Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Overnight Rumor

Yesterday, CNBC's "On The Money" discussed the possibility of "Overnight" being a title with Peter of /film. --ElectricZookeeper 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Announced on IGN and SlashFilms. It is a Rumor still though I am puzzled Why these Reliable Sites posted info like these.
"Sleuthing done by the Slashfilm.com website reveals that a new trademark for the title "Overnight" was recently registered. The "Cloverfield" connection is that attorneys registering the trademark are known associates of J.J. Abrams, and have previously registered the Slusho.jp website, along with the trademarks "Slusho!," "Slusho! You can't drink just six," and the name of Abrams' production company, Bad Robot."
--Mithos90 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also puzzled why these reliable sites posted this rumor. Also, the "sleuthing" was done by "malemunyon", a member of the unfiction forums. But now we start running into discussions of truth vs. verifiability. unfiction.com ARG: 1-18-08/(Cloverfied) KC 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It is getting out of hand. I don't think that this title needs to be reported. In fact, I'd like to suggest removing IGN's suggested possibility of The Parasite as a title, since IGN isn't like the published newspapers. Unlike the plot, that we know about more and can refute the rumors before, the title is constantly being gossiped, and the gossip should be capped for the most part. The film's title is the least of the article's concerns; what matters is what is involved in the making of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion is based on verifiability, rather than truth. Maybe we should wait and see if more sources pick up on this? --ElectricZookeeper 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
We can do that. I've been using Google News Search with keywords like overnight abrams to see what comes up, but nothing's shown up besides movie sites at this time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lucas Should Be Added As a Cast Member

Jessica Lucas My sources for this are pictures from the on location shooting in NYC of this film found at these links: http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002776.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002921.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002785.jpg, http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x87/dave71129/1-18-08/?action=view&current=S5002794.jpg, AND the fact that she's in the trailer. Flipping through the album you will find Matt Reeves (Director), many other cast members (including a close up of "Rob," the guy in the Slusho shirt, and Jessica Lucas herself. Also Paramount support trucks, notices of the street not being available for parking due to filming of the Paramount film "Cheese", etc. I would do this myself but I don't know how I would cite these sources. 24.151.176.32 05:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't. YOu wait for a reliable source to establish the fact, and then you add it, citing the article. Thank you. ThuranX 15:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
How reliable is this source? NY Magazine's Vulture KC 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The address for the New York Production Office in that call sheet (above) is actually the address for National Lampoon Networks. So, I don't know if that makes it a fake that was given to NY Magazine or not. MediaPost.com KC 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that it dons the NY Magazine's logo, the Vulture is just a blog and the editors can write what they want without backing up claims. For example, yesterday, they stated that Slusho is made of people.[1] They got this idea from 1-18-08news.com (they put their video in the article, too), which makes some outrageous claims and lost credibility even from other cloverfield bloggers. --ElectricZookeeper 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks! KC 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the call sheet was planted by the National Lampoon as a prank. --205.128.3.172 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The Call Sheet is Real. Paramount is taking legal actions right now to take it off the web which shows it is legit. The forums where I post most of my info. about the movie has gotten an email from Paramount Pictures also stating about all the info I posted and cited about the film to be taken down IMMEDIATELY, same as SlashFilm and the Cloverfield Clues Blog.
--Mithos90 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lucas is starting to appear in news articles as a Cloverfield cast member now. Here's a link to an article at The Hollywood Reporter KC 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Plausible Source --Mithos90 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's been worked in. See, we just gotta wait for these sources to come up. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Just Wandering, seeing the Film's Distributer is Paramount Pictures, Can We add it to the External Links Area Below? Also I noticed recently, that the Official Paramount Pictures website has added the "1-18-08" Trailer onto the site, then a direct link to the Apple site. Also on the Apple's "1-18-08" Trailer page, on the bottom right hand corner, you can see the Bad Robot Logo and when you click on the logo, it brings you to the Official Bad Robot Site(Currently Has nothing on it) and was also wandering should it be added to the External Links area, seeing that Bad Robot is a production company owned by J.J. Abrams himself. Both Sites/Productions DO Have affiliation with the movie.

--Mithos90 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone's denying that these companies are involved. I'm sure the external link to both companies exist on their respective articles, so it's not quite directly related enough to the film to belong here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to conclude this, both Paramount and Bad Robot are wiki-linked in the Production section now. If any readers are interested in these companies, they can follow the links to their articles and thus find the external links to their official sites at each one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Erik Not Sure if FULLY related to Cloverfield but it is to Bad Robot Productions, Paramount Pictures and J.J. Abrams seeing Cloverfield is the fist of his films to promote itself in this kind of marketing in his 5 year contract with Paramount.
Mithos, I'm not sure if I see the wording that matches what you're saying. The article doesn't mention that "Cloverfield" is the first film to promote itself like this in Abrams's contract with Paramount. It says that there's been seven projects that Abrams has set up in a low-key matter, and I guess it seems like it would be up to the reader to surmise that "Cloverfield" was the first to generate this much attention. It seems to require reading between the lines. Any idea what the other projects are? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry About My Wording Confusion, So far the only other Film beside Star Trek that has been announced is the untitled supernatural thriller that will be written and directed by Josh Marston and produced by J.J. Abrams. Like Cloverfield Variety has announced that most of his films would not release any info regarding to the films them selfs while in their production stages, as of for example: Not giving any of the films a name until half way into production, start a viral campaign to promote his films and etc.
As you Can say seeing How much talk Cloverfield is getting, Abrams wanted to continue do this with all his films while under contract with Paramount Pictures, seeing with Cloverfield, promoting the film without a name was about the first of its kind, and it did grab ALOT of attention of the media. --Mithos90 04:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield Call Sheet

Recently a Call Sheet of the Movie was posted up on NYMag and was taken from the set. Well Today Slashfilms has received a email from one of Paramounts Lawyers ordering it to be taken down As Soon as Possible. Seeing that this is the case, Possible Spoilers were on the call sheet revealing some of the plot. I am not sure if this is liable to now have more information regarding to the films plot be updated on the Actual Article of the Movie. Seeing the sheet itself(not taken down from NYMag....yet) has gotten the Paramount Pictures lawyer's attention and they demand for it to be taken down.

If This was added to the article, I would suggest a spoiler warning and linking the cited source to the Slashfilm link I posted below, seeing that anyone who links the Call sheet from the NYMag site will intertwine with legal issues with Paramount Pictures.

--Mithos90 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A second teaser trailer is currently said to be running with prints of "Stardust", this is not the same trailer people reported seeing last week when they attended an advanced screening of "Stardust".

Ok Looking at the call Sheet closely, it shows a lists of 3 cast members where it shows the schedules of their Make-up, Rehearsal and On set Times. Jessica Lucas, on the sheet (Cast number 5), shows she will be staring in the Film as Lily. Was wandering If This sheet can Add Jessica Lucas to the Article...If not We will wait for more sources to come in, though it confirms the other casts members in the film. --Mithos90 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is interesting, but I think we should only post the stuff in the article that IS credible and wasn't taken from a copywright infringement. As a curtasy to Paramount it'd be best not to include anything, since wikipedia might be in violation if any content is posted that Paramount isn't allowing to the public. --207.35.76.163 02:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Slusho Link

If the Slusho.jp site is mentioned in the article and has two citations reporting its probable involvement in the marketing - even if it is not officially confirmed - why does it not merit a link in the text. Such a link neither adds nor detracts from the article, and it allows readers to investigate the site for themselves. If the site has enough merit to be mentioned (by its very address, no less) in the article, then I don't understand what is the bigh deal with actually linking that address to the real site. And I don't see where WP:EL states that these links cannot be used, it only states that they must be used sparingly, and I'm only adding one.--Qwerty7412369 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing from the wrong direction: adding the links, then arguing why they should be kept while reverting legitimate edits. How about you keep them out of the article, and argue why they should be included in the first place. --Closedmouth 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow,Closedmouth, I don't remember reading that rule when I signed up for wikipedia - I thought the policy was to Be Bold and make edits, well, boldly and not quitely sit back and wait for others to give me permission to edit. Also, please Assume Good Faith and recognize that I, much like you, am simply trying to improve what is, after all, a community project. Now I still think that the Slusho.jp link should be included, either in the article itself or in the External Links section, seeing as Slusho.jp is already mentioned in the article and there are two sources attesting to its involvement in the marketing. Users can go and check out the site themselves - I'm not arguing that we should add a Slusho section, or that we should make a seperate Slusho article, I just think there should be one little link. I'm not trying to add links to random sites here.
No one has given me an adequate explination as to why a link to Slusho.jp should not be included.--Qwerty7412369 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm sorry, the Cloverfield article currently cites three articles that identify Slusho.jp as part of the marketing, not two:
1) Jeffrey Wolf. "New clues about mystery trailer? Kirk has the exclusive!", NBC News 9: Colorado, 2007-07-13. Retrieved on 2007-07-14. 
2) Joshua Zumbrun. "Mystery Movie Teaser Has Gamers Seeking Alternate Reality", The Washington Post, 2007-07-26. Retrieved on 2007-07-26. 
3) Larry Carroll. "Comic-Con: J.J. Abrams’ Secret Project And ‘The Dark Knight’ Go Guerilla With Marketing Tactics", MTV, 2007-07-27. Retrieved on 2007-07-31. 
--Qwerty7412369 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is ok to go ahead and add a direct link to the Slusho Site in to article but a link to Slusho in the external links area is still not allowed until a cited source states the Slusho Web site is also part of this Viral Marketing Campaign, as this was mentioned before and but somehow the link to the Slusho site was removed from the article. What do the other editors think about the idea?

