My point was that if you want a film to be taken seriously, and for people to accept the scenarios you put in front of them, no matter how "far out" they may be, then you have to do a much better job when working on your plot and character/monster, as well as making sure you have a solid background/backstory. If you fail there it all falls apart, and the viewers that possess some intelligence WILL question it, and they will have trouble accepting it.
Cloverfield
- Thread starter Col_M
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,599
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Just like Richdog I'm a huge sci fi buff and my favourite films include Starship Troopers, The Abyss, Independance Day, ET, Close Encounters etc but Cloverfield asks too much and fails.
Firstly, not every movie has coincidences.
Secondly, those that do, get away with them by and large because, yes, coincidences happen in real life. But we can ignore them when they aren't that obtrusive.
The main thing I have a problem with is... well dmpoole summed it up quite nicely;
This didn't ruin the movie for me. As I said, it was okay. But imo, despite the best intentions of Reeves and Abrams, the movie never felt realistic to me. There were some things to admire, agreed, but it had holes too.
Sorry dude, but nowhere in my post did I suggest anyone lacked the ability to grasp any comparisons made in the film. Though I concede my wording was a touch patronising.
I was simply pointing out that some people don't appear to understand the intentions of the writer and director.
The same thing happened with War Of The Worlds, people who didn't know the story prior to watching the film came away feeling short changed because they didn't get to see over that hill during the big battle scene amongst other things.
Similarly I've heard lots of people complaining about the lack of story in Cloverfield, not knowing anything about the monster/alien's* history and the ending. I guess leaving the audience to fill in the blanks is too much to ask sometimes!
Someone said the movie's a bit like Marmite - and it would appear they're spot on!
* Delete where appropriate once the 'was it a satellite, spaceship or spacerock' debate has been settled.
Ive never felt the same experience watching the film as this one. For me its the first type of this style of film and its done it very very well.
I wouldnt say it is "remotely quirky" or is just trying to "look cool".
But Starship Troopers was cheesy as hell, and the acting was terrible.
Ok I saw this, thought it was ok - the camera was ANNOYING - FAR too shakey it actually did make you feel queezy and my eyes hurt by the end. I know why they did it but you should not be in phyiscal discomfort simply for cinematic effect.
Secondly, I'll buy the monster story expect for the ridiculous failure of both geography and geology.
Observe:
1. Satellite piece is seen falling into ocean at Coney Island? This would be very easy to find, it would likely wash up on to shore. WHY oh WHY are they looking for the debris in the Mid-Atlantic ridge? This is ridiculous. You can see the debris falling just offshore... yet they decide to look in the MAR which is AT LEAST 2-2500km from the E. Coast of the US. Yes, that was 2000 km away.... why?
2. The monster is "buried in extreme depths and pressures" - the ridge isn't actually that deep... only say 2.5 - 5km deep on average? I think the deepst part (the only bit that could possibly touch 5 miles is at least as far south as the equator.... no where near New York. Not even close.
Therefore, why does the monster suddenly jump up in Manhattan? why not long island? florida? South America? EUROPE? Why? Because CGI can make the Empire State building and Cryler B. get knocked over really cool. As if New Yorkers didn't already have terrorists to worry about!
Why not make the monster come from somewhere REALLY deep... like the Marianas Trench or any Subduction zone Ocean Trench? Here we are talking about depths of 10,000m and they can happily destroy Tokyo instead and keep me a lot happier.
Also, the monster would not likely be buried for so long at the M.A.R because it is a spreading centre moving at around 2.5cm per year.... The buried monster would be moving away from the ridge at say 25km per million years - even if it doesn't get woken up by earthquakes and volcanism!
Lastly, those little alien things annoyed the crap outta me - why did you're guts blow up when you get bitten? At least explain that for god's sake - they had the perfect opportunity when the army guy was showing them the way out. ARGH.
Overall... annoying. And sore eyes. But good idea and good effects. Just think more next time.
Secondly, I'll buy the monster story expect for the ridiculous failure of both geography and geology.
Observe:
1. Satellite piece is seen falling into ocean at Coney Island? This would be very easy to find, it would likely wash up on to shore. WHY oh WHY are they looking for the debris in the Mid-Atlantic ridge? This is ridiculous. You can see the debris falling just offshore... yet they decide to look in the MAR which is AT LEAST 2-2500km from the E. Coast of the US. Yes, that was 2000 km away.... why?
2. The monster is "buried in extreme depths and pressures" - the ridge isn't actually that deep... only say 2.5 - 5km deep on average? I think the deepst part (the only bit that could possibly touch 5 miles is at least as far south as the equator.... no where near New York. Not even close.
Therefore, why does the monster suddenly jump up in Manhattan? why not long island? florida? South America? EUROPE? Why? Because CGI can make the Empire State building and Cryler B. get knocked over really cool. As if New Yorkers didn't already have terrorists to worry about!
