-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cloverfield Hype & Movie Thread *Spoilers Ahoy!*
- Thread starter Blablurn
- Start date
- Status
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Reilly said:
Only some retards in the theater.
If you knew anything about this movie, you knew to expect a faux home video / Blair Witch approach. :\
Phoenix
Member
Reilly said:
They never intended to nuke Manhattan, just heavily bomb it - likely carpet bomb manner. Or more specifically the movie never said that they would nuke the city, but given the shit they dropped on the creature and that it was still kicking only a nuke would do damage to it.
I'm going to see it again tomorrow but I'm starting to wonder if the camcorder really used SD or not. Perhaps the video we're watching from the goverment is on an SD card that has what was on the original camcorder tape. I say this because you can't record over the top of video using an SD card as was done in the movie, leaving gaps behind. That would work with a DV tape but not using an SD card. New recordings on an SD card creates new, independent clips. Or perhaps I'm taking it all to seriously. :lolNicodimas said:
Nicodimas said:
Definitely. I was more distracted with the shaky cam. I remember way back when I went to see Blair Witch and I didn't mind it so much. After so many years as an actual camera person my opinion has changed. I wanted to punch Hud in the fucking mouth so bad. Every god damned camcorder has a steady switch for assholes who have wrists made of glass. Turn that shit on or at least make believe they turned it on Mr. Abrams. When I saw Marlena's eyes bleeding I was like "yeah bitch I know just how you feel."
Jamesfrom818
Banned
It wasn't filmed directly onto a SD card. Rob specifically asked Hud about the tape that was in there when he noticed it was his camera.
If they were dropping these, since it dropped more than two:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm
From the b-2s at the end...yeah a nuke may have been better
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm
From the b-2s at the end...yeah a nuke may have been better
Phoenix
Member
Nicodimas said:
Yeah, when I saw the Stealth unloading a whole payload of LGBs on it and it came out unscathed after in fact they had sent several sorties of F-18s at it, there wasn't shit else they could do but nuke it as all of their conventional weapons were having absolutely no impact which is odd since we can clearly see that it has some soft tissue and considering how much ordinance they were shooting at the thing I can't imagine they didn't hit those soft spots.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Mike M said:
Co-sign.
Still wasn't bad, just reminded me of a supersized Signs alien.
The actress that played Marlena strikes me as a next-gen Sigourney Weaver.
Phoenix
Member
border said:
Well I can say that I can see that as believable because I would have been the guy trying to record the whole thing
What can I say I keep cameras with me all the time to document any random event I come across. But I have to say, before I go to rescue anyone but my own kids - I have to have some assurance that you're actually alive.The Take Out Bandit
Member
border said:
Or how about the part where he's running while still pointing the camera straight ahead?
At that point it would have been more believable for our character's arms to be at their sides as their arms pumped away while running.
Plus my friend suggested that would have been an opportune time to insert glimpses of what was being run away from.
The whole camera pointed straight ahead thing really betrayed the amateur camera-man aspect of the movie, and went more toward a film maker trying to intentionally make bad looking film.
OokieSpookie
Banned
CcrooK said:
A sea creature would not roar
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Pewp said:
Well since it's not filmed in a way that they could show us the disorientation and no doubt ear trauma caused by a f'ing helicopter crash; I'll have to assume ears were ringing so they didn't hear it.
Going further, they're also retards and didn't feel it lumbering up on them.
Or perhaps the monster studied light foot monster kung fu from the massive dragons in Dragon Wars that comically snuck around town despite being fucking huge. :lol
Phoenix
Member
Pewp said:
If you've ever been in a car wreck - you'll note that you don't notice anything else going on. It comes from the tunnel vision that develops s the heart rate and pulse increase greatly, the body diminishes our senses to we can focus on the task at hand. I was more surprised that they actually survived the crash and were even remotely close to being mobile. From the height they fell they should have all be killed or incapable of moving with any level of speed.
Its more interesting that the monster didn't chomp all of them instead of one guy.
samus4ever
Banned
I hate to say this. Why are you people arguing over this movie? It's like saying Freddy Kruger wasn't real enough. It's a monster movie. It's not real. Just take it as it is. It's never going to happen so just roll with it. *note* I haven't seen this movie yet. I won't take it seriously until I see a monster come through my place and bash it up. Just remember, it's just a movie!
The Take Out Bandit
Member
border said:
Well it's not like there weren't a fair share of shitty transitional shots in the movie during some of the more hectic scenes. Shots that were clearly our camera man fleeing and not filming a subject. At the very least it would not have been out of place, and it makes sense when running.
There were a lot of questionable camera moments in most of the movie. Like a lot of the "ARE YOU GUYS SEEING THIS", while filming his friends.