--Mithos90 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines: "External links should not be used in the body of an article." --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 04:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, lets say that point is given (though, I would like to point out that "should not" is not the same as "must not") - Why is a external link to slusho not merited when (1) the article plainly discussed the site, (2) as I detailed above the article has three references which identify slusho with the marketing for "cloverfield," and (3) what I see as the key point, the last article cited verifies that during J.J. Abrams appearence at Comic-Con, Paramount was distributing the same "Slusho" merchendice that the "Slusho" website sells in its online store! Same Logo! Same Slogan! Same Stuff! At the table where J.J. Abrams was discussing "Cloverfield!" This is not some anonymous sourse suggesting a connection, this is evidence of a direct connection! Don't take my word on it, check it out yourself: www.slusho.jp, Larry Carroll. "Comic-Con: J.J. Abrams’ Secret Project And ‘The Dark Knight’ Go Guerilla With Marketing Tactics", MTV, 2007-07-27. Retrieved on 2007-07-31. 
This is all verifiable, which I understand to be the criteria for wikipedia, so whats the big dead with puting a link somewhere, anywhere in the article? Trustworthy, verifiable sources have linked the two, so why can't we? If not the article itself, why not the "External links" section? --Qwerty7412369 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not appropriate as an external link because it's not a link that provides any kind of supplementary content about the film. The official website has screenshots available to visitors. I agree with other editors that the website is not quite verifiable in the sense of being directly tied to the film. There's no differentiating the available information to Slusho having relevant ties to what the film is about or if it's just a parallel marketing ploy. The role of Slusho.jp remains to be seen, basically. When the specific nature of Slusho in Cloverfield is determined, we can decide whether or not if it's appropriate as an external link. Otherwise, it could be like external linking to Mountain Dew at Transformers (film) because a robot was a Mountain Dew machine, and hypothetically, they passed out Mt. Dew to fans at some pre-release conference. (All this speculation on my part, but the open-ended possibilities are why it doesn't fit for now.) Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The "role of" alot of things in this article "remain to be seen," and if that is the criteria for inclusion used here, then we ought to delete large portions of the whole article - For instance, the movie's title is not "Cloverfield," The movie's title has not been officially determined, it "remains to be seen." Why then is there even a wikipedia article titled "Cloverfield?" That seems very un-encyclopedic. And you claim that the 1-18-08.com official website is vaild because it offers screen-shots, but until the movie comes out it "remains to be seen" if those are really screeenshots or what if any relation they have to the movie. Its just your interpertation (correct or incorrect is irrelevant) that this information is "supplementary" to the movie and that the information provided in slusho.jp is not. There are plenty of people who, by there own interpertation (also correctly or incorrectly) are finding "supplementary" information for the movie at Slusho.jp. So why should one interpertation be privelaged over the other? They both have verifiable sources to back up their positions. Either they should both be in or they should both be out.
Another point, if screenshots of the actors in what appears to be the film (which of course, "remains to be seen" as the movie itself is months away from opening) are all thats needed to be included , then why don't we add the character's "official" myspace pages - they have what appears to be screenshots of the actors form the movie, same as the "official" 1-18-08.com site. (See: 1-18-08pedia Character page for more info) Many, many, people (whether correctly or incorrectly "remains to be seen") have found "supplementary" information.
See this is the problem with articles about future events and about viral marketing schemes - with future events everything "remains to be seen," and with viral marketing, the connections are not "officially" made until after its over. So if we are really making this the criteria for the article, then the whole thing should be nominated for deletion, and the whole thing started from scratch once we are a lot closer to 1/18/08.--Qwerty7412369 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1-18-08.com is the official site because Abrams confirmed it to be the case, not because of the existence of the screenshots. With that said, that's why we're not including the Myspace.com link -- it has not been confirmed as an official site, despite the existence of screenshots. Furthermore, the title of the article isn't that important; I would be fine with titling it like IMDb has done so, "Untitled J. J. Abrams project". That's something that can be discussed separately, with Cloverfield redirecting there. I provided an interpretation not to directly exclude Slusho.jp, but to show that the ambiguous nature of the site makes determining its specific purpose impossible right now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But you have not addressed what I intended to be the two main thrusts of my previous post - First, most of the information provided here is ambiguous and "remains to be seen" because the very movie which is the subject of theis article does not yet exist! Therefore, I have to ask, what is the criteria for inclusion of this information? If it is verifiable, then the link between Slusho and Cloverfield is verifiable and its ambiguity is irrelevant. Again, I see this as the fundamental problem with articles about future events. Second, You and other editors have previously opened the door for discussions of viral marketing sites like slusho.jp by inserting them in the article and allowing them to stand uncontested long before I showed up, so why are you suddenly upset that I am trying to walk through the door you opened? If you are going to mention the viral marketing, then you should follow through on it and allow editors to add information that is verifiable, and now I have four sources identifying slusho.jp as part of the Cloverfield marketing. If you are not comfortable with this, then the entire "Viral Marketing" entry should be removed, because any and all information that could be placed there at this time will likely be of the same caliber until long after the viral marketing campaing is over and either Paramount of some entertainment-news outlet offers an "official" retrospective. Again, I see this as the fundamental problem with articles about viral marketing schemes.
Remeber, the criteria for wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth." WP:V--Qwerty7412369 17:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The criteria is verifiable coverage by mainstream media. If you look at the References section, many references that are linked to speculated content of the film are drawn from mainstream media. These are reliable sources as opposed to the multiple movie sites that can convey any kind of claim they desire about the film. Some of these claims enter the public scope, so that's why these claims are reported, as opposed to lesser ones. Slusho.jp is the only site (to my knowledge) that has a case of being linked to the film, and the verifiable information from reliable sources is available in the article. In my experience, some future films have promotional content to get users involved but do not get widely reported, and Cloverfield has demonstrated that its viral marketing has received heavy reporting from reliable sources in the mainstream media. This kind of attention warrants inclusion for the long-term. Abrams himself has said that he wants to focus on making a good movie, otherwise this campaign would have been all for nothing, which seems to demonstrate the effective scale of the attention this project has drawn. Believe me, I've had to deal with viral marketing situations at The Dark Knight with the first official picture of the Joker, which we did not include in the article until later when it was covered by Empire. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm a bit confused, but it almost seems like your last post is in agreement with my stated position. You state that "the criteria is verifiable coverage by mainstream media" when you know I can produce with articles from MTV.com, The Washington Post, The Courier-Mail, and a local NBC affiliate linking Slusho to Cloverfield, all of which are "verifilabe coverage by mainstream media". Indeed, further down in your post you state "Slusho.jp is the only site (to my knowledge) that has a case of being linked to the film, and the verifiable information from reliable sources is available in the article," which seems to back up my argument for the inlusion of a Slusho link in the article. If I have correctly understood your post, then I hope you will support me when I post up a Slusho.jp link in the "Links" section of the article (I say this evening in order to comply with the 24-hour criteria of the WP:3RR). If I have not properly understood your intent, please correct me where necessary, though I ask that you please provide a valid rebuttal to my two points above concerning future articles, viral marketing, and the slusho.jp link. Thank you --Qwerty7412369 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
We can source the speculation. We can't source that the site is official. As we're guided to keep external links to a minimum, while we have some justification to discuss the speculation within the article, there's no real mandate to include the link as it's not proven to be a vital exterior resource. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do not oppose mention of Slusho.jp in the article, just as I do not oppose mention of Ethan Haas Was Right in the article. However, can we agree that Slusho.jp is not verifiably official? Per WP:EL, articles should link to official sites, but this has not been proven to be the case with Slusho.jp. While this is speculation on my part, it could match #3 or #4 of "Links normally to be avoided". It has been covered in mainstream media, so it is relevant to mention in the body of the article, but as an external link, its actual purpose remains to be seen. I will have to oppose the inclusion of the site as an external link until there is direct confirmation, as Abrams gave for 1-18-08.com, that this is an official site. I believe that the other editors who have reverted you are thinking along the same lines, and I'm pretty positive that if Slusho.jp was indeed confirmed, we'd be fine with its inclusion in an official capacity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess the central issue here is what is meant by "verifiably official" - As per my reading or WP:V, I take verifiability to mean that material can be sourced to reputable outlets, and that the "truth", or the "ambiguity," or the amount of "supplemental information" involved is irrelevant. Since it is a fact that there are multiple mainstream verifiable sources linking slusho with cloverfield, enought to include mentioning of slusho.jp and, in a larger context, to include an entry the whole viral marketing scheme itself within the article, I don't understand why there is not enough to add a link in the External links page. Mind you, I not trying to foster an "anything goes" attitude with the article, and I am aware the WP:EL suggests that such links be kept to a minimum - but I still don't see why this link should be excluded. If you think its ambigious, or if you think it doesn't have enough "supplementary information," thats fine - but, again, there are multiple mainstream verifiable sources linking slusho with cloverfield, so why is this an issue, especially if, as I have stated, you and other editors have already opened the door to this issue by allowing the "Viral Marketing" section to stand and include references to slusho.jp within it? I feel that for the sake of consistantcy, we should either provide a link so users can access the site themselves, much as you have with the apple 1-18-08 trailer site, the 1-18-08.com site, and the IMDB page, or remove the whole "viral marketing" section and seriously scrutinize the entire article with these standards in mind. Thanks --Qwerty7412369 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Including Slusho.jp as an external link opens an unnecessary can of worms. Since it's not confirmed as an official site, its inclusion would mean that any other unconfirmed site would be just as acceptable. In the long run, information about Slusho is bound to change. Existing references will give way to specific mention of what Slusho is supposed to be. Depending on Slusho's prominence in regard to the film and general encyclopedic nature, there may or may not be detailed mention of the site. I don't think your ultimatum to either remove "Viral Marketing" or include Slusho.jp as an EL is really appropriate; the marketing section clearly denotes that there are other sites besides 1-18-08.com, and Slusho.jp has been mentioned as a possibility. It seems that the general impression is that linking Slusho.jp crosses the threshold into linking other unconfirmed sites. Ethan Haas Was Right received a lot of coverage in being linked to the film, though ultimately there was no actual connection. Because of that zero bearing, that site is not linked in the article. The existing information about Slusho.jp indicates a stronger possibility, but all the wording from mainstream coverage denotes that its official capacity is not confirmed. Thus enters the previous argument about external links, and that Slusho.jp would probably be included under the criteria as an official site when the time comes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will all humor me as I make one last-ditch attempt to make my case, afterwhich I will bid you all adieu and allow someone else to take up this fight if they wish - As I see it, the issue is not whether this information, or for that matter any information in wikipedia, has been "officially confirmed" from on high by Paramount or J.J.Abrams or anyone else with access to the undisputed, official "Truth" of the matter. As per WP:V, the official wikipedia criteria is "verifiability, not truth," and verifiability is met if one can sourse the information to "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now what I have tried to highlight again and again is that these are two different criteria - "Official Confirmation" is not the same criteria as "Verifiablilty." "Verifibility" is the criteria which governs us here, and as there are at least four "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" linking Slusho.jp to Cloverfield, I believe the criteria set by Wikipedia's own policies have been met. Nowhere does it state in WP:V that the information must come from "official sources," only from "verifiable sources" - again, please recognize that these two are not the same.

