CLOVERFIELD (OMG! IT'S HERE! SPOILERS! AAAAH!!1!)

[Bayouwolf]

It's there, (I didn't see it the first time either) in the upper right hand corner of the screen when they are on the ferris wheel.

[tapehead]

This thing? seems like 'net geek conspiracy theory to me...

[Leckomaniac]

There is something there. Matt Reeves even acknowledged it in the interview I linked to a few pages back.

Popular theory is that it is NOT the monster, but instead a satellite that fell back to earth and was part of the viral marketing stuff.

But there IS something there, i have seen the movie three times and my brother saw it a whopping five times. And not to mention the fact that Matt Reeves says so himself.

EDIT: Here is the interview

CS: Any possibilities for a "Cloverfield" sequel?

Reeves: This was so fun 'cause we'd never done anything like it, and I think we'd want to find a similar challenge, to find a way to have its roots in this but be fresh and new, otherwise you're just repeating yourself. There's a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming and he turns over and he sees the ship that's been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy's briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another. That idea sort of tickled me. We'll have to see if anyone would want a sequel. If the movie does well and we find a compelling reason to do so then it would be fun to do a sequel.

Did you see the thing in the last shot? In the final shot there's a little something, and I don't wanna say what it is. The final shot before the titles. The stuff at Coney Island, there's a little something there and I don't want to give it away 'cause the fun is sort of to find it, but I will say this: there's a funny thing, you look at the shot and until you see it you don't see it and you really don't see it and obviously you don't 'cause none of you have seen it, but once you see it you'll never stop seeing it.

CS: It's the thing dropping in the water, right?

Reeves: Ahh, you saw it.

[tapehead]

Cool - I'll check that link.

[Leckomaniac]

Cool - I'll check that link.

I edited the post and put the portion of the interview in there for ya.

[tapehead]

found it:

You guys talking about this interview?

Wow. I just read an interview with Matt Reeves over at comingsoon.net and I read this and my jaw dropped:

When we were mixing the teaser trailer we wanted to indicate that it was a creature. We put in animal sounds and decided it still wasn't enough. So at the end of the mix, the last 10-minutes, I jumped up in front of the mic and yelled "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" I came home one day and there was this whole thing with audio spectral analysis, playing back my voice and everybody was convinced that I said "It's a lion!" instead of "It's alive!". I thought, "How can anyone think it's a lion?" That kind of stuff was going on every day, and it was exhilarating and terrifying, 'cause we hadn't even finished making the movie yet, and we were excited about the movie, but we didn't know if our movie could compete with all these crazy movies that people were coming up with that were so fun!

Son of a bitch.

[Leckomaniac]

found it:

So those of us who really liked it are MORONZ!!!!! and those that didn't like it are savvy movie veterans who possess the proper knowledge so that they can correctly dislike the film?

I call bullshit on that.

No dude, I was just turning his argument around where he was saying all of us who didn't like the film were moronz and all of you who did had the ability to look past all of it's problems and not watch it with a critical eye.

I am trying to think of some way you could prove it.

Can your out-of-the-box CGI software create a better camera with longer battery life?



EDIT: I included the wink just so everyone knows that was in jest. Just some good natured ribbing.

I saw a prototype of the camera Cha-Ka's out-of-the-box software created...a bit to shiny if you ask me.

[tapehead]

I edited my quote; having read the interview, it's still not much of anything. I do however like the idea of the other camera guy that Hud encounters on the Brooklyn Bridge. I suppose they're all just hooks for a possible sequel, but honestly I might have preferred it if that end sequence wasn't there.

[Leckomaniac]

I edited my quote; having read the interview, it's still not much of anything. I do however like the idea of the other camera guy that Hud encounters on the Brooklyn Bridge. I suppose they're all just hooks for a possible sequel, but honestly I might have preferred it if that end sequence wasn't there.

Yeah I noticed that.

Well, I was a bit wary of the last bit myself because it was way too convenient. But then I saw that there was all this viral marketing stuff about a satellite falling from the sky or what not...and that I can sort of swallow but if they go the route that THAT was the monster and they happened to film it...well then I won't be too happy.

[Fried Gold]

What's this about a satellite?

[Leckomaniac]

What's this about a satellite?

Not too sure, I didn't follow the viral marketing closely. But folks on other websites that DID follow the viral marketing claim that there was a part of the marketing that had to do with some satellite falling out of the sky.

[Fried Gold]

Hmm...it'd be weird if that were the case, as in a few interviews with Matt Reeves and co that I've read they refer to the monster as being a fairly "newborn" creature that'd been underwater for hundreds of years who's basically confused about it's surroundings.

