Comments on: Exclusive Stills from Loch Ness Monster Movie

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 11 May 2007 16:56:52 +0000

Lyndon- Well, maybe they will have the 30 foot eel in the sequel. I have to admit, that would be cool.

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Fri, 11 May 2007 08:32:25 +0000

Lyndon- Well, it looks like the makers of this movie didn’t go with the giant freak eel look either!

Damn them! Damn them all to hell. LOL.

I would have liked a 30 ft super eel though. Oh well.

By: SharkFisher

SharkFisher — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:24:46 +0000

Sorry for all the negativity yesterday. Craig , Thank you for clearing up my confusion about the movie and I am glad that you took the trailer down. If it is going for a big release on Christmas Day, then things look pretty good for this feature. I have breathed a big sigh of relief about not having to speak Spanish …. Ahhh!

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Fri, 11 May 2007 05:20:09 +0000

Aside from the Plesiosaur angle being more familiar to the average movie-goer, the reptile look has 2 more things going for it- 1 is that reptiles are scarier to most people (So the fear that the adults in the movie seem to express is more understandable), and 2 is that reptile equates to dinosaur, dinosaur equates to dragon, and dragon equates to magical being, al of which would also make it more appealing…

By: Shadow Ink

Shadow Ink — Thu, 10 May 2007 22:47:54 +0000

Those pictures are rather dark but one of them appears to be the old film about Nessie starring Ted Danson. I believe there is something rather large and unusual in Loch Ness. Sightings of this beast go back a very long ways; to about 600 AD I believe. As to its probable biological type, who knows. But that fin shot that one photographic underwater mission managed was a fin of no known sea creature.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 10 May 2007 15:13:23 +0000

And another thing about witnesses getting people “locked up”. A lot of people here use that argument, but I feel it simply isn’t as simple as that. In criminal cases there is more needed than just witness testimony, and I don’t think anyone is locked up based on solely on what a witness says. There is usually physical evidence and other factors that are considered as well and the testimony of the witness isn’t the only thing a conviction is based on. I am no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that a person cannot be locked up for any length of time based on testimony in the absence of any other sort of evidence. Even with an incredible amount of testimony and circumstantial evidence, a conviction can elude prosecutors. Recently in Japan, there was the case of a British national who was murdered (some of you here from England may be familiar with the Lucy Blackman case), and there was a huge amount of testimony and circumstantial evidence against him. Even so, the defendant wasn’t charged with that murder. I think in most cases, a little more than just witness testimony is needed to lock someone up.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 10 May 2007 15:04:28 +0000

Lyndon- Well, it looks like the makers of this movie didn’t go with the giant freak eel look either!

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Thu, 10 May 2007 11:47:06 +0000

I agree with Lyndon. A giant eel or a reptile or even an amphibian all fit closer with the eyewitness reports than mammals (with an exception for zeugledons-snake like whales). I dont think I’ve read any reports saying that it appeared to be a “giant seal with a long neck”. I have read many reports of it looking like a dinosaur or a horrible slug like thing (Amphibian?). Again, I believe we must give eyewitnesses more respect. Afterall we trust them to lock up folks for extended periods. I don’t expect sasquatch to be discovered and it actually be a reptile, because; witnesses describe an ape-like mammalian homonid.

By: RockerEm

RockerEm — Thu, 10 May 2007 07:45:16 +0000

Looks pretty cool!

By: Lyndon

Lyndon — Thu, 10 May 2007 06:51:29 +0000

From what I can see, this production has gone with the reptilian model despite the overwhelming evidence the Loch Ness cryptid is mammalian in nature and characteristics.

Hmmmm Loren, I would say the overwhelming evidence (in my personal opinion) actually rules out the Loch Ness Monster being a mammal.

It’s not seen enough on the surface for it to be an air breather and the loch just isn’t big enough in surface area to keep a number of large mysterious mammals as cryptids for so long.

I think that (unlike sasquatch) eye witness reports are not all that consistent with the LNM. There are so many variables and contradictions.

If there is something there, I go for some kind of giant freak eel. If not, then a fish of some sort. I’m not convinced by the mammal explanation.