1-18-08

[bratpop]

Why do I have to know so much about the movie? I only know what I hear, same as anyone. The guy said it. He seemed pretty annoyed at not being on camera. And I didn't laugh, so I guess it wasn't a joke. I guess we could lock the thread until the DVD commentary comes out, but why am I a jerk for reiterating what was said semi-officially? Would ya shut up if I said "if"? Okay, "if" the film was shot entirely by a surprised-looking actor, then I would find that cinematographically offensive. The Blair Witch kids were film school students, but they obviously didn't have to be. Anyone can do a handheld-looking film. You just hold a camera. In your hand. Presumably TV shows are shot this way by professionals, and they actually are worse at it, shaking the camera far more than necessary while just standing still in a police station.

Sheesh. Why are internet people so picky about conjunctions? So I said "since" instead of "if." Shoot me. Wow, I'm a dick for assuming the actor is not a lying bastard. You're right. He has hair like a hedgehog. He's probably never told the truth in his life. In fact I assume everyone is lying. Even you're lying. You aren't even typing messages. It's probably your cat. And he probably LOLs at you. When you ask for cheeseburgers. I bet this isn't even the Rifftrax forum. The URL must be lying. In fact I don't think the movie is even shot handheld at all. Because there isn't a movie.

[Zardoz!]

...

Yeah, i saw that sign when i bought my ticket. Reminded me of the gimmicks that William Castle used for his films~

-Rude

That sign tells me that it's true that this "jerky camera" thing really does make people ill....

The theaters are covering their asses so they don't have to get into an argument when people want their money back for leaving in the middle ("Well, we had a sign up and warned you....").

The William Castle/"Free Coffin" thing was a lot of happy horseshit to compete with TV...everyone knew that.

I'd like to think it's a little of both. Of the various people I've talked to about the film, only one person got dizzy. Even then she didn't feel dizzy enough to get really sick. Alex Nicol was actually the one behind the "Free Coffin" gimmick, William Castle just did practically everything else.

Like putting buzzers under people's seats in "the tingler"?

BTW, anyone ever riff the tingler? MST3K? Anyone?

[Variety of Cells]

They weren't assuming that the actor was lying, they just aren't sure whether you are lying or not.  They are asking you to provide a source for your claims, like this

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/cloverfield_cameraman_tj_miller.html

That interview is kinda similar to what you're saying.  But that didn't satisfy my curiosity, so i looked on the IMDB boards to see if anyone knew anything.  It took a few minutes for my eyes to recover from the initial stupidity overload, but afterwards I didn't see any posts on the topic. (though I honestly I didn't look very hard for fear that my vision would never recover)   So I created my own topic.  The one reply I've gotten so far is "He filmed about ~40% of the movie".  Considering there is a camera operator named Robert Reed Altman that's listed on the imdb credits, I think this 40% theory sounds likely, even though he didn't support it with anything. 

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

I have a serious question, How many people saw this film just for the Star Trek teaser?

[SmilinJackRoss]

Whew.  Just saw this last night (finally).  Great movie, and I loved the handheld style.  It made it so immediate.  A few points:

First, there was no problem with the handycam "taking me out of the movie".  At the beginning you are told that the memory card is found, and that you're going to watch the video, warts and all.  So there's going to be parts where you can't see what's going on, where the camera is too shaky, etc.  But that's because that's how it would really be.  To me, the shaky cam adds to my involvement in the movie, it never pulled me out.

Second...Of course this movie relates to 9/11.  Remember the beginning of the movie, the first attack, when the big dust cloud comes tubling down the road, and they hide out in a convenience store?  This is exactly like one of the videos that was taken on 9/11.  Exactly.  And this was done intentionally.  The film-makers want to evoke a very specific emotion of confusion, desperation, & helplessness that an unknown attack on the city will have on the unsuspecting citizens.  OK, so two follow-up questions:

1) Is this "exploiting" or "hijacking" our emotions?  YES.  That's the whole point.  I feel very strongly that, while this movie certainly could have been made pre-9/11, it wouldn't nearly have the impact that it does now.  It's simply ingrained in us now.  Who can shake the images that happened on that day?  I can't, they will be with me for a long time.  

2) Now, is this "exploitation" a bad thing? Not to me.  I don't think it's a bad thing for a film to use those emotions to convey a certain feeling.  I mean, do you get upset when you watch a movie where someone dies, and then they have a funeral for that person, and it's a very sad and emotional scene?  Well, if you've ever been to a funeral, then you know the emotions that you feel at a funeral, and the filmmaker is using your personal experiences to make you feel a certain way.  Are you upset that the movie made you sad, because it made you think of your Grandma's funeral?  It's not wrong, it's filmmaking.  That's the whole point of movies, to take you on a ride that you wouldn't go on on your own.  To make you feel strong emotions, to make you invest in the characters.  

[SmilinJackRoss]

I have a serious question, How many people saw this film just for the Star Trek teaser?

I didn't even know it would be there.