Now, Erik suggests that if we allow slusho as a link, we will step out on a slippery-slope and end up with links to any and every fansite, blog, fake-page, and so forth that any 15-year old fanboy can think up. Following the logic of this argument, the External Links section will eventually be overwhelmed with links to questionable sites and will be rendered unusable. Ok, except the criteria of verifiability was created to deal with such circumstances. First off, someone can't just put up links to any random site that they might come across, as per your slippery-slope assertion, first they have to provide verifiable evidence from a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that the site is connected to the cloverfield project before the can make a link. So if I want to put up a EL to site XYZ.com, I should be able to provide sources such as the Washingtom Post, MTV.com, or NBC, that are both verifiable and meet stated criteria in WP:V which link site XYZ.com to the cloverfield. Of course, the more sources I can provide, the better. If I cannot provide any such sources, then site XYZ.com should not be linked - period. That's how WP:V keeps irrelevant information out of articles without excluding relevant info.

But then, lets say that it is discovered that site XYZ.com, much like the Ethan Haas sites, are later discovered to have no connection to the movie. Has the policy of WP:V failed? Is wikipedia forever stained? No, this is how it works best. There was verifiable information that linked Ethan Haas to the movie, therefore the site was included. Then verifiable sources reported that Ethan Haas was not linked to cloverfield, so the site was removed. Wikipedia is meant to be fluid, evolving, growing - which means that the rules may allow some incorrect info in, but those same rules will also get it out eventually. That's why the criteria is "verifiability, not truth." The "not truth" part is there for a reason. What is "verifiable" changes as knowledge changes, the "truth" is more or less fixed (and I'll leave it to the philosophers to decide if its "more" or "less"). But the point is that the verifiable criteria is loose enough to allow information that may or may not be true, but its also fluid enough to adapt to changes and correct that very information. This is its strenght, not its weakness. That's why I am arguing that verifibility is the criteria which applies here, not "Official Confirmation" from on high. And, I betting, that's why its wikipedia's stated policy as well. If we make a honest mistake based on verifiable sources, so be it - other editors with other verifiable sources will correct it! This is why the first thing we are told when we register is to Be Bold!

This post and the ones which proceeded it in this topic are why I beleive we should include Slusho.jp in the "External Links" section. I don't think it will send us all down a slippery-slope, and I think it is clearly in agreement with wikipedia's own policies, particularly WP:V and WP:EL for the reasons stated. You and any other user are free do take them as you will. Good day --Qwerty7412369 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why WP:V is invoked for matters of linking outside the article body. The proper course of action was taken to cover Slusho.jp in the body, and the link, not being official (and apparently not entailing WP:V to permit it) does not meet WP:EL criteria. I've reverted accordingly, and if anyone is in support of Qwerty's stance, discussion can resume. A reminder: When and if Slusho.jp is indeed confirmed to be official, it can be included per WP:EL criteria. WP:V does not seem to apply here, and Slusho.jp is already mentioned in the article based on that policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As a disinterested 3rd party, I must say that Qwerty makes a much more intriguing arguement. His comments seem far, FAR more intelligent and thought out, and has been verbally running circles out of his detracters. (I edited my previous comment, since it apparently hurt someones sensitive feelings, and they deleted it)Cobratom 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Second Trailer

Does Anyone Have Any Actual Proof That There Is A Second Trailer For The Movie Running With Prints Of Stardust?--67.35.104.109 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's just a rumor. No second teaser/trailer has been shown anywhere. KC 14:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There doesn't seem to be any coverage about this. The hype would have been rather high about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
we have proof that their isn't since no one has seen it. harlock_jds 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. 72.49.194.69 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It just isn't proof. 64.203.237.248 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree but think whatever you want. Wikipedia isn't about beliefs, it's about citations. So unless someone makes a citation, don't even think about adding info on a second trailer. 'Nuff said. 72.49.194.69 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Back of the photographs

I think the writing on the back on the photographs on the should be included in the discussion about the viral marketing. The writing on the photos says "Robbie, Here use this photo to send a message of my hotness far and wide!!!!! gonna miss the hell out of you. Lovie Jamie" This writing is present on the back of the photo time marked 12:04.

The other writing says "Dont forget who takes care of you. Love J" This is present on the photo time marked 12:01

The writing can be found if you vigorously shake the photos whie no other photos are overlapping the selected one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.248.68 (talk • contribs) 15:07, August 19, 2007

Until an independent, secondary source that meets reliable source criteria takes the time to describe the writing found on the back of the website's photographs, the information would otherwise be indiscriminate. If there is a notable enough meaning to these photographs, the messages will be covered and thus be encyclopedic enough to include in the article. We just need to see what further news items will unfold regarding Cloverfield and the website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. To Many people are referring that the writings were meant for people to go to Myspace and Look for the actual characters of the Movie. It it was added to the article without someone finding the official meaning of the writings, people will start to ask if the Myspace Profiles to be added to the article which has not have a reliable cited source to state that it is Officially part of the films' viral Marketing. --Mithos90 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But i think that it should be stated in the paragraph about the photographs, maybe not to even quoting it, but not stating it is there is holding back information for people who dont go the website to see it themselves, although i agree it may not having anything to do with the plot (apart from the sexual tension i can obviously see between 'Jamie' and the main character, which is my personal opinion) i still think it should be stated there is writing on the back of the photographs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.51.161 (talk • contribs) 06:27, August 20, 2007

I understand your reason for why you think the writing on the back of the photographs should be mentioned, but you have to remember that this is an encyclopedia. It's not meant to be a news aggregator or a game guide for viral marketing sites. That's why items like the first-speculated plots (Godzilla, Voltron, etc.) were recorded; these were items that were covered in the mainstream media, so the hype over possibilities was more notable than any other film. Information in the article needs to be covered by independent, secondary sources that fit the reliable source criteria, so if a newspaper eventually covers the writings on the photographs, that would be considered notable. There's a similar issue with Slusho -- we've mentioned that the website Slusho.jp has been covered, and that Slusho t-shirts were passed out at Comic-Con. But we are still short of information about how Slusho is related to the film. Here, we don't know the notability of the writings -- they could be there to keep us talking about the film, when they may not mean anything at all. We don't know at this point, and no source so far has bothered to cover the writings. When one does, such as a newspaper in the mainstream media, then it may be possible to include it. We just have to be patient and ensure that new content in this article is verifiable and acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also as to Slusho that it might be a possible Covername for the Films' Filming Set which was stated by IGN and also from pictures that were taken on the set which might POSSIBLY be legit but Not Confirmed. As Erik Said We have to wait for all this info that has been flying around the web to be confirmed first before we put it up on the Actual article. --72.178.138.105 <<< --Mithos90 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Furious?

