File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
>> Anonymous
Fake.
>> Anonymous
actually, this isn't fake I saw the movie yesterday. Yes, it is bad quality but it isn't fake.
>> Sweet kid. Anonymous
Not fake. Asshat.
>> Anonymous
Good stuff.
>> Anonymous
>Shitty stuff.
fixed
>> Anonymous
fake spelled backwards is ekaf!
>> Anonymous
>>981591
>>981430
clearly a couple of newfags
>> Anonymous
I liked the movie, but the ending was bullshit. How you gonna end a monster movie and not blow the monster up?
>> Anonymous
>>981430
No its not...I posted it and I made it.
>> Anonymous
real monster ftw
>> Anonymous
The monster's still alive
>> Anonymous
>>981704

It's dead. They fucking nuked the place.
>> Anonymous
>>981704
you kinda missed the point of the movie

>>981817
It's not dead after he credits they say its still alive
>> Anonymous
After the credits it sounds like he says "Help us" but if you reverse it, very clearly he says "It's still alive"
>> they did not use a nuke TOKKA
>>981817

actually they moab-ed its (mother of all bombs) its a conventional explosive warhead that has the power equal to that of a hiroshima type nuke but with out any radiation or fallout. They are also commonly used a deep dug bunker busters. There is no way they would have used a Nuke on US soil even in a movie. The fall out would have to many other issues to deal with and make it worse than Chernobel.
>> Anonymous
>>981926
eh, whatever turns you on, i guess.
>> Anonymous
Actually nuking New York is feasible. The prevailing winds would take the fallout into the Atlantic ocean away from the population.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>981427
>> Anonymous
>>981671
YOU are a newfag. I know this because of my learnings.
>> Anonymous
>>981926
The nuke Colorado in AvP:R and they Nuke New York in Return of the Living Dead.

>>981866
I didnt hear that after the credits, but wouldn't disbelieve it.
>> Anonymous
>>982017
THAN WATCH IT AGAIN YOU FUCKER.

I'm actually gonna go to the theaters and watch it again just so I can see that last scene with the thing going into the water.
>> Anonymous
but towards me u douche bag. long island here
>> Anonymous
>>981926
MOAB yield: 11 tons TNT equivalent.
Little Boy (The nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima) yield: Estimated at 13000-16000 tons.

So the Hiroshima Nuke was more than 1000 stronger than a MOAB. In other words: The MOAB is small fry even compared to the smallest tactical nuke. Hell, even the SADM (man-portable backpack nuke) had a dial-a-yield range from 10 to 1000 tons of TNT equivalent.
>> Anonymous
Okay first off, why use a nuke? The creature while big wasn't THAT big, thats just overkill. A MOAB would be fine for it. Also think about it. The magnetic pulse from a nuke would have fried the camera, not to mention the ensuing shockwave, fireball, radiation. It seems like they dropped at least two daisy cutters or MOAB's on it. There were two blasts and the creature was most likely still fairly close. Do some research online and you'll find the MOAB while huge isn't anywhere near as big as the smallest nuke.
>> Anonymous
Creature fell into water possibly form space, I'm sure a nuke will do nothing. Series will continue.
>> Anonymous
cloverfield is a pretty cool guy. eh destroys the city and doesn't afraid of anything