Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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.
Oh, give it a rest.
You don't come across as smart, just cynical and missing the point.
"Sophisticated audiences.", pfft.
-AC
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
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.
I wouldn't read to far into it though. I for one loved the movie. I thought it gave an excellent portrayal of what a monster attacking New York would look like. It truly put me in the peoples perspective and added to the suspense with the hand held camera technique. I liked its brake from the traditional film style. Can't wait to see what J.J. Abrams does in the future. 🙂
Good acting and special effects too!
Originally posted by Gannon
Actually aren't there air patches in spots at the bottom of the ocean?I wouldn't read to far into it though. I for one loved the movie. I thought it gave an excellent portrayal of what a monster attacking New York would look like. It truly put me in the peoples perspective and added to the suspense with the hand held camera technique. I liked its brake from the traditional film style. Can't wait to see what J.J. Abrams does in the future. 🙂
Good acting and special effects too!
There're probably air patches but the air pressure would be so tight down there that it would've crush even that monster if it didn't already suck up all the air after breathing it in and out for centuries, (it and its family or it's clan or population)
And I don't see how it's a break from the traditional "giant monster movie" film style. We barely get giant monster movies, and then with the traditional monster movie style. It's only every once in a while we get the traditional stuff. I see this movies' style more like a change of view or a shift in perspective with respect to the traditional style but not a break as if we're tried of that way, and are audiences are constantly or always, like yearly, being bombarded with a "traditional" monster movie type of film.
To me, i don't see anything wrong with the traditional style. But It's J.J.'s work, and distorted or not, this is his vision.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
But you like Fist of the North Star; an anime/manga about a man who uses a martial art that makes people explode on contact.How can you pick and choose which piece of media to scientifically moan about?
-AC
?
I'm not moaning about anything. You're the one grumbling on just because i see things way differently than you do regarding this movie.
And anime is exempt for from the unimaginable cause at it's core, it's escapist surrealism, by its nature. While Cloverfield tried to pull of a realist element to it.
And anyway, beside it being anime, it's a cartoon.
There're somethings you can pull off in the anime realm unlike otherwise. Like the new dragon Ball Z live action movie is not gonna fly. How can you create that universe in the real world. The Fist of the North Star live action movie was a piece of garbage cause it couldn't be pulled off as well. And lets not start on the mario brothers and street fighter live action films.
Besides, what draws me to the Fist of the North Star anime wasn't only it's extreme action but rather it's conceptual and spiritual, zen-like mysteriousness the film brought with it.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
?I'm not moaning about anything. You're the one grumbling on just because i see things way differently than you do regarding this movie.
And anime is exempt for from the unimaginable cause at it's core, it's escapist surrealism, by its nature. While Cloverfield tried to pull of a realist element to it.
Yes, and it had a realist element. That element was the human element, not the "Monster Attacks City" element. I thought that, being a member of these so-called "sophisticated" audiences, you'd have known that.
I guess you gave yourself too much credit.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
There're somethings you can pull off in the anime realm unlike otherwise. Like the new dragon Ball Z live action movie is not gonna fly. How can you create that universe in the real world. The Fist of the North Star live action movie was a piece of garbage cause it couldn't be pulled off as well. And lets not start on the mario brothers and street fighter live action films.Besides, what draws me to the Fist of the North Star anime wasn't only it's extreme action but rather it's conceptual and spiritual, zen-like mysteriousness the film brought with it.
So it's ok because you liked it?
People could tear that apart with science if they wanted to, and seeing as it's not the actual medium we're discussing, but the concept, it wouldn't matter if it was animated or not.
The point is, you cannot criticise Cloverfield for being unrealistic just because it claimed to be somewhat realistic. The realistic part wasn't the monster, and if you needed to be told that then you're really not the kind of person they aimed for with this movie.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and it had a realist element. That element was the human element, not the "Monster Attacks City" element. I thought that, being a member of these so-called "sophisticated" audiences, you'd have known that.I guess you gave yourself too much credit.
So it's ok because you liked it?
People could tear that apart with science if they wanted to, and seeing as it's not the actual medium we're discussing, but the concept, it wouldn't matter if it was animated or not.
The point is, you cannot criticise Cloverfield for being unrealistic just because it claimed to be somewhat realistic. The realistic part wasn't the monster, and if you needed to be told that then you're really not the kind of person they aimed for with this movie.
