"Cloverfield"

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: Cloverfield

    [QUOTE=Khabs;417418]ah, the old DD syndrome...

    Can I make a suggestion (or a "reality check") to some here?

    Please, stop bitching. Seriously. They pulled it off. They made a POV monster movie on a budget and were smart about marketing.

    Now, please don't be smart with "I would do better".
    You CAN do better. Seriously, just write a great script and you'll be in.<<

    But, Khabs, the massive, overwhelming majority of people who try CAN'T do better. The combination of a good concept and the ability to execute it in a way that will justify the investment of millions of dollars is about as rare in a writer as a heart of gold in a hooker. It's a fun myth, but you just don't find it on the street.

    Comment


    • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

      My film school story teacher once said "Everything has been done. You just have to try and put your own unique spin on your film"

      That's just what the makers of Cloverfield did.

      Comment


      • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

        [QUOTE=SBScript;417423]
        Originally posted by winter dreams View Post
        Variety is reporting a 76% dropoff in box office for Cloverfield from last week.

        Wow. I can't remember a bigger dropoff for any movie. Anyone?

        It's too bad, because studios will be less inclined to take risks. <<

        Huh?

        The risk has already beeen rewarded. After 60m it's all gravy for the makers of this movie. With foreign and DVD this movie will probably do an easy 150m. I don't understand how you could consider this a venture that isn't paying off.
        It's paying off -- but how much would it have paid off if they had made the film in a more conventional manner with a more conventional ending?

        That's what the studio types are wondering. Yes, they had a big opening weekend and that was great, but it was also due to the marketing. Now with the 76% dropoff, I'm sure they're wondering -- what went wrong? why doesn't this have legs?

        And as a result, they may be more hestitant to take the creative risks that I outlined before.

        And all of the studio execs who provided notes asking for exactly the kind of things that the detractors in this thread have pointed out, are now saying: I told you so.

        Dramaking: I realize that studio types may think making a movie without a major star is a risk, but we all know that the film is the star. So I don't see making a movie without a star as a creative risk, especially when the lack of a star (whose main benefit is getting a film to "open") can be overcome by savvy marketing, as happened here.

        Comment


        • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

          The film really wouldn't have worked at all if there was a recognizable face in the cast. Would have shot the the verité gimmick right in the foot.
          "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

          My YouTube channel.

          Comment


          • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

            [QUOTE=winter dreams;417432]
            Originally posted by SBScript View Post

            It's paying off -- but how much would it have paid off if they had made the film in a more conventional manner with a more conventional ending?

            That's what the studio types are wondering. Yes, they had a big opening weekend and that was great, but it was also due to the marketing. Now with the 76% dropoff, I'm sure they're wondering -- what went wrong? why doesn't this have legs?

            And as a result, they may be more hestitant to take the creative risks that I outlined before.<<

            No, they're celebrating a huge success. I'm sure they expected the possibility of a huge drop off as the movie is in 3500 theatres. As far as success goes, the first weekend ROI is about as good as you could get.

            >>And all of the studio execs who provided notes asking for exactly the kind of things that the detractors in this thread have pointed out, are now saying: I told you so. <<

            Are you kidding me? Believe this--NO exec involved in the making of this movie is trumpeting any "I told you so" notes about criticisms of the movie, they are desperately trying to take CREDIT for any impact they may have had on the success of the movie.

            >>Dramaking: I realize that studio types may think making a movie without a major star is a risk, but we all know that the film is the star. <<

            We? You're not speaking for the majority opinion in the entertainment business--it is a star driven system. A little less now than ten years ago, but still star driven non the less.

            >So I don't see making a movie without a star as a creative risk, especially when the lack of a star (whose main benefit is getting a film to "open") can be overcome by savvy marketing, as happened here.
            You may not see it as a risk. Pretty much all of Hollywood does.

            Comment


            • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

              SAW did alright without a star. So did Transformers. I don't think teen genres rely on a star.

              Comment


              • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                But we shouldn't be harrassd for not liking this film. Good lord, what a piece of tripe.

                Comment


                • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                  Sort of funny... I recall when I bagged on Knocked Up, a couple of folks fired back that I was trying to be too cool for school.

                  I wasn't. The damned thing didn't work for me, and I explained why.

                  Cloverfield doesn't work for other people, and they're explaining why.

                  Ultimately, I don't think anyone's being hassled for not liking it. I don't agree with some of the examples offered, but it's still a fun debate.

