-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official CLOVERFIELD Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
236 replies to this topic

#1 of 237 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted January 14 2008 - 04:01 PM

Want to see the monster? These are renderings of the monster by people who have seen the film, they vary a bit but you get the idea. The first image is said to be the closest. They're good works by the way, not doodles or anything.

It looks pretty bad ass too.

Cloverfield Update: Fans Draw the Cloverfield Monster! | FilmSchoolRejects.com - Giving Hollywood The Business - Movie News, Reviews and Opinions
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#2 of 237 Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor

  • 733 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted January 14 2008 - 04:25 PM

Thanks Zack.

If those are pretty close then I have to say that it looks great. Definitely a very different take then other monster films like Knowles states.

Did you happen to read the comments on that page? One person said it is the "stupidest looking monster ever" because it doesn't look like something that could really exist. He then states "when is someone going to make a monster movie with a monster that looks like it could exist." Crazy people I tell yea, it's a fictional movie with a fictional monster... what more do you want?

Can't wait to see this but, I'm not sure if I'm more excited to see the movie or the Star Trek trailer that will be attached to it.

#3 of 237 Jerome Grate

Jerome Grate

    Screenwriter

  • 2,933 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 1999

Posted January 15 2008 - 06:13 AM

Defintely there this weekend, three day weekend for me and wanting to see this one since the first trailer. Zack, great site if the monster looks like the first picture, then I must say some great imagination was put in place here. Not your typical prehistoric dinosaur, or a take off of any the old time giant monster film, just simply new and original. Can't wait.
Listen Up People.., Rack Em and Pack Em.., We're Phantoms in 15.

#4 of 237 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 15 2008 - 06:36 AM

I actually had a nightmare the other night inspired by the trailer for this movie, it's nothing I can really describe just a series of random images and visuals but there was a monster in it that started out small and friendly and then grew to gargantuan proportions and became mean.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#5 of 237 Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted January 15 2008 - 06:43 AM

As much as I want to see this, I'm not over the fact that they kept that damn title. As a fake codename, it was great because it made no sense and kept people guessing. As a real title, it's terrible because it makes no sense and is just plain stupid.

But if the movie's great it doesn't matter what it's called.

#6 of 237 Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,221 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted January 17 2008 - 05:44 AM

Thanks for the shakycam update. I guess I might be able to stand it if I saw it from the back row, but I don't think I'll take the chance... Posted Image
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#7 of 237 Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,520 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted January 17 2008 - 05:50 AM

Seems like a very short film, too. My theater is wedging in 6 shows a day on one screen, when they usually only have 4-5. They list the running time at 84 mins.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#8 of 237 Steve Christou

Steve Christou

    Executive Producer

  • 14,212 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2000
  • Real Name:Steve Christou
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted January 17 2008 - 05:50 AM

Malcolm beat me to it. The film is only 85mins long, 73mins sans end credits. Perhaps it's merciful I don't think I could have sat thru 2 hours of shakycam.

Variety has a review up -

Cloverfield Review - Film Reviews-New U.S. Release, Entertainment - Variety

Dave hören... auf, wille stoppen sie Dave... stoppen sie Dave... Mein gehirn geht... Ich bin gefühl es... Ich bin gefühl es... Ich bin ängstlich Dave... Guter Nachmittag. Ich bin ein HAL 9000 computer. Ich wurde funktionsfähig am HAL-Betrieb in Urbana, Illinois auf January 12 1992.


Lord of the Hubs


#9 of 237 RickER

RickER

    Producer

  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted January 17 2008 - 05:57 AM

sounds like a solid rental from NetFlix to me. I can almost live with the shaky camera on my 50 inch screen, anything bigger id need some Dramamine.

#10 of 237 Jerome Grate

Jerome Grate

    Screenwriter

  • 2,933 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 1999

Posted January 17 2008 - 06:43 AM

From the Variety article
Quote:
If "Cloverfield" proves massively successful, there's nothing preventing this beast from invading as many other cities as the public wants to see destroyed.
What about N.J. Posted Image, sounds like an opportunity for a sequel depending on the success.
Listen Up People.., Rack Em and Pack Em.., We're Phantoms in 15.

#11 of 237 gushin

gushin

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 116 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2006

Posted January 18 2008 - 01:35 AM

I went to last night midnight opening. Saw about half of the movie and left feeling I was going to barf. Thing upset my stomach for a few hours. The only other movie that has made me this sick because of the "shaky-cam" was Bourme Supremacy (I had no problem with Bourne Ultimatum, which is why I thought I'd be OK with this one. But no.). So I'll second the alert for those susceptible to motion sickness.

#12 of 237 Gwon Chang

Gwon Chang

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 193 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 03 1999

Posted January 18 2008 - 04:48 AM

I saw it last night, row 7 at the Cinerama in Seattle. Not even 5 minutes in I started feeling nauseous. About an hour in, I was in the bathroom puking up my granola bar from earlier. After that, I watched the rest and did ok.

But the movie? Enjoyed it a bunch. Bring earplugs!
music
words

what star wars is to the fanboys, the fedora is to me.

