"Cloverfield"

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: "Cloverfield"

    But it's not a science fiction movie, it's a horror film. Even if the critter is from outer space, it's still horror.

    And sometimes there's no easy answers in horror, and sometimes none are needed.
    "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

    My YouTube channel.

    Comment


    • Re: "Cloverfield"

      Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
      And sometimes there's no easy answers in horror, and sometimes none are needed.
      Because people who don't ask the right questions find themselves in scary situations more often than people who demand answers.
      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: "Cloverfield"

        funny thread
        funny at least in a way, how some posters always want to change the premise in order to have their "own" version that they believe is best or at least better

        dear writers, gates are open, send your ideas and scripts to producers and have your great ideas made
        they are not great? well, then you know what to do

        the premise of Cloverfield is carried out as it was supposed to be
        any more exposition or "accidental explanation" would kill the movie, period.

        Monster that you can't destroy?
        Who says it can't be destroyed? Just cause we saw what those people saw? We don't know if there were more monsters, we don't know what they are voulnarable to.
        If some people always have to have at least some explanation to enjoy the movie, how about this:
        what if these creatures were not seen so far because they moved to the bottom of the ocean where they can't be found and through millions of years mutated and adapted to the density of ocean 5-7km under surface. Maybe an earthquake made them move and they got lost in NY
        So if there's a creature that could sustain that kind of pressure, what would you kill it with? Bombs? Could they penetrate something that can live that deep?

        But all that is irrelevant. The story is about few friends trying to get out of the city that is under attack. If you need more, imagine it, or better yet, write it and send it to JJ.

        Or, ask him nicely to make Cloverfield 2 with footage from security cameras only. That would also be ground breaking move, worth of the first movie.
        Plus we could finally see how it all went down.
        And then just for tabs lets have a third unique approach to the monster stories, lets have Cloverfield 3 that will show the whole story through the eyes of a MONSTER.
        HA, good enough? Artsy enough?

        ok, enough ideas to be stolen from one post.
        where's my check... JJ, if you're reading this, don't make me find you.

        Comment


        • Re: "Cloverfield"

          Nice post Khabs.

          I agree with most of your points, and one thing that popped into my head was that as audiences, we've been conditioned to expect certain things from characters in more conventional movies - things like character arcs, emotional processing and growth, intelligent solutions to complex problems.

          So for a lot of people, the actions of the Cloverfield characters rang false - but I submit this theory - they were in shock!! Most movies (through the magic of editing) take place over days, weeks, years, or at least many hours. Even Blair Witch took place over days. This was real time. Try to imagine yourself during some huge disaster. There's no time to emotionally process, or deal with information (because there usually isn't much anyway). Probably the closest to this treatment (that I can remember right now) is "Titanic" because the disaster portion of the film pretty much went at real time. But even that had some time-expansion.

          In real, pressing emergencies people just go into fight-or-flight. They bolt, or they do what needs to be done. They're in pure reaction mode.

          Anyway, there's another 2 cents for all the haters. Another reason I think this movie (for a fantasy premise) was very believable.

          Cheers,

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

          Comment


          • Re: "Cloverfield"

            I thought the movie was a political statement about the
            years since 9-11.

            All summed up in the brilliant exchange of dialogue towards the end.

            "What was that?!!"

            "Something else, also terrible."
            myhomeconvalesceblog

            Comment


            • Re: "Cloverfield"

              I liked this movie. A lot. Despite the fact that I had to grit my teeth to not vomit on the people in front of me.

              Shakey cam's make me motion sick.

              This was survival horror, and it did a great job. It plays well on the feelings of terror generated by 9-11.

              If it wasn't for the shakey cam I would absolutly love it.


              And, after doing some reading, the monster is supposed to be from space. AT the end, from the last of the footage at Coney Island (supposedly) something falls from the sky and lands in the ocean.

              But I don't really care; a monster should always be a mystery.

              Comment


              • Re: "Cloverfield"

                I guess you have to respect people's opinions, no matter how much they dislike a film. Even if it don't make any sense. But one thing I've noticed throughout this thread, is a small number of writers who...

                (a) Think they could have done a better job, even though they've never sold a script.

                and

                (b) Prefer their films spoon fed to them, with a healthy sprinkle of exposition on top. Otherwise they end up confused, as they seem to disapprove of flexing their imagination. Things become too obscure and hazy. The film just doesn't make sense.

                Each to their own. Ain't dissing anyone in particular, just something I've noticed since the thread hatched, way back when.
                @TerranceMulloy

                Comment


                • Re: "Cloverfield"

                  Originally posted by boski
                  Even though I didn't mind it in CLOVERFIELD, I think the "Unexplained Monster/Supernatural entity etc." is a legitimate narrative gripe, especially among aspiring writers.