On the IGN website, when you click on Latest Screens for the "Cloverfield" film, it has a poster with the text, "Furious" splayed across the top. The title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.177.104 (talk) 05:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a tag line. DurinsBane87 07:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
just like Monsterous was harlock_jds 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Alright, just curious. Thanks for the clarification :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.144.52 (talk) 00:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I've heard 'Barbarous' and 'Terrifying' are also in the tagline rotation. Radagast 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

'Barbarous' has not been seen as a tagline (so far). The only taglines that we've seen are 'Monstrous', 'Furious', and 'Terrifying'. KC 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
All these should be mentioned here in the page. Current one line mention of Monstrous does not make quite a sence. Ad a longer description what it means and how it became known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.86 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1-18-08 Site Sound

The Offical 1-18-08 Site has just been updated and now when you first open the site, after six minutes of leaving the browser open, you will hear the roar of the monster in the Movie. was wondering would this be acceptable to add to the article?

--Mithos90 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I heard this and it scared me... but yes I do agree this should be added to the article CSpuppydog 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

since we describe the pictures i don't see why a description of the sound shouldn't be added. I know wikipedia is not a manual but we should be able to at lease describe things here (or we should take off the bit about the pictures being on the site too). Perhaps the editor that is opposed to adding this to the description of the site can explain why. harlock_jds 15:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is not a game guide. This teaser site in which visitors participate with the content would qualify as such. If you notice, the description of the images came from a reliable source, as the purpose of the images was explained by that source. The sound effect is not a vital piece of information right now; if a reliable source can cover the relevance of this sound effect in an encyclopedic sense, such as verifiable speculation of it sounding like so-and-so, it could be included. Just need to remember that the article should be developed for the long term; this sound effect may not be worth covering based on what is yet to come. I mean, when the film comes out, there's very little weight in saying that the official site had a sample of the roar when we'd supposedly get plenty of that from the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
so we can only put descriptions that come from verifiable sources? if we are going to describe the web page (which may or may not be pointless) i don't see why we can't make mention that it now has a sound that plays. You make it sound like we need a verifiable source to say ANYTHING on wikipedia... i can say the sky is blue without a source since pretty much anyone can go outside and see that the sky is blue for verification... the same logic applies here. Of course we can't say what the sound file is or anything but saying "a sound is played on the page if left open for x amount of time) is fine.
also wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we should leave things out of the article because it "may not be worth covering based on what is yet to come" if we have a description of the web page their is no issue in adding to that description as new features are added. If in the future this is seen as trivial then it can be removed at that point but we can't refuse to add it because it one day MIGHT be trivial harlock_jds 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's more reasonable to focus on using reliable sources to verify content for a couple of reasons. First of all, using reliable sources helps "cap" information that may be considered indiscriminate, such as detail about every aspect of this official site. The description on what to do with the photos provides a real-world purpose. Also, another good reason for using independent sources is that the site is highly likely to evolve -- by the time the film comes out, the site will be fleshed out in all kinds of content and not just set up like a teaser. When this happens, readers cannot at all verify that in the past, the site had a monster sound. The proof needs to lie somewhere published outside of this site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
again wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we shouldn't limit the information based on "it might not be there in the future". it's currently verifiable and the article currently has a description of the site up (which means we must agree that a description of the site is notable enough to be a part of the article) so it should currently be included. If in the future it is no longer verifiable (by going away) then we'll take it out (if no citation comes along that says it was a part of the site at one time). Same goes for the picture flipping BTW.harlock_jds 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Viral Website

New to this so bear with me. Can I post this?

If you type [www.youcantdrinkjustsix.com] it will take you to a new possible viral website?

--Nbenos 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

not related to the movie (someone else made the site).harlock_jds 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
At least he asked, unlike some. Nbenos, for future reference, should you come across even a genuine viral website or piece of information about the film, it should not be included in the article unless it has been mentioned as such by a good outside source, such as a trade magazine or film site. But please, come again. Best regards, Liquidfinale 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
weird though how it links to a .gov site... o wel Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
people can redirect pages to whatever they want... It's not that wierd.harlock_jds 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
ya ik, but i frequent NOAA's website and i've never really came across that section of it... or just an outta date section at that... o well tho, thats not all too uncommon either, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this from a friend: http://jamieandteddy.com Your going to need to se the password: "jllovesth", without the quotations. The girl in the video looks to be the same girl in the trailer, and on one of the photos on 1-18-08.com. Also, on the back of one photo it is signed "Jamie". Should we add this to the official site listing?-user:puddles26

No, no one's verified it as part of the film. The girl in the trailer/photo wasn't just born to do "Cloverfield", you know. Until we have verifiable confirmation by a reliable source, the website isn't credible enough to acknowledge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So wait your saying its not reliable because no one has said it official? SO does that mean that 1-18-08.com and Slusho.jp aren't reliable either? I am pretty sure no one has confirmed them either. Also it is viral marketing, They arent going to confirm anyhtign abotut virl marketing. And she is using the same name as her character in it as well as refereing to other chracters from the film. What more do you want? CSpuppydog 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure people have said 1-18-08.com is official.. didn't JJ himself confirm? Rehevkor 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Abrams confirmed 1-18-08.com as official, which is why it exists as an external link. Slusho.jp has been reported in mainstream media, but it is not confirmed as an official site. That is why Slusho.jp is not specifically linked to. This new website has not been covered by independent sources as far as I know, and believe me, we get a lot of dud sites added to the article -- just review the page history. Viral marketing is a tricky business due to the difficulty of verifying that they are true, but it's necessary. Sometimes people will pass off a site as viral marketing for a film, which is what happened with Watchmen (film) -- someone from TheOneRing.net created such a site. In addition, The Dark Knight (film) had a viral marketing campaign of uncertain nature, and it was only when Empire covered it and revealed that it was performed by 42 Entertainment that the information was added to the article. If you can find reliable sources covering this new website, feel free to provide it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The back of the photo on 1-18-08.com also is addressed to Lascano and the jamieandteddy website says, "Love, your Lil' Lascano". Even if it's not an "official" site it apparently was created with the movie in mind.--Nbenos 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's great, but it's also Original Research. DurinsBane87 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blake Lively

I thought that it has been proven that the artical from the NYpost was wrong. I have heard that Blake is not in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.212.119 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, where did you read that the article from the New York Post was wrong? We can try to track down the information to see if you're right. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

UK release date

A released date for the UK has been added. Do we have confirmation on this? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have time to waste this morning. Google finds nothing confirmatory about the UK release date, nor does Google News or the Google News archive. I think we can safely say that this has been cribbed from the imdb - the one source which does state various release dates. I suppose all that remains is to decide whether this is credible enough information to go in. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) 10:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering that IMDb has user-submitted information, it's not best to rely on it so far in advance before a film's release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've heard you say that before, and I'm sure it's true, but do they not verify the information elsewhere? I mean, it's not as if it's Wikipedia, where anyone at all can add every half-a**ed rumour about a film the minute it appears online. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Castlevania (2009) might disagree with you. :) (I've worked on Castlevania (film), and I can tell you that there is nothing verifiable about these casting possibilities.) From my understanding of how IMDb works, anyone can submit information to it, but there are gatekeepers who check and finalize that information. I've had an account myself, and when I try to add a new cast member, willing to provide a reliable source for it, I find that I'm only able to give the name and nothing more. IMDb seems to operate instead on a credit system -- I think that the more credits you have, the more credible you are, though I may be wrong on this. In a sense, IMDb is like a guarded wiki. There is a famous instance of when there was the listing of "Aunt May / Carnage" at Spider-Man 3, which is quite absurd to anyone familiar with Spidey lore. I've personally seen Ed Norton listed to be in a 24 episode as "John Bauer", purportedly Jack's brother. A couple of other tidbits:
  • Director Mark Steven Johnson has said, "IMDB is a bizarre site that tends to get a lot wrong." The IMDb page for his film, Ghost Rider, once listed David Arnold as the composer, where Johnson refuted this information and said he had never met Arnold. (Christopher Young was the actual composer.)[2]
  • IMDb listed director Alfonso Cuarón to helm Magneto, but the name has been removed since.
Another issue is that IMDb estimates its release years -- you won't see a TBA, they always take it on themselves to pick a year, and unfortunately, users cite them. I've tracked films like Logan's Run (2010 film), which was listed to be released in 2007 even at the beginning of 2007 itself, with no production being underway. It was eventually updated to be 2010, which of course is not relied on anything specific. Lastly (but not the final straw), Spider-Man 4 has a release date for 2009, even though we have a citation at Spider-Man film series#Future that indicates the target release year for the studio is 2010. I tried to add this information, but I didn't find a place to provide the link, just the new release year. In summary, I have not found much reliability with upcoming films at IMDb -- information is constantly changing, and the problem is, there are no citations to follow, no way to tell which changes are right. For sections like Cast, I find it better to piece it together out of other sources, like Speed Racer (film)#Cast. There's a few more casting mentions at IMDb, but they don't appear to be published anywhere outside of the site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Erik's pipped me to the post on this one, but here goes... Previous delights from IMDB include: John Barrowman credited for episodes of Doctor Who in which he didn't appear; Kevin Eldon as "Bad Wolf" for the first part of the Series One finale of the aforementioned programme; Norman Lovett cast as Davros; Hawk the Slayer's John Terry credited for a silent movie made several decades before he was born. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough :) - for some reason, and despite being a heavy user for many years, I always assumed the IMDB was maintained to a much stricter standard of verifiability. Now I know better! The lunatic way in which they accept submissions comes as a genuine surprise. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
One last thing to note: I think that IMDb is generally acceptable for its cast and crew information following a film's commercial release -- from what I've seen, the listing is an electronic copy of the film's credits. (Which is why you'll see folks listed either prominently or alphabetically.) I would definitely eschew the trivia pages of films, though. I think part of the reason for such mistakes is that IMDb's staff is not very large, hence the system which they use. It's possible that not as much weight is given to the reliability of information in future films, since that information would be corrected by its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
IMDB is still listing Mike Vogel as "Rob" for Cloverfield, when that role is being played by Michael Stahl-David. I agree that the cast and crew listing is fairly reliable after a film's release, but not so reliable before release. KC 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