#13 of 237 IanDP

IanDP

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 103 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 28 2006

Posted January 18 2008 - 06:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
As much as I want to see this, I'm not over the fact that they kept that damn title. As a fake codename, it was great because it made no sense and kept people guessing. As a real title, it's terrible because it makes no sense and is just plain stupid.

But if the movie's great it doesn't matter what it's called.
I agree. I just read the article that describes how the codename came from a street near the studio, but the street was Cloverdale. But it's just laziness on their part to not rename it.
Sure, the name Cloverfield had plenty of internet buzz, but it makes no sense as the name of this movie. It's like they didn't have the balls to rename it for fear of losing the internet buzz. Remember when there was the rumor it would be "Monstrous". That would have been fine. I bet "Monstrous" was the plan until they realized that the name Cloverfield just had too much buzz to risk it.
Another thought... Since there is some brief talk of a sequel (in an interview by bloody-disgusting), JJ Abrams could just as easily work the word "Cloverfield" into the sequel. As if Cloverfield is relevant to the attack, but just not relevant to our protagonist's point of view therefore it doesn't get into the movie.
Or don't be surprised if the word "Cloverfield" comes to have some strange vague mention in this coming season of Lost. Boy, would that make the fanboys go crazy!

#14 of 237 Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter

  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted January 18 2008 - 11:16 AM

It's funny that a theater patron came in just before the movie started saying it could be nauseating for some and they had barf bags ready in the hallway if we needed them. LOL. Posted Image

Anyway, I didn't have any problems with the shakycam because I guess I was prepared for it. Unlike in regular movies where it seems distracting, for Cloverfield it just felt natural.

As for the movie itself, I really liked it. It was edge of your seat excitement as soon as the monster attacked NY.

Also, it may be just me, but every time the best friend who was holding the camera had a one liner, I just pictured Seth Rogan in my mind whenever he said them. Of course it was a different actor but it just seemed like Seth Rogan could have delivered them just the same. Posted Image
Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#15 of 237 Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter

  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted January 18 2008 - 11:58 AM

yeah, it's my first 2008 release I've seen this year (still catching up on some 2007 releases) and so far it's my favorite. Posted Image

I hope the Internet crowd (kids mostly) who were so excited to see this but will most likely just "download" it will actually get off the Internet and watch this movie where it was meant to be seen: on the big screen!!!!!!
Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#16 of 237 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 18 2008 - 12:31 PM

What's amazing is that, like Patrick said, the entire film is seen from only one point of view yet it manages to be 100 times more involving and thrilling than, say, Godzilla '98, which isn't hard let's face it but still, it shows just how truely pathetic that film was.

I also loved the little touches of "recorded over" footage that occasionally pops up, it contrasted perfectly what was happening in their lives then as opposed to what was happening now, peace mixed with chaos. Posted Image
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#17 of 237 ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted January 18 2008 - 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
Such a shame you feel that way, you'll be missing one of the biggest and baddest monster flicks in years.
Seriously. Unless you've got a really, really kickass setup at home, don't miss this in theaters.

Quote:
That was one heeelllluuvvaaa movie!! Posted Image
I will certainly back that up. Posted Image

That shit was fucking unreal...it felt a little too real to me. After the movie ended, I had to convince myself that I didn't just watch a real event. The acting was top-notch, and all of the visual aspects were incredibly realistic. It's probably unlikely, but if the main cast got a "best ensemble acting" award, they really earned it.

The only thing that took me out of the movie sometimes was the sound design. C'mon, you can't get that kinda quality from a camcorder! There is no way a standard camcorder mic can capture LFE and whatnot. Posted Image

Quote:
From the moment the monster shows up it's nothing but a tear-your-nuts off assault on just about every nerve in your body, your heart, your mind, your eyes and ears are consumed with imagry and sound.
Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Quote:
I want to see this film again like NOW!
I never want to see this film again. Posted Image I mean it in a good way. I make it a point to not watch most horror/monster movies, because I get freaked out very easily. I don't want to get nightmares from a movie; I want to be entertained by a movie. Cloverfield was full of entertainment, but like Robert Hawkins said, "They're terrible things," or something to that effect.

Quote:
It also contains much that one wouldn't expect from such a film...character development and one's we actually care about because they're established very well in the short few minutes that there's peace in the film before all hell breaks loose.
Yep.

Quote:
5 Posted Image's out of 5 Posted Image's for Cloverfield.
I don't know how to rate this. But I'll say this. Whatever Matt Reeves and J.J. Abrams sought to achieve with Cloverfield, they fucking nailed it and then some.

#18 of 237 Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter

  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted January 18 2008 - 12:47 PM

Does anyone know what camera was used for Cloverfield? Image quality was too good to be a regular but expensive standard def camcorder. It did have night vision and a pretty powerful lamp. Definetely 24p. Posted Image
Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#19 of 237 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 18 2008 - 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose Martinez
Does anyone know what camera was used for Cloverfield? Image quality was too good to be a regular but expensive standard def camcorder. It did have night vision and a pretty powerful lamp. Definetely 24p. Posted Image

LOL, I did wonder that, too, but the movie was so good that I just chocked it up to one of those things your not supposed to think about. Posted Image
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#20 of 237 ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted January 18 2008 - 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm R
Seems like a very short film, too.
It definitely doesn't feel short. By the time the movie ended, I was pretty much exhausted.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow