Cloverfield

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Here's my challenge/demand:

Try replying, just once, directly and relevantly about the movie, like I did initially. Try that, try not referencing me or me personally.

You can't do it because you can't debate.

-AC

Since you don't pay attention...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Saw it again last sunday.

K....

On my earlier review I gave it a 4 out of 5. The film does deserve it. However, on the my second run...I didn't like the events near the end. Not saying how the film ended...but the direction the film took to come to the finish.

The Monster getting bombed and appear to be subdue was pretty cool. However, the monster knocking down the helicopter wasn't really necessary...the film really took a different direction by doing that...

I think it would have been much more acceptable if the helicopter was able to escape and for some reason the military confiscated the video footage.

The monster attacking the helicopter and then attacking Hud was rather all strech out.

Another thing that bother me...is like the group kept bumping into the monster. I felt like if the monster was following them.

Still a good film...but the second view helps get a different perspective.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There lies a problem. When you allow a certain amount of coincidence in a film you're opening a can of worms. Why? because wacky theories start to build....

Is the Monster following the group? seems like it's doing that...

Why did the monster stopped to pose for Hud? The monster wanted to be camera or something? Is the monster trying to be famous?

The monster wants to be a Youtube Celeb? 😛

Of course this does not reduce the story of the film. Even thought there is the horrendous plot hole of why did the military get Lily in the first helicopter instead of Beth? As far as I understand Beth is the one who was impaled by the re bar. That requires medical attention. Injured people have priority. They skipped that part too soon.

Another thing that really switch me off was the parasite inside the building. They open the door as the group carries Beth and BOO! there is a surprise behind the door. You know what I'm talking about right? movies like The Ring or The Grudge employ those pop out scenes.

Parasite in the tunnels...very good.

Parasite in the upper floor of the building...cheesy.

As I mention earlier...a scene with a military person confiscating the camera from Hud would have kept this under a more realistic finale. Rather than the couple under the bridge saying goodbye.

But that's me and my observations.

You don't like it? weep...

You obviously weren't paying attention; I clearly meant my post, which was about your views on the movie and were entirely on topic. You are the one weeping because I'm challenging your views, as you always do.

If you can't back them up, or if you know that they can be taken apart with logic, and your only way of defending them is immaturity, try not moaning when it happens.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You obviously weren't paying attention;

-AC

Yes, I was...you obviously don't like it.

Deal with it...

No, you factually weren't, or you wouldn't have posted what you did, since it has nothing to do with what I meant or in relation to what I was talking about.

I said post something not about me, relevant to the thread. Clearly, to anyone capable of perception, I was refering to now, because I had replied to your initial posts, which you then quoted. So obviously I knew you had done so previously.

I really tire of having to hold your hand and explain everything to you. I feel like I've taken one of the special bus kids to the zoo every time I debate with you. Please try reading my posts, and if you aren't sure, rather than assume, ask me.

You should deal with it. I have no problems with you replying to my post, and I even said in my first reply that you aren't wrong to have the opinion you do, I just disagree. You just can't deal with the fact that I don't put up with your bs. If anyone else had replied to you saying the same, you'd not have replied so angrily.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you factually weren't, or you wouldn't have posted what you did, since it has nothing to do with what I meant or in relation to what I was talking about.

I said post something not about me, relevant to the thread. Clearly, to anyone capable of perception, I was refering to now, because I had replied to your initial posts, which you then quoted. So obviously I knew you had done so previously.

I really tire of having to hold your hand and explain everything to you. I feel like I've taken one of the special bus kids to the zoo every time I debate with you. Please try reading my posts, and if you aren't sure, rather than assume, ask me.

You should deal with it. I have no problems with you replying to my post, and I even said in my first reply that you aren't wrong to have the opinion you do, I just disagree. You just can't deal with the fact that I don't put up with your bs. If anyone else had replied to you saying the same, you'd not have replied so angrily.

-AC

Do you honestly like starting arguments? I went back like 30 pages and you're still there, calling people morons for having opinions.

Its fine if you like the movie, but stop trying to act smarter than everyone else by putting them down

Originally posted by Spartan005
Do you honestly like starting arguments? I went back like 30 pages and you're still there, calling people morons for having opinions.

Its fine if you like the movie, but stop trying to act smarter than everyone else by putting them down

I'm not entirely sure where to start, because there's enough material here to go on forever.

A) I don't start arguments about ME, others who can't debate, do.

B) I never once called anybody a moron for having an opinion, probably ever, much less on this site, even less in this thread. I don't think anybody, including Dwarf, is a moron for having an opinion. People should have opinions. I don't even think he made, necessarily, ALL ridiculous points, I just disagree. Yours were actually the views of an idiot who needs big explosions.

B) If you DISLIKE the movie, fine, but don't come in here trying to argue stupid points, idiotic points, and incorrect points, then acting smarter than everyone else because you feel good grades indicates intelligence, especially when you never paid the slightest bit of attention and lack the capacity to understand the movie in the first place.

All of which you did.

You're a hypocrite and you're stupid, congrats.

Is there anything else I can help you with? Your next reply will be met with a PM, as I'm not going to drag this any further off topic with you, Spartan.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you factually weren't, or you wouldn't have posted what you did, since it has nothing to do with what I meant or in relation to what I was talking about.

You clearly ask for something relevant to the movie. Now, you're saying it has do to with relation with what you said. You're either confuse or doing it on purpose.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I said post something not about me, relevant to the thread. .

I did that...WTF are you blind or stupid?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I really tire of having to hold your hand and explain everything to you.

No one...but NO ONE ask you to do anything here...you can't take discussions...your problem...not mine.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You should deal with it. I have no problems with you replying to my post, and I even said in my first reply that you aren't wrong to have the opinion you do, I just disagree.

I have to deal with it? See, how you turn things around...you are the one coming here and call people out.

If I'm not wrong in posting my opinion....what business of yours is it?

I'm sure you were not in charge of this production...so what's in it for you?

Nothing....I presume.

Edited.

Actually, I'll PM you my next reply too, because I wish to get to the bottom of why this happens.

I suspect that the usual will happen. Your desire to reply will go out the window, since most people only do this for the audience.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are you blaming me for your inability to ask questions if you're not sure of what I mean, opting instead to assume what I meant?

Not in relation to our debate you didn't. You slowly spiralled into making it about me.

I can, it's actually what I'm known for, if anything. Regardless of whether people like how I do it.

You are the one who hates discussing things with me, simply because you know I don't take any of your bs and will take apart your points undeniably wherever possible. Rather than defend them sensibly, you throw fits.

I didn't call you out. I replied to a post that was yours, I do the same for a lot of people. This isn't the Wild West, stop being so dramatic.

KMC Discussion Board, welcome.

I love how you say I think in black and white, perfect or shitty, and yet you are clearly of the opinion that if I reply to your opinion, I am saying you're wrong, or I should say nothing at all. Quite a hilariously hypocritical statement.

I was challenging your opinion, why are you making this a way bigger deal? Had it been anybody else, you wouldn't have. What is it, about me, that drives you mental? Actually, I'll PM you my next reply too, because I wish to get to the bottom of why this happens.

I suspect that the usual will happen. Your desire to reply will go out the window, since most people only do this for the audience.

-AC

Yeah...the discussion is about Cloverfield....what happen to stay relevant to the discussion AC?

Like I said, check your PM box. Post has been edited, it's now waiting for a reply, as I'm attempting to resolve your issues.

Has anyone read Cloverfield/Kishin?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Like I said, check your PM box. Post has been edited, it's now waiting for a reply, as I'm attempting to resolve your issues.

-AC

That is why you should THINK before you post and take things in public.

Has anyone read Cloverfield/Kishin?

No, tell us what's the story?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not entirely sure where to start, because there's enough material here to go on forever.

A) I don't start arguments about ME, others who can't debate, do.

