I just got an email from the Senior Publicist at Entertainment Weekly — wow, how important I must be! — about an online article they have with more info on the Cloverfield trailer (I wrote about this movie early enough after the trailer was released that BA comes up pretty high on Google if you search on "Cloverfield"). The article is no big deal, with almost no new info; all it really does is confirm it’s a monster movie, but doesn’t say how they know.
The poster shown above is spreading through the Intertubes right now (like on Slashfilm), since it was released at ComicCon today (together with a Star trek 11 poster which isn’t worth showing here; it’s just the words "Star Trek: Stardate 12.25.08").
Anyway, the EW article refers people to the Cloverfield site for more info, but there is only a Flash animation there with no info. It may be some sort of Easter Egg hunt, but I have no patience for such things. If anybody figures out more, feel free to comment!
July 28th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
There’s really no mystery about how they know it’s a monster movie. Actually, if you watch the trailer, it pretty much tells you it’s a monster movie. But any person who is in any way a movie geek needs to be reading aintitcool.com.
Ain’t It Cool News is not a rumor site, it’s a news site, that differs in that they are a network of people who actually know, personally, most of the geek filmmakers like John Carpenter, Stephen Spielberg, Peter Jackson, JJ Abrams, etc, and get a lot of their news directly from these filmmakers who don’t give a rat’s patootie what the hard nosed studio execs think, those who value the concerns of their fans and gleefully and even subversively communicate with them through the power of the internet. As far as I know, this is the only site that has direct connections into the actual production offices of Bad Robot and are getting straightforward information on the film. We already know that it’s written by Drew Goddard and directed by Matt Reeves, and Abrams is just overseeing the production, as he’s gearing up the new Star Trek film.
Go to http://www.aintitcool.com/ and type “Cloverfield” into the search box to see the progression of their reporting…then try “Abrams” and get a little more. They’ve also revealed the nature of the teaser campaign…the poster you posted is just part of it. That poster will appear (in fact already has in a very clever marketing ploy) with the heading “MONSTROUS” at the top, followed by another one with a different image, heading “BARBAROUS”, followed by “FEROCIOUS”, then finally with the reveal of the title.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
There’s really no mystery about how they know it’s a monster movie. Actually, if you watch the trailer, it pretty much tells you it’s a monster movie. But any person who is in any way a movie geek needs to be reading aintitcool.com.
Ain’t It Cool News is not a rumor site, it’s a news site, that differs in that they are a network of people who actually know, personally, most of the geek filmmakers like John Carpenter, Stephen Spielberg, Peter Jackson, JJ Abrams, etc, and get a lot of their news directly from these filmmakers who don’t give a rat’s patootie what the hard nosed studio execs think, those who value the concerns of their fans and gleefully and even subversively communicate with them through the power of the internet. As far as I know, this is the only site that has direct connections into the actual production offices of Bad Robot and are getting straightforward information on the film. We already know that it’s written by Drew Goddard and directed by Matt Reeves, and Abrams is just overseeing the production, as he’s gearing up the new Star Trek film.
Go to http://www.aintitcool.com/ and type “Cloverfield” into the search box to see the progression of their reporting…then try “Abrams” and get a little more. They’ve also revealed the nature of the teaser campaign…the poster you posted is just part of it. That poster will appear (in fact it appeared last week in a very clever marketing ploy) with the heading “MONSTROUS” at the top, followed by another one with a different image, heading “BARBAROUS”, followed by “FEROCIOUS”, then finally with an image revealing the title.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Sorry about the double post, that darn server Phil was talking about having trouble with today kept giving me an error when I submitted.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Just about the only easter egg so far on the official site is that if you grab a photo on top of the pile and “shake” it, it flips over. The two from the party have the usual kinds of things written on the back, though you have to wonder who would take photos from the night of a monster attack and write banalities on them.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am
You do know that JJ Abrams is directing the new Star Trek movie, yes?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Speaking of Star Trek, apparently they’ve confirmed that Spock will be played by Sylar from Heroes. I can’t quite decide whether to be indifferent or horrified about this…
July 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Oh, man. I bet it’s a movie about Fing Fang Foom. Awesome!
July 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Those who want to follow up on this teaser should pop over to the Unfiction forums, specifically:
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19964&start=4755
These guys are the ones who play viral campaigns all the time, and they’ve started cracking some of the clues. For instance, the notes on the back of those photos? They lead to the Myspace page of one of the characters, Jamie Lascano:
http://www.myspace.com/jamielascano
I’d follow it further, but I’m already tied up in the Halo-themed viral in my copious spare time. *groan*
— Steve
July 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“[…] who would take photos from the night of a monster attack and write banalities on them.”
Â
The photos were taken a few minutes before the attack. There is a precedent : Louis XVI writing in his diary on 14 July 1789 ”Nothing special, today”. By the way, in this movie, the attack must have something to do with Al Quaeda, because of what is done to the Statue of Liberty.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“The photos were taken a few minutes before the attack. There is a precedent : Louis XVI writing in his diary on 14 July 1789 â€Nothing special, todayâ€. By the way, in this movie, the attack must have something to do with Al Quaeda, because of what is done to the Statue of Liberty.”
The photos were taken a few minutes before the attack, but they couldn’t have been *processed and printed* before the attack. Those aren’t polaroids.
And just FYI, that quote is accurate (sort of), but just means he hadn’t heard about the revolt yet. They didn’t have CNN in the 18th century.
Can you explain what mean about Al-Qaeda and the Statue of Liberty? I’ve seen the statue get destroyed in plenty of movies, and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with any of them. Like Planet of the Apes. Or Deep Impact.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
“The photos were taken a few minutes before the attack, but they couldn’t have been *processed and printed* before the attack. Those aren’t polaroids.”
They’re probably not 35mm negatives either. The guy’s holding a High Definition digital camcorder in the 12:04AM shot… if our party-goers are sufficiently geeky, one could have a portable photo-printer that would easily fit in a backpack or large handbag. Those “process” digital imagery in seconds, printing out on regular 4″x6″ photo paper. Some even come with their own battery, Bluetooth tranceiver, and print server built-in so you don’t have to plug in the camera or power plug.
Marvelous gadgets we have in this-here 21st century… *grin*
— Steve
July 30th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Over at http://www.coudal.com/cloverfield.php , they’ve analyzed the trailer footage to discover just what this Cloverfield monster is. You’ll see they’ve chosen a particularly terrifying creature for this film, sure to send children into fits of horror, and give heart attacks to the elderly.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Scott wrote : “They didn’t have CNN in the 18th century.”
Â
I just wanted to note that you go about your life, you have fun with friends, you take photos, etc. and suddenly something destroys the Statue of Liberty, and parts of New York, apparently, in other words, the world collapses. By the way, for the Statue’s head to get projected downtown, what hit it must have had quite a velocity and mass, and the head seems intact.
Â
As for Al Quaeda, did you note de steel beams visible where the Statue’s neck was ? These did remind me of WTC ruins photos. I was not making fun of anyone or anything.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I wish they’d destroy Chicago once in a while. We’ve got famous landmarks, and a large body of water for “something” to rise out of. Knock off Wrigley Field during a Cubs home game, answer the question once and for all. (“No, the Cubs will NEVER win the series.”) It was really nice to see Gary bombed when they made Pearl Harbor back in 2000…
July 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Denny – in order to destroy Chicago (aside from completely dashing my CubHopes), you’d need a REASON to destroy it. Lost Angeles, San Dunksisco, New Dark – and others – have ample reason for destruction (that’s as close to politics as I’ll get here).
But Chicago is such a benign town that nobody wants to see it destroyed. Especially after we’ve left it to live elsewhere.
The large body of water, unfortunately, isn’t terribly deep- and is much less so after ‘Beginning of The End” (all those dead grasshoppers…)
Also, when you consider it, it IS harder to destroy.. coastal cities are threatened when something hits the ocean – and there’s a LOT of ocean. The mishigami is keen, but not a lot more likely to be hit than Chicago itself… that is, anything devestating that hits one will immediately affect the other. No drama there.. just >poof
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
[...] these be location shoots for the much-blogged "Cloverfield" movie? I’m not sure. It seems possible, though it also seems to be pretty late to still be filming [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
*cough cough* Hype *cough cough*
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Can anybody think of a classic monster-movie monster whose name ends in “-us” or “-ous”? Because the whole poster title progression (Monstrous, Barbarous, Ferocious) leads me to suspect they’re going to finish with a movie title which fits the pattern.
But I can’t think of any monsters which qualify. Surely not Tyrannosaurus, or any other -sauruses. I’d be hard-pressed to believe a dinosaur capable of swatting the Statue of Liberty’s head clear across the harbor.
And yet I have this nagging feeling that there was some fifties creature feature which had a name like that…
December 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Colossus? That’s the name of the poem on the statue of liberty, “The New Colossus.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
the easter egg is that if u look at the top right side on the corner u can see the monsters head and side if the face thats as close as youll get to see the monster til u got to tha theters to see it
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Do have someone information about the new viral campaigne of J.J. abrams, “aladygma” ? that should be the new cloverfield or alien movie