Talk:Cloverfield

; Archives
	June 2007 - July 2007;

This page is not a forum for general discussion about for discussing details about the film without the intent of improving the article. Adding fan sites and forums are unverifiable references and do not help improve the article in any way. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about for discussing details about the film without the intent of improving the article. Adding fan sites and forums are unverifiable references and do not help improve the article in any way at the Reference desk.

Film Unassessed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cloverfield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Attacked by damage controllers?

Any mention of Cthulhu in the discussion page, and the clear links that have been established with the film teaser and Lovecraftian themes, are constantly destroyed or reverted to edits that don't include them.

If people don't want it in the article, fine. But this isn't the Goddamn article. It's where we discuss possible content additions, and what we might have to offer. It's also curious that the Lovecratian portions are being specifically targeted here.

I think we have Abrams damage control messing with our Wiki.

--user:167.1.103.100

Grow up. Anytime you "figure something out" on your own, it's Original Research. There's no need to discuss anything that can't be added. I think we have an arrogant kid messing with the wiki. DurinsBane87 00:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bother even having a 'Discussion' section at all? Hell, may as well lock every article and just let registered users and mods add whatever content they are spoonfed.

Well I will say this much. I see other speculation on here so if Cthulhu theories are being specifically targetted then that is unfortunate, but I don't know why someone would be doing that only for some theories and not others. User:NeoBix 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cthulhu isn't being specifically targeted so much as being the straw that broke the camel's back. Second, the discusion page is for discussing information that's verifiable, and figureing out how to integrate said VERIFIABLE material into the article. It IS NOT a forum for the article's topic. DurinsBane87 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Monstrous Poster": "Warehouse sale called Frank & Son's here in Southern California had a large booth where they sell movie posters. One of the posters there had a snapshot of the statue of liberty overlooking the city of new york. The statue was missing it's head and at the top in large white letters it said "Monstrous". The lower right corner had in smaller white letters, 1-18-08.

--Mithos90 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The inclusion of unverifiable discussion from forums and such fails to be appropriate for improving the article. The talk page is not a place for speculation, either by the editor or unverifiable sources. Any further unhelpful additions will be reverted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik The source You posted in the Article about Greg Grunberg being in the movie, Not sure If you wanna use it still or Not but I found a more Hardcore Source. The Tv-Guide website Itself....Better Not delete. >,>

Greg Grunberg Casting in 1-18-08

--74.244.160.39 24:44 EST, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

That source is even better. I couldn't find it when I looked earlier, but I didn't realize it was under an article title that would not mention Cloverfield, 1-18-08, or Abrams. The citation has now been updated. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

The entirety of the talk page has been archived because of a persistence by editors to treat the talk page like a forum in which unverifiable information is shared and speculated upon. Per talk page guidelines, the talk page is meant for discussion about how to improve the article, and this requires reliable sources for implementation. Fan sites' speculation do not count, forums do not count, and scooper pictures do not count. There has been many KBs of general discussion, and the article has barely been improved as a result. It must be understood that the talk page is not a forum, and discussion should be limited to improving the article. "Understanding" the film does not entail reading others' unverifiable speculation, and thus there is a need to re-focus the discussion. If you would like to speculate about the film with other Internet users, I would recommend forums at IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slusho Connection...

I'm gonna add a part of the article that isn't just speculation any more.

In the official trailer released to apple.com, there is a spot in the trailer that makes a dirrect link to the Cloverfield project and one of its code names; Slusho.

Image:slusho2.png
A person can be seen wearing a Slusho t-shirt in the movie trailer. It's visible when he leans toward the camera to ask if anything can be seen from the roof after watching the news broadcast. Slusho is a drink from J.J. Abrams' show "Alias" (2001) as well as this film's codename. Slusho is also a Japanese drink.
Information from a source included in the Cloverfield project reports that all the production vehicles are marked with the word "Slusho", the slogan "You can’t eat more than 6", and a drawing of a slurpee like drink (which is a description similar with the t-shirt seen in the preview). The source claims to be "leaking" information, but with a marketing scheme like this no one can know for sure if it's all part of the game that Paramount has decided to put together.

