Cloverfield

K...Backfire, if these are not holes and they're pointless....why are you going over them? I spot them you try to explain them....here, you're contradicting yourself. If these are minimal things...why do you try to correct them? I caught them...I mention them....you try to explain them. This is your doing. I said the film is fine. I said the film remains in good standing. I just happen to caught these things and you keep shooting them down as minimal and unimportant. If they really aren't important... they don't need to be defended...you're defending them or belittle them.

I'm not blowing them out of proportion. I simply point them out.

DOTD is indeed a classic....but also a cult classic. Cloverfield isn't a cult classic...you want to argue the flaws of cult classic over the flaws of a major studio production? Knock yourself out.

The Jump scene had no purpose. Now you're saying that it had a purpose. That purpose was to increase the tension and sense of danger. Which is not true. Why? because prior to that scene we see the monster coming. That's enough sense of danger right there.

Now that you have thrown out your "deer in road with headlights" you're switching to "direct danger" that also is not going to float. Because you said earlier the monster was roaming the city for 8 hours. So, the direct danger was there all along. Now you're also saying is that the monster wasn't focus on him. That's you trying to explain how the monster reacts. What made you the expert of the creature all of the sudden? You analyze every move you saw or are just making more assumptions....

k....the monster wasn't also in focus when was below him filming. The monster looked confuse and he look down. Hud had PLENTY of time to run away. He didn't and run away. Didn't make sense...since earlier in the film he kept running.

As I said earlier this only served to give the visuals of the monster from up close. Storywise it doesn't add up. Can we agree that the director use this scene only to give the audience a better look at the monster from up close?

We're gonna go over Beth getting to the helicopter again and again because you're stuck in the notion that she was fine when it fact she was injured. You go from she was cover up the wound or a soldier not spotting the injury.

That still doesn't remove the fact that she should have been given priority over the other chick. Simple as that...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll just undeniably and emphatically render anything else you say about "Swallowing things based on their reputation.", obsolete right here and now, just so that if you ever try that bs again, you'll like like an even bigger hypocrite.

You're saying that because Cloverfield is not old, it cannot get away with that, despite other films blatantly doing so? That's idiotic, plain and simple. Cloverfield will not change, it will be the same movie in 20, 30 years time. What, does a certain time period pass when all of a sudden you go "Yep, that scene is definitely ok now, because it's a classic."? Ridiculous. You have the most backward, contradictory debate I've ever seen.

You say you notice these things on repeated viewing, but the movie doesn't change, and yet, after 30 years (In which one can assume you'll watch the movie a couple more times), you will be willing to overlook that because some group of opinions has suddenly called it a classic? Utterly ridiculous, and you know it's ridiculous, which makes it worse.

After comments like that, it wouldn't surprise me if you liked Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead simply because they're called classics. People using antiquity as a reason to suggest things are actually better is the reason so many things on this planet are massively overrated. Your stance here is precisely what is wrong with fans of any artform, and defy the true greatness that those artforms present.

There are filmmakers out there who will never get the recognition they deserve, having their superior product overlooked, simply because the item being labelled as better is a "classic".

-AC

You been having NOTHING but problems with me in this thread as well as in others. It's gotten old and pointless. I'm not having a mexican stand off with you. You're a fanboy and I've given you a fair amount of time. You don't deserve anymore.

I find extremely ironic that you're accusing me of nitpicking when you're doing the EXACT same thing. Takes a hypocrite to know another hypocrite. Go to your corner!

Good movie 😐

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
K...Backfire, if these are not holes and they're pointless....why are you going over them? I spot them you try to explain them....here, you're contradicting yourself. If these are minimal things...why do you try to correct them? I caught them...I mention them....you try to explain them. This is your doing. I said the film is fine. I said the film remains in good standing. I just happen to caught these things and you keep shooting them down as minimal and unimportant. If they really aren't important... they don't need to be defended...you're defending them or belittle them.

I'm not blowing them out of proportion. I simply point them out.

I'm going over them because you brought them up as if they have any bearing on the film. I'm not trying to explain them, I'm telling you why they factually make sense if you apply objective logic to them. Sorry, this old "oh, you're talking about them so you think they're important" crap doesn't fly. It's a lazy and broken argument akin to something you'd hear a 3rd grader say and I think you're above it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
DOTD is indeed a classic....but also a cult classic. Cloverfield isn't a cult classic...you want to argue the flaws of cult classic over the flaws of a major studio production? Knock yourself out.

No, I want to point out that these types of things are in every single movie ever made. Nothing more. But you are somehow not understanding this and keep glossing over it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The Jump scene had no purpose. Now you're saying that it had a purpose. That purpose was to increase the tension and sense of danger. Which is not true. Why? because prior to that scene we see the monster coming. That's enough sense of danger right there.

