Cloverfield

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i tried to resist but i couldn't. I sure hope this doesn’t' turn into another time wasting war.

But first of all, how is what i'm talking about fruitless and irrelevant? Black Hy and myself were talking about military weaponry and the types of attacks that may've or may've not been used on the monster. The discussion seemed pretty relevant to me since we were talking about the Cloverfield monster in a Cloverfield thread, to answer your question.

Because you're banging on about what could and could not survive it, and how it couldn't have been a nuke because scientifically nothing could survive a direct bomb-to-target attack. It's fruitless because it's a movie, they may have decided that this creature can survive it, then what's your argument?

Do you see my point?

It's stupid to say "If they wanted to kill it they could do this, I don't see why they didn't.", because otherwise there'd be no movie. There needed to be an element of "Humans are powerless.", rather than "Yeah, they'd save themselves cos they are awesome and have lots of things that go bang.".

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because you're banging on about what could and could not survive it, and how it couldn't have been a nuke because scientifically nothing could survive a direct bomb-to-target attack. It's fruitless because it's a movie, they may have decided that this creature can survive it, then what's your argument?

Do you see my point?

It's stupid to say "If they wanted to kill it they could do this, I don't see why they didn't.", because otherwise there'd be no movie. There needed to be an element of "Humans are powerless.", rather than "Yeah, they'd save themselves cos they are awesome and have lots of things that go bang.".

-AC

What's my argument?

I didn't you read when i wrote, (quote/verbatim) "I mean, ok w/e, it's a movie and i know it's make believe, so if that's what J.J. was trying to spin it into then ok."

So yea, I know Cloverfield's obviously sci fi thriller flick. So your reminding me of it was futile. "Your" point was already seen before you mentioned it.

And how is it stupid to say "If they wanted to kill it they could do this, I don't see why they didn't." Make stuff real, conceptually. Ok, the monsters fake but don't make the smalls and obvious details unbelievable. These days audiences are (too) smart and analytical. To bad J.J. didn't factor that in.

I believe it is possible to make a movie that borders on reality yet is still sci fi. Like if you read some hard science fiction books, they explain the intricacies in detail so exquisitely, that it'd make you think that such a way can be possible.

But that's not my beef with this movie. As this movie was to me was confiscated (extended) footage of a monster attack and that's it. Period. Who cares, i wanna know about aftermath. Who's found/showing the footage and what's being done or has been done about the situation or the creature. What took place was intense, but what about it? (and maybe that's where the sequel picks things up.)

It's akin to showing surveillanced bank robbery footage where an armed robber walks in, demands money via a slipped note, points his gun, causing the teller reacts in a way that draws unwanted attention, she startles the robber and customers, he tells everyone to get down, he holds hostages, he lets off shots, and a grenade maybe, the police come, more shots are fired, the law apprehends him and the tape stops. It's like "So? What about it?" "the area formally know as "bank of america"

For centuries (only good) stories have always had a beginning, a climax, and an ending. Cloverfield lacked the last part (and the beginning in a way). And that's the upset, to me.

I know it's sci fi but it's hard to factually know that cities can be obliterated by nukes yet be told that a small monster (in scale) can somehow survive the blast just cause it's a movie. But like i said it is a movie.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
What's my argument?

I didn't you read when i wrote, (quote/verbatim) "I mean, ok w/e, it's a movie and i know it's make believe, so if that's what J.J. was trying to spin it into then ok."

So yea, I know Cloverfield's obviously sci fi thriller flick. So your reminding me of it was futile. "Your" point was already seen before you mentioned it.

And how is it stupid to say "If they wanted to kill it they could do this, I don't see why they didn't." Make stuff real, conceptually. Ok, the monsters fake but don't make the smalls and obvious details unbelievable. These days audiences are (too) smart and analytical. To bad J.J. didn't factor that in.

I believe it is possible to make a movie that borders on reality yet is still sci fi. Like if you read some hard science fiction books, they explain the intricacies in detail so exquisitely, that it'd make you think that such a way can be possible.

But that's not my beef with this movie. As this movie was to me was confiscated (extended) footage of a monster attack and that's it. Period. Who cares, i wanna know about aftermath. Who's found/showing the footage and what's being done or has been done about the situation or the creature. What took place was intense, but what about it? (and maybe that's where the sequel picks things up.)

It's akin to showing surveillanced bank robbery footage where an armed robber walks in, demands money via a slipped note, points his gun, causing the teller reacts in a way that draws unwanted attention, she startles the robber and customers, he tells everyone to get down, he holds hostages, he lets off shots, and a grenade maybe, the police come, more shots are fired, the law apprehends him and the tape stops. It's like "So? What about it?" "the area formally know as "bank of america"

For centuries (only good) stories have always had a beginning, a climax, and an ending. Cloverfield lacked the last part (and the beginning in a way). And that's the upset, to me.