[tapehead]

Have you got a link for that FG? I'd be interested to read it.

You liked the movie?

[Fried Gold]

Link - Go down to the question "What were the specific visual inspirations for YOUR monster?"

and

Link - Go to the last page of the article.

[tapehead]

Thanks - I notice there a lot of similar articles linked on Cloverfield's wiki entry too.

The first link is actually the coming soon interview Lecko and I were discussing.

[Fried Gold]

Wikipaedia's probably where I found them originally.


And I thought the satellite thing was connected to story in the Cloverfield "ARG"...

[Dr William Weir]

The more ambiguous you are, the more people can read into very little.

[Pacino86845]

Coverfield: Marketing PWNTs U took another swan dive in its third weekend, another 60+% drop in the B.O. take. Word of mouth must be pretty terrible on this film.

It's not that good. I thought it could've been worse of course, there were some respectable moments of tension, but the realistic camera work was not very realistic for the reasons people have already mentioned here. The film also suffered from loads of other problems. I didn't have a problem with the characters per se, but the acting was WEAK, especially from "Rob," but he wasn't much worse than the others... they were all pretty lame actually.

The fact that this was a purely hype-driven endeavor makes the experience of having seen it feel very very cheap. They teased us to no end with the marketing, and the film itself was barely more than a tease itself. Leaving things to the imagination is one thing, but producing a sloppy mess, far below even the lowest expectations, does not stimulate people's minds but rather frustrates and angers them.

5/10

[Dr William Weir]

One feels the drop off is less word-of-mouth but more... "is that it?" There's really nothing to it. All the little hints, things dropping into oceans and so on and viral backstory, are merely Emporers New Clothes given creedence by those (maybe it's mildly unfair for me to say this whilst posting on an internet forum) with very little time on their hands.

Tapehead has already pointed out the ambiguity in the concept - JJ Abrams is pretty good at only telling half a tale and hinting at the rest. Problem is the payoff is nearly always a disappointment after being led along for so long.

In this case, the films simplicity works both for it and against it. For it in the sense that you get what you came for (unless you're invested in the marketing, in which you'd be disappointed) and against it in that there isn't much else. People outside of the internet aren't probably very interested in the movie, which would explain the drop-off, as marketing outside of the various viral sites has been the same Statue Of Liberty "OH MY GOD" advert for months now and very little of what the movie is about has been given away.

This would probably explain the current advert that reveals the creature, as ticket sales drop off from those people who were going to see it straight on release. Naturally I'd hazard those are the same geeks who're still looking for clues on the net and dissecting what little there is of any depth within it.

What IS worth looking at is how the marketing seems to have failed to generate much interest beyond a fervent internet fanbase. Its failiure to excite audiences beyond the geek culture seems to show that maybe all that money spent on guessing games could probably have been put to better use letting everyone know what they're getting...

[Pacino86845]

What IS worth looking at is how the marketing seems to have failed to generate much interest beyond a fervent internet fanbase. Its failiure to excite audiences beyond the geek culture seems to show that maybe all that money spent on guessing games could probably have been put to better use letting everyone know what they're getting...

Or they could've used the money to try to make a better movie...

[Dr William Weir]

Well, naturally that's subjective.

To all intents and purposes people (personally and from internet rummaging) who see it generally seem to enjoy it more than dislike it, for what it is. One enjoyed it but it definitely lacked a spark - and I can definitely understand the criticisms!

[Pacino86845]

Well, naturally that's subjective.

But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!

[Fried Gold]

Part of the problem with the marketing is that it was built up around the "1-18-08" date....and then they do a staggered worldwide release through late January into February and March.

[darkjedijaina]

and the events themselves take place in april/may! wtf?!

[Zarles]

Well, naturally that's subjective.

But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!

Right, but you never like anything.

The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.

[darkjedijaina]

yeah, but the pictures on the 1-18-08 site had the dates 1-18-08 on them...

[Pacino86845]

Well, naturally that's subjective.

But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!

Right, but you never like anything.

The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.

LOL, I know I can get really curmudgeonly 'round these here parts, but there ARE films I DO like!!!! Like, um, er- *runs*

[Dr William Weir]

Runs...

Is that a film about diarrhea?

[Bayouwolf]

Runs...

Is that a film about diarrhea?

Marathon sessions in the lavatory.

[Zarles]

Don't worry, Pacino. I'm awaiting your 2 for The Dark Knight quite eagerly.