The monster was coming, yes. They wanted more tension, obviously. The film had gone into a lull at that point, there hadn't been any real scares or tense moments in some time, and they wanted one. You can argue whether or not it worked or not, that's fine. Its purpose was clear.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Now that you have thrown out your "deer in road with headlights" you're switching to "direct danger" that also is not going to float. Because you said earlier the monster was roaming the city for 8 hours. So, the direct danger was there all along. Now you're also saying is that the monster wasn't focus on him. That's you trying to explain how the monster reacts. What made you the expert of the creature all of the sudden? You analyze every move you saw or are just making more assumptions....

I didn't throw out the deer in the headlights argument. I said he was standing like a deer in headlights at THAT POINT because the monster was standing right over him, he was at that point in direct danger because the monster was obviously preparing to attack HIM. He wasn't in direct danger the whole time because the monster wasn't there focusing on him during their other encounters. This is clear as day, this is no assumption. What, you think when the monster is smashing up a tank it's sitting there looking at Hud? You think when the soldiers were shooting it with missiles it was focusing on hud? That's just nonsense and you know it. Fact: It was NOT focusing on Hud during the other scenes, because it was clear it was focusing on other things.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
k....the monster wasn't also in focus when was below him filming. The monster looked confuse and he look down. Hud had PLENTY of time to run away. He didn't and run away. Didn't make sense...since earlier in the film he kept running.

It wasn't a matter of time. Hud was scared shitless. The monster was standing right above him looking directly at him and only him. Hud wasn't there thinking "oh, he's just confused, I can go". He just saw a giant monster concentrating 100% on him and acted as anyone in that situation would, he froze in terror. Your complaint seems to be that he didn't act like someone who was thinking logically. Ironically, that is a very logical way to portray someone who is in danger and scared beyond imagining. Often, in a situation like that, people simply don't think logically. That's simply an understanding of human nature. I'm sure you'll again say "well he ran earlier" ignoring or simply not understanding the difference between a monster standing there concentrating only on him, and times when the monster was near them but concentrating on other things.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As I said earlier this only served to give the visuals of the monster from up close. Storywise it doesn't add up. Can we agree that the director use this scene only to give the audience a better look at the monster from up close?

Yes, that was the reason. Obviously. That doesn't mean the scene didn't make sense.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
We're gonna go over Beth getting to the helicopter again and again because you're stuck in the notion that she was fine when it fact she was injured. You go from she was cover up the wound or a soldier not spotting the injury.

That still doesn't remove the fact that she should have been given priority over the other chick. Simple as that...

If the wound was covered up how will the soldier see it to know that she should have priority? Do soldiers have X-ray vision now?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You been having NOTHING but problems with me in this thread as well as in others. It's gotten old and pointless. I'm not having a mexican stand off with you. You're a fanboy and I've given you a fair amount of time. You don't deserve anymore.

I find extremely ironic that you're accusing me of nitpicking when you're doing the EXACT same thing. Takes a hypocrite to know another hypocrite. Go to your corner!

I know that I've been nothing but a problem for you, because I don't put up with your bullcrap. The personal shit stopped, so I attempted to get a debate going again about the movie, it's not my fault that you are scared witless about debating against me.

I've significantly beaten you, Backfire is taking you to school with every reply. Seeing as you like him and will give him the credit of a reply, I'll leave it to him to do what I've been doing, because no matter what he says, you'll never dare to tell him that he's sucking things up, cos you're a kiss ass when it suits you, hypocritical when it suits you and overly ignorant when it suits you.

It's a shame you couldn't be man enough to just debate civilly.

-AC

Originally posted by BackFire
If the wound was covered up how will the soldier see it to know that she should have priority? Do soldiers have X-ray vision now?

It wasn't at all necessary to check, and had they done so, it would have been a flaw in the movie's logic, really. This is overlooked, ironically, in an argument about necessity.

Anyway, for those who care:

http://merzmensch.blogspot.com/2008/01/cloverfield-manga.html

That's the Cloverfield/Kishin manga. Obviously it's not as serious as the movie, but it explains a bit more of the backstory. I think some of the art is intense.

It is specifically for fans of the whole concept, though. Not just the movie.

-AC

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm going over them because you brought them up as if they have any bearing on the film. I'm not trying to explain them, I'm telling you why they factually make sense if you apply objective logic to them. Sorry, this old "oh, you're talking about them so you think they're important" crap doesn't fly. It's a lazy and broken argument akin to something you'd hear a 3rd grader say and I think you're above it.

No, I want to point out that these types of things are in every single movie ever made. Nothing more. But you are somehow not understanding this and keep glossing over it.

