Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread - Page 8

post #211 of 237
4/28/08 at 7:19am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

In the making of doc, it is mentioned that the monster is a frightened baby. Did anybody get that feeling watching the movie? As I replay it in my head, I do see the creature appearing trapped in the maze of NY, that it's trying to find a way out. But I don't get the feeling it's a baby.

I also don't get the impression that it's meant to be on land. It appears to drag itself more than it walks. That's the only thing I see that might be interpreted as being immature, that it can't walk correctly yet.
Reply
post #212 of 237
4/28/08 at 7:51am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

I watched the doc, and the impression I got was that the monster was not a baby, but the baby attributes were used as oppose to some mean monster on the rampage to destroy the city just because. I appreciated that approach as in some of the attack scenes especially from the helicopters view, it showed that the the creature was definetly trying to get away from the army. I've seen this movie at least four times since I purchased it and reading the threads here has really put me in a real love for the film.
Reply
post #213 of 237
4/28/08 at 11:18am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

When I first heard that the creature was a baby my immediate thought was "christ, i'd hate to see the freakin' parents!!"

I like that he's a baby, it adds a poigancy to the creature to where you almost feel sad for it.
Reply
post #214 of 237
4/28/08 at 12:02pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

I'll retract "boring", but how could you not classify that ending as anything but predictable?

I loved the movie overall. I don't know that the creature being a pup makes a difference to me for the story - those crazy ass crab things falling off it were pretty nasty - alien fleas!
Reply
post #215 of 237
4/28/08 at 12:07pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

i dont know what you mean by predictable.
did you predict that it would end with those 2 characters under a bridge while the government tried to nuke the city.

they said thats what was going to happen earlier in the movie anyway.

again i ask, what would be a more appropriate ending?
Reply
post #216 of 237
4/28/08 at 12:47pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

There is no "appropriate" ending - it is what is and in my opinion, predictable (no closure, main characters dead, etc). This isn't a difficult concept....
Reply
post #217 of 237
4/28/08 at 1:01pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

well i'm sorry if me not getting what you mean bugs you, i just don't follow your logic.

you didn't like the way it ends, so there must be some way for it to end that you would have preferred.
oh well whatever, doesn't matter anyway.
Reply
post #218 of 237
4/28/08 at 1:08pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

They went the ballsier route with the ending IMO, if Rob and Beth had lived it would have been accused of being "too safe" or "too Hollywood" but they both croaked which is what makes the end work so well IMO.
Reply
post #219 of 237
4/28/08 at 1:56pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
They went the ballsier route with the ending IMO, if Rob and Beth had lived it would have been accused of being "too safe" or "too Hollywood" but they both croaked which is what makes the end work so well IMO.
We don't know for sure that they're dead. It can be implied, I guess, but we never saw the bodies.

The creature was cool. I'd like to see a more traditional film about the monster, which is where my interest was strongest. I had no connection to or feelings about the kids (other than hating Hud), so I didn't really care what happened to them. But there's a lot more I'd like to know about the creature.
Reply
post #220 of 237
4/28/08 at 3:14pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
The creature was cool. I'd like to see a more traditional film about the monster, which is where my interest was strongest. I had no connection to or feelings about the kids (other than hating Hud), so I didn't really care what happened to them. But there's a lot more I'd like to know about the creature.

Same here, the film was a waste of an interesting movie monster.

Another thing that bothered me is that this camera guy nearly always avoids filming the monster whenever he can. I'm trying to imagine myself in that situation, sure I'd be shit scared but this is a once in a lifetime event and I have the camera in my hand would I really try to avoid filming the monster? At one point his friends are pointing frantically at the creature and he is filming them instead of turning the camera round. Just doesn't ring true to me. The only time he gets a really good shot of the creature is when it's practically on top of him. But having a monster shy cameraman saves money on the effects budget I suppose...

By contrast the camcorder guys in Romero's Diary of the Dead were making sure the zombie attacks were filmed in loving detail.
Reply
post #221 of 237
4/28/08 at 3:53pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
They went the ballsier route with the ending IMO, if Rob and Beth had lived it would have been accused of being "too safe" or "too Hollywood" but they both croaked which is what makes the end work so well IMO.
Isn't that what you hated about "The Mist"?

TonyD - not looking to pick a fight, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Again - I really loved the film, I just found the ending weak and wanting.
Reply
post #222 of 237
4/28/08 at 4:19pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

christopher, it's cool.

i liked the movie alot too.
then end worked for me, not for you.

Reply
post #223 of 237
4/28/08 at 4:54pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherG
Isn't that what you hated about "The Mist"?

Yep, but the differnece is that film did not earn it's ending IMO and only did it for sheer shock value and nothing else, his cowardly and weak act didn't fit with anything else Thomas Jane did throughout the rest of the film. With an enormous creature decimating the entire city and the military bombing the living hell out of it it was likely that Rob and Beth wouldn't survive so their deaths were not only plausable but logical given the circumstances they were up against.

The distinction between Hud filming the creature and filming the zombies in Diary of the Dead is that you've got plenty of time to film the zombies, they lumber around slowly and if they're far off than you've got all the time in the world to compose and get great shots.

Hud got the creature when it was moving behind the buildings and when he did get a close look they were all right on top of it (or under it in this case) and my first instinct if I were right below a 300' creature stomping around would be to haul ass, not stand there like an idiot and film it.

Point is, Hud captured the creature well given the perameters of either how far or close he was to it, it wasn't Hud's fault the creature was moving around behind buildings.

I'm glad they shot Cloverfield like they did and structured it the way they did because you know what you get when you put the creature in a traditionally shot and structured Hollywood blockbuster? '98's Godzilla. Waste of a good creature? Couldn't disagree more.
Reply
post #224 of 237
4/29/08 at 5:17am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
In the making of doc, it is mentioned that the monster is a frightened baby. Did anybody get that feeling watching the movie? As I replay it in my head, I do see the creature appearing trapped in the maze of NY, that it's trying to find a way out. But I don't get the feeling it's a baby.

I was glad the "making of" docs confirmed this, because I had a sneaking suspicion about it being a "baby" all along. There's just something about the way it started screaming during the full reveal outside what appeared to be Grand Central Station that had me convinced "It wants its mommy." I tend to never think of movie monsters as "evil" per se, they're usually just as scared sh**less as the fleeing citizens of the city they're "invading."

This is the greatest monster movie I've ever seen...
Reply
post #225 of 237
4/29/08 at 5:28am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Giro
This is the greatest monster movie I've ever seen...

You said it, brilliant on all fronts.
Reply
post #226 of 237
4/29/08 at 6:29am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

As someone else said earlier, if that was the baby, imagine the size of the parents. I guess it's just me but I really thought they wanted the monster to have baby characteristics as oppose to the menacing aspect. I'll watch the doc again to see if I missed something.
Now to the camera aspect, I love the whole camcorder approach because it gives a real feel to the whole situation. Ironically, I finally watched the Mist on Sunday and not a bad movie but in comparison to Cloverfield it couldn't hold a candle.
Quote:
This is the greatest monster movie I've everseen...
I fully agree with that. I was in lower Manhattan when 9/11 occurred and I have to say the initial attack and the destruction of the Woolworth building was quite realistic. Seeing the people running towards Hud was really well done. This movie took you out of the Hollywood style of making movies and I think if there is a series of these films, it should be done in this fashion.
Reply
post #227 of 237
4/29/08 at 9:10am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Something else just occurred to me that reinforced my suspicion that the creature was a baby: the sighting in Central Park (the last time you get a full-on look at the monster).

It reminded me of a brand-new puppy we once had that followed me everywhere in the house the morning after we got him, and every time I would stop moving, he would stop and sit and study me much the same way the creature did in that final scene.
Reply
post #228 of 237
4/29/08 at 9:59am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
I'm glad they shot Cloverfield like they did and structured it the way they did because you know what you get when you put the creature in a traditionally shot and structured Hollywood blockbuster? '98's Godzilla. Waste of a good creature? Couldn't disagree more.
The creature and filming style had little to do with Godzilla '98 being a failure. Start with the ridiculous script and horrible casting and move down the list from there. I'm confident that JJ could do better using a more traditional film style.
Reply
post #229 of 237
4/29/08 at 10:13am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
I'm confident that JJ could do better using a more traditional film style.

Do better with this story or better in general? Of course JJ Abrams can do a great film using traditional film styles but in the case of this story I don't necessarily want tradtional styles used, that would take away what made this film effective and turn it into yet another ho hum blockbuster.

I don't think I would have been nearly as intrigued and excited as I was seeing those first teasers if they looked all shiny and polished, it was the raw footage approach (in additon to the film not identifying itself at first) that made me raise an eyebrow and think "whoa, this looks really different and exciting."
Reply
post #230 of 237
4/29/08 at 10:31am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
Do better with this story or better in general? Of course JJ Abrams can do a great film using traditional film styles but in the case of this story I don't necessarily want tradtional styles used, that would take away what made this film effective and turn it into yet another ho hum blockbuster.
I guess I'm thinking if they use the idea floated for a sequel about the same events from a different POV. I'd rather they make it more traditional, and more about the creature, than just more "found footage" from another camera.
Reply
post #231 of 237
4/29/08 at 10:40am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

I would just like them to keep it rough and unpolished, perhaps they could do the sequel in the style of a cameraman filming things for the military, similar to cameramen who were hired to go into the field with soldiers and document things during WWII?

It doesn't need to be found footage all over again, we did that already.
Reply
post #232 of 237
4/29/08 at 11:04am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

By the way Inspector Hammer, your signature cracks me up from yesterday's episode of Big Bang Theory.
Reply
post #233 of 237
4/29/08 at 11:32am

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Thanks.
Reply
post #234 of 237
5/3/08 at 3:17pm

Re: *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread

Wasn't one of the ideas also to tell the same story from the news media's perspective?

With that or the military documentary idea, they could both keep that rough hand-held style while being a little more focused on what's going on to bring the monster down, rather than trying to run away from it, or get past it to go somewhere else like in this film.

You could get onboard nightvision camera footage from fighter jets breezing past the monster, sniper and chopper points of view...think of the possibilities for the eventual DVD release - all those alternate camera angles to choose from when watching the movie, making it very interactive and complex. Watch it from different perspectives every time!

Not that they would go to that length, but it's a nice thought.

Or they could do an actual sequel that involves rebuilding the damaged city and exterminating the remaining parasites, only to have the monster's parents wake up (or come back from vacation out of town, whatever works ) to find baby Clover dead, and go on a rampage that destroys the entire east coast and beyond!

Nah...
Reply
post #235 of 237
5/4/10 at 8:38pm
There's supposed to be a teaser trailer before "Iron Man 2" for a new secret JJ Abrams project called "Super 8." Rumors also have this being the "Cloverfield" sequel.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/want-to-know-the-title-of-the-secret-jj-abrams-film?m=k
Reply
post #236 of 237
5/5/10 at 8:10pm
False alarm...Abrams claims the film has nothing to do with "Cloverfield"

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=27798
Reply
post #237 of 237
5/13/10 at 3:41am

There has been talk about Cloverfield 2 thou.  I know they did a panel at WonderCon 2010 about it.  No date, no time frame as of yet.  Just that JJ want's to do it when the time is right.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread