Cloverfield

The audience should not have made assumptions about the film and the direction it was going, then. That is, again, their fault and no one elses. It's not Cloverfield's, nor any films, responsibility to cater to their predefined notions of what 'should' happen based on their familiarity with the genre (again I say, I doubt anyone who was shocked by how the film ended is actually very knowledgeable in the genre, or the subgenre, that is, the subjective camera type film, this type of ending IS conventional for that type of film). It's not bitterness and it's not uncalled for, I'm placing blame where it should be put -- on those who lazily thought one thing for no reason other than "well, that's how it usually happens. You say it's a strength of Cloverfield and not a fault of the audience, I say it's both.

No, it was not an ending of sorts, it was an absolute ending. The story about these characters was finished, there was nothing more that could logically be told without breaking the immersion (key word, that is the whole point for the film existing, storytelling was second to immersion). Really, the way the film ended was the logical conclusion. Considering the fact that it was created to try and be realistic, that's what would probably happen in real life - people die during disasters.

Again, if people actually expect

Spoiler:
the protagonists to escape

Spoiler:
the characters died

I call bollocks. But no, let's not get away from the reality of the debate. It's the success of Cloverfield, not the fault of audience, who really only want to be entertained. Yes, that is the typical ending of a pseudo-documentary film and no, the audience would not internally suggest an excuse for the ending. After all, they are passive viewers, and films that stop and attempt to provoke their thought are not made strictly for them. Again, this demographic is the reason why Cloverfield is as succesful as it is, but it is in no way the fault of the audience.

Pseudo-realism aside, the aspirations of the story lead to the assumption of the constructed ending. Again, that is a passive action by the viewer, not the conscious expectation by the sophisticated audience member. Cloverfield actively seeks to deny the audiences expectation. The audience, on the other hand, watches the film passively.

It was an absolute ending, perhaps, considering the body count, but to consider it like that does not reflect well on the script of Cloverfield. For if that was the case, that the characters were finished exactly, why the need to deny the audience an ending easily construced from the narrative?

If Cloverfield pursues immersion and realism, instead of the story, then how does a

Spoiler:
giant effin monster rise up from the rubble of its would-be grave and snatch a helicopter from the sky?

Again, you cannot berate people for being lazy when you consider that they are going to see Cloverfield, not some intricate, intimate foeign drama by a european, maverick director. Lazy is far too derogatory a term when considering the audience are watching a film that plugs you up to a hyperdermic needle and feeds you snippets of exposition and drama. Lazy would be going to that european film and falling asleep, where an active viewer is demanded.

But Cloverfield is not that film. Instead, it's clothed in the machinations of a Hollywood monster movie (inaccurate or not, it's what it is promoted as). A Hollywood monster movie creates expectations as it is, and everyone classifies things and sorts them. That is human nature. What also is human nature is to fail in your goals. Yes, you are correct when you point out that not every conventional character achieves their goal, but that was not the intended point. Even so, a character like Rick in Casablance does not achieve his goal, but is still presented with what the audience feel as an optimistic ending, despite certain losses. It's a classical Hollywood closure, yes, but it stills gives that satisfying closure, even if not all of the audiences goals are reached. Isla and Lazlow's plane could well have been shot out of the sky a minute later, but it would still be a satisfying ending.

Admittedly, I found Cloverfield unsatisfying at the end because I was watching it too intently, too closely, and not watching it for what it is; Entertainment. It's an experience, but it doesn't deliver the kind of satisfying entertainment you can passively watch, a la Casablanca.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Admittedly, I found Cloverfield unsatisfying at the end because I was watching it too intently, too closely, and not watching it for what it is; Entertainment. It's an experience, but it doesn't deliver the kind of satisfying entertainment you can passively watch, a la Casablanca.

All that long, planned post, only to wrap it up by essentially saying you didn't find it satisfying cos it wasn't the typical, Saturday night popcorn movie...which has always been the argument.

-AC

I found it satisfying in other ways.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I found it satisfying in other ways.

What kind of entertainment did it deliver for you then?

I could use a number of words to describe it; intense, brilliant, disorientating. The sound was incredible.

Just saw it last night, and loved it. It was brilliant and creative. I loved how they made the audience feel like part of the story, by using the camera in so many different ways. Like when they were in the tunnel and used the light to find their way. It made it feel like they doing more than just recording the little parts because Hud was bored or something. But you have to view it with an open mind.

I'd give it 4 outta 5. 👆

thats it? a 4 outta 5 id give it a 10 outta 5. not just cuz the story,witch was great dont get me wrong, but because all the little things j.j. put in there and made u figure it out yourself such as were the monster came from. it came from the sea i know this cuz rob was wearing a slusho shirt witch is a deepsea drilling company in japan. some other hints were the color of its skin it was a seethrough gray sorta and if u ever looked up deepsea fish the have the same skin. it could survive bombs gettn dropped on it cuz the water pressure under the sea is so strong so it makes the skin really hard and hard to penetrate. also the little things it drops when they bite you eventually you blowup and when they are underwater what they bit blows up and then they filter it and thats how they eat. there are more but those are the most ovious. 😛

The possible eating habits of the monster are irrelevant.

Slusho isn't the drilling company, but Slusho is sponsored or connected to it, and it's allegedly the company Rob was going to work for. As I've said a million times, Abrams specified that the satellite is what woke it up. Either the initial fall or the salvage attempt is what woke it up.

Possibly the rig drilling for the secret ingredient of Slusho.

-AC

That's what I believe, the drill.

I would be more inclined to be pissed off if something was drilling in to me, then by some metal object a quarter my size hitting me in the face.

Originally posted by stallwart
thats it? a 4 outta 5 id give it a 10 outta 5. not just cuz the story,witch was great dont get me wrong, but because all the little things j.j. put in there and made u figure it out yourself such as were the monster came from. it came from the sea i know this cuz rob was wearing a slusho shirt witch is a deepsea drilling company in japan. some other hints were the color of its skin it was a seethrough gray sorta and if u ever looked up deepsea fish the have the same skin. it could survive bombs gettn dropped on it cuz the water pressure under the sea is so strong so it makes the skin really hard and hard to penetrate. also the little things it drops when they bite you eventually you blowup and when they are underwater what they bit blows up and then they filter it and thats how they eat. there are more but those are the most ovious. 😛

4 outta 5, only because I have high expectations. 😛

Is it true the this movie was not good.,?

Originally posted by faithxp
Is it true the this movie was not good.,?

I thought the movie was great, but I think you should decide for yourself, because a lot of people seemed to have mixed feelings about it.

When i saw that movie I WAS SO INTO IT! That's why alot of people liked it....everyone i know who saw it, liked it because of the story and that fact that they thought the people were going to die like fifty times between the beginning and the end...it kept you guessing, ya know. Like it was so emotionally scary cause your attached to these characters...when i was in the theater it was so funny cus the group of kids sitting on the right kept screaming....It was awesome the first time but i think it would be slitly worse the second time cus it'd be predictable. I talked to my friend who saw it and he said everybody he saw it with thought it was over cuase the home camera went off... I thought it was in one word... shocking.

The whole way through you were in absolute amazement....and if you didn't like i don't why... maybe you don't have imagination.

That's my review: 96.5/100

Love the way people seem to know JJ Abrams on first name, acronym basis. Eh up JJ. Classic.

Should we all add Mr., Ms. or Mrs. when addressing each other? Maybe a Sir. in front of your name?

They changed the statue of liberty head in the movie for some reason 😕

yea, i noticed that a bit in the movie

then again it was just a trailer

Originally posted by steverules
They changed the statue of liberty head in the movie for some reason 😕

I'm guessing they changed it because it wasn't the finished product anyways. Trailers rarely have the finished product in totality.