About the Monster

[Falconv1.0]

Originally Posted by black_smith32

your the kind of person who uses to much scientific logic nerd ass, its a diss you dumbass and i bet your trying to suck your moms dick right now, and you cant suck yours cuase you dont have one so go fuck off somewhere esle you cloverfield freak, using all these scientific words and all, what a cloverfield nerd!

I lol'd.

And the idea of a giant monster is improbable to begin with. The ocean is deep enough to conceal some crazy shit, like giant squids, but seeing how he wanted a realistic film , I doubt anything like a Clover could be supported, even at the bottom of the ocean. Well, unless it's just a monster from space that fell a really freaking long time ago. Either way, all we know is that it's been around for a while.

Regardless of its origin, it's not gonna get bigger, which was the original question.

(Also ,why am I getting hammered when black smith is sounding like the 8 year old on Xbox live?)

[nendo]

Originally Posted by Falconv1.0

I lol'd.

And the idea of a giant monster is improbable to begin with. The ocean is deep enough to conceal some crazy shit, like giant squids, but seeing how he wanted a realistic film , I doubt anything like a Clover could be supported, even at the bottom of the ocean. Well, unless it's just a monster from space that fell a really freaking long time ago. Either way, all we know is that it's been around for a while.

Regardless of its origin, it's not gonna get bigger, which was the original question.

(Also ,why am I getting hammered when black smith is sounding like the 8 year old on Xbox live?)

because u attitude all over the board wasn't a very good one to begin with. alot of this was probably from another thread gone wrong. i agree that other do atm sound immature and you do have a right to your opinion but for them it was how u stated your opinion in a forcful way that wasn't very nice to begin with

[black_smith32]

someone has to ban falcon 1.0 dude, he just has a bad attitude, i started out okay, now im just pissed it this kid

[Tanooki]

See what happens when I defend you Black smith. :P

Oh, and Falcon, I was referring to "in movie" official. Of course I know what all has been said by Abrams, Reeves, the actors, etc. As you can see from my join date I've been all over this movie since August of 07. (actually since July but since I have nothing to back that up, other than people's word, I'll say August.)

By the way Mak, do I still need move access? The spoiler thing is done. I won't get my feel-bads hurt if you remove me.

[Thaloom]

I only thing that kinda bothers me the lack of explanation for it's immunity to weapons. Bullets I can understand, and even RPGs, but larger munitions?

[black_smith32]

Originally Posted by Thaloom

I only thing that kinda bothers me the lack of explanation for it's immunity to weapons. Bullets I can understand, and even RPGs, but larger munitions?

yeah, i mean, just look at its skin, it looks so penetrable, like you could cut it easily. idk, unless its super tough.

[ABKStorm]

I agree with what has been said but one thing we aren't taking into account here is....This is the movies....they can do anything.....So here is what I am thinking....

What if for the sequel they come up with something that says for the plot that all of the bombs and such we launched at it to try and get rid of it.....actually only made it stronger somehow....Like the monster used the bombs for it's own powersource...

Because I mean come on...Like the US Military doesn't have something to shoot down it's throat, and explode it from the inside...So because they portrayed it as having an ultimate defense....why not think it could get stronger from what we launch at it?

Then we have a whole new scenario...which I do not believe anyone has brought up here yet....

What of that.

Richard "ABK" Storm

[Thaloom]

When I go to movies, I am willing to suspend disbelief.

I guess if I can accept a 350 foot monster attack NYC then I can accept it being immune to munitions.

[wmgreene]

It's not inconcievable that the monster would not be seriously hurt by the sort of munition used by infantry. Kevlar and some ceramic materials are currently the best armor that I know of, aside from active counter explosive plating. As far as I know, certain spider silk is still the strongest tensile material and theoretically could be woven into a next generation anti-penetration armor. Also, with body armor is the problem of diffusing the impact over more area, so a bullet, instead of penetrating, is going to be more like getting hit with a baseball bat. If you can imagine the monster has skin with strength comparable or tougher than kevlar, and probably several feet thick, it's going to be very hard to produce an open would with anything without extraordinary penetrating power. A forray from 15" battle ship guns is probably getting near the magnitude needed to really wound it. I think it is made clear that some of the larger arms fire really hurt the monster, which is probably giving it a huge adrenaline rush (if it has any sort of similar physiology). The 500 or 1000lb bombs dropped by the B2 clearly knocked the guy around. But also keep in mind, this things can move. It takes evasive action and a lot of shots miss it. It would be nice to drop a 5000lb bunker buster down it's throat, but that kind of targeting is nearly impossible. Anyway, point is, it's skin is probably stronger than steel. If you could get it to eat a yuppy packed with HE, I'd think there would be a much better chance of getting it from the inside out.

[jpotts]

Some people are making good points about the Cloverfield monster, but I think they're missing a BIG PICTURE issue here. I'll try and address a couple of comments here to illustrate the question that some people should be asking.

The Devil is in the details.

First, watch some of the DVD extras. You'll discover that, according to the makers of the film, actual military types were used in the numerous fire-fight sequences. They actually had military people on the set, firing weapons that they were familiar with. Consequently, these people would have known what kind of damage these weapons could do.

I only thing that kinda bothers me the lack of explanation for it's immunity to weapons. Bullets I can understand, and even RPGs, but larger munitions?

HE ammo from tanks, self-propelled guns, and so on does A LOT OF DAMAGE. Consequently, they had helicopers and planes angaged in the fight deploying smartbombs, and so on. The creature may have been 350' tall, but a few of those types of munitions can do a tremendous amount of damage.

Tank, mobile armor, and things like shoulder-held rocket launchers are made to penetrate thick armor. They also used these types of weapons to collapse caves in Afghanistan. It seems almost inconceivable that none of these things would even hurt the creature. However, it does seem that they do cause some feeling of pain, as when they hit, the creature roars in response.

Also, with body armor is the problem of diffusing the impact over more area, so a bullet, instead of penetrating, is going to be more like getting hit with a baseball bat.

True. People who die from blunt trauma often die from internal injuries. So if they hit the creature hard enough, but not enough to penetrate the skin, the concussion could kill it internally.

If you can imagine the monster has skin with strength comparable or tougher than kevlar, and probably several feet thick, it's going to be very hard to produce an open would with anything without extraordinary penetrating power. A forray from 15" battle ship guns is probably getting near the magnitude needed to really wound it. I think it is made clear that some of the larger arms fire really hurt the monster, which is probably giving it a huge adrenaline rush (if it has any sort of similar physiology).

Interesting point.

Very interesting point.

Remember, most scripts and films have people who check them over for consistency - making sure the characters are dressed appropriately, making sure the dialog matches from one scene to another, making sure that lighting is consistant, and so on. The whole point is "believability". Movie-making is a practice in illusion, but in order for the illusion to work, there has to be enough realism for the audience to accept what they're seeing.

I'm willing to bet that J. J. Abrams is no slouch when it comes to the whole "consistancy" thing. His gig is getting people hooked on an endless mystery, and providing vague clues that point people in one direction or another. Consider the last scene of Cloverfield where you can just barely see something dropping out of the sky and crashing into the Atlantic just off Coney Island. Consider the Tagruato and Tito Wave websites thrown up to support the movie buzz. He's done all this for a reason, and it requires a pretty high level attention to detail.

So, I'm willing to bet that if the creature is virtually unaffected by all that firepower being leveled at it, it's because an intentional part of the plot.

Ok, so let's assume the thing can't be stopped because conventional weapons, explosive weapons can't penetrate the skin. I think that's something we can all agree on.

How in the hell can a "parasite" the size of a dog penetrate the skin? You don't think that the parasites feed off of Cloverfield's blood? Ok. Then what to they feed off of then?

Parasites, by definition, feed off of the host creature...someway, somehow. Most (if not virtually all) exterior parasites - ticks, fleas, lice - drink the blood of a host.