The monster was coming, yes. They wanted more tension, obviously. The film had gone into a lull at that point, there hadn't been any real scares or tense moments in some time, and they wanted one. You can argue whether or not it worked or not, that's fine. Its purpose was clear.

I didn't throw out the deer in the headlights argument. I said he was standing like a deer in headlights at THAT POINT because the monster was standing right over him, he was at that point in direct danger because the monster was obviously preparing to attack HIM. He wasn't in direct danger the whole time because the monster wasn't there focusing on him during their other encounters. This is clear as day, this is no assumption. What, you think when the monster is smashing up a tank it's sitting there looking at Hud? You think when the soldiers were shooting it with missiles it was focusing on hud? That's just nonsense and you know it. Fact: It was NOT focusing on Hud during the other scenes, because it was clear it was focusing on other things.

It wasn't a matter of time. Hud was scared shitless. The monster was standing right above him looking directly at him and only him. Hud wasn't there thinking "oh, he's just confused, I can go". He just saw a giant monster concentrating 100% on him and acted as anyone in that situation would, he froze in terror. Your complaint seems to be that he didn't act like someone who was thinking logically. Ironically, that is a very logical way to portray someone who is in danger and scared beyond imagining. Often, in a situation like that, people simply don't think logically. That's simply an understanding of human nature. I'm sure you'll again say "well he ran earlier" ignoring or simply not understanding the difference between a monster standing there concentrating only on him, and times when the monster was near them but concentrating on other things.

Yes, that was the reason. Obviously. That doesn't mean the scene didn't make sense.

If the wound was covered up how will the soldier see it to know that she should have priority? Do soldiers have X-ray vision now?

One more round and we go home. I gotta go hunt for a Joker action figure and then play some GTA.

***********

I brought them up as form of observation. It wasn't done to make the film look any less. However, I think you took it that way.

I wasn't arguing that all films don't have flaws. Most do and some rarely don't...that's when you started to bring out DOTD and others. However, when I brought up films like Matrix and Saw and how you have been more critical of their flaws. And why didn't you use the same critique on Cloverfield you dismiss them as having bigger problems.

But whatever...we'll move along...

What you said of the film going into a lull doesn't make sense. The film never lost it's pace it kept moving along in a fine direction

Rescue girl---> Monster is coming----> Get to the chopper----> etc...

Simple and clear cut...what you get is actually this:

Rescue girl----[insert pointless surprise scene here for no reason]---> Monster is coming----> Get to the chopper----> etc....

Oh, and what makes it even more absurd is the fact that these a sea creatures that can climb several stairs and still be able to attack....but you don't care about the logic...you care about the suspense. Fine with me...I'll let you have this one because you want to be scare.

Final thoughts on Hud. Well, there is an issue with the timing here...you said he was scare shitless and couldn't move. Which is false....going back to the tunnel scene. Hud is the first one to see the parasites....his first reactions? Warned the others and RAN! It only took less than two seconds. He was scare plenty of times in this film and manage to react in HUMAN WAY which is "Get the hell out of there"

Hud had seen and film the monster plenty of times already. Him standing there filming the monster from up close makes NO SENSE whatsoever BF don't ignore this fact.

We've agree that the scene was done only to give the audience a better look at the monster. For visuals it works! But in story wise and common sense...it doesn't. Those are my closing arguments on Hud.

Final thoughts on why Beth wasn't given priority.

It has nothing with the soldier spotting the injury. It had nothing to do if the injury was cover.

Why Beth didn't get on Helicopter first instead of the girl is quite simple....

The director wanted both Beth and the guy to have a romantic kiss before the finale. That was the entire theme in the movie. Risking everything to save those who you love. That was for the romantic couples in the audience. Lucky me I went to see it by myself.

In common sense...people who are injure are given immediate medical attention. If there is none to be provided....you ensure these people get it as a priority some how someway. Even if the soldier didn't know about the injury there were still 2 of her friends and her boyfriend who was there to open their mouths and say she needed medical attention.

Fact is a fact if we're talking common sense here....Beth should have been lifted first.

Those are my observations. I think they're fair and spot on. Oh, I'm not even going to bring out the absurd idea of the film to nuke a city in a 7-10 hour period without proper evacuation.

Glad you like the film. I know I did and just caught these mishaps.

*************

Oh, and McLovin.....to answer your question...

Neither AC, Backfire, TH or Bardock have the biggest cock.

My balls are the size of the Cloverfield monster. I rule them all! 😎

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wasn't arguing that all films don't have flaws. Most do and some rarely don't...that's when you started to bring out DOTD and others.

And that's when the truth came out. You don't "let" Cloverfield get away with the flaws (That it doesn't have, not the ones you say anyway), because it's not labelled a classic.

