The Cloverfield Thread (SPOILERS)

Michael Galvan · January 19th, 2008, 02:03 PM

I went to see this movie last night and when it was over, all that was heard was a collective "boo, that sucked" from the audience. I too, felt similarly after watching ...

I guess my issues just stem from several different things. Just too much of it felt unrealistic for me ... when the statue of liberty fell onto the street, I found it odd that no one was really screaming ... people were just walking around with their hands on their heads. And for a guy to be filming all this seems too implausible. I'd be inclined to believe it if it was a documentarian of some sorts, but they handed the camera to a guy that was reluctant to even shoot in the beginning saying his hands are full of other things to do. To then suddenly want to document everything while running for their lives is a little unbelievable. What was just as unbelievable was the humor some of the characters were using, even cracking some quick jokes while their lives were in imminent danger ... a little strange to me.

There are many more things, but I guess my biggest gripe is that I didn't care much for the characters. No development at all. I can live with the unexplained reason for the monster, but the characters had no depth. So it made it incredibly hard for me to care much for them. When Rob was in the Spring St. subway talking to his mom, saying that his brother was dead, I was like "hmm, oh well ..."

And then at the end with their demise, all I could think of was "hmm, oh well ..."

Though I don't think it's a bad movie, it certainly isn't anything great. My overall feeling:

"It's redeems itself by knowing that when you finally see the main characters die at the end, you know the movie is finally over."

ON A SIDE NOTE: Where can I get a camera like what they had? They dropped it so many times and the fact that it survived the nuke they did on New York at the end is making me think twice about shooting with the RED ... I should seriously consider that cam! Maybe it's the new XL-H2 ... what do you think Mr. Hurd?

:)

Ethan Cooper · January 19th, 2008, 02:14 PM

I'm not sure what they shot it on, but it couldn't have been a CMOS camera cause I didn't see any skewing going on with all the whip pans and running shots. My poor little FX7 and HV20 would have been skewing up a storm if shot like that.

I saw a production still from the final bridge scene and he's holding one of those Panasonic AVCHD cams. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find the link somewhere.
***EDIT***
It was the Panasonic HSC1U.
Here's the still on IMDB

Speaking of cameras, did it bother anyone else that at the beginning in the text explaining where the footage came from that it states it was from a SD card found in Central Park, but in the movie they keep saying things like "rewind the tape" and you keep seeing where they recorded over some old footage like it was tape. This kept annoying the geek in me.

Heath McKnight · January 19th, 2008, 02:20 PM

They're selling the HVX that shot it on eBay. I won't link to it, but here's the story:

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com...-for-sale.html

heath

Ethan Cooper · January 19th, 2008, 02:44 PM

So it was an HVX? I keep reading conflicting reports.

Josh Chesarek · January 19th, 2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Galvan

ON A SIDE NOTE: Where can I get a camera like what they had? They dropped it so many times and the fact that it survived the nuke they did on New York at the end is making me think twice about shooting with the RED ... I should seriously consider that cam! Maybe it's the new XL-H2 ... what do you think Mr. Hurd?

:)

Someone in our crowd thought the same thing After one of the many times it should have died a person yelled out "That is one hell of a f'ing camera".

Heath McKnight · January 19th, 2008, 05:47 PM

I have heard that they used the HVX200 as their main camera, with some Viper and F23 footage, plus a Panasonic handicam for one or two shots.

heath

Casey Krugman · January 19th, 2008, 07:42 PM

Absolutely must be the most bad-ass battery in the world...
I need to get some of those...

Also, did anyone else notice that the beginning of the film states that its the replay from an sd card and yet the shot the film as if it were a tape with old footage? They keep referring to the tape as well...

Woops...