[Pacino86845]

Well just to make you douches somewhat happier, I watched that Spanish found-camera horror movie, [Rec], and it was NOT awesome at all. It's even worse than Cloverfield!!!

The set-up is somewhat more plausible than that of Cloverfield. The idea is stolen from that 9/11 documentary made by the two French brothers that were the only ones to have footage of the first plane hitting the towers.

In [Rec] we follow a reporter, Angela, who works on a nightly television program, and her cameraman Pablo. They are doing a segment on fire fighters, and are distinctly bored from the lack of action going on at night when suddenly the alarm sounds and they get to ride with the fire fighters in the big red truck!

They're called to check on some old lady who apparently hurt herself in her apartment. Before we know it the old lady hadn't really hurt herself and she is teh CRAZY! She bites one of the policemen at the scene, and while everyone is screaming and scrambling to get out of the building, they quickly come to realize that while they were inside investigating, an entire police force has mobilized outside the building. They (Angela, Pablo, a couple of cops, a couple of fire fighters, and about a dozen residents of the apartment building) are all locked in until further notice.

And then trouble ensues!!!

What we've got with [Rec] is the basic Blair Witch formula, which has been somewhat rekindled with Cloverfield. This looks to be the year of the found-camera pseudo-genre, but with wildly shaking cameras (can't a bloody TV cameraman keep it steady, and how shitty is his camera that it constantly goes out of focus like that for extended lengths of time?), I-won't-point-the-camera-at-anything-cool cinematography, and most notably the barely-over-an-hour run length, this new trend may constitute the greatest scam pulled by the film industry in many years.

Without bothering with backstory or any sort of character development, this type of film cuts right to the action and keeps it up more or less consistently until the end. Movies that clock under eighty minutes means that you can cram more screenings in a day, which also means that you stand to make more money. And on top of that, because they're so short they obviously cost little to make, especially in the case of [Rec], which had only a few practical effects, and nothing else. Blair Witch meets 28 Days Later, riding the rising found-camera trend. Save your money, let's end this madness now!!!

Vern was begging people not to bolster Michael Bay's Transformers 'cause he was afraid we were gonna start seeing more turds of its ilk. I am begging you all, though you may have enjoyed Cloverfield, NOT to let the film industry, American or otherwise, continue exploiting this approach to filmmaking. This isn't filmmaking, it really is just hacking about with the shaky out of focus camera work and the screeching into microphones.

[Rec] gets a dismal 4/10 from this grumpy filmgoer.

[tapehead]

I'm really disappointed to hear that view of [rec] - after Quint had talked it up in comparison to Cloverfield, I was planning to see it soon. I guess I might still, but with more tempered enthusiasm.

Well, naturally that's subjective.

But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!

Right, but you never like anything.

The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.

1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.

[Chairman Kaga]

1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.

That makes no sense since the story takes place in April and May.

[tapehead]

1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.

That makes no sense since the story takes place in April and May.

It makes perfect sense to anyone who doesn't take things completely literally.

[Zarles]

I'm really disappointed to hear that view of [rec] - after Quint had talked it up in comparison to Cloverfield, I was planning to see it soon. I guess I might still, but with more tempered enthusiasm.

Well, naturally that's subjective.

But not entirely... I felt I was generous in giving the film a 5/10. If it weren't for the geek in me I would've rated it a 2 or a 3, 4 REALZ!

Right, but you never like anything.

The 1-18-08 date didn't have anything to do with the movie. Just a release date. Like I mentioned before in this thread, they knew they got a crap release date, so they took the 1-18-08 thing and made it as iconic as possible.

1-18-08 had everything to do with the movie. In the interview linked on the previous page, Reeves openly talks about Cloverfield as a 'fantastical re-imagining' of the events of 9/11. They wanted to make the release date iconic, like that real-life date. Don't make me quote the director on you Zarles.

That's what I said. Or at least, that's what I meant. The date 1-18-08 really didn't have much to do with what was going on in the actual movie. If they used that number in the marketing campaign and made it iconic as another reference to 9/11, then fine, but it still doesn't mean it had anything to do with the contents of the movie itself.

Don't make me give you the boot! Quoting a director is a bootable offense.

[tapehead]

I think we're one the same page (OMFG!). The date significance relates to the 9/11 element of the spectacle, the event that occurs in the film itself, and the way they have made it look. I think that literal reading that some have such a problem with might be why the filmmakers or marketing people made the decision to go with the 'Cloverfield' title in the end, whilst still trying to, essentially, exploit the iconography.

[banthafodderUK]

yeah - just wait till DIARY OF THE DEAD mofo's!!!

that'll get those bloody cameras shaking!!!!

woo-hoo!!!!!!

