Colverfield (Spoilers)

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go

Gonna see it?

Yes, ASAP
5
13%
Yes, eventually
9
24%
Renter
2
5%
meh
7
18%
No, there is no intrest
3
8%
Whaterfield?
1
3%
Already saw it :p
11
29%
 
Total votes: 38
User avatar
NachoManLance
Posts: 442
Joined: 27 Nov 2007, 07:16
First Video: The Stages
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Postby NachoManLance » 18 Jan 2008, 21:57

tak197 wrote:
korri wrote:WHY THE FUCK IS IT CALLED CLOVERFIELD.... THIS PISSES ME OFF TO NO END!!!

sorry, a couple moments of rage there...


Far as I know, that was the code name for the project since the beginning of filming, and had anything more leaked that they didn't want to leak, they would have changed the name to something else.

That and also, the research and recovery missions from the attack were named "Operation Cloverfield", likely because they were finding key bits of information in the city, like finding a four leaf clover in a field of clovers.

That's my guess.


That seems to make the most sense. I haven't watched it yet (though I want to), but the sheer confusion and lack of information that I've read about in other reviews intrigues me more than frustrates me.
Image
http://twitter.com/NachoManLance

<Witty quote that induces a chuckle>
User avatar
Tensen01
Sketchasaurus Rex
Posts: 1783
Joined: 27 Sep 2004, 20:10
First Video: Who Watches Movies?
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Postby Tensen01 » 18 Jan 2008, 23:16

Saw It, Loved It, 'nuff said

[edit]Read some responces and have to say more...

I don't think there will be any more movies. The movie was NOT about the monster or the people trying to defeat it or anything like that... That movie was happening somewhere else. This movie was about the regular people, and how they dealt with it. I can't see what a sequal would do but fall into the typical Monster movie cliches and tear down everything Cloverfield built up... Unless it was just another recovered tape... maybe a military one this time... That would be kinda cool, but still too typical Monster movie.

I loved this movie. I loved it because it was everything I expected it to. Because it did something different with the Monster Movie Genre. Because it was more about the characters and atmosphere than it was about showing off the cool CG monster they built(Of which you didn't get a very clear shot of until about 5 minutes from the end of the movie). because we DIDN'T find out anything, or were forced to sit through technobabble or off-the-wall origin the writers thought sounded good.

I think people who aren't liking it are expecting to see another Godzilla movie, complete with all the stereotypes and cliches.
Image
User avatar
CyberTractor
Member of Alpha Flight
Posts: 3052
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 14:48
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Contact:

Postby CyberTractor » 19 Jan 2008, 01:18

Tensen01 wrote:I think people who aren't liking it are expecting to see another Godzilla movie, complete with all the stereotypes and cliches.


I agree. The people I know who didn't like it were expecting an in-depth plot and lots of information about the monster. I tried explaining to them that the movie was strictly about people during the monster's attack and not about where it came from or how we plan to kill it.

They thought it was retarded.

I for one love the fact that not all the mystery surrounding the monster was torn down and that they left pertinent information out so that there could be sequels.

I'm fairly certain there will be sequels. Abrams said he wanted there to be an American Godzilla, so there has to be some sequels.
I can't think of a signature.
User avatar
Corax
Hangleyman
Posts: 1926
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, 14:46
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Corax » 20 Jan 2008, 15:36

CyberTractor wrote:
Tensen01 wrote:I think people who aren't liking it are expecting to see another Godzilla movie, complete with all the stereotypes and cliches.


I agree. The people I know who didn't like it were expecting an in-depth plot and lots of information about the monster. I tried explaining to them that the movie was strictly about people during the monster's attack and not about where it came from or how we plan to kill it.

They thought it was retarded.

I for one love the fact that not all the mystery surrounding the monster was torn down and that they left pertinent information out so that there could be sequels.

I'm fairly certain there will be sequels. Abrams said he wanted there to be an American Godzilla, so there has to be some sequels.


yea i liked the mystery, its not like you need a backstory for it, its more about the excitement of the moment and what the people were doing. My dad read a bad review before going so his reasons for not liking it were the same as the bad reviews, coincidence? anyways i liked it it was somthin different and good
Image
User avatar
Nitro
Posts: 163
Joined: 27 Nov 2007, 19:07
Location: The US of A

Postby Nitro » 20 Jan 2008, 15:55

Alja-Markir wrote:I have no desire to see it simply because they still haven't told us what the fuck it is. Don't wanna spend seven bucks to see a crapshoot of a film.