UK release date (It is still listed as "Untitled JJ Abrams film" and can be found at http://www.launchingfilms.com/releaseschedule/schedule.php?sort=date&date=today&print=1&print=1 . This is the UKs Film Distributors' Association website. Confused coyote 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, this works. I've reverted myself with the citation added. We may need to re-format the way it's listed, in terms of using flag images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ARG?

is it just me or has this become some form of an ARG, and if so, wouldnt this mean that it will be possible to find the title of the movie, somewhere online. it is obvious that they are giving us clues of some form. (Masterxak 09:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

ARG? DurinsBane87 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Alternate Reality Game. And to the first commenter, I don't think it's up to us to start making guesses about the title based on online clues. We'll eventually get official comfirmation, one way or another. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This does sound to me like an ARG, too, altough I've never experienced one firsthand so I wouldn't know as well. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned under Marketing? I'd implement it in, myself, but I don't know of how it should be worded. --63.3.4.2 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slusho Link: Add or Remove?

There seems to be an edit war on whether or not Slusho is a relevent enough website to add the link thereof on here or no. Instead of this ongoing nonsense, why not start a civilized Disscussion/Vote to descide how we should go with this? --209.247.5.131 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion already took place, and the consensus was until there is official confirmation of Slusho.jp as a site relevant to the film, it does not entail linking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I see and agree. The page should stay locked, methinks. --63.3.4.129 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the issue of linking Slusho.jp is not a major one on the article. Page protection is usually reserved for vandalism or heavy edit warring when both parties refuse to break out of a content dispute and enter discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As (I think) mostly agreed on previously, the best solution is to have it mentioned in the "viral marketing" (or other relevant portions) and not linked until 100% official. It obviously SHOULD be in the article. And personally, I feel the site should be in the links, as a lot of traffic going here probably wants to know what slusho is about an the site obviously has SOME relation- but until the controversy dies down, the site has appropriate coverage and doesn't "NEED" a seperate link. Its current setting in full context could be argued as a more appropriate home anyway. 209.153.128.248 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Slusho facts

  • 'Slusho' can be seen on a t-shirt in the teaser
  • 'Slusho' t-shirts were given out at ComicCon
  • Said t-shirts are now available for purchase at the 'Slusho' website
  • Colorado's 9NEWS claimed that an 'inside source' told him that the Slusho site is official
    • AintItCool news claimed that they were the source
  • The Washington Post claims that the 'Slusho' site was registered before the film
  • 'Slusho' has had cameos in other J.J. Abrams works before

Add or detract from the list as you see fit.

--209.247.5.131 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamie+Teddy Site

I know this will probably never make it to this Cloverfield article's front page, but a new site in the Viral Marketing Campaign/ARG just came up, JamieAndTeddy.com. It asks for a password: jllovesth. Entering it in, it leads to a video for download of Jamie, a girl from one of the teaser site pictures (the one with 3 people. This is also the same one that, fliped, gave clues to lead to her subsequent MySpace). If you don't want to bother downloading it, it can likewise be seen here on YouTube.

I am putting it up here just to note if meantioned, needed, or whatnot at a latter date. --209.247.5.142 07:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres a new video on the site Smremde 20:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whales

Any thoughts on the moster whale theory? So far, this seems to make the most sense to me. The moster sound in the movie and the photo site are definitely whale-like. The Slusho site has a lot of references to whales. There's the whale moster picture that is supposedly a fake, but looks pretty darn good, and interestingly enough has little parasites. Maybe an alien parasite or a toxic, mutated louse bites a whale, and turns it into a giant breeding ground that also happens to hate mankind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. DurinsBane87 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The section is called "Discussion", so let them discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.98.102 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review the talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." DurinsBane87 is right; this isn't a forum. IMDb would be a better place for this speculative topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Monstor?

Is this reliable? A jacked up cell phone pic? BURNyA 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. It's a freakin' Oriental marketing title anyway. No true indication of the film's actual title. Alientraveller 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Google had no hits. This article is the mother of all origonal research... BURNyA 16:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Those posters are fake, anyway. The eclipse part of the poster was taken from graphic art from the U.S. TV show "Heroes". KC 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Hawkins

The Protagonist of the movie Cloverfield has the same name as the Omaha Mall Shooter. A trivia section should be added with this creepy tidbit of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.65.10 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Asian man in a picture?

At 1-18-08.com, there is now a picture of an Asian man holding sushi. On the back there is Asian writing. Can anyone tell what language it is and possibly translate it? Flamingtorch372 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a recipe to me. I can't read muckanji, so I have no what for, but it's definitely a recipe. (This section will probably be removed as it has no bearing on the article.) --Closedmouth 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the recipe translated: Thank you for checking us out! We are Introducing this week's tasty one dish. Make sure you eat it cold!

Skinless chicken breast - 2, cut in halves Sōmen noodles - 10 oz. Watercress - 1/2 cup cut into small strips Turnip - 1/2 cup, thinly sliced Shiitake Mushrooms - 1/2 cup Chicken stock - 1/3 cup Sake - 2 tbsp. Sugar - 1/2 tsp. Deep Sea Nectar - 1 pinch

In a small saucepan, stir together 1/3 cup water, chicken stock, sake, and sugar. Chill it until it becomes cold. Grill the chicken breast on both sides for about 8 minutes, and then chill. Boil the noodles for about 3 minutes, and then run under cold water until chilled. Mix the watercress, radish, and mushrooms into the sōmen. Slice the chicken thinly and arrange on top of the sōmen mix. Just before you serve, put the deep sea nectar in the sauce and pour over the noodles generously.

Go Go Delicious Chef!

  1. 3912 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.120.147 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This picture led to the Tagruato website, which is apparently the parent company of Slusho. The site was not found until this picture was put up on the site. --General Holtarna 12:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagruato

Tagruato.jpis the newest Cloverfield-related site. Found on Unforum, but it's obviously legit. Actually provides a lot more information, including a possible monster origin (deep-sea drilling). This article should probably mention it. --General Holtarna 12:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it has been mentioned as a possible (and, yes, likely) official viral site, but hasn't been confirmed as such by the filmmakers. However, it does get a good mention at Slashfilm, which may be enough to see it included in the article in the same manner as the Slusho site. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The final ingredient in the recipe provided on the back of the latest official picture is 'one pinch of bottom of the sea nectar/honey' -- which is the same language used on Slusho.jp as their 'secret ingredient.' And as Slusho.jp and Tagruato.jp link and reference each other, I believe that's evidence to support them as official tie-ins. 63.76.101.71 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear-cut confirmation; common users are basically "sleuthing" out clues to make connections that do not stick out like a sore thumb. Additionally, Liquidfinale's link also reflects the possibility of Tagruato.jp being a "gamejack", especially considering its creation after the teaser trailer's release. There's not enough clarity here to tie these sites into the article in the encyclopedic sense. The article needs to have verifiable content for the long run, not contributions that came from amateur investigators. If the mainstream media (not a film blog) mentions Tagruato.jp, then it could be identified as a possible site, like Slusho.jp is. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If you check the site you can look at where their deep sea drills are located, and the closest one is smack in the middle of the atlantic, they all seem to far away to me, for some monster to pop out and decide i wanna go to newyork city! 71.115.221.2 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure Erik But Another Possible Site might have found that could be related to the film. The site Registration is ALMOST exactly like the Jamie and Teddy site and is located on the same server on the Jamie and Teddy site also. Its also has some assumption with the Hud character because of his hobbies of comics. But Like as usual cited sources are need to be addressed so it can be added to the article. Found by Stratus on Ethan Haas Fourms Just for reference.

