Cloverfield

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Not true. You'd be surprised how many things can survive a nuclear explosion.

When Hiroshima was nuked, there were actually people who were only a couple blocks away from the blast who survived..

but I don't think it's a nuke either.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Seriously, that movie was mediocre at best and not worth all this hullabaloo.

Originally posted by Röland
True. But I think the monster was very close to Rob and Beth when the bomb hit, so I just think if it was a nuke the camera would have been dust.

That's your opinion.

Yeah.. the chances of it surviving would indeed be small.

I heard Abrams may try to tie LOST in with Cloverfield. Just a rumor though.

Oh god I hope not.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Oh god I hope not.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's a reason I used spoiler tags, Mai.

-AC

It wasn't even in the movie, im pretty sure it doesnt "spoil" anything for anyone that hasn't seen it yet

I heard Abrams is going to try to tie in Star Trek with Cloverfield, but it 's just a rumor though.

NO type of organism could survive a direct nuclear blast.

It's remnants ok, the shockwave or after effects, maybe and all depending on proximity from zero ground. (the further away, the higher the chances of survival. And i've also heard of the roach theory but we're talking about a direct nuclear hit.

That monster (baby and adult or both) would in no way survive a "direct to the body" nuclear hit. The creatures would disintegrate upon the nukes' impact.

The thing would atomize in less than a sec. So i don't know what J.J.'s saying when he says the Cloverfield monster(s) was/were hit by the "mother of all Bombs" unless that last hit that destroyed the tunnel the 2 kids were in, but even still, that tunnel would've instantly cooked the camera, the people. Which wasn't the case case the thing was still rolling and the kid(s) was/were still alive.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
[B]NO type of organism could survive a direct nuclear blast.

Prove this. Please. I'm begging you. Please show me proof that organisms, even ones that we have never seen before or understand, are unable to withstand a nuclear blast.

And there have been reports of people at near ground zero in Nagasaki surviving the blast.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
NO type of organism could survive a direct nuclear blast.

It's remnants ok, the shockwave or after effects, maybe and all depending on proximity from zero ground. (the further away, the higher the chances of survival. And i've also heard of the roach theory but we're talking about a direct nuclear hit.

That monster (baby and adult or both) would in no way survive a "direct to the body" nuclear hit. The creatures would disintegrate upon the nukes' impact.

The thing would atomize in less than a sec. So i don't know what J.J.'s saying when he says the Cloverfield monster(s) was/were hit by the "mother of all Bombs" unless that last hit that destroyed the tunnel the 2 kids were in, but even still, that tunnel would've instantly cooked the camera, the people. Which wasn't the case case the thing was still rolling and the kid(s) was/were still alive.

You're essentially talking about the bomb hitting a person or an animal though, which is fruitless and irrelevant. What does that have to do with anything? Why are you even discussing a bomb landing on a roach or person? We're discussing Cloverfield. They didn't nuke it, you wanna know why, who knows? This is a pointless debate.

The Mother of All Bombs is the most powerful bomb in the U.S. Military's arsenal aside from a nuke.

You're pretty sure of yourself.

Wait, you're the guy who was sure this was a Godzilla movie, aren't you?

-AC

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Prove this. Please. I'm begging you. Please show me proof that organisms, even ones that we have never seen before or understand, are unable to withstand a nuclear blast.

And there have been reports of people at near ground zero in Nagasaki surviving the blast.

I said a "direct nuclear hit" meaning having the actual physical nuclear device hitting the body/organism directly with the weapon exploding upon impacting the organism.

There's absolutely no way an organism, of any type or size, can survive a direct megaton explosion of that magnitude.

For example: let's say you, or any other type organism on this planet, you name it, are standing on a bulleye with a nuclear bomb aiming dead in the middle of that bulleye your on. The nuke precisely hits the center of the bulleye where the you stand. (hitting you first obviously.)

Ok. There's a 100% chance of not surviving the hit. Fact. And that goes for any type of organism that exists on earth. No matter the size.

