Cloverfield craze?

Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens · Fri 08/02/2008 22:59:32

That might actually make me WANT to see a sequel to Schindler's List!

Nostradamus · Sat 09/02/2008 08:37:42

Quote from: Nacho on Fri 08/02/2008 19:04:34
I completelly agree that the movie is good even if it does not show the big picture...

BUT

If you agree that the MOVIE DOES NOT SHOW all the STUFF... Why do you pretend to know that the "Middle monster" is one of the little ones which has grown?

Why do you tell me "you can' t really know what is happening" and your following step is "here happened this, and this!"? It' s totally contradictory.

I was just giving a possible explanation. It's not the only one possible. For me the most logical is either this or just that other sizes of monster could arrive and we just didn't see it.
The point is there is explanation, maybe one of these maybe another, but there's no single thing in the movie that is illogical or impossible or is the producers' mistakes, because we didn't see all that's happened. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Quote from: Emerald on Fri 08/02/2008 19:43:31
QuoteThe spectator wasn't supposed to see the big picture!

Don't you get it?

You can't just say that. You have to judge what happens based on what actually happens, not on what may or may not have happened.

I mean, by your logic I could argue that Schindler's List is actually about a cyborg sent back into the past to kill Hitler - but it's never shown on-screen, so you'll have to wait until Schindler's List 2 to find out the truth

Again, This movie is NOT a regular movie. A regular movie shows you all that's happened and then you can say things are impossible or are mistakes. Here you saw the private story of a few people that happened to be in the area where it happens, you're never supposed to see the big picture, it's supposed to remain a mystery. By the movie's end you don't even know what these creatures are, where they came from and what's their agenda. Cos that's not the point of the movie. The monsters aren't the stars or subjects of the movie, the people with the camera are. You can't say "this and that is impossible because I didn't see i so it didn't happen" because they never showed you everything in the first place, and they had no intention in having you know all that's happened there.

Nacho · Sat 09/02/2008 08:46:36

I won't go on discussing with you because you are a BarÃ§a fan. ^_^

Stupot · Sat 09/02/2008 08:49:58

I agree with your point, Nos. I don't think anyone here disagrees. The guy at the end sums it up when he says something like"If you've found this then you already know more than we do". Actually, as the viewer we don't know any more than them apart from the fact that it was found and was called 'Cloverffield'.

But none of us know anything about the nature of the monster. All we know is what it looks like and that it had little creatues dropping off it. ie what wee saw on the recording. We can speculate all we like and it will be fun but we won't know anything for sure until the sequel (as a Lost fan I'm used to this).

Emerald · Sat 09/02/2008 14:59:35

Quote
The point is there is explanation, maybe one of these maybe another, but there's no single thing in the movie that is illogical or impossible or is the producers' mistakes, because we didn't see all that's happened. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if something illogical happens, it should at least hint at or allude to some sort of plausible explanation. Otherwise, any explanations after-the-fact will just seem like retconning, and they will, at the time, seem like a mistake.

Lost provides mystery. You're not sure what the hell is going on, but you're sure that the writers mean for things to not make sense. There's no speculation as to whether the mysteries in Lost are intentional or not.

The devoted fan might assume that their beloved director/producer is more competent than he seems, but most people wont, and so it's common practice to ensure that anything that resembles a plothole is filled.

veryweirdguy · Sun 10/02/2008 01:10:23

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 08/02/2008 02:20:58
The director of the movie also stated there was one big monster and it was a baby. Check the IMDB faq, it's neat.

For realsies, anyone who has seen the film and has the vaguest interest in it should do this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/faq

vict0r · Wed 23/04/2008 08:35:56

Okay... Sorry for bumping, but I just saw the movie and it was soooooooooooo fcuking disappointing! To me, the whole movie was just an intro where you were left with clues. I actually waited for something to happend. There were a clear beginning, but there were no bloody middle and no goddamned end!
I understand that it's supposed to be mysterious and stuff like that, but it's mysterious to a level that makes it uninterresting. You just don't open conflicts in a movie if you're not going to unveil them for the viewer. Even lost was better on that than this piece of crap...

/rant

Sorry, I just had to unwind... I had huge expectations, and now I hate it. Prolly my own fault!

EDIT: I did actually enjoy the parasites though! They were a fun diversion and the only actually tense moment in the whole movie.

Ultra Magnus · Wed 23/04/2008 09:06:49

I just got an email today saying this movie has been done by RiffTrax.

That is all.

Nostradamus · Wed 23/04/2008 12:35:23

vicgt0r the point of the movie WAS to keep it open, to have no clear end and to keep you wondering. The whole point was to make something different and not just another Godzilla movie.
But to calm you down, there's a sequel coming up. Maybe more information will be revealed there.

Vince Twelve · Wed 23/04/2008 12:48:41

I just recently caught this and my experience can be summed up like this:

Hud: Oh my god!
*Pan to the monster. Show the monster out of focus for .3 seconds. Pan away to something mundane like rubble or feet or the back of a girl's head.*
Hud: Did you guys see that?!
Me: No, I didn't you asshole.
*Repeat as necessary*

Actually, I thought it was kind of a novel idea with some nice execution and some stuff that was just too unbelievable in the "no way he kept filming during that, this is so hokey" kind of way. A fun ride to be sure, though.

I quite liked that it didn't even attempt to offer an explanation of anything during the whole shebang. If a scientist had stepped into the frame suddenly and said something about nuclear waste being dumped down the deepest ocean trench and the resulting seismic activity, that "unbelievable-hokey" meter would have gone right off the scale.

vict0r · Wed 23/04/2008 13:56:52

Quote from: Nostradamus on Wed 23/04/2008 12:35:23
vicgt0r the point of the movie WAS to keep it open, to have no clear end and to keep you wondering. The whole point was to make something different and not just another Godzilla movie.

Yeah, but in my head, this was change for the worse.. I am looking forward for the sequel though! Another thing that bothered me was "Hud". I actually don't thing I've ever seen a more annoying main character.. He was just really bugging me and I were hoping he'd die and that someone would take over the camera.

jetxl · Wed 23/04/2008 14:20:26

Quote from: Nostradamus on Wed 23/04/2008 12:35:23
vicgt0r the point of the movie WAS to keep it open, to have no clear end and to keep you wondering. The whole point was to make something different and not just another Godzilla movie.
But to calm you down, there's a sequel coming up. Maybe more information will be revealed there.

Something different and not just another Godzilla movie? There can never be enough Godzilla movies! Take that, Australia.