I just wanted to say that although I LOVED the handheld camera in this movie, I don't think it would work that well for a sequel. It would feel way to similar, and kill what made Cloverfield so original.
It'd be nice to have a sequel from a different set of characters, but I don't think the handycam is the way to go. Maybe they can come up with another creative way of telling the story.
i had crazy questions for this movie.
i was so incomplete. Mad questions like:
-where did this monster come from? The ocean? but how if it has no gills but lungs. It could've come from afar sea wise cause it wasn't build like a fish, i didn't have fins or webbed feet, so it's not of the sea. It could've been on land cause something that big would've been noticed.
-It was in NY. in the middle of the megapolis made by Boston, NY, Wash DC. (at least at a 400 mi. radius.) aka the most densely populated area in the whole country yet this (huge)monster remained undetected on land.
-what finally happened to the monster at the end?
-Were there more that one cause the last monster that ate that camera kid seemed shorter than the first one.
-Why would the gov't show the public, confidential military information.
And why did it always seem like everywhere the kids went the monster was right there, all the time. As if it were following them?
I know it's sci fi but make it sensible detail wise.
And i have a more questions, i just don't wanna reveal spoilers.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i had crazy questions for this movie.i was so incomplete. Mad questions like:
-where did this monster come from? The ocean? but how if it has no gills but lungs. It could've come from afar sea wise cause it wasn't build like a fish, i didn't have fins or webbed feet, so it's not of the sea. It could've been on land cause something that big would've been noticed.
-It was in NY. in the middle of the megapolis made by Boston, NY, Wash DC. (at least at a 400 mi. radius.) aka the most densely populated area in the whole country yet this (huge)monster remained undetected on land.
-what finally happened to the monster at the end?
-Were there more that one cause the last monster that ate that camera kid seemed shorter than the first one.
-Why would the gov't show the public, confidential military information.
And why did it always seem like everywhere the kids went the monster was right there, all the time. As if it were following them?
I know it's sci fi but make it sensible detail wise.
And i have a more questions, i just don't wanna reveal spoilers.
Wrong kind of movie, the point of it was to show what a few people went through (from their eyes) and what they could have experienced.
If they revealed too much, ie were it came from, what it is, why it was rampaging, what was the final outcome, it would have just been yet another giant monster sci-fi.
You're right about when the cameraman was bitten at the end, it didn't make sense that a monster so large would/could bite him without either swallowing him whole or tearing him into hamburger-meat. Maybe it was smaller and a different one.
Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong kind of movie, the point of it was to show what a few people went through (from their eyes) and what they could have experienced.If they revealed too much, ie were it came from, what it is, why it was rampaging, what was the final outcome, it would have just been yet another giant monster sci-fi.
You're right about when the cameraman was bitten at the end, it didn't make sense that a monster so large would/could bite him without either swallowing him whole or tearing him into hamburger-meat. Maybe it was smaller and a different one.
With or without the revelations, it's still another giant monster sci fi. Only thing is this one leave you with irritating curiosity.
ok, what was the point of the movie. To basically show what happened that day and that's it. At least tell us why the gov't decided to show whomever it was (civilians, which is highly unorthodox).
Not my type of movie i guess. See, i could under stand how the curiosity factor worked in "Aliens" and it worked great, but this just left me with that "wtf?" type of look. It ends in rubble I dunno maybe it's just not my type of story.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Would be nice if they did it again but from other peopls point of view and their story
It would been better if it was a story with a beginning, middle, and end with a potential sequel if it warranted it.
This movie has the significance of your regular video that's throw up on youtube.
Something you just throw to show. Doesn't have to be meaningful, just as long as it satisfies basic human understanding.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
With or without the revelations, it's still another giant monster sci fi. Only thing is this one leave you with irritating curiosity.
It left you with an irritating curiosity. I left the movie theater with complete satisfaction. I didn't care about the Monster. I cared about the people who were being attacked by the Monster.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
With or without the revelations, it's still another giant monster sci fi. Only thing is this one leave you with irritating curiosity.ok, what was the point of the movie. To basically show what happened that day and that's it. At least tell us why the gov't decided to show whomever it was (civilians, which is highly unorthodox).
Not my type of movie i guess. See, i could under stand how the curiosity factor worked in "Aliens" and it worked great, but this just left me with that "wtf?" type of look. It ends in rubble I dunno maybe it's just not my type of story.
Do you really think it was just like a Godzilla flick? You didn't somewhat get into the movie from the cameraman's p.o.v.? Not even a little?
Yes, to bring you as close as possible to what a few people could experience in a situation like this, no matter how amazingly improbable it would be.
That's fine, you don't have to like, I didn't entirely love it either, but it was fun and I did like the first-person aspect of it, without that, it would have just been another 'giant monster attacks a city' flick, to me.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
It left you with an irritating curiosity. I left the movie theater with complete satisfaction. I didn't care about the Monster. I cared about the people who were being attacked by the Monster.
That was the point of it I thought, to get you into their shoes as much as possible , also what separates this movie from other giant monster films.
Originally posted by Robtard
That was the point of it I thought, to get you into their shoes as much as possible , also what separates this movie from other giant monster films.
You sound as if hollywood normally puts out giant monster sci fi movies regularly for Cloverfield to offer a fresh new look. Why? Kinda no need too.
Our last major monster movie here in the US was Godzilla in '98. (10years ago, that's a while without something as fun as a giant monster movie) (and king kong if you wanna count that, not me, he's just a big ape)
I could see if the U.S. was in abundant in giant monster flicks, then Cloverfield, just by it's unique take, would be a fresh take, but not when there's a scarcity.
I would love to see a normal "giant monster movie" just 2008 style. I bet it'd come out just as good or even better than Cloverfield. I never had problems with regular monster movies. But to each his own. Not saying the movie sucked just saying the concept was unnecessary. (that made people barf, literally.)