Talk:Cloverfield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Official site

no evidence of such. Check the domain, its not registered to the studio, whether its part of their mystique, a citation is required to call it as such. The trailer doesn't give a website address. As well, lets find an unbranded version of the trailer if we're really going to link it.--Crossmr 01:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to 1-18-08.com (left here for later people to review if they wish). WHOIS says the site is registered to Henry Kelvin (I imagine he's a very energetic guy!) on March 30, 2007. I've got a suspicion that it's an insider, but we'll see soon enough. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed links to the site again. Still no reason to believe it's related. DraxusD 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So the site was recently updated and now there is another picture up. This picture shows the party that happened in the trailer. I saw the trailer at the theater and this is definitely the same people. I think that this should be included but its still not an official site so I'm guessing were going to have to wait a little while longer to see if we get any confirmation.Rosario lopez 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Look up the ip associated with the htttp://www.1-18-08.com and see it is in paramounts block.

ARIN Details 1-18-08.com

216.154.228.106

Record Type: IP Address

AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-216-154-224-0-1)

                                 216.154.224.0 - 216.154.255.255

Paramount Digital Entertainment PARAMOUNT-1 (NET-216-154-228-0-1)

                                 216.154.228.0 - 216.154.228.255

This looks Related: http://parasitemovie.com/

Parasitemovie looks fanmade, and it's a godaddy site. I don't believe it's anything official. I do, however, believe that the 1.18.08 site is official, since numberous movie websites have linked directly to that site, and paramount hasn't done anythng to correct them on the authentisity of it, but I agree that it may be too soon to tell.

I believe that this information proves beyond reasonable doubt that the 1-18-08 is, in fact, the official site. I also believe that the addition of pictures from what is almost certainly, the movie itself, also add considerable weight to the claim. This information is public record - I'm not sure how that affects the whole "personal investigation" policy. But it is both verifiable and true, and guidelines aside, this issue could really use a hefty dose of both of those. I mean, isn't that what wikipedia is all about? Yookaloco 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

The tone needs clean up. Words like "you" and "We" should not be used in an encyclopedia. There is also still speculation and rumour in the article.--Crossmr 01:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OR

There is far too much opinion, personal interpreation, and OR in this article. Clean it up, only include what is known and sourced. Corvus cornix 03:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested speedy delete for page

The page is currently almost entirely speculation. There's practically no information. HalfShadow 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the speculation, but I we're still going to need it for when we have later info Pigman5 08:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Trailer

I removed a previous link to a trailer. Most of the ones posted online are from people that snuck cameras into the theater. We need an actual link to the real trailer, not from a video-posting site like youtube or myspace. Sadly, that might not happen soon until the official site is put back up or paramount admits involvement with the movie. I keep hearing they have denied that they're involed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigman5 (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 5, 2007

or wait until the Transformers DVD comes out. Socby19 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19

Djfjenjv

What is this word? I can't seem to define it or understand why it's there.

Originally the website for this djfjenjv movie was located

CaffeineJunkie 09:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

prob vandalisim i took it outharlock_jds 11:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Content & Move

I've attempted to revise the article to be more centered on the film itself, rather than the unattributable hype that existed before, such as in regard to the ownership of domain names. I've attempted to use the most attributable sources available and used wording such as "reported" to reflect the uncertain nature of the information. In fact, the sole source for the director and writer is Ain't It Cool News, and that source does not seem verifiable. I've used a couple of newspapers as sources to reflect its presence in the public sphere, rather than just movie sites.

Additionally, I would like to request a move for this article to Untitled J.J. Abrams project since Cloverfield is just a working title. It's not even certain if the two are related, since we're only relying on Ain't It Cool News for attribution. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You could I guess. I mean that's what IMDB lists it as.--Anguirus111 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is very bad, poorly sourced, but notable

Not sure what to do with this page. It is undeniable that there is some sort of major film behind the trailer seen before Transformers. ALL the information is sourced from articles SPECULATING about the upcoming film. The entirety of the article, including the title itself, the content of the film, even release dates and writers is speculative. The reason the article exists, is because a trailer exists. The editing back and forth recently is all speculation by editors... whether or not there is a monster etc... I'd like to tag for speedy deletion until more verifiable sources come out. I imagine that will be soon, but until then, this page is the definition of all wrong with Wikipedia.Gwynand 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Definition of all wrong with Wikipedia" is a little strong -- I've seen much worse. This is obviously a project produced by J.J. Abrams to be released on 1/18/08, and the delivery makes direct attribution impossible at this point. I encountered a similar problem with The Dark Knight when its viral marketing campaign to reveal the Joker was surreptitious like this teaser trailer. I think the article, at this point, is as good as can be, especially with a couple of newspapers reporting on the trailer. I don't think the article warrants a speedy deletion, but a discussion in how the content should be best addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess my statement may be strong... but I think there will be a lot of traffic here after people get out of Transformers... this article gives off the impression that Wikipedia is doubling as Aint It Cool News. Keep the current tags up there until we get some more reasonable sources and I guess I'm OK with keeping the page up. The speculated "official website" which we ARENT sure is official, has NO CONTENT, and doesnt fit criteria for external links. Please stop adding it.Gwynand 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll keep an eye on the article. Future films are my specialty. I've got RSS feeds and Google Alerts armed to pick up information about this, and will update accordingly. I've exhausted my reserve of reverts for today, though... didn't realize that there would be this much traffic. I agree on the websites being added -- neither of them are verifiable as authentic sites for the film, and they should be excluded. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need any help let me know. I'm still new to wikipedia but I want help with improve this. if I can do anything just let me know.Rosario lopez 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I appreciate the offer to help, Rosario. If you come across any official headlines like this and not stuff like, "This site is reported to be related to the film," please share them here! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced all of the content with a very attributable source in The Hollywood Reporter. This should be a verifiable project now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethan and whatnot

I realize that various movieblog sites are claiming the Ethan Haas stuff is related to this project, but I don't see how they make that connection. They certainly haven't shown their evidence that it's related. Granted it could, but in a case like this you have to take everything with a grain of salt.--Anguirus111 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see here:

1) The "Ethan" sites are registered to the same people and servers as the 1-18-08 website is.

2) The "Ethan" sites came out the same day as the trailer.

3) The puzzle games have the exact same city as the movie has.

4) Video glyphs which were given, as a reward to players, have been posted on YouTube. THOSE were taken down by...Paramount Pictures.

(EDIT: I never wrote a number "five", somebody else did. And for the record, there was NO LINK AFTER THE TRAILER. I don't know who started that rumor but it wasn't me.)

Coincidence?

I think not.

Honestly, I think somebody should put something up about the marketing. I've come a long way on the 'Net back when IMDB was a baby. I've seen a LOT of viral ad sites.

This one is professional and I would, seriously, bet the farm that it's related to "Cloverfield". I vote for all the stuff I wrote to be put back in.

It's not like it can't be erased later if it's found to be incorrect.

I don't think Paramount is in the business of erasing random video glyphs they supposedly "don't own".-- TabascoMan77 01:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that if a website can be questioned, it probably does not meet attributable standards. Viral marketing is by nature unverifiable until the studio says something. A similar case was encountered with The Dark Knight regarding the revelation of the Joker -- information was held off until it was covered in a film magazine and not one of the movie sites saying, "It looks like this is a viral marketing campaign by the studio." There may also be a campaign going on with Watchmen, but we're not sure of that, either. Hence, we should wait for attribution before including the sites. We could be including junk for all we know, despite what seems to be evidential. We can't act as private investigators making our own observations to see whether something checks out or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

as long as we have a cite from a reputable place it should be posted. If it ends up not being true then we can just take it down. And there are a LOT of cites for the 2 Ethan web pages being a part of the marketing of this movie.harlock_jds 10:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a citation mentioning its existence, it's a matter of a citation that says that the studio says it's an official site under them. Are there any such citations at present? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

http://bww.cinematical.com/2007/07/05/more-viral-marketing-for-j-j-abrams-cloverfield-arrives-onli/ says the sites areviral marketing for Cloverfield as do http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Abrams-Cloverfield-Gets-Viral-5681.html , http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/news.php?id=6585 and others. do we need to wait for the studio to say 'yeah it's ours' or for some source you like to say the same thing? or should we just cite what's being reported and not worry about 'the truth'? Wikipedia is about citeability not truth so we should stick to what's being reported and not worry about what's being reported being correct. The correctness will sort itself out in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 07:07, July 6, 2007

You're misinterpreting the phrase, "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth." It means that even if it is true, it needs to be verifiable -- like you asked, about waiting for the studio to verify the sites by saying, "Yeah, they're ours." So the links you provided don't pass the litmus test. Don't worry, verifiable citations usually surface soon enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, Erik. No offense...I know you're a WikiNerd and a WikiPitBull and that's all good. You've earned the title with the great work you've done. The thing is, the sites all came out at, virtually, the same moment. The material from the bootlegged trailers and the video material from the "Ethan puzzle" site have ALL been pulled by YouTube by Paramount Pictures. Three sites are already verifying that the "Ethan" sites are linked to Cloverfield. I don't know how much more you want. Paramount is not gonna come out and just say it's linked. At this point, you might as well pull the addresses for the Ethan sites if you think they need "verifiability". I don't understand the difference between showing those addresses and writing about them on this page. That's a bit ridiculous. - TabascoMan77 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking evidence and drawing a conclusion is considered original research, and yes, that is what is going on here. The second you start saying things like, "this came out at the same time", and using that as the basis for your reasoning to include something, you are using original research. Here's the problem, if Bad Robot, or anyone connected to the film, is not actually accepting responsibility for the ads then you can not verify it. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, or speculation house, or some fansite. It's a simple policy, verifiability, which states that it's about what can be verified, not what is true. So, the idea that "if it's false, we can remove it", isn't acceptable. If it cannot be verified, then it is removed. One can verify that these things were created, but one cannot verify that they are anything more than fan advertisements, and thus not acceptable on Wikipedia. Paramount will probably eventually claim responsibility, as Warner Brothers eventually did with the viral marketing campaign with The Dark Knight, but until then, one cannot synthesize an answer based purely on speculation that it is the marketing tool of the studio.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that according to my own 'original research', that there were forums talking about the puzzle way back on June 28th. Now granted Paramount taking down Ethan Haas footage does lend credence to it being related, there's still nothing solid that I'm hoping for.--Anguirus111 13:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be on the lookout for attributable sources about these sites. Like Bignole told me, the viral marketing campaign can be a cause for a headache when it comes to attribution on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If Paramount took down Ethan Haas footage, why would that lend credence? I'm slightly confused on that, because I haven't seen the actual Ethan stuff, but I don't see a reason why Paramount would want to "erase" something if they are using it for marketing. If Paramount removes something, or any studio for that matter, it usually means people didn't have permission to publish it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

same reason they are going after trailers of the movie published online. It means they have the rights to the video's and are linked to them.harlock_jds 14:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Note we are talking about the video's showing up on you tube not the video's on the site itself... that's why it leads credenceharlock_jds 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Paramount pulling the glyph material from YouTube is part of the marketing campaign. This makes the material hard to find, and thus gets people talking about it. The fact that Paramount is pulling stuff implies that they are the owners of the content, and thus ipso facto are responsible for the Ethan Haas websites, from where the glyph material allegedly originates. There are many entries on Wikipedia that have claimed verifiability using similar justification. This kind of viral marketing will appear with increasing frequency as it becomes more popular. We need to be aware that while producers of such marketing campaigns may not claim responsibility for them from the outset, we need to look at the correlating evidence. It's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, applied to media. James Knevitt 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is original research. You are suggesting that we look at the "evidence" and draw a conclusions. First, it's circumstantial evidence at best. Second, it's against Wikipedia policy. Truth is irrelevant on Wikipedia, as this is about verifiability. One can verify that Paramount pulled the YouTube footage. One can verify that that Ethan has a site about the film. What cannot be verified is the connectedness of the two. There is no reliable sources (at this time) that state Paramount has officiall stated that this is their marketing technique. There are sources that are doing what you are suggesting, but that isn't verifiable per Wikipedia's policy criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

it is verifiable according to wikipedia standards as long as you consider the websites reporting it reliable. I guess that's the debatable pointharlock_jds 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

The movie sites are not reliable enough to take unofficial information at face value. If they cover interviews and set visits, that's public information and not based on an "inside contact", which cannot be verifiable. Obviously, if a site interviews J.J. Abrams, who talks about the viral marketing campaign, that would be attributable. However, this is about an interpreted perspective, and it may not even be notable in the mainstream media. Movie sites, while informative, are a poor gauge for the relevance of reported information. If newspaper sites address the viral marketing sites, that would be considered an entry in the public sphere and notable enough to mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood's a weird place, it's still original research to assume that them allowing one place to have the video and not another is verifiable evidence that they are marketing it that way. Like I said on The Dark Knight, it doesn't have to do with whether I believe it is true or not, because I beleived the TDK marketing was true, but whether it can be verified....which it cannot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

we have plenty of reliable sources linking these sites to the movie... why doesn't this meet the verifiability? I can see it being OR before sources started publishing the link but now it doesn't seem like it would be OR. is it a issue with the sites that would be cited?harlock_jds 14:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because one has to do research on the sources. Are they saying Paramount accepted responsibility for the ads, or are they making they same assumptions that we are? If it's the former, then I don't think we would be having this conversation to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

i don't think it matters and isn't covered under verifiability criteria of wikipedia if it was then ANY source could be called unsutable harlock_jds 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to say "site x, y and z" (so long as they are reliable sites) "have reported that ..." Then source them. Corvus cornix 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that we cannot come to a consensus regarding inclusion of the Ethan Haas material as "film canon" in this article. Is it possible that the material could be cited in another, seperate artivle as either the work of fan(s) or a potential Alternate reality game? James Knevitt 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One cannot create an article specifically for it, because it would fail notability guidelines. If this Ethan person has a article, it could be mentioned there, just as 42 Entertainment was the only place that mentioned The Dark Knight advertising (as they were ones doing it) before Warner Brothers admitted to it being part of their gimmick. But since it appears that Ethan Haas is a character for the film, and since the film isn't out his notability cannot be established enough to warrant an article, I would say that the information is stuck in limbo until something reliable is available.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

i love bees (and the new ARG for halo 3) have separate articles... why not this?harlock_jds 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not over there, and other things existing isn't a reason to create or delete anything. Please provide me with a link to them, so that I can see if they even warrant an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I Love Bees and Iris (game)harlock_jds 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The first one is verifiable because it won awards, but the second one's notability is obviously questionable. There don't seem to be any solid, attributable sources for that one. Might want to pursue deletion of that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(EC)The first one, though unsourced is irrelevant now, because Halo 2 has been out for years. It's a pretty developed article, but there isn't a single source in there, which is a problem. The second has already been tagged for notability concerns, and could probably be deleted soon if they are not addressed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's gonna help me, but I have a question. I went to the ethanhaaswasright site, and it won't load up. is this part of the site, and there's something I need to do for it to load up, or what? One Fried Egg 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably just need to update your flash player. But this isn't the place to be asking questions like this. You should ask this on an open forum, which the box at the top says this ain't. Anyway good luck.--Anguirus111 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my formatting or nettiquite is lacking on this post (as from a beginner's standpoint, the amount to read up on to ensure that my methods are proper seems quite daunting to me), but I will do my best. My concerns are about the validity of TabascoMan's 5th axiom on this topic, namely that the parasitemovie website can be linked to the trailer. I would agree, that if this is true, then it is very safe to say that some official link between the trailer, the parasitemovie site, and the ethan site exists. In fact, I would say that's pretty much irrefutable evidence - it's the same as any trailer making it's official site known - parasitemovie.com becomes as official as 1-18-08.com.

The problem is that I don't believe that this is the case. When I saw it today for the first time (and was given prior warning to look for such a thing) the only website given was the one based on the release date. In fact, I've seen several illegal camera versions of the trailer today - none of them had anything about parasitemovie.com - they all either went to the next trailer, or the start of the film. I could provide links to these trailers if necessary, but I'm not sure how appropriate that would be, and they will probably be taken down soon anyway.

Without that direct line of reference, I feel the rest of the circumstantial evidence does not meet wikipedia's criteria (or even less strict criterias) of validity. Yookaloco 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This is Yookaloco again, writing, in part, because since making the previous statement, I appear to be able to edit the article. Instead of doing so, however, I would feel more comfortable proposing my changes before more expieranced wikie contributors who might nullify my changes.

I feel, considering what I recently wrote about the ethan hass page, it would be best if the article mention a possible correlation to the ethan site and the parasitemovie site - but also mention that this is currently a point of contraversy, in a field that is extremely hard to verify (viral marketing).

So it would look something like this.

There has been speculation on various internet sites, including Ain't It Cool News and Forbes.com, that several web sites that have recently appeared are part of a viral marketing campaign for the Cloverfield film, including 1-18-08.com and ethanhaaswasright.com. While 1-18.08.com given by the trailer as the official site (and contains photos that appear to be of actors in the trailer), the connection to ethanhasswasright.com is currently coincidental at best

And then maybe we could mention the other four points that TobaccoMan made, so that people could decide for themselves. What do we think? Yookaloco 03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

www.parasitemovie.com does not show up in the trailer and is run by http://www.tossinggames.com/. prob someone cashing in on this thingharlock_jds 11:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The following is included the page source for parasitemovie.com: src="http://www.sledriding.com/cloverfield.html" (an exact copy of the page) <title>The Parasite Movie - Codename Cloverfield </title> content="2008 Monster Movie by JJ Abrams."><META name="keywords" content="Cloverfield, Parasite, Movie, 1-18-08, JJ Abrams, Monster, 12:36am, Paramount"> Socby19 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19

And, the following is on the sledriding.com/cloverfield.html page source: August 1st, 2007 12:36 AM Reveal ....... Project Cloverfield being hosted on unrelated site per EH. Socby19 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19

I think we all appreciate the effort, but unfortunately, that doesn't really prove anything. I can go make a page with all of that it the source right now. More than likely, the sledriding/tossinggame guy did so as soon as he saw the trailer, and realized he could get web traffic with all the interest in the viral campaign. All of the parasite movie stuff has been confirmed as a fake, though a fairly cleverly executed one. Yookaloco 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm looking for a lesson in wiki sourcing and citations, but this bothers me. We can't cite aintitcoolnews.com because it is an unreliable source (which I agree with). On the other hand, once a legit news source simply reports the unsubstantiated theory that was written on aintitcoolnews, then we can report that info as "verifiable"? Is this really how wiki policies are written?Gwynand 18:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

USA Today is reporting Harry Knowles theories for this movie, not making statements of fact. Why are we interpreting that as a statement of fact then reporting it here as such?Gwynand 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording does not explicitly say that the reporter based the validity of the site on Ain't It Cool News, just that the founder formed theories based on the puzzle websites. Considering USA Today as an attributable source, we can't dissect the criteria that the reporter followed to cover this film. The reporter has more credentials than you or me or someone posting on a movie site not in the public sphere. There's no valid reason to assume that the reporter just looked at AICN, sat down, and typed everything based on one mentioned source, where there could be others. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording isn't explicit... also I won't insist my interpretation is correct. I like how you worded in article that it is what USA Today reported. We can't be too far off from some more reliable info on this film. Gwynand 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm hoping that more official sources are forthcoming. Viral marketing campaigns have been very testing in terms of applying Wikipedia's attribution policy -- what should be said, how much should be said? Should we risk promotion of fake sites? The Dark Knight had a campaign to reveal the Joker, and Watchmen might have one with a character's online journal... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to confirm that "www.1-18-08.com" is the "official" site. Came to this conclusion after watching the official trailer from Paramount on Apple's website. The two photos that are on the site right now are of the characters in the movie, are very professional-looking, and show two moments which are NOT in the trailer. I move to confirm that website to be declared "official". "Parasitemovie", however, is not. A games website is listed as "the sponsor" and that company has nothing to do with Paramount. I'm also of the belief that Paramount is behind the "Ethan" sites and that those are linked to this movie as well. The man in the trailer who says, "You owe me money" to the camera looks like (and sounds like) the "Van Mantra" character in the "Ethan" videos, though I could still be wrong. Tabascoman77 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

JJ denies ethan haas: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261 69.117.119.103 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. While I'm not sure if we can use it yet (something Erik said about AICN not being as reputable as the entertainment section of Forbes, USAToday, or the Star Ledger - despite the fact that they are one of the "insiders" that they regularly cite), I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone higher on the media food chain quotes AICN. 69.114.4.166 04:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC) - (Sorry, me again) - Yookaloco 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can in this case only because AICN isn't doing any actual investigating, they're just posting what JJ Abrams sent them. If AICN had gone and said that Ethan wasn't related then we'd be in a more ambiguous situation because they of course reported earlier that it was real.--Anguirus111 07:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out— a more reputable news source quoting AICN doesn't make the report more reputable... just quoted. To make a confirmation either way, we'd need them to report it on their own. For now, I think it suffices to simply present the evidence to both sides, point out that there may or may not be a connection, and wait for more official sources. Hopefully, an announcement by the studio itself at some point. --Keirberos

The Hass site is listed as "official websites" on http://www.mike-vogel.com/. Does that help? He is an actor in the movie and I would guess that he might have more inside on this than any of us.

Wow. That is extremely interesting. I don't know what to make of this. Yookaloco 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That site is hosted by fan-sites.org, and it appears that everything is put up by someone other than the actor. It is questionable if he contributes to the site at all.Gwynand 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading further through Mike Vogel's "official" site, the story is that some guy named Aaron (wouldn't it be funny if it was the same Aaron from Ain't it Cool News, that brought up the whole Ethan Haas thing?) has run the vogel site on an unofficial capacity, and then Vogel contacted him, and gave his blessing to make it official. Mike, apparently, supplies the site with merchandise for giveaways, and Mike makes small press releases through the site also. We could really use one of those now.

But yes, that is all according to the webmaster, and things like this probably have never received the scrutiny it deserves. And it is suspicious that it's hosted on fan-sotes.org. But even before all that... there is the fact that the webmaster of the offical site really doesn't know - he has a page on the site where even he admits to be confused about it. So it's still a good find, but I don't think it should be in the article, still too tenuous. Then again, I'm new at this. Yookaloco 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Official Name of the Movie

I know right now the only known code name of the movie is "Cloverfield" knowing that the name is not final and there was not title shown during the teaser. But I have come across an article on IGN saying that it also has another production name called "Slusho" which the article says it is the CURRENT Code name of the film project At this very Moment. So we would not mind if the Wiki article was changed to Cloverfield/Slusho or just Slusho or it just stays the same, do what you guys what. It just new info. I just thought that it might interest you guys. Here is the IGN Slusho Article --74.244.160.39 09:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Check your link, the page is no longer there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That article is saying the "Cloverfield" is the actual title, and "Slusho" is the codename being used so that people don't know what movie they are filming.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye Ok Just a discovery I found and no one mentioned it, like they said, the movie is being filmed in two places at the moment. In the cities of Los Angeles and New York. I am not sure if the movie is going to take place in Hollywood and New York or something like that or only just New York but lets wait and see. --74.244.160.39 10:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Older IGN Article On Cloverfield/Slusho. Has a couple of details on the production though....Sound pretty nice. Older IGN Cloverfield/Slusho Article --74.244.160.39 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

I was looking online and found this, this is speculation but since you guys are talking about it thought I should post it. I didnt write any of this.

I just read on IGN.com that the new “fake” name for this abrams thing is called “Slusho” which is a reference to the Slurpee type drink on Alias.

BUT, I did a google search of Slusho, and I got a couple of postings in a site about something called Project Serpo, which is supposed to be a real life accounting of….

This site is intended to facilitate the gradual release of confidential documents pertaining to a top secret exchange program of twelve US military personnel to Serpo, a planet of Zeta Reticuli, between the years 1965-78.

In posting 7, the soldiers while exploring come “Lush green fields were found containing a form of grass, but contained bulbs. The Team coined these fields, “Clover Fields,” even though the bulbs were not clover.”

I also just found out that the Roswell crash occurred on July 2, but has now been widely accepted as July 4th…..so that could possibly mean that it was July 3rd….the date of the trailer showing. I know I’m weird, but so is JJ Abrams.

Ok, now more on Roswell……..On the banner, the last four letters are well, and the last three letters are Rob. Put’em together……Rob-Well…..I’d like a closer look at that last letter because if that bottom of the b isn’t closed, it could be perceived as an s.

There were according to Project Serpo actually two crash sites, although the second was not discovered until AUGUST. Strange that we won’t get a 2nd dose of Van Mantra until August, eh?

And the person gave two sites to check out http://www.serpo.org/index.asp and then the site where I found Slusho (a term some use to mock Serpo) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread211108/pg9

This might be nothing but thought I share itRosario lopez 06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the HTML code of the Ethan Haas sites. Consider the Lovecraftian quality of the name, 'Ethan Haas'. Apply your own sensibility to draw a more than reasonable conclusion based on the circumstantial evidence.

It looks like this may be be a "Call of Cthulhu" film. Or, at least, a film that features Cthulhu.

While I don't feel that this information reflects the Official Name of The Movie , I have heard from enough sources to feel that it may be worth mentioning that the code/test name for the movie has been changed to Slusho. I believe there may have been something relatively verifiable mentioned on the imdb.com boards for the film (yes, yes, I know how bad they are... but one person linked to an article somewhere else that sounded pretty well done) and on 1-18-08.livejournal.com.

Yookaloco 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out the trailer is now up on Apple.com, with the release date as the title (01-18-08) - SPKx 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tricky... I would suggest sitting on the film title as Cloverfield for now. I'm going to set up a redirect from 1-18-08 to here (if it doesn't exist already). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

one thing i saw on a thread concerning SLUSHO they have a website http://www.slusho.jp check it out, it doesnt seem like a normal Japanese website to me......

Hand-held camera?

Who says the whole movie will be shot with a handheld camera? Sure, the trailer was, but the reference article just speculates about the possibility of the whole movie being done the same way. - Nubby 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's fixed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, ethanhaaswaswrong.com, which is more than likely a part of the viral marketing for the film, considering the evidence, claims that the movie will be shot entirely by people in the city, on their own personal recording devices. Fun fact. Doesn't make it true, though.--Tman930 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Premise

The Hollywood Reporter says, "Cloverfield, which revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people, is being produced by J.J. Abrams." There's no ambiguity about the premise. It's based on a completely attributable source and should not be edited to be vague without attributable reasoning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I stepped on one of your edits by accident, and removed that from the intro, which you then restored. My bad. I didn't intend to do that; you're right that the source is explicit on that point. I'm re-inserting the ref where KP put the fact tag in the scriptless secret casting, though. Georgewilliamherbert 19:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How come, though? The whole paragraph is based on the one reference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because someone called it into question... it's easier to insert the reference in the middle when a specific item is questioned, and just be done with it. If it later becomes clearly settled and nobody would think to question, it can be cleaned up, but sometimes it's easier to over-reference to address reliability questions. Georgewilliamherbert 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire Hollywood Reporter article is pure speculation. How is that a solid source?

I don't know where to put this so Ill put it here. Looking at the article it only says it was being filmed in New York but nothing in Los Angeles. IGN has been or received emails of people who been on the scene themselves to prove that there is filming going on not only in New York city

From IGN

We received an email this morning with the details of a public notice of filming posted last week in downtown Los Angeles that illuminates a few details about the production. The notice states that a Paramount Pictures movie using the name "Slusho" was filming last week in several downtown locations during the late afternoon to early morning hours. Here's a description of the scene:

"Exterior dialogue. Driving scenes. Occasional traffic & pedestrian control. Camera & equipment on sidewalk, street and property. 200 extras. Military vehicles. Destruction aftermath. Weapons brandished. Emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Exterior dialogue on fire escape on 8th floor." It's Alive: 1-18-08

I don't know if anyone missed it or not but its been bugging me that Los Angeles has been left out. --74.244.160.39 00:43 EST, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Viral marketing

To revisit this matter, USA Today and a Forbes blog have mentioned EthanHaasWasRight.com as one of Paramount's sites. There's no mention of ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com, so that site should stay excluded until further notice. None of the other sites, such as 1-18-08.com or parasitemovie.com, have been mentioned, either. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York magazine says, "We've found a seemingly affiliated Website, 1.18.08.com. Let the viral hype begin!" Is this attributable enough to report verifiable speculation? Just putting the information out here... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To the editor who replaced the above coverage with Ain't It Cool News, please be reminded that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. While there is reason to doubt the multiple movie sites' coverage of Paramount's viral marketing, there is no reason to doubt major sources like USA Today and Forbes. One cannot "challenge" the validity of the information by assuming that it's known where the website information came from. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the editor that mentioned the Ain't it Cool News lead. Actually, that is only half true, since by citing the USAToday article, you did too. As I mentioned in my revision, The AICN link is mentioned as the source of the USAToday article. And the USAToday reporter neglects to mention that Harry Knowles report is only a rumor. There is no verifiabilty in the USAToday process, they seem to be getting caught up in the viral marketing hype if their source is saying to take it only as a rumor. The totally uncited Forbes blog article merely repeats the unverified hype. I have no problem with this content's inclusion, but one has to remember that just because a somewhat reputable media outlet echoes the rumors that it has heard, this does not solidify the information, unless they mention inside sources, or have hard traceable evidence, such as IP addresses, domain registrations, screenshots or video.

The forbes article and the USA Today article do not meet wikipedia's standards as verifiable content, unless it is noted that they are rumor, or unless the content focuses on the effect the marketing is having at this point. Yookaloco 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

USA Today operates on stronger attribution and editorial oversight being a mainstream newspaper. We as the editors shouldn't dissect how valid the coverage is. It doesn't explicitly say that the validity of the Paramount site was drawn from AICN, just that the AICN founder's theory is based on them, with the USA Today reporter mentioning one of them. In addition, the Forbes blog is not a blog in the conventional sense -- it is coverage provided by a reporter for the company. It's not a personal blog, but a company-level blog, like MTV Movies Blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your claim that the article doesn't explicitly say that the validity of the Paramount site was drawn from AICN. I believe if one carefully reads the paragraphs that begin "On the web" and "His theory", you see that the origin of Paramount's involvement in the Haas sites is limited to Knowles self-admitted (though this admittance is on the AICN page) baseless theory. I feel it is written in a way that is intentionally easy to overlook. But if you really study it, the trail goes from Mr. Brezican, back to Knowles, back to some guy named "Aaron", who e-mailed Knowles.

I will admit, I know less about the credibility practices wikipedia has towards news outlets. But I do know that in recent years, there is alot more grey area between the credibilty of entertainment journalism in sub-sections of a publication (or it's website).. and that of tabloid-esque publications like The Enquirer, Pravda, and The Star. All I'm saying is that maybe we should wait until we have something solid. I hope we can have more views on this matter. Yookaloco 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the 1-18-08 site, I wouldn't consider this verifiable because of the publication (Even the author itself isn't certain, why should we consider it verifiable? Unless we say "This author suggests it MAY be connected, or something to that effect").

However, I definitely think the 1-18-08 is the official site, and should be hailed as such, because the content on the site has a domain registration record (and I believe the flash data) which predates the trailer by many months. And that content is easily verifiable as being from the film (pictures of the actors, and party room of the movie set). Yookaloco 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

About 1-18-08.com, I wouldn't contest a mention of it with the wording that it "may" be part of Paramount's campaign. However, we can't "verify" it ourselves by looking up the domain registration record -- it's original research to investigate rumors ourselves. We need sources and references that cover the validity of this site. We don't go out to prove something to be true; we need to present independent evidence that it's been proven to be true or false.

In regard to the whole article, I'm sure that the article will continue changing toward a higher level of attribution. Viral marketing campaigns are tricky, as I've dealt with a couple the past two months, and it's a fairly gray area in terms of attribution. However, it's just better to cite sources like USA Today because it's part of broader coverage and has editorial oversight, as opposed to movie sites that obviously seek to generate traffic by covering anything and everything about a curious project like this one. I guess I'd dub the attention by USA Today to be sort of awareness in the public sphere, outside of just Internet-focused movie sites. If more information surfaces, we can update accordingly. It's a heck of an approach Paramount's doing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:13, 9 July 2007

In regards to this topic, I think it would be better to continue it in the topic who's title references Ethan. It already addresses the Ethan controversy, and I would be surprised if other users will think to two places for the one topic. I will post there shortly. Yookaloco 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Time Out mentions, "A seemingly official website has sprung up at www.ethanhaaswasright.com, though with its puzzles, questions and riddles, this seeming Maguffin only serves to further muddy the water." This could cancel out USA Today if that's desired. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I freely admit that I'm a novice editor, and I haven't done all the reading on this. But considering citing an article from timeout.com that calls the Haas site "seemingly" official seems to blatantly contradict the verification of content policy. Everything that was said earlier to refute the articles from cinematicalblend.com and ropeofsilicon.com also pertains to this.

Also, just thought I would point out that the possibilities that this might be Voltron or Godillza are, in fact, nigh-impossible. Paramount would have to had acquired the rights months, probably years ago - and for that to have happened, and absolutely no one have heard about it - I think that's totally unprecedented.

Let me revise this. Even though Voltron is currently licensed to Paramount, they also apparently have the production at least partiall staffed, and moving forward. They have an imdb entry that has had different named affiliated with that project for some time. So it's unlikely, but not impossible.

I will retract what I said earlier though, it does appear that Brezican is claiming that Paramount is behind Haas. I think the fact that he isn't shouting from the heavens that he has a source means he has none, and is simply making reports based on all the other unfounded reports, or misinterpretations... but I recognize that his probable mistake isn't for wikipedia editors to challenge. Yookaloco 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The Star Ledger says, "The seemingly official Web site, www.1-18-08.com, displays pixilated snapshots of people who may or may not be characters from the movie. Elsewhere on the Internet, there's www.ethanhaaswasright.com, a page that contains creepy puzzles, hidden messages and haunting ambient noises. A report on Ain't-it-Cool-News.com states the site is connected to the film, but a spokeswoman from Paramount said she is unfamiliar with the URL address." This is giving me a headache... it's impossible to verify anything 100% at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to venture a stronger rewrite of the Marketing section to reflect that Paramount has said nothing, and to mention both ethanhaaswasright.com and 1-18-08.com as purported sites in mainstream media, even though they may be false. Would that be acceptable? It would better reflect that nothing can be certain about this project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To chime in here, I had the same issue with the USA Today article as Yookaloco did... really appears that the sentence in the article is poorly worded and he isn't making it explicit that he is just reporting rumor. However, considering there is this new info disputing a Paramount relationship with the site, would it not be prudent to leave this "fact" out about the ethanhaas site? I wouldn't mind leaving the decision up to you, Erik, but I think the info is unsubstantiated.Gwynand 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my question is, if the mainstream media mentions the sites but says they are not confirmed to be official, do the sites warrant mention? Or should we just be vague and mention the websites without explicitly naming any, just including what newspapers' online sources have said about the content (i.e., puzzles)? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine to keep the sites in. I believe that they are related and eventually this will be verifiable, the fact that they are mentioned in mainstream media helps a bit. I guess I would say that as long as it is not reported as a statement of fact that Paramount released them or that they are definitely related to the film at all, then it is ok. The fact that there is starting to be a large association of the sites with the film is itself encyclopedic info that we can attribute to sources, if it turns out in the future there was no official association, then that can be added to the page, as opposed to "correcting" prior info reported here. Gwynand 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also feel it is fine to keep the existance of any and all of these sites in the article. And as a matter of principle, when it appears that the press is making speculation the subject of the report (EX: "There is speculation that something is so, but it isn't yet confirmed"), then the wikipedia article should say something similar. If the work cited is reporting on speculation, the article should say "there is speculation that". If the best source out there sre the unfounded, but experienced theories of an expert, we should say "experts believe", or something.

