"Cloverfield"

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: "Cloverfield"

    Sequel?

    Well, I personally don't think it would hurt. There's some really interesting ways they could spin a sequel, or even a prequel, maybe?

    SPOILER --

    Most of us who've seen it now know, there's murky evidence that this thing was indeed from outer space, and it was not killed by the "hammer down."

    You add that fan speculation with healthy box office takings, and we just know those Paramount execs will be licking their lips and rubbing their hands together.

    Besides Reeves and Abram have already stated, it's something they'd be more or less be open to.

    Bring it.
    @TerranceMulloy

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: "Cloverfield"

      Originally posted by beerbeastredux View Post
      Jeez tabula rasa get off your high horse. It's dropping pretentious apples all over my carpet.
      Is it not the most ironic thing ever that Tab is the one person on this thread arguing strongly against the merits of Cloverfield, and that "Tabula Rasa" is the title of John August's thread about how much he loves Cloverfield?

      By the way - have I mentioned lately that this movie really rocked? The more I think about it, the more I respect its odd genius.

      As you were.
      "I've got vision up the butt, so just go with it!" - Dewey Finn, School of Rock

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: "Cloverfield"

        Originally posted by beerbeastredux View Post
        Jeez tabula rasa get off your high horse. It's dropping pretentious apples all over my carpet.
        Jeez, disagreement over a movie leads to a pointless ad hominem?

        My 'high horse' ???

        I think Tabula's missed the entire point of the film. There's no need to make it more complex. It works well, because it's not. It's a simple story, told effectively and resourcefully. And as Ele implied in an earlier post - it basically stops a few inches short of being a modern classic.
        See, you can voice your opinion without needing to suggest that I've 'missed the whole point' ...

        Because it's just an issue of personal tastes (which I already admitted, above) ... not anyone's intellectual failures. (Notice, the voice spoke from atop that ol' high hobby horse again, how I have managed to be the sole voice raising issues about the movie and I still never stooped to calling anyone else 'high horse' or 'missing the point' ???)

        But ... since you've accused me of 'missing the whole point' ... Suppose you tell me what 'The Whole Point' is of CLOVERFIELD ???

        That it had thrills? That it had good CGI? That you enjoyed it?

        Fine, I've admitted ALL those points already.
        Anyone could say the same thing about the most insipid, cliche, pointless Summer movies too.

        I was discussing how CLOVERFIELD fell short BEYOND that.

        All the "groundbreaking cinematic conceptual" stuff CLOVERFIELD is getting praise for ... is just THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT warmed over again.

        (But I'll happily agree that CLOVERFIELD is more fun, ... but far LESS original or daring conceptually than BWP)

        No one's "right" here, or "wrong" here, it's just us discussing taste over a movie.

        BUT it might be both intellectually pointless and pointlessly rude for you to make things personal.

        Jeez tabula rasa get off your high horse. It's dropping pretentious apples all over my carpet.
        I think Tabula's missed the entire point of the film.
        So, you were setting yourself up like you can now explain 'The entire point of the film' that I missed now, right?

        Proceed.

        And let's hope the 'whole point' I 'missed' better be something less embarrassing to you than that you enjoyed it ... and I had issues with it.

        Because otherwise it's like debating with my niece over why one Pretty Pony is prettier than the other! She likes what she likes. The Cahiers du cinema wouldn't be impressed.
        sigpic
        "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
        that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
        -Mahatma Gandhi.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: "Cloverfield"

          Oh wait ... when you said my 'high horse' ... did you mean the meth head polo pony we had to send to rehab? Oh, okay, nevermind ...

          Cause, hell, if you love shaky grungy video like that CLOVERFIELD, you should check out the five minute video we leaked to YouTube after Britney snuck into our meth head polo pony's stall at rehab ... talk about getting a high horse off!
          sigpic
          "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world -
          that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
          -Mahatma Gandhi.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: "Cloverfield"

            Originally Posted byTabula Rasa

            But ... since you've accused me of 'missing the whole point' ... Suppose you tell me what 'The Whole Point' is of CLOVERFIELD ???
            Tab - You say no one has explained the point. I feel I've actually expressed the point (and merits) of Cloverfield quite clearly (as I see them) with no rebuttal (or even response) from you. (If you did respond and I missed it, please forgive)

            I'm not usually one to quote myself, but rather than ask you to go back and read my earlier posts, I'll highlight below:

            First: The uniqueness of the cinematic conceit -

            In my opinion, the movie TOTALLY succeeds at making its conceit seem real - and that conceit is that what you're watching is a tape that was recovered from (and I quote) "area 447, formerly known as Central Park".
            Second: How the restraint of the presentation created a larger, more tantalizing and frightening (albeit unexplained) imaginary context.

            This implies that the monster did NOT die.
            Because to quote the soldier - "Whatever it is, it's winning."
            Third: How compelling, emotional human experiences were effectively woven into a unique and difficult (see: limiting) cinematic conceit.

            And on a more personal level, the story IS tragic. It's poignant, in that Rob went back for Beth, saved her, and they still didn't make it out alive.
            It made a promise in the first seconds of the opening, and it fulfilled that promise.
            Fourth: How all of the above made me feel like I was in the hands of deft (even masterful) storytellers.

            Not because it wove the most complex story in the world - it didn't - but because it wove its story so well within the constraints of the genre.

            One of our many jobs as screenwriters is to master the different restrictions and requirements of different genres. Master them so well that we actually can bend them from time to time. And this movie did that.

            It took a pretty tired genre (monster/disaster) and added a fresh restriction (that this was all captured real-time on one camera) and then within that restriction did an awesome job of telling the story.
            Finally, that it succeeded on nearly every level (again, in my opinion): Uniqueness, technical prowess, emotional authenticity, and even genre-appropriate dissemination of exposition. It even succeeded on a marketing/larger context level (see: internet presence/sequels).