                  On the face of it, it does suggest laziness or, more often, probably a simple failure of imagination.

                  It's certainly easier to write a monster movie without giving the beast a passable explanation, saves the writer a lot of work & trouble. Because workable explanations are particularly tricky in monster movies: hard to avoid the derivative or absurd.

                  I use to be much more of a stickler myself about this point than I am now. If the movie delivers adequate suspense and thrills, I'm willing to let this go, and CLOVERFIELD has the added justification of its main artifice strictly limiting what the characters/audience could possilby know.

                  But I do understand the pain of those who are put off by the unexplained monster; I just don't feel it as often anymore.

                  And I think it may represent an opening up of the contemporary horror audience, who, in the interest of seeing novelty in an old and overworked genre, are willing to forego a full accounting of the beastie if the film-makers just deliver a new and gripping experience.
                  I actually disagree with the idea that a monster needs to be explained. I think it cheapens them, makes them smaller, and less frightening. Think about the "classic" monsters of the modern era: Jaws, Darth Vader (A New Hope), Dracula, Mummies (old school Hammer Horror), Alien, Predator I, and how many others?

                  They were scary. All of them were bad news, and were a serious threat.

                  A good monster should be a mystery- terrifying in its focus to kill the protagonst and mysterious in its origins and motivations. The minute you explain the monster is the moment you humanize it. Now you understand, and as a consquence you're not scared anymore.

                  Monsters need to be rarely seen. They need to creep on the edge of the camp fire, stalk in the darkness just beyond the light from your bedside lamp.

                  When you learn his name is Mike, that he had a terribly abusive childhood, and lost his family in a tragic accident before going on his murderous spree well he's just kinda sad and not scary anymore.

                  Comment


                  • Re: "Cloverfield"

                    TJ Miller summed up this movie pretty well in an interview. He said in monster movies, there's always the anonymous nobody who points to the sky and shouts "GODZILLA!" and runs away and is never seen again. This is the movie about what happens to that guy. I like that a lot.



                    Still haven't seen it*, but I like that a lot.


                    And who cares where the monster came from? Hannibal Lecter is scary without a back story and corny "motivation." That's all I'm sayin'.



                    *(I'll see it on DVD. The motion issue has scared me off the big screen.)

                    Comment


                    • Re: "Cloverfield"

                      Originally posted by boski
                      On the face of it, it does suggest laziness or, more often, probably a simple failure of imagination.

                      It's certainly easier to write a monster movie without giving the beast a passable explanation, saves the writer a lot of work & trouble. Because workable explanations are particularly tricky in monster movies: hard to avoid the derivative or absurd.
                      You may be right, but you've also got to remember Goddard may have been writing the shooting script within the confines of the films estimated budget?

                      Chances are the first draft of Cloverfield had alot more about the monsters background, maybe?
                      @TerranceMulloy

                      Comment


                      • Re: "Cloverfield"

                        Originally posted by boski

                        There was a collective groan, too (including me) when the movie ended.

                        Yeah, I'm kinda girding myself for that reaction to the eventual end of Lost, as well. We know JJ loves him some ambiguity.

                        Comment


                        • Re: "Cloverfield"

                          Originally posted by Terrance Mulloy View Post
                          I guess you have to respect people's opinions, no matter how much they dislike a film.

                          You don't have to 'respect' them ... but a mature person eventually grows up enough to understand that people's opinions often differ, and you need not keep harping on them trying to change them.

                          Opinions and tastes certainly aren't worthwhile to argue over, or insult folks over.

                          Even if it don't make any sense.

                          Stating something 'makes no sense' or not is a tricky thing to judge.

                          Because maybe it makes no sense ... or maybe other times you're betraying to the readers that it is you who cannot make sense of a thing.

                          A lot of people have expressed their opinions and tastes about CLOVERFIELD in this thread.

                          Some have offered support for their opinions ... others haven't.

                          But one thing I've noticed throughout this thread, is a small number of writers who...

                          Is it important to you that the criticisms offered be from a 'small' number or a 'large' number?

                          The criticisms might be valid if only a few very astute persons raise them. Even if a huge crowd of people fail to notice anything worth criticizing.

                          You'd be surprised how many readers miss catching a typo ... and then one person will point it out. The one person, even alone, is still right where the many overlooked it.

                          And ... hmmm ... statistically you might find that a large number of self-proclaimed writers write garbage ... and only a small number write really great movies.

                          (a) Think they could have done a better job, even though they've never sold a script.

                          Damn right.

                          By your logic (by the logic demonstrated in your statement) you seem to suggest that the worst hack writer who has had a screenplay sold ... is immune from criticism from the greatest writer who has yet to have their screenplay sold.