Why not make the monster come from somewhere REALLY deep... like the Marianas Trench or any Subduction zone Ocean Trench? Here we are talking about depths of 10,000m and they can happily destroy Tokyo instead and keep me a lot happier.
Also, the monster would not likely be buried for so long at the M.A.R because it is a spreading centre moving at around 2.5cm per year.... The buried monster would be moving away from the ridge at say 25km per million years - even if it doesn't get woken up by earthquakes and volcanism!
Lastly, those little alien things annoyed the crap outta me - why did you're guts blow up when you get bitten? At least explain that for god's sake - they had the perfect opportunity when the army guy was showing them the way out. ARGH.
Overall... annoying. And sore eyes. But good idea and good effects. Just think more next time.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,147
- Location
- Neptune
Ok, they're some very odd questions/points to have about a monster attack movie. You're seriously struggling to pick holes. I will answer the last one though - i believe it's to do with the steroids. I can't remember the exact back story, but look it up. I'm sure the accelerated steroid 'injection' from the beasts causes the massive swelling of the body until it pops. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
But how would the army guy know anyway!? This is an hour after a massive monster has started wreaking havoc in NY.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 585
- Location
- Swindonia
Saw this last wednesday for mine and my bf's valentines day, and it was a really good film I thought.
It scared the pants off me, and not many films do that
and despite it was shot through BWP type thing, it was really well done, which is about time something like this was done properly.
It scared the pants off me, and not many films do that
and despite it was shot through BWP type thing, it was really well done, which is about time something like this was done properly.Ok fair enough but that's the sort of thing that annoys me... why didn't they just say the drilling operation in Deep Sea woke it up...
Instead they went with "they woke it up looking for a satellite part which fell into the Atlantic" now this can't be both in the mid-atlantic ridge or at Coney Island beach can it? That stuff annoys me as you don't get hardly any plot, but what you do get is contradictory and plain wrong.
Dude, its a film!! Its science fiction - its not based on reality or any real events!! You could apply your scrutiny elsewhere - how does Superman fly? I mean come on - a flying man stronger than steel? Or what about the force in Star Wars? What the hell is that all about? Oh wait, its just entertainment!
I just don't see the point in getting so anally retentive over a sci-fi movie which is under no pretence.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,599
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
The difference is that the writers make Superman and Star Wars seem real for a couple of hours.
Cloverfield was a complete mess.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,147
- Location
- Neptune
Behave. Real? Righto.
Went to see Cloverfield for the 2nd time on Saturday. A vast improvement from the first time i watched it over a mates house on a poxy 17" CRT screen. I can safely say its a film you have to take a trip down to the local silver screen to appreciate and im sure a lot of people here will agree.
The shaky cam and flashing lights didn't make me fill dizzy or ill for 1 second. Although as stated in a few posts above, i think the running away from the golden bridge scene was abit ott.
Other than that, i thought the rest of it was brilliant. The film really sucked me in and in places i found it so tense that i resorted to clenching my fist, without realizing it. I thought the monster was great and very scary from the noise it made to the way it looked.
The one thing that made me think is that fact that this monster is just a baby looking for its mother. Roll on the 2nd one.
The shaky cam and flashing lights didn't make me fill dizzy or ill for 1 second. Although as stated in a few posts above, i think the running away from the golden bridge scene was abit ott.
Other than that, i thought the rest of it was brilliant. The film really sucked me in and in places i found it so tense that i resorted to clenching my fist, without realizing it. I thought the monster was great and very scary from the noise it made to the way it looked.
The one thing that made me think is that fact that this monster is just a baby looking for its mother. Roll on the 2nd one.
Because either:
a) There'd be no film, or a film of some people watching a news report about a monster at their otherwise uneventful NY party.
or b) The film would just be set in Long Island/Florida/South America/Europe. They happened to pick Manhattan to set the film. Oh well.
Why is the film set in Manhattan? Because it just is.
I thought it was great and it did exactly what I expect from a film, notably made me forget about everything else and drew me into it without having to question everything.
I just hope they dont ruin it with the sequal(s) like they did with The Matrix.
I just hope they dont ruin it with the sequal(s) like they did with The Matrix.
Because either:
a) There'd be no film, or a film of some people watching a news report about a monster at their otherwise uneventful NY party.
or b) The film would just be set in Long Island/Florida/South America/Europe. They happened to pick Manhattan to set the film. Oh well.
Why is the film set in Manhattan? Because it just is.
Because JJ visited Tokyo and saw the hype over Godzilla there and said 'I want to make a monster movie for America', actually.
No other city in the USA is as recognisable for its skyscrapers as New York. Part of the good thing about cloverfield was the skyscrapers partially obscuring the monster throughout.