Re: CLOVERFIELD (spoilers)

Thanatos wrote:
> In article <elxnj.6082$9j6.4659@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, trotsky <gmsingh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanatos wrote:
>>> In article <fr6dndLl3o6oFwPanZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>  "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Thanatos" <atropos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:atropos-55A41F.17410128012008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> In article <08GdnfKiiaRMJADanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Thanatos" <atropos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:atropos-803A9D.06113128012008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> In article <R_udncFFn-lz5QDanZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>>> "Rick" <videojockey1a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> JJ has said that CLover was a creature from the depths of
>>>>>>>> the Ocean which is why it's hide was near invulnerable.
>>>>>>> Not sure why something from the bottom of the ocean would
>>>>>>> have skin that can repel bunker-buster bombs and munitions
>>>>>>> that can penetrate tank armor.
>>>>>> Do you know how much PRESSURE exists on the bottom of the ocean?
>>>>> Yes. Do you know how sea creatures survive it? Doesn't sound like
you do
>>>>> if you think it's because they have thick skin.
>>>> By NOT having air cavities inside. Apparently the Creature did and
thus 
>>>> had 
>>>> the armored shell to withstand ocean pressures--and thus armored
shells.
>>> So let me get this straight... a creature that lives at the bottom of 
>>> the ocean-- where there is no air-- nevertheless has air-filled
hollows 
>>> in its body *and* those hollows are inexplicably pressurized at levels

>>> comparable to that found at the surface, which consequently requires
it 
>>> to evolve skin stronger than tank armor.
>>>
>>> That's such a stupid concept I don't even know where to begin.
>>
>> Excellent point.  They shouldn't make such movies unless the 
>> explanations are highly plausible.  You'll never get it, Brainatos.
> 
> It wasn't me that started trying to "explain" the creature. I was happy 
> to just accept it for what it was but if someone's gonna try and explain

> it, then they have to be prepared for others to tell them how stupid the

> explanation is.


Okay, I'll buy that.  You had already suspended disbelief, but when 
other posters tried to concoct the back story it didn't hold water, so 
to speak.  Some movies are like that.  I'd like to hear them explain 
what the thought was going on with Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day", for 
example.