The Cloverfield Thread (SPOILERS)

[Heath McKnight]

John,

Good analogy with Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Both movies had that "end of everything" feeling to it, that hit that post-9/11 nerve.

Heath

[Anthony Schneider]

I thought it was like Godzilla on PCP.

Overall I loved the movie. I did have some problems at the end after they lived through the helicopter crash, I think it would have been better if they all would have died then.

Maybe it's just me, but I like to watch the movie for what it is, and the way the director is telling the story. When you start thinking about why the camera is lasting so long and why it hasn't broken, etc, your taking your focus away from the continuity of the plot... It's not about why the battery hasn't died yet or why this random guy feels the need to "document" everything. It's about a group of friends struggling to survive in a disaster, which has definitely been done before, but I felt like Cloverfield nails it.

I found the way the story progressed and the footage that they captured extremely realistic. This captured me from the very beginning. I really feel like this film has definitely progressed low-budget hollywood feature films for the better. I'm not saying it should be copied, but it is extremely inspiring.

I wish I could have been involved in this sort of production.

-Anthony

[Jad Meouchy]

Abrams, or whoever pitched this idea, is a genius.

Try to imagine the fallout from this movie and how many fan films are going to start floating around the net. The film obviously had a serious budget and proper cameras, but the 'handicam' technique was refined enough to NOT distract from the storytelling. This is the complete opposite of 99% of consumer-created video. Yet, that consumer-created content will be compatible simply because of its format.

They are intimately identifying with their myspace generation audience without sacrificing the general appeal of a big budget production. If they were smart enough to run tons of b-roll, they could ride out this franchise for years on viral marketing alone. Of course, considering they made 175% of their production budget on opening weekend, I'm sure we're going to see at least one more feature.

[Anthony Schneider]

Originally Posted by Jad Meouchy

Abrams, or whoever pitched this idea, is a genius.

They are intimately identifying with their myspace generation audience without sacrificing the general appeal of a big budget production.

...and this is exactly what the industry needed right now: A huge push in a new direction. Well, not so new, but the extent that they used it and pushed it to felt new to me. And that's all that matters!

[Heath McKnight]

Buy the action figure (plus theories on the inevitable sequel):

http://screenrant.com/archives/scree...b-ba-1304.html

heath

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Personally, this film is a huge disappointment, and a waste of time and money. I only went to see it because it was someone's birthday and that was their movie of choice. They regret that choice now. Another example of style over substance; well done marketing perhaps, but that's all that brought the masses.

What does one have at the beginning, middle and end? A big nothing. What was the point of this movie? Showing that audiences will come if you have a great marketing plan and no story? No true conflict, forced tension, bad acting, poor dynamics, no character development. I should be so lucky to write something that bad and have it make some cash. Although it's seen progressively big falloffs everyday; if there were some real competition at the box office, I don't think it would have brought anything significant in.

Godzilla did this story better and it sucked. For those who don't remember it, ha, you're not missing much.
Blair Witch had real character and story development, plus a plot. It had the best marketing, word of mouth.
War of the Worlds captured that "caught in the middle of something bigger than yourself" feel much better.

If a sequel were done, I wouldn't touch it with a free movie pass, not even on cable.

As for worrying about the camera, batteries, etc. Throughout the movie what the characters say and do, reference these things and show the huge holes in the script. Who was playing the tape/SD card? Why? Battery life...well they say how long the camera was running for...footage jumping back and forth, on tape?, even on SD Card that's laughable...audio quality, wow, get me on of those...lighting...colors...wow, great camera...if the filmmakers didn't draw attention to these things, they wouldn't stand out.

Worst movie I have seen in a long time.

If you like it, perhaps you could say WHY you did, so I could work that into a film discussion class I have.

K.

[Kelly Goden]

I liked the concept of an eyewitness video horror movie ever since Special Bulletin around 83...about a terrorist nuke incident captured as a live news broadcast. At the time I thought it would be really cool if something like War of the Worlds was done the same way. As a series of tv broadcasts.

Alien Nation the movie had a bit of that approach with news shots of the ship arriving.

Then an updated radio version of War of the Worlds came out in the late 80s which really sold me on the idea. I thought about doing a Hindenburg-ish news reel with the Welles' soundtrack as a template in school.



There was a Learning Channel show in the mid 90s that did that--with crude graphics but still very effective. They took WW1 and 2 war footage and stuck a martian tripod in it.

After Blair Witch I thought about the War of the Worlds idea again...I had once seen an avalanche video taken by a guy who was way off in the distance as the snow started to fall--and as he records you realize that the avalanche wasnt slowing down --and eventually it swept right over the camera. pretty scary--he didnt survive.

I thought it would be neat if someone was recording on a bridge as a giant martian machine or Godzilla like monster was stomping in the distance, and then it starts advancing on the bridge before the camera operator has to turn and run like hell. It could be very effective--but it would take great skill to make it seem authentic without shaking the camera too much or sounding too scripted. I thought Blair Witch was awful.


