Re: CLOVERFIELD (spoilers)

"nick" <nickmacpherson05@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:a89298f9-aa87-4def-9009-c272a0102085@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Jan 29, 8:37?am, trotsky <gmsi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <elxnj.6082$9j6.4659@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, trotsky
<gmsi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >>> In article <fr6dndLl3o6oFwPanZ2dnUVZ_u2mn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>> ?"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Thanatos" <atro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>news:atropos-55A41F.17410128012008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>> In article <08GdnfKiiaRMJADanZ2dnUVZ_o-mn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Thanatos" <atro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:atropos-803A9D.06113128012008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>> In article <R_udncFFn-lz5QDanZ2dnUVZ_vGin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>>>>>> "Rick" <videojocke...@[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.- Hide quoted text -
>
~I'm not interested at all in people attaching a backstory to
~Cloverfield.  It's almost as dull as interpreting David Lynch movies.
~I'll be more than happy to wait for the sequel (if there is one),
~especially since nothing approaching a backstory is hinted at in
~Cloverfield (aside from that little splash at the end, which might
~still only be anecdotal) as far as a backstory goes, other than it
~might be hinting at something that the military was so quick to
~mobilize.

Oh come on, CLOVERFIELD 2: CLOVERPLANET, more creatures swarm up from the 
depths to overrun the globe, meanwhile we discover the creatures are 
actually the result of genetic manipulation from some international 
megacorp--greedy, uncaring international megacorp, that pollutes, dumping 
wastes, biohazards, radiation AND pop can ties into the oceans.

-- Ken from Chicago