~Alja~


Dito. I mean, do the people who make these films even know what their own film is about?
* Peace Out, Rock Out. *
User avatar
Alja-Markir
Trebuchet Enthusiast
Posts: 5699
Joined: 04 Feb 2007, 21:03
Location: Deep In Space

Postby Alja-Markir » 20 Jan 2008, 16:09

Corax wrote:yea i liked the mystery, its not like you need a backstory for it, its more about the excitement of the moment and what the people were doing.


See, in literatary terms this is called a lack of depth, or shallowness. Having some great mystery only really works if there is an actual mystery.

A lot of people really hate having the outer image of something presented to them only to find that if you look beneath or behind that image, it's a cardboard cutout or a hollywood set. Thus with this movie, people are presented a facade without ever getting to see what lies behind everything, and because they never get to find out, they assume there was nothing there to be found out to begin with.

~Alja~
User avatar
Corax
Hangleyman
Posts: 1926
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, 14:46
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Corax » 20 Jan 2008, 16:14

Alja-Markir wrote:
Corax wrote:yea i liked the mystery, its not like you need a backstory for it, its more about the excitement of the moment and what the people were doing.


See, in literatary terms this is called a lack of depth, or shallowness. Having some great mystery only really works if there is an actual mystery.

A lot of people really hate having the outer image of something presented to them only to find that if you look beneath or behind that image, it's a cardboard cutout or a hollywood set. Thus with this movie, people are presented a facade without ever getting to see what lies behind everything, and because they never get to find out, they assume there was nothing there to be found out to begin with.

~Alja~


well when you look behind you are usually dissapointed, this way you cant even if you want to. it definately didnt need a backstory, like if this movie becomes super popular there will be plenty of spinoffs about the alien and his home planet and whatnot, but atm it doesnt need it
Image
User avatar
Misty
The Goddamn Batman
Posts: 1632
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 14:00
First Video: Suspend Your Disbelief
Location: You Are Here
Contact:

Postby Misty » 20 Jan 2008, 16:28

Tensen01 wrote:Saw It, Loved It, 'nuff said.


Completely agree! I thought it was awesome, and it had me totally immersed during the entire thing. The shaky cam didn't bother me any, either (I don't get motion sickness)

[SPOILERS]The scene where the group gets caught in the streets, and the military come to blow the crap out of the monster, was BEYOND COOL. I swear, I felt like I was in the middle of a Halo battle or something!! Rocket launchers, ftw.

And when the hyper cricket things attacked them in the subway... holy damn, that was intense! By far the best sequence in the entire film, in my opinion. My jaw was on the floor, and I was covering my mouth so I wouldn't freak out too badly- it was that good.
[/SPOILERS]
Image
User avatar
Clemintine
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Jan 2008, 03:37

Postby Clemintine » 20 Jan 2008, 20:15

It was great, i saw it and thought it was great.
I'd go see it again... only because i can do it for free though o_o
I like all the crazy theories floating around about where the monster came from, it's pretty entertaining. About Slusho and whatnot...
I went into the movie not expecting anything good, to me it's the better attitude to take with you into a movie, because you either get what you expected or you get something better... you know the drill.

Someone told me you don't get to see the monster, so going in even with that made it all the better haha
Rawr
User avatar
JesterJ.
Posts: 6894
Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 23:00
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Postby JesterJ. » 20 Jan 2008, 20:23

I saw it yesterday, SO AWESOME. I recommend Cloverfield to anyone, it's really intense. People can stop bitching about the shaky cam; it's a bit annoying at first, but then it just adds to the overall atmosphere.

SPOILLER
I totally guessed the ending, although I'd say it was pretty obvious; at the beginning it said the tape was "recovered from US-447, formerly known as Central Park". THIS MEANS THEY ALL DIE


mistyladybug wrote:SPOILERS


Basically what misty said.
I also though the shot of Hutt looking up at the monster was amazing. It was so fucking intense seeing him just stare up there, frozen, could hear him breathing and the thing just staring at him....God, so fantastic.