I feel it is both verifiable and true that this is a convuluted matter, and that there are good reasons to think EHWR is the real deal, and good reasons to mention that no one has done a proper job in verifying exactly what it is. The two cited articles, in combination with our current climate of journalism ("Attributable sources" more frequently failing to do adequete research before going public with a story, as with Vince McMahon's "death" or the Dan Rather incident), and the fact that no one has said outright "anonymous sources close to Paramount claim EHWR is part of the marketing campaign" make it quite reasonable to think that the media is in the same place the rest of us are - in the dark about this particular issue.

Sorry if that last bit was cumbersome. My comments on the rewrite will be more productive. 71.249.199.168 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) - Yookaloco 20:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

To minimize edits on the mainspace, I'm placing my proposed rewrite here to be evaluated by others so we can make sure that it addresses proper sources and Wikipedia's policies.

Rewrite

Following the teaser's release, USA Today reported the hype among moviegoers regarding the lack of title in its screening and the background of the film itself. Paramount was also reported to have published puzzle websites such as EthanHaasWasRight.com in a viral marketing campaign to promote the film. Based on the sites, the film was speculated to be about Cthulhu, due to the puzzles possessing Lovecraftian themes. Other reported speculation included a new Godzilla film or a Lost TV spin-off. A Paramount spokesperson said that the studio was unfamiliar with the URL of the Ethan Haas Was Right website. The Star Ledger also reported the "seemingly official" website www.1-18-08.com to have pixilated snapshots of people possibly from the film. Paramount sources have refrained from any comment with the media about the film.

---

---

Let me know what you think. Feel free to edit accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've gone ahead and imported it to be bold. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel this takes us 90% of the way there. I don't think it does quite enough to call into question the contested nature EHWR's involvement with Paramount, but I can't come up with anything better right now. Yookaloco 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a site that I feel we can use as a better source for 1-18-08.com - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21748 . By the way, this claim made for the validity and predating of the content on 1-18-08.com cannot be made for any Haas site, from what I have read. Granted, I read them from less reputible sources, and people doing their own original investigation - still, I feel that a source of reknown is going to mention shortly that the Ethan Haas sites cannot be verified as Paramount at this time, based on better investigation than alot of professional journalists have done. Yookaloco 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Some images?

Now that the trailer is freely available on Apple.com, perhaps we could use some screencaps to illustrate the article? I'm not sure what all the rules about images are though. ShadowUltra 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if using images with such sparse content at this point would meet fair use guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering if a screencap of the Statue's head could be used in the article The Statue of Liberty in popular culture, because an image of each occurence is in the article. ShadowUltra 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Slusho Site?

The Slusho logo is clearly seen in the trailer on a shirt. Shouldn't the site, http://www.slusho.jp/index.html be in included in the links? 141.211.174.38 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it is seen on a shirt in the trailer? No.Gwynand 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also a product in ALIAS, seen in a shot on 1-18-08.com, and the 'history' on the site is rather compelling in light of the trailer. But since it hasn't been reported on and cited in a dozen spots, may as well let it wait a bit.75.45.240.98 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)MD

Based on what I've learned in the last 24 hours here (and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting it), while all that you mention is almost certainly true, it's at a tough stage as far as verifiability right now. Right now, what you know about slusho.jp and the t-shirt is through either hearsay/internet buzz, or independant research. Neither of those is enough. When some fairly respected media source repeats what we know about this in the next 48 hours, then we can post it, with a citation.

Until then, I'm not even sure if we can mention it. Maybe we can, if it's limited to something like "There are unconfirmed reports that a japanese hosted website slusho.jp is the latest site created by Paramount's marketing team for this movie, based on the logo on a characters shirt, and the reports of the trailers for film production being marked as for this product, and that the product is actually a fictious imitation of the slurpee, mentioned in Alias...." (obviously, it would read much easier than that). Maybe we can do that. Then again, maybe that is too close to furthering speculation, which is contradictory to the verification guideline. I honestly don't know. Better to wait until someone else confirms it... which should be very soon, anyway. Yookaloco 17:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time to put the Slusho site up as one of the official links. The shirt on one of the actors has the EXACT same logo as the Slusho website and the Slusho site (for as long as it claims to have been around) has a fairly empty site. The "online store" doesn't even have any listings on it yet. According to SlashFilm, Slusho went online a week before the trailer aired. Link is here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/07/09/confirmed-slushojp-is-a-cloverfield-viral-website/. Tabascoman77 10:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and mention it. The fact that a site for an otherwise meaningless product from a TV series was made a week before this trailer is too suspicious. ShadowUltra 17:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOURCE. While there is a solid chance that this is an official site, putting up simply because of coincedences and conjecture is clearly against policy. We need to verify people. Wait until it is verified. We were in the same boat yesterday with the Ethan Haas stuff.Gwynand 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I totally disagree. This isn't like the Ethan Haas stuff which has a loose, unverifiable connection. The Slusho site was put up a week before the trailer, a character in the trailer is wearing a Slusho shirt, and JJ Abrams is linked to "Slusho" due to his featuring the drink in his show, Alias. There is no reason this cannot be put up. Abrams is going for "the mysterious" thing for all these sites. It needs to be listed. At least mark it as a "purported site".

On another note, I understand the whole argument in favor of waiting to "verify" this stuff but there needs to be some special exception to the rule when it comes to mysterious viral marketing, a trend that is only going to increase with the popularity it's showing with LOST and CLOVERFIELD. Not all viral marketing can be verified which means that you need to have a list of "confirmed" sites and "purported" sites. We don't work for a newspaper, we don't have some editor to report to. I'm sick of this whole "we-have-to-wait-and-see" thing. Tabascoman77 11:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia is not for you? 216.26.131.217 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, read WP:NOR. If you have issues with policies, discuss it elsewhere, not on articles. This was earlier referenced for you to look at on this talk page.I agree it can be frustrating on future movie sites, but we cannot do research ourselves, or link to blogs who do research, then use this as a base for putting info in this article. It is essentially the basis of what Wikipedia is. There is no exception to the rule in this case.Gwynand 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I don't understand: you won't list Slusho because you somehow "do not know" it's linked to the movie...yet it is linked to the movie. A character IN THE TRAILER is clearly seen wearing a SLUSHO shirt...SUDDENLY, there's website for Slusho, a FAKE PRODUCT which exists ONLY in AbramsLand. The site is incredibly professional complete with music and animated Flash characters and the like...yet, you WILL list AICN's HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE ARTICLE about JJ Abrams writing to Harry Knowles (of all people) and dismissing Ethan Haas as a website. Knowing Knowles' over-the-top ego, I don't take Knowles at his word and that article has yet to be confirmed as "truth". Just because Knowles said it, does not make it so, yet you believe him...and won't believe any other source REPORTING THAT SLUSHO IS A CONFIRMED VIRAL SITE.

I mean, do you see the problem with this? Tabascoman77 11:32 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Im really trying to WP:AGF, I hope you will to. Please read WP:NOR, I don't think we are over that hurdle yet in this discussion. Secondly, show me a single source to an even remotely legit site stating at least some theory that the slusho site is related. The earlier website isn't even close. Wikipedia itself cannot be the major source for this theory, do you understand that? On another note, I am trying to do the best I can with this page. I did not myself include the AICN info, and personally think it is questionable having it there at all, but at worst it is better than us doing original research, and Knowles claims to have info from Abrams directly.Gwynand 18:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you like throwing policies at us, here's one for you: WP:IAR. Everything is considered on a case-by-case basis. ShadowUltra 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I hate dealing with Wikipedia. Everyone's so anal. I'm sorry, Gwynand. Maybe you didn't hear ME. I already know the policies. I don't have to look at them. What you don't seem to realize is that the drink site IS a part of the campaign. I don't know how else to convince you short of showing you the picture of cast-member Mike Vogul wearing the Slusho shirt complete with the Slusho cup on it and the Slusho lettering. If you're too stubborn to see it, it ain't my problem, anymore. Have fun updating and let's hope your words are sweet because you'll be eating them later when this turns out to be a real site. Tabascoman77 11:58 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is likely that the site is part of the campaign, as I stated earlier. I think it is also likely that we will soon be able to verify this and put it on the page. As it stands, it is just theory and original research. Our argument, I feel, has become inexplicably hostile, going as far as me deleting a personal outright hostile attack posted by someone not already in the converstation. I haven't been revert warring with anyone, other than a vandal, over the past hour or so. While your research may have convinced me personally that the sites are linked... it is not verifiable and therefore unencyclopedic.Gwynand 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the Chuck Norris BS and that's annoying...but getting back to this, by your rationalé, the news about "Abrams writing Knowles" is hardly verifiable either unless Knowles became the Voice of God in the last 24 hours, yet THAT is there. I love the logic: a fake item existing in Abrams's Universe shows up at the same time as the trailer, looking ultra-professional, and ends up showing itself in the trailer. That gets no play. HARRY KNOWLES SPEAKS...and claims that he somehow got a letter from Abrams when Abrams hasn't said WORD ONE to any other source and nobody even QUESTIONS Knowles...and you guys eat it up. I don't see the logic there. I'm sorry, I don't. That's just idiotic. Tabascoman77 12:17 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure why this is so tense. I haven't reverted any of your edits. We are discussing inclusion of the site, I offered my opinion backed up with wikipedia policies. This has turned into an issue of policy and other content in the article. If you feel the page needs to be changed to exclue any info about Knowles and his report, I am not stopping you. Gwynand 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the news about Knowles needs deletion or that it needs to be excluded. It's worth mentioning...but it needs to have the words, "purportedly" and "apparently" added until it can be confirmed. There is a fairly good chance right now that the game ALPHA OMEGA by Mindstorm Labs is behind the whole Ethan Haas thing...but we don't know that either. Tabascoman77 12:43 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen guys, I don't think there is anyone here who does not believe that the Slusho site is an official part of the marketing campaign. I believe it, and Gwynand seems to also. The disagreement stems from whether it meets the verifiability criteria right now. Because those screenshots aren't from a "attritbutable source", we can't use them right now. Once someone a little higher up on the validity totem pole makes this discovery, we can use it. That will probably be in the next few hours, a day tops. Wikipedia's policies are designed to make sure that they are very careful about printing information hastily. There is a consensus to err on the side of caution - that is why the rules are the way they are. Yes, we'll be "scooped" by media outlets and blogs. Wikipedia is fine with that.

Here is another example. As soon as I saw the trailer, I knew Lizzy Kaplan was in it. I love her work on The Class. I was very excited. However, on my positive ID alone, even if the HD trailer is out, I could not have added her to the cast. Even if seven blogs have screenshots of her face from the trailer, and it seems obvious that it is her, I could not have added her at that point, according to the rules. Only when it showed up on imdb, or her personal official site, or Variety is it verifiable.

I'll say now what I said before. Everything out there right now is either original investigation, or comes from sources that are not credible enough to use if we are adhering to the rules. Simply because you can rightly say "Look at the picture, the connection is obvious", does not mean it meets the standards that were set after many people went through many similar experiences.

And I wholeheartedly agree that "purportedly" should precede the whole Knowles claim. Personally, I think he's credible enough to cite, especially when he goes as far as to claim outright that it was, in fact, JJ, and he had no doubt. There are times when he speculates, but careful readers should be able to tell when he's on the record, and when he's just teasing ideas. But other, more experienced editors than me did not agree, so I default to their judgment, because they've been through this before, and as long as false info doesn't get passed along, it doesn't bother me that wikipedia can't keep up with other sites, because I don't feel that it is meant to compete with them. Yookaloco 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to 1-18-08 you can see, in one of the pictures, the man in the front holding the glass is wearing a Slusho shirt. Is that the same man in the trailer?

Yes, that's the same guy as in the trailer. Here's the thing...and as one of my favorite radio hosts says on his morning show, "Look at me and look at me good", I agree with your asessment of the situation as far as what should be added and when...for the most part. But I don't see how one could look at the trailer, see his or her favorite actor/actress in the film, and then come to the conclusion that they can't verify that they're in the movie. That just defies reason. I could understand it if Lizzy Kaplan was blurred and surrounded by water like the Loch Ness Monster, but she's not. She's there, in the trailer. This would lead one to verify that she is, in fact, IN THE MOVIE. If I saw Robert DeNiro in a teaser for a movie but the movie didn't state that DeNiro was in it, I would know that DeNiro is, in fact, in the movie. Trailers can be used as a credible source.

As far as the Knowles thing goes, I don't completely trust everything he says. I'm glad that the statement was changed. It needed to be. Anybody could have written Knowles, saying what Abrams said. It's funny because I read what "Abrams" said in the letter to Knowles and the writing style doesn't match anything that Abrams has said in the past. I also love its conveniently "kiss-ass" tone in the beginning of the letter when it says, "Dear Sir, thanks for your support on my movie, etc". Who are we kidding here? Abrams has been VERY secretive about the whole thing, letting out nothing and then, out of the blue, he decides he's just gotta drop Knowles (NOT Variety, NOT Hollywood Reporter, NOT any other entertainment magazine, HARRY KNOWLES) a line to say, "1-18-08.com" is real and "Ethan Haas" is not? It's just so obviously suspicious and nobody questioned it.

Lastly, I'm still not sold on the notion that Ethan Haas has nothing to do with the whole thing. I realize that it may look like Mindstorm Labs is cooking up a new game and Ethan Haas is a teaser for that game but Paramount ripped the Van Mantra videos down off YouTube (something they had no business doing if they didn't own the material) and the game was created at the same time the teaser came out. Right now, I would list it among "purported official sites" and take it down later if it isn't one. Oh, and the "Slusho" site REALLY needs to be added as an official site. Tabascoman77 14:43 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I added it, stating that slashFilm is reporting it as confirmed. That is factual and verifiable, which conforms to wiki standards. That's the same way edits were made to the Virginia Tech story as it was happening, and they were allowed to stand. The article is not stating that the Slusho site is in fact part of the viral campaign, but that a film site is stating it, based on the t-shirt in the trailer. Jeffpw 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed how it was put in.... I would like for someway for this info to get in there, but not that way. First of all... slashdot is a BLOG site. Its motto is something like 'blogging for the reel world'. The beginning of the blog we are citing (why are we citing a blog in the first place) states "The Slusho.jp site seems to be a legit part of the Cloverfield viral marketing campaign.", then it goes on to show the bloggers' research of.... watching the trailer and commenting on the history of slusho. Nothing from Abrams or Paramount or anything legit. Gwynand 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with this general point, I think it is important to note that we can fully expect to have to operate without any first-hand confirmation in this sort of advertising campaign. For Abrams or Paramount reps to go on record about any of this stuff means that it's either months old and everyone knows, or is heading in the wrong direction (like the Ethan Haas stuff probably was). Confirmation from the source of every little detail would defeat the point, taking out the mystery of the whole campaign, and Abrams isn't going to do that. I think this is more about how credible we believe slashfilm to be.

So with our luck, some random variety or WENN writer is going to cite slashfilms, adding "verifiability" to it, and then we can cite that guy. Yookaloco 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Yookaloco. I'm not insisting on something straight from Paramount of Abrams, but it simply can't be from a blog, something that openly admits it is a blog. I think that the quality of this page, if it is susceptible to reporting supposed sites one day, taking them out the next when they are exposed as bogus, rinse and repeat, is bad. I know someone going around talking about Ethanhaaswasright because he read it on wikipedia, and doesnt check for changes every two hours. I think if people here understand that we are fully prepared to be 'behind the ball' when it comes to movie rumors, because this is in fact an encyclopedia, then there wouldnt be as many disagreements. The slashdot blog was very interesting, but that kind of conjecture and analysis has no place here... in many ways that stuff is for the blogging world.Gwynand 13:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Yookaloco and Gwynand. You're both clearly on top of things in this case. Good work! I'll keep finding headlines. I just found that a Guardian Unlimited reporter referred to Wikipedia about the film's "title" being Cloverfield, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the movie except one of the people in it wears a shirt. That is all it is. There nothing else on the site to hint towards it being involved with the movie. It is just something JJ Abrams seems to like adding to stuff since he also had it in Alias. I wouldn't be surpirsed if it is brought up in Lost also. Just so he can say everything he makes is connected. Did anyone every think of that.

"Slusho" redirects to this movie on IMDb --Lip uploader 06:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's have another look at this. the comment was made about how someone can view a trailer and not say actor X is in the trailer. Yes, you sure can. Can you come to wikipedia and claim the individual is "starring" in the movie? No. You can say actor X is wearing a slusho shirt. You can say there is a slusho website. Do you have some secret information that indicates this is actually part of the marketing? No. Even if you did, if you can't source it, you can't use it. The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. WP:V. Blogs do not pass WP:V unless the article is about the owner of the blog and your'e citing information about the owner, which is not the case here.--Crossmr 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

would this be considered a good source? http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=73653 it links the slusho site to the movie via a source involved in the movie. It's also a NBC news station in CO.

Let's see if I understand this correctly. It stated at the beginning of the article that Slusho might be a working title. Slusho redirects to this article. The only logo for Slusho ever seen is in the trailer. The site is up a week before the trailer with no content an JJ Abrams says that there might be other sites out there and you ass hats won't even let it be mentioned as unconfirmed?--75.164.6.43 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found that the 'site' has an AIM adress, slushozoom. I had an interesting conversation with it. I kept repeting phrases such as slushozoom and 'that is yet to be determined'. It later told me that it wasnt related to the project.Firesun 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cthulhu

Is a (2007) film, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_%282007_film%29. I don't believe Cthulha has anything to do with Cloverfield. Though it keeps popping up as i search for more information, even here on the Cloverfield wikipage.

Personally, I agree with you. But what is written is that the guy from USAToday reported that Harry Knowles speculated that it could be Cthuluian in theme, based on the ill-conceived, and seemingly debunked notion that the Ethan Haas websites leave the door open for Cthulu. Thus, it (it being the report that someone speculated) is "verifiable"

Honestly, the only reason I'm responding to this is because it shows that current wikipedia policy makes viral marketing very hard for us all. As far as Cthulu... we should probably erase it altogether, it's unfounded speculation, now that we can be somewhat (but not totally) certain that Ethan Haas sites are separate from Cloverfield. This example is, in my opinion, quite pertinent to the heated Slusho category discussion. Yookaloco 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cthulhu is still there, along with Godzilla, Voltron, and Lost, because they are all popular theories proposed repeatedly by the mainstream media. I personally believe that Cthulhu is the only one that makes sense-the Godzilla license is retired until 2013 and isn't distributed by Paramount, it seems too dark for a Voltron movie, and Lost isn't having a movie any time soon. ShadowUltra 01:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How well do you know Voltron... Voltron wasn't all pretty flowers and rainbows...

Intentless

Possible Official Websites

Until they are deemed "Official", lets at least make a list so the readers can keep on eye on them until we have "official" word.

Probably associated with Cloverfield:

• Slusho.jp
• Actor Mike Vogel's official web site

Probably associated with something else or fake websites:

• Ethan Haas Was Right
• Ethan Haas Was Wrong blogspot
• Ethan Haas The Cloverfield Diaries
• Ethan Haas Was Wrong (t-shirts)
• ParasiteMovie.com

JJ has deemed that EHWR is a fake website or otherwise unaffiliated with Cloverfield. However, speculation is running rampant (see above discussion) about Slusho.jp ShadowUltra 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he has also disavowed knowledge of other web sites in previous online advertising campaigns. For example, last summer's "Lost Experience" ultimately provided backstory for "Lost." It would be nice to have all possible web sites listed together in one place on the talk page. They can be easily removed if it becomes clear that they are not connected to the movie. ParasiteMovie.com could be a fake, because it seems to be just an ad for another website called TossingGames.com KC 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, another theory is that the Ethan Haas web sites are a totally unrelated advertising vehicle for a game company called Mind Storm Labs. They have a new RPG coming out called "Alpha Omega". Here's their web site: www.mindstormlabs.com KC 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While I have a great many issues with a "possible official", section, for the sake of brevity, I'll just refer you to wp:not , specifically the sections that state that wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a collection of links, nor is it a place for the website of the week. I feel that without verification, not only are many sites probably not up to wikipedia standards, but some of those are probably false. Not even "possibly", but "probably".

Please also see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Let me add that I wholeheartedly feel that those links are very useful and interesting, and worthy of people's time. But that isn't the criteria for putting things on wikipedia. Those links belong on (are are found on) sites like blogs and personal sites, which in cases like these, are always going to beat wikipedia to the punch. Because wikipedia isn't meant to be that current, unless it is verifiable. Yookaloco 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that Mike Vogel's site claims that Ethan Haas was right is the movie's official webpage. --Innermarks123 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But the site also seems to be ran by a fan site. Plus it says that Blake Lively is in it. Which is not true. Plus it does not sound like they know much at all. When it says that he plays Rob it sounded like the kind of questioned it. So i would not take it seriously

Yeah, the fan-site references some other source when it claims that the Ethan sites are connected to Cloverfield. I would take that with a grain of salt...though it is interesting. I thought that Blake Lively was in the movie. IMDB reported that, didn't they? Or was that a false lead? Tabascoman77 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, IMDB shows Blake Lively in the cast and also shows Mike Vogel is playing "Rob" in Cloverfield. How reliable is this info? KC 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not very reliable, at this time. The offical site is run by a man named "aaron", apparently, who began the site as an unofficial fan-site, but allegedly impressed Mr. Vogel so much, that he uses the website to hold giveaways and make statements. At this time, Aaron seems as in the dark as most of us, being that he gets his info from imDb, and (rightfully) questions its validity. I feel it's a safe bet that at some point soon, Aaron is going to get some of this cleared up by Mike Vogel, especially the Ethan Haas parts.

Then again, this marketing campaign might be so secretive, even their actors might be entirely in the dark about anything pertaining to the movie that wasn't in their part of the script. Yookaloco 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody checked out http://www.abz3293.com/ or http://www.anti-christ.com ?

Parasite movie is fake,it has a link to a forum jus to bring attention to there site,i think slusho is real. Ya it's kinda funky that Slusho is real but it is.--Hitamaru 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Monster

Shouldn't someone add something about the fact that the monster is a lion?--24.197.158.14 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct words are "it's alive," not "it's a lion." --68.227.192.223 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Monster is not a lion. I'm still unsure as to how this is still floating around the Internet. The guy says "It's alive, it's huge!" not "It's a lion!" ShadowUltra 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. It's a lion.--24.197.158.14 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Internet Movie Database. If you want to continue your obvious comedic trolling about the creature in the movie being "a lion", hit the forums. This isn't the place for that conversation. Tabascoman77 18:07 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IF He Says if "Its Alive" "It's Huge" It must of been dead at once like a statue or something that everyone walked by every single day until this day. I was wandering on the Ethan Hass was Right site, at the end, when you finish all five puzzles the word "DIVINUS" The Word DIVINUS translated from Latin may mean superhuman(divine, deity, God). If a God then if you go on the 1-18-08 site and look between the two girls picture and look at the hair area, it looks like the Devil or a demon but I bet it is a natural trick of the human eye.....or is it? I know The Ethan Haas Site is not a official site associated to the movie but it does bring up a point on why they would work so hard on a site then give a certain date to come back to it. The word DIVINUS may play a role but the site at the moment it just there you know until August 1, 2007. Some things that Ethan Haas Has pointed out is that it might be the end of the world which also might conclude to this Anastasius Balkin Zeno. Well Anyways I found This Don't know what it is but have a look Rodney's Amateur Astronomy --74.244.160.39 18:38 EST, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

While Watching the trailer again, something caught my eye. At the 1 minute and 12 second mark, when everyone was running down off the rooftop, one of the fireballs nearly hit them. As it nearly hits them, for a split second texting on the wall glows for a split second saying "2004 ace" plus there is more above it but the framing cuts it off. Was it just there or was it put there for us? Here is a Picture I took of 2004 ace --74.244.160.39 03:49 EST, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Again, this is the wrong forum for the discussion you want to have. IMDB's forums are perfect...but this is for discussion of adding to the article. For the record, there is no image between the two girls and no other clues in the photos. Anybody looking for such clues is over-analyzing them.Tabascoman77 3:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude The movie itself is a discussion no matter where you are at. What ever you find you post so we can get the media one step closer to what this movie is all about because Paramount isn't going to hold our hands and tell us. There are still official sites out there no one has found and everyone relies on wiki to tell them all the info they need to know. So what You think is important, you post. The Slusho area looks like a discussion topic. --74.244.160.39 11:24 EST, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Learn what a talk page is for.

Yes, but this page is not for discussing the movie itself, as much as it's about discussing what should be added to the article about it. It's already been said that it's not a lion and Ethan Haas has been proven to be a site not affiliated with the film and we've long since passed the discussion about adding those. I don't mean offense to you. That's just the way it is. Tabascoman77 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We already know It's not a lion BUT we still do not know what is happening on the 1st of August on the Ethan Haas Site yet. Keep that in Mind. Even though they deny its not affiliated to the movie doesn't mean they they will change the affiliation of the movie in the near future when the date of the movie gets closer and closer. Especially every video reposted from the Ethan Haas site Paramount keeps removing themselves. Now if it not related to the movie, then don't remove reposted videos if its not yours. Right Now anything is too close to tell. The trailer is only 10-11 days old with one known official site. --74.244.160.39 00:16 EST, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Revisiting Abrams's Claims through AintItCoolNews, Ethan Haas, and adequete sourcing

Regardless of whether this really "solves" anything, I'd like to go over what I feel have been the conclusions we've reached on this discussion page (and in a round-about way, what others have concluded on wikipedia policy discussions) in regards to attributable sources. I'll remind everyone that these sorts of situations are very difficult on wikipedia's standards, and many people hastily rush to edit things into the article as soon as they hear them. They mean well, but there are guidelines for these sorts of things, and even though I personally have only been an active editor for a handful of days, I found reading through this very page to be incredibly informative about the right way to do things here.

Over the last few days, we have had two major contraversies about credible sources - the first being that various media outlets were reporting that EthanHassWasRight was linked to the Cloverfield project. The second is that J.J. Abrams responded to this (and other issues) through Ain't It Cool News. Now from what I understand, the most citable source is always going to be first-hand or first-party info (IE: If Abrams or Paramount make a personal statement or press release). This is not to be confused with what was on AICN, but I'll get back to that. As I said earlier, in a marketing campaign of this type, the marketing minds make great efforts to avoid exactly the sort of verifiable statements that wikipedia's policies are built upon.

In abscence of first-hand validation, we are left to citing the media. The accredited, attributable media. Media attached to a bigger, more recognizable name. Personally, I believe Knowles and AICN. I feel that when he plainly states "I got a letter from JJ", it's probably true. However, as I understand it, because many of his articles consist of mere speculation or hearsay, many here consider his word alone to fail to carry adequete weight as an attributable source. This is why I [strongly feel that the way the article was re-worded - to imply verifiability and certainty where it doesn't exist - must be changed as soon as possible (despite the fact that I'm in agreement with it on a personal level).

According to current verifiabilty policy, the reporters for USAToday, Forbes, and even Variety (who I strongly feel jumped the gun, and are beginning to be proven wrong) probably carry more weight than Knowles, because we are forced to assume they are edited for verifiabilty on their end. When Abrams makes a statement through his agent, or the studios, or for a reputable media source, then we can say ouright "JJ says...". For now, the best we can do is say "Harry Knowles alledges that he received an email from JJ saying...."

Anyway, that's my take on it, and I believe the discussion on the other larger topics on this page, which cite current policy, confirm this view. I invite all users to give their perspective on it, of course, but unless we reach an accord within wikipedia standards, I'm going to change the wording in question back to something similar to this revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloverfield&oldid=143847200 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I timed out during this edit. The previous edit was me. Yookaloco 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This change, you mean? Also, don't delete older discussions. Since they are still fairly recent, give them time to expire before archiving. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the change in wording in the aforementioned section. Sorry for the confusion and the premature cleanup. Yookaloco 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethan Haas is actually associated to the Apocalyptic RPG Game "Alpha Omega" by Mind Storm Lab’s. None of them have anything to do with the movie CLOVERFIELD.

As it Says on Mind StormLabs

"June 1, 2007

Alpha Omega Begins Beta Testing"

Article Of Ethan Haas Not Related to Cloverfeild is Here --74.244.160.39 15:50 EST, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

...Says some anonymous user likely running damage control for the film? Yes, we realize you guys are the the intarweb along with the rest of us. You guys just didn't think we'd be so smart as to so quickly assemble the pieces of the EthanHaas.com puzzle, or so voracious as to continue posting teasers to YouTube as fast as Paramount could get them taken down.

The AintItCoolNews post has damage control written all over us, and it's not like this would be the first time that particular website was used as a tool for disinformation.

This just started filming?

If this just started filming a few weeks ago, how did they film that scene and add in the special effects so quickly? Particularly the explosion and the Statue's head landing in the street. ShadowUltra 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They filmed the trailer separately. It's just a trailer. It won't be part of the film.--24.197.158.14 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a speculation section

I added a section for speculation on the nature of the film. I did my best to keep it tidy and scholarly, but I won't be suprised if it's taken down in the next few minutes. I felt that the speculation was worth noting, considering the fact that the film has intense viral advertising and I think that people should be able to see these and decide for themselves. Truth is tricky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.14.132 (talk • contribs) 14:57, July 13, 2007

Your prophecy was fulfilled: I just took it down. Unless I made a mistake or missed something, it was completely unsourced. Please remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. --ElKevbo 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No mistake. It was indeed unsourced. I didn't have time, though I know that everything I presented was based off of the trailer. My hope was that anyone else coming in would recognize them and add sources appropriately...which is also against policy. >fail<

WP:V if you want to include material you need to provide a source. --Crossmr 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

abz3293

Can anyone confirm or deny if abz3293.com is official or not? --Piroteknix 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No citable source has surfaced covering this in any way. Original research suggests that since the domain was registered after the trailer hit, it is very unlikely that it's connected with paramount, but that is original research, and inadmissable by wikipedia standards. Yookaloco 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's an entry on abz3293.com. Happens to contain a lot of interesting clues. Check this out: --Spacewave 12:23, 15 July 2007

"PsimonSez on July 12, 2007 7:34 pm

I believe I saw an SUV outside a Benihana in Century City the other eve (7/11/2007). Twas conspicuous to say the least as the driver had a yellow face and the passenger resembled a Picasso painting where the eyes and nose did not match up accordingly. Fearing that Notre Dame had lost its Bell Master I stepped in front of the SUV with my hand affront of my person (much like The Supremes would do if they were singing Stop in the Name of Love!) The driver stopped short, causing Quasi to spill her beverage that looked very much like a Slurpee, but the name on the cup was different. As she got out of the passenger side of the car 7 cups with the same identification fell upon the tarmac. I said to myself rather smarmily as that is my disposition, “Whoa she could not drink just six!”. Seeing that the monstrosity was bipedal I quickly booked it out of there leaving my 3 year old son to fend for himself. I have neither seen my son, the SUV or the sideshow runaways since yesterday. My wife is starting to ask questions about where the kid is, if you happen to find this SUV with the license plate, please keep me in the loop as they may know the whereabouts of my off spring, he goes by the name Ace. Thanks so much and good luck with your search."

"Seeing that the monstrosity was bipedal" - I think the "Parasite" or the giant monster is bipedal.

"he goes by the name Ace" - Wasn't 2004 Ace spraypainted on the wall at the rooftop party?

• 2004 Ace

"her beverage that looked very much like a Slurpee, but the name on the cup was different. As she got out of the passenger side of the car 7 cups with the same identification fell upon the tarmac. I said to myself rather smarmily as that is my disposition, “Whoa she could not drink just six!" - That's an obvious reference to Slusho.

--When u pause the trailer right when Lady Liberty's head falls to the street, u can see that the SUV parked closest to the camera apears to have the liscense plate ABZ 3293 Firesun 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A professional website wouldn't claim "Template proudly ripped from h4x3d", its not official. 64.140.0.3 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it says something like that doesn't mean that it's not real. Remember that this is all ARGs and the point of them is to give the feel that it's really happening. --Icweiner 14:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We have to assume that the ARG is done by a legit company, as professional designers it has to do with legality issues. 64.140.0.3 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The post about the bipedial thing is fake, within a site that is also fake.If you look at the rest of th comments, you will see most of them have claimed to see the car. Astro 01:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Best Week Ever

I just heard that this and the speculators thereof was featured on VH1's "The Best Week Ever." Can anybody confirm or deny such? --68.183.43.101 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, July 13th 2007 Cloverfield had the best day ever. They showed a video of Ethan Haas's site and said it was a fake site. They even showed some of wikipedia's article. --Piroteknix 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Date Set in the film

Should it be put in in the article that the film is actually set on 1-18-08,the same day as it's release date? The photos on the 1-18-08.com website and the film trailer both seem to suggest that it is. Cm619 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself... '"seem to suggest"'. Hardly verifiable. It will probably be true, but it's better to wait until those sorts of details are confirmed (or at least reported on be an attributable source) before the are placed in a wikipedia article. And not that this is the place for this comment, but the temperature of 63 degrees does add weight to the argument that it takes place in a warmer month than January. So since we can't be certain, we leave it out, and let blogs handle it. Yookaloco 15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW while temps in the low 60's at midnight is unusual for January in NYC it is possible and in fact happened this year http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNYC/2007/1/6/DailyHistory.html so the temp says nothing about the time of year it takes place. Also i don't think we can debate that the pictures depict scenes from the trailer and are stamped with the date 0f 01-18-2008 so it's clear that they were all 'done' on the same day as the release of the movie (assuming the movie is really coming out on that day since it's still in production can we really say that?). The larger question is we don't know if the movie actually takes place on 1-18-2008, just starts on that date or what (it's already been said that the events in the trailer were shot just for the trailer... not as part of the movie). So we can't say the film is set on 1-18-08 no matter what the trailer and the pictures tell us because we don't know the relationship of the trailer and pictures to the film. But we could say that the trailer takes place on 1-18-08 since it's verified by the offical site via the time stamps on the pictures.harlock_jds 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield, Clover Field and the Freemasons connection

Quote: "So, what more can we actually know about the 1-18-08 movie. For one thing, it goes by severalcodenames, according to IMDB: Clover, Cloverfield and Slusho. Slusho offers some interesting trails. Firstly, in the teaser itself someone is wearing a shirt with a Slusho logo on it. Second, a Slusho website with correlating graphics and a strange back story have also appeared at the same time as the trailer. . . . And Slusho was the name of a fictional drink featured in Abrams' series Alias.