I think it's very interesting how all these archaic shows and movies are getting these updates to this new 21st century genre of "realism".  It happened to James Bond, it happened to Batman, and I'm sure there's others I'm not thinking of.  I have no idea what this new Star Trek will be like, but I'm assuming they're re-inventing it to go along these lines.  I'm no trekkie, but I might see this movie, because I love this new genre.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

I have a serious question, How many people saw this film just for the Star Trek teaser?

I didn't even know it would be there.

I think it's very interesting how all these archaic shows and movies are getting these updates to this new 21st century genre of "realism".  It happened to James Bond, it happened to Batman, and I'm sure there's others I'm not thinking of.  I have no idea what this new Star Trek will be like, but I'm assuming they're re-inventing it to go along these lines.  I'm no trekkie, but I might see this movie, because I love this new genre.

It's my dad's fault i ask this question, he said it was the same thing as what happened with I am Legend and the Dark Knight

[SmilinJackRoss]

By the way, there's more pics up at the 1-18-08 website.

[Rude]

By the way, there's more pics up at the 1-18-08 website.

Speaking of which... "it's still alive", huh?

Indeed:

Spoiler

Word has it that this isn't actually the monster. People are claiming it's a whale. Of course, i've never seen a whale with spikes or claws like that before. But who knows? I can only assume that a sequel is in the works. Whether or not it will continue the story, or just retell it from a different point of view is going to make all the difference.

-Rude

[SmilinJackRoss]

I really hope they don't make a sequel.  They could go one of two ways with it:

1. Make another movie that is another "hand-held camera" movie, with another group of people experiencing the same night, but in a different way, going on their own journey.  I just think that this would be more of the same, and while it might answer some of the many questions we have about the movie, I think it would probably offer very little new, and would just be more of the same.

2. Make a "normal" movie out of it, with normal third person filming, the way they made a sequel to Blair Witch....and we all know how that turned out.  Blair Witch 2 is probably one of the worst sequels ever.  I don't want them to go that route either.

Neither of these I think would work very well, I say leave it alone.

[Junkyard]

You don't put that at the end of your movie without intending a sequel.
Thirsd sequel possibility: A documentary/news coverage/don't know of the continuing story of us trying top take down Clovey.

[SmilinJackRoss]

I found a really good summary of all the viral marketing for the flick here.  It's a good read if you want a few questions answered, and even though it's very long, it's great for those of us who weren't following along with the marketing.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

Bloody-Disgusting got the chance to attend the premiere of "Cloverfield," and while there, they chatted with director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goodard. The two spoke about some of their ideas for a possible sequel and some of their original plans for the first film.

Apparently, the goal was to make "Cloverfield" much more violent and bloody, which would have resulted in an 'R' rating. "The original draft was much more brutal," said Goodard. "I wanted a hard R and we didn't get a hard R, they read it and said this is way to brutal. I will say that I think we pushed the limits on a PG-13 rating, we certainly shot a harder version than what is on the screen. We originally wanted it to be more bloody and disgusting."

While Goodard didn't confirm, it is possible that an unrated version of the film could become available when the movie appears on DVD.

Regarding a sequel to "Cloverfield," Reeves said that "only time will tell. While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today's day and age of people filming their lives on their iphones and handy cams, uploading it to youtube... That was kind of exciting thinking about that."

In other words, instead of continuing the story or having the monster return for round two, the sequel could simply be a different take on the original story, as seen from another point of view.

well, that answers my question 

[bluefalcon74]

I definitely think this movie was more powerful because of the 9/11 imagery used. I saw it last night and I pesonally thought it was great. The 'shaky camera' thing did get a bit annoying, but it was effective because you could never get a clear look at the monster, (until the very end.) Thus, people weren't disappointed with the monster (until the very end.) However, look at any handicam video on the net taken by any amateur and it's nowhere near as shaky as the one in the movie.

I don't think the monster was a metaphor of terrorism, but more symbolic of our complete lack of control over destructive forces. Which kind of reinforces the actions of the characters doing anything to save their friends, because it's all they can control.. That, or it's a better than avergae Godzilla ripoff. I hope the DVD is unrated with the gory stuff, I was almost not going to see this when I saw it was PG-13.

*spoilers*
.
.
.
.
.
.

Also, the general internet consensus is that the monster was indeed killed at the end in 'Cloverfield' (previously known as Central Park)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*end spoilers*

[bluefalcon74]

there is no connection to 911 in this movie and the fact that any person is trying to draw a connection to it is pretty insane.  ITS A FUCKIN MONSTER MOVIE.

Umm, yeah, when cast and crew are openly discussing how 9/11 imagery played a big part in filming, I think you lose your attempt at an argument.

"[It works] in the same way that Godzilla was really a metaphor for its time, and was a sort of movie about the A-bomb and Hiroshima and all of that," he says. "The idea of it dealing with the anxiety of that time and that's why it captured so much attention because it tapped right into people's anxieties... I think that what was really interesting here was knowing that we were going to be dealing with the metaphor of what this was [9/11] and dealing with the anxieties of our time. - Matt Reeves, director

"A lot of the footage of this shooting style was inspired by 9/11 ... it was a little weird to have the imagery in the movie. It's a disaster in New York that involves clouds of dust and buildings falling." - Michael Stahl-David, actor

pull your heads out of the sand and realize where fantasy ends and reality begins.

stfu