Anyone who has seen Transformers probably noticed that mysterious teaser trailer during the previews.

Raw camera footage of a party. Everyone feels vibrations and then evacuate to the rooftop. The building is located in New York City. Once on the rooftop, they see massive explosions tear through the city. The Statue of Liberty's head hits the street right in front of them. It ends with people running and screaming.

There is no title for the movie. It only shows “Produced by J.J. Abrams" and says “1.18.08" and flashes the credit block of names for about a half second and that's it.

Apparently this is a top secret project called Cloverfield that J.J. Abrams is producing and not directing. Also, it seems that most of the film is going to be shot using home video cameras, as if from the point of view of real people who are experiencing an attack on New York.

Thats about it, I can't find anymore info on this one. They're keeping this very secretive.


Edit: Found the trailer online, it wont be up for long.

It sounded like there was a monster going after them. Monster movie, attack on NY, I don't care as long as its entertaining.

Wow pretty cool trailer. Would've been better if the video was decent quality, but at least we got to see it. Pretty cool effects in some of the explosions.


Matt.

Yeah I saw this too. There is a current debate going on about what a guy said in the trailer.
Either

"I saw it, It's ALIVE, it's huge"
OR
"I saw it, It's a LION, it's huge"

I seriously doubt that anyone would make a movie about a giant lion so it's probably the 1st one. I bet it's a Creature Feature though. If it's anything like The Host it should be good.
Does anyone remember the American version of GODZILLA?

Quoted from Shawnkjr Does anyone remember the American version of GODZILLA?

"Ugh" pretty much sums that movie up.

I hope this turns out a little better than that.

Matt.

Hey, has anyone thought about what the monster in the film could be? I think there's a good chance that it is none other than the mighty, mighty Cthulhu! I mean, I know Tori Spelling made a movie about it recently, but what else is tough enough to just rip the head off the Statue of Liberty?

Quoted from ReaperCreeper ..... what else is tough enough to just rip the head off the Statue of Liberty?

Something entirely original?


Matt.

A new URL is now up, 1-18-08.com, featuring a screenshot and a date stamp. The domain was registered by the studio on March 30th, long before anyone knew about the movie.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper Hey, has anyone thought about what the monster in the film could be?

So far, the "monster" is only being referred to as "The Parasite".

Now there are two more websites for the movie:

http://www.ethanhaaswasright.com/

And:

http://ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com/

What does it all mean?


Matt.

The plot thickens:

When you solve some puzzles on Ethanhaaswasright.com you get access to some video messages. Something about the new world order. Now, if you go to youtube, someone put up the messages, but Paramount took down 3 of the 5 messages.

A date is mentioned. August 1st.

When asked, Paramount reps claim they've never heard of the film.

Exciting!

Ho ho. That's pretty cool. But they'd better knock off this secrecy crap pretty soon and give us an official announcement. This kinda stuff is gonna get really old, real quick. No matter how mysterious something is, we can only care for so long.


Matt.

I think it's a genius marketing ploy to give us videoes and then take them down after 24 hours. This means 10% will have seen 'em and 90% won't have. That means 90% will WANT to see them. Curiosity is what gets people in the theater.

It took me a while, but I managed to complete all of the puzzles at the Ethan Haas website. Now I'm very interested.

The trailer is out, looks awesome in glorious QuickTime.

Did I see that right?  Did Lady Liberty take out nothing but the corner of a building and a cab?

C'mon!  I want disaster in my disaster films!

Is it just me, or was anyone else thinking all through that teaser "drop the camera and run, moron"?

The Statue of Liberty's head is coming right atcha, I don't think I would be worrying about weather my digicam is capturing the action. Maybe I'm just weird that way.....

Still a cool teaser though.


Matt.

The trailer's pretty cool although I agree with Matt's earlier post. The secrecy probably shouldn't last too long. Hype tends to ruin movies like this.

There's a lot of rumors circulating around this project that seem to suggest it's Cthulhu/H.P. Lovecraft related. See here:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33238

If that's the case then this is definitely something to keep one's eye on. A Cthulhu could be amazing in the right hands. In the wrong hands... well, considering it's all rumors at this stage, probably best not to think that far ahead.

Also, what's the deal with this Ethan Hass stuff? I've been hearing a lot about it and I still don't understand what it's all about. I've been to both websites and, as far as I can tell, it's just a bunch of cryptic nonsense, which I don't see relates to the movie in any way. Anyone got some answers?

Producer J.J. Abrams finally broke the silence regarding Cloverfield-- well, kind of. He recently spoke with Harry over at Ain't It Cool News.

Quoted Text Thanks for your support of our little movie. I can't wait to talk to you more about it -- of course, knowing you, by the time we talk you'll know more than I will. Regarding the online stuff you posted: yeah, we're doing some fun stuff on the web. But, obviously, if the movie doesn't kick some massive ASS, who gives a rat's about what's online? So as you can imagine, we're focusing mostly on THAT. For what it's worth, the only site of ours that people have even FOUND is the 1-18-08.com site. The others (like the Ethan Haas sites) have nothing to do with us.

Interesting...

is it me or in that pic is there a pic of a demon or something, , inbetween the two faces, in the girl on the lefts hair, looks like a face of a creature. is this about the end of days or something?

Quoted from The boy who could fly is it me or in that pic is there a pic of a demon or something, , inbetween the two faces, in the girl on the lefts hair, looks like a face of a creature. is this about the end of days or something?

It's just their hair and a shadow from the lamppost behind them.

There's a lot of talk on the IMDB board about it.  Funny stuff.

Poster for Cloverfield



Blurry fragments of this poster have been floating around the net for a few day. But now Entertainment Weekly has published a clearer version of the poster which interestingly does not include the word "Monstrous" as the previous version of the poster did.

I love that poster. So simple and effective.

I also like that they removed "MONSTROUS" from the top. That might've confused a few people.


Matt.

I'm starting to get irritated with this movie. They need to explain more before people give up on it. Ever since that 'trailer' I've been pondering every now and then about it, now I'm annoyed. I need a little information very soon...

Maybe it's an American version of 'The Host'! Why not?

~Zack~

Quoted from Stigmata I'm starting to get irritated with this movie. They need to explain more before people give up on it. Ever since that 'trailer' I've been pondering every now and then about it, now I'm annoyed. I need a little information very soon...

See, this is what happens with these kinds of promotions. They're all cool and mysterious at first, but then it starts to grate on people's nerves. The filmmakers have been jerking everyone around for what is it, three or four weeks now? It's time for a few solid facts, otherwise by the time they get around to telling us anything, no one is going to care.


Matt.

Word is that the title for the film is 'Colossus'.

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/9485

Quoted from chism See, this is what happens with these kinds of promotions. They're all cool and mysterious at first, but then it starts to grate on people's nerves. The filmmakers have been jerking everyone around for what is it, three or four weeks now? It's time for a few solid facts, otherwise by the time they get around to telling us anything, no one is going to care. Matt.

In the end they don't care how annoyed you are in all of 2007. So long as they get your attention in time for it to open. And they already planted the seed in the back of your mind, whether we like it or not. If they bring a fascinating pay-off that grabs our attention the month before it opens, it's not gonna matter how pissed of we've been for the past 6 months that they didn't tell us anything.

Another poster here.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33520

~Zack~

I went on google after watching this to find out what the monster looks like I wrote down "cloverfield" then went on images and you see a ball thingy with something in it and the city in the background trust me.

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.

Quoted from AnotherWriter I wonder why people keep saying that this a JJ Abrams film and keep referring to his previous work like MI3, considering he's not even writing or directing this one -- he's just sitting back as a producer.  It's almost like saying that Tranfsormers is a Steven Spielberg film even though he was just an executive producer in that movie.

If a movie's got Joel Silver's or Jerry Bruckheimer's name attached to it, you've basically got a good idea of what it's going to be like. Believe it or not, producers do have some power in regards to what a movie looks like. Also, producers and executive producers aren't the same. Executive producers usually contribute nothing to the project and just slapped their names on the project because they want to seem important or they did someone a favor and the credit and said someone returning the favor. Either that or they contributed something small or borderline insignificant to the project.

Quoted from Heretic 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.

The Aliens approach could work...if they came up with a creature as unbelievably mindblowingly awesome as the xenomorph. But if this is just another tentacled, four-eyed Godzilla with firebreath, showing the monster would ruin the movie.

I mean this is obviously not a traditional creature feature, so I don't think they have to conform to the norms and trappings of the genre.

I think they could only get away with showing the monster in snipets or from a distance because if you are close enough to see the scales then you're going to get eaten or mushed.  

I'm not sure what to think of this.  The fact that they are being so secret about it leads me to believe that the reveal will be a one time thing, after you know then it's no big deal. It will probably be godzilla in disguise.

It will probably be fun to watch once and I will watch it once but I'll probably wait until it's on DVD.

I think the teaser and trailer have Abrams' look all over them.  The actors, the lighting, the approach to CGI -- everything.

If Star Trek suffers from the same affliction I will be extremely upset.

Quoted from AnotherWriter The producer will choose the script and the director that they feel will make the picture work.  The producer will offer some creative input, but not to the extent you're thinking of -- not for shot-to-shot decisions as that's pretty much up to the creative talent of the director.  The producer (and executive producers) just ensured that it can be done and within justifiable limits of the production budget. There's a massive difference between a Wachowskis' movie (The Matrix) as there is to a John McTiernan movie (Die Hard), both produced by Joel Silver -- just as there is a massive difference between a Ridley Scott movie (Black Hawk Down) to a Michael Bay movie (Bad Boys) and a Gore Verbinski movie (Pirates of the Carribean), all produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

This is true. No argument there. The producer doesn't actively control the look of the film per se but they've got their tastes and some producers (like Silver and Bruckheimer) tend to choose the same kinds of scripts, directors, etc. That does effect the look of their films in the end. You can always trust that a film produced by Joel Silver will be mindless, balls-out, in-your-face entertainment, which both Die Hard and The Matrix are when you boil it down (The Matrix is a little brainier than most of his films but it's got one flaw that tears the entire concept to pieces... just thought I'd throw that in there, hehe). It's definitely the director who's 95% responsible for the look of the film but when you throw certain producers in the mix, that can sometimes change. I think Abrams is one such producer.

Quoted from James McClung ....The producer doesn't actively control the look of the film per se but they've got their tastes and some producers (like Silver and Bruckheimer) tend to choose the same kinds of scripts, directors, etc....

He's very right about that. In this instance, the writer of Cloverfield (Drew Goddard) wrote for both Alias and Lost while the director (Matt Reeves) co-created and directed many episodes of Felicity.


Matt.

Cloverfield director Matt Reeves has given ShockTillYouDrop.com an exclusive interview about the mysterious monster flick. Hit the link above to read the full interview.

Also, the guys over at AintItCoolNews.com have posted a 5 minute clip from the film. I haven't seen it, but apparently it's similar to the two trailers. Check it out at the above link.


Matt.

If the movie is as exciting as it looks, I might be able to suspend belief beyond the ridiculous conceit that people choose to film while they are running for their lives from a huge monster that's destroying the city.

It's actually become a catchphrase to me and my friends. Like if I'm filming with my cellphone at a party and someone asks me if I'm recording, I have to say the line "Yeah. People are gonna wanna know how it all went down..."

Quoted from AnotherWriter I know what you mean.  But at the same time: I think that, when the Statue of Liberty's head crashed down onto the street and people were immeditaely upon it with their camera phones, clearly demonstrated the mentality of people wanting to "document" what they saw so they can show it to other people. I remember when the London Underground terrorist bombings happened.  Several hours later, there was amateur footage from people's camera phones.  There was one footage of a cart trapped underground mid-stations, people trapped inside, in complete darkness, only a tinge of visble light, and people going hysterical as they tried to bash their way out of the cart.

Sure, but aren't we supposed to be following a group with the same camera? Or at least a couple of groups. I find it hard to believe that after near-death experience upon near-death experience they continue to prioritize filming.

Hence the absurdity of the "are you still filming?" line.

I thought, as a big LOSTR fanatic, I would say a few things.

First, if you havent seen the episodes in order, starting with the first, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to call lost a bad show.

