*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[ChristopherG]

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.

 

[TonyD]

christopher, it's cool.

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

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.

 

[Don Giro]

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...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

You said it, brilliant on all fronts.

 

[Jerome Grate]

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. 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.

 

[Don Giro]

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.

 

[Malcolm R]

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.

 

[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 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."

 

[Malcolm R]

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.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

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.

 

[Jerome Grate]

By the way Inspector Hammer, your signature cracks me up from yesterday's episode of Big Bang Theory.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Thanks.

 

[Nick Martin]

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...

 

[Malcolm R]

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

 

[Malcolm R]

False alarm...Abrams claims the film has nothing to do with "Cloverfield"

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=27798

 

[Rhett_Y]

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.

 

[Alex...]

Reeves finally confirms it was an Alien

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Isn't there a shot where you can actually see the alien arrive?

I thought that made it clear.

 

[Tino]

Isn't there a shot where you can actually see the alien arrive?

Yes. It was discussed extensively when it opened.