Cloverfield

 
Man, its gotta be the best teaser/trailer I've ever seen! It created all sorts of crazy buzz over at AintItCoolNews, heck, our own seadot created her Slusho commercial with it! :) 

Anyway, I cant wait to see this film. I'm going tomorrow, so grateful its a holiday.. I'm going to see this. I hadnt been this excited about a movie since.. heck, since Star Wars Episode I, and we all know how that turned out!

Btw, its doing good business too, here: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20172806,00.html 

... :)

Seriously though... I need to know what kind of battery they was using for da camera... hAhA... :) 

Just watched it last night. I was glued to the screen! Then I got pissed at myself thinking--NOW WHY IN THE FUCK DIDN'T I THINK OF THIS SHIT!"

It's simple. To the point. Action packed. And just straight out bad ass! No wonder it did so well! I'm still high off of it! Holy canole! That monster fucked some shit up!

Now we have to start this discussion. WE HAVE TO.
_________________________________________________

WHO WOULD WIN A FIGHT? AND WHO'S SCARIER?

The Cloverfield Monster
King Kong
Godzilla
or
Dawn Akemi

hahahahahaahahahahahahaha
EZEQUIEL

 I knew showing Bergman to your class would make a lasting impression!

"There Comes a Time in Every Man's Life When He Must Spit on His Hands, Hoist the Black Flag, and Start Slitting Throats."

-HL Mencken

I don't understand [Rec]

"Baffling the critics since 1971."

I've heard good things about that movie...I'm definately eager to see it.   Though I can probably wait for it to hit state side.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes also looks interesting.

...Excecp Cloverfield didn't lose any money and nearly bankrupt a studio....quite the opposite actually.

I think it's funny when people complain about that sort of thing in a monster movie.  The fact that there's a giant fucking monster, never before discovered, wreaking havok on New York City and being able to withstand massive amounts of firepower you'll except.  A guy carrying a video camera around on the otherhand...totally un-fucking-believable.

Now I know where you're coming from...but it still is a bit of irony.  

Yet, movies are always based on these jumps of logic.  If he didn't carry the camera around, there wouldn't be a movie.  That's enough for me.  If John McClain hadn't "happened" to be in the building, Die Hard would be fucking boring.  If Gandalf would've just taken the ring and disposed of it himself, Lord of the Rings would've been ALOT shorter.  If Jonathon Harker would've realized the Count was seriously fucked up sooner, like any of us would have, no Dracula.  *shrugs*  We have to make some sacrifices of logic to be entertained.

And, you know, it's not THAT big a leap.  People were filming the WTC as it was falling.  He probably thought he'd be able to get a tidy little check for some of that footage he was capturing.  Like he said "people are going to want to know what happened here."

If you really want to nit-pick the movie...talk about the monster seeming to constantly change size or the fact that it always happens to be on the same street as our heroes.

I related with the characters right away! It reminded me of parties we had with some fool running around with the video camera! And then I thought, while watching the film "what would happen if I was in that room with all of my friends and some fucked up shit happened?"

And that's all you needed.

I believe, that if more of the monster was seen, it would have lost its novelty really really quick.

And please! All of you critics, I'm not pointing at any direct person, just critics in general.

IF you knew better than what the filmmakers did, and why they chose to do what they did, why are these filmmakers famous with tons of money!

IN FACT. What should be done, with you as filmmakers and actors, writers, producers directors, editors whatever--study the film and see what made it successful.

IN FACT. If a movie failed. Instead of slamming it to hell. Study it and see what not to do.

IN FACT. That's what I do.

IN FACT. When I saw MONSTER IN LAW, I didn't like it. So I watched it again to see why I felt that it sucked and gauged why it failed tremendously.
I have my conclusions based on my study of that film. But I don't want to talk about that film.

I want to talk about CLOVERFIELD and why I really believe it was successful.

And my educated analysis of the film can only lead me to conclude that the reason the film was a success is this:

CAUSE IT FUCKING ROCKED!

haha

EZEQUIEL

Yeah, I was being a smart-alek, but in it, is some real seriousness to my points. You want to analyze this as reality. I know the reality is flawed, and therefore I choose to analyze it as a movie. As a movie, I can suspend my disbelief and enjoy the story. As reality, it's totally flawed because you would've only seen 10 minutes past the statue of Liberty's head flying down the street, and you'd be left wondernig what took place. Heck, the military would've confiscated Hud's camera the minute they were taken to their base of operations. My mind noted it, but I let it go.

What would you have done with the scenes where there were no Cell phones, TV camera crews, military and police cameras around?? Like when they were all underground in the subway tunnel? Or how about in Beth's apartment? Maybe a news chopper could fly by Beth's window to give you a shot, while the group hoists Beth off that steel beam. (Which, I thought was a dumb medical move, but they had no other choice but to do it, risk her dying, or leave her there and she would die. OR, let's argue the point of why it mattered that they did anything, since they died in the end anyway. Possibly because we then got to see their footage and learn of what happened to them? Well, the government confiscated their tape (which amazingly still worked after the camera being crushed by a bridge), so we would've never seen this footage anyway. And conspiracy nuts would be out formulating ideas of how the Government just covered up the truth (kinda like those 911 conspiracy Zeitgeist nuts. That's a jab for you, Marco, love ya. lol) Point is, you have to forgive 98% of even real home movie shot stuff. Or people who think they can make a movie with their store-bought camcorder.

Plus, wouldn't editing from several cameras destroy the element that the Government had confiscated a tape, and this is the raw footage, not an edited piece? The Government isn't going to confiscate an edited piece. They want the raw stuff, and will mark it classified.