As for the monster, Lost had a monster mentioned and hyped for quite a while.  They showed it to us all out, I think in the first season.  It was dissapointing, but still had a mystery to it that made it cool.  I'm sure they'll take a similair path.

As for the clip above....did i see someone impailed on one of the thorns of lady liberty's crown??

I don't think anyone has posted this link.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35100

Quoted from Higgonaitor I thought, as a big LOST fanatic, I would say a few things. First, if you havent seen the episodes in order, starting with the first, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to call lost a bad show.

Of course people have the right.  Unless you mean to tell me that you have embraced the absolute entirety of every TV show and/or movie you have ever called "bad".  Including Dharma and Greg (I don't know if you have ever called that bad...I just hate it).
  
How good can a show be if it's only enjoyable when it's complete and in order?

Quoted from Heretic Of course people have the right.  Unless you mean to tell me that you have embraced the absolute entirety of every TV show and/or movie you have ever called "bad".  Including Dharma and Greg (I don't know if you have ever called that bad...I just hate it).    How good can a show be if it's only enjoyable when it's complete and in order?

First off, I never said complete.  I believe I said: "First, if you havent seen the episodes in order, starting with the first, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to call lost a bad show."

You don't need to watch them all.

If you haven't seen them in order, as I said above, you have no right to say it's a bad show.  It would be like opening the sound and the fury and reading two pages in the middle, not understanding it, and calling it a piece of crap.

Yes, i just compared Lost to Faulkner.

Sorry for the miscommunication, all I meant to say was that if you've only seen one episode, and that episode wasn't the first, you don't have the right to call it a bad show.

I disagree. Every single episode of a TV show needs to hook someone into watching, not just the first episode. Otherwise, it must not be very good. That being said, I do like Lost. Well, half of Season 1 anyway. I stopped watching afterwards (in Mexico it used to conflict with Supernatural, so I just ditched Lost because I like Supernatural better)

--Julio  

Quoted from ReaperCreeper I disagree. Every single episode of a TV show needs to hook someone into watching, not just the first episode. Otherwise, it must not be very good. That being said, I do like Lost. Well, half of Season 1 anyway. I stopped watching afterwards (in Mexico it used to conflict with Supernatural, so I just ditched Lost because I like Supernatural better) --Julio

Sounds like a TV-producer talking!  

From a marketing POV, yes, every episode should hook viewers immidiately, but speaking from personal taste and experience, this is not a measure of quality at all, not even as a rule of thumb.

I'd say it depends on what kinda narrative structure a TV show has. Some Shows are episodic (i.e. a new story every time) like Alias or Supernatural. there might be an underlying storyline, but you can walk in from the street an be entertained by the story without understanding the greater context.

But some shows require that you know what the big picture is, especially shows with an ensemble cast that can't be "re-introduced" in each episode. Lost, Damages, Jericho, 24 (to a degree; the premise doesn't really change from season to season). These shows you can't judge like you can with the episodic ones, just like you can't watch Matrix Revolutions independent of the two that went before it (not that that would make it any better...).

Part of the attraction with these kinds of shows is that it's not vacuuous and episodic but a saga that evolves and transforms itself, and to appreaciate this evolution you need to be there from the beginning. That's part of what's rewarding when watching it, that you know these people and their histories and you follow a tidbit of a grand narrative each week.

I prefer this type of show myself. Very often with episodic shows they're gonna repeat themselves, using the same plotdevices each week, or not be able to wrap things up without resorting to deus ex machina or some rushed revelation, because they need to contain the story and resolve it within 45 minutes. With a show like Lost, or a personal favorite of mine, Dexter, a storyline can transcend episodes and even seasons (though that's probably stretching it.) There's more freedom to experiment with the story.

Quoted from Death Monkey ...and even seasons (though that's probably stretching it.)

Hey, it took The X-Files NINE seasons to wrap up its mythology - now, that's stretching it baby.

Possible first look at the monster here...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/10889

~Zack~

The Asylum Strikes Again!

http://www.theasylum.cc/product.php?id=139

Anybody else seen this?  I caught the trailer in the video store earlier, and needless to say, I was quite disgusted.

Bloodydisgusting has confirmed that the picture of the monster(see my previuos post) is 100% authentic.

~Zack~