I was toying with the idea to do a WotW version via camcorder back in 2004-the book itself is well suited for it since it is a first person narration and the radio versions had the narrator walking around with a portable recorder-but I swear, on the day I decided to do it--the Spielberg film was announced! Talk about stiff competition! I didnt pursue the idea.

He didnt go in the eyewitness video direction except there were a couple of scenes where you see footage(a pedestrian with a camera and then the news van showing an attack on New York).
I really wish they had done more of that. There is something horrifying and intimate about following someone along who has a camera and is recording a supposedly live event.

If you hear the 88 radio version the attack on New York is really menacing. They shot it at Skywalker Ranch. You hear the news reporter and then this weird humming noise in the distance(which sounded like a giant machine!).


Its a great gimmick idea but for it to create a genre in itself(zombie invasion, vampire plagues, werewolves or bigfeet attacking campers), ehh a flood of camcorder garbage is right.

I dont think its good that Hollywood has to resort to camcorder epics that still cost $25 million(that's low budget!?!). A good giant monster movie done in the traditional way can still be done, Godzilla 98 was just a poor execution.

[Heath McKnight]

Heck, the 1970s-style show they did for Blair Witch was so convincing, I kept reminding myself it was fake. But they did a great job of doing the 1970s/myth-style show!

heath

[Nate Benson]

Originally Posted by Kelly Goden

I liked the concept of an eyewitness video horror movie ever since Special Bulletin around 83...about a terrorist nuke incident captured as a live news broadcast. At the time I thought it would be really cool if something like War of the Worlds was done the same way. As a series of tv broadcasts.

Alien Nation the movie had a bit of that approach with news shots of the ship arriving.

Then an updated radio version of War of the Worlds came out in the late 80s which really sold me on the idea. I thought about doing a Hindenburg-ish news reel with the Welles' soundtrack as a template in school.



There was a Learning Channel show in the mid 90s that did that--with crude graphics but still very effective. They took WW1 and 2 war footage and stuck a martian tripod in it.

After Blair Witch I thought about the War of the Worlds idea again...I had once seen an avalanche video taken by a guy who was way off in the distance as the snow started to fall--and as he records you realize that the avalanche wasnt slowing down --and eventually it swept right over the camera. pretty scary--he didnt survive.

I thought it would be neat if someone was recording on a bridge as a giant martian machine or Godzilla like monster was stomping in the distance, and then it starts advancing on the bridge before the camera operator has to turn and run like hell. It could be very effective--but it would take great skill to make it seem authentic without shaking the camera too much or sounding too scripted. I thought Blair Witch was awful.


I was toying with the idea to do a WotW version via camcorder back in 2004-the book itself is well suited for it since it is a first person narration and the radio versions had the narrator walking around with a portable recorder-but I swear, on the day I decided to do it--the Spielberg film was announced! Talk about stiff competition! I didnt pursue the idea.

He didnt go in the eyewitness video direction except there were a couple of scenes where you see footage(a pedestrian with a camera and then the news van showing an attack on New York).
I really wish they had done more of that. There is something horrifying and intimate about following someone along who has a camera and is recording a supposedly live event.

If you hear the 88 radio version the attack on New York is really menacing. They shot it at Skywalker Ranch. You hear the news reporter and then this weird humming noise in the distance(which sounded like a giant machine!).


Its a great gimmick idea but for it to create a genre in itself(zombie invasion, vampire plagues, werewolves or bigfeet attacking campers), ehh a flood of camcorder garbage is right.

I dont think its good that Hollywood has to resort to camcorder epics that still cost $25 million(that's low budget!?!). A good giant monster movie done in the traditional way can still be done, Godzilla 98 was just a poor execution.

Kelly,
War of the worlds is one of those things that will be done and done and done while there are humans on this planet making media. I think the more WotW there are the better. I still want to see a movie from the newscasters point of view, just like the radio version. DOn't get me wrong Speilbergs was good, but for a WotW diehard like me itwas just an alien movie.

if you want to listen to a GREAT version of WoTW, WKWB 1520 in Buffalo did their own version of it in 1968/and again in 1971. The only versions that exists (or that I've found) is the 1971 version, and it can be found at the below link.

Take a listen to it. I listen to iot all the time, it's highly entertaining.

War of the Worlds
Buffalo 1971
WKBW 1520
http://www.reelradio.com/gifts/wkbwwotw71.html

[Kelly Goden]

Originally Posted by Nate Benson

if you want to listen to a GREAT version of WoTW, WKWB 1520 in Buffalo did their own version of it in 1968/and again in 1971. The only versions that exists (or that I've found) is the 1971 version, and it can be found at the below link.

**I discovered that one a couple of years ago! Had no idea it existed.

Yeah it has some spooky moments--very effective newscaster reports. i think the 88 version used NPR reporters--the reporters werent so authentic sounding but the sound effects were great. Jason Robards did the Orson Welles part.