B) I never once called anybody a moron for having an opinion, probably ever, much less on this site, even less in this thread. I don't think anybody, including Dwarf, is a moron for having an opinion. People should have opinions. I don't even think he made, necessarily, ALL ridiculous points, I just disagree. Yours were actually the views of an idiot who needs big explosions.

B) If you DISLIKE the movie, fine, but don't come in here trying to argue stupid points, idiotic points, and incorrect points, then acting smarter than everyone else because you feel good grades indicates intelligence, especially when you never paid the slightest bit of attention and lack the capacity to understand the movie in the first place.

All of which you did.

You're a hypocrite and you're stupid, congrats.

Is there anything else I can help you with? Your next reply will be met with a PM, as I'm not going to drag this any further off topic with you, Spartan.

-AC

1) Hate to break it to you, but yeah, you do start arguments. A lot.

2) Last time I checked, moron is a synonym for idiot. And why exactly are my views idiotic again?

3) Again I didn't come in here arguing; you started it. And for the record I wasn't acting smarter than anyone at all, I was simply defending myself from your insults.

Wrathful Dwarf, can you please ban him or something. I'm sick of people arguing with me on a freaking INTERNET FORUM about a movie. How mature.

Originally posted by Spartan005
1) Hate to break it to you, but yeah, you do start arguments. A lot.

2) Last time I checked, moron is a synonym for idiot. And why exactly are my views idiotic again?

3) Again I didn't come in here arguing; you started it. And for the record I wasn't acting smarter than anyone at all, I was simply defending myself from your insults.

Wrathful Dwarf, can you please ban him or something. I'm sick of people arguing with me on a freaking INTERNET FORUM about a movie. How mature.

I understand your position. But I can't take that kind of action.

Please, if it's a bother put him on ignore.

It's your best option.

Alrighty, thanks

Originally posted by Spartan005
Wrathful Dwarf, can you please ban him or something. I'm sick of people arguing with me on a freaking INTERNET FORUM about a movie. How mature.

How mature. PMing my reply.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That is why you should THINK before you post and take things in public.

I'm only taking your personal issues with ME to PMs. I am not taking the Cloverfield debate to PMs, because that's finished, as you simply do not have any logical or believable points.

As Backfire said, you're nitpicking and simply don't like the fact that at the end of the day, it's a FILM.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, tell us what's the story?

It's a slightly less serious Japanese manga that describes the attack on the Chuai Rig and delves into a bit more of the scientific/military secret aspects of the possible story.

It's good, but you'd have to find a transcribed version. I can't remember where I found the one I read.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There lies a problem. When you allow a certain amount of coincidence in a film you're opening a can of worms. Why? because wacky theories start to build....

Is the Monster following the group? seems like it's doing that...

Why did the monster stopped to pose for Hud? The monster wanted to be camera or something? Is the monster trying to be famous?

The monster wants to be a Youtube Celeb? 😛

Of course this does not reduce the story of the film. Even thought there is the horrendous plot hole of why did the military get Lily in the first helicopter instead of Beth? As far as I understand Beth is the one who was impaled by the re bar. That requires medical attention. Injured people have priority. They skipped that part too soon.

Another thing that really switch me off was the parasite inside the building. They open the door as the group carries Beth and BOO! there is a surprise behind the door. You know what I'm talking about right? movies like The Ring or The Grudge employ those pop out scenes.

Parasite in the tunnels...very good.

Parasite in the upper floor of the building...cheesy.

As I mention earlier...a scene with a military person confiscating the camera from Hud would have kept this under a more realistic finale. Rather than the couple under the bridge saying goodbye.

But that's me and my observations.

Then every movie in existence opens a can of worms. In Dawn of the Dead, oh, how convenient that one of them happens to know how to fly a helicopter. Oh, how convenient that they land on a mall and there are no people in it already. Are these now faults with the movie? Of course not. These are things that need to happen in order for the film to function. Same thing with Cloverfield. It IS a movie, afterall. And really, you can find trivial coincidences to nitpick in any movie out there. They have no bearing on the quality of the film, though.