A direct nuclear hit would decimate any living thing. How is that so unbelievable, as your making it out to seem?

Because we only know that to be true for things that we know about.

There could very well be a creature somewhere that we don't know about that can resist nuclear warhead. We don't know of it's existence, so how do we know what it can or can not do? And even if we did know, maybe you are forgetting that this is a Science Fiction movie?

There's no way a human being can somehow draw energy from a mystical "force" and jump 50 feet straight up into the air, either. It's simply not possible for a regular old human to do that, or to deflect a bolt of energy that can potentially move faster then light.

Why does this even matter?

More over, why are you applying it to a fictional monster? Newsflash, it's not the real world. When you have a monster attacking NYC and surviving the U.S. Army, you can more or less make it invulnerable to anything you want, so it could theoretically be immune to nukes.

It's not real, so saying "Nukes can kill any living thing.", is void. Yes, any living thing that isn't made up in a movie.

Jeez, get real.

-AC

Why does anything matter, AC?

Why does anything matter?

Pretty soon, we won't even be matter! 😱

TH, please. Spawn my broods.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're essentially talking about the bomb hitting a person or an animal though, which is fruitless and irrelevant. What does that have to do with anything? Why are you even discussing a bomb landing on a roach or person? We're discussing Cloverfield. They didn't nuke it, you wanna know why, who knows? This is a pointless debate.

The Mother of All Bombs is the most powerful bomb in the U.S. Military's arsenal aside from a nuke.

You're pretty sure of yourself.

Wait, you're the guy who was sure this was a Godzilla movie, aren't you?

-AC

i tried to resist but i couldn't. I sure hope this doesn’t' turn into another time wasting war.

But first of all, how is what i'm talking about fruitless and irrelevant? Black Hy and myself were talking about military weaponry and the types of attacks that may've or may've not been used on the monster. The discussion seemed pretty relevant to me since we were talking about the Cloverfield monster in a Cloverfield thread, to answer your question.

And my bad, i didn't know a m.o.a.b. was the strongest bomb beside the nuke. But if a m.o.a.b. was used, and it wiped out central park but not the monster it kinda makes you think, "ok?, why not?" Central Park is massive. It's like what, a mile long and it was destroyed yet a monster probably a sixth the size of the park survived whatever destroyed an area 5 times the size of the monster? I mean, ok w/e, it's a movie and i know it's make believe, so if that's what J.J. was trying to spin it into then ok.

And yes, you are correct in my saying that i originally thought that it was a Godzilla movie. That's what i thought, and I was obviously wrong in my assessment as I only initially only had the trailer to go by at first and 1 picture on the Cloverfield website to go by and what I did was speculate. Sue me. But once I was told and found out for myself that Tri-Star Pictures owned the exclusive rights to Godzilla yet Paramount owned Cloverfield’s rights I instantly threw out the Godzilla theory, as documented.

Keep in mind its a fictional movie. The monster isnt necessarily limited to our logical ideas of what it could/couldnt withstand

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Because we only know that to be true for things that we know about.

There could very well be a creature somewhere that we don't know about that can resist nuclear warhead. We don't know of it's existence, so how do we know what it can or can not do? And even if we did know, maybe you are forgetting that this is a Science Fiction movie?

OK, "in theory" some creature we may not know about may "may" survive an atomic attack, just cause we don't know of any or all creatures that exist and what their potential is, cause i myself believe, there are massive undiscovered creatures in existence on this planet particularly in the deep blue sea, that we have yet to know about, but i still think the chances are nill of any organism we know of surviving a direct skin to bomb impact of that size.

Have you seen a nuke blast? The blasts i've seen are immense in size in proportion to the Cloverfield monster, judging by the fiery mushroom cloud. The monster was as big as a skyscraper. A megaton nuke/mushroom cloud would take out a city of skyscrapers easily.

But like you said, it's a movie.

A movie that im just disappointed with. Maybe not.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/moab1.htm