JJ Abrams' giant monster movie, Cloverfield, seems to be more than a movie... it's become so much more than that. The movie has done so well that it doesn't surprise me that there is STILL talk and speculation about what the monster is and where the sequel might take us. Today a new interview appeared online that not only details some of the monster's (and parasites) abilities, but that a very, very important scene was cut from the movie. Read on for the skinny.
Blog site Tagruato recently chatted with Cloverfield Lead Creature Designer Neville Page, where all sorts of goodies were revealed.
The websites asks: Tagruato: The appendages on the creature's underbelly have been a source of great speculation. Hasbro's description of the toy includes, "creepy people-sucking underbelly." Director Matt Reeves also made reference to "feeding tubes". You mention the creature has more than one way to eat. Can you shed some light on the form and function of this or any other aspects of the creature?
Page explain that this is in fact important and that the scenes were cut, "The "feeding tubes" are basically elongated, and articulated external esophagus with the business end terminating in teethlike fingers. The reason for this feature was actually driven by the need for more personal interaction from a story standpoint. If Clover's hands were to reach down and grab someone, it would not be unlike someone reaching down to grab an ant. The scale is so disparate that there would almost be no connection to the horror. So, we felt that there needed to be a feature that would be "relatable". Sadly, the scenes for this were cut."
The website also asked how Page would categorize the symbiotic relationship between the "parasites" and the creature, he responds, "The parasites are, first off, not the offspring as some have speculated. They are definitely a parasitic arthropod like creature that seems to be feeding off of the surface of Clover. Are they dropping off of Clover as a result of the "food source" being depleted? Or has a new food source presented itself? Although they seem to be useful from a cleaning standpoint, like a cleaner wrasse, they appear to be opportunistic feeders."
I am so over this crappy movie! The monster looks retarded, and who gives a shit how many other hidden tricks it can do. WTF was it even doing there in the city anyways... It was dormant underwater for how many centuries before a satellite woke its ass up? I really hope they decide not to do a sequel to this. I can't believe I was once interested in this movie.
I wonder if these "feeding tubes" were supposed to be seen near the end, when what's his name with the camera got killed? It was vague as to what happened, but made it appear like the creature bit his head/upper body off or something. BUT, a creature that size taking a partial bite of a human would be impossible...I wonder if the DVD will really show it?
Whats the damage mfcmk? I will hand it to you, this was way over-hyped, but I still thought the film was solid. Hell, it was more than solid. It was the most fun monster flick we've had since... well, since The Mist. Still, I thought it was rather good, even if short of being anything great.
I loved this movie. But that didn't explain shit what the monster was. It was talking bout the same crap. And quite frankly I could careless what it is suppose to be i loved to think and to be surprised. I am still praying for an unrated DVD... because Matt said in some interview that they shot so much gory stuff. SO IDK
Why are those of you who claim to have no interest in this not only reading this post, but commenting as well? I fyou really didn't care you wouldn't have read this.
It was a great movie. Don't be a hype basher. Is it cool to not like this movie or something?
How is it that people still miss the point of this movie, even after they've been spoon fed and had their precious little chins wiped by hundreds of more observant viewers and critics since the movie opened? Stop pissing on yourself for one second and read the following sentence: Replace the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 with a giant monster and some man-eating parasites, and you have the entire point of CLOVERFIELD. That's it, kiddies. Nothing complex or difficult for a reasonably intelligent human being to grasp. Is it likely that the people scrambling to escape the WTC on 9/11 had any idea where the planes came from, or why they hit the towers? Of course not. Many of them probably weren't even aware of airplanes hitting the towers at all. That certainly did not make their panic or terror any less real or powerful. The point of the movie was to put viewers in the shoes of someone caught right in the heart of a major disaster in a large city. All the chaos, confusion, uncertainty, and desparation of a real disaster scenario, only with a sci-fi catalyst to keep that scenario grounded in the entertainment arena. Had the filmmakers explained the creature's origin or purpose, THEY WOULD HAVE COMPLETELY UNDERMINED THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THE ENTIRE FILM WAS BUILT! This isn't STAR TREK, STAR WARS, or X-MEN, fanboys. It's a 9/11 metaphor, and folks on 9/11 didn't have the benefit of a comic book summation of events leading up to the disaster while they were fighting for their lives at Ground Zero. It's fair to say at this point that those who hated the movie because there was no explanation for the creature's presence not only missed the point, but simply didn't really watch the movie at all. You may have been sitting in the theater, stuffing your face with popcorn and texting your friends, but you obviously weren't paying attention.
And since the presence of so many intellectually-challenged people on this planet chafes my ass so, let me also add this little bit of perspective ... Few all-time classic giant monster movies actually explain the origin of the featured creature. The first true giant monster film was the 1925 silent version of THE LOST WORLD. No real explanation is given in that movie (or in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel, or in any of the subsequent film and TV adaptations) for the existence of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures on a plateau in modern times. They're just there, having somehow defied extinction. The same is true of KING KONG, in every one of his screen incarnations. No gorillas that size exist today, and none appear in the fossil record. None of the film versions of the Kong tale explain why one exists on Skull Island, or why it shares the island with dinosaurs, etc. In the original 1954 GOJIRA (GODZILLA), Professor Yamane theorizes that the monster was trapped in suspended animation and revived by H-bomb tests, but it's only a theory. Some of the natives of Odo Island insist that Godzilla has been around for centuries. At best, the presence of Strontium-90 in Godzilla's footprint can be taken as proof of the bomb connection, but no one knows how long Godzilla was there or where he came from before the atom was split. Steven Spielberg doesn't bother to explain the rather intelligent behavior of the shark in JAWS, beyond the notion that the fish is a rogue who has staked out the waters off Amity for food. If that were true, though, why did the shark stay after the beaches were closed? It's not as though Herman Melville (in his novel) or John Huston (in the film adaptation) ever made any effort to explain why there is a white sperm whale terrorizing the high seas in MOBY DICK, or why it has such a hatred for Captain Ahab. No one knows where the Graboids in the first TREMORS came from, and no one cares. They're there, trying to eat the townsfolk, and that's all that counts. If all of these films (and many more) can not only function, but indeed become major and minor classics of the monster genre, why does CLOVERFIELD have to take a hold of your pudgy little hand and lead you by-the-numbers through the story?
Ok dude...come down off the soap box. Just because you've seen a few too many movies, can remember characters and can make obvious connections does not give you a PHD. There's really no need to lecture or put down anyone. As far as the movie and creature origins are concerned, I think it's fascinating that whether people loved or hated the flick (I'm in the latter...sorry, just my opinion) they are still compelled to disect every frame of it. For a movie in this era to do that is something quite amazing. Job well done and I'm sure the dvd will become huge and give even more speculation to the growing Cloverfield mythos.
After the rather long post up there, I would simply like to say that I loved this movie. It was fun. I had a great time and it didn't make me regret spending my money. Also I think its cool that they want to give out more info on the creature, but I also agree with a few of the posts that being able to come to my own conclusions is a dessert after dinner. I watched and then tried to make my own conclusion. With that said I can't wait to buy this on DVD.
Loved this movie. Saw it 3 times in the theater, because that's the only way it will work. Watching on a TV screen at home just wouldn't have the impact of having the enormous screen and kick-ass sound.
That being said, if you're interested, I wrote a review that makes some valid points re: answers and whatever. It's right here: http://tombofanubis.com/Reviews/NE/Cloverfield.html
Agree with Jkrouskop about not having to explain the monster's origin. And though on a first glimpse it might seem like the dude was on a soapbox, he's actually citing his sources and making a strong argument. The September 11th imagery/parallels in 'Cloverfield' are unfortunate. I still thought the film only had moments of greatness. On a whole, I thought it was disappointing. Honestly, I could care less if it has toothed tubes that stretch out of its ass to eat stock characters.
They are making a second one. Apparantly the bridge scene, is where you see the other point of view. When he turns around he captures someone with another camera, and the new one will be from his angle.
You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
Blog site 
Print Story
Send to a Friend
