Yeah, it was a fan creation after he saw the movie. Though, I'd have to say it's the closest concept I've seen to the actual creature.
To me, the creature vaguely reminded me of a bat, sans the winged webbing. The way it moved with it's front arms was extremely similar.
[ QUOTE ]
They did the ARG to give off more information about the monster to continue the story. It's fun, I like it.
While he wasn't involved with it directly, JJ Abrams has done ARG's in the past (Lost) and they've done well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Spoilers for those who have not seen the movie yet..
Sadly the masses demanded more information about the monster. Hollywood can't take a film that doesn't explain everything in black and white.
The viral marketing pre and post release of the movie is ABSOLUTELY perfect for telling the stories that Abrams wants to tell. My only hope is that he will actually follow up with it instead of leaving us in the dark for 3 years.
Anyone who watches LOST will get right into all these little details about this movie. And IF a few people around are predicting is true, then Abrams will have a new way of telling movies. One that doesn't advance the franchise/story, but instead tells original events from a different perspective. The first movie was told from the doomed perspective of the every-day-man in New York. But perhaps the second movie will tell the same story from a new perspective. My own personal opinion will be from the perspective of the military man who lets the group of 3 continue on to find Beth. Because something in him compels me to say that he knew something, or was involved in something that let them continue rather than be evacuated.
At the end of the day though, as many holes and questions as this movie raises, it instills in us a need to watch any future episodes of this incident.
My feeling is that Abrams wanted to bring his LOST ideas to the big screen while also creating a new icon of movie making ability. I hope that he follow it up himself and doesn't sell the idea to major picture people. At this point, the movie has lived up to the hype and has generated the revenue. The ball is now in Abrams court to follow up with something equally as good.
One thing though that I AM disappointed in is the the New York walk through of the locations they visited. I've only been to Manhattan a couple of times and it seems to me that it would take a lot longer to cover that distance than was shown in the movie. I could be wrong though.
Saw it tonight:
I kept saying "hey looks like something from resistance" to my self the whole movie.
I wasn't sold on the hand held camera early on either, but as the movie went on I really actually liked it. It seemed more appropriate to me than Blair Witch. I could buy that someone had a video camera in New York and started taping/kept taping things when the place started falling apart.
I also dug how hud kept filming everything in the dangerous situations. I was reminded of "journalist syndrome" or whatever its called, where when you have the camera, and are seeing things through the lens you start to psychologically pull yourself out of the situation and just keep observing, even when really nutty stuff is happening, that you either should not be in, or should help out in.
Speaking of cameras, that thing has some awesome battery life, and is crazy durable. I want one.
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of cameras, that thing has some awesome battery life, and is crazy durable. I want one.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what I was thinking of through the entire movie. My god, please mention the make/model of the camera because that thing is a fucking monster in it's own right.
The OTHER thing I was thinking throughout the movie was how similar it was to Shawn of the Dead. Guy + Funny Sidekick search out to rescue Guy's ex-girlfriend who is stuck in her apartment when the shit hits the fan. While not a RomZomCom, you could say it's a RomMonCom? God I'm clever.
Awesome point about the camera! Although at the end of the day I believed everything about it(battery life and night vision) except for the fall from when Hud got eaten and spat out. Judging by the size of the monster from the original pictures that could easily have been a 3-4-5 story fall and thats minimums. Show me a camera that can survive that fall and I'll buy it tomorrow!!!!!
Though that final scene with the monster definitely felt like the monster was much smaller than the previous versions conveyed.
By the way folks, there will be spoilers! But honestly, I kinda think this whole thread is now sort of a spoiler thread.
[ QUOTE ]
I also dug how hud kept filming everything in the dangerous situations. I was reminded of "journalist syndrome" or whatever its called, where when you have the camera, and are seeing things through the lens you start to psychologically pull yourself out of the situation and just keep observing, even when really nutty stuff is happening, that you either should not be in, or should help out in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should look forward to George Romero's Diary of the Dead
[ QUOTE ]
**Spoilers**
Awesome point about the camera! Although at the end of the day I believed everything about it(battery life and night vision) except for the fall from when Hud got eaten and spat out. Judging by the size of the monster from the original pictures that could easily have been a 3-4-5 story fall and thats minimums. Show me a camera that can survive that fall and I'll buy it tomorrow!!!!!
Though that final scene with the monster definitely felt like the monster was much smaller than the previous versions conveyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you forgot to mention it also seemed to survive a helicopter crash, and several explosions after being buried under rock. But then again the people holding it were also seemingly invulnerable, especially Beth, she should have died at least twice first time being when she was impaled in the shoulder by the rebar and they just plucked her off of it and she moves like nothing happened, when in truth she'd have bled out in a matter of minutes as well as probably go into shock. Then the crash, she didn't look like she could even take a slap on the wrist, yet after being mortally wounded she survives a helicopter crash and is actually the one to get the other two guys up and out. That's a tough broad.
and yeah, the creature's size seemed like it varied throughout the movie.
Awesome point about the camera! Although at the end of the day I believed everything about it(battery life and night vision) except for the fall from when Hud got eaten and spat out. Judging by the size of the monster from the original pictures that could easily have been a 3-4-5 story fall and thats minimums. Show me a camera that can survive that fall and I'll buy it tomorrow!!!!!
Though that final scene with the monster definitely felt like the monster was much smaller than the previous versions conveyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was much smaller - I'd say it was a different one as well.
he also used the flashlight for a bit and switched night vision on a little but that was only for a second. he could have been using the flashlight without filming in the train, because they were in the tunnels for what, 10 minutes maybe and they walked from spring to 59th? they were walking at a sustained speed of about 12 miles an hour through the tunnel?
[ QUOTE ]
he could have been using the flashlight without filming in the train, because they were in the tunnels for what, 10 minutes maybe and they walked from spring to 59th? they were walking at a sustained speed of about 12 miles an hour through the tunnel?
[/ QUOTE ]
Same way the Silver Surfer and Human Torch flew through the midtown tunnel (in Fantastic Four 2) and ended up in a forest nowhere near I495 or Queens...NYC has magic portals in it that allow rapid transit anywhere we want...we just don't tell other people how to use them. Of course we tell movie producers though. Its part of the contract.
There are multiple instances in the movie where they shut the camera off and move a great distance. A really obvious one is after they rescue Beth. They walk to the top of the like 50 flights of stairs, then all of a sudden they're on the bottom floor. The film may be unedited but it wasn't all one continuous shot.
And, uh, 1.5 hour camera batteries exist. The thing is a tank with freaking night-vision I'm sure it's high-end enough to have a proper battery and/or a spare. It's not like it runs on AA's.
[ QUOTE ]
do cameras usually not have an hour and a half battery life?
[/ QUOTE ]
*** MINOR SPOILERS BELOW ***
*** MINOR SPOILERS BELOW ***
The movie actually takes place over 6-7hrs. The party started at 11pm or so and ended around 6am. That's a hell of a battery indeed
Also, I think their tunnel walk took at least an hour or two. It was around 1am when they got into the tunnel, and after they got Beth they went for the choppers. After that, helo crash and central park boom boom, where it was 6am. So it probably took at least 2hrs to walk that, is my guess. They shut off the camera quite a bit.
Saw it loved it. Hud is the MAN!! He plays a pretty good idiot in the TV show Carpool.
Anyways...I think a sequel should be about a platoon that goes back into Cloverfield or into an area where the monsters have now taken over. The soldiers can have on Ghost Recon style head cameras, so the FPS style direction still works...plus they can swap views between different soldiers to create better cuts in the action and still keep it in an FPS style movie. It could be almost like Aliens just in shakey cam. BAD ASS!!
B
[ QUOTE ]
The movie actually takes place over 6-7hrs. The party started at 11pm or so and ended around 6am. That's a hell of a battery indeed
[/ QUOTE ]
i think you missed the point a bit.. the tape was presented as "unedited" footage recovered after said events.. cameras have a neat feature of being able to be turned off when not in use. If the tape lasted 1 hour and 15 mins, but 10 or so hours have passed, i would come to the conclusion the power on the camera would have been turned off from time to time. this was also displayed during several instances when showing previous recorded events and abrupt cuts. and thus to record 1 hour and 15 mins of footage only 1 hour and 15 mins of battery would be needed.
Yeah its unedited, but there are several points in the film where they review footage on the camera, use it as a flashlight, and or otherwise get more use out of the battery than there is film. This is also assuming that the battery was fully charged when the party filming started.
I realize there's only 1.5 hrs of footage, but there are edits, especially around the party testimonials. If it's supposedly an unedited DV tape that means rewinding and re-filming things.
The point is for everything that the camera went through in the movie its still a fairly impressive piece of equipment. Mainly the falls and drops.
My videocamera shoots in 1080p, has a 60 gig HDD (enough for five hours of full 1080p footage) and the battery it comes with lasts an hour and a half. You can get batteries for it that last much longer. And it's not the latest and greatest.
I'm not gonna read through all these posts...but the back and forth of the whole battery thing is rather funny.
No spoilers here, just saying that the movie is awesome. I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you're a person that only likes to catch films in the theater that warrant the silver screen "experience", go see this film.
The credits music "ROAR!" was awesome! Did anyone catch what was said at the very end of the credits? Sounded like static whispering...just wanted to see if anyone made that out.
I went into the film expecting a very shakey cam 911 footageesqe monster movie . It delivered and it was awesome . By far and away the best monster movie ive ever seen . Funny that it's a so called budget thriller yet is 10x better then the last Godzilla and King Kong movies . Now I a PUMPED for JJ Abrams Star Trek bring it on !
I really enjoyed the movie.
Apparently Hasbro is making a figure of the monster, so i guess when that gets released we will see the exact anatomy of the creature.
The movie had its issues, there's no doubt about that. My personal quibble is the scale of the big critter, as they really could have pushed the consistency on that a bit more. I suppose part of that was the intentional concealment of the monster throughout much of the movie. The best way to get scale is through regular size comparisons. But the film intentionally keeps the monster out of frame or partially obscured most of the time. Even at the end, when you get a full-frontal shot of the monster, the perspective is such that its still hard to get a clear idea of the monster's physiology.
Overall, though, I would have to say that I was very pleased with the experience. The handycam perspective was a bit dissorienting, but it also added immensely to the feel of the film. The entire film felt more real visceral because of it. And I absolutely adored the huge balls that the director had in handling the characters.
HUGE SPOILER
<<Just about everyone dies. The only main character to survive was the one that we cared about the least. It takes some serious stones to produce and market a tragedy in this day and age. But I enjoyed the ending of the film despite its tragic nature. Bravo.>>
END HUGE SPOILERs
I really enjoyed this film, the end was a bit upsetting but whatever, I still enjoyed this film. The monster was huge. It felt like a pretty new experience, I really wish there was a bit more information at the end. I really wish the fx in this move had been used for the creatures in I am Legend. I cant' wait for this to come out on DVD to listen to the commentary.
[ QUOTE ]
Not knowing where the monster comes from or any more information REALLY sucks.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is awesome. Clever withholding of information is what makes good scifi and speculative fiction great. The best scifi out there just hints at the existence of vast universes, but you only get a glimpse. The few things you do know are so well produced that you KNOW there is a lot more going on, and your imagination can wander in that direction, but you don't know.
Examples:
- Predator (he has no backstory, he's just there, he's an alien, and he kills you)
- Alien (they find a crashed alien ship on a random planet with no explanation of the origins of the aliens or the creatures piloting the ship)
- Fifth Element (glimpses of different alien species here and there, hints of a pseudo-distopian earth and an inhabited galaxy, but no real backstory on anything aside from the core story line)
Leaving just the right amount of info out to stimulate the imagination is a sign of really good scifi. I haven't seen cloverfield so I don't really know how well this was executed, but a lack of information is most definitely NOT always a negative when it comes to good fantastic/science fiction.
Ferg, these examples don't relate to Cloverfield at all. Clov is completely build on the fact that no one knows were the monster comes from. It's a great starting point, but the story doesn't go any further, so basically the movie ends just when it starts.
While in your examples the viewer has other expectations concering the story and characters. Like, is Ripley gonna survive, and how? Will Corben Dallas have sex with the cutest alien ever? And HOW? :P
Cloverfield is again a great achievement, but the way it is build makes it look like some bad way to make people talk about it even after they are done watching it - to tease others into seing, or to build up sequel hype, who cares.
To sum it up. I watched the Clov trailer and was interested. I thought, 'Hey I'd love to see that movie to know what happens next!! A cool giant monster like that must have a good reason to wreck havoc on earth! Cool, lemme see!'
I'd be interested to hear what you think of it once yo see it... Personnally it was a waste of money (yeah I forgot to take my free ticket with me that day booo)
Well put Pior. We'll see. It does seem like the whole thing is engineered for a sequel. Though I do think a clever lack of information is crucial in so many good scifis, it definitely isn't always good.
The TV show Lost, for example. Fuck Lost. Fuck that goddamn fucking show in its ambiguous go-nowhere premise ass. Another JJ Abrams steamer. I good example of how not to leave out information in clever ways. Have they canceled it yet?
I'll most likely hate cloverfield if it's anything like lost in that way. But I do love me some good mysterious scifi. Oh well.
[ QUOTE ]
To sum it up. I watched the Clov trailer and was interested. I thought, 'Hey I'd love to see that movie to know what happens next!! A cool giant monster like that must have a good reason to wreck havoc on earth! Cool, lemme see!'
[/ QUOTE ]
See, this is the problem. You went in expecting Godzilla. You want the focus on the movie to be the monster, when really the monster is just a plot device to tell a story about people.
Why is Godzilla ridiculously cheesy? Because they tried to tell a story about a giant monster. Giant monsters don't have complex motivations: they just like to smash shit. Cloverfield is good because the monster is not the focus.
I see what you're getting at acc, but I kinda sympathize with Pior. Thing is, the trailer gives no indication you'd be hanging with these chums the whole film, and the highlight was most certainly when der monstar attacks. I thought it was simply trailer exclusive footage to give you an idea of what's going on.
Regardless of what the focus of the movie ended being on, I still really liked it. : ) Except the lice. They were fucking sick.
Hehe yup Acc my favorite parts of the movie were indeed, the character parts - like the farewell party, the DV flashbacks and most strikingly the grocery store bit when the dust invades the street. That scene gave me a great, even freaky feel of reality. Hence that's why I had high expectations for what's was going to be up next!
This is JJ.Abrams. That's how he works. A great deal of the story has been told via the Cloverfield ARG and manga. In a way it's silly to expect people to have played the ARG to know about the movie, but I think Cloverfield stands well on it's own regardless.
I don't need everything to be answered for me. It's like a Kubrick movie, or any really great book. They don't spell everything out for you. They leave it to your imagination, which in a lot of cases is far more frightening.
Replies
the monster was a little silly. didn't like his giant hands.
SPOILER LINK
SPOILER LINK
http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com/
SPOILER LINK
The creatures concept.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b230/gauge0001/3389-cm2.jpg
It reminds me alot of the resistance fall of man aliens.
SPOILER LINK
To me, the creature vaguely reminded me of a bat, sans the winged webbing. The way it moved with it's front arms was extremely similar.
To me, the creature vaguely reminded me of a bat, sans the winged webbing. The way it moved with it's front arms was extremely similar.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly how I felt about it.
They did the ARG to give off more information about the monster to continue the story. It's fun, I like it.
While he wasn't involved with it directly, JJ Abrams has done ARG's in the past (Lost) and they've done well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Spoilers for those who have not seen the movie yet..
Sadly the masses demanded more information about the monster. Hollywood can't take a film that doesn't explain everything in black and white.
The viral marketing pre and post release of the movie is ABSOLUTELY perfect for telling the stories that Abrams wants to tell. My only hope is that he will actually follow up with it instead of leaving us in the dark for 3 years.
Anyone who watches LOST will get right into all these little details about this movie. And IF a few people around are predicting is true, then Abrams will have a new way of telling movies. One that doesn't advance the franchise/story, but instead tells original events from a different perspective. The first movie was told from the doomed perspective of the every-day-man in New York. But perhaps the second movie will tell the same story from a new perspective. My own personal opinion will be from the perspective of the military man who lets the group of 3 continue on to find Beth. Because something in him compels me to say that he knew something, or was involved in something that let them continue rather than be evacuated.
At the end of the day though, as many holes and questions as this movie raises, it instills in us a need to watch any future episodes of this incident.
My feeling is that Abrams wanted to bring his LOST ideas to the big screen while also creating a new icon of movie making ability. I hope that he follow it up himself and doesn't sell the idea to major picture people. At this point, the movie has lived up to the hype and has generated the revenue. The ball is now in Abrams court to follow up with something equally as good.
One thing though that I AM disappointed in is the the New York walk through of the locations they visited. I've only been to Manhattan a couple of times and it seems to me that it would take a lot longer to cover that distance than was shown in the movie. I could be wrong though.
I kept saying "hey looks like something from resistance" to my self the whole movie.
I wasn't sold on the hand held camera early on either, but as the movie went on I really actually liked it. It seemed more appropriate to me than Blair Witch. I could buy that someone had a video camera in New York and started taping/kept taping things when the place started falling apart.
I also dug how hud kept filming everything in the dangerous situations. I was reminded of "journalist syndrome" or whatever its called, where when you have the camera, and are seeing things through the lens you start to psychologically pull yourself out of the situation and just keep observing, even when really nutty stuff is happening, that you either should not be in, or should help out in.
Speaking of cameras, that thing has some awesome battery life, and is crazy durable. I want one.
I still want the indestructible, atomic powered, handy-cam (of doom tm).
Speaking of cameras, that thing has some awesome battery life, and is crazy durable. I want one.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what I was thinking of through the entire movie. My god, please mention the make/model of the camera because that thing is a fucking monster in it's own right.
The OTHER thing I was thinking throughout the movie was how similar it was to Shawn of the Dead. Guy + Funny Sidekick search out to rescue Guy's ex-girlfriend who is stuck in her apartment when the shit hits the fan. While not a RomZomCom, you could say it's a RomMonCom? God I'm clever.
Awesome point about the camera! Although at the end of the day I believed everything about it(battery life and night vision) except for the fall from when Hud got eaten and spat out. Judging by the size of the monster from the original pictures that could easily have been a 3-4-5 story fall and thats minimums. Show me a camera that can survive that fall and I'll buy it tomorrow!!!!!
Though that final scene with the monster definitely felt like the monster was much smaller than the previous versions conveyed.
[ QUOTE ]
I also dug how hud kept filming everything in the dangerous situations. I was reminded of "journalist syndrome" or whatever its called, where when you have the camera, and are seeing things through the lens you start to psychologically pull yourself out of the situation and just keep observing, even when really nutty stuff is happening, that you either should not be in, or should help out in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should look forward to George Romero's Diary of the Dead
[ QUOTE ]
**Spoilers**
Awesome point about the camera! Although at the end of the day I believed everything about it(battery life and night vision) except for the fall from when Hud got eaten and spat out. Judging by the size of the monster from the original pictures that could easily have been a 3-4-5 story fall and thats minimums. Show me a camera that can survive that fall and I'll buy it tomorrow!!!!!
Though that final scene with the monster definitely felt like the monster was much smaller than the previous versions conveyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you forgot to mention it also seemed to survive a helicopter crash, and several explosions after being buried under rock. But then again the people holding it were also seemingly invulnerable, especially Beth, she should have died at least twice first time being when she was impaled in the shoulder by the rebar and they just plucked her off of it and she moves like nothing happened, when in truth she'd have bled out in a matter of minutes as well as probably go into shock. Then the crash, she didn't look like she could even take a slap on the wrist, yet after being mortally wounded she survives a helicopter crash and is actually the one to get the other two guys up and out. That's a tough broad.
and yeah, the creature's size seemed like it varied throughout the movie.