                          and

                          (b) Prefer their films spoon fed to them, with a healthy sprinkle of exposition on top. Otherwise they end up confused, as they seem to disapprove of flexing their imagination. Things become too obscure and hazy. The film just doesn't make sense.

                          Well, as someone who gladly criticized CLOVERFIELD, allow me to rebut your (imo) flawed and negative characterization of people's motives:

                          1) I didn't want CLOVERFIELD to be 'spoon fed' to me.
                          I just wanted it to be a tasty, nutritious meal of a movie.
                          What some folks feel they got, however, was the equivalent of a mother feeding her baby a spoonful of pap ... but tricking the baby into eating it by pretending it's an airplane coming in for a landing. "Open wide, sweetie! Here comes the airplane! Brrrrr-mmmmm-eeeeee! (That was an airplane diving with motor noises) Open wide!"

                          The baby opens wide, the slop goes in, and the baby thinks ... "I'm gonna criticize that last mouthful, because it was exciting and action-packed ... but it was still a mouthful of slop."

                          2) I wasn't 'confused' ... I was disappointed.

                          3) And I don't 'disapprove of flexing my imagination' ... I simply think the writers should have flexed THEIRS!

                          Each to their own. Ain't dissing anyone in particular, just something I've noticed since the thread hatched, way back when.
                          You're NOT 'dissing anyone" ???

                          That's good to know, here.

                          But I wonder if the readers will join me in a mind experiment: Imagine that you wrote your above comments as DIALOGUE in a screenplay ... and after your character says things like:

                          Even if it don't make any sense.
                          they prefer their films spoon fed to them
                          Otherwise they end up confused
                          they seem to disapprove of flexing their imagination.
                          The character then says:
                          Ain't dissing anyone
                          Would we believe that character is indeed NOT 'dissing anyone' ???

                          One might be careful how one's characters present themselves.
                          One's tone might be betraying their characters as hypocrites.

                          Never mind that one's characters seem to be getting way too worked up emotionally, defending a movie, rather than having some actual meaningful drama to deal with!

                          Or has it become absurdist comedy by now?
                          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: "Cloverfield"



                            Just the response I was expecting from you Tab. Long-winded and badly formatted.

                            I honestly haven't got time to dissect your response, but by all means, go ahead and dissect mine, as you so elequently do.
                            Last edited by Terrance Mulloy; 01-27-2008, 01:46 AM.
                            @TerranceMulloy

                            Comment


                            • Re: "Cloverfield"

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              Just because someone hasn't sold a script, doesn't mean they couldn't have done a better job.

                              What's the old saying... right script, right hands, right time?

                              I know there are people on this board, myself included, who are just waiting for it all to come together.
                              Oh, I know that. I was simply generalizing. When people start claiming faults with the film it makes me wonder how much of an experienced writer they themselves are? I guess we all believe we can do better, its what keeps us writing. Nothing wrong with that, was just raising a point of view. I'm by no means an expert myself - although I know a bit about the odd horror flick here and there. Some might disagree though?

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              As to your second point, the reason I didn't like CLOVERFIELD was because there wasn't enough there for me. Lack of story, no twists. There was actually nothing there to flex my imagination at all.
                              It was linear, but that's the point. It works because of its simplicity.

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              That first twenty minutes at the party seemed like a waste of time.
                              Rob was going to Japan and they were throwing him a party. Why was showing it a waste of time?

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              Act two was them running around saying "we got to get out of here"
                              Errr... yeah, most horror movies usually have characters saying that.

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              And then a weak ending.
                              We were watching a video tape. What do you think would happen after being in the blast radius of a nuke?

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              I talked to another person who saw it in the theater opening night. He hated it..
                              No one movie will ever satisfy movie goers. These kind of films are even more subjective.

                              Originally posted by bobmartin66
                              Did you see that Cloverfield came in forth on the daily gross for Friday? The hype is wearing off and word of mouth is kicking in.
                              It still made money initially, and I suspect DVD sales will be strong. Cue the sequel.
                              @TerranceMulloy

                              Comment


                              • Re: "Cloverfield"

                                Originally posted by Terrance Mulloy View Post

                                Rob was going to Japan and they were throwing him a party. Why was showing it a waste of time?
                                I have to go with Bob on this one. The party was one of my gripes (nothing interesting happened/things took too long to get started).

                                The fact that this is a tape recovered from a camcorder doesn't excuse the filmmakers from putting in a 15min snore of a scene of someone going around with the camera at a party just because "ppl do that with camcorders." The idea (at least I think it was) was to tell a good cinematic story through the pov cam gimmick. In that framework, I don't think the party scene works. The filmmakers can get away with it a little due to the pov gimmick, but, had this been shot conventionally, the drawbacks of such a long, monotonous scene would have been painfully obvious.

                                Imho, at least.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X