--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Now the Slusho Site links to Tagruato. Still want to say it's not part of the game? --71.75.131.228 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The WikiSnobs turn a blind eye to the obvious all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Impulse (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people would consider it wise to read the relevant section of the instruction manual before using a new tool. Wikipedia is no different. Have a look at WP:V and WP:OR for starters. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've read it. The policies are fundamentally flawed and enforced nowhere near 100%. --71.236.182.42 15:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be here. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF, which while not directly relevant, gives good pointers as to the type of argument to avoid using. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If something is flawed, it's relevance is questionable. In that case, whether it "should be there" or not should be analyzed. There's a lot of nonsense going on related to this article (and hundreds more) where someone who has claimed ownership of a page will not allow any changes regardless of hard evidence. Viral marketing is often left "unconfirmed" by official sources because it's meant to be, but some things can be confirmed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or J. J. Abrams himself to indicate that JamieandTeddy.com is a legitimate site; the actress playing Jamie Lascano can clearly be seen in the video as well as one of the pictures on the official site 1-18-08.com. That's not "original research", that's common sense.

Even in the face of the obvious, those "in charge" of "protecting" certain pages exercise their might to keep things the way they want them. Wikipedia wants to be the Akashic Record of the Internet, but as long as it fails to recognize the obvious without having confirmations being spoon-fed to them, it will continue to be nothing more than a place to look at the world through a very narrow, controlled lens. --Captain Impulse 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No one's in charge of protecting anything. Viral marketing campaigns are not easy to report because their scope is usually limited to sources that aren't reliable -- movie blogs and Cloverfield-specific blogs. The detail about the official site was from a reliable source that described it, which is relatively important because the secondary source is displaced. As for the viral websites, we've already encountered that EthanHaasWasRight was not related to Cloverfield. Thus due to the potential charade, the article should err on the side of caution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. It's not WikiNews that scoops readers with the latest photo that one can flip over on the official site. If the additional sites are legitimate and/or relevant, reliable sources will be cited. As you can see, all the speculation mentioned in the article were from such sources. There was more online speculation, but the specific items of speculation covered by reliable sources are what made it into the article. The Dark Knight has a viral marketing campaign of its own, but it took waiting for a reliable source, in this case Empire magazine, to cover the user-collaborated unmasking of the Joker. In addition, TDK's viral marketing campaign at Comic-Con was covered by Variety. There's no real-world context provided by these sites -- there's no verifiable content that shows how it's related to the film if at all, only speculation on our part. Is Slusho! really going to be in the film, or is it just added mythology that won't necessarily be covered directly in the film? I've checked Google News Search every once in a while to see if there is verifiable content to include, but there hasn't been any reliable sources reporting anything new. The release date is approaching, and there will obviously be fuller development as time goes by. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What defines reliable? There's a lot of "if" factor from any source, including (and some would argue, especially) the mainstream media. And how does "added mythology" not relate directly to the film in your eyes? The content of these sites contributes to the mythos and the canon of the film's storyline. The drink Slusho may not be present other than merely in name or as "in-game" advertisement, but the link to the mythos and backstory is obvious.

The "Ethan Haas Was Right" fiasco is a familiar fall back argument, but never once was their any evidence directly linking the two projects. It was all speculation by wanna-be internet sleuths that got out of hand. It wasn't a "gamejack", because that implies information was falsified to make it appear related. It was simply a case of internet retards running wild. In the case of Tagruato, Slusho and JamieandTeddy, there are direct connections that can be verified. Matching actors, character names, locales, corporations. This is not original research. This is common sense. This is correlation, which is a huge part of verifiability. These sites verify each other through direct connectivity and simple deductive reasoning, without stemming into the territory of "original research".

I don't expect every single link to be posted (such as the restaurant review that led to the discovery of Tagruato.jp), but people are ignoring facts here. Slusho.jp is a confirmed site; it's relevance has long been established and accepted even amongst mainstream sites. Tagruato links off of Slusho. The character "Jamie Lascano" can be seen in pictures on the confirmed site 1-18-08.com and the same actress appears in videos on Jamieandteddy.com. It's all there, right before your eyes. Does Abrams have to spoil the game for everyone before these clues are accepted as fact? The content of these sites adds a lot of content to the mystery and people looking for answers should be able to find them here. No one's asking for a detailed analysis of the content of these sites, but people should be able to find the answers they're looking for by consulting an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia can't provide all the information, it shouldn't be masquerading as an encyclopedia. --Captain Impulse 05:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not common sense at all. Common sense is identifying Christian Bale as Batman or Brandon Routh as Superman in the new movies. These bits of information are irrevocably clear. However, with this viral marketing campaign, to make sense to anyone, facts have to be interwoven in an intricate manner for a presumed understanding of how the websites relate to each other, if at all. You said that Slusho.jp is confirmed -- is this a result determined by "Internet retards", or is there verifiable content from a reliable source about the website's authenticity? The manner is not immediately clear, and the fact that one has to explain to another all the possible connections is the behavior of an amateur investigator. These presumptions about the websites are not as clear as daylight -- bits from the websites are being cross-referenced by Internet users themselves. The argument that Wikipedia is not paper still has to be in line with policies like verifiability and no original research. There seems to be an unnecessary rush to get this information out despite the lack of verifiable content from reliable sources about it. If the information is related and relevant, then it can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Listen. Tagruato could not be found until the official 1-18-08 site was updated with the picture of the Asian Chef. Google had been tied in as well, as the Chef Review that led to the Tagruato site's discovery could not be found on Google until the picture was put on the official site. Therefore: Tagruato=official. -- General Holtarna 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also: thumb|right|150px|Proof enough for you? It's on the Slusho website. -- General Holtarna 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG

Image:TagruatoSlushoConnection.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagruato Continued

Tagruato is named and kind-of linked to on the Slusho! website, yet it is not mentioned on the article. The evidence is overwhelming for it to be official. If you refuse to put it up for the reason that It's not been confirmed, then by the same logic we should remove Slusho! --General Holtarna 12:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Slusho.jp isn't mentioned as a confirmed website. If you read the article, the extent of its confirmation beyond the amateur investigation of Internet users like you and me is the Washington Post saying, "Records showed that the Slusho Web site was registered before the trailer aired, indicating that the site almost had to be official." (bold is mine) EthanHaasWasRight is mentioned in the article, but we know that it's not an official site. If there are reliable sources talking about the Myspace website or Tagruato.jp, then they would be mentioned as verifiable content. Movie blogs aren't reliable sources because they lack reputations for fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
WHOIS info:

http://whois.domaintools.com/tagruato.jp

Domain Information:

[Domain Name] TAGRUATO.JP [Registrant] Daiske Kagashima [Name Server] ns51.domaincontrol.com [Name Server] ns52.domaincontrol.com [Created on] 2007/07/25 [Expires on] 2008/07/31 [Status] Active [Last Updated] 2007/07/25 23:38:22 (JST)

Notice the Creation Date. --General Holtarna 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood -- I don't doubt that the Washington Post made a correct assessment about the website's registration. It's more a matter of, "How is this connected, if at all?" Believe me, I've been checking every so often on Google News for more verifiable content about this film, but currently, its impact, whether relevant to the film or not, is solely limited to Internet audiences. When the scope of the viral marketing encompasses the public sphere in a way that reliable sources cover the campaign as much as they did in the initial onset, then content can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start an arguement. I'm merely trying to defend Tagruato as part of the Viral Marketing Campaign and a possible plot-link to the movie. Hopefully when a new teaser comes out Tagruato will be mentioned. Until then, I suppose I can back down. --General Holtarna 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start an argument, either. I'm sure that I've been perceived as anal, but the reason for the approach is that the nature of this marketing campaign makes for a lot of speculation about the film. That's why there's a need to follow the verifiability policy as closely as possible, so we can focus on the use of reliable sources. If a bit of original contribution is permitted, even if it seems to describe the "obvious" such as the presence of an ingredient across a couple of sites, it would open the door to additional original perspectives. Believe me, I'd like nothing more than someone like Wired to do a full-blown feature article about this film's marketing campaign. We'll both have to keep our eyes open for some independent coverage of all this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

seems like it has been 'hacked'. part of the game i'm guessing. eco terrorists!!!--69.104.18.133 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reported date for new trailer and title