**Spoilers**
Awesome point about the camera! Although at the end of the day I believed everything about it(battery life and night vision) except for the fall from when Hud got eaten and spat out. Judging by the size of the monster from the original pictures that could easily have been a 3-4-5 story fall and thats minimums. Show me a camera that can survive that fall and I'll buy it tomorrow!!!!!
Though that final scene with the monster definitely felt like the monster was much smaller than the previous versions conveyed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was much smaller - I'd say it was a different one as well.
do cameras usually not have an hour and a half battery life?
[/ QUOTE ]
hahahaha awesome! i was thinking the same thing!! the tape is suppose to be unedited.. so yeah, i sure want one of those hour and 15 min batteries!!
he could have been using the flashlight without filming in the train, because they were in the tunnels for what, 10 minutes maybe and they walked from spring to 59th? they were walking at a sustained speed of about 12 miles an hour through the tunnel?
[/ QUOTE ]
Same way the Silver Surfer and Human Torch flew through the midtown tunnel (in Fantastic Four 2) and ended up in a forest nowhere near I495 or Queens...NYC has magic portals in it that allow rapid transit anywhere we want...we just don't tell other people how to use them. Of course we tell movie producers though. Its part of the contract.
And, uh, 1.5 hour camera batteries exist. The thing is a tank with freaking night-vision I'm sure it's high-end enough to have a proper battery and/or a spare. It's not like it runs on AA's.
do cameras usually not have an hour and a half battery life?
[/ QUOTE ]
*** MINOR SPOILERS BELOW ***
*** MINOR SPOILERS BELOW ***
The movie actually takes place over 6-7hrs. The party started at 11pm or so and ended around 6am. That's a hell of a battery indeed
Also, I think their tunnel walk took at least an hour or two. It was around 1am when they got into the tunnel, and after they got Beth they went for the choppers. After that, helo crash and central park boom boom, where it was 6am. So it probably took at least 2hrs to walk that, is my guess. They shut off the camera quite a bit.
Anyways...I think a sequel should be about a platoon that goes back into Cloverfield or into an area where the monsters have now taken over. The soldiers can have on Ghost Recon style head cameras, so the FPS style direction still works...plus they can swap views between different soldiers to create better cuts in the action and still keep it in an FPS style movie. It could be almost like Aliens just in shakey cam. BAD ASS!!
B
The movie actually takes place over 6-7hrs. The party started at 11pm or so and ended around 6am. That's a hell of a battery indeed
[/ QUOTE ]
i think you missed the point a bit.. the tape was presented as "unedited" footage recovered after said events.. cameras have a neat feature of being able to be turned off when not in use. If the tape lasted 1 hour and 15 mins, but 10 or so hours have passed, i would come to the conclusion the power on the camera would have been turned off from time to time. this was also displayed during several instances when showing previous recorded events and abrupt cuts. and thus to record 1 hour and 15 mins of footage only 1 hour and 15 mins of battery would be needed.
I realize there's only 1.5 hrs of footage, but there are edits, especially around the party testimonials. If it's supposedly an unedited DV tape that means rewinding and re-filming things.
The point is for everything that the camera went through in the movie its still a fairly impressive piece of equipment. Mainly the falls and drops.
Frank the Avenger
No spoilers here, just saying that the movie is awesome. I thoroughly enjoyed it. If you're a person that only likes to catch films in the theater that warrant the silver screen "experience", go see this film.
The credits music "ROAR!" was awesome! Did anyone catch what was said at the very end of the credits? Sounded like static whispering...just wanted to see if anyone made that out.
Definitely worth a watch on the big screen.
Did anyone catch what was said at the very end of the credits? Sounded like static whispering...just wanted to see if anyone made that out.
[/ QUOTE ]
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
Played backwards it apparently says "Its still alive.."