Heath McKnight · January 19th, 2008, 11:19 PM

Well, there's the "goof!" I thought of that when they kept saying tape. To be fair, I still say, "I'm gonna tape the simpsons tonight," when I really mean DVR it. Hold habits die hard.

heath

Jerrod Cordell · January 20th, 2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Galvan

And for a guy to be filming all this seems too implausible. I'd be inclined to believe it if it was a documentarian of some sorts, but they handed the camera to a guy that was reluctant to even shoot in the beginning saying his hands are full of other things to do. To then suddenly want to document everything while running for their lives is a little unbelievable. What was just as unbelievable was the humor some of the characters were using, even cracking some quick jokes while their lives were in imminent danger ... a little strange to me.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I could imagine wanting to document everything about a giant monster destroying New York. And I would be the guy to crack witty jokes in dangerous situations. lol. But maybe that's just me. =)

I think the only problem with the movie I had was how shaky everything was. I mean I know it's handheld and it's supposed to look like a home movie, but I had to look away a few times because I felt like I was gonna puke. When the helicopter crashed and the camera was on the ground for a minute, some kid in the audience yelled "finally, a still frame!" lol.

I didn't actually see it, but I saw on IMDB that in the final scene where they're on the ferris wheel, you can see a UFO crashing into the lake. I'm not sure though. I didn't notice it when I saw it.

I think it'd be funny though if in the sequel, it's just a continuation of the first movie and they just ran out of tape in the first movie so they changed the tape.

Heath McKnight · January 20th, 2008, 08:18 AM

I was laying in bed with my ex- watching Thirteen about 3 or so years ago, and I had to stop because I was getting sick watching the movie. It wasn't super shaky, but the camera just kept rocking back and forth and I got ill.

You know, we had this discussion almost 9 years ago for Blair Witch, heh heh.

heath

Nate Benson · January 20th, 2008, 10:10 AM

well the funny thing is that in the beginning
it says the format the DoD has the footage on is
an SD card.

I want to know where there is a consumer level SD card
that shoots 90 minutes of HD!

Dennis Murphy · January 20th, 2008, 12:18 PM

And how's that monster... that can't be real. I mean, how many times was it shot, yet I didn't see any blood? :)

Ben Winter · January 20th, 2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrod Cordell

I think it'd be funny though if in the sequel, it's just a continuation of the first movie and they just ran out of tape in the first movie so they changed the tape.

Abrams has suggested the possibility of a sequel in which a different tape from the same event is discovered and we see the happenings again from an alternate viewpoint.

I personally did not get sick from watching it but my eyes did get a little tired.

Heath McKnight · January 20th, 2008, 04:05 PM

Read my friend's opinion on making a sequel like that:

http://screenrant.com/archives/clove...idea-1300.html

I think they should go in another direction, for sure.

heath

John C. Chu · January 20th, 2008, 05:37 PM

Just got back from the afternoon screening of "Cloverfield" and for once, teenagers messing with their cellphone during the movie didn't really bother me--- it just added to the "atmosphere" of this film.

[I haven't seen a film in the theaters for over a year and half!]

It is part "Blair Witch" and part "War of the Worlds"[Spielberg's version] with a little of bit of "Aliens" thrown in for good measure.

I thought it was a fun thrill ride--and actually laughed out load through most of it.

I didn't bother to nitpick about video camera issues--- because if I did, I would have wondered what camcorder can record such great realistic sounds.[Machine gun fire]

My wife got dizzy from the "handheld" camera work though.

Fun!

January 19th, 2008, 02:03 PM	#16
Michael Galvan Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 775	I went to see this movie last night and when it was over, all that was heard was a collective "boo, that sucked" from the audience. I too, felt similarly after watching ... I guess my issues just stem from several different things. Just too much of it felt unrealistic for me ... when the statue of liberty fell onto the street, I found it odd that no one was really screaming ... people were just walking around with their hands on their heads. And for a guy to be filming all this seems too implausible. I'd be inclined to believe it if it was a documentarian of some sorts, but they handed the camera to a guy that was reluctant to even shoot in the beginning saying his hands are full of other things to do. To then suddenly want to document everything while running for their lives is a little unbelievable. What was just as unbelievable was the humor some of the characters were using, even cracking some quick jokes while their lives were in imminent danger ... a little strange to me. There are many more things, but I guess my biggest gripe is that I didn't care much for the characters. No development at all. I can live with the unexplained reason for the monster, but the characters had no depth. So it made it incredibly hard for me to care much for them. When Rob was in the Spring St. subway talking to his mom, saying that his brother was dead, I was like "hmm, oh well ..." And then at the end with their demise, all I could think of was "hmm, oh well ..." Though I don't think it's a bad movie, it certainly isn't anything great. My overall feeling: "It's redeems itself by knowing that when you finally see the main characters die at the end, you know the movie is finally over." ON A SIDE NOTE: Where can I get a camera like what they had? They dropped it so many times and the fact that it survived the nuke they did on New York at the end is making me think twice about shooting with the RED ... I should seriously consider that cam! Maybe it's the new XL-H2 ... what do you think Mr. Hurd? :) __________________ www.michaelgalvan.com www.screenanthology.com