My only question is, what were those red flappy things?
"Good thing we got Jester to carry." -Morgan, January 20th, 2009
User avatar
Misty
The Goddamn Batman
Posts: 1632
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 14:00
First Video: Suspend Your Disbelief
Location: You Are Here
Contact:

Postby Misty » 20 Jan 2008, 21:41

JesterJ. wrote:I also though the shot of Hutt looking up at the monster was amazing. It was so fucking intense seeing him just stare up there, frozen, could hear him breathing and the thing just staring at him....God, so fantastic.

My only question is, what were those red flappy things?


Me too!! That part was really great... [SPOILERS]it was so surreal, and awe-inspiring, really. Hud couldn't do anything, he was just so frozen with fear. I would've been screaming my head off for him to get out of there (like Rob and Beth were doing) but, honestly, if anyone were in that situation there's no way in hell you'd survive even if you tried to run for it. I mean, the thing was RIGHT THERE. Even if you were as fast as the freaking Flash, that monster could still snatch you up and chomp on you without fluttering an eyelash. (err... if it had eyelashes? x3)

As far as those red flappy things- It came from the ocean, apparently, so maybe they were gills? I dunno, it's all I could come up with.
[/SPOILERS]

And yeah, if anyone's one complaint about the film is the shaky cam, then they can just shove it. I loved the fact that it was something new, and I totally agree that it added to the atmosphere.
Image
User avatar
The R
Posts: 275
Joined: 09 Jun 2005, 14:06
Location: The bridge to Vancover
Contact:

Postby The R » 20 Jan 2008, 22:06

mistyladybug wrote:And yeah, if anyone's one complaint about the film is the shaky cam, then they can just shove it. I loved the fact that it was something new, and I totally agree that it added to the atmosphere.


I beg to differ. Liked the concept, the monster, the CGI was good, a lot was good for me but of course they just had to make it completely unwatchable from the camera work. My other complaint was the annoying guy who took over the camera. Also, Blair witch; not that new.

It wasn't just the shakyness, it was as if they had filmed the entire thing with the zoom at mid-to maximum so you get this annoying depth-of field look (anyone who has owned a handycam can know what I mean by this).

I don't care if it makes it look more "intense" because all that work and story goes down the toilet if you can barley see anything and be nauseated in the process. I am sick to death by movies that substitute action for how fast the camera flails around. Even in the non-action parts it's all over the place.

This movie could have been done so much better even with a handycam. For example the average episode of cops is done with a camera on the run and it doesn't shake as bad. Went with friends who were looking forwards to this and they felt the same way. Also everyone in the theater was like "wtf" at the end.

TD;LR summary: So much potential and finally a decent non-cliche monster movie but makes it unwatchable.

I am severely disappointed.
User avatar
The Pious Flea
Posts: 1338
Joined: 25 May 2007, 15:22
Location: The Mote in God's Eye

Postby The Pious Flea » 20 Jan 2008, 22:30

The R wrote: I am severely disappointed.


But they already have your money...
I require a dance of intellect. Put on your thinking shoes!

Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!

Do not question me! I control your arms!
User avatar
The R
Posts: 275
Joined: 09 Jun 2005, 14:06
Location: The bridge to Vancover
Contact:

Postby The R » 20 Jan 2008, 22:34

Meh, just the ticket. At least I didn't buy popcorn! :wink:
User avatar
Corax
Hangleyman
Posts: 1926
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, 14:46
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Corax » 20 Jan 2008, 22:37

The R wrote:Meh, just the ticket. At least I didn't buy popcorn! :wink:


wich would suppourt the local theater, not the people who made the movie

/asshole off
Image
User avatar
The R
Posts: 275
Joined: 09 Jun 2005, 14:06
Location: The bridge to Vancover
Contact:

Postby The R » 20 Jan 2008, 22:41

My friend bought a huge load of poutine, so were good.
User avatar
The Pious Flea
Posts: 1338
Joined: 25 May 2007, 15:22
Location: The Mote in God's Eye

Postby The Pious Flea » 20 Jan 2008, 22:44

The R wrote:My friend bought a huge load of poutine, so were good.


That sounds delicious... I really should try that some time.

Returning to the topic: that's why I hardly ever go to a movie without reading reviews and speaking to people who have already been - I want to be able to tell whether it's generally good, and whether it's something I'd be interested in.

Do you feel that your time and money was wasted? Or just used sub-optimally?
I require a dance of intellect. Put on your thinking shoes!

Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!

Do not question me! I control your arms!
User avatar
The R
Posts: 275
Joined: 09 Jun 2005, 14:06
Location: The bridge to Vancover
Contact:

Postby The R » 20 Jan 2008, 22:49

No not wasted at all, and I'm not gonna be like I was wishing I had a refund. It was an experience. I was really surprised because a lot of people who I talked to said it was really good, which is why I saw it with 2 friends just now.

Also, when we were outside just entering the doors 2 teenage girls tried to sell weed to us, but we had tickets and poutine to buy. Lol Canada.
User avatar
JesterJ.
Posts: 6894
Joined: 12 Nov 2005, 23:00
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Postby JesterJ. » 20 Jan 2008, 23:16

The R wrote:
mistyladybug wrote:And yeah, if anyone's one complaint about the film is the shaky cam, then they can just shove it. I loved the fact that it was something new, and I totally agree that it added to the atmosphere.


I beg to differ. Liked the concept, the monster, the CGI was good, a lot was good for me but of course they just had to make it completely unwatchable from the camera work. My other complaint was the annoying guy who took over the camera. Also, Blair witch; not that new.

It wasn't just the shakyness, it was as if they had filmed the entire thing with the zoom at mid-to maximum so you get this annoying depth-of field look (anyone who has owned a handycam can know what I mean by this).

I don't care if it makes it look more "intense" because all that work and story goes down the toilet if you can barley see anything and be nauseated in the process. I am sick to death by movies that substitute action for how fast the camera flails around. Even in the non-action parts it's all over the place.

This movie could have been done so much better even with a handycam. For example the average episode of cops is done with a camera on the run and it doesn't shake as bad. Went with friends who were looking forwards to this and they felt the same way. Also everyone in the theater was like "wtf" at the end.

TD;LR summary: So much potential and finally a decent non-cliche monster movie but makes it unwatchable.

I am severely disappointed.


Well you, sir, are an idiot. Pun intended.
I honestly can't see how someone can watch that movie and hate the camerawork unless they want to hate the camerawork. It entirely adds to the atmosphere of the film, and makes it all the more intense because you're in the guy's shoes; it's like saying Half-Life was shit because it was entirely first person.

And no, Blair Witch "did it first", but Blair Witch was utter shit. It didn't have at all the same kind of atmosphere, thus making it so much, much worse. Cloverfield might not be "new", but it's the only approach of said camerawork that has been SUCCESFULL, and I'd say that's something new.

The R wrote:It wasn't just the shakyness, it was as if they had filmed the entire thing with the zoom at mid-to maximum so you get this annoying depth-of field look (anyone who has owned a handycam can know what I mean by this).

I don't care if it makes it look more "intense" because all that work and story goes down the toilet if you can barley see anything and be nauseated in the process. I am sick to death by movies that substitute action for how fast the camera flails around. Even in the non-action parts it's all over the place.


What non-action parts? The most there is are zooms every once in awhile, and the autofocus was obviously on considering it's a home camera. Anyone who's watched a home video knows that this guy is doing EXACTLY what you would be doing (or, if you're experienced in film-making, exactly what an unexperienced person would be doing).

Yeah, Cops does do it without too much shake, but they ahve a professional doing it. Hutt (or Hud, however it's spelled) has absolutely no experience, as it evident, and it completely adds to the atmosphere, and makes it all the more intense.

Relating this to movies such as the Bourne Supremacy (which I love, but the camera during action was a bit... much) is going too far. Obviously yes, Cloverfield was more shaky than possibly any movie ever (except Domino?), but the shakiness was clearly not an excuse to do away with any action. Once again, the point of this movie was NOT the action, but the atmosphere, and about the way these normal people dealt with the disaster. Also, there WAS quite a bit of action without too much shake; the axe into the alien in the stairway*, the carpetbombing of the monster**, etc.

The directing was simply magnificent, and I lol'd when I saw the shot of the pillar JUST blocking Rob's face at one point (from....I don't remember the movie, a shot of a woman in a bedroom talking on the phone, the doorway just blocking her face) and people leaning to the right and try to glimpse his face. Once again, showing how the camerawork just added to the awesomeness that is Cloverfield.

*This is a spoiler.
**This too
"Good thing we got Jester to carry." -Morgan, January 20th, 2009
User avatar
empath
Posts: 13531
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:20
First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
Location: back in the arse end of nowhere

Postby empath » 21 Jan 2008, 07:20

Right, can I change my vote from "Rental" to "meh"? Because I'm not going to diss the 'shaky-cam' even though I find it irritating with no added 'realism' provided to me.