I know it's sci fi but it's hard to factually know that cities can be obliterated by nukes yet be told that a small monster (in scale) can somehow survive the blast just cause it's a movie. But like i said it is a movie.

These days audiences are too smart and analytical? Was that sarcasm? These days audiences accept another Rocky Balboa, another Rambo, 90 different remakes and a billion and one movies that are book adaptations. That's you giving the general public way too much credit.

You could even argue that it's not smart or analytical to sit there and try to bargain with what IS and ISN'T too much reality. It's a movie. I think you have a good idea for the sequel; how is life after all this came to be?

What I disagree with is you saying it didn't have an ending, because it's directly contradicting you claiming that fans are smart and analytical.

By leaving it open, it's open to smart analysis. It's idiots who often NEED a definite ending, definitely need to be told exactly what is going on.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
These days audiences are too smart and analytical? Was that sarcasm? These days audiences accept another Rocky Balboa, another Rambo, 90 different remakes and a billion and one movies that are book adaptations. That's you giving the general public way too much credit.

You could even argue that it's not smart or analytical to sit there and try to bargain with what IS and ISN'T too much reality. It's a movie. I think you have a good idea for the sequel; how is life after all this came to be?

What I disagree with is you saying it didn't have an ending, because it's directly contradicting you claiming that fans are smart and analytical.

By leaving it open, it's open to smart analysis. It's idiots who often NEED a definite ending, definitely need to be told exactly what is going on.

-AC

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
What's my argument?

I didn't you read when i wrote, (quote/verbatim) "I mean, ok w/e, it's a movie and i know it's make believe, so if that's what J.J. was trying to spin it into then ok."

So yea, I know Cloverfield's obviously sci fi thriller flick. So your reminding me of it was futile. "Your" point was already seen before you mentioned it.

And how is it stupid to say "If they wanted to kill it they could do this, I don't see why they didn't." Make stuff real, conceptually. Ok, the monsters fake but don't make the smalls and obvious details unbelievable. These days audiences are (too) smart and analytical. To bad J.J. didn't factor that in.

I believe it is possible to make a movie that borders on reality yet is still sci fi. Like if you read some hard science fiction books, they explain the intricacies in detail so exquisitely, that it'd make you think that such a way can be possible.

But that's not my beef with this movie. As this movie was to me was confiscated (extended) footage of a monster attack and that's it. Period. Who cares, i wanna know about aftermath. Who's found/showing the footage and what's being done or has been done about the situation or the creature. What took place was intense, but what about it? (and maybe that's where the sequel picks things up.)

It's akin to showing surveillanced bank robbery footage where an armed robber walks in, demands money via a slipped note, points his gun, causing the teller reacts in a way that draws unwanted attention, she startles the robber and customers, he tells everyone to get down, he holds hostages, he lets off shots, and a grenade maybe, the police come, more shots are fired, the law apprehends him and the tape stops. It's like "So? What about it?" "the area formally know as "bank of america"

For centuries (only good) stories have always had a beginning, a climax, and an ending. Cloverfield lacked the last part (and the beginning in a way). And that's the upset, to me.

I know it's sci fi but it's hard to factually know that cities can be obliterated by nukes yet be told that a small monster (in scale) can somehow survive the blast just cause it's a movie. But like i said it is a movie.

You should write your own script of what happened after; you could write in any weakness or vulnerability you'd like the monster to have, since it's fiction; maybe then, you would have some closure.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
These days audiences are too smart and analytical? Was that sarcasm? These days audiences accept another Rocky Balboa, another Rambo, 90 different remakes and a billion and one movies that are book adaptations. That's you giving the general public way too much credit.

You could even argue that it's not smart or analytical to sit there and try to bargain with what IS and ISN'T too much reality. It's a movie. I think you have a good idea for the sequel; how is life after all this came to be?

What I disagree with is you saying it didn't have an ending, because it's directly contradicting you claiming that fans are smart and analytical.

By leaving it open, it's open to smart analysis. It's idiots who often NEED a definite ending, definitely need to be told exactly what is going on.

-AC

And it's only idiot scatterbrains that like being fed incomplete information just cause the story seems artsy, different, and new.

A story's a story. And it's the best structure to use when telling people a about a situation that happened.

And you underestimate the intelligence of today's audience member. Just cause some nostalgic person wanted to see Stallone as Rocky again, he's stupid to you. w/e. Example: Sci-Fi wise there's no way a director could pull of the stuff he did back then with today's audiences because such a group has become more sophisticated.

And you're wrong. By leaving the ending open, you leave it to total guesses mostly that influence or encourage "smart" or more like "theoretical" analysis. But there's nothing wrong with talking about what you think'll happen based on what you've seen in Cloverfield and heard from J.J. himself.

