Cloverfield

Originally posted by exanda kane
Okay, I'm gonna jump right in here. You might already know, they kept the name Cloverfield simply because it was the code for the films production

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.

yes, i already knew that Cloverfield was a proto-title. But they ultimately kept it and made it the official title and (nicely) spun into a military codename or project or operation.

The term Cloverfield does have bearing on the film.

(?)

Nah, not at all mate.

its a street

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Is the sole reason why people find it unsatisfying because they didn't offer you closure on a plate?

I find that a bit worrying.

-AC

While unsatisfying closure is in no way a bad thing, the whole function of the classical Hollywood narrative is the pay-off at the end. I don't see how you can find it worrying for an audience to react like that when, in effect, that is what it's trying to do in the first place.

You don't get bonus points simply because you noticed the obvious; closure on a plate is what the audience wants, whether you like it or not.

Wow just reading over a few posts, I can't belive how seriously everyone is taking this movie. Did anyone just enjoy the movie for what it was instead of nit picking it to death?

Originally posted by Amazon
Wow just reading over a few posts, I can't belive how seriously everyone is taking this movie. Did anyone just enjoy the movie for what it was instead of nit picking it to death?

Originally posted by Amazon
Wow just reading over a few posts, I can't belive how seriously everyone is taking this movie. Did anyone just enjoy the movie for what it was instead of nit picking it to death?

Yo

Some of my friends told me that this movie was not good., and others said its good.,

Originally posted by exanda kane
While unsatisfying closure is in no way a bad thing, the whole function of the classical Hollywood narrative is the pay-off at the end. I don't see how you can find it worrying for an audience to react like that when, in effect, that is what it's trying to do in the first place.

You don't get bonus points simply because you noticed the obvious; closure on a plate is what the audience wants, whether you like it or not.

It obviously wasn't trying to do that, or it would have done it.

So you are the speaker for "the audience"? I'm a member of that club, I disagree with you, and so do many others. I want closure when it's necessary, not when it isn't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It obviously wasn't trying to do that, or it would have done it.

So you are the speaker for "the audience"? I'm a member of that club, I disagree with you, and so do many others. I want closure when it's necessary, not when it isn't.

-AC

And just as there are many disagree with you, most likly.

Many audience members thought an ending was necesarry and desrved. They paid to see a story.

from i've been reading (via reviews) and hearing people have said that the movie sucked. It seems as if it's one of, if not, the top main reasons hordes of people disliked the movie.

Like i said before, i don't think it sucks but Cloverfield 2 will make it better.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And just as there are many disagree with you, most likly.

Many audience members thought an ending was necesarry and desrved. They paid to see a story.

from i've been reading (via reviews) and hearing people have said that the movie sucked. It seems as if it's one of, if not, the top main reasons hordes of people disliked the movie.

Like i said before, i don't think it sucks but Cloverfield 2 will make it better.

Yeah, and those are usually people who wish they understood, but don't. If you dislike the movie, or the ending, fair enough, but don't sit there saying it needs this, or needs that. The MOVIE doesn't, the viewer does.

Cloverfield 2 WILL? Is this another one of those things you'll hype until you see it, then pick it apart?

-AC

http://imdb.com/title/tt1060277/board/flat/95403747?p=1

check that out for people who want some more theorys on how the monster was awakened

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, and those are usually people who wish they understood, but don't. If you dislike the movie, or the ending, fair enough, but don't sit there saying it needs this, or needs that. The MOVIE doesn't, the viewer does.

Cloverfield 2 WILL? Is this another one of those things you'll hype until you see it, then pick it apart?

-AC

The only thing we wish to understand is how people were completely content an 1hr.1/2 worth of broken footage of a monster attack, leaving it at that and are completely satisfied with it.

Perhaps you're watching it with a subjective and artful eye. i was looking at it with an objective and practical one. And i can be seen both way, i don't care what you say.

And no i'm not gonna hype it up never did. I recall repeatedly saying things like "This Is Gonna Be The Greatest Monster Movie Ever!!!", i may've theorized on it but i didn't tell anyone to "Hang On!"

And after there's "closure" there'd be nothing to pick apart cause all questions will be answered cause it'll close satisfactorily.

It's similar to when something tells me about something that seems really important or deserves my attention, building me up, and then goes, ".....nah, forget it, i'm not gonna tell you.."

that's bs, i hate when people do that. And J.J.'s done that with this film. This tops the Sopranos season finale closer.