Visit the Slusho website, to see if you can find any "clues". The website is said to contain many.

Yeap --Huper Phuff ^talk 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It blatantly violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Please read the policy; it fails to be encyclopedic and does not belong in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dam Nothing is Official with you and this Movie Article Erik, the only time this article is going to be updated is After This Thursday after Comic-Con. --74.244.160.39 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos[reply]

That's the issue with Wikipedia's core policies and viral marketing campaigns -- the uncertainty about what is right or not in relation to the campaign creates an approach of better-nothing-than-everything, 'cause from what you and others have posted in terms of fan sites and forums, there's a whole lot of unverifiable "everything". Hopefully, we will find out concrete information about the film at Comic-Con and include it in this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Move to 1-18-08

I think this article should be moved to the article page under "1-18-08" and that "Cloverfield" should be redirrected to that...seeing as that is the only confirmed promotional title and the rest is just conjecture. --Huper Phuff ^talk 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting consideration. The thing is, the media (our sources) really are referring to it as "Cloverfield". 1-18-08 is not confirmed, though, as a title of anything, rather it is confirmed as being connected to the film (clearly through the trailer and website).Gwynand 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I like your point about how "Cloverfield" is the name it is being known under. But people are going crazy here about what is and is not validated. So I guess it can wait until more information comes out, but I do believe that "1-18-08" will turn into the actual title (my own personal belief), in which case it should be moved there. So I guess we just wait until a title comes out or they state somewhere that "1-18-08" is the title. --Huper Phuff ^talk 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of this, too, when I added the new cast member. ComingSoon.net lists it under 1-18-08, but the article of the casting news mentions the various purported names. 1-18-08 currently redirects here. I don't believe that there's anything clear-cut at this point to warrant a move anywhere else, but when something is confirmed, I would be fine with going ahead to move the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet sweet I'm so exicted to be contributing here in a helpful, organized fashion :D. Oh another thing. Movie theatres (by online box offices like movietickets.com and fandango.com) have no record of this new movie coming out for January 18th, 2008, and the date appears on the time stamp of the photographs at the official site 1-18-08.com it might just be a title for the "day things went to hell". However it does say "in theatres 1-18-08" in the trailer. --Huper Phuff ^talk 17:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to see what 1-18-08 really means from reliable sources. No offense, but it's not our place to consider the possibilities without any valid reference at hand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kk, gotcha, so I'll just post here again when I actually hear something about the title or a change in release date with a credible source. --Huper Phuff ^talk 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic-Con

What THE FU*K Dam Comic Con Site is a Fu*kin Creditable source and you know it, and you keep deleting the Fu*kin Post on the Talk. Is even Post Deletion on TalK allowed Erik? I cant even Post Fu*kin Info in Talk area even The Comic Con Official Site itself and this area is turning into a discussion topic before I posted so don't post Crap or excuses Erik What the Hell Are you looking For? Hell If Info I Found and if I posted it here It will get FU*KIN DELETED then if someone else posted THAT EXACT SAME INFO They will get the FU*kin Credit for it and not me. WHAT THE HELL

--74.244.160.39 02:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos[reply]

The fact that the talk page shifted into general discussion is the reason why there is this enforcement in place. It's being discouraged because out of over 100 KB of discussion, very little of it has had to do with improving the article, but to speculate among selves about the nature of the film. This is not the purpose of the talk page, per guidelines. The guidelines state that irrelevant discussion will be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Comic-Con schedule says nothing about Cloverfield or 1-18-08. J. J. Abrams is working on Star Trek, so it's speculation to say that he may talk about this film at Comic-Con. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, the only thing on the Comic-Con website that points to cloverfield is that it says "plus a few surprises" after the Star Trek mention, nothing else. That's really nothing substantial or concrete even. VerasGunn 04:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the poster which happens to share a release date and headless Statue of Liberty theme.