Yes, I agree with you that Hud would've dropped that camera long before he did, if it had been real life. But then again, Hud was a crazy kind of guy...who believed it was his mission to document everything. I've met some people who use camcorders in stupid ways. My point is that, while not that believable, I don't see how they could've done it any differently.

You'd only be able to use one camera for the whole movie, becuase that tape is not being switched from camera to camera. And, in the scenes where they are alone, there are no other cameras around. And you can't take out those scenes, or you have no tension in a suspense movie, where your characters have to end up alone in the dark at some point.

To "truly be there", it'd be very different from what we saw in this movie, but to have a movie, they could never make it "like you were truly there". You can't mix the two perfectly. There is no way to do it.

Even in watching 911 footage, you don't know who those cameramen are. And actually, there were a few who died getting the footage they got. Those were also professional cameramen, not camcorder toutling tourists. Those were probably news people, who tend to have the personalities of putting their own lives in danger, if it means getting a shot that will have the greatest emotional impact on those who survive, that see it. Ask Dan Gadberry how many times he's nearly died while out getting footage for the news.

Is it crazy and abnormal for your average person to do that? Yes. Is it crazy for Dan to do it? Probably as I don't thinnk dying for recorded footage would be a way Dan should go. He deserves something more honorable than that. But it does happen. Hud has enough of that quirky personality that you find in Dan, I believe Hud really would do just what he did.

As for shooting his friend's reactions instead of the monster. Heck, I'd probably do that. I'd be more concerned about my friends in that initial point of impact than finding out about the monster. I wouldn't care about that, until I was in some distant location able to safely get shots. Dan, however, would probably ditch his friends and go running up to the monster to be the first and only person to get such close-up shots of it. Yeah, the acting was terrible, but in "real life", would you get Blockbuster performancses from them?

Different Strokes for Different Folks. I don't care if you hated the movie or loved it, I just think you need a better reason to hate it than if the guy would hold the camera or not. We all know most people wouldn't. But that was the only device that would make this work.

Plus, we've different experiences leading to our belief in the plausibility of this film. I think we agree for the most part, but I chose to suspend my disbelief becuase I know there was no other way to make this movie happen.

And I ask alot of questions because your reasons don't make a lot of sense to me. (Who was worried about Commerce? The lead guy was stealing a cell phone so he could call Beth. Who woudln't try to save their girlfriend / lsomeone they love? And, in any high riot situation like that, groups of people do loot. Don't know why. Cause if they are going to die, they won't get to keep their loot, but people still do it anyway. Probably think they'll get away.)

Airk

Look, I know WHY John McClain was there...just a n awfully big coincidence that a pissed offone-man-army cop was in that building right when terrorists took it over. What are the chances?

I know the reason Tolkien gave for Gandalf not taking the ring, but I always thought it was a pretty big stretch just to getitin the hands of Frodo.  "Nooo...even though I'm an angelic being sent by the Higher Powers themselves, I worry it might corrupt me"  and Tom fuckin' Bombadill's whole "Oh, I'd just forget about it.  It has to be a pure innocent Hobbit"  Ehh..a stretch, I think...but I'll go with it for the sake of story.

And you may have a very valid point on Dracula....I'll give you that one.

Still, I'm sure you can think of many other examples of having to suspend your disbelief for story.  I guess I just don't understand why you can't get past this one.  Because it wasn't what you expected?

And Iknow it's totally your opinion...I'm not attacking you, am I?  Heck, I feel my postshave been far less hostile than yours...but I know that's just your cuddly personality.  I'm just defending my own opinion.  That's what we filmmakers do...talk shop.  

Plus everything Eric said.

Oh, and I think it's funny that no one every really points out this error with Cloverfield.  The begining says it wasa memory card that was picked up, not a tape...so, really, we couldn'thave those flashbacks the way they worked in the movie...but maybe whoever labled it, was just a moron. 

Finally,common ground!

Mayonaise is the Devil's effin' jism!

Look man, I'm not attacking you or your opinion. You have every right to think whatever you want about a movie.

But you're the one so impassioned to argue out a reasoned explanation of why you didn't "buy it". As Ouch Mouth said, and I concur, we're just offering up defense of our own positions.

I'm only defending that which can be...the story points, character motivations, etc. Not your opinion or personal tastes. It's part of our craft, as OuchMouth pointed out...we just be talking shop, no harm no foul! :) If you want to put forth an argument about a movie's rationality, but don't expect someone to reply or offer up another take...you then say we're not allowing you to have your opinion.

I know you're not offended, but you sure do seem angry. Does BigSugar need a hug??? Come on over here and let Erwik give you a big hug, you cudwy widdle thing. :) hee hee. The angry man with a heart of gold, or i could use my other analogy....the chocolate candy that's soft on the inside, with a hard exterior shell. ;)

Come on, man. You know we love you. I may not agree with you,, but I'll defend your right to believe as you will, as Voltaire once said.

Big Sugar and I had this debate already. He likes fat chicks! I don't! I like model thin skinny broads!

That's not to say that I've met some pretty ladies with a little chub, and from Big Sugars P.O.V--he's seen some pretty waif ladies.

We both have talked about the pros and cons, and the only solution to the debate was to agree on one thing:

TO EACH HIS OWN

If you didn't like cloverfield, then fine. Never watch it again. Simple like the dimple on a fat chicks ass!

haha

EZEQUIEL

that you're all better now. I was afraid that I was going to have to talk cutsy again, just to make you feel all "wuved" and crap. Bleh. haha

Anyway, good post. You can go back to ripping out the hearts of little children now. But in a very kind way. :-P