That image is from the website EthanHaasWasRight.com. It's not the monster. I don't think the image is even up at the website anymore. Images of the monster haven't been released and, knowing J.J. Abrams, it won't be for a long time.

They do however keep posting new photos up at 1-18-08.com and there are some behind the scenes clips around the place, if you know where to look.


Matt.

The new trailer for the now officially titled Cloverfield is live over at Apple.com in glorious QuickTime format. If you're interested in this flick, you'll definitely wanna check it out. It's pretty sweet.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/


Matt.

"Please let it live up to expectations. Please let it live up to expectations."

For marketing and hype. I'm loving it.


But then again, I was also first in line to Godzilla...

I just found out who J.J. Abrams is and no longer have any interest in this at all. Based on what he's previously been involved with, I'd be willing to bet they're trying to sell this based on hype and gimmicks (e.g. hand-held camera, ambiguous trailers, etc.) alone, which, even without his name attached, appears to be the case anyway.

You just found out who J.J. Abrams is? Do you not watch TV?

Personally I think he's a great driving force in TV, but I have more reservations when it comes to his films. M:I III was good, but it didn't blow me away.

The thing about Cloerfield I don't like is that the so-called amateur fottage that we see through the entire film is from a pretty expensive, professional camera. If it wasn't for the fact that character talk to the camera it would look just like a Paul Greengrass film.

And the movie might have to make up contrivances to have the characters actually film the action instead of running.

Whether or not I watch this film will depend on reviews or word of mouth.

Quoted from Death Monkey Do you not watch TV?

Actually, I don't. All I really watch is Nip/Tuck, South Park, Seinfeld reruns, and, as of late, Kenny vs. Spenny. Still, I've caught enough of the overrated crap TV has to offer (Heroes and Desperate Housewives are tied for the worst in my book) to know what I'm talking about. Alias and a TV show about people with clean shaves being stranded on a desert island do nothing for me and I've heard nothing but bad things about M:I III (or "Miiieh" as Stephen Colbert pronounces it ). I'd like to think I have a good idea of the kind of stuff this guy produces.

Quoted from MacDuff " But then again, I was also first in line to Godzilla...

Quick, off topic question. Why does everyone hate the American Godzilla so much? I thought it was pretty cool and I'm not ashamed to say it!

Anyways, Cloverfeild looks neat.

~Zack~

Quoted from Zack Quick, off topic question. Why does everyone hate the American Godzilla so much? I thought it was pretty cool and I'm not ashamed to say it!

Because in the original, Godzilla was an awesome, all-powerful, unstoppable monster and in this he's just a big lizard that gets taken out by a couple of missiles. That, combined with the overall cruminess of Matthew Broderick. At least, that's why I hated it.


Matt.

Quoted from James McClung Actually, I don't. All I really watch is Nip/Tuck, South Park, Seinfeld reruns, and, as of late, Kenny vs. Spenny. Still, I've caught enough of the overrated crap TV has to offer (Heroes and Desperate Housewives are tied for the worst in my book) to know what I'm talking about. Alias and a TV show about people with clean shaves being stranded on a desert island do nothing for me and I've heard nothing but bad things about M:I III (or "Miiieh" as Stephen Colbert pronounces it ). I'd like to think I have a good idea of the kind of stuff this guy produces.

I agree with you about Alias, but the first season of Lost had very good writing. Truly interesting plot-twists and a sense that none of the characters were safe (which they weren't), which is very rare in TV. Seasons two and three may have ruined the show.

You should really watch Mission Impossible III though. It is the highest rated of the bunch on  IMDB, and how often can you say that about the second sequel in a trilogy?

You might think Abrams is overrated, I know I do, but there's no doubt that within the realm of TV suspense this guy is above average.

How many episodes of Lost have you seen?

Quoted from Death Monkey You might think Abrams is overrated, I know I do, but there's no doubt that within the realm of TV suspense this guy is above average.

Obviously, the guy's made a name for himself. I'll give him that. But what someone can do on TV means little to me. Their standards are so abysmally low that someone who manages to find his way to the top in TV land could easily be average/below average in the film world. Only a few shows (e.g. Nip/Tuck, The Sopranos, the first season of Prison Break) do I acknowledge as being genuinely quality television. As for M:I III, I never really got into the series to begin with. I might give the third a shot if I don't have to pay for it myself but I don't have high hopes and Tom Cruise's acting is bad enough to sink an entire movie in my book.

Quoted from Death Monkey How many episodes of Lost have you seen?

Not a lot, to be honest. Just caught it a few times channel surfing and thought I'd check it out but it LOST my interest, hehe. I also have to admit I dabbled into Lost well after people started talking about it so I would guess I saw the third season, which, apparently, isn't very good. Never heard anyone saying that Lost went downhill after the first season. Maybe what I've seen of the show isn't a good example of what it has to offer (?).

Watch the first few episodes of season one. You can't really start watching Lost in mid-season, it's not episodic like that.

And yeah the show went severely downhill during season 3, IMO. They started doing a lot of "twists" that were really far-fetched and paranoid and at the same time there were things they introduced in season one they still hadn't answered.

As for M:I III it's not brilliant cinema, but for a Tom Cruise actioner it's not as obnoxious as you may think. It has some really cool moments and some really annoying ones, but generally the good outweighs the bad, I think. But I kinda like spy stuff for the most part, so it might not be to your liking.

Back to Cloverfield, I really hope J.J Abrahams doesn't pull some "there-is-a-monster-but-you-never-see-it-in-the-movie-because-what-you-don't-see-is-scarier" bullsh!t. If it is a monster flick, I want to see the damn monster.

If they don't show it, it's not gonna be clever. It's just gonna be downright pathetic.

But really, could anything they show live up to what we imagine? They've hyped this thing for so long, no matter what it turns out to look like, we'll be disappointed.

As long as he avoids a lot of wide shots of the monster and doesn't dwell on it for too long he should be fine. 'Cause honestly, as a rule of thumb, it's true that what they don't show is scarier. I think they should show the monster but only in glimpses and maybe super close-ups. If they give a full frontal they'll ruin everything.

I agree. Not showing the monster, except for a few glimpses and super close-ups, will make it a lot scarier. The audience is left to create what the monster looks like themselves, it personalises it, makes it more frightening.


Matt.

I disagree.  If it's a creature feature I want to eventually see an absolutely massive creature wreaking havoc in all its glory.  Still, nothing wrong with a nice long buildup.  I think it'd be cool if they took an Aliens approach with it...quick flashes, stuff in the shadows, but when we get to the finale, it's just out and out, creature in the open, asskicking.

My only reservation about this film is that the major creative forces behind it are all directly from TV, and I don't like TV.  I thought Lost was Garbage, Alias was worse, and I haven't seen Felicity but it doesn't look very good.  Still I think the teaser and trailer are awesome, and I really like the concept, so I'll go ahead and look forward to this.