Cloverfield

[Edmund Blackadder]

There doesn't need to be a sequeal This movie was great on it's own. But if they did make a sequel I'd guess it would be so completely different. They would probably follow someone from the military or the overall event to show how much damage it was doing, how many people were dieing, and what the military was doing. But I don't think they need to, but I'd go see it.

No accounting for taste😛

 

[Blondie Bear]

I tend to despise sequels on principle, unless it's something like The Chronicles of Narnia, where it was MEANT to be a sequel/series. Movie writers are notoriously horrible at sequels. I mean, look at The Matrix. They could have easily stopped at one movie, and it would have been BETTER than the trilogy we were subjected to.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I loved it, thought it was great! The camera work gave it a much more 'right there' feel, it hurt my eyes like crazy but it was worth it. If they had done it like a normal movie it would have been Godzilla with some other monster, but it really made the film it's own!

I so don't get how anyone could think of the characters as, what was It, stuck up ?(I read this last night but was too tired to comment!) They came across as totally normal to me. Also nothing wrong with the party they were at?

Also it does say at the start of the film it was "filmed" onto a SD card right? I mean those are pretty small, I think it could have gotten through all that relatively undamaged!

Also I just got to laugh at anyone that was expecting answers from this film, you had to know going in there that you weren't going to get any. I was half expecting the batteries to die at some point, I was surprised we got as much of an ending as we did. They couldn't have filmed and set it up the way they did and also given answers, if it had really happened there wouldn't have been answers for weeks, months possibly years after it occurred!

I read in Empire that the answers are actually out there somewhere, they did that fake internet stuff they do for Lost, it was something like some company was mining out at sea and came across something and accidentally woke the monster up, they didn't say too much.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Also I just got to laugh at anyone that was expecting answers from this film, you had to know going in there that you weren't going to get any. I was half expecting the batteries to die at some point, I was surprised we got as much of an ending as we did. They couldn't have filmed and set it up the way they did and also given answers, if it had really happened there wouldn't have been answers for weeks, months possibly years after it occurred!

Which is when we are watching it.

We are watching 'genuine documented footage' of this event.

The footage belongs to the US Govt so we can safely assume that they found the tape and are letting us watch it.

Why don't people understand that simple little bit of information?

We weren't watching this through the eyes of the people as it happened, we were watchinging this because we are 'allowed' to after the event has transpired.

The movie, in my opinion, would still be rubbish if it didn't have the 'This tape was found at area dur de durrr formerly known as Central Park' but this set up was for one style of movie that by the end didn't deliver.
It turned into some big ol' dumb monster movie and the idea that there is a sequel being talked about is truly appalling.

 

[Randy Giles]

They're not letting us watch it. We're just watching a tape they found, it's not necessarily supposed to be something they're screening to people, so it could be one of many tapes they have on the monster.

Edit:

A sequel might "devalue" the film but them giving us answers in a movie that's about a group of REGULAR citizens would be lame. And totally Hollywood.

And I didn't put words in your mouth, either, I was assuming something based on your statements. And I think it was a pretty good assumption.

You may not have gotten the film, but that doesn't mean it was "bollocks", it was a great movie to the majority of people who watched it. It's obviously not for everyone.

 

[LittleMissLikesToFight]

I dont know about "great film to the majority". the entire theater i was in was groaning by the end of it, and i have been hearing a lot of negative reviews... and let downs. so whose to say the majority liked it... or even didnt for that matter.

 

[Blondie Bear]

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this, but. . . .

They're not letting us watch it. We're just watching a tape they found, it's not necessarily supposed to be something they're screening to people, so it could be one of many tapes they have on the monster.

If we are watching a government-owned video, it stands to reason that they are allowing us to watch it for some reason. Unless we've broken into the vaults and stolen the video, or we're somehow authorized to watch it. I personally don't care what the reason is, but in the meta-movie world, there has to be one.

You may not have gotten the film, but that doesn't mean it was "bollocks", it was a great movie to the majority of people who watched it. It's obviously not for everyone.

I agree with that. Not every movie is for everyone; if they were, every movie would be the same and it would be BORING.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

They're not letting us watch it. We're just watching a tape they found, it's not necessarily supposed to be something they're screening to people, so it could be one of many tapes they have on the monster.

I would have made exactly the same point as Blondie Bear.

Whomever owns this tape and is allowing us to watch it, has some basic answers NOT necessarily all the answers. We get non. This is typical JJ and his band of people influenced by his writing.
"I know the secret, you'll have to wait an extarordinarily long time to get that piece of information, in the mean time I'll make a fortune off you."

A sequel might "devalue" the film but them giving us answers in a movie that's about a group of REGULAR citizens would be lame. And totally Hollywood.

Don't kid yourself what you got was PURE Hollywood.
A movie that was far from original purposefully left open so a sequel can be done.

And I didn't put words in your mouth, either, I was assuming something based on your statements. And I think it was a pretty good assumption.

