27

Hasbro’s Cloverfield Monster Figure Revealed

Color me curious about this one! Most of us were waiting for this figure if only to get a good look at the beast itself! I must admit when Hasbro announced they had the license, I was a bit worried. Would it be a true representation, or would it be dumbed down a bit and made to look cutesy?

Our partners in crime at Action-Figure.com have nabbed themselves the first pics of this new plastic beast, and I’m happy to say it looks to deliver!

Check out the pics below, and click here to pre-order the Cloverfield figure now for just $99.95!

Hasbro does Cloverfield (click for larger image) Hasbro does Cloverfield (click for larger image) Hasbro does Cloverfield (click for larger image)

Uncle Creepy

Got news? Click here to submit it!
Get some creature comfort in our Dread Central forums!

Steve Barton

You're such an inspiration for the ways that I will never, ever choose to be.

  • Messiahman

    Okay, the “sucked” thing was obviously a sarcastic joke from me, in spite of your overly analytical look at that comment. However, the “bad word of mouth” thing is easily attributable when looking at the drastic drop — hell, you just basically agreed with that in your response to me. Curiosity dropped because word of the film got out, and mass audiences clearly weren’t interested.

    Which is exactly what I’ve been saying. Nowhere did I say that those who liked it are wrong. Nowhere did I even imply that.

    Anyway, thank you for reiterating my previous post.

    By the way, you now owe ME a Corona. ;-)

  • Terminal

    Hardly the end of story, MM, hardly. It’s all seems like speculation and semantics to me. Whether or not the movie was good is all based on opinion, but the reason why it dropped in numbers is still just speculation regardless of who reports it. I suspect it dropped because the curiosity dropped once the word got out. The whole reasoning of it dropped because it sucked is tricky insertion of criticism into fact to render your opinion truth. Ergo if it dropped in box office, because it sucked then anyone who says it’s a good movie MUST be wrong.

    It’s slick, but I don’t buy it. Prove it dropped because it “sucked,” and I’ll believe you.

    NOW it’s the end of the story.

  • Messiahman

    It’s not hearsay, and I don’t have to point a thousand people your way to prove anything — it’s logic and deductive reasoning based on many similar cases. It’s clear that the film’s initial upsurge came from a purposely vague marketing campaign, but it’s just as clear that, if audiences had really responded to it, it would have sustained its box office for at least one week. Perceived quality has nothing to do with it — the film failed to resonate with a wide audience past its start date, hence the nosedive. Word of mouth killed it. End of story.

  • Terminal

    Still hearsay, MM, sorry. Until you can prove it and not just offer up speculation, I still attribute it to curiosity wearing down. Again while the film rocked, most of its success revolved around curiosity.

  • Messiahman

    Terminal, a 70% dropoff in the second week is clearly indicative of more than “curiosity wearing down.” That sort of drastic downturn can almost always be attributed to bad word of mouth. Yes, many were curious — and many, many more were disappointed.

    And they told their friends.

    At least, the studio sure believes that to be the case.

  • PelusaMG

    Please feel free to use this text…

    Dear Hasbro,

    I am writing to ask you to refund my pre-order payment of $100 for the Cloverfield monster figure.

    At the time of ordering the figure from you I had just recently returned from been captured by aliens, where my arse had been fondled in the name of ET-Science, and so was clearly not in the right frame of mind to make such a costly outlay. Of course, some people at Hasbro might be thinking that I am asking for my money back because your Cloverfield toy looks shit, and that my alien bum-fiddling story is simply a ruse to generate sympathy from you and get my money back – but that is simply not true. As you can see, I was clearly not in my right frame of mind at the time of ordering.

    I look forward to receiving my refund in the next day or so.

    *Your name here?*

  • Terminal

    That’s hearsay, MM. There’s no actual proof of that unless you can let me talk to about a thousand people who admit to it or something. I liken it to curiosity wearing down. While I love the movie, I know that it was number one because of curiosity and then when everyone had gotten their fill, it dived in the box office.

    Either way, this figure looks fantastic, but I won’t buy it. 100 dollars is too rich for my blood for an action figure, regardless of what it is.

  • Messiahman

    Actually, the nosedive in the second weekend came because word began to spread that this was yet another lame, shot-on-video “found footage” film with cardboard characters and a laughably awful monster.

    Now get me some GMK figures — that’s a REAL monster movie!

    As for random 15 year olds, why are we talking about Johnny Truant? :-D

  • PelusaMG

    I don’t remember seeing a monster resembling that in Cloverfield, but I do in Men in Black!

  • Tsotha-lanti

    “The Suck Generation” indeed.

  • Uncle Creepy

    Actual conversation overheard at a Suncoast video between 2 young kids:

    Teen #1: *picks up Scanners* “This looks cool”

    Teen #2: Are you kidding me, man? They didn’t even have CGI back then!

    Me: *forced to leave store before head exploded*

  • Terminal

    Random 15 year old always starts trouble. Fucking prick.

  • Uncle Creepy

    Lord how I hate the random 15 year old.

  • Outlaw Torn

    This was a really good movie, loved every second of it.

    The nosedive in the second weekend came not because the movie sucked (as Messiahman, screen writer of generic TV movie fare) said but because people complained that the origin of the monster was not explained.

    Random 15 year old: Yeah it had good graphics but it didn’t make any sense!!!!

  • Tsotha-lanti

    Actually, it looks like a cross between a Rancor and the Jabberwock.

  • frank_dracman

    DO’H. What i ment to say is it looks like something from Spawn comics, like the Violater’s little brother. Didn’t see the movie, but this is what all the hub-bub was about?

  • frank_dracman

    I live!!

  • Terminal

    JJ Abrams will NOT let the cat out of the bag, but I’m interested to know if it’s alien or undiscovered sea life. I hope if there’s a sequel, we learn of its origin.

  • Kryten Syxx

    I can kinda see this thing just sitting around collecting dust since Cloverfield has sort of been forgotten. It wasn’t exactly the kind of film that made kids clamor for $100 reproductions of the creature.

  • Uncle Creepy

    I think that boils down to scale. In theatres every bit of it looked massive.

  • Tsotha-lanti

    It looks much, MUCH skinnier than I remember the Cloverwock depicted in the movie being.

  • Messiahman

    The hundred dollar pricetag is probably due to the nosedive CLOVERFIELD’s box office took in the second weekend, when word of mouth spread like wildfire that the movie was an overhyped pile of shit.

  • Blockbuster

    For 100 bucks it had better be a full scale model.

  • Dr Malachi Constant

    So … THAT is the monster? I’d hardly say it’s “unlike anything” I’ve ever seen before.

  • Uncle Creepy

    Yeah, it’s pricey. Me? I’d say it should be no more than 50.

  • Kryten Syxx

    The face looks great, but I am not sure it’s worth the price tag attached to it.

  • Terminal

    I think it looks fantastic.

    BUT there’s heavy rumors that there are more than one monster, AND that there may be more lurking about since Abrams allegedly called this monster a baby.