The official site doesn't have much there at present besides a interactive Flash thing with two snapshots supposedly taken on the night of the party featured in the teaser. But more geek sleuthing has revealed that the domain 1-18-08.com is registered to a "Henry Kelvin" at a dummy address in New York. But the technical contact is an "Albert Pike" at an address that corresponds to The George Washington Masonic Memorial. A secondary domain of 01-18-08.com is also registered at that address, but the registrant is listed as "In Hoc Signo Vinces", a latin translation of the phrase attributed to Constantine's vision but also adopted by the Scottish Rite branch of Freemasonry, a branch of the sect notably advanced in America of the 1800s by one Albert Pike, whose name also appears on the secondary domain registration, this time as Administrative Contact! And just to stoke the fires of intrigue Pike was a crafty fellow, apparently with links not only to Freemasonry but also the Illuminati and the Luciferian Society. Oh and the telephone number given on the domain registration belongs to The Barker Hangar, a soundstage at Santa Monica Air Center, formerly known as... wait for it... Clover Field."

Found here: http://ayjay.tumblr.com/ —Eickenberg 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Info

[1]

• Slusho is an official site
  • There are hidden clues throughout Slusho
• It's not a remake or a prequel; it's totally original
• The Biggest Clues are in the monster's roar and in the teaser's line, "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge."
• The being is an 'organic, living thing'
• The entire film will be recorded on a hand-held camera

--68.183.43.100 21:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the film's monster could actually be from the ocean/deep sea. Might be a Slusho connection? (see Slusho history) —Eickenberg 23:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A guy made me think he said it's probably rampage the movie. cause it does fall under the category of Rampage. monsters and destruction of cites. yeah...--Hitamaru 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Set Pictures of the 1-18-08 Movie

Possible Cloverfield Set and News --74.244.160.39 19:15 EST, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Almost definitely… seems to be related to this photograph from the official site. —Eickenberg 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who posted this in the external links area but now "SET DETAILS" on the web need to be taken down for Ken's sake for legal issues if he wants to still work on the film. I guess we will not be seeing anymore pictures of the set anytime soon. Well IGN and the photo's Ken posted (if saved on your computer) is what we have about the set production so far on the movie.

"Project Cloverfield" Site Loses It's Photos --74.244.160.39 24:36 EST, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

More info here: [2] (2 pages). Some information from the article can definitely be worked into the article. Some stuff on the shoot, locations and the possible main plot. —Eickenberg 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note on the location to the production section. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Exclusive Interviews

We Were The Cool Kids Has said they had gotten an "Exclusive Interview" with J.J. Abrams. Not Sure if it is a possible Real or Fake interview with J.J. Abrams Himself but some stuff like the Donkey being a Horse in the Sea = a Seahorse does make the interview sound real but, a director doesn't act like this during a interview, especially with how much talk HIS FILM has caused.

Also We Were The Cool Kids has gotten another Exclusive Interview this time with the "Cloverfield" Writer Drew Goddard. He hints the monster came from the sea but NOT a "Sea Monster" stating Drew. Some parts of the film will not be on filmed on video camera, like the flooded tunnel under the city, he says it is when the moment the monster opens it's mouth. Most of the underwater scenes that were planing to go in film were Mostly were cut out. The film itself is about 126 minutes long which is almost exactly 2 hours long and a little over.

• Exclusive: Interview With JJ Abrams
• Exclusive: Interview With "Cloverfield" Writer Drew Goddard

--74.244.160.39 18:48 EST, 18 July 2007 & 20:04 EST, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Blogs, this is immaterial, not reliable. Please keep the discussion to reliable sites and content to be added to the article.--Crossmr 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Arthur who owns the Blog and has gotten the exclusive interviews has his email posted on the blog. You can email him to let him send you proof like a video or the actual e-mail from J.J. Abram and Drew them selfs to prove the interviews are synthetic. Email him at arthur1975@shaw.ca

--74.244.160.39 22:28 EST, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Videos in e-mails aren't reliable.--Crossmr 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • yeah at first i thought it was fake, but i can imagine JJ being funny like that and doing the entire interview jokingly but leaving cryptic clues. It doesnt prove its real but i wont completely ignore it.

I didn't say a actual Video -,- I meant was something to prove it was fact. Look If "YOU" got a interview with him yourself and posted it, people would say the same "Fake" Now....How would you prove it to get the full world that you really did speak to the dude? Like the E-mail sent out to AICN earlier when people also said it was fake? You can't jump the bullet here until proven fake or truth. I haven't said its real I haven't said its fake. Not all blog sites are fake. Like I said someone email the guy and try to prove it first than say blog sites are not always reliable.

--74.244.160.39 03:11 EST, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Blogs are never reliable. Nor are e-mail communications, so nothing you could gather through e-mail would make these anymore reliable.--Crossmr 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They're joke interviews — pieces of fiction, made up, not real. And they certainly have no use for the purposes of this article. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how did the E-mail sent out to AICN earlier from Abrams himself was proven Real? Then if what your saying Crossmr (sorry to point you out, don't mean to attack you) that nothing can prove these interviews are fake or not. Both of you are just assuming. Show everyone proof who saw it, it is fake. This I can mark as "FASLE News" as for one no one can not prove it is fake, because you guys are just assuming. And two how would you determine real news from fake news if no can not be there to talk to the person who received the info face to face.

--74.244.160.39 12:36 EST, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Are you joking around? Trolling? You actually put a link up to an interview with the monster?Gwynand 16:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry about that they moved it to a parody but the other 2 interviews are still up for discussion. --74.244.160.39 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Not sure how you consider them up for discussion. The reason such “interviews” are allowed to be posted on blogs is because they are protected as satirical. That is, they are so obviously fake that no reasonable person would assume they are real interviews. The only discussion here is people telling you they are satirical, and you arguing back. The argument that it can’t be proven either way is not enough to get it in the article… I could make up a satirical interview with Abrams and post it on my blog right now, should we discuss including that?Gwynand 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea Pretty Much XD, ok Lets say someone actually got a shot of the actual set and posted it in their blogs, Now you Wikipedians say anything posted in blogs are "Satirical" what if someone posted Actual "Set Pictures" on blogs but later where taken down by Paramount them selfs. Then what would that prove of what you guys are saying. It has happened once already with a couple of pictures of the Cloverfeild set, but Paramount ordered for them to be taken down.

Just a second ago I received a the email, the blogs were fake but it proves how flawed that a big Movie like this would show that people like you guys will not even analyze a simple thing for your selfs and you would just sit and watch to let your dogs or pawns fetch the news for ya. Than take actions for a site that tries to give factual information.--74.244.160.39 14:49 EST, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

There is no longer a discussion here, I have no idea what you are even arguing at this point. I think I need to refer you to this WP:OR. I didn't mean to get caught up in this discussion. Conclusion, if you were to try to include any of this stuff in the actual article, it would be immediately removed by some editor in the community.Gwynand 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I post what I find in the Talk area and if its approved a registered member will add to the article for me, I don't bother the article myself.....Though we are still here How about the The movie being Filmed in Los Angeles? I have been requesting that to be mention on the Article for a while but no one has mentioned about it. Reliable source is IGN: Its Alive 1-18-08 Article.

Quote From Previous Post

I don't know where to put this so Ill put it here. Looking at the article it only says it was being filmed in New York but nothing in Los Angeles. IGN has been or received emails of people who been on the scene themselves to prove that there is filming going on not only in New York city

From IGN

We received an email this morning with the details of a public notice of filming posted last week in downtown Los Angeles that illuminates a few details about the production. The notice states that a Paramount Pictures movie using the name "Slusho" was filming last week in several downtown locations during the late afternoon to early morning hours.

Here's a description of the scene

"Exterior dialogue. Driving scenes. Occasional traffic & pedestrian control. Camera & equipment on sidewalk, street and property. 200 extras. Military vehicles. Destruction aftermath. Weapons brandished. Emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Exterior dialogue on fire escape on 8th floor." It's Alive: 1-18-08

No Reply This Time I am making a New Talk Section About it....And We have SOOO Much. But Hey I Mention this issue about 3+ times already and no one replied cause they were involved in another argument or debate in what you Wikipedians call them.

--74.244.160.39 14:23 EST, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Clues from slusho and its site

I found some clues "Slusho".Its seen on one guy's shirt in the trailer,and slusho make things big. if you drink slusho it makes you biggier(only large amounts),also it has a special ingredient that comes from the ocean. It makes ya have weird dreams.

EthanHaasWasRight.com running from the same server subnet as Abram's Bad Robot

According to this guy the Ethan Haas website must somehow (but definitely) be connected to "Cloverfield", although Abrams himself said differently: hddp://blog.myspace.com/godgravity I pinged the sites myself. The information is correct. But the conclusion? By the way: the name server of slusho.jp also runs on the subnet IP 208.109.x.x … hmm… :-) —Eickenberg 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

thats a californian ip,i think cause most cali ips start with 2."1-4". slusho is not actually a japanese website but with a japanese domain name. The movie is... Rampage xD! how did you check the ip.--Hitamaru 22:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Apple's Network utility. You'll also notice that both slusho.jp and badrobot.com can be traced via mdf001c7613r0004-gig-12-1.phx1.attens.net ... to 63.241.180.250, which is AT&T San Diego, while slusho.jp is further re-routed to 208.109.112.149 & 216.69.188.45. I'm not a pro, but this seems to be the same server, same provider etc. (same goes for ethanhaaswasright.com; see above; same IP/provider/subnet) —Eickenberg 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

eh,i see.Ethan site looks like a nicely done flash site.Slusho is a teaser site cause you can't actually buy it.So you're saying ethan is a legit site?It looks like it has nothing to do with the movie,or is it?--Hitamaru 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ethan site could be connected to the film in some way. Remember the little note "Exit to Mystery Street?" written on a piece of paper in the film's trailer? Well, exittomysterystreet.com redirects to humidbeings.com, and both humidbeings.com and ethanhaaswasright.com are hosted by mediatemple.net in Los Angeles (incl. also the exittomysterystreet.com). Now, is that just a coincidence? Could be… on the other hand, ABC (the company behind Abram's Lost TV series) is a mediatemple client (see their clients list). In addition the fictional Hanso Foundation from the "Lost" TV series is (like ethanhaaswasright.com etc.) traced through 72.10.63.210 to mediatemple.net. Hmmmm… —Eickenberg 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is all original research. Feel free to find a more appropriate venue for speculation--Crossmr 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

'Speculation'? Fuck right off. Press and film studios can lie, server IP addresses cannot. This is as close to hard evidence as you can get. How is it 'original research' to compare the IP address from two different sources and find that they are identical? This is the same kind of logic that saw O.J. Simpson walk away from trial with a smile on his face after the overwhleming DNA evidence (comparing samples of blood all over his murdered ex-wife with O.J.'s and finding the two to be one and the same) was somehow not good enough for the jury

--Someone quite plainly better at using their brain than you.

Oh come on, loosen up. It's a movie… and a hype… like lots of others here, I'm just having a little bit of fun. —Eickenberg 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides it from being a viral marketing .--Hitamaru 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this trailer is also with Live Free or Die Hard

My friend told me he saw this trailer when he saw Live Free or Die Hard. Everyone keeps associating this trailer with Transformers, but was it with any other movies? Our theater is infamous for frequently screwing up trailers, but has anyone heard anything about this? ShadowUltra 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese writing- "flavors"

On the "Slusho" site, I found that the "flavors" symbol and the symbols used for flavors on the site don't match up using an internet translator. It is in katakana though and using the wikipedia katakana table I figured out three of the symbols. If anyone knows Japanese, please edit it as I don't know Japanese. Thanks. (If these do, in fact, don't mean flavors then maybe the other ones...) --WTRiker 01:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as it is clearly original research. --ElKevbo 01:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's in katakana and says "fu re baa" which is as close as you can get to something like flavor (think along the lines of Flava Flav, it's pronounced sort of the same). There are no clues in the Japanese text. The "Bet you can't drink just 6" is translated as something like "6 cups won't be enough." --68.82.34.18 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Abram's comments and 80-81-1 theory

In the blurb about Abram's comments, I don't see why the Scifi.com article needs to be cited, when the AICN article that was their source is already cited. Also, Abrams did not say there were "several" sites. He only confirmed that there was at least one other site besides 1-18-08.com that hadn't been found yet (this was before slusho.jp was discovered). It's possible that there are other sites besides slusho.jp, but it's also possible that slusho.jp is the only other site out there so far.

Also, I don't see why the 80-81-1 blurb is considered to be relevant enough to be on the page when other theories aren't.

Missing references

There were completely valid citations that could have supported the sentence that talked about news outlets covering the trailer, yet they are gone -- USA Today, The Star Ledger, et cetera. Please realize that such sentences can be contested 20 years down the road -- "Was there really news coverage of this?" and would be invalid without the perfectly acceptable citations to back it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for USA Today has been re-added. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the link to IMDb

Why does this keep on happening? There's no valid reason for it to be removed. Either way, this page should be locked to end the fan speculation and exc. --68.183.43.131 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Every reliable fact that goes to IMDB will be put in this article since its receiving so much attention right now. Honestly IMDB doesn't add anything extra.--Crossmr 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The IMDB link is available in the info box at the top right hand of the page. Repeating it at the bottom of the page adds nothing to the article. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

cameos

this section does not belong here. first of all as it says in the headline they are unconfirmed. and now where in the linked artical does it mention either name?--Jwein 00:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference 4 Needs To Be Removed

what is listed in refrence 4 is absoultely not stated in the article that the link brings you to so it needs to be removed please.--Jwein 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The movie vs. the ARG?

What is Wiki's policy with respect to ARG's/online or viral marketing? It seems like this page should stick to the movie, which we don't know a lot lot about so far and another separate page should deal with the ARG (if there even is one). www.Slusho.jp doesn't seem to have much to do with the movie (Mike Vogel is shown wearing a t-shirt with Slusho on it, but that's pretty much it), but it might turn out to be the rabbithole for the ARG. KC 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Voltron

Why is nobody mentioning the possibility of Voltron. The "roar" resembles to a high degree the metallic lion's roar of the series. Not to mention for a movie known to come out next year we have no further info. Also. To those stating "its alive." insinuates its organic.... If it was organic no one would need to state that it was living... JJ Abrams is good like that. And if you turn up the volume its alive sounds a lot more like its a lion.... Just stateing... 63.66.112.5 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Intentless

because Voltron is under development be completely different people and people involved in the movie have said it has nothing to do with Voltronharlock_jds 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

or so its claimed. Do we know whom those people are and what studios they are traditionally affiliated with? Why would they make a Rampage movie... That series is a failure... He is producer for this and directing Star Trek. Confirmed two different entities. Rumored while back to be Godzilla but not after the clip. Intentless

This Might tell you why its not Voltron, its already been proven by a "Secret Source" who works on the movie every single day. Plus the monster is an living organism so it is not mechanical the "Source" stated. News 9 Info. --74.244.160.39 14:10 EST, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Both of you are missing the point. It doesn't matter how much evidence we have about what kind of entity the film is about... their isn't Voltron info in the article because there is very little attributal info to that and hence it doesn't really need to be a part of the article. We could certainly debate over whether Voltron would be considered a living organism, but again it doesn't matter what our opinions are about the subject.Gwynand 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The guy clearly says "it's alive" and Voltron's a good guy. Why would it attack new york.

Lost

I read in this morning's paper that there's speculation that the movie will contain several characters from Lost. In other words, nobody knows anything, but it doesn't stop them from talking.  :) Corvus cornix 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Abrams

Abrams is quoted as saying, "The only site of ours that people have even found is the 1-18-08.com site," . Sounds like there are other sites out there that nobody has associated with this film, yet. Corvus cornix 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Abrams is quoted as saying that in an e-mail that he sent to Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News. The e-mail (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261) was posted on the AICN web site on Monday, July 9th. Since then, http://www.Slusho.jp has been found, and most people believe that it is one of those other web sites that Abrams was referring to and is probably part of a Cloverfield ARG. Other web sites have been found, but do not appear to be related to Cloverfield (so far). KC 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

• Code-Name Cloverfield - Let the Viral Marketing Begin
• Tongues wag over mystery film trailer
• Ethan Haas Is A Video Game Character?
• Trailer for Abrams film lost on moviegoers
• Only Gumshoes Can See This Movie

Headlines for possible use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure If these are a Possible Good Resources to use for future references (If anything Comes up). Just In Case Ill Put these For future references:

• Paramount Pictures
• IGN Cloverfeild
• Project Cloverfield

--74.244.160.39 15:16 EST, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

What wikipedia is not

Wikipedia is not for discussion or analysis of the movie, it is for discussion about the article about the movie. For speculation and discussing stuff like that, please find a more appropriate forum. Q ^{T C} 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and there is much precedent for removing talk from talk pages which is not about improving the article. I'll go through shortly and trim that (which there is also precedent for)--Crossmr 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I motion to disagree. Discussion and analysis of the movie leads to forming and contributing to an article on the movie, we must know ABOUT the subject of an article in order to write an article about it. This section of wikipedia is infact labelled 'Discussions' for a reason. It is a forum for the editors of Wikipedia. It is called 'Discussions', just look at the tab. 72.49.194.69 07:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Joshua

You don't get a motion. the rules of wikipedia state that this page is for discussion on improving the article. But it is also ONLY for disscussing improvements to the article that are verifiable. If something isn't verifiable, it can't be used to improve the article, and is therefre useless and pointless to bring up here, as well. DurinsBane87 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A small amount of more general discussion can be useful for the purposes of building an article, yes, both in communal terms and in provoking ideas of how to make improvements. But when the signal to noise ratio is such that fruitful discussion is lost among more aimless threads, then it's time to to apply the guideline from WP:TALK:

"Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."

There's been too much crap about lions. We need to clamp down. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OverlordQ, Crossmr, and DurinsBane87 about avoiding discussion and speculation about the film itself. We can't purport to know anything, as mere editors. We're supposed to bring and provide sources here and discuss if they stand up to Wikipedia's policies and to implement them whenever possible. Just read WP:TALK -- the guidelines specifically state that discussion is limited to improvement of the article. If you wanna pitch your own theories, head over to IMDb's message boards. They don't belong here. I plan to revert any editor that attempts to initiate general discussion (as there's been too much of that so far). Found this headline today, don't know if it's any use, but it indicates that Slusho.jp is not confirmed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get a motion? Excuse me, what the fuck is this? So he gets to motion and I don't? You guys are a bunch of pricks and self-serving assholes. This tab is called Discussion for a reason and whether you like to accept it or not, discussion of a topic is exactly what creates an article FOR A TOPIC. You can't know anything about a topic without discussing it. Great job guys. 72.49.194.69 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Joshua

I didn't say I get a motion, either. My point was no one gets a motion, because there are already rules. Maybe you should just step away from editing for awhile, because you seem to get defense on every article you edit on anytime someone disagrees with you. I think you should cool down a bit, go read the guidlines, and then edit. DurinsBane87 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and refrain from outbursts. If you read the talk page guidelines, discussion should not be aimless. If you are discussing your own opinion and speculation about the film, that does not help the article at all. There's a line that can be crossed, and saying something like "I think it's a lion" crosses it. The tab is called "discussion" because "discussion about how to improve the article" takes up too much space. :) It certainly doesn't mean, "discussion on all aspects of the topic without improving the article". IMDb and other forums are a better place to speculate with other fans of these films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree with Erik, This is Not a Theory site but a "FACTUAL SITE" An Example "I think it's Voltron" Will not help the article at all. To help the article, post a "FACTUAL LINK" Like a News Report, "SCANNED PROOF," a "VIDEO,"or a "REAL EMAIL" on the actual ARTICLE(Cloverfeild) than saying "I think it is this" then posting a fan site speculating that they think its that also. Also for Websites. Do a domain analysis on it first then post the info on the site on here that you got back, to back your opinion up saying why it should be posted in the Wiki article and what did you do and how far on what you did to research it and we will try to see into it as best as we can.

Also Erik I was wandering I posted Earlier, There has been proven fact the film has been shot in Los Angeles but no one has posted it up on the Article, it was up on there once but taken down. Countless people who live in Los Angeles Actually Saw sets around the city tagged "Slusho" but the cops were around to make sure no one was able to take Pictures of the set. One article saying that it was Located in Los Angeles and the First was IGN: It's Alive article. Its been bugging me its not up there on the Cloverfeild article so I wouldn't mind someone putting it up. Thanks

By The Way There is a Discussion Site For This Movie on Ethan Haas.org. If You Want Discuss What you think there.

--74.244.160.39 16:55 EST, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Erik, would you not say that it serves to reason, even giving the tab the title 'discussions about improving the article', that you must discuss the topic of the article and learn about it in order to improve an article? It serves to reason? And do you not think that dialogue between humans will further knowledge and awareness of the aforesaid topic and article itself? Am I just incorrect in thinking this or what? Oh and DurinsBane87, I took your advice and have cooled down. 72.49.194.69 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Joshua

$30 Million

Currently, someone's placed this figure in the infobox. Do we have a source which states, unambiguously, that this is the figure (ie. not merely that "the budget is said to be" or "rumours say the budget is" etc)? Because, if not, it needs to be removed until we get something more concrete. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I reverted that. I'll do it again. DurinsBane87 06:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The best source I've found on this is the NBC article by Kirk Montgomery for NBC. I wouldn't say it's entirely reputable as the number comes from a "secret source, who is on the set of the film every day", but it's the only place I've seen that number stated. http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=73653 VerasGunn 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is more or less ok for what the article currently says ("budget estimated at"), but not strong enough for the infobox (official figure). Ok, cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much what I figured, which is why I haven't added the sum to the budget infobox until we get a more definitive answer. VerasGunn 07:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the article itself. The Hollywood Reporter stated, the film "is believed to have a relatively modest budget of about $30 million". Many budget figures by studios are never released, and sites like Box Office Mojo often estimate the budgets for the films, which are then used in the templates. Template:Infobox Film says "approximate budget" for the film. Doesn't require the official amount. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Slusho Zoom

I added Slusho Zoom to external links. It links back to Slusho and its page info has 1-18-08, so it appears to be another site involved. Hope that's okay. 67.186.34.123 08:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Its been known for a while its not an official site, but a fan site 64.140.0.3 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. There's nothing attributable to indicate that site is in any way associated with the film in an official capacity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the Slusho.jp question

Why are we continuing to include the slusho website in external links? Before I get into an argument to remove it, I want to see what solid reasoning we have to have it there in the first place.Gwynand 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's discussed in the article and we've made it clear further up that it's not been confirmed as an official movie site. As such, I don't suppose it does any actual harm to include it. On the other hand, it's not actually vital; there's already a link in the main article body. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be excluded altogether because no attributable source has said that Slusho.jp definitely relates to this film. We have 1-18-08.com confirmed, and that's enough for the time being. If we allow an unconfirmed site like Slusho.jp, we may as well permit the other unconfirmed sites that have attempted to be added. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Erik 100%, for the moment I just deleted the link in the external links section, but kept it in the article. At least when reading the article, the reader will understand that it is only speculation that this is an official site. I'm concerned that nothing legitimate confirming it as an official site has popped up, I'm also concerned that the site itself has apparently nothing to do with the movie trailer (other than the concept of slusho being related to Abrams and the T Shirt). While of course it may be legit, I don't think wikipedia should act as a pawn of internet rumors and speculation, no matter how convincing (and I personally dont see all this convincing). Gwynand 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

a NBC News station in CO says it has a source that says they are linked. Is this station no longer considered a attributable source?harlock_jds 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why it's mentioned in the article, but not 100% confirmed as an external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Theories

While this movie is being discussed so heavily, could we put a type of theories section in order to at least show what type of arguments are being made about this movie? I ask this because of this theory which is very convincing. "I cant take credit for this, the following was from a guy at the ign boards, AndyCooper something was his tag. But anyways, this convinced me plenty, with connection to the slusho.jp website as well. maybe this is it?

If you look at the trailer you can see the number 3 being referenced to everywhere. The 63 degrees on the news channel, The 12:36, the 2004 ACE, numbers that are all dividable by 3.

Last, but not least, you hear the thundering monster sound three times, each sound accompanied by a different event.

Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"

So what in biblical mythology has connections to the slew of references in the trailer? The three great monsters.

In Jewish belief, Behemoth is the primal unconquerable monster of the land, as Leviathan is the primal monster of the waters of the sea and Ziz the primordial monster of the sky.

1) The first monster roar is accompanied by an earthquake (Behemoth) 2) The second monster roar is accompanied by a huge fireball (Leviathan, for it can breathe fire) 3) The third monster roar is accompanied by the flying Statue of Liberty head (Ziz).

Not convinced?

The guy who says "maybe we can get a better view from the roof" has the Slusho logo on his shirt. Slusho is a classic J.J. Abrams icon, and it has appeared in both Alias and Lost, which are his shows.

Slusho.jp has, by now, been confirmed as a part of the viral marketing campaign revolving around 1-18-08. Japan. Strangely enough, the character Rob, who is present in the trailer, was gonna fly to Japan a day after that party and the monster events.

Let's have a look around on that site. Not all pages are accessible. But there is an odd feature about the pages that are available. The main page background is on land, the Downloads page background is on air, and the History page background is on sea.

Furthermore, the six buttons on the main page cause popups of various animals, namely a Horse, a Whale and a Bird. Behemoth, Leviathan, Ziz." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.6.146 (talk • contribs)

On the whole, I believe this article covers enough of current speculation, as presented in the media, and has links to various reports more suited to less encyclopedic content. The kind of material you're thinking of for a "Theories" section will mainly be sourced to blogs and forums, neither of which are largely considered to be reliable sources, and therefore don't satisfy Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Slusho never appeared in Lost. ShadowUltra 03:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the trailer you can see the number 3 being referenced to everywhere. The 63 degrees on the news channel, The 12:36, the 2004 ACE, numbers that are all dividable by 3.

33% of ALL natural numbers are divisible by 3. Your numerology is not convincing. Also, where did Romans 1:18 come from? Wild speculations suck, even more when they end up in a Wikipedia article about a movie few people know anything about. — Kieff | Talk 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency Between Trailer And IMDB's Page

Has anyone else noticed how, in the official 1-18-08 trailer, the character Rob is obviously being portrayed by actor Michael Stahl-David while on the IMDB page for Cloverfield the character of Rob is listed as being played by Mike Vogel? I just thought this was very strange. Simple mistake? Or is Mike Vogel replacing Michael Stahl-David as the Rob character? Maybe Michael Stahl-David was simply being used as Rob in the trailer and they preferred to have Mike Vogel take over the role of Rob in the actual movie? I don't know... but it still strikes me as odd. --User:NeoBix 14:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB itself is known to be inconsistent at times, and let's face it, almost nothing is actually known about the movie itself. HalfShadow 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I had IMDB pegged as a somewhat professionally maintained site. This type of glaring mistake makes me think otherwise now. User:NeoBix 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in looking at the proposal at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, then, and plenty of relevant discussion on its talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. You learn something new every day I guess. Thanks! User:NeoBix 4:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Cloverfeild/Slusho Proof

Looking at the article it only says it was being filmed in New York but nothing in Los Angeles. I HAVE PROOF Photos were posted on the Web Today and they are posted below with the quoted article.

IGN has been or received emails of people who been on the scene themselves to prove that there is filming going on not only in New York city

From IGN

We received an email this morning with the details of a public notice of filming posted last week in downtown Los Angeles that illuminates a few details about the production. The notice states that a Paramount Pictures movie using the name "Slusho" was filming last week in several downtown locations during the late afternoon to early morning hours.

Here's a description of the scene

"Exterior dialogue. Driving scenes. Occasional traffic & pedestrian control. Camera & equipment on sidewalk, street and property. 200 extras. Military vehicles. Destruction aftermath. Weapons brandished. Emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Exterior dialogue on fire escape on 8th floor."

Now I am going to Quote the Following Article I Found, being really Lazy lol

"CloverfieldClues have pointed us to a video which appears to be the first behind the scenes footage from the JJ Abrams produced top secret monster flick Cloverfield. The footage, which can be seen after the jump, shows people running down a city street and military vehicles in action. In one of the shots you will notice a striped SEPHORA store. Apparently the store is a fake creation to make downtown Los Angeles look more like New York City. There are Sephora stores in Los Angeles, but all three appear to be in malls.

Eric Richardson has posted a photo of the fake Sephora store and the included public filming notice for a Paramount movie titled Slusho."

"Looks like the filming took place late last month, days before the Cloverfield trailer premiered with Transformers. Which just goes to show you we’re still picking up on clues from almost one month ago. And again, the video footage can be seen after the jump."

Also A Guy Who was P**sed off Filmed the set one night. Right Now he he is asking If Paramount want him to take it down, they have to buy the Video From Him. Its Posted in the Description and Comments.

He Quoted

"Footage I shot on the night those bastards from cloverfield where shooting on my street they where using a megaphone and kept evryone in the building awake for days they also fd’up the traffic like every other big budget movie does (who cares about those stupid taxpayer drivers?) this was also shot in the same location where prime is on the floor at the end of that movie." ^*Video

Links

• Slash Film Cloverfield: Behind the Scenes Footage and Photos
• Cloverfeild News
• IGN: It's Alive: 1-18-08

Picture and Video Links

• Slusho Notification Poster
• Fake Sephora Store
• Video of Cloverfeild Set

Also Something about Slusho Being Official Viral Marketing. Also Consider the Slusho Notification Poster, If you still need proof that the site is related or not. OR You can call the numbers on the poster to confirm.

• Confirmed: Slusho.jp is a Cloverfield Viral Website

--74.244.160.39 20:53 EST, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

"Viral" Advertising

There seems like a lot of speculation with nuggets of facts here. Is Wikipedia being used as a component of an advertising campaign in relation to this movie? Why are these people speculating about something that has been intentionally obscured by its creators?

This is the discussion page, not the actual article itself. Therefore, if you want to assume that the discussion page is being used as an advertising component then you are welcome to. Speculation is allowed on the discussion page, just as you are speculating about this. User:NeoBix 4:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude WTF You Can't Just Split AN Article Like that in two, especially someone elses. This is not a advertisement, I am implying someone to add the Los Angeles part into the Finale Cloverfield Article. Bug Off. Get Permission First Before You Split someone else Work, because I typed that um I would liked it the way I typed it Please....(or quoted it the way I did). Also....Um I Gave plausible link's showing that I didn't make it up, People on Wiki need links knowing you didn't make it up or sources like Researching and placing them in MLA format. Also NeoBix I don't know that much about Wikipedia's coding myself and to lazy to learn, so I am letting the pros do it for me, so I won't mess up THEIR WORK. Also Speculation to me on here, from the others, looks like they want it on the Cloverfield Forums then the Wiki Cloverfield Article Talk. This area is where you post what you think should go on the article itself than speculate. This is Wiki, An encyclopedia. Thank You.

--74.244.160.39 10:48 EST, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Whoa, wait a sec. What are you even talking about? Splitting an article? I have done nothing wrong. I merely responded to your comment here on the DISCUSSION page. I have done nothing to ANYONE'S article. You asked a question and I responded. You are accusing me of doing something that I have not done. Moreover, why didn't you sign your first comment? That's not a very good way to start a discussion. For all I know, that wasn't even you who started this discussion. It could've been someone else entirely. So please get a grip and gather your thoughts and think about what you are talking about before you start typing. Just throwing accusations around will get you no where, especially if they have no merit. User:NeoBix 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I did sign if you see the date, and I had to move your comment out of mine because it was posted right before the links area splitting it two looking like I didn't give my article any source also posting the Viral Advertising section Right in it. Also Dude this is not a forum, if you wana add what I posted to the REAL article go ahead I am not going to a argue because I know what you did and I had to take action myself to have my article look like the way I originally posted it. --74.244.160.39 22:40 EST, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Mithos

Attacked by damage controllers?

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

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

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

--user:167.1.103.100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Greg Grunberg Casting in 1-18-08

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

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

Archiving

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

Parts of this discussion page may need another healthy archiving. "The Monstrous" section has been debunked, and other sections become less objective as posts increase. --ElectricZookeeper 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't been as bad as the last archived set, but if you feel the need, go ahead. I would suggest archiving everything but the last one or two discussions (if my professionalism still needs to be further discussed, and I don't care to give the impression of censorship in that regard). Colossus may still be a relevant, live discussion for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Speculation needs to be kept to a minimum, not only for credibility reasons. Before the first archive, a lot of speculative information was brought up, to which others responded with even more speculative information and critiquing others' ideas, which I think was sort of a runaway effect that got out of hand. In order to prevent this from happening again, its probably best to suppress anything with out a source. As for the archiving, I'm not sure how to properly archive parts of a discussion page. Help:Archiving_a_talk_page only gives direction on archiving a whole page. --ElectricZookeeper 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Slusho Connection...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Move to 1-18-08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comic-Con

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abrams at Comic Con

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

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

• First Showing Paramount Coverage
• Slash Film Paramount Coverage
• Cinematical Paramount Coverage

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

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

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

I know, I meant news aggregator in the since that every single aspect of production is reported upon, like this gross example. Anyway, we can go with one of the sources -- I'd probably go with FirstShowing.net or SlashFilm for now, but it should be replaced with a stronger source when possible. So is the proposal of how to present the Comic-Con information ok? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Stronger source Like a NBC coverage or something like that? IF thats the case, most of those will be posted up in a day or two when their Comic-Con interviewers come back from the event itself. --Mithos90 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the MTV Movie Blog, which by name is more reputable than what's shown above. It doesn't show all the detail of these three, though. And we need to implement this information in the article in a good way, because an anonymous editor is already just throwing in information without citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea I stumbled over that blog earlier, though It is MTV, me myself was trying to avoid any kind of blogs also most of what Abrams quotes where summed up. Though MTV is a good source I didn't really see a lot in the article/blog itself. Though most stuff now I do agree people are now exaggerating the News and turning it into speculation. --Mithos90 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for future reference, the MTV Movie Blog is acceptable because per WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources, the authors of the blog entries are people who have provided film coverage for MTV News, so they are professional in that regard. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and worked in the details found at FirstShowing.net into the article. The inspiration to create the monster is in Production, and Abrams' denial of Monstrous, lack of announcement about the official title, and the continuing marketing campaign are in Marketing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Erik Not sure If you need this in the actual article, If you do is it possible to put it in the article? THIS IS the audio recording of J.J. Abrams actual Announcements at the Con Himself. The sites from the other day are accurate, duh but here is the recording itself. Said in the Audio there were a series of 4 possible teaser posters given out.
• J.J. Abrams Audio Recording at Comic Con

--Mithos90 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine as an external link, but it's not something that would stay in the article forever (especially not after the film's release). What do other editors think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not mind, film is in six months. Seeing this is the audio coverage and all. Not sure what the other editors think though. --Mithos90 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, be bold and add it. Something like...

• [Comic-Con Audio Recording of Abrams at MovieWeb

If you get reverted, we can discuss the merits of this further. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the stated inspiration for the movie should be included in the article GWatson &#149; ^TALK 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Monstrous"

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

 Domain name: THEMONSTROUSMOVIE.COM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are not sure if it is encyclopedic enough for inclusion you should not include it and erase any mention of it in the discussion page.. like you did before, Erik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.79.40 (talk • contribs) 22:03, July 26, 2007

News update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Cloverfield is reporting that someone called Elliot in the Morning, a Washgington D.C. radio show, presenting themselves as working on the ad campaign for the movie, and allegedly sent Elliot pictures of Steven Spielberg wearing a Slusho shirt. I actually listen to the show (but I didn't hear this part this morning). I'll try to get an audio clip and get Elliot to post the pics on his site to attempt to make this credible. --ElectricZookeeper 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IT can not be a resourceful article as it is not from the actual radio station site itself. Therefore this is a speculation until the Washington Radio Station Quotes or has a recording of the Audio. Even if they put up an audio recording, the person who called in maybe did a prank call seeing The Comic-Con event was in California and the Radio Station was in D.C. and the guy did not reveal his/her name. There is no Official Info. --Mithos90 06:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Voltron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fixing the two pages

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

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

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

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

Movie Title = Colossus?

Now somebody has written in that Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News has revealed the title of this movie to be "Colossus". I will agree that Harry is hinting that the title is Colossus, but even so, it seems pretty speculative to me. At any rate, I don't think the title is verifiable. Here's the link to the article: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33457 KC 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The tough call about AICN is that while it is a fairly prominent movie site, they render the layout crappy on purpose. I've encountered other editors question the verifiability of information on the site based on its look. I personally believe that the information should be excluded for now, until there is more coverage -- after all, the official title, which Abrams said he was not going to say, is pretty big news. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like 'Mr. Brownstone' posted the title in the comments section, not Harry in the original scooping article. That'd make it entirely unreilable. ThuranX 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. Harry says to "go ask, Piotr Nikolaievitch Rasputin", which is the secret identity of the X-Men character, Colossus. So, Harry doesn't come out and say that the title of the movie is Colossus, but he hints at it. KC 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, waiting one day for an official announcement is worth it. ThuranX 04:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where have you heard that they're going to make an official announcement about the title today? KC 10:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems logical that it would follow with the "-us" adjectives, but until it's still unverified. If true, this brings a new level of meaning to the trailer, as the The Statue of Liberty is often called "The New Colussus." --ElectricZookeeper 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like AICN's theory has been debunked [3]. The correct words on the posters are "monstrous," "furious," and "terrifying," which is contrary to the article. Harry based his colossus idea on the fact that all the words ended in us: monstrous - furious - barbarous - COLOSSUS. --ElectricZookeeper 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's more support for the film's name to be something other than "Colossus". On April 19, 2007, Variety online printed a story about Ron Howard directing a remake of the 1970 sci-fi classic "Colossus: The Forbin Project". This remake will be called "Colossus" KC 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New site(s) found

A new picture has been put up on 1-18-08.com. You can flip the picture over by dragging it in a circle.

The opposite side has a message from "Jamie." Three names appear at the top: Lascano, Platt and Robbie.

A myspace search yields "Jamie Lascano." She has seven friends: Tom :P, Robbie Hawkins, Lil, HUD, LenaDia, Hawk and Beth.

Lo and behold, most of them (including Rob) are people from the trailer. The plot thickens... --ElectricZookeeper 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• For convenience purposes: Jamie's MySpace--63.3.4.129 20:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Myspace Sites have not been considerably officially announced yet by Paramount, Bad Robot Productions or J.J. Abrams...yet however though the pictures on the Myspace profiles DO have accurate descriptions of the characters from the movie and the pages did pop up after the new additions to the Official Site, there still has not been official announcement. Right Now, the only thing Official on the names are the ones mentioned on the back of the two party pictures on the Shockwave Official "Cloverfield" Site To See the Messages on Back (Get the Party Pictures on Top Then move the mouse left,right,up,down quickly while clicked) --Mithos90 06:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the marketing campaign, I would expect to see more publicity material that is not "official" yet is obviously related to the film. This makes it difficult for it to fall within WP:V. Exceptions can be made in Wikipedia policies (although not frequently), and I think this would constitute one. We must be careful to know where to draw the line as there is a lot of speculation. --ElectricZookeeper 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No this doesn't constitute an exception, and WP:V is a core founding policy of wikipedia, we don't make exceptions because someone is using unusual marketing practices that don't jive with our policies. We don't add the information until it falls within the policies.--Crossmr 13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already had examples of things that 'Had to be a part of the campaign' that ended up not being a partof it. WP:V needs to be followed or we'll end up with every crackpot site listed. Yes that means that this wikipedia article is behind the times but so whatharlock_jds 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "exception" was not the right word. I don't want to poke the bee's nest. Allow me to justify my position, I'll update this in a moment. --ElectricZookeeper 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rob's MySpace account was created before the trailer was released, adding to its authenticity. However, Jamie's was created afterwards and Hud's is hidden. The Lorax88 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for adding MySpace pages to the article:

• 1-18-08.com was updated yesterday with a photograph. The photo could be turned over and had a message on the opposite side. The message was from "Jamie" to "Robbie." It listed three names at the top: "Lascano, Platt, and Robbie."
• There is a myspace page for "Jamie Lascano." She has seven friends, including "Robbie."
• Robbie is the same actor seen in the trailer. The pictures on his page have not been seen anywhere else.
• The other friends are actors seen in the trailer (presented as the characters), complete with original pictures.
• The pages were created on or around July 16th, long before the names were added to 1-18-08.com.
• The myspace pages could not have been created without intimate knowledge of the film, the marketing campaign, and access to the actors and their willingness to be photographed.

If others agree, this can be seen as common sense, and treated as such. The "MySpace is unreliable" argument is too generalized. Furthermore, use of the word "official" is moot. The only "official" information has come straight from Abrams' mouth (as Paramount and Bad Robot have said nothing), which doesn't cover most of this article. I will leave the article as is for the time being. --ElectricZookeeper 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But most of the things you've listed above are Original Research, though, and as such is unallowable. DurinsBane87 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We are questioning the reliability of a source. A source itself is not original research. --ElectricZookeeper 19:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pages were made the day after the Comic-Con announcement. How can you tell? Tom was in their friends list for a couple of hours before being removed. Another thing, Rob's page, at once had about a small amount of friends (about 8-9) but latter his friends count jumped up to 300. If these profiles are considered "Official", why where the pages not created at the same time as the 1-18-08.com site was. Also on the Official Site, the pictures has not announced the characters "Full Name" (showing a possibility of someone making up the Profiles after they saw the name). Commonsense has nothing to do with it, showing this is just speculating. People would say the same exact thing with the "Leaked Teaser Poster" if Abrams have not made an Announcement that it was not the name of the movie. Until word comes out, the pages are just speculative info. --Mithos90 03:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the comments on their walls; the earliest is July 16. There is not a way for users to change the dates and times. --ElectricZookeeper 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But it is Possible to change the Dates of the Posted Blogs from today to back to last week....Comment them selfs can be changed by coding and whats put in them also. --Mithos90 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"A source itself is not original research." I thought a second party had to detect or report a source in order for it to be cited? Otherwise, coming to our own conclusions was considered original research and uncitable on Wikipedia? 72.49.194.69 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

If these sites are the beginning of an ARG (Alternate Reality Game), then I doubt that Paramount, Bad Robot, or J.J. Abrams will ever officially acknowledge them. Remember, they denied the HansoExposed site which was part of The Lost Experience ARG. KC 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if a reliable source cites them, that would certainly justify mentioning them in the article (in the same fashion as slusho.jp is already mentioned). --ElectricZookeeper 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm just saying that I doubt it will come directly from Paramount, Bad Robot, or J.J. Abrams. Look at the Slusho.jp site. We have an anonymous "inside source" quoted by Colorado 9NEWS Kirk Montgomery and we have The Washington Post saying that Slusho.jp "almost had to be official". KC 15:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How are you suggesting that the myspace pages were NOT made by Paramount? The actors from the trailer are in the pictures, and each one has about 6 picures of them, so they OBVIOUSLY had access to the actors. Also, it would have taken WEEKS to orchestrate all of that detail. How could they have known Jamie's name BEFORE the picture site was updated? I've been around every day on IMDb's forum for a long time, and I was there when they updated the pictures on friday. I was also there when someone went to myspace and entered the names in 8 or so hours after 1-18-08 was last updated. NOT 8 or so days. Nickdude9110 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your comment is directed at me or not, but I totally believe that the MySpace pages were put there by Bad Robot and are officially part of the viral marketing campaign or AGR, whatever you want to call it. KC 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys so determined to RIGHT WAY add the Myspace Pages to the article when the movie has about 6-5 Months to go before release also the Myspace Pages are not even a week old them selfs? Within that time, the pages WILL be mentioned at some point but at the moment, it is just too soon and there has not been an Official Announcement yet. If You guys want to discuss this topic further, go to the IMDB Forums. As of Here....Please Be patient for announcements on the Film itself and the Myspace pages from Paramount Pictures, Bad Robot Productions and/or J.J. Abrams soon to come. --Mithos90 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mithos. Adding information to Wikipedia should not be a foot race. We're the tortoise in this case; slow and steady development of the article using verifiable information. That's the pace that's shaped this article so far, and it looks to be very solid. There's a lot of people on the lookout for information about the film, so it's just a matter of a reliable source surfacing that covers this information about Myspace. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that people continue to create threads that violate the 'Discussion' board guidelines. There is a great deal of 'original research' in most of these threads, I have tried to be vigilant in deleting them. The ones I have deleted make absolutely no contribution to the article itself, or the improvement thereof. Please don't think I'm trying to sound like a jackass or prick, but alot of people are treating this as a forum and speculation is rampant (though this is at least partly the producer's fault themselves for releasing extremely little information on project 'Cloverfield'). 72.49.194.69 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

I understand the concern, and I think that discussion about the Myspace pages was necessary due to the more direct connection to the project than previous sites that have been mentioned here. It seems appropriate to wait for verifiable coverage of these pages, and we have the discussion to point to in case a new editor needs to be caught up to date. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the slusho.jp site isn't considered official here. A Slusho T-Shirt was prominently featured in the teaser trailer, and the Slusho T-Shirts being given out at Comic-Con are identical to the ones being sold on the slusho.jp site. 24.151.176.32 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source saying it's official? not a blog or anything, but an actual reliable source?. DurinsBane87 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the Slusho shirt that is worn by one of the main party goers, which he is still wearing in the pics I've seen of the on location shoot in NYC. Every account of Comic-Con you can find mentions the Slusho shirts being given away or sold at the Paramount desk at the event. The same shirts that slusho.jp started selling the same day as Comic-Con. Can you just cite the trailer? 24.151.176.32 06:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The trailer doesn't specifically state that they're related, that would be like saying that block buster.com is an official website for Donnie Darko simply because the logo is in the movie. You can't just put 2 and 2 together yourself, thats called "Original Research" and is not allowed. You would need to find a reliable source specifically saying that slusho.jp is connected to the movie. DurinsBane87 06:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see. Being an ARG/Viral Marketing tactic I doubt we'll get anything official for a while. As obvious as it is that it's connected I understand why we can't jump into conclusions here, that's good. What about the new topic I started down at the bottom asking to add Jessica Lucas to the cast list? Would the same apply to that? As obvious as it is, 2 actors and the director that are confirmed to be in the movie are all together on a set being paid for by Paramount on location in NYC filming along with Jessica, does it have to be an official statement from a production company or does photographic evidence count for anything? 24.151.176.32 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirly sure, but my guess is that since there's no official word she's in cloverfield from a reliable source, it can't be added. If it gets confirmed somewhere, that's a different story. But it'd like to have my statment confirmed before i held you to it. DurinsBane87 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Slusho at Comic-Con

MTV talks about how "Slusho" t-shirts were distributed at the Paramount panel at Comic-Con. Is this notable enough to include in Marketing somehow? Obviously, we shouldn't make the connection between Slusho.jp and these t-shirts, as the reference does not make a connection to the website. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Slusho's website Shop Has Gone up Since last weekend plus some of the closed areas of the Slusho site are now open Erik. It is quite Possible to market the Slusho products now because of the Slusho shop now up and running off Comic-con. If we could include that in the Marketing Section of the article. --Mithos90 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, then let's see if any secondary sources surface making the connection between the film and Slusho. It could be directly related to the film, or it could just be a marketing plot. We'll need some verifiable coverage if we want to detail Slusho. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have a media source reporting that they were giving away the shirts at the panel makes the slusho site an official site... but that's just me. harlock_jds 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Erik, Will The 4 Posters that were handed out be mentioned in the Article when a Source has cllected them all? They were mentoned at the end of J.J. Abrams Comic-Con's 2007 Speech, and IS AN OFFICAL part of the Film's marketing. --Mithos90 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean the posters that had the different adjectives at the top of them. The thing about Marketing, though, is that the information can get too indiscriminate. For example, it would not be encyclopedic to mention that Stardust had a TV spot last night. How much detail to be placed in Marketing is a discussion that should take place among editors, and I believe that there is a point where there's too much information that's not necessary for a long-term encyclopedic article. For example, the teaser trailer should definitely have a place, but it may not be as important to report on new TV spots and trailers if they didn't have the same impact and notability as the first one did. The only thing new with these posters is that they have descriptive words at the top of them, and they don't really give much additional insight about what the film could be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, ok I understand. --Mithos90 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hud taping footage at Rob and Beth's Coney Island Date?

Well, base on the film, Rob is the one who was taping that footage. I already revise it thanks.--124.106.123.124 (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry I got no account.

Article revision

Apparently, a satellite falling from the sky is from a company who is in relations with Slusho (the man character's brother who "died" on the bridge was wearing a Slusho shirt.) Rob (main character) is going to Japan to work for the company that funded the satellite that looks for Slusho's key ingredient at the bottom of the ocean. This ingredient made in the Slusho product causes a certain crestacean to grow exponentially. The satellite is the falling object seen in this picture, landing in the site where the key ingredient is found, disturbing this fucked up monster from the bottom of the ocean who then wreaks havoc upon New York City. The monster has been dormant at the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years? I think each clip of video with Beth and Rob before the monster attacked has some signifcance or hidden image.

Based on the headlines above, I've revised the article accordingly. The Production section has more "meat" in it with an image of Escape from New York based on the cited connection. I've also revised the Marketing section now that producer Bryan Burk verified Slusho and Tagruato as part of the viral marketing campaign. Feel free to review my edits and make the appropriate changes. Since it's the month leading up to the film, keep an eye out for headlines to help expand the article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just goes to show, patience is a virtue. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

-Hey I found this website after going to Slusho... http://slusho.mblade.iloopmobile.com/History.ftl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtrooper (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield meaning

I didn't see it mentioning that Cloverfield was a military name for the case of the monster attacking it, and also Incident Site U.S. 447, reffering to Central Park, I can't put it in, I'm not an "established user". So if someone see's that this is liable to submit, please do so. DarthTader90 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield actually refers to Central Park after the monster attacks.--Kondrayus (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says: The director said that "Cloverfield" was the government's case designate for the monster, comparing the titling to that of the Manhattan Project. "And it's not a project per se. It's the way that this case has been designated. That's why that is on the trailer, and it becomes clearer in the film. It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case," said the director. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As it says lower down on the talk page at the moment, Cloverfield is the name of the MONSTER, not the site of the video. The article currently says otherwise. Correction needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.248.60 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

During the opening graphical sequence the line "Incident:Cloverfield" is seen near the bottom left. I assumed the Cloverfield designation was a case file designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandorman (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

VFX Supervisor Kevin Blank calls the creature Clover in the behind-the-scenes footage. It may be unofficial like the term parasites, but that’s what they were using during principal photography. Synetech (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When they are heading uptown, a man speaking a foreign language (Russian?) stops them and says something, but the characters appologize and they don't understand. Has anybody been able to get a translation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.72.59 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All he says is "listen, listen to me!" over and over again, asks for "help", "help me" and mentions a "fish". Nothing terribly important. Anything else that he said was inaudible and is just part of someones imagination.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.114.150 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Add

They forgot to mention in the "Pre-Release Plot Speculation" Section, that several runors circulated at that time of a possible tie in with the video game, "Gears of War." Can someone add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.220.153 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this page is protected, can anyone add the NL wikipedia page to the other languages, being nl:Cloverfield? Thx! 217.136.242.115 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also add the details of the MySpace promotional campaign and preview screening which can be found at www.myspace.com/blackcurtainuk where MySpace uses can win tickets to a screening on the 27th January. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James2howard (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add that in the last scene of the movie, something is clearly seen falling from the sky into the water? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoonishere (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate the previous statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.5.209 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been some argument over the ending of the film. I think that it should be mentioned in the article

It's being disputed elsewhere on this page. DurinsBane87 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Review?

This has been circulating the internet, is there any truth and should this be noted? It includes set links and a highly detailed review including a description of the monster (warning of possible spoilers)

http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=235157

Also if this turns out to be true should the early review be noted? Mavrickindigo (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source. We shouldn't sacrifice reliability to rush such details to the forefront of the article. The film is coming out soon, so there will undoubtedly be reliably sourced reviews and coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That review's fake, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.95.177 (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now this is being regarded as the most credible review: http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23357

SPOILERS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.227.3 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AICN has a more detailed review as well. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35236 --68.97.75.170 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since all the bullshit reviews above have been debunked, can this section be erased?137.165.208.48 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, Neil Cumpston's review is the best - http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/35100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.56.109 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

The page states that after the credits the audio of "It's still alive" can be heard in reverse. What you hear in the theatre is "Help us," and when reversed, the sound is "It's still alive." I thought this should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.134.174 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; dont have a wikipedia account, but noticed an error in the article someone may want to correct. There is no such thing as 'argnet.com'. The name of the site is ARGNet, but the URL is argn.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.115.81 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting that! I changed it. =] --Wachapon² 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another review. http://www.joblo.com/arrow/reviews.php?id=1222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aus simon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a wikipedia account, but in the Plot Summary, there's a line to the effect that"A presumably nuclear explosion rocks all of Manhattan and seems to kill them both, and the camera is covered in rubble." If this was the case, shouldn't an electromagnetic pulse have wiped the video tape that was found? Should that line be changed to "A large explosion" or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.61.204 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. The explosion at the end of the film was absolutely not a nuclear explosion. The monster was right over them at the ending and if it was a nuclear weapon, the screen would have just gone blank. Also, the tape would have been completely incinerated. It was heavy, heavy bombing, not a nuclear option. Perhaps multiple JDAMS? At any rate, I agree that the wiki should be corrected accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.249.250 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

the explosions at the end were most likely Fuel Air Bombs

Another bit... the site isn't designated Cloverfield. It's designated "US-433, formally Central Park" (or Manhatten, can't remember which). The monster is designated as "Cloverfield". Just thought that was worth correcting. As for the bomb... definiately not nuclear. Actually, the most likely bomb is the MOAB. Aruisdante (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Right on both accounts. US-433 used to be central park, which is presumably where the video was found. (in fact, i think they might say that in the opening sequence, i can't remember.) Also, the bomb can't be nuclear, as the emp from the blast would have wiped out the tape. It was just a hell of a lot of conventional bombs. Fuel air bombs aren't unlikely either, those would cook the beast to death.