BUT it was inaccurate. I was preempting you putting words in my mouth there because I've seen you do that before in a debate/discussion.
You've come to a conclusion about what I want to know, I don't care about where the Monster is from, what it is and it had for lunch. Those answers definitely don't matter to the regular folks what DOES matter is the gaping hole of what happened at the site.
There are only two reasons to end the movie like they did.
1) They didn't have the ability to end it any other way, they couldn't see a way around it so they tried to be clever and heres the kicker, make you believe that if you disagree with them then you arev stupid or haven't understood what they've tried to do.
2) From the beginning it was planned to have a sequel which really DOES devalue this movie as if it is done with handicam it is just a carbon copy, and if its done with regular cam it is just a big ol' monster movie both takes something away from the, and I'm using this term very lightly, original film.

I like 1 because in your next line you prove it. You say 'You may not have gotten the film'.
Countless times in this thread I've gone into depth about what was wrong with the movie and detailed the stuff doing, pretty much showing I understood what was going on, but because I am arguing that its not good and for many reasons you suggest I may not have understood it which you're telling me that if I did understand it, it would probably be different.
Often people say they like something and convince themselves they do because they believe they are missing something if they don't.
This movie is one of those things. I'm not saying definitely you, but there are some people that have convinced themselves this movie is great because if they don't like it they believe they will appear stupid or uneducated to their peers.

You may not have gotten the film, but that doesn't mean it was "bollocks", it was a great movie to the majority of people who watched it. It's obviously not for everyone.

You are making a very big assumption there mate. I saw this with three people and none of us liked it, in fact one of my friends said this was further example of how pretentious JJ Abrahms is and then went on to say they are actually worried about Star Trek.
Luckily that film will have so much outside pressure he won't be able to screw it up too bad.

 

[Randy Giles]

You make JJ Abrams to be out some sort of villain, or something. And pretentious? Certainly no more so than Joss Whedon. It's been stated very many times before that JJ *loves* mystery, he has a fondness for boxes and likes not knowing what's in the box more than finding out. That translates into nearly everything he's involved in, Cloverfield included. Although with the exception of Cloverfield (so far), all of his shows have revealed answers to their mysteries (even Lost, as it will continue to do so now that an end date it set).

Anyway, why shouldn't Cloverfield have the right to withhold it's answers until a sequel if they wish? The setup with this movie is perfect to me, if you wish, there's enough left open where you can fill in the blanks YOURSELF if you want, but many answers, like the monster's origins, are available elsewhere if you want to find out. This is more of a cult movie in the making, anyway, not something made for the mainstream viewing audience, although they did do a good job of getting more people to see it than usually would.

Not that there are THAT many questions. We know the monster comes from the ocean. It woke up. Does it matter what woke it up? No. It's feeding on people because it's hungry, people shoot at it, it gets scared and angry, goes on a rampage.

I'd rather not have answers to random questions like "Why do people explode after being bitten by the smaller creatures?" because the mystery factor makes it much cooler, having the answer would not leave everyone satisfied.

Personally, I have a fondness for most of JJ Abrams work. Felicity, Alias, and Lost are three of the best television shows to ever grace television. M:i:III is easily the best of that trilogy. Cloverfield is easily the best monster movie I've ever seen. I would NOT be seeing Star Trek this Christmas if not for JJ Abrams involvement, hopefully he'll reinvent it enough for me to like it.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

Not that there are THAT many questions. We know the monster comes from the ocean. It woke up. Does it matter what woke it up? No. It's feeding on people because it's hungry, people shoot at it, it gets scared and angry, goes on a rampage.

I'd rather not have answers to random questions like "Why do people explode after being bitten by the smaller creatures?" because the mystery factor makes it much cooler, having the answer would not leave everyone satisfied.

I hope you're not suggesting that those are the answers that I want when I keep telling you I it isn't the scientific crap found out by the big wigs in the White House that I want resolved, it isn't even stuff that is mysterious and unknown.

It is the basic stuff that is obviously on record to the people who own the tape that and in what context we're watching this 'movie' because whoever owns it.

The movie was a big pile of crap anyway.

The storyline was great upto the point where the lead got a phonecall from his mother on the underground. From that moment on it lost all credibility and become a simple, run of the mill Monster Movie.
It might be the 'best' Monster Movie you've seen, but I dare say you haven't seen as many as you think so that comment doesn't really mean much.

Also, I've said numerous times that I'm not Joss Whedons biggest fan.
I love Buffy and Angel but I don't just credit him with that, he may have had a great initial concept but he has a wonderful team of writers that support him so don't make the assumption that I blindly follow a creator/writer if it is a show I love.

I think we should agree to disagree on this topic before it descends into an area we don't want to go Cory. We've been down that road before.

Anyone one else, i'll agrue to high heaven with, but I will not reply to you, mate.

 

[LittleMissLikesToFight]

Personally i think being the best monster movie doesn't mean much because really, most of them are pretty weak over the years. Its just not a very strong genre in general.

 

[Lyri]

i just got back from watching this with my best friend. it made us physically ill. we both collapsed in the bathroom when we got out.

i liked the idea of the movie, Goddard's writing was good. but the whole shaky, jerky camera movements and the flashing lights just did not work well with my stomach.

if you do go and see this, be advised: DO NOT eat dinner before hand!!

 

[WatcherByBirthright]

I quite liked it, though generally it seems to be getting a mixed response overall from anyone who's seen it. It's just a typical monster movie with a Blair Witch-like take on it really, it'd be interesting to see if they'll try a different gimmick or vastly different POVs for the sequel. And man, was that a waste of time waiting for that transmission in the credits. 😉 lol