Damn! This is the best view of the Cloverfield creature you'll probably get for a while.
www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=ps_results&product_id=21030

.... and here's his grandaddy.

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Mar00/angry-spider.jpg

I can't get the page to load, but if it's the toyfair pics, it's not the best representation of the creation from Cloverfield.

It's the Bat-Rat-Crab-Spider-thingy from Angry Red Planet (which I admit scared the pants offa me when I was 7).:eek:

$99 for a doll of a monster that was onscreen for less than 99 seconds?

I think I'll pass.

$99 for a doll of a monster that was onscreen for less than 99 seconds?

I think I'll pass.

Granted the price tag is steep, but as far as his screen time I think they handled that quite well. They kept it eerie and mysterious. What should they have done? Have him give an interview on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno?

Zorro - heh, suprising similarities!

JeffG, I think PhilipMarlowe's point was that you don't see the creature enough to develop an affinity with it.
Personally speaking, there is an akwardness to it (since it is supposed to be a "lost child", I compare it to fawn just getting up on its legs) that makes it unappealing.

And since I'm not gonna see the film until it hits video, I don't WANT to see the monster until then.

Not even a little curious there eh John P. ???:p

granted.
the Hasbro toy of the creature looks as much like the movie version as the Hasbro figure for Obi-Wan looks like Ewan MacGregor.

I had the same level of dissapointment as when I saw what the Kenner toy of the Alien looked like.

at least this wasn't a man i a suit

Zorro - heh, suprising similarities!

JeffG, I think PhilipMarlowe's point was that you don't see the creature enough to develop an affinity with it.

Thank God! (lol)

Granted the price tag is steep, but as far as his screen time I think they handled that quite well. They kept it eerie and mysterious. What should they have done? Have him give an interview on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno?

I liked Cloverfield, saw it the night it opened, as I have most of the films JJ Abram's has been involved in. ChrisW hit the nail on the head on what I was sayin'.

I really don't think it looks like it at all. In terms of effort by an American toy company that's not McFarlane, not bad.

$99 for a doll of a monster that was onscreen for less than 99 seconds?

I think I'll pass.

That's what they said about the Alien.
;)

That's what they said about the Alien.
;)


Apples and oranges. And the ol' Kenner Alien figure didn't cost anywhere near a hundred bucks.

^ Tru dat.

Also, Giger's Alien represented a quantum leap in movie monster design. I'm not sure the creature from Cloverfield rises to that standard.

When Alien came out, that creature set a new standard. Since then we've seen some of everything and have become less easily impressed. Even so, I thought the Cloverfield creature was quite unique-especially considering it's massive scale.

I want to know why people don't think that that sculpt represents the creature? That's it. The thing that kept it mysterious and scary (to some) is that you could not see the entire thing. That toy, that's the entire thing.

Thank you!

For me, Rich, is that the "arms" don't look quite right. The impression I got from the movie is that the arms were really wings (or that there was more webbing between the chest and humerus giving the impression there were wings). In other words, there should be more of a resemblance to bat-like arms without the bat wings.

On the toy they look more like long legs, a la that adversarial pod racer in Star Wars Episode 1.

I understand, but the fact is, there weren't any wings, it's what you imagined. The arms were really that weird. It is to the benefit of the movie that you never get a clear look at the monster, you're imagination is far more creative than the actual creature. Which, BTW, was not the case in Alien.

Only because up to that point in time we'd never seen anything remotely like H.R. Gigers Xenomorph. That set the standard for our imaginations.

I don't think the toy looks like the creature from the movie on several levels, mostly that the head isn't quite right, nor is the skin color right. It has no feeling of "mass" to it like we got from the movie scenes, either.

I understand, but the fact is, there weren't any wings, it's what you imagined. The arms were really that weird. It is to the benefit of the movie that you never get a clear look at the monster, you're imagination is far more creative than the actual creature. Which, BTW, was not the case in Alien.

True, there were no wings, but the arms need fleshier webbing. That's (sort of) my point.

True, there were no wings, but the arms need fleshier webbing. That's (sort of) my point. I saw that extra skin too, and massive shoulders. I think it was the scene where the Stealth drops a bomb on the monster's back, as it struggles to get away.

Personally, I thought it was a great movie. If I would have seen the monster through the entire thing, it wouldn't have been as good.

Where did the lost child theory come from? I'd hate to see what Momma looks like. :eek:

One of the issues could be that there might actually be 2 monsters in the movie. It has been noted that the creature at the end looks different than the one seen during the beginning of the movie. I think this toy represents the final monster. I bet you a dollar to a donut that the ortho's of the monster were used to make the toy. It's tough to convey the mass of a 400 ft tall creature in an action figure.

So, here's a picture of the back, that you cannot see in any of the pictures linked here so far-

http://tf08.figures.com/showphoto.php?photo=138

Comments?? BTW, this IS the same figure.

http://tf08.figures.com/data/643/medium/DSCN5200.JPG

wow ! seeing it with the base makes a big difference .
hb

Where did the lost child theory come from? I'd hate to see what Momma looks like. :eek:

From the director...
Matt Reeves tells Den of Geek, "So the secret that we had was that the monster was a baby. Having just been born it was going through separation anxiety and had no idea where its mother was and was freaking out and was in a completely foreign place, didn’t understand a thing and that that would be sending it into a kind of infantile rage. Which was very frightening, but the thing that was also frightening to me was the idea that not only was it going through an infantile rage but, because it was suffering from this separation anxiety, it was spooked.

It was really afraid. And as the military started shooting at it, I started thinking, like if you were attacked by a swarm of bees for the first time, it wouldn’t necessarily kill you but you’d be terrified, you’d be like, "What are these things doing?!" And for me there’s nothing scarier than thinking of something that big that’s spooked. Like if you’re at the circus and suddenly the elephants are spooked, you don’t want to be anywhere near that, you’ll be crushed..."

Spooked?
Well HE started it...:)

<peter venkman> "NOBODY steps on a church on MY town..Roast 'em!!" </peter venkman>

Too Bad they don't have one for the "Blood Beach" critter....Always wanted a good look at that one as well.

So that's why they kept it hidden. It sucks. [matches the movie] A big bat without wings. Woopee.

Oh well, can't please everybody. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if anybody around here has any appreciation for anything other than Star Trek TOS.

There's something else?:eek:

I think so!:p

I think most ST sucks too. But after the big hype, I was hoping for more than Blair Witch 3: The Big Scary Shadow Monster.

I think "Lost" is a brilliant show. My appreciation for "Cloverfield" suffers by comparison. It flat out sucked and the stupid looking monster is only a small part of that.

Oh well, can't please everybody. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if anybody around here has any appreciation for anything other than Star Trek TOS.

I think "Lost" is a brilliant show. My appreciation for "Cloverfield" suffers by comparison. It flat out sucked and the stupid looking monster is only a small part of that.Personally, I don't care for 'Lost'. I think it's an over rated, tangled mess and IMO there is no way Cloverfield sucked unless you haven't the imagination as a moviegoer to appreciate a different take on standard film making. After countless years of seeing typical creature films, I found it very refreshing. And as far as the monster looking stupid, perhaps you would have enjoyed it more if it were a by-the-numbers ('Same as it ever was') biped, man in a suit. Heaven forbid we should break from tradition. That sort of 'outside the box ' thinking can't be tolerated.

Jeff- I'm not going to let you define my tastes. I was expecting MORE. Outside of the box? A shaky cam? Seriously?
I prefer the fan made mutant whale Cloverfield monster over the as filmed one. That was interesting and different. The Cloverfield monster is just different.
Notice how, if you disagree with me, you take steps to marginalize my opinion (same as it ever was)? Lost is a great example of television done right. Great writing, directing and acting.Truly outside the box, engaging TV.
The fact that you don't like it is fine, it's not your cup of tea, but I'm not going to go in to how they could have made it better for you. That would be patronizing, you know, like you're doing to me.

I'm not trying to define your tastes anymore than you trying to define mine by saying something I like is 'crap'. That's YOUR opinion. I happen not to share it however. I happen to like Cloverfield and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands that do and hundreds of thousands that don't. Hell, some people don't like chocolate. Does that suck too. I guess my point is that no one person's opinion is the 'end all', so maybe we should be a little more considerate about how things are worded. No harm, no foul.

I thought it was crap because it wasn't Scottish!! Take it up with Mike Meyers.