-AC
?
The "monster attacks the city" concept is an (major) element of the Cloverfield storyline; are you disagreeing with that?
And no. FotN star is good because it's a great story with awesome action in it. Not because I liked it, lol what kinda question was that? Who’s intel are you trying to insult here..
And i'm not criticizing Cloverfield for that reason. Aside from a couple of details, my main issue with the movie is with its incompleteness and how it let down with how great this incompleteness idea was suppose to be, as indirectly indicated via J.J. mysteriousness with the film. You may like movies with no beginning and no endings but some people don't.
Look, not to convince you but I don't think Cloverfield sucks cause, to me, it's a fascinating film only in that it captured a horrifying personal experience up close and a bad, bad situation 1st hand. Like, Cloverfield’s the movie that’s gotten me the closest to experiencing a situation like that attack more than any other “monster attack” movie. I think it sucks that we have to wait a couple of years to know what the hell really went on. Or why it all happened in the 1st place. But Cloverfield has enormous potential. But it can also end up as an enormous disaster storywise in the way that monster and/or the military left N.Y.c. afterwords. And that'll be dependant on Cloverfield 2.
In other words, storywise, Cloverfield 1 will be good if Cloverfield 2 is good.
In the movie, Hud (the guy holding the camcorder) said: "People are gonna wanna know,….. how it all went down." Well I’m saying people are gonna wanna know,…. “why” it all went down.
How am i an incompetent audience member to you, as you're insinuating, by just asking that simple question?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
?The "monster attacks the city" concept is an (major) element of the Cloverfield storyline; are you disagreeing with that?
Obviously you were not one that they were aiming the movie at. The monster is in it, but if you think for a second that this movie was about the monster, you really missed the boat, truly, and you serve no other purpose than self-defeating your own argument about sophisticated audiences.
The intention was never to make the movie about the monster. The monster itself is part of the plot, but the plot is not about the monster. The monster, funnily enough, plays the same part in the plot as the humans do, if you'd bothered to research.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And no. FotN star is good because it's a great story with awesome action in it. Not because I liked it, lol what kinda question was that? Who’s intel are you trying to insult here..
Great story? You're making more of it than it needs to be. It's a post-apocalyptic world with mutant renegades and a man who has special powers that goes around helping people.
It was one of the first and it was memorable, it's very good overall (The one animated movie anyway), but it's not exactly Ghost in the Shell.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And i'm not criticizing Cloverfield for that reason. Aside from a couple of details, my main issue with the movie is with its incompleteness and how it let down with how great this incompleteness idea was suppose to be, as indirectly indicated via J.J. mysteriousness with the film. You may like movies with no beginning and no endings but some people don't.
What you fail to realise is, for someone claiming sophistication, all of the movie is seemingly going over your head. You won't admit it cos you spent ages hyping the movie, only to not even have it aimed at you.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Well I’m saying people are gonna wanna know,…. “why” it all went down.
Exactly, and that's why it was left open. What do you want?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
How am i an incompetent audience member to you, as you're insinuating, by just asking that simple question?
Because you have clearly got issues with not having closure handed to you on a platter, and you've misunderstood the entire point of the movie, and the monster.
-AC
The movie was about how humans would document a modern day, unexpected tragedy such as that, with the added excitement of it being all the more unexpected by being a monster attack.
It's also about the monster, because Abrams has specified that it isn't TRYING to hurt anybody. It is awakened, disoriented and has no clue where it is, or who/what it's surrounded by, it's freaked out and it's spooked.
People who think it's just about a monster attack, or that this is a major plot device (Fist), do not get it.
-AC
never said it was about a monster. And it's not about people either. The grand picture hasn't been seen, here.
the retrieved video camcorder had footage of a monster attack. the movie wasn't about the main two characters or people. It was just footage of a monster attack. there was no moral of the story, no underlying principle, no emotional effect or none of that shite.
It's someone saying (it's founder/or the person showing the footage). Look. This is what we found. This is what happened. Not look at how close these 2 humans or how strong the human spirit is or look at how big and ugly and big the monster is.
To me, the movie was more of a (military) briefing, (codename: Cloverfield) showing somebody or some persons the scale and magnitude of the problem/situation in order to determine what's to come since nothing has apparently or maybe didn't work.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
never said it was about a monster. And it's not about people either. The grand picture hasn't been seen, here.the retrieved video camcorder had footage of a monster attack. the movie wasn't about the main two characters or people. It was just footage of a monster attack. there was no moral of the story, no underlying principle, no emotional effect or none of that shite.
Hahaha.
"People are too analytical and sophisticated.".
You just don't get it, at least admit it. That's precisely what the movie was about, it's as clear as day if you bother to be so "analytical". I think you're just bitter that you did all the hype, all the research, all the "It's Godzilla." and when it finally came out you didn't get it.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's someone saying (it's founder/or the person showing the footage). Look. This is what we found. This is what happened. Not look at how close these 2 humans or how strong the human spirit is or look at how big and ugly and big the monster is.
Congrats in seeing things as one thing or another, and not having the sense to actually be as analytical and sophisticated as you wish you were.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
To me, the movie was more of a (military) briefing, (codename: Cloverfield) showing somebody or some persons the scale and magnitude of the problem/situation in order to determine what's to come since nothing has apparently or maybe didn't work.
Exactly, as I said, what it is to you, is what it wasn't intended as. You're confused and you missed the point of the movie entirely.
Abrams didn't make it for people like you. I don't mean any offense there, but it's just true. You have missed the point so badly that I don't even think you know what movie you saw.
-AC
Are you saying this film wasn't portrayed as a briefing of some type? With how it was addressed at the beginning of the movie as if being shown to military and or government intelligence?
What do you think Cloverfield means? It's a code name given to the opertation or situation. wiki explains it clearer:
The film is presented as a series of scenes (from the SD Card of a digital camera) obtained by the U.S. Department of Defense pertaining to Case Designate "Cloverfield", found in an area "formerly known as Central Park".
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Are you saying this film wasn't portrayed as a briefing of some type? With how it was addressed at the beginning of the movie as if being shown to military and or government intelligence?
Did I say that? The text at the beginning simply said that it was a video collected from Central Park, of case designation: Cloverfield.
You are the one assuming it's a "briefing".
I'm saying that out of those couple seconds of text, you are assuming the movie was somehow a viral briefing, and not about anything else:
"It was just footage of a monster attack. there was no moral of the story, no underlying principle, no emotional effect or none of that shite.".
That's wrong, and it's evident to anybody who has heard Abrams talking about what he wanted to achieve with this movie, HIS movie. I think his opinion of it not being "about" just a monster attack is more valid than yours that it is.
Furthermore, all the other elements are there. You saying "There's no moral, no other point, none of that shit." is just ignorant and rather unintelligent of you. Far from being analytical and sophisticated, because everyone involved with the movie disagrees with you.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
What do you think Cloverfield means? It's a code name given to the opertation or situation. wiki explains it clearer:The film is presented as a series of scenes (from the SD Card of a digital camera) obtained by the U.S. Department of Defense pertaining to Case Designate "Cloverfield", found in an area "formerly known as Central Park".
Yes, and how long is that? About 30 seconds of the movie. It may be an allusion as to who recovered the tape, or most likely that the tape was recovered. That doesn't mean it's what the movie is about, because it's not. It's just a bit of reasoning.
Also, why are you quoting Wiki?
You have explicitly said there is nothing more to this movie than it being a monster attack, you're totally incorrect and obviously this movie isn't for you, which is clearly getting to you, but that's understandable.
-AC
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
What do you think Cloverfield means? It's a code name given to the opertation or situation. wiki explains it clearer:The film is presented as a series of scenes (from the SD Card of a digital camera) obtained by the U.S. Department of Defense pertaining to Case Designate "Cloverfield", found in an area "formerly known as Central Park".
Okay, I'm gonna jump right in here. You might already know, but I don't want to trawl through the scrawl: they kept the name Cloverfield simply because it was the code for the films production, so not to arouse interest, a la Blue Harvest for Empire Strikes Back.
J.J. Abrams and co. were deliberating on a name when it just struck them that Cloverfield was perfect to maintain the films mystery. The beginning of the film, i.e. the exposition you are talking about on the screen, was shoved in post-production, and really, has no bearing on the film.
As said, you might know that, but you did not make it clear, just thought I'd shove that in context for you.