ComingSoon.net has reported that, according to their "source," Cloverfield will get a new trailer and a title on November 16, 2007, before Beowulf. I don't know how reputable the site is, considering (a) they won't name the source and (b) they're pretty behind on their Cloverfield info otherwise. Just throwing it out there, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeztah (talk • contribs) 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

that makes what the 4'th movie said to have a new trailer for the movie (Stardust, Saw iV and i think some other movie). Given the history of this not being true for the other movies said to have a new trailer i wouldn't put much weight into this. harlock_jds 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Beowulf and Cloverfield are not only both Paramount movies, but the digital effects are done by the same company for both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.131.228 (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


i think the trailer will come out with Margot at the Wedding :D Anyhow it's silly to speculate about the new trailer... esp since EVERYONE has been wrong quite a few times already. harlock_jds 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12367
Comingsoon.net was completely accurate. Both the name of the film and the trailer preceded Beowulf on Nov. 16. I think they've proven that they're a reliable source once again. And FYI, ComingSoon never reported the trailer being released with any of those other rumored movies (Stardust, etc..). Byxbee (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Monster in Cloverfield

http://wayangtopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/cloverfield-monster-picture.jpg 12.210.209.18 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to think of that. It's maybe too detailed to be fan art. BelligerentJim 12:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised by how much effort fanboys put in their work. Until we can verify that this concept art is authentic, it's not appropriate to include in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
IESB said it was a fake. Alientraveller 12:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. And I was kind of impressed myself... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; fake or not, that's a great drawing. --Closedmouth 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is, even if it does look like someone's stapled a bunch of dolphins to one of the UrRu from The Dark Crystal. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

01-18-08 website

http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.45.1 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Closedmouth 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me as well. Might need to check your settings -- these official sites tend to use media-heavy software. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

new trailer?

someone over at CHUD.com posted info on a new trailer nad seemed pretty accurate. I think it's also been confirmed somewhere that the new trailer is going to premier in front of Beowulf. should that be posted up and does anyone have any confirmation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.127.174 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.57.239 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BoldFutura related to Slusho and Tagruato

Ok I know this is original research and Erik I know this will not go into the Article....not just yet BUT this site does look like another Puzzle. The site itself the last week(s) has been under construction and has gone offline then online a few times. But I saw this site might be linked to the movie because it mentions the Tagruato Corporation which is the site everyone here as been arguing to add because it is Linked to the Slusho site. Ill quote below as the site is using Flash and I can't copy and paste.


Recent News August 15, 2007 "Members from the Tagruato Corporation and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program honored chief Executive officer Brandon Takahashi. Director Takahashi was presented with the Tagruato achievement award for his work in the HANDS Initiative and SIB Programs."

Latter again it mentions the Tagruato Corporation in the History section under "Bold History"

These 3 Sites Seem to be Related each mentioning Each other.

  • Rumored BoldFutura is Also related to Aka Parallax as posted Earlier.

There is a little Discussion on a forum about the site's construction, which I know Erik you will not consider...Original Research but they do have records on the site going up and down as of old Whois. If this is all not true in the End. Then post it in the area of the Article "Viral websites" to show how this viral promotion of the Film has gone with fans.

--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you recognize my stance... but you shouldn't single me out. :-P I don't own the article; there's been a few other editors who aim to keep the content verifiable. From looking at these viral websites, though, it doesn't seem that we're any closer to exploring real-world context of the film. An interview with Abrams would be really helpful at this point... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry. Anyways there has been a "Rumor" also that someone has already seen the Trailer which is showing before Beowulf. Its not a reliable source so I wont post it....for now. But it does go into detail as what is said during the trailer and etc. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ComingSoon.net reports from "a source" about this news, and it's been picked up by other movie websites. Also, CHUD.com does have a description of the trailer, but considering that the website is basically a movie blog, its information can't be checked out. Believe me, I'm keeping my ear to the ground to find verifiable information to add. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

has anyone notice an eye in the picture

in the picture with the statue of liberty there seems to be an eye in the sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.23.161 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's pushing it dude...--68.0.155.79 00:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not continue this discussion further; per the talk page guidelines, we should discuss improving the article with verifiable content from reliable sources. This course of discussion isn't on par with that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The new trailer is available on the 'tube.

The film is called "Cloverfield". I mention this (hesitantly) because the trailer is identical to how it was described by one who claimed to have seen it before its release with Beowulf.

The trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBb0JHJRK8k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.24.135 (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no longer the reported code name. It's the name.

Just because it says so on the trailer? I think it wise not to jump the gun until official confirmation from the director, writer, producers, studio or cast. After all, Lizzy Caplan indicated in a recent interview that she still wasn't allowed to tell the real title - "real title" an odd thing to say if it is indeed Cloverfield. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just got an email from Support@slushozoom.com saying that more was to come in December. That may be a day to watch for the real title?

There are already posters with 'Cloverfield' as the name. The film is Cloverfield.

As for the 'recent' interview, that couldve been conducted weeks before the trailer now showing before Beowulf (and it *is* showing before Beowulf, this is NOT a rumour).

Inclusion of information regarding the Second Trailer

Perhaps we should also mention that they have recently aired a new trailer preceeding Beowulf? 24.76.181.253 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Already Mentioned in Marketing --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The new trailer is now out in HD (up to 1080p), and a good chunk of the monster is visible between some skyscrapers for a second or so (with multiple in-focus frames). Interestingly enough, it doesn't strictly rule out a robot. It seems to look like a sea creature, but could just as easily be a robot with crud on it. Here are screencaps (probably not fair use?): http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220138jx2.jpg http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot20071119220120um6.jpg I don't, however, really see any info in the new trailer worth putting in the article, although it's possible that some of the supposition could be updated. - Guspaz (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this monster on the picture, and which you can see in the trailer, looks like a giant Alien from the famous movies. Take a look to the back of the head. It looks like the back of the head of the Alien. Also you can see a tail on the picture, like the same one of an Alien. The Cloverfield monster seems to be very slim and bony... My idea ist, that this could be a giant Alien, perhaps Alien V? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.225.56 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for your speculation. Besides the fact that a 5th Alien movie wouldn't involve a giant alien, and besides the fact that Abbrams said it was new, thats all complete speculation. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks a ton like USA Godzilla design meets Xenomorphs design (Alien series). I think we can confirm it is at least reptilian in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.57.184 (talk • contribs) 22:48, November 30, 2007
I understand that you're trying to help out, but considering that this film is not publicly available, the only verifiable information we can use are those from secondary sources. We can't interpret only from the trailer what certain aspects of the film will be about. Hopefully, we can get some reliable sources to explain what the monster looks like, but in the meantime, we're just grasping at straws. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield = ?

I could be misremembering but doesn't the second teaser begin by talking about the source of the footage, mentioning that cloverfield is the name for "what used to be central park" or something like that. Should this be mentioned, if it is in fact the source of the title of the film. WookMuff (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are misremembering - a big strange when you dont have to remember when the trailer is right there on youtube...but anyway - The mention of Project: Cloverfield and the mention of 'what used to be central park' are two unrelated sentence. Cloverfield is the name given at the start of the trailer for the monster attack and/or the recovery operation. '....central park' refers to where the camera containing the films footage is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.183.80.133 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

can you guys put http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/ ...........its an official site Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.207.57 (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Swelling Body

In the trailer Lizzy Caplans characters body swells and the sound of spilling guts is heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The exploding woman is only seen in silhouette. It could be anyone. Should exploding people be mentioned in the plot speculation section? - LeonWhite (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. Byxbee (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And you dont know for certainly that she is exploding, you see a silhouette of what *might* be someone swelling. It could be a mutuation, it could be something coming out of her Alien-style. Theres plenty of sites you can happily speculate on, wiki is for facts 195.183.80.133 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is worth mentioning in plot as it's only mentioned that a giant monster attacks, wheread the scene in the trailer supports that there may actually be an epidemic of monsters, a la John Carpenters The Thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC) for all we know this could be some kind of terrorist/enemy plot, we never see a monster, what if it was like a telekenitic attack, or the little girl for the F.E.A.R. video games??71.61.163.146 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but there is a very brief glimpse of the monster in the latest trailer passing behind a building plus the offical synopsis has stated "a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city". I honestly don't know what to make of the body swelling scene witnessed in the trailer, whether it be a mutation, parasite exploding from host body or some other bizarre event but I believe it is connected to the monster in some way and not the result of a terrorist attack or telekenesis but thats just my opinion, I could be wrong :P - RVDDP2501 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What time does it happen at? or supposedly happens at? I can't find it in the trailer. 74.77.167.175 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You may want to ask on another forum such as IMDb. These forums are more focused on general discussion about the film. Talk pages on Wikipedia, per the guidelines, are intended for discussion on how to improve the article. That's why you won't see a lot of speculative discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that, had not seen the official synopsis71.61.163.146 (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the swelling body thing has to do with something the monster brings with it. One of the rumored names for it is "The Parasite", so I'm guessing it brings some sort of disease along with it. OR, because smaller monsters are said to also be a part of the movie, maybe their attacks spread the disease. Look at this video: Cloverfield screencaps. Several notable shots near the middle feature a girl being held/restrained by two guys in biosuits, and she's deathly white and spewing blood - both signs of a rather serious infection, methinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SigmaX54 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


It's also possible that the other two figures were guys in MOPP suits. Either way, theres not enough info to inculde it.