Apparently Hasbro is making a figure of the monster, so i guess when that gets released we will see the exact anatomy of the creature.
http://gizmodo.com/347463/the-real-camera-behind-cloverfield
Overall, though, I would have to say that I was very pleased with the experience. The handycam perspective was a bit dissorienting, but it also added immensely to the feel of the film. The entire film felt more real visceral because of it. And I absolutely adored the huge balls that the director had in handling the characters.
HUGE SPOILER
<<Just about everyone dies. The only main character to survive was the one that we cared about the least. It takes some serious stones to produce and market a tragedy in this day and age. But I enjoyed the ending of the film despite its tragic nature. Bravo.>>
END HUGE SPOILERs
Alex
http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/ProductsByBrand.htm?BR=863&ID=21030
[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose you'll have to take their word for it...
Not knowing where the monster comes from or any more information REALLY sucks.
Not knowing where the monster comes from or any more information REALLY sucks.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is awesome. Clever withholding of information is what makes good scifi and speculative fiction great. The best scifi out there just hints at the existence of vast universes, but you only get a glimpse. The few things you do know are so well produced that you KNOW there is a lot more going on, and your imagination can wander in that direction, but you don't know.
Examples:
- Predator (he has no backstory, he's just there, he's an alien, and he kills you)
- Alien (they find a crashed alien ship on a random planet with no explanation of the origins of the aliens or the creatures piloting the ship)
- Fifth Element (glimpses of different alien species here and there, hints of a pseudo-distopian earth and an inhabited galaxy, but no real backstory on anything aside from the core story line)
Leaving just the right amount of info out to stimulate the imagination is a sign of really good scifi. I haven't seen cloverfield so I don't really know how well this was executed, but a lack of information is most definitely NOT always a negative when it comes to good fantastic/science fiction.
The best scifi out there just hints at the existence of vast universes, but you only get a glimpse.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea...the vast universe that was Cloverfield...the whole 3 or 4 square miles the movie covered.
While in your examples the viewer has other expectations concering the story and characters. Like, is Ripley gonna survive, and how? Will Corben Dallas have sex with the cutest alien ever? And HOW? :P
Cloverfield is again a great achievement, but the way it is build makes it look like some bad way to make people talk about it even after they are done watching it - to tease others into seing, or to build up sequel hype, who cares.
To sum it up. I watched the Clov trailer and was interested. I thought, 'Hey I'd love to see that movie to know what happens next!! A cool giant monster like that must have a good reason to wreck havoc on earth! Cool, lemme see!'
I'd be interested to hear what you think of it once yo see it... Personnally it was a waste of money (yeah I forgot to take my free ticket with me that day booo)
Anyways, great chick in there.
The TV show Lost, for example. Fuck Lost. Fuck that goddamn fucking show in its ambiguous go-nowhere premise ass. Another JJ Abrams steamer. I good example of how not to leave out information in clever ways. Have they canceled it yet?
I'll most likely hate cloverfield if it's anything like lost in that way. But I do love me some good mysterious scifi. Oh well.
To sum it up. I watched the Clov trailer and was interested. I thought, 'Hey I'd love to see that movie to know what happens next!! A cool giant monster like that must have a good reason to wreck havoc on earth! Cool, lemme see!'
[/ QUOTE ]
See, this is the problem. You went in expecting Godzilla. You want the focus on the movie to be the monster, when really the monster is just a plot device to tell a story about people.
Why is Godzilla ridiculously cheesy? Because they tried to tell a story about a giant monster. Giant monsters don't have complex motivations: they just like to smash shit. Cloverfield is good because the monster is not the focus.
Regardless of what the focus of the movie ended being on, I still really liked it. : ) Except the lice. They were fucking sick.
Also for those interested - one of the best 'poeple' movie I 've seen in years, from Quebec :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401085/
I don't need everything to be answered for me. It's like a Kubrick movie, or any really great book. They don't spell everything out for you. They leave it to your imagination, which in a lot of cases is far more frightening.