The poster's authenticity is yet to be verified and could have been knocked together by anyone. Don't believe me? The Cloverfieldnews site, which was linked to as a source for the poster, contained an image of another one, almost identical, which they decried as a fake - showing how easy it is for any Tom, Dick or Harry to put something like that out. Liquidfinale 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what the poster has to do with Abrams possibly talking about Cloverfield at Comic-Con. You're discussing something not at all related here. VerasGunn 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variety has reported that Abrams will talk about the project at Comic-Con, so the matter is settled. When reports from reliable sources come in from Comic-Con, feel free to include it in the article using the cite news template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Monstrous"

Registrant:
 Paramount Pictures Corporation
 5555 Melrose Avenue
 MOB 3111A
 Hollywood, CA 90038
 US

 Domain name: THEMONSTROUSMOVIE.COM

Indeed. However, Paramount has also registered domains for literally hundreds of other forthcoming films and even ones currently stuck in development hell; are we to suggest that all of those, or at least the ones we know nothing about beyond the title, are possible alternate or real titles of the Cloverfield project? Lest we forget, the "Monstrous" poster appeared online after the discovery of the above registered site. Liquidfinale 12:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need The monstrous movie Just move Cloverfield to The Monstrous

--84.61.62.33 12:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official confirmation for any of the film's titles. The project has been reported as Cloverfield, and other names have surfaced. However, none of the succeeding names are in an official capacity, so it is best to remain at Cloverfield until there is official confirmation of the film's title, either working or official. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, Variety reported that Abrams will reveal the official title of the project at Comic-Con. When the official title is announced, please move it accordingly to the proper title, may it be Monstrous, The Monstrous, or something else. Also, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) to see how it needs to be formatted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the film is indeed Monstrous (as I just noticed that it redirects here), please request a move to that article, citing the reliable source for the film's official title so an admin can move the page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Not Posting Much Info Because I don't want this to be mistaken as a Discussion Post and therefore deleted. But I Will Post More Info After Comic Con or If more news is released. But about the poster being leaked, the poster was leaked by a women named Luanna Jo Brown who was selling the Leaked Poster at the Frank and Son's show but soon arrested right after Paramount Pictures was contacted about the leaked poster. It was said she was about to go to Comic Con and sell the poster there the exact day the title was planed to be announced. • --74.244.160.39 12:20 EST, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

We will find out more information about the project when the time comes. If this information about Luanna Jo Brown is true, I'm not sure if it is encyclopedic enough for inclusion, as it barely has anything to do with the film. Let's keep our ear to the ground for reliable news on this Abrams project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News update

The Washington Post reports that 42 Entertainment was responsible for the alternative reality games that we've seen online, but they are not in relation to the Abrams project. Furthermore, in regard to Slusho.jp, there was this sentence: "Online sleuthing led to the Web site slusho.jp, a promotional site for the nonexistent Slurpee-like drink. Records showed that the Slusho Web site was registered before the trailer aired, indicating that the site almost had to be official." Perhaps this can help flesh out the Slusho.jp information, as the Post is reliable.

Also, Entertainment Weekly shows the poster for the image, which I will upload in a second. But notice that there is no film title on it, contrary to what's been found online. Also, Michael Stahl-David is reported as the lead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that 1-18-08 is the title. —James Knevitt 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. We'll find out the official title from Comic-Con and move/update accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, you should remove the article link for Entertainment Weekly. If you actually take the time to look into this claim, you'll see that the poster image is fake. Someone cropped off the "Monstrous" :title and the bottom that originally had the Paramount logo and 1-18-08 date. I'd also hardly consider "Entertainment Weekly," anything more then a gossip fan site. 76.209.235.78 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Jordan[reply]