The feeling akin to just having an great sex for 1hr. 1/2 then almost having orgasm only for the girl to push you off her 1 sec prior to climaxing.

because again..the movie wants the viewer to use its imagination.

this movie just wasnt for you. no worrys. dont waste energy arguing about it.

Seems there are two types of people in this world when it comes to Cloverfield. Those that are okay with not being told what happened with the Monster and those that aren't, because they like every facet and detail spoon fed to them.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The only thing we wish to understand is how people were completely content an 1hr.1/2 worth of broken footage of a monster attack, leaving it at that and are completely satisfied with it.

And what I wish to understand is what basis you have to claim you and indeed today's "generation", are sophisticated and analytical when they also NEED, not want, NEED everything laid out with ribbons on to have any idea on how to understand it.

You just don't get why we enjoyed it because you didn't. I simply do not understand YOUR claims because they contradict one another.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Perhaps you're watching it with a subjective and artful eye. i was looking at it with an objective and practical one. And i can be seen both way, i don't care what you say.p

I wasn't the one in this thread being it's hype-man. I paid no attention and then just went to see it. I went in with more objectivity than you did, whether you like to admit it or not.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And no i'm not gonna hype it up never did. I recall repeatedly saying things like "This Is Gonna Be The Greatest Monster Movie Ever!!!", i may've theorized on it but i didn't tell anyone to "Hang On!"

There are many forms of hype.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And after there's "closure" there'd be nothing to pick apart cause all questions will be answered cause it'll close satisfactorily.

Nothing will ever be satisfactory for people who have a skewed sense of suspended belief, Fist.

And THAT is precisely why your argument holds absolutely no ground. Don't sit there claiming you are a part of this mass of smart, analytical and intelligent movie fans, when you're simply insulted that you didn't get the movie, and therefore refuse to admit there is anything there you aren't seeing, and blame the movie.

You lack the inability to discuss, you cannot handle directors leaving the endings ambigious because you are NOT capable of being imaginatively analytical. You just want to be.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's similar to when something tells me about something that seems really important or deserves my attention, building me up, and then goes, ".....nah, forget it, i'm not gonna tell you.."

No, you built yourself up. You assumed they would tell you, that it'd be open and shut. Abrams never indicated it would be anything of the sort, that's YOUR problem, homeboy, not anyone else's. Abrams told nobody anything about the movie because he wanted it to have impact. He only ever released two trailers and a poster, with a few nothing-statements that didn't detail the movie in anyway. How, from this, did you get the impression he was guaranteeing what you needed from this movie?

He didn't, you assumed, you messed up.

I HOPE they don't cater to your kind of viewer with the next one, because it happened with The Matrix.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
that's bs, i hate when people do that. And J.J.'s done that with this film. This tops the Sopranos season finale closer.

Well it's evident that you weren't who he was aiming for, and you are blaming HIM for your own assumptions, it's not his fault.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The feeling akin to just having an great sex for 1hr. 1/2 then almost having orgasm only for the girl to push you off her 1 sec prior to climaxing.

I can't relate to being pushed off, must suck.

Anyway, like I said, you dropped the ball. Not Abrams.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I HOPE they don't cater to your kind of viewer with the next one, because it happened with The Matrix.

Now, that's the ****ing truth. What a ball-dropping part 2 and 3 were. Part one was great, despite Keanu's bad acting, what a waste of a good idea.

what happened with the matrix then? what was the diff between the first two films?

The sad thing is, me and VVD used to actually throw ideas back and forth as to where they could go with the sequels.

It was fun and there were so many exciting, smart and revolutionary possibilities, but they chose to make it typical. It was ridiculous and very saddening. I think the first is one of the best movies of all time, not as original as people would have you believe, storywise, but an amazing a revolutionary movie.

They bought into their own hype of it being a "smart" movie, and just turned into pretentious idiots. Cloverfield has the potential to have a lot of directors, producers and filmmakers playing catch-up, but let's hope Abrams doesn't get carried away.

Originally posted by Deano
what happened with the matrix then? what was the diff between the first two films?

The first one was amazing and unlike nothing else before, during or since that time. The second and third, especially the third, could have been a million other movies.

-AC

Originally posted by Deano
what happened with the matrix then? what was the diff between the first two films?

That's the way I see it anyway.