Another factor in this is eyewitness UFO and Bigfoot/Loch Ness sightings.

It may look like a guy in a costume but there is something spooky about that Big Foot walking footage--just the idea that it "might" be real. I think this sort of approach jumpstarts the imagination for some reason.

And remember that alien autopsy video. It sure looked fake but the idea was sound.

I would love to pull off a good hoax. lol

[Eric Foo]

I just watched it tonight and I'd recommend barf bags for everybody.

I think its a pretty clever way of doing the monster/disaster movie where everybody dies. The 're-recorded' tape was good plot device to build the back story, although I don't know any solid state media camera that would behave that way. That's the movies for ya.

I'm sure everyone wants HD, long recording, long lasting battery, can survive a crash and an explosion camera used in the movie. heheh.

I think the buzz generated was incredible and this is reflected in the opening weekend. I'd expect it to die down after this. Only people used to first person shooter video games will be able to watch it through. Haha.

Sony has confirmed that the F23 was used to shoot exteriors

http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/32931.html

[Heath McKnight]

The Digital Imaging Supervisor told me they used the HVX200, F23 and Viper, plus a consumer camera for a shot on the subway platform.

heath

[Jad Meouchy]

Originally Posted by Anthony Schneider

Maybe it's just me, but I like to watch the movie for what it is, and the way the director is telling the story. When you start thinking about why the camera is lasting so long and why it hasn't broken, etc, your taking your focus away from the continuity of the plot...

Suspension of disbelief! For me, the bad acting did not detract from the overall experience because I was immersed in the storytelling. That is something a previous poster can talk about in film discussion: is the purpose of a film to entertain, to tell a story, or both?

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Suspension of disbelief only goes so far, especially with a film that is supposed to portray a realistic event with average people caught in the middle.

Story? I didn't see a story: I saw random scenes and events strung together with the weakest glue. Bad acting is bad acting, and is seen more clearly when you realize this film is most definitely not character driven...its almost all plot, and a weak and full of holes plot. This smacks of poor direction and thrown together writing...which I am sure those who fulfilled those roles may not have seen or will ever acknowledge because they brought in some bank.

A Monster appears out of thin air and proceeds to go on a mindless rampage, destroying lives in the process.

This film lacked substance...but, I agree, anyone who likes 1st person shooters may like this...no need to think...the barest storyline...no need to focus on anything for longer than 5 minutes, and the realization after you get to the end, that the only question you face is "was this worth it?"

Halo, Half-Life, Far Cry...all had better storys, characters, and forward momentum than this film.

As for entertainment versus story...all films tell a story and a well told story is entertaining.

Just my 2c.

K.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

Personally, this film is a huge disappointment, and a waste of time and money. I only went to see it because it was someone's birthday and that was their movie of choice. They regret that choice now. Another example of style over substance; well done marketing perhaps, but that's all that brought the masses.

What does one have at the beginning, middle and end? A big nothing. What was the point of this movie? Showing that audiences will come if you have a great marketing plan and no story? No true conflict, forced tension, bad acting, poor dynamics, no character development. I should be so lucky to write something that bad and have it make some cash. Although it's seen progressively big falloffs everyday; if there were some real competition at the box office, I don't think it would have brought anything significant in.

Godzilla did this story better and it sucked. For those who don't remember it, ha, you're not missing much.
Blair Witch had real character and story development, plus a plot. It had the best marketing, word of mouth.
War of the Worlds captured that "caught in the middle of something bigger than yourself" feel much better.

If a sequel were done, I wouldn't touch it with a free movie pass, not even on cable.

As for worrying about the camera, batteries, etc. Throughout the movie what the characters say and do, reference these things and show the huge holes in the script. Who was playing the tape/SD card? Why? Battery life...well they say how long the camera was running for...footage jumping back and forth, on tape?, even on SD Card that's laughable...audio quality, wow, get me on of those...lighting...colors...wow, great camera...if the filmmakers didn't draw attention to these things, they wouldn't stand out.

Worst movie I have seen in a long time.

If you like it, perhaps you could say WHY you did, so I could work that into a film discussion class I have.

K.

Wait, don't hold back... Tell us how you really feel!


Work this into your film discussion class:

"There are many ways of determining whether a film is "good". Some may consider making money to be good. Some may consider some sort of combination of acting, story and cinematography to be good. I decide a movie is good or not based upon the extent that it draws me into its reality and makes me forget my own. Cloverfield drew me into the position of being a survivor of a chaotic and horrible event, and kept me there for 90 minutes. Regardless of the content, being able to draw me into a different world for 90 minutes and keep me there, makes it good in my eyes. This isn't to say that I liked it (I recognize that there are many "good" films that I don't like, and many "bad" films that I love), just to say that in my definition of what a film should do, it was good."