            And although I'm normally in the "I hate movies that require a sequel!" camp, there's something about the way this one ended that was both a perfect (touching, albeit tragic) ending to this stand-alone story, and also an awesome hook to make me hungry for more.
            So, as you can see - I'm not singing its praises for the thrills (although they were perfectly-timed IMO), nor for its CGI (although it was fantastic). I could give a crap about that kind of stuff.

            I'm a story guy. And I think this one nailed it. That's the point.

            Cheers,

            Adam
            "I've got vision up the butt, so just go with it!" - Dewey Finn, School of Rock

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: "Cloverfield"

              Originally posted by tabula rasa View Post
              ... Suppose you tell me what 'The Whole Point' is of CLOVERFIELD ???
              Gee, I don't know, maybe the word 'entertainment' has something to do with it?

              I'm not suggesting you can't have an opinion. Plus, I agree with you - it all comes down to personal tastes, but I do think you're wrong in your analysis. I don't think any of us (at least that I know of) are claiming Cloverfield to be groundbreaking, just that it was a highly entertaining flick. You obviously missed that part. Either intentional (because you believe you're above it) or you feel the film could of had more depth, maybe?

              My argument is that the film works because it is what it is.

              Nothing more. Nothing less.
              @TerranceMulloy

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: "Cloverfield"

                It's funny to me that for all the professional and aspiring scribes on here praising the movie, not one single person has commented on or complimented Drew Goddard who was - gasp! - the writer. Still no love for the screenwriter.


                Well, I'll just have to agree to disagree with many people on here. Again, I liked the movie but I don't think it's great nor "masterful" (it ultimately could not surpass the hype and imagination-grabbing-trappings of the teaser trailer for me).


                Also, a sequel is needless to say imminent.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: "Cloverfield"

                  Originally posted by Terrance Mulloy View Post
                  I don't think any of us (at least that I know of) are claiming Cloverfield to be groundbreaking, just that it was a highly entertaining flick.
                  Truth be told, I actually do think it's pretty groundbreaking. I don't know if I've ever seen a film do the "all from one tape" thing before. If any did, I'd be surprised if they nailed it like this one did.

                  Cheers,

                  Adam
                  "I've got vision up the butt, so just go with it!" - Dewey Finn, School of Rock

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: "Cloverfield"

                    Originally posted by CutteRug View Post
                    Truth be told, I actually do think it's pretty groundbreaking. I don't know if I've ever seen a film do the "all from one tape" thing before. If any did, I'd be surprised if they nailed it like this one did.

                    Cheers,

                    Adam
                    It seems your idea of groundbreaking is a tad different then mine. But that's ok, I respect your opinion. What we can both agree on, is that we enjoyed the film.

                    Think I'll catch it again, once the crowds die down.
                    @TerranceMulloy

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: "Cloverfield"

                      I just scanned back to the first page of posts-- those critics criticizing the characters, etc. I think that the language like "What's up with that?" and talking about Garfield just proved these were real people. I didn't think they were even CW types. I felt they were real people and very human and like someone you might know. And they were gonna die. And we were watching and we knew from the beginning that it was all over. I thought the dialogue and characters were great. Overall the movie was a really difficult experience for me. Very good. Hard to watch, and not just for the shaky tape-row2 nausea factor.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: "Cloverfield"

                        Originally posted by beerbeastredux View Post
                        How was the CG "poor"?
                        i believe my exact words were "pretty poor in a FEW instances". if you think that close up shot at the end with the monster looking directly at camera was "well-integrated" then what you know is indeed, in question.

                        I mean, I've trained in CG, had 14 years of Hollywood experience workin on ****..and from my eye the cg looked pretty well integrated, but what do I know :P


                        you act like i pissed in your pudding...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: "Cloverfield"

                          Enjoyed it. Nice to see a decent monster movie for a change.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: "Cloverfield"

                            So, you were setting yourself up like you can now explain 'The entire point of the film' that I missed now, right?

                            Proceed.

                            And let's hope the 'whole point' I 'missed' better be something less embarrassing to you than that you enjoyed it ... and I had issues with it.

                            Because otherwise it's like debating with my niece over why one Pretty Pony is prettier than the other! She likes what she likes. The Cahiers du cinema wouldn't be impressed.
                            What in the name of Sasquatch privates are you on about now?



                            The point of the film is to entertain.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: "Cloverfield"

                              Originally posted by cvolante View Post
                              I just scanned back to the first page of posts-- those critics criticizing the characters, etc. I think that the language like "What's up with that?" and talking about Garfield just proved these were real people. I didn't think they were even CW types. I felt they were real people and very human and like someone you might know. And they were gonna die. And we were watching and we knew from the beginning that it was all over. I thought the dialogue and characters were great.

                              Somewhat-agree to disagree, then.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: "Cloverfield"

                                Originally posted by boski
                                I found BLAIR WITCH largely disappointing; CLOVERFIELD's use of essentially the same device is much more entertaining IMO.

                                I'm more or in less in the exact opposite category; I very much like "The Blair Witch Project" and find "Cloverfield" to be somewhat overrated in certain aspects. It should be noted though that although they use the same device for their storytelling, one is a (mock) documentary-gone-awry and the other is just a home-video-gone-awry.


                                A somewhat-interesting spoiler for those who've seen the movie and those who have not featured in this interview with helmer Matt Reeves about the big beastie.


                                Also, for anyone here who liked or was even impressed by Drew Goddard's handling of the script, a good portion of his previous work in TV was/is even better.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X