Entertainment Weekly is published by Time Inc. (as in Time-Warner and Time Magazine). It doesn't get much more verifiable or reliable than that. --ElectricZookeeper 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Entertainment Weekly is a completely reliable source. They don't post fake images. Perhaps they cropped it to conceal the title for the time being, but that's what we'll find out from Comic-Con this weekend. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Resolution of the Teaser Poster was posted on Slash Film Claiming They Have Gotten a Shot of the poster in the Paramount Lobby at Comic Con. If You Want to use it on the Article Erik Go A Head, Don't wanna mess up anything.....stilling figuring wiki.--Mithos90 21:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images are supposed to be at a low resolution, so I think that the current poster will be fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abrams at Comic Con

"I want a monster movie, I've wanted one for so long. I was in Japan with my son and all he wanted to do is go to toy stores. And we saw all these Godzilla toys, and I thought, we need our own monster, and not King Kong, King Kong's adorable. I wanted something that was just insane and intense. It's almost done shooting and I watch dailies and I'm more excited for them than the trailer, which has had an overwhelming response. We have 6 months before this comes out. We're going to have a whole bunch of things, a whole bunch more." He said a full trailer, more clips, full posters, and much more will be coming out over the next 6 monts, including the name, which he will NOT reveal today.

“You think we'd call it Monstrous? No…"

A Lot of Things have maybe happened days before to have changed his mind on why he did not release the title. --Mithos90 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to report this, honestly. Wikipedia isn't a news aggregator, covering every single headline that comes out about the film. My suggestion would be to use the previous Variety citation (from the since-reported Comic-Con subsection) to report that Abrams was believed to be revealing the title and other details about the film, but to use one of the above citations (or a more authentic source such as a newspaper, if one exists yet) to say that he did not reveal the film's name, and to explain the marketing plan. Then we can include the background information for the film's inspiration in Production. How does that sound? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not making it a News aggregator. Just proving that the words on one site are not made up by posting another site to confirm them. Can 't just have info based on only one source, because one source is not enough to prove if it was posted actually Quoted correctly or not. Also each site might have a tiny bit of info another site doesn't. Like one of them describes what Abrams was wearing on stage and what were the audience reactions, though I am not sure If or not needed in the actual article. --Mithos90 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltron

I would like to request other editors' opinions about the verifiable speculation that has been reported about this project up to this weekend. (Please note, this is about what has been reported in the public scope, not what it will be.) For example, Entertainment Weekly reported that the film was not a live-action adaptation of Voltron. There have been other reports in popular media of the film being a remake of Godzilla. My question is, how important is it to mention all the speculated possibilities in popular media (no matter how absurd they may sound to you and me)? I was thinking that we need to review the existing reliable sources, create a subsection about "Early speculation" before Abrams reveals the title and other details about the project this weekend. This would help separate the speculation from what will be official. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Abrams will be announcing the movie's title and perhaps some other details later this afternoon (around 4 p.m. EDT) at San Diego's ComicCon. If you want to include this early speculation, then we'd better hurry! KC 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today: "His theory, based on puzzle websites Paramount set up as clues, such as the fake prophet page EthanHaasWasRight.com, is that the film will involve the late H.P. Lovecraft's tales of monstrous ancient gods wreaking havoc on Earth. Other online speculators theorize the film is the long-promised Voltron movie (which would explain its placement at the beginning of the Transformers film) about ancient robotic lions that form the titular giant to defend Earth from invasion. More stabs in the dark are that it's a new Godzilla film, a big-screen takeoff on Abrams' Lost TV series or an entirely original project."
The Star Ledger: "The scattered clues have stirred up wild speculation in cyberspace, as bloggers have been guessing that "Cloverfield" could be anything from a Godzilla update to an H.P. Lovecraft adaptation."
The Guardian: "Abrams has reportedly been at work on a low-budget disaster movie, possibly with a Godzilla-like central protagonist. But there have also been suggestions the film may be the long-promised Voltron movie, based on the 80s TV show about ancient robotic lions who form a giant robot that defends Earth from attack. Others suggest the movie could even be a spin-off from Lost, the hugely successful TV show about a group of plane crash survivors living on a desert island."
Time Out: "Rumours abound that the film will be shot entirely by hand-held camera, and that it’s either an HP Lovecraft adaptation or a monster movie about an alien called The Parasite."
The Star: "The scant information about this project makes it all the more fascinating – although online chatter speculates it may have to do with horror scribe H.P. Lovecraft and his Cthulhu mythos."