Yes, she was injured. She seemed fine, though. Her life wasn't in danger from the wound. It's not as if the military made them wait a significant amount of time before getting them on the second helicopter, anyways. The first helicopter flew away and then they got immediately into the second one. They had her wait a total of about 10 seconds. Plus, I think they had the wound covered up. So he may not have seen it.

No, it wasn't following them. A gigantic monster was wandering around a rather small area for about 8 hours. It's not at all outlandish that they'd bump into it several times. This complaint really is moot. What, you don't want them to run into the monster on occasion? I don't follow.

What's wrong with a parasite being in a building? The monster kept shedding those things all over the place. There will be some of them here and there. So, it had a jump scene. One jump scene. The original Night of the Living Dead had a jump scene. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre had a jump scene. Jump scenes are now problematic and faults in a film?

And as far as the monster looking at Hud. So what? Sometimes animals look at things. Granted, this is the scene I had the most problems with. But not because it stayed there looking at the camera. I just though it would have been a better film had we not gotten such a close up look at the monster. I would have preferred for it to stay a bit more ambiguous.

Originally posted by BackFire
Then every movie in existence opens a can of worms. In Dawn of the Dead, oh, how convenient that one of them happens to know how to fly a helicopter. Oh, how convenient that they land on a mall and there are no people in it already. Are these now faults with the movie? Of course not. These are things that need to happen in order for the film to function. Same thing with Cloverfield. It IS a movie, afterall. And really, you can find trivial coincidences to nitpick in any movie out there. They have no bearing on the quality of the film, though.

Yes, she was injured. She seemed fine, though. Her life wasn't in danger from the wound. It's not as if the military made them wait a significant amount of time before getting them on the second helicopter, anyways. The first helicopter flew away and then they got immediately into the second one. They had her wait a total of about 10 seconds. Plus, I think they had the wound covered up. So he may not have seen it.

No, it wasn't following them. A gigantic monster was wandering around a rather small area for about 8 hours. It's not at all outlandish that they'd bump into it several times. This complaint really is moot. What, you don't want them to run into the monster on occasion? I don't follow.

What's wrong with a parasite being in a building? The monster kept shedding those things all over the place. There will be some of them here and there. So, it had a jump scene. One jump scene. The original Night of the Living Dead had a jump scene. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre had a jump scene. Jump scenes are now problematic and faults in a film?

And as far as the monster looking at Hud. So what? Sometimes animals look at things. Granted, this is the scene I had the most problems with. But not because it stayed there looking at the camera. I just though it would have been a better film had we not gotten such a close up look at the monster. I would have preferred for it to stay a bit more ambiguous.

I think that they definetely should have ran into the monster that many times, but maybe they could have done it differently. It seems a bit too coincidental that the monster smacks the helicopter down to the ground and then as soon as the survivors get out, its just standing there.

And I love how the monster's being engulfed by flames and then sees this tiny little innocent white light in the air and goes "**** YOU" and kills it. lol

But these aren't honestly the main problems to me. I just think the 1st person camera was very unecessary, if not just irritating. It seemed more to me like the camera idea was just an excuse not to have a good plot or good special effects. Just my 2 cents

It was after it had been bombed. It was annoyed from the bombings and just went after the only moving thing it saw. Think of when you're annoyed, and a fly is going around you, you swat at it.

That's fine though. The film style isn't for everyone, obviously. And while you're right that the style wasn't necessary to have a good story and show good special effects; it was necessary to be as immersive and realistic as it was. That was its main purpose. They wanted to show a monster attack in a realistic plausible light. And the subjective camera helped with that immensely.

That part wasn't even after it knocked the copter down, as you pointed out, it was hours after.

People are just bitter that they did everything wrong.

Abrams didn't promise anything, so it's not his fault that the movie didn't deliver what lots of people built themselves up to expect. In Spartan's case, a Godzilla movie.

I await a certain person's response to you saying they may have not seen the wound as it was covered. Because I would have gotten a tirade of "You're sucking everything up and making excuses.", despite it being plausible.

-AC