                  I'm not going to get bent out of shape because someone doesn't like a movie I do.

                  But at least I enjoyed what I paid eight bucks for. FTW!
                  "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                  My YouTube channel.

                  Comment


                  • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                    The real star of any horror movie is the monster/psycho/killer/alien/etc.

                    Even in transformers, the star was the Transforming robots.

                    People come to see the star.

                    Imagine going to see the Transformers and only getting a few second glimpses of the robots. You would expect people to criticize the lack of transforming robots in a movie about transforming robots.

                    It's also equally reasonable for people to go to a monster movie and complain when the movie has a distinct lack of monster in it.

                    The problem is that this wasn't a monster movie.

                    This movie was a disaster movie.

                    Similar to The Poseidon Adventure or War of the Worlds, it focused on ordinary people trying to flee and survive extraordinary situations.

                    That's cool.

                    Where it misfired was in its depiction of the tragic romance and heroic journey that was unfolding against the backdrop of the monster movie. Had it done better in executing those parts of the story, I think it could have crossed into broader demographics.

                    Comment


                    • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                      Terrance, you get that I'm just replying to your pointless personality digs now, right?

                      I've offered my points of criticism for the movie ... so the only thing still in discussion is the pointless hostility you bring into your retorts.

                      And I actually offer them in the interest of helping, if not you then someone else reading. Because WE ALL as screenwriters are chasing a difficult dream, and we need to all develop a thick skin.

                      I suggest that you maintain a level head in normal discussions ... but that sometimes when someone disagrees with you here ... you make a mistake that will damage you in the future:

                      You allow your words to take on a certain hostility, a certain ad hominem defensiveness, and your logic and ability to defend your points gets muddy with personality.

                      Here's a continuing example:

                      All I write was:

                      Originally Posted by tabula rasa http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...s/viewpost.gif
                      I just wanted to offer some friendly alternative viewpoints to the discussion.

                      "Friendly" was and should remain one of the operative words there ...
                      You don't need to "believe" me ... but what I offered was a friendly interpretation and resolution to our "bickering" here.

                      I'd be glad to drop it, but not by ignoring the continued negative tone of the debate here (the idea that those who criticize the movie don't have the right if they've never sold anything? That it's just 'sour grapes' etc ... nonsense.)

                      We are here to discuss movies with the goal of learning to write better movies. Period.

                      BUT ... when I say I meant my criticisms in a 'friendly' way ... that's how YOU should accept it. Imagine (it's easy if you try) that I'm a Hollywood snake, sitting across a desk, and you don't believe I was 'really' being friendly ...

                      You need to develop a thick enough skin to pretend it was friendly ... because here's what you'd say if you wanted to shoot yourself in the foot and make a Hollywood enemy:

                      Originally posted by Terrance
                      I'd say 'snide' is more like the operative word here.

                      Tab, you must really have a sense of self importance to think I'd try and defend a film you thought was ridiculous.

                      Enjoy it, I guess.
                      [quote=Terrance Mulloy;417394]

                      I say "I meant it as friendly" and we can both let it go. You throw it back in my face and .... well ... the hollywood weasel temember who offered the olive branch and who rejected it (and see, between enemies, the symbolic peace offering is a SYMBOLIC attempt, understand? It can become REAL though, if both sides realize "Hey, we can each use this SYMBOL and accept it as REAL, and then it's REAL)

                      But you said what you said. Fine.

                      Except THEN you came back to it AGAIN (before you even knew my reply, because I'd left NO reply):



                      Originally posted by Terrance
                      We all have opinions, and that's fine.
                      Originally posted by Terrance

                      And you could stop there again, too. We have our "opinions" ... fine.

                      But then you slip into more "personality" comments

                      You seem to be on this kick that I'm desperately trying to defend a film. Hardly, as I'd be nuts to try and put that much effort into something so futile.

                      1) OBVIOUSLY to everyone here, you've put a ton of "effort" into defending a film. You've done it HERE. Anyone can count your many posts, and hear the tone.

                      So why deny your 'effort' ?

                      And it's just bad writing to then let it slip that you know it was 'so futile' to do so.

                      Stay IN CHARACTER, friend.

                      But for the record - I will say I think you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about -

                      You think it because you must think you can read people's minds, then?

                      You don't know what I'm thinking right now, I bet. You're no mindreader.

                      Don't go so far out on a limb, thinking you can.

                      and I don't mean that from your opinions,

                      We both agreed we can have different opinions, that was good.