Oh and I feel the PG-13 rating really limited the reactions of this movie.
samus4ever
Banned
Phoenix said:
it's a movie about a monster. monsters are not real. get over it. it's more pathetic than arguing over a comic book movie.
samus4ever
Banned
Phoenix said:
Are you simply unable to understand the difference between fantasy and realism?
Well yeah, that's not to say that there aren't sections of the film that look incredibly rough and shaky and wobbly. But I dunno what really would have been gained by having the camera radically swooping through the motions of someone's arms as they run. You say they could have shown us what they were running from, but more likely it just would have been more naseua-inducing blur.
I'm not saying that Hud was always trying to keep the camera focused on an interesting subject, just that he was trying to keep it somewhat coherent. A true running-cam would have been completely incoherent.
I'm not saying that Hud was always trying to keep the camera focused on an interesting subject, just that he was trying to keep it somewhat coherent. A true running-cam would have been completely incoherent.
Phoenix
Member
border said:
Yes. Early in the movie they went with the 'normal camera motion' and it was very difficult to watch. As the film progressed they used that sparingly to keep the film watchable. If they'd done it how a regular camera is done it would have been a hurl inducing event.
samus4ever
Banned
Phoenix said:
Nice to see you never learned how to argue.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Phoenix said:
The most difficult part of the beginning of the movie was waiting for monster pr0n!
Seriously.
Toho just needs to make a Godzilla movie where he FHUTA's NYC. I'll be at the theater with my pants off.
civilstrife
Member
I'm waiting until somebody does a Cloverfield/Portal "Still Alive" song mashup.
Film was excellent. Really terrifying, and surprisingly heartfelt at moments.
The scene with Rob on the phone with his mom rang incredibly true. I've had to make a call like that to my mother (not about my brother, thank god) and the lines were nearly verbatim.
Film was excellent. Really terrifying, and surprisingly heartfelt at moments.
The scene with Rob on the phone with his mom rang incredibly true. I've had to make a call like that to my mother (not about my brother, thank god) and the lines were nearly verbatim.
Overall I liked it, probably one of the best monster movies in years.
, some scenes didn't really work for me-- like when they waited in the tunnel and the shaking was excessive at points but the rest was pretty good. I think as an "intense experience" kind of film, I still prefer Children of Men though.
Too bad about Hud (Aliens reference?)
Cloverfield still has nothing against Godzilla
Doesn't even flinch once
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXjEreBSTOw
And what a bastard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOjr_jBuKj0
Doesn't even flinch once
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXjEreBSTOw
And what a bastard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOjr_jBuKj0
i... i think i enjoyed this movie... really awesome special effects and i love the premise... but i wished they would have turned on the steady shot option on the camera because i never get motion sick and i was feeling a bit of it. i would actually really like to watch the movie again, but i don't know if i could handle it in the theatre.. i'm hoping it's a lot easier to watch on my tv.
also monster reminded me of resistance for some reason.
also monster reminded me of resistance for some reason.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
civilstrife said:
Loud does not equal terrifying.
I gotta say though, if I was a survivor of 9/11 I would probably not want to watch this movie. A lot of the shots are frighteningly similar to 9/11 footage (particularly the images of people running from a massive rolling cloud of dust and debris, along with that massive explosion they see from the rooftop).
Which is not to say I take the Fox News angle that the filmmakers are "exploiting" a real national tragedy. They are using it pretty artfully. Part of what makes it so real and so thrilling is that after 9/11 we know what it means for an entire building to collapse.....for the streets of Manhattan to be filled with frightened, confused people just looking to flee and survive an unreal, horrific event. If Cloverfield had taken place in any other city I doubt that it would have had anywhere near as much impact.
Which is not to say I take the Fox News angle that the filmmakers are "exploiting" a real national tragedy. They are using it pretty artfully. Part of what makes it so real and so thrilling is that after 9/11 we know what it means for an entire building to collapse.....for the streets of Manhattan to be filled with frightened, confused people just looking to flee and survive an unreal, horrific event. If Cloverfield had taken place in any other city I doubt that it would have had anywhere near as much impact.
More realistic camera movement might have worked though, if they tried to take the angle of someone actively searching through the archived footage. Like if the camera swoops up and down during a run, maybe the "user" freezefames when the frame is focused on a monster, then does a zoom-in or close-up. But I honestly don't see what the point of that would have been, other than to give people more detailed monster porn (which is kind of antithetical to the movie's "mass confusion" theme).
topsyturvy
Member
OokieSpookie said:
all this marketing and hidden facts for a poorly executed movie. Bravo JJ.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
border said:
I agree, but I was not terrified by this movie. I guess I've just got thicker skin.
Now Miracle Mile, seeing that when I was a kid during the height of the Cold War. That'll make you shit your pants.
- Status