This movie lacked. But the sequel can still make it great. (maybe) -Blair Witch 2 is what i hope doesn't happen-.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And it's only idiot scatterbrains that like being fed incomplete information just cause the story seems artsy, different, and new.

It doesn't work like that. I am not suffering for its ending, you are. I am not deciding its ending was ok for the reasons you stated.

It's not different and new to end a movie as Cloverfield did, but because I like to think, because I don't need to be told what to watch or how to watch it, or what is happening explicitly, I am fine with how it ended.

You need an ending cos you need it to be a traditional form of story, I don't. I have imagination.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
A story's a story. And it's the best structure to use when telling people a about a situation that happened.

For who, though? Your kind, not everyone, clearly.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And you underestimate the intelligence of today's audience member. Just cause some nostalgic person wanted to see Stallone as Rocky again, he's stupid to you. w/e. Example: Sci-Fi wise there's no way a director could pull of the stuff he did back then with today's audiences because such a group has become more sophisticated.

Oh give it a rest.

The generations that go see fifty different versions of action movies about bikes and cars racing? This generation is the worst. Spoon-fed and without a shred of general imagination, it's ridiculous.

There's nothing sophisticated about modern moviegoers. The fact that movie makers have the easiest job, or at least easier than it was, is proof. All they need to do is a remake or a book adaptation and they've captured you.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And you're wrong. By leaving the ending open, you leave it to total guesses mostly that influence or encourage "smart" or more like "theoretical" analysis.

I've never had a discussion about Cloverfield based on total guesses, but that's because everyone who I speak to one-on-one about it, paid attention, and isn't stupid.

The clues are there as to why this all happened in the movie. I find it odd that for someone who was so obsessed with getting every detail, you've missed so much.

-AC

I liked it. Only saw the 'thing' dropping into the ocean during the last scene in my periphery though. Would like to see it again...

i got dizzy from watching the movie, but i loved it.

I just saw Cloverfield tonight and thought it was Fu***** awesome! I can't say enough good things about it. I mean if monster ever attacked a city I could totally see it happening that way. It was so realistic. I didn't realize until I got out of the movie that I was totally nautious and my hands were shaking. But it was 100% worth it. If you haven't seen this movie then I recommend going to see it.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I liked it. Only saw the 'thing' dropping into the ocean during the last scene in my periphery though. Would like to see it again...

I saw that clip after the credits too. It looked like a black dot that shot down from the sky, dunking straight into the ocean, leaving a huge splash. With it all happening a distance away from the coney island amusement park shore that the couple was in while on that ferris wheel they filmed each other on.

It looks like the cloverfield footage finally stopped after the last bombing in the tunnel and continued on with the cameras' regular footage of his trip at the amusement park since the cloverfield footage actually recorded over the original footage with him and his girl.

Some say it was a slusho satellite or a japanese satellite. Others say that the sats impact woke up the monster from a multi-century slumber, pissing it off, others are saying it's alien and somehow the monsters connected to it.

The answers are actually there if you bother to do research.

I saw this last week and to be honest its the first movie i have seen in a while , that has finished and i have sat there and gone 'hmmmmmmmmmm' ok ... It was watchable but its the first movie that has left me with nothing to say on it because i don't know what to say about it 😂

great movie. it engrossed me for the majority but it nearly lost me at the end by being too over the top.

it doesnt matter what the monster is.

using logic i would say it is alien. nothing that large could ever live in this world today. but then again it is only a movie

Official statements and canon, state that the Monster is some kind of Thousand year old slumbering Behemoth that was awoken by the Satellite seen in the lat piece of the Coney Island segment.

I always thought the best explanation would be that it was a secret weapon created by the government, that they perhaps were storing in the ocean, and it just went haywire. Would explain its odd immunities to explosions -- it was made immune to such things.

Some have theorised that Slushos 'rare ingredient' was a derivative of the monster.

Ok, look.

A Japanese corporation sponsors or funds Slusho, the company Rob was going to work for, clearly. Slusho's deep sea ingredient could be what they were drilling for on the rig that got destroyed, and the rig was allegedly owned by that company.

So the possibilities are as follows:

The drilling for the ingredient woke it up, or the satellite that fell into the ocean was being recovered, and that is what woke it up. Either way, there's a connection between them all.

-AC

I was thinking it was some monster from another reality. Maybe brought through by a rip in space time and dimensional walls from the philadelphia experiment. confused1

Originally posted by grey fox
Some have theorised that Slushos 'rare ingredient' was a derivative of the monster.

I thought Slusho was some type of slurpee drink.

Anyhoo, what i don't get is how a deep sea monster was able hibernate deep in the ocean yet have no gills but lungs or those air sacs, can roar, no webbed feet and no fins of any kind. The creature certainly doesn't appear aquatic but it is just a movie where anything goes.

If films can make humans fly then you can have this.