MGS4-SS Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Son of a gun, I bought the DVD version because I couldn't wait. Oh well, I'll buy the BluRay anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted April 30, 2008 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2008 I still need to get a blu-ray player because I have HD-DVD :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+orgitnized Subscriber¹ Posted May 1, 2008 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 1, 2008 I just saw it last night and I loved it. This coming from the guy who wanted to see it the day it came out in theaters. I'm really surprised that I never saw the monster and had anything spoiled for me up to this point. I do have a couple of comments that I'll add to spoiler tags here: Note that they aren't complaints - they're things that have me thinking about a couple of things that I know for a fact some people I've talked with never thought of - namely the last comment...this all deals with the last 5 minutes of the movie - so keep that in mind. Did you guys notice anything about the monster at the end of the movie, right before it ended? He was much smaller than the one terrorizing the city...... [1] They never heard it ? and it?s not like the thing can ?stealth? and then appear right there. [2] All the jets were flying in to try and bomb the ?real? creature that was still attacking the city and not one thing was by the bridge to try and destroy the one that was there. [3] The biggest give-away for me was the actual size of the monster they caught on camera before it ate the camera man. Compare the one they captured to the one destroying the city. The arms give it about a 600-some-odd-foot span (which would never even come close to being caught on camera that close) and the entire monster itself would have never been able to be viewed at such a close view. Just think about how big this thing was, with a face that was huge, along with its massive body. Now think of how small it *really* was on that camera at the very end when it killed the camera man. Its foot was bigger than a tank. And at that close of a range you would barely be able to fit a tank on a handycam if you were that close. Think about that last scene. If it was meant to be anything but what I described then I would say it was a seeeeeeerious flaw and I doubt Abrams overlooked that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 I just saw it last night and I loved it. This coming from the guy who wanted to see it the day it came out in theaters. I'm really surprised that I never saw the monster and had anything spoiled for me up to this point. I do have a couple of comments that I'll add to spoiler tags here: Note that they aren't complaints - they're things that have me thinking about a couple of things that I know for a fact some people I've talked with never thought of - namely the last comment...this all deals with the last 5 minutes of the movie - so keep that in mind. Did you guys notice anything about the monster at the end of the movie, right before it ended? He was much smaller than the one terrorizing the city...... [1] They never heard it ? and it?s not like the thing can ?stealth? and then appear right there. [2] All the jets were flying in to try and bomb the ?real? creature that was still attacking the city and not one thing was by the bridge to try and destroy the one that was there. [3] The biggest give-away for me was the actual size of the monster they caught on camera before it ate the camera man. Compare the one they captured to the one destroying the city. The arms give it about a 600-some-odd-foot span (which would never even come close to being caught on camera that close) and the entire monster itself would have never been able to be viewed at such a close view. Just think about how big this thing was, with a face that was huge, along with its massive body. Now think of how small it *really* was on that camera at the very end when it killed the camera man. Its foot was bigger than a tank. And at that close of a range you would barely be able to fit a tank on a handycam if you were that close. Think about that last scene. If it was meant to be anything but what I described then I would say it was a seeeeeeerious flaw and I doubt Abrams overlooked that. I'm pretty sure Abrams addressed about how many Clovies were in the movie. I don't remember where.. but pretty sure he did address it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+orgitnized Subscriber¹ Posted May 1, 2008 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 1, 2008 Ah, I never heard anything about that. But I will say that seriously all the people I have talked with about it somehow fail to notice that part that I just explained at the end of the movie. It just seemed to go right over their heads for whatever reason - they just never noticed. But I guess I had to have missed it somewhere because I watched all the special features with commentary and didn't hear him make mention. Plus, think of the people who saw it in theatres but not the commentary. They would be none the wiser unless they actually noticed that little gem at the end of the movie. Either way I think it's kind of cool on the reaction you get from people when you tell them about it :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Ah, I never heard anything about that. But I will say that seriously all the people I have talked with about it somehow fail to notice that part that I just explained at the end of the movie. It just seemed to go right over their heads for whatever reason - they just never noticed. But I guess I had to have missed it somewhere because I watched all the special features with commentary and didn't hear him make mention. Plus, think of the people who saw it in theatres but not the commentary. They would be none the wiser unless they actually noticed that little gem at the end of the movie.Either way I think it's kind of cool on the reaction you get from people when you tell them about it :p lol I wasn't talking about the dvd.. like I think I heard it in an interview. I don't own the dvd yet, so I didn't know how the documentry went. I would guess in theory that Abrams talks about "THE MONSTER".. not the Monsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGS4-SS Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 I have the DVD, and the monster designer and JJ Abrams refer to him as Clover (singular, only one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I have the DVD, and the monster designer and JJ Abrams refer to him as Clover (singular, only one). there we go. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted May 7, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 7, 2008 In the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, a short Q&A with JJ Abrams may have revealed the ultimate fate of Clover, the Cloverfield monster:RS: But based on photos on the Website, it looks like the monster eventually gets killed by the army. JJ: Yes, he's dead. Ultimately the bombs kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 well that blows. maybe its death will cause some sort of invasion by the other clovers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rappy Veteran Posted May 8, 2008 Veteran Share Posted May 8, 2008 Yeah that does blow but they did say it was a baby or something to that extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+orgitnized Subscriber¹ Posted May 8, 2008 Subscriber¹ Share Posted May 8, 2008 Yeah, but...let me see how ****ed off its mother gets when she finds out about it ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts