« Previous Entry | Main Page | Next Entry »

February 15, 2008

Hasbro's $100 Cloverfield monster toy revealed

Comes with ten parasites and a Statue of Liberty head. And has 70 joints, apparently. Cool-looking, but worth $100?

Okay, the picture's now hidden below the fold for the benefit of those who, one month after the movie came out, are still trying to be spoiler free. This is what the masses have requested.

But y'all need to see movies sooner if you really want to stay pure. I can't promise it won't happen again. I like to put up purty pitchers when I can.

cloverfield.jpg

Posted by LYT at February 15, 2008 11:46 AM [Message Board]

Comments

You might want to put that picture behind a link. Not everyone has seen the movie yet and given the current pick'ns, it still has some life left in it.

Posted by: ReJeKt at February 15, 2008 11:57 AM

It's been out a month and isn't in the box office top ten any more. What should be the statute of limitations?

Posted by: LYT at February 15, 2008 12:33 PM

At least use some sort of blur or exclusion filter on it. Crank the contrast and brightness down by about 75% and throw in some gaussian noise too.

Posted by: ReJeKt at February 15, 2008 12:53 PM

For the proper effect, you should view the image on a portable laptop while shaking the camera like a drunk.

Posted by: LYT at February 15, 2008 1:12 PM

Puh-leeze. In this economy? The movie was not even worth seeing. If you can see anything without getting that wheezy feeling. Besides, the new commerical trailers on TV are already showing the identity of the monster...

So, no.

Posted by: Edwin at February 15, 2008 2:42 PM

i've been anxiously waiting to see this movie since it came out. didn't want to see anything. (for some reason the only fkn place in hollywood it was playing was The Grove -- aka The Grave. now, this weekend the fkn beverly center.) until this moment i've avoided all reviews, all pictures. you got me.

Posted by: justin at February 15, 2008 5:08 PM

i'm not caring that awful much, i'm just sayin.

Posted by: justin at February 15, 2008 5:17 PM

It's not completely ruined justin. The scale of the movie monster is still pretty remarkable, and there are plenty of other surprises.

Posted by: ReJeKt at February 15, 2008 5:18 PM

What's wrong with the Grove? I don't like the mall much, but the theater is totally good.

I'm sorry if I ruined anything, but I do think a month after release is a reasonable amount of time to discuss details of a major studio film that's now playing the second-run houses. Especially in the context of merchandise based on that movie.

Hasbro deliberately held off showing it until now.

Posted by: LYT at February 15, 2008 6:36 PM

Discussion is fine and linking to the picture is fine because it doesn't catch anyone off-guard. You can stop reading after the headline but you can't unsee a picture.

On another note, when did wrestling start broadcasting in HD? Maybe my local station only recently updated their feed, but it looks pretty good at 6x the resolution. I mean, the punches and kicks look faker than ever but everything else is vivid!

Posted by: ReJeKt at February 15, 2008 7:08 PM

I think it was the Monday before the Royal Rumble. It was pretty hyped up as an announcement.

I watched the Rumble in HD, and I have to say there are still some kinks to work out -- pixellation issues when things move fast, for instance. But all JBL's skin imperfections and ripples of fat come through clear as day.

Posted by: LYT at February 15, 2008 7:14 PM

my problem with the grove is the cluster fck aspect of the place. from parking on up. i don't know. i just never want to go over there. if i'm going to a nice theater and willing to spend the money, i'll go to the arclight any day of the week over the grove. but i generally avoid the arlight too. on that note, the fact that arclight in hollywood never played cloverfield really gets to me. it played in sherman oaks at the arclight. why only the grove? so lame. dream scenario was that it would go to the vista. i looked every friday with great anticipation, but no. no beast. it just seems the release pattern of this movie, for a "big" movie was not good. now in hollywood it's only playing the beverly center. after being limited to the grove for a month. so weird.

Posted by: justin at February 15, 2008 7:43 PM

But all JBL's skin imperfections and ripples of fat come through clear as day.

That's also the biggest problem with HD porn. DVD resolution is as high as I would go; the softer edges are akin to knocking back a few drinks. Sober or with clarity of vision, porn stars look really... itchy.

Posted by: ReJeKt at February 15, 2008 8:09 PM

If you hit up the Grove after, say, 5, you can usually find street parking. Pay at a meter -- they expire at 6 and you have the rest of the evening.

That's what I do, even at screenings that validate parking. And the bar in the Farmer's Market is way cool, full of interesting characters. I think you'd enjoy it, justin.

Posted by: LYT at February 15, 2008 8:16 PM

All I know are two things:

Since going to HD, Smackdown is now clearer than ever before!

Since goin to HD, everytimg they climb the turnbuckle, I can't see anything. Time to get a digital converter or purchase a whole new TV that is already HD...

Since going to HD, WWE will never have to change the stage set.

Posted by: Edwin at February 16, 2008 10:20 PM

...okay, make that three things.

Posted by: Edwin at February 16, 2008 10:22 PM

There's a Sherman Oaks Arclight?! I have been away too long.

Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2008 10:52 AM

"i have been away too long."

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you will be interested to know that there is a bronze statue of you in front of the sherman oaks arclight. you have popcorn in both hands, and a soda balanced on your head. i'm not sure why it's there, and i'm not askin.

Posted by: justin at February 17, 2008 6:50 PM

Now that I have watched the film - I don't consider the pic of the monster to be a spoiler in any way. It's really not that important to the movie. I loved the movie, but it was not a monster movie. (Hell, the monster is barely in the movie.) It was more a diaster movie, wherein the diaster is a big monster. But the monster did not seem any more important to the movie than global warming was to "The day after tomorrow". Sure, it was important as a plot device, but it wasn't a "character" the way Godzilla or King Kong tend to be.

Posted by: Julie Scott at February 18, 2008 1:11 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)