We'll find out that there's a little Cloverfield inside every one of us by the end.John Goodman was Cloverfield the whole time
We'll find out that there's a little Cloverfield inside every one of us by the end.
THANK. YOU.
This is what I've been focusing on....
Food probably. Doomsday preppers often store thier food/water/resources in barrels.It's one of those little turds the big monster spawns off its back. Bank it.
What if Cloverfield and the Big Lebowski take place in the same universe.
Food probably. Doomsday preppers often store thier food/water/resources in barrels.
But it has a hazard logo on it and he's putting on some heavy duty gloves. He looks like hes about to dig into something bad.
While I am of the opinion it is something bad, it could be a container filled with something like liquid nitrogen or dry ice to keep food rations cold. Not exactly things you'd want to touch with bare skin.
Finally a Fallout: Shelter movie!
Oh, snaaaaaaaaaap they done did it again
IT'S A LION IT'S HUGE
VOLTRON 2
Reminds me of Lost.
Clearly the monster in this movie is a blood relative to the first one
About as deep as Tom Six making a movie about someone being an uber fanboy about his previous movie.I'm catching up on the thread a bit, and this really got me thinking. What if... this really is a case and there -aren't- any "monsters" in the film. What if the guy who's locking people in the bunker and whatever, is a CREATOR of the Cloverfield monster, so he knows what he did and he went crazy from knowing that he unleashed shit on the world. But in the end, because of what he does to these people trying to "protect" them, he turns out to be just as much of a monster as his creation. Wouldn't that be deep?!
The poster doesn't seem to suggest a monster movie, more like a thriller. But without large-scale monsters there's no reason to screen this on IMAX.
I'm catching up on the thread a bit, and this really got me thinking. What if... this really is a case and there -aren't- any "monsters" in the film. What if the guy who's locking people in the bunker and whatever, is a CREATOR of the Cloverfield monster, so he knows what he did and he went crazy from knowing that he unleashed shit on the world. But in the end, because of what he does to these people trying to "protect" them, he turns out to be just as much of a monster as his creation. Wouldn't that be deep?!
The poster doesn't seem to suggest a monster movie, more like a thriller. But without large-scale monsters there's no reason to screen this on IMAX.
Seems like Abrams could have taken a script that had nothing to do with monsters, had it rewritten to feature a monster (maybe) and then pulled the old switcharoo on everyone. Clever if that's what happened.
Die Hard With A Vengeance was not a Die Hard film either. I think it was originally called "Simon Says".Yeah that happens all the time. The last two Die Hard movies weren't Die Hard movies originally either, but were scripts for different things rewritten to be Die Hard films. I think the main sticking point here is that they actually went ahead and shot this film with a $5 million budget. So that's what makes it odder.
Being trapped in a bunker in a post-nuclear war/world ending scenario is my worst nightmare.John Goodman yelling scares the living shit out of me.
Yeah that happens all the time. The last two Die Hard movies weren't Die Hard movies originally either, but were scripts for different things rewritten to be Die Hard films. I think the main sticking point here is that they actually went ahead and shot this film with a $5 million budget. So that's what makes it odder.
I believe all Die Hard films are based on completely separate sources too.Die Hard With A Vengeance was not a Die Hard film either. I think it was originally called "Simon Says".
I like this theory but with the first movie, they said the monster is just a baby looking for its much larger mother so... I mean, unless you buy the multiple monster theory I guess it could be an easy retcon since I don't think they ever actually say that in the movie.I'm catching up on the thread a bit, and this really got me thinking. What if... this really is a case and there -aren't- any "monsters" in the film. What if the guy who's locking people in the bunker and whatever, is a CREATOR of the Cloverfield monster, so he knows what he did and he went crazy from knowing that he unleashed shit on the world. But in the end, because of what he does to these people trying to "protect" them, he turns out to be just as much of a monster as his creation. Wouldn't that be deep?!
I feel like this is exactly what happened, and like I suggested in an earlier post I wouldn't be surprised if the screenings didn't actually include any of the monster/out of the bunker parts.Well, if the Spec Scout report is anything to go by, the original script for The Cellar listed a highway with a burning Chicago skyline in the distance as a location.
So there's hope for a monster.
Seems like Abrams could have taken a script that had nothing to do with monsters, had it rewritten to feature a monster (maybe) and then pulled the old switcharoo on everyone. Clever if that's what happened.
But that's just a theory.
yesss
Die Hard With A Vengeance was not a Die Hard film either. I think it was originally called "Simon Says".
Watch it.Not sure if I should watch the trailer.. Does it spoil a lot of the plot? I really liked that Cloverfield had so much secrecy to it!