                      But you're about to blow your position again:

                      but from the fact that you actually think they're 100% right - all the time.

                      Whoaaa. You just wrote something REALLY POINTLESS and STUPID there!

                      I said I could be 'long winded' and still be 100% right.

                      If you read that, and then say something (again, allow me to be blunt, for dramatic fx) unsupportable like I think my 'opinions' are 100% right ...?

                      You're reacting all kneejerk, going off half-cocked, writing things based upon things you failed to understand and nuance, and ... I fear someone in Hollywood in your career who wanted to manipulate you into playing the fool could play you like Bach.

                      Thick skin, my comrade, and slowwww hand upon the "send" button.

                      Blind hostile personality jabs. Nice. Where exactly?

                      Since I didn't attribute them to you specifically, you shouldn't even have risen to the comment.


                      See above comment.
                      Yeah, we could see any number of your comments, offered in evidence to support my points.

                      I'll leave it up to our extreme-masochistic readers, though. Most others will have had a bellyful.


                      I rest my case.
                      Originally posted by Terrance
                      Au Revoir.


                      Cool. Let's let our cases rest.

                      As long as you don't make a mindreader personality statement about me (which is called throwing the first stone ... and ALLOWS any number of stones to be thrown back AT you, guilt-free!) ... I'm glad to critique movies.

                      Let's let bygones be bygone ...

                      ERASE THE PAST:

                      From NOW ON, the first person who FIRST makes it "personal" is the weaker, foolish, vulnerable, easy-to-manipulate one!



                      I think almost everyone else here understands that intelligent and creative people, without baby-thin skin, can offer a variety of opinions
                      and insights
                      and even critiques
                      WITHOUT other intelligent, creative people
                      throwing personality tantrums.

                      Let's agree no one here did that, yet. Can we hope it was simply imagined as a pointlessly stupid possibility ... and so wisely avoided by common choice.


                      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


                      • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                        Originally posted by Terrance Mulloy View Post
                        The one aspect I did find slightly annoying was that I never really felt anything for Rob and the chick he went back to save. I felt more for the exploding girl, whatever her name was. I really felt for Hud. The clumsy bufoon, who did his best to document the event. I wan't really rooting for Rob.
                        I agree. Not to rewrite "Cloverfield," but I think it would've worked much better if we could've *seen* Rob at the beginning. Especially because it's the only time he and his girl are together before the sh!t hits the fan, both, in the relationship and the city. Just speculating, but seeing her alone, even if he is flirting with her from off-camera, got in the way of seeing them as an "item" and having any sympathy for them as a couple (or more sympathy than Hud and Rob's brother telling us how important this girl is for him garnered).

                        I don't wanna go too much into the whole "well this is how I would've done it, " but I would've definitely considered something close to a sex tape to introduce them. One where 1) we see both of them. 2) we see how much they, ahem, love each other and 3) through their dialogue or demeanor we would get a sense that they shouldn't be doing this. It would tip off the audience right away that this isn't a normal relationship and foreshadow the coming troubles (as well as catch the audience's attention right away, as opposed to the ho-hum scene at the start that was completely devoid of dramatic tension). Besides, the whole "sex-tape" thing would be right at home with pop culture.

                        But hey, I still got the "aspiring" tag in front of my writer title, so what the hey do I know?
                        Last edited by Jakkal; 01-27-2008, 04:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                          Originally posted by Jakkal View Post
                          I don't wanna go too much into the whole "well this is how I would've done it, " but I would've definitely considered something close to a sex tape to introduce them.
                          Or a threesome with Marlena, which would have also showed why Marlena was so mopey...
                          "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

                          My YouTube channel.

                          Comment


                          • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                            Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                            Or a threesome with Marlena, which would have also showed why Marlena was so mopey...
                            Me likey. Better yet, nix Rob.

                            EDIT: I'll get back to you on the dramatic reason for that.

                            Comment


                            • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                              Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                              The film really wouldn't have worked at all if there was a recognizable face in the cast. Would have shot the the verité gimmick right in the foot.
                              War of the Worlds, anyone...?
                              Last edited by Terrance Mulloy; 01-27-2008, 06:27 PM.
                              @TerranceMulloy

                              Comment


                              • Re: &quot;Cloverfield&quot;

                                Even in transformers, the star was the Transforming robots.
                                Those would be the, er, Transformers.
                                Frosties are just Cornflakes for people who can't face reality.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X