[papalazeru]

Just seen Cloverfield.

Was pleasantly suprised. Got to see the monster more than expected and the sound was great.

Shakey Cam didn't bother me at all - too many years playing FPS's and computer games to let 24 frames a sec bother me. No motion sickness for me.

Thought the story was shallow and self centred but, similar to Children of Men, it's what happens around the characters which is much more effective.

To be honest, I cared very little about who lived or died. My friend and I are still contemplating whether Lilly died after she flew away in the copter. As they otehr guys were taking off you see a chopper come down pretty hard. Was it hers? Can anyone clarify this.

I would give this film a 7.5 out of 10. Maybe if the story was better and there was less shakey cam I would have raised this higher. It would have been easy to come up with a better story though.

[brabs]

watched this earlier

really enjoyed it

give it an 8

no sequel please

that is all

[MasterWhedon]

To be honest, I cared very little about who lived or died. My friend and I are still contemplating whether Lilly died after she flew away in the copter. As they otehr guys were taking off you see a chopper come down pretty hard. Was it hers? Can anyone clarify this.

I thought it was a military vehicle he picked up and threw into another military vehicle. Looked car-sized, not helicopter-sized, to me.

[TonyWilson]

Too jump in on the 9/11 idea for a moment, I saw an interview with Abrams who said the idea came to him while walking round a store in Japan noticing all the Godzilla toys there and wondering why the Americans couldn't have something similar now. I'm possibly reading too much in to that comment but the connection that struck was that as Godzilla was borne out of the horror of the A-bomb atrocities and that being why Godzilla stuck such a definiteve chord with the Japanese, now that the US has had a similar though much smaller psychological and physical attack the time is right for a similar fantastical retelling of the real event just like Godzilla.

[tapehead]

Absolutely Tony, I think Reeves' comments on the film in the previously linked ComingSoon article and elsewhere back this idea up. It also gives context to The Ginger Man's observations a while back in this thread regards his friend (a NY native who had been in Manhattan during 9/11) being pretty offended by the movie.

[TonyWilson]

I can see why people would be pretty offended by it. A lot of things have "cashed in on"/being artistically inspired by 9/11 though so I would think it wouldn't be that suprising that a film like this came along.

[Zarles]

No offense, but I'm still not totally buying that reasoning. I get it, but I don't necessarily agree with it. For example, 'United 93' (which took its imagery DIRECTLY from the related events of 9/11) was a far more disturbing movie to me than Cloverfield ever could dream of being. Were people this offended by that movie and the images it chose to use?

I think people are misinterpreting Cloverfield's usage of those visuals. It's almost as if they think the filmmakers were trying to make light of them by sticking them in something so traditionally silly and banal as a monster movie. I disagree, as I think they were used to make the movie scarier in a more realistic kind of way. Perhaps they were attempting to take the majority of the focus of the movie off of The Monster, (maybe a reason why the beastie wasn't shown that much?) and instead, put it directly onto the situation itself. In other words, I think they were trying to show how terrifying a situation like that would actually be in the real world by likening it to something that we actually have seen happen.

[tapehead]

See Zarles - I think the way you're describing it would be 'exploitation', whereas Tony's actually giving the film-makers the credit of trying to exercise the more cathartic potential of movies, like Godzilla did for post-WWII Japan. it's probably a little of both, and the reception is always going to be subjective.

[Zarles]

I'm not saying it's exploitation. I think the people who are claiming how offended they got from it are saying that.

[tapehead]

I'm saying that appropriating imagery associated with a terrorist attack to 'make the movie scarier in a more realistic kind of way' can very reasonably be seen as exploitation, in fact in some respects, that process defines the term.

[MasterWhedon]

Bump...

























Set...

























SPIKE!

[Zarles]

Right, but people are turned off from the movie because of it, and that's what's confusing me here. That's why I brought up my original point - why is it not okay to do that in a movie like Cloverfield, but it's perfectly fine to do in United 93? Do you think that it's exploitation either way?

[tapehead]

United 93 doesn't actually employ much of the imagery we're discussing here, and it's telling a story about the events surrounding the attack (so it's not appropriating this subject for some other purpose or changing the context), and the participants involved. So to me it doesn't seem exploitative, but I suppose to some it could. For me United 93 is a great movie, up until the last half hour or so where it becomes wildly speculative and very ragged visually.
I liked the Cloverfield, and I'm not casting a negative judgement on it by calling it exploitative, I'm just saying it's a valid evaluation, and one the film-makers themselves seem to cop to.