. Your imagination sucks. But that's okay, I wasn't being serious in the first place. The monster I just described coincides with a concept drawing I saw of a monster an easy 10 times bigger than the one we got in the movie (sans the tentacles though... sort of). On the other hand if it had been that monster the movie probably would have been a lot shorter as it would have destroyed most of the city in a few hours just by being there...
At least I have an imagination. Yours comes from a drawing. By the way your monster idea sucks, and I recommend to not be a designer, in ANYTHING. Hell, you'll probably build something more unstable than the leaning tower. Wink And less original.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:48 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
lazarusHART
Unfettered


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 664
Location: Puerto Rico

 		Re: No U.
I'm Kidding.
SlushomakesMEhappy wrote:
The Stray wrote:
SlushomakesMEhappy wrote:
The Stray wrote:
This is bullshyte. He should have been 1000 feet tall and long as hell with a long face like a whale or something... with tentacles biting the heads of statues and tossing steel gurters into the air...

But, you know, it's not bad the way it is now...

If there's sequel that takes place at a later date, there's a chance it might look way different than it does now since it's just a "baby"
Your theory of a monster sucks, and I'm glad you didn't design the monster in this movie.

Facts hurt sometimes. Let it out.


Heh. It doesn't suck. Your imagination sucks. But that's okay, I wasn't being serious in the first place. The monster I just described coincides with a concept drawing I saw of a monster an easy 10 times bigger than the one we got in the movie (sans the tentacles though... sort of). On the other hand if it had been that monster the movie probably would have been a lot shorter as it would have destroyed most of the city in a few hours just by being there...
At least I have an imagination. Yours comes from a drawing. By the way your monster idea sucks, and I recommend to not be a designer, in ANYTHING. Hell, you'll probably build something more unstable than the leaning tower. Wink And less original.

Catfight!
I call em as I see em
_________________
-......-
Clover Vet
MGP 4Ever
Coffee

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:05 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 12 of 12 [179 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12 
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