This wiki article says that the monster was an immature specimen. It was destructive because it was panicking, trapped in a completely unfamiliar environment and separated from its own kind.
As far as it being Lovecraftian, what does that mean? If you mean it was specifically from Lovecraft’s pantheon then no, it’s not Lovecraftian. If you mean simply that it was from some eldritch other dimension, well, sure. Why not? That would certainly explain its invulnerability. I just put the invulnerability down to monster movie convention. Frankly it annoyed me a little, and took me out of the movie.
Somewhere upthread a poster speculated that the spider things were in a symbiotic relationship with the monster. That makes sense to me. The spider things fetch food for the monster and gain some benefit from the monster; possibly feeding on the monster’s blood, or maybe simply getting the monster’s protection in some hostile world.
Awww. It also says he’s a newborn. With separation anxiety. He’s just a baby. Poor little monster.
I was hoping for some of this during the movie. I wanted to know the monster’s motivation. Granted, it would probably have taken away during the movie to feel bad for him. Now that I do, I feel bad for poor little Clovie now.
Actually it was mentioned in the movie that the monster was eating people, although we never did see it happen (and it didn’t eat Hud).
In this article, Abrams says the creature has been in the water for thousands of years, yet he also says it is a baby. That doesn’t really make much sense. Then there is the thing splashing into the water, where does that fit in?
Also, I don’t think anyone mentioned the manga tie-in yet. It is very strange and it will be interesting to see how that fits in (there are supposed to be three more issues released).
Geeks of Doom has an excellent summary of Cloverfield and how the viral websites are related to the movie.
Well, if the producer says Clover is a baby who is scared then I guess that’s that although as you mention it doesn’t make a lot of sense and seems to miss a lot of potential for what the monster could mean to the earth in future movies. And of course if it is a baby where is momma?
As for eating people I do not remember that. I just remembered it did not eat Hud so figured with such an obvious opportunity for a snack it didn’t bother. Maybe it was already full.
I do seem to recall that someone noted (in the tunnel IIRC) the spider things do not seem 100% intent on just killing people but seemed to want to collect them and carry them away. While they certainly do kill people they also do their stinging trick and we are not sure what that is for (if indeed it is anything more than a sting meant to kill things although considering the delayed reaction to its effects seems a poor method to subdue prey).
Finally the article mentions the spiders are parasites so perhaps a symbiotic relationship is out (the article notes Clover is scratching its back on a building to dislodge the spider-things). Although again how did the parasites hang around for thousands of years with baby and never show up? Were they hibernating too? Seems a stretch.
If the monster is thousands of years old and also a baby, its species’ life cycle must be reaaally long.
I was at a movie theater yesterday (for a different movie) and laughed at the warning signs they had up for Cloverfield. They explained the sustained shakycam/motion sickness issue and concluded with, “If you have problems with motion sickness, this is not the movie for you.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen any warning signs that so openly discouraged seeing a movie, but judging by the multiple people who were puking in the ladies’ room when I was in there, I’ll let the theater staff has done all the vomit-cleaning they can stand in the past week.
Warning signs are not all that uncommon for shaky-cam movies. I’ve seen them posted for the Blair Witch Project and the Bourne films. Cloverfield was the first movie where I was so nauseated I actually had to look away from the screen for a bit.
As for a sequel, according to the director:
I thought it was strange the way he phrased that. Do you think it’s possible they’ve already filmed (or started filming) the sequel?
Or…what is the word for it? midquel? There was another thread on this topic earlier today–sequels that took place during the movie. Very Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
Thinking back on it, they tried to drag Hud away, but got beaten off by the girl. Then she got bitten. Perhaps they’re weeding out ‘easy prey’ vs ‘ones that fight back?’ “This one is big and probably tasty. Bring it with us.” “That one is dangerous, eliminate it.”
Also, add me in among the dubious in regard to the monster having been sitting in the ocean for thousands of years. A juvenile that’s reacting with fear and anger at the new surroundings, sure. But I saw something land in the water at the end there, which leads me to believe the alien idea. (For those that are still looking for it, watch the sky on the right-hand side. It’s a very faint grey speck, and it’s over quickly).
We got R&G first (the worm’s-eye view with characters who don’t have the big picture). If they want to avoid repeating themselves, it’s time for Hamlet (a bird’s-eye view with noble, important characters who understand more about what’s going on). But don’t hold your breath.
I enjoyed the movie, but I would have no interest in a sequel that covered the same basic events and didn’t provide any new information.
But why would it take a month from whatever hits the water to Snookums ravaging NYC? Annoyance is a very immediate state of being.
Here’s a thought: Snookums has indeed been in a trench for many thousands of years - but whatever landed contained larval versions of the lice creatures, which infest Snookums and cause its annoyance.
Clearly, he was talking about the possibility of other individuals recording the events of the monster attack, not that they were actually producing a second feature film at the same time. You do not film a production like Cloverfield in one night.
I can buy that. Not my favorite of theories, but I admit it’s certainly plausible.
Though, if I recall correctly, the Coney Island tape was made two weeks earlier, not a whole month. I figure it’s a fair enough timeframe for the monster to recover from landing and then ‘discover’ civilization. He may not have been annoyed with Earth, per se, but with the noisy boats and the city and the like.
Or, heck, maybe the military saw it crash down (I’d have a hard time believing no one noticed it at all) and had already engaged it while it was underwater, which caused the infuriated rampage into the city. It would certainly help explain how the military was able to respond so quickly.
This actually makes sense. I have another theory. J.J. Abrams said, “Why should I bother filling in the plot holes when the Internet will do it for me? Then I’ll make the sequel and it will look like I knew what I was doing all along!”