    • If I can find where those stills I mentioned come from, I'll post links up here so you guys can look at them. Then we can decide.--SigmaX54 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont bother, theres nothing in the article you can add regarding the trailer as it would be speculation. And it clearly states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of for discussing details about the film without the intent of improving the article.". Save your time and energy for when the film is released and you KNOW things as opposed to what you 'think'. 195.183.80.133 08:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes

In two episodes so far this season on Heroes, one of the characters is clearly seen drinking a Slusho brand slushie. One of the producers has also put pictures of various cast members holding Slusho cups on his [[blog]]. I guess this should be mentioned in the article?--68.98.179.2 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Slusho is a common theme through several of JJ Abrams' projects, I hardly see that its worth mentioning. What benefit would putting a reference to some jokey pictures done in filming downtime have for this article 195.183.80.133 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

JJ Abrams does not work on Heroes. Tabor (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No, but Greg Grunberg (who plays Matt Parkman) does. JJ Abrams uses Grunberg as his "lucky charm"- he was in the pilot of Lost and will probably pop up somewhere in Cloverfield. And no, I don't have any references for this :( MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1-18-08.com roar

While sitting on 1-18-08.com a loud roar can be heard but so far ive only heard once. Mrbellcaptain (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Mrbellcaptain

Yes, this is common knowledge, it happens on 6 minutes. This has been the case on the site for several weeks. A suggestion you check some of the cloverfield fan blog sites for such things 195.183.80.133 (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The user above is right. While Wikipedia should contain knowledge, it doesn't serve as a newsstand for the latest details. The roar has been brought up before, but it hasn't been shown to be anything more than an unacknowledged part of marketing. There is not much that is verifiably known about the film, and there's a lot of connections that could be made, especially using the website and watching the trailer. The fan blogs aren't reliable sources for this, but they're a good place for interested people to get together and speculate about the film. Here, though, we're trying to compile verifiable information leading up to the film's release and beyond. News reports about a speculated plot are verifiable because they, being reliable sources, publish the information in wide circulation, as opposed to someone who has a newfangled theory about the film on a film forum. For the roar, if there was a reliable source obsessed with figuring out the film and carried out voice analysis on it and published the results, that could be included. However, that doesn't mean automatic inclusion, information could be considered indiscriminate. That's what discussion is for. A few hoops to jump through for the permission of certain content, obviously. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A source for adding Tagruato?

I just found this [3]. The FAQ on this site says that it was launched as the internet version of Malaysia's leading english language newspaper. This particular link (Assuming it works) appears to be a review which specifically mentions Tagruato. Can we use this as a source to include Tagruato in the viral marketing section? I would do it myself except, I haven't yet figured out how to do references.... MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Source for concept art

Why is that here? I don't believe it can be verified because there no links. I'm going to delete it until some credible sources can be found for it. Dunkerya (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a good call; it was only added about 30 minutes before you caught it, and should be removed by anyone who comes across it. Cheers, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


5 Minute Sneak Peek

Not sure if this has been brought up yet but they released a widget which shows 5 minutes of the movie. There is also a whole contest that goes along with the widget. Here's a site for an overview of whats been released and some details http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=40208 and heres the official site with the details and the prizes http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/contest/index.php I think this should be added to the marketing section. I would add it but Im bad at writing descriptions up. Rosario lopez (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In this trailer, they tell some character names. If its okay, I'm going to fill in the character names. Beachdude0213 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I did the best I could with adding this info in there. I was trying to add 2 difference references, one directed towards the main contest site and one towards the official rules but for some reason it wouldn't work. I know that it probably needs work so feel free to fix it.Rosario lopez (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this too promotional but I'll go with what you guys think is best. Maybe just a brief mention of it will be fine. I tried doing that at first but then I got into too many details, which is how it became what it was. But either way the 5 minute clip should still be mentioned somewhere in the article.Rosario lopez (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rosario, I removed your contribution because it was too much on the promotional side. Marketing is sometimes a challenge to tackle in a film article, but mainstream films generally don't get write-ups about contests for fans or products that are made. A good way to assess a film's marketing is how independent perspectives have covered it. For example, most films are not unique in releasing trailers, but this one was for its trailer, thus it's appropriate to report on it. If the contest becomes a big deal, then there should be reliable sources covering it. However, per WP:IINFO, just because something is verifiable doesn't make it worth adding to the article. Let me know if you have any questions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Makes a lot more sense now that I read that. I'm not familair with many of the rules and such but I'm trying to learn. Do you think that we should mention the 5 minutes or not? Rosario lopez (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, there aren't any rules on something like marketing in a film article. It's actually a section that some other editors and I begun introducing at Spider-Man 3, and for a while, it was really heavy on detail about TV spots and available footage. We've cut back on that, though I notice we still have a passage about action figures and the like. To be honest, I probably would want to remove that. It's tacit knowledge, I suppose -- how important an aspect of marketing is for an encyclopedia. For example, the Spider-Man 3 article also talks about how they had Spider-Man exhibits all around New York City, which is a pretty unique thing as far as films go. It actually might be a good idea to bring this up with WikiProject Films to see what other editors' thoughts are on content to include in a marketing section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I initiated discussion at WT:FILM#Marketing. Feel free to pitch in! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

Similiar interview with IGN here. Alientraveller (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And part two. Alientraveller (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
And the director keeps chatting, this time with IESB. Check to see if there's anything new. Alientraveller (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've incorporated most of the information from the headlines above. There may be some detail I neglected because they seemed extraneous. I believe I've presented the points in the headlines succinctly, but feel free to review them to see if there's anything important that I missed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add the FAN art to the Cloverfield page

I remember seeing that fan-art on someone's Cloverfield blog. It is not the real monster, so whoever added the image to the bottom of the page as a link to the Cloverfield monster, please, DO NOT do that again. It's been debunked numerous times and we have already seen the monster in the second trailer. It does not look like the fan-art. Anyways, I was wondering if we could take the link to the image off the Cloverfield page because it is unnecessary.

Thank you,

- Pr0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolifix - Zaretser (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the post from JJ Abrams' website where the creator, an established poster there, discusses his creation: http://www.jjabrams.net/showthread.php?t=118 . Do not add the image, it's jsut fan art. ThuranX (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect still necessary?

Now that we have the official title of the movie, is the redirection from 1-18-08, 1/18/08, and 01-18-08 still necessary? I think it'd be better off redirecting back to January 18. Jeztah (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed i doubt many people will be looking for the movie based on the 1/18/08 harlock_jds (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, they say redirects are cheap. My suggestion is to remove the hatnote at the top of the article when the film comes out. I think that by that point, it'll be pretty well assured that everyone knows it's called Cloverfield. Until then, there may be people still in the dark about it after seeing the trailer before Transformers. Not sure about handling the redirects themselves, though... perhaps we can put them up at WP:RFD when the film comes out and see what the appropriate course of action is. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed the redirects to go toward January 18, now that the movie has a title it is hard to believe that someone would still search the dates looking for this movie. Rather they would be looking for the date.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

UK Release Date

You have it marked down here that it's February Second, 2008. The actual release date is a day earlier: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/releaseinfo 24.76.186.137 (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up -- I cited http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/intl/uk/ for the release date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The monster in Cloverfield being a sea monster

I think i have the proof to know that its a sea monster in the movie but not exactly sure what type it is. If you go on the slusho website and go to Happy talk one of the charecters says "bloop" and another says something about england. Bloop stands for a underwater sea water device that they used to i think it was measure someting or figure out the sounds of earthquakes and it was made in england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSskunk (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we can cite that. It'd be considered synthesis since that's a connection that's being drawn where one didn't exist before. Don't worry, though -- it's just another month for this film, and I'm sure we will know the monster's origins by then, if not before. Appreciate the offer of the possibility, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Bloop is a real (but very odd and interesting!) noise. As I understand it, anybody can submit messages to the Happy Talk page, so I'm not sure it would be relevant anyway. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've found what appears to be legit concept art for the main monster, as well as the smaller 'parasite' monsters. Just say the word and I'll include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.31.22 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's from here, it's fan art. Also, legit concept art would probably be copyrighted, and we wouldn't have a valid fair use rationale for pushing a non-free image to the forefront of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Monster here taken form the toys being produced to market for the film. Image:Http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg

http://64.111.216.18/ul/5641-clover.jpg
- This is not the monster, it's a creation of Peter Konig, the man who is supposedly designing the monster. It's on his website. - D

Just my 2 cents: in the trailer, the creatures behind the curtain are deep ones (indeed, marine creatures), and the very big one either Cthulhu or Dagon or I know nothing about Lovecraft writings... Should've titled it The Shadow Over New York... ;-) Boréal (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually the "deep ones" behind the curtain are actually two people in an NBC suit. If you look at the shadow you can tell. Compare it to a photo of someone in an NBC suit. Or any environmental suit. This is further supported by the line "we have a bite" and the woman's shadow seemingly struggling without being bitten or ripped apart, etc. Suggesting taht somethign smaller and infectious exsist, however those two shadows are without a doubt protective environmental suits.- Thero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo, people! Wikipedia doesn't care about personal theories/observations as to what the monster is or isn't. If it isn't in a reliable third-party source, it cannot be verified, and any commentary here is just a waste of time. Sorry to sound so harsh, but it appears people continue to remain ignorant of Wikipedia policy on this. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)