Some news items that have mentioned speculation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded accordingly. I think that the "Plot speculation" section is a good idea because it is part of the film's marketing, which had reached a point that even popular media was reporting on the possibilities. This history is now established, and we will find out true details about the film at Comic-Con. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Monstrous Poster": "Warehouse sale called Frank & Son's here in Southern California had a large booth where they sell movie posters. One of the posters there had a snapshot of the statue of liberty overlooking the city of new york. The statue was missing it's head and at the top in large white letters it said "Monstrous". The lower right corner had in smaller white letters, 1-18-08.

--Mithos90 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that would be acceptable. ComingSoon.net, while reliable with exclusive content, also reports the findings of scoopers. That one says it's based on "A user at unfiction," which makes it unverifiable for now. If a more prominent source reported the possibility, like one of the major newspapers that I listed, then it could be included as reported speculation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok Then We have to wait for Video Mentioning this at Comic Con OR on the NEWS Article about the recent arrest. Ill Keep Looking. Also Need to Mention it was mistaken for the Transformers 2 Trailer? --Mithos90 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting early speculation, but perhaps not in this length. Mentioning how even well-known sources (e.g. USA Today) covered it can help measure the level of hype surrounding the trailer. This may be obvious, but don't add this section until after the title is released and mentioned in the article to avoid confusion. --ElectricZookeeper 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you suggest hiding the paragraph for the time being? I don't think that the paragraph is too long; it seems like an appropriate length to reflect how fuss that was raised. Perhaps we can remove some redundancy, as some items, like Lovecraft lore and Godzilla, that are repeated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be critical of sources that mention their sources. If they're admitting to just relaying, vague, unfounded rumour, it doesn't really make what they're relaying all that more reliable, it cements the fact that there is lots of wild speculation out there with no basis, and as such that is really all we should include in the article.--Crossmr 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I specified wherever possible where the information came from and used the word "reported". It's a matter of that speculation seeping into reliable sources such as major newspapers. There's been a lot of ideas about what the film could be, and the only way to filter out the most recognizable items are the reliable sources' verifiable speculation. I believe it's worded well enough to indicate that it's not necessarily true, just that they are reported possibilities. Maybe we can expand it to indicate that these newspapers are noting that the speculation came from online? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixing the two pages

Can some one fix the problem of the two different cloverfield pages. If you type in 1-18-08, you get the old page, and if you type cloverfield, you get the new one, but both are title cloverfield and both have the same talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.65.165 (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 26, 2007 (UTC)

It's called a redirect, so two articles don't get created. Also, please leave a signature after your comment by typing four tildes (~) at the end. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not a redirect because two articles have been created, we have two different articles about the same thing. 75.69.65.165 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, its been fixed. When the page was updated, they must not have set up the redirect properly when i tried it or somthing like that.75.69.65.165 22:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism

Erik recently deleted a thread on here titled 'Insider Information' and understandably so. However, I would like to note that, first of all, I did not even create that thread and had nothing to do with the insider info. Secondly, the manner in which Erik went about it was simply mean and I feel unprofessional. Erik himself stated "The talk page is not a latrine for speculative bullshit. It is for improving the article." What's with that? I even said in the thread itself that I knew it violated Wikipedia guidelines, why be so mean about it? 72.49.194.69 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Joshua[reply]

It would not make sense to remove just that person's comments, leaving yours to hang there like you are talking to yourself. There is already a template at the top of the talk page explaining that this is not a place to put up unverifiable information. The original poster, Digeridude, acknowledged that that he was just posting this "scoop". Look at the previous archive and see how much irrelevant discussion was had about this project, and it didn't make the article any better. So future irrelevant discussions will be removed -- it's just that Digeridude's comment was clearly irrelevant, despite the available warnings. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]