No, I'll not be expending my time in a sub-optimal manner (thanks for that, Pious :D ) because I'm sick and tired of yet another 'docudrama' (or would this be 'docu-action'?) focusing on the trials and tribulations of ordinary people attempting to deal with (and even just survive) traumatic circumstances.

I get plenty of that for free from REAL LIFE; why would I pay to go see something fictional that dwells on the same specifics that I can get by turning on the evening news, or go back to volunteering with the Red Cross again and start comforting housefire victims? (I got a little overwhelmed after helping out all the stranded passengers here on 9/11 and had to step back for the sake of my own psyche; heck, at least I wasn't in Gander! ;) )

But Independence Day did a 'sub-plot' of this, and it was okay, being tempered with jingoistic 'defiance' action.

Little Stevie Speilberg's take on War of the Worlds? Greater focus on the 'fleeing refugees' and a little less interesting to me (mind you, I did like that this theme kept closer to Wells' original book - one ordinary man's perspective of surviving the Martian invasion)

I dunno, it seems that if I want to see people in distress and hardship, and crisis and disastrous events going on - again, I don't think I should have to fork out $$$ and plunk myself down for ninety to one-twenty minutes of fiction; I go through such expenditures of time and effort to get away from such situations and events going on in real life...
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
The Hitman
Posts: 2607
Joined: 22 Dec 2004, 15:54
Location: Victory City
Contact:

Postby The Hitman » 21 Jan 2008, 08:19

FACT: Steacys have this gene where shaky cameras are three hundred times more nauseating than usual.
"Just another Sunday paddleboat ride on a man-made lake with another lady stranger; if I remain lost and die on a cross, at least i wasn't born in a manger."
Kara
Posts: 2565
Joined: 13 Mar 2006, 11:38
First Video: The Bet
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Postby Kara » 21 Jan 2008, 08:23

I saw it yesterday and really liked it. I thought the shaking cameras added wonderful atmosphere and they really did just pull off the camera work well. You didn't NEED to see every moment of what was happening. It felt as if you were there through the whole thing regardless of not having every second in perfect view.

The monster was rad and the whole concept behind the movie (though it was a bit bare for my taste) was really well done.
User avatar
HMNSHLD
Posts: 307
Joined: 11 Apr 2005, 14:30
First Video: Quantum Documentary
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Postby HMNSHLD » 21 Jan 2008, 09:16

The R wrote:
mistyladybug wrote:This movie could have been done so much better even with a handycam. For example the average episode of cops is done with a camera on the run and it doesn't shake as bad.


Like Jester J. said Cops is made by professionals. They also have professional cameras that are placed on their shoulders, thus giving them a more stable platform. Cloverfield was shot like it was shot by a tiny handheld consumer camera. Go grab a crappy little camera and hold it out in front of you and run like a monster is chasing you. Go try it.

About the movie not having enough answers: Thats the beauty of it. The whole movie was supposed to give the feeling of "WTF?!" It lets your imagination go wild. Well I guess that could be a flaw due to peoples lack of imagination.
User avatar
blackdragontaz
The Goddamn Batman
Posts: 956
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 09:34
Location: Windham, OH
Contact:

Postby blackdragontaz » 21 Jan 2008, 14:31

Did none of you read any newspaper review? Maybe mine was the only one that explained the name.

The name Cloverfield is a street real close by where Abrams lives (or works, something like that). The movie was given the project name "Cloverfield" merely to call it something before a final title was decided. That would be why the very first trailers were "Project: Cloverfield" or w/e. The article didn't say why they stuck with Cloverfield, probly cause the weird trailer and seemingly unrelated name drew so much attention, the decided to leave it that way (and incorporate in into the movie a little bit).
User avatar
The Pious Flea
Posts: 1338
Joined: 25 May 2007, 15:22
Location: The Mote in God's Eye

Postby The Pious Flea » 21 Jan 2008, 14:49

The real surprise is that the upcoming Star Trek movie involves Earth being attacked by the same monster for no reason.
I require a dance of intellect. Put on your thinking shoes!

Dance with us, LRR! Dance with us into oblivion!

Do not question me! I control your arms!

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests