Originally posted by FistOfThe North
there's a good laddy.Ok, my take. Cloverfield is footage of a monster attack in n.y.c., essentially. Footage found by the U.S. military. The showing of it is presented as a briefing shown to intelligence officials. That's the practical/objective view.
The subjective/artsy view calls it a love story and/or a trial of the human spirit with moments that made you both laugh and cry..
As emotional as the latter view is, that may've been the case from a gguys perspective. But both views logical depending on the type of guy you are.
No, again, you are wrong and at the same time, misinterpreting the debate.
First of all, child, you do not KNOW who it was shown to. Secondly, Cloverfield being footage of a monster attack is not your TAKE, that is what it IS, but it is not what the movie is ABOUT. They USE footage of a monster attack to convey multiple messages and multiple themes. You do not seemingly have the ability to grasp that. Do you not get that?
You feel that because it IS footage, that it's ABOUT the footage, it's not. What it's about is anxiety, reaction when disaster strikes and portraying that in a more realistic view that many people can relate to more than other disaster movies, both in terms of characters and the way it is filmed. It uses a monster attack, an unrealistic occurance, to promote a realistic theme and a realistic emotional concept. It's not about the monster, or the footage, it's about the bigger picture.
The objective view of what the movie is ABOUT is not "It's monster footage", that's the objective view of HOW the story is portrayed, not what is being portrayed. There are multiple ideas and concepts portrayed THROUGH footage.
In simple terms that you can understand; the movie is not a film ABOUT monster footage, the movie IS monster footage and it's ABOUT the people involved and how the react to the situation, how it relates to what would probably happen in modern times, with people filming everything, uploading it etc.
You feel it's simple because you cannot interpret it any other way, and that's not an insult, it's the truth. You try to pass off any other interpretation as subjective and artsy because you simply don't get it. This was not an artsy, independent movie. It was a big movie that happened to be innovative. There were not clever, ultra artistic shots. It was purposefully messy and purposefully disorientating.
Mr. Analysis gets it all wrong.
-AC
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It's a quote.
YouTube video
--------------------------------------------------------------------->Jessop, jessop, jessop
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It obviously wasn't trying to do that, or it would have done it.
Yes, that's what I said.
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
No, I'm simply reiterating the logic of leading film theorists, because they do have a point.
That's the end of it really, it's pretty concreted as a fact. No more arguing it.
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.
Cloverfield was not a classic hollywood narrative, as such it is not held to the same rules - its purpose was opposite of most movies.
It's worrying because it shows that the audience is too unwavering in their stubborn stance of tradition, and unwilling to accept or contemplate things that aren't the norm. It's this kind of lazy thinking that makes progression of the medium so damn hard. If all filmmakers simply catered to the majority and resisted change (as the majority is always against change) we'd still have black and white, silent, 3 minute films.
Closure on a plate is what some audience wants, not all. The ones who want it simply should have done their research of this type of film and not seen it.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Wow. that's clearer that the theatrical version. But yea, it's definitely Godzilla, man.. No doubt about it.
Originally posted by Robtard
You'll see... you'll see.Oh, the people that are calling the "CGI" shit, the film is being done on a budget of around 30 million. So don't expect to be dazzled, it's also being seen through a camcorder, think "Blair Witch" meets "Godzilla".
It's not going to be your typical "Godzilla" movie, you'll only see
the 'monster' in tiny segments. The movie will be centered on the small group of friends trying to escape/survive in N.Y. while Godzilla attacks.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're welcome to your opinion, but remember what I said come December (or so); if I'm wrong, point your finger and laugh at me.
pointandlaugh
Sorry it's a little late ermm
Sorta wanted to see this movie but I'm finding it less appealing every time I see a clip, dunno why. I'm not really into movies that make me jump out of my skin or, you know, wet my pants with fear. Never saw Blair Witch (through choice) and the comparison has definitely removed interest for me.
Originally posted by BackFire
Cloverfield was not a classic hollywood narrative, as such it is not held to the same rules - its purpose was opposite of most movies.It's worrying because it shows that the audience is too unwavering in their stubborn stance of tradition, and unwilling to accept or contemplate things that aren't the norm. It's this kind of lazy thinking that makes progression of the medium so damn hard. If all filmmakers simply catered to the majority and resisted change (as the majority is always against change) we'd still have black and white, silent, 3 minute films.
Closure on a plate is what some audience wants, not all. The ones who want it simply should have done their research of this type of film and not seen it.
Yeah, quite obviously, it is not an example of the classical Hollywood narrative. But there is a reason why people want closure, and I believe what I heard as Cloverfield ended in the cinema was "Is that it?" Seems people in the audience want closure, and Cloverfield was certainly lacking in that department.
That said, it would only cheapen the audiences experience during the rest of the film if they were treated to the traditional, especially about a film who's real story isn't part of the premise.
And about your little rallying speech, really, we only got out of 3 minute, silent films because the majority of filmmakers wanted to sell there gimmicks and technology to the public. That's moot though.
In the end, Cloverfield seems to have gotten people pretty riled up. I can't help feeling that people are just taking up their pitch forks to any who don't treat it the same as they do, which is a film after their own design. Keep your knickers on and make me a cup of tea.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Yeah, quite obviously, it is not an example of the classical Hollywood narrative. But there is a reason why people want closure, and I believe what I heard as Cloverfield ended in the cinema was "Is that it?" Seems people in the audience want closure, and Cloverfield was certainly lacking in that department.That said, it would only cheapen the audiences experience during the rest of the film if they were treated to the traditional, especially about a film who's real story isn't part of the premise.
And about your little rallying speech, really, we only got out of 3 minute, silent films because the majority of filmmakers wanted to sell there gimmicks and technology to the public. That's moot though.
In the end, Cloverfield seems to have gotten people pretty riled up. I can't help feeling that people are just taking up their pitch forks to any who don't treat it the same as they do, which is a film after their own design. Keep your knickers on and make me a cup of tea.
Yes, the reason is as I said earlier -- They want the traditional attributes, even when the film is not traditional. Really, it's no one's fault but the viewers for having the wrong expectations. And again, SOME people want closure. Just because some guy in the theater you saw it in said something doesn't mean that's the majority. You're committing that old error of speaking for other people; each of us can only speak for ourselves. There are some that wanted closure in a film like Cloverfield where it would have hindered the experience, and there are people who don't. I feel that the people who do want closure just for the sake of it simply don't understand, or worse, care about the purpose of the film.
Yes, the majority of FILMMAKERS, not VIEWERS. Filmmakers should be the ones deciding, as they're the ones that actually know about the medium. The point still stands, regardless; the general public is resistant to change of any kind, really. Again, the truth is that if it were left up to viewers, we WOULD still be watching 3 minute silent black and white films. It's not rallying speech, it is fact. Often progression must be done without the blessing of the audience, else it will never happen.
And who's riled up? What are you talking about?
Also, tea's for gays.
i fail to see how it never had closure...the whole thing was from a small group of people trying to survive's perspective....they all died...i fail to see how that isn't closure
fair enough...the monster didn't die...but from the narrow point of view that the film took it had the closure neccesary to end the story
perhaps the sequel will look at it, as theorised, from the other camera on the bridge...maybe that person survived long enough to watch the city get bombed...
it's plausible that the time "wasted" in the beginning of cloverfield could be missed out on the sequel/twin film...and then put on at the end showing what happened after the bombing....having a sort of overlapping time frame
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, the reason is as I said earlier -- They want the traditional attributes, even when the film is not traditional. Really, it's no one's fault but the viewers for having the wrong expectations. And again, SOME people want closure. Just because some guy in the theater you saw it in said something doesn't mean that's the majority. You're committing that old error of speaking for other people; each of us can only speak for ourselves. There are some that wanted closure in a film like Cloverfield where it would have hindered the experience, and there are people who don't. I feel that the people who do want closure just for the sake of it simply don't understand, or worse, care about the purpose of the film.
You cannot lay blame on people for expecting what they are used to. There are others before Cloverfield as we all know, that have played with the formulaic narrative model. The concepts of the self-conscious innovation and parody are apparent in Cloverfield, to the extent where the narrative literally drops dead, with little to no closure whatsoever. Our expectations are constructed through a pattern of developments.
For example:
Spoiler:
Members of the initial survivors are slowly killed off, leaving our protagonist with his woman (Which you could incorrectly call a subplot). Through experience with the "genre," we bloody well expect Rob and his woman to survive.
You can't insult people who expect that to happen and berate them for wanting closure. What you can do is applaud Cloverfield for being so succesful in what it's trying to do, but not the other way around.
As you can see, I'm not suggesting whether Cloverfield should or should not have had a typical conclusion, tying up all loose ends. Instead, I'm saying that Cloverfield still allows for expectations to be constructed through patterns and developments within it's narrative. Nothing wrong with wanting closure, especially when it is offered so easily. Audiences will swallow up the narrative simply because it is [b]Entertainment, and I use that term in no derogatory way.
Yes, the majority of FILMMAKERS, not VIEWERS. Filmmakers should be the ones deciding, as they're the ones that actually know about the medium. The point still stands, regardless; the general public is resistant to change of any kind, really. Again, the truth is that if it were left up to viewers, we WOULD still be watching 3 minute silent black and white films. It's not rallying speech, it is fact. Often progression must be done without the blessing of the audience, else it will never happen.
Of course it would be the Filmmakers. How are the viewers going to change the medium?
And who's riled up? What are you talking about?
Have you seem how much kiddy fizz has been drank in the earlier posts? Pretty petty debates for a film like this.
Also, tea's for gays.
Yeah, sure thing, but it takes a gay to not recognise a quote from The Fast Show.
Originally posted by BackFiretea is what brits drink retard
Yes, the reason is as I said earlier -- They want the traditional attributes, even when the film is not traditional. Really, it's no one's fault but the viewers for having the wrong expectations. And again, SOME people want closure. Just because some guy in the theater you saw it in said something doesn't mean that's the majority. You're committing that old error of speaking for other people; each of us can only speak for ourselves. There are some that wanted closure in a film like Cloverfield where it would have hindered the experience, and there are people who don't. I feel that the people who do want closure just for the sake of it simply don't understand, or worse, care about the purpose of the film.Yes, the majority of FILMMAKERS, not VIEWERS. Filmmakers should be the ones deciding, as they're the ones that actually know about the medium. The point still stands, regardless; the general public is resistant to change of any kind, really. Again, the truth is that if it were left up to viewers, we WOULD still be watching 3 minute silent black and white films. It's not rallying speech, it is fact. Often progression must be done without the blessing of the audience, else it will never happen.
And who's riled up? What are you talking about?
Also, tea's for gays.
Kane, I absolutely can lay blame on people for expecting something that was in no way intended by the film, because it's there fault for having these expectations. Their expectations are based on what "normally" happens in traditional films with a generically structured narrative; as we both agree, Cloverfield is not a traditional film with traditional narrative, so I say their expectations were wrong, they were illogical and it's their own fault for having them.
They're entitled to them, but they have no one to blame but themselves for expecting something that obviously the filmmakers never ever intended on doing with the film, and was actually never implied. And as Jaden says, there was closure, it just wasn't the type of closure some people wanted;
Spoiler:that is still closure, it still functions as an ending and wraps up the loose ends.
as in, no one survived. There's a lot of films where the protagonists die,
So again, I ask this of anyone who actually holds these "it didn't have closure" complaints. What more did you want the film to say?
Also, make no mistake, I'm not insulting anyone. I've not put anyone down, have I? I've simply said that their expectations were illogical, and the movie never implied that it would have a conventional generic ending, so they should not have expected it.
Originally posted by BackFire
Kane, I absolutely can lay blame on people for expecting something that was in no way intended by the film, because it's there fault for having these expectations. Their expectations are based on what "normally" happens in traditional films with a generically structured narrative; as we both agree, Cloverfield is not a traditional film with traditional narrative, so I say their expectations were wrong, they were illogical and it's their own fault for having them.
Blaming the autonomous collective for something out of their control is uncalled for. Bitter, even. Of course, figure of speech perhaps on your behalf, but it is cruel to berate an audience for expecting the norm in the cinema, especially when they are treated to such convention every time they go to the cinema. We may have both agreed that there is no traditional narrative to Cloverfield, but it is too much to ask the audience not to get sucked into the narrative. Typical narrative closure is implied through audience familiarity with the genre, which is strangley enough, one of the joys of cinema for the audience (according to the academics). The filmmakers use this to play with audience expectation. Again, this is Cloverfield's success, not the audiences failure.
And as Jaden says, there was closure, it just wasn't the type of closure some people wanted;Spoiler:that is still closure, it still functions as an ending and wraps up the loose ends.
as in, no one survived. There's a lot of films where the protagonists die,
Yes, it was an ending of sorts, but not the ending the audience would usually be treated too. Again, as I've said, it is not a bad thing that Cloverfield denies audience expectation, but it is expected and is always appreciated if treated well. That said, denying audience expectation doesn't always work well, think of some of the "twists" at the end of the film which have simply felt redundant. Again, kudos to J.J.Abrams, but it would be ridiculous to blame the audience for something they had no bearing over.
Also, make no mistake, I'm not insulting anyone. I've not put anyone down, have I? I've simply said that their expectations were illogical, and the movie never implied that it would have a conventional generic ending, so they should not have expected it.
A conventional ending was implied by Cloverfield's earlier adherence to conventions;
Spoiler:That's not an illogical assumption, plenty of times this has happened before; put together a number of conventions of genre in a narrative and a generic ending will be expected. Yet again this is not the fault of the audience for expecting t. They are not coy enough as a whole to know they are being played with. Again, accept that this is the success of the filmmakers, not the failure of the audience, I can't reiterate that enough.
a couple of subplots revolving around relationships, the body count of their friends rising, a clear goal to escape the island. Once we have a minimal amount of characters left and the subplots are brought together, we expect our protagonists to escape on the helicopter.
Also,
Spoiler:
did you hear the voice at the end? "It's still alive."