January 19th, 2008, 02:14 PM	#17
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	I'm not sure what they shot it on, but it couldn't have been a CMOS camera cause I didn't see any skewing going on with all the whip pans and running shots. My poor little FX7 and HV20 would have been skewing up a storm if shot like that. I saw a production still from the final bridge scene and he's holding one of those Panasonic AVCHD cams. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find the link somewhere. *EDIT* It was the Panasonic HSC1U. Here's the still on IMDB Speaking of cameras, did it bother anyone else that at the beginning in the text explaining where the footage came from that it states it was from a SD card found in Central Park, but in the movie they keep saying things like "rewind the tape" and you keep seeing where they recorded over some old footage like it was tape. This kept annoying the geek in me. __________________ ∅ -Ethan Cooper

January 19th, 2008, 02:20 PM	#18
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	They're selling the HVX that shot it on eBay. I won't link to it, but here's the story: http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com...-for-sale.html heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 19th, 2008, 02:44 PM	#19
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	So it was an HVX? I keep reading conflicting reports. __________________ ∅ -Ethan Cooper

January 19th, 2008, 05:47 PM	#21
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I have heard that they used the HVX200 as their main camera, with some Viper and F23 footage, plus a Panasonic handicam for one or two shots. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 19th, 2008, 07:42 PM	#22
Casey Krugman Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 135	That camera... Absolutely must be the most bad-ass battery in the world... I need to get some of those... Also, did anyone else notice that the beginning of the film states that its the replay from an sd card and yet the shot the film as if it were a tape with old footage? They keep referring to the tape as well... Woops...

January 19th, 2008, 11:19 PM	#23
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Well, there's the "goof!" I thought of that when they kept saying tape. To be fair, I still say, "I'm gonna tape the simpsons tonight," when I really mean DVR it. Hold habits die hard. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 20th, 2008, 08:18 AM	#25
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I was laying in bed with my ex- watching Thirteen about 3 or so years ago, and I had to stop because I was getting sick watching the movie. It wasn't super shaky, but the camera just kept rocking back and forth and I got ill. You know, we had this discussion almost 9 years ago for Blair Witch, heh heh. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 20th, 2008, 10:10 AM	#26
Nate Benson Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Buffalo, New York Posts: 157	well the funny thing is that in the beginning it says the format the DoD has the footage on is an SD card. I want to know where there is a consumer level SD card that shoots 90 minutes of HD!

January 20th, 2008, 12:18 PM	#27
Dennis Murphy Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Whangarei, New Zealand Posts: 396	And how's that monster... that can't be real. I mean, how many times was it shot, yet I didn't see any blood? :)

January 20th, 2008, 04:05 PM	#29
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Read my friend's opinion on making a sequel like that: http://screenrant.com/archives/clove...idea-1300.html I think they should go in another direction, for sure. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 20th, 2008, 05:37 PM	#30
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	Just got back from the afternoon screening of "Cloverfield" and for once, teenagers messing with their cellphone during the movie didn't really bother me--- it just added to the "atmosphere" of this film. [I haven't seen a film in the theaters for over a year and half!] It is part "Blair Witch" and part "War of the Worlds"[Spielberg's version] with a little of bit of "Aliens" thrown in for good measure. I thought it was a fun thrill ride--and actually laughed out load through most of it. I didn't bother to nitpick about video camera issues--- because if I did, I would have wondered what camcorder can record such great realistic sounds.[Machine gun fire] My wife got dizzy from the "handheld" camera work though. Fun!