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone could change the last bit where it says the monster resembles Sin and whatnot. Either put in a note saying that one of the CONCEPT monsters resembled it or remove it entirely, maybe? Because the actual monster looked nothing at all like Sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen the movie yet, but if it has spawns that leap out of it, its at least noteworthy--Pyrzqxgl (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but spawning creatures hardly means it resembles Sin. It's just not important enough to note. I mean, you could say that those crabs and scorpions that carry eggs on their back until they hatch resemble Sin if you want to be that vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.148.3 (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like Sin!--Pyrzqxgl (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why argue over whether it's a nuclear explosion or not? Electromagnetic pulse? If talk about logic, the video cam would've already been damaged few times, and the batteries, etc.

Nuclear or not, the soldier stated clearly at 0600 hours, they'll bomb the area completely since they already LOST. I'm not sure if they soldier meant nuclear (I cannot recall), but if he does, then EVEN if then it was not a nuclear explosion, there will still be a nuclear explosion later.

The point is, why argue over "electromagnetic pulse" logic? Is so, you can argue many other things... 60.49.178.117 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tactical nukes work different than regular nukes and that destruction is not widespread and the EMP was very little if any. So i think that if they were caught in a tactical nuclear strike, it would probable depend on how close the warhead was. It was the same in Independence Day movie, when tactical nukes were used and the Observing Armoured plated vehicle was still able to report their findings.Topsaint (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nukes are nukes. If you set off a nuclear bomb, you will get an EMP. Period. Now there are theoretical devices called 'Neutron Bombs' which are air-burst devices that are used to saturate an area with high levels of short-term radiation to kill off all living organizims but have minimal blast effects. The problem is, those too have an EMP. Finally, the OAPV you pointed out in Independence Day was not saved because they used a 'Tactical Nuke' but because the vehical was far enough away from the blast to not be destroyed (and there was a bit of theatric licensing taken). --24.117.130.146 (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Grunberg involvement

Speaking of errors, Greg's not in the movie. [4] Just thought I'd bring it up here first. I don't have much more in way of a reference. And frankly, I don't feel very "bold". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Ace. I'll take care of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done; and here's a direct link if anyone for any reason doubts the photo, with it being at a blog and all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The power of the explosion at the end suggests its a nuke, no question, that's why there's the fire-storm under the bridge, the area was nuked to kill the monster no doubt about it.

• A recent radio interview with the writer says otherwise (otherwise no sequal and he also pointed out there would be no way to recover the video camera). No nuke was used. They carpet-bombed the city.--24.117.130.146 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Manga prequel?

Should it be mentioned? http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/tachiyomi/comic/cloverfield/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.96.132 (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be put in as J.J. Abrams did actually ask for the manga to be created so people would know the origins of the monster and what happened before it attacked, however it will only be released in Japanese and it will be a series of 4 books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.64.7 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have a link or something to where J.J. Abrams mentioned that or where its posted. Rosario lopez (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It says on page 22 of the manga 'Produced by: JJ Abrams' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.64.7 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Manga won't be an origins story, it simply details the events of the Tangruato Oil Station. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

already showing

there were sneak previews all around salt lake city yesterday. surely someone must of posted a blog about what it really is that can be added to the article. 71.219.78.10 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4359287a1860.html

"Eager fans will be pleased that they get to see the monster that’s terrorising New York – although they might have wished otherwise afterwards. It’s an almost indescribable stumpy behemoth, and he’s invited a few smaller friends along for his trail of terror."

http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/archives/2008/01/cloverfield.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.78.10 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to mention it because it isn't true until the movie comes out. That's the way Wiki is run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.185.79 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean it isn't true until it's filmed and edited, and any mention of it before it's release is a reflection of the current state of the movie and can be changed accordingly. Then again, that's moot anyways, since the movie did come out. Unless the movie theatre is going to be getting a revised version of the film for tomorrow. --72.137.47.204 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the movie is out. In New Zealand. And Stuff is a New Zealand website. (I just saw it today, for instance.) So, now's the time to get started on a plot section. --Dom (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that guy's right but the article is edit protected at the moment! Some user's from Australia and New Zealand have already seen this film but can't add to the article!

Can we get something done about this?--124.176.26.182 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the entire plot revealed on Wikipedia? That's just bullshit. Thank christ I saw the film before reading.220.239.27.85 (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I avoided this page until I saw a sneak preview on Wednesday. If you don't want to know the plot why would you go on the internet and read a section entitled "Plot"? Mad031683 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened to the spoiler warnings?

How long have all the spoiler warnings from TV/Film/Book (etc) articles been gone?! Seriously I just ruined the whole film for myself by accidentally reading something like "removed as this is actually a spoiler without warning". Any chance of getting the warnings back? FreemDeem (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly, but were you reading the section called "Plot"? If so you should have assumed it would tell you the plot. And that's probably why spoiler warnings aren't needed for a such a section. Just a guess.VatoFirme (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I ask you this out of a genuine desire to gauge your opinion on the spoiler issue, which has been the subject of much debate in recent weeks (and months): firstly, reading the Plot section, what was it you expected the section to contain? Secondly, do you think the same thing would have occurred were the section to have been titled Plot summary or similar? Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm guys, much appreciated. I was scrolling down to a section below the plot part and didn't even realise the film had been released yet. Besides, the article had a plot section before it had been released but it was only speculation. Maybe there should be clearly visible spoiler warnings on articles like this, and perhaps even a "hide section" function.

FreemDeem (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was being dead serious. Sorry if I worded that badly or if it came across like that to you.VatoFirme (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys don't think you're pushing it considering the film isn't out until Friday? Alientraveller (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

out in America Friday... it's already out in AZ and AU (if this wasn't the case then i'd agree with you) harlock_jds (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, FreemDeem, read my reply to you again. I was attempting to genuinely gauge your opinion on the matter, even going so far as to include a caveat to indicate I wasn't being a tool. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed by authorGwynand (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)(talk) 12:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed by author I'd genuinely like FreemDeem to come back and answer my good faith questions. Steve ^{T • C} 12:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a little light humor, I couldn't help myself, but now have removed it. Now a more good faith response. It appears that there is a growing consensus leaning towards not containing plot spoiler tags before plot sections. In many cases, I think this is the obvious choice, as to not clutter up thousands and thousands of pages for something that should be obvious. However, in cases such as this, where a movie has yet to be seen by 99% of interested viewers, I'm not sure a plot spoiler tag would be totally inappropriate. The problem then becomes, what is the consensus on how long is should stay up, what films should be included in such a designation, etc. It appears that, for now, the fact that the section is titled "Plot" is considered enough of a spoiler warning on its own.Gwynand (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Replying to comment by Steve, I think Plot Summary is better than Plot because Plot could be speculation as to what the plot of a film contains but Plot Summary makes it clear that it is actually a detailed outline of the plot. FreemDeem (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'll be asking similar of all who bring up the issue on the pages I watch. I'm just trying to gauge opinion. To be honest, I'm pretty ambivalent about it, but I wouldn't particularly be against any move to change the manual of style to recommend such titling. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the "plot" section needs a spoiler warning. But if other sections outside the plot, such as the production notes, reception, etc. have spoilers they should be labeled.VatoFirme (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FreemDeem, if you want to add a spoiler warning to the plot section, put this

:'''Note''': ''This section contains spoilers''

under the ==Plot summary== heading. Be advised than an editor will likely remove it in a day or so, but it can be done. --Pixelface (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, any spoiler warnings contained in an article are removed. True enough that you ruin a story by reading it's summary on Wikipedia, however, the only advice anyone can give you is to just not read the article. Anything else would be against Wiki Policy. Fox816 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They're removed by mainly one editor. That is not consensus. That guideline is disputed and does not describe current practice. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be disputed but it does describe current practice, that's why the spoiler template was deleted. If their removed mainly by one editor, its because he got there before I did. Mad031683 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It actually doesn't describe current practice. And the {{spoiler}} template was deleted when there was no consensus to delete it. FreemDeem can just paste the text I posted. --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be current practice if there were still spoiler warnings in articles or they weren't removed on sight. As of now, policy states no spoilers. If it changes then we'll follow that. Either way, I'm just saying there's no point in placing a spoiler tag in an article or encouraging others to place one in since it will be taken out. It'll only start an edit war. The only way to change that is to reform policy. Fox816 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I read one plot summery...got pissed off...and learned the policy, now I know what "plot" actually means in wikipedia and read articles accordantly. This discussion happens on every new movie and new book coming out, and it seems that Spoiler tags don't have a long life span in spite of the frequency in which they are discussed (that may not be consensus, but its pretty damn close). I just saw the movie, and was about to post a section on this discussion board titled "Plot=Spoiler" as a pre-emptive strike, but it seems someone beat me to the punch.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy is stupid. A lot of people who might not know about this movie or heard about it from a friend might goggle and click directly here. Then they get the entire film ruined for them. The plot should be a summary of what the movie is basically about without ruining the fun parts of it. I read this after seeing the movie last night and said, crap I could have saved myself $8. Not everyone who googles and clicks wikipedia knows your bad policy at least offer the plot on a 2nd page with a warning link at the minimum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.87.31 (talk • contribs) 17:42, January 19, 2008

This is an encyclopedia. Have you ever read a volume of Encylopedia Britanica that had spoiler warnings? HalfShadow (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read the ending of a film in Encyclopedia Britannica? --Pixelface (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even a point. In fact, if anything, it actually makes my point stronger. HalfShadow (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving the discussion to WT:SPOILER. We're not really talking about the film anymore here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like it if this didn't turn into another Eastern Promises, please. Steve ^{T • C} 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all I planned to say. 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs)

No, we're not talking about the film — we're talking about this article, which is what talk pages are for. I've already explained how what FreemDeem wants can be done and that's the last I'll say about it here. --Pixelface (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i just checked back and noticed someone had edited the spoiler out of my original comment. That made me laugh. No other real point to this comment. FreemDeem (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Major spoilers in this article

It should be labeled that there are major plot spoilers in the article for people who have not seen the movie and want to find information, but still be surprised. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.229.10 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop telling

To whoever writes the plot summaries for the movies on wikipedia you tell the whole movie. this is so stupid because if no one has seen it you ruin the whole movie for them. a plot is a BRIEF description of os story not a telling of precise details of the movie. WAKE UP IDIOTS!!. who taught you how to write a plot summary a monkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.216.109.130 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, how do you expect it to be written? Like the back of a DVD? "Four friends find themselves in New York City the night a monster attacks! Armed with only a camcorder, can they escape alive?!" Sure, it's a brief summary, and it is brief. Sorry for telling you the ending. If you don't want to be spoiled, just don't read, because we're not going to warn you that a plot section has the plot in it.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if someone wants to know what happens in the film to tie into the real-world context present in the article body, leaving out the major scenes from beginning to end would be detrimental. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

it would help if you actually put spoiler tags on it. The guy has a point though, less is more, don't tell the whole story you tards.67.184.114.4 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No reason for such hostility, people. . . — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't use spoiler tags. Blame yourself for reading a section labeled "plot".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

> a plot is a BRIEF description of os story

A plot is a plot. a summary is a summary. If you want to, add a summary above the Plot. i like the FULL MOVIE, it's good if I can't see the movie but what to know what it's about. if I can't find the movie in my country/time i'd like to know more about the script then "boy meets grils and wacky things happens"

Viral website screenshot

I'm not too crazy about this current website screenshot under "Viral tie-in". Does anyone think it adds much? There's screenshots to consider from the film itself, and none of the images in the article are from the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it really harms things either. It seems more prominent because there's a lack of images in most of the other sections, and once this article has expanded it would probably fit in reasonably OK, as long as all fair-use considerations are covered. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll see what can come up. On a parallel point, I was wondering, could we add a screenshot of the people taking pictures of the severed head of the Statue of Liberty? It'd be relevant to the context in Production, and it'd be a direct tie to the film. For the influencing poster, it's easy to access it by visiting the article for Escape from New York. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You thinking a direct comparison, one above the other, like they've got with the images of the gamma-ray machine over on the Hulk article? Steve ^{T • C} 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the director talking about the contemporary nature of people recording incidents with their own devices and having a screenshot of them doing that for the severed head from the film. It wouldn't be a rationale related to the Escape from New York poster, but the poster context can still be kept. There's a wiki-link to Escape from New York so they can view the poster itself there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Have you seen a decent copy of the image lying around anywhere? I'm struggling to find one. Steve ^{T • C} 09:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch here http://projectcloverfield.com/screencaps. None have people taking pictures, just the head sliding with sparks. Hope I helped! Itsjoshyo (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The photos flip over (hold on to the photo and move the mouse up and down like you are shaking the photo). Two are in English and one is in an Asian Language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quickie consensus

An editor removed the line in the reception section which related to Scott Foundas' criticisms of the 9/11 allusions. Had he not mentioned the World Trade Center in his review, I'd perhaps agree with the removal of the line, but I think his statements are unambiguous enough to let it stand. It's a trivial matter, but I'd still like to open this one out to the floor... Steve ^{T • C} 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because New York gets attacked and people are panicking, does not = 9/11. No one saw Godzilla '98 (99? the American one, anyway), then 9/11, and said 'Oh my god, Godzilla predicted this!', so why do they think Cloverfield was 'based on' or in any way 'references' it? OmegaX123 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It all has to do with how the destruction was presented. Compare the original Gojira to the Firebombing of Tokyo and, of course, atomic bombings, and see specific images that invoke it. For Cloverfield, the duststorm after the building's colapse in the begining is a direct evocation of it. -- Majin Gojira (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So you say that because falling buildings make "dustorms" this film is like 9/11? Does the fact that it have soldiers mean it is just like Iraq? And could breaking glass in the film in fact be a reference to "Kristalnacht", the night when the Nazis broke in the windows of as many Jews as possible? Is this film trying to show us about the shadowy New World order that operates under our very noses, producing conspiracy theory after conspiracy to distract us from the truth? It all becomes so clear... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.193.69 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary Additions

"Upon reaching the street, the Statue of Liberty's head suddenly crashes down before them, and everyone witnesses more explosions and a gigantic moving form in the distance." As the monster continues to attack Lower Manhattan, the Woolworth Building gets hit as well and proceeds to collapse.

After Rob and his friends re-enter Manhattan, Rob realizes that his cell phone is out of battery. Seeing looters across the street at an electronics store, Rob runs in as well (with Hud chasing behind him) to find a replacement battery. While in the store Hud takes notice of the news broadcasts that begin to show portions of the creature. After finding a battery, Rob runs out and listens to Beth's message on voicemail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc82 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In the section where "Rob and his friends descend into the subway for safety and decide to walk the tracks to Beth’s building." - they descending specifically into the Spring Street station (6 line), although the station is clearly a fake given the short size of the platform, poor positioning of the turnstiles and the large columns that do not exist in the real station.

In the section where "They escape and, fortunately, rendezvous with military officers." They exit the station at 59th street - though not said explicitly, this should be the 59th Street and Lexington station (6) where they somehow walk straight into what would be Bloomingdale's on 59th and Lex(they enter a large department store and are told that they can exit right onto 58th street). This would make sense since their original plan was to walk up the 6 line until they hit 59th/Central Park.

"The remaining three arrive at Beth’s partially toppled building, but must access it through another building and dangerously cross damaged rooftops high above Manhattan." Beth's apartment (revealed from the beginning) is the right tower of the Time Warner Center by Columbus Circle (59th Street/Broadway/8th Avenue). It looks like the right tower has collapsed onto the left tower of the building.

"After freeing her and fending off another parasite, they escape the buildings and board evacuation helicopters just as the giant creature attacks nearby." They are told to meet on 40th Street and Park Avenue, where they meet the evacuation helicopters. As they reach the site, the monster is scene coming across 42nd Street, knocking down Grand Central Station as the military continues to fire down on the creature.

Dc82 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of these would be appropriate to be added to the plot summary, maybe the last one is OK. Gwynand (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they shouldn't - at least have the details added in to the plot - the movie was placed specfically in Manhattan. This is just to replace "building" and "tunnel" with something more specific. Dc82 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"...As they reach the site, the monster is scene coming across 42nd Street, knocking down Grand Central Station as the military continues to fire down on the creature."
It's a Terminal, not a "station." C d h (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! This is much more interesting than the short and brief plot that is shown on the Cloverfield page. I think you should, without question, add it. Also you should make sure that all of those locations are linked to their wiki page (like Time Warner Center or Grand Central Station, or Terminal if you wanna be a dick about it!). Unfortunatly it is highly likly that it would be changed back to as it was before. You'd think the best encyclpedia in the world would have an attention to this kind of important detail!--Maceo (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think those places should be (re)added back to the Plot summary section. Because this is a movie about NYC and there are plenty of references about the big apple and therefore, people should be informed about the movies' (intentional or not) supposed to be locations. Otherwise, why do we bother to mention Central Park? Why not just "an open greenery" instead?! If it's not in the plot, then it should be somewhere of the entry. TheAsianGURU (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)