You more or less admitted that antiquity and collective opinion determine what is able to be overlooked.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
However, when I brought up films like Matrix and Saw and how you have been more critical of their flaws. And why didn't you use the same critique on Cloverfield you dismiss them as having bigger problems.

But whatever...we'll move along...

Why are you ignoring him? He clearly said there are much bigger problems with those movies than the ones you are imagining in Cloverfield.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
What you said of the film going into a lull doesn't make sense. The film never lost it's pace it kept moving along in a fine direction

Rescue girl---> Monster is coming----> Get to the chopper----> etc...

Simple and clear cut...what you get is actually this:

Rescue girl----[insert pointless surprise scene here for no reason]---> Monster is coming----> Get to the chopper----> etc....

Oh, and what makes it even more absurd is the fact that these a sea creatures that can climb several stairs and still be able to attack....but you don't care about the logic...you care about the suspense. Fine with me...I'll let you have this one because you want to be scare.

Why would climbing stairs render them incapable of attacking? This from a man who is claiming logic is his forte.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Final thoughts on Hud. Well, there is an issue with the timing here...you said he was scare shitless and couldn't move. Which is false....going back to the tunnel scene. Hud is the first one to see the parasites....his first reactions? Warned the others and RAN! It only took less than two seconds. He was scare plenty of times in this film and manage to react in HUMAN WAY which is "Get the hell out of there".

Because it was a different kind of panic, it was an intense, fast paced scene. Just like all the other times he had seen the monster. They were fast and quick to attack, so he had no choice but to quickly react. It's an entirely different situation.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hud had seen and film the monster plenty of times already. Him standing there filming the monster from up close makes NO SENSE whatsoever BF don't ignore this fact.

The FACT (Undeniable fact) was that those instances where he saw the monster before were entirely different circumstances, you're just looking for something to complain about and insisting we are ignoring the facts, when your persistence in ignoring circumstance is the highest form of ignorance.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
We've agree that the scene was done only to give the audience a better look at the monster. For visuals it works! But in story wise and common sense...it doesn't. Those are my closing arguments on Hud.

Why doesn't it make sense storywise? It's not detracting nor adding to the story, it's just there and you like it or you don't, or you are in the middle.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Final thoughts on why Beth wasn't given priority.

It has nothing with the soldier spotting the injury. It had nothing to do if the injury was cover.

Why Beth didn't get on Helicopter first instead of the girl is quite simple....

The director wanted both Beth and the guy to have a romantic kiss before the finale. That was the entire theme in the movie. Risking everything to save those who you love. That was for the romantic couples in the audience. Lucky me I went to see it by myself.

Do you know this for a fact? Spoken to Matt Reeves lately?

The theme from the movie was absolutely not "Risk everything for those you love.", which just goes to show that you either didn't pay attention or didn't get it. The theme of the movie was always about focusing on what isn't focused on when a huge, intense tragedy strikes, and how in the modern age, that may all change.

How can you even begin to suggest that a "couple" that weren't even a couple, who spent most of the beginning of the movie having a terribly awkward interaction then fight, were there for couples in the audience? Is this your logic again?

"Yeah, we'll but two people in love, but in a situation of possibly imminent death together, that'll make them swoon.".

You suggesting that this entire movie revolved around the kiss is idiotic and proves you paid no more attention to this movie than the likes of Spartan. In fact, Backfire was probably right. You sat there looking for shit to say is wrong, rather than focusing on what's right. Not that anything you've come up with is accurate.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In common sense...people who are injure are given immediate medical attention. If there is none to be provided....you ensure these people get it as a priority some how someway.

When there's a couple of hundred feet high of rampaging amphibious carnivore wandering around the city directly next to you, and you have the option of fixing up a medical issue that can obviously wait, or get the f*ck out of there and avoid the monster AND the bombing, there is no other logical suggestion than to get out of there. The helicopter might have even had medical staff on, treat her there, but get her on the chopper first.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Even if the soldier didn't know about the injury there were still 2 of her friends and her boyfriend who was there to open their mouths and say she needed medical attention.

They're her friends, which is precisely why they wanted to make sure she didn't get eaten first. Like I said above, nothing stands in your favour. You just insist on what should have been done. Not only would that not have been done in real life, because they were gonna bomb the place anyway, but it's Cloverfield. You're nitpicking, and that doesn't make you "cool", it doesn't make you a super attentive, "Wow, he takes no nonsense with his films." badass. I know you label yourself a pompous ******* regarding movies, but this is clearly because you want to feel like you accept no shit.

When in reality, nothing you've said makes sense, and you accept all the shit someone can throw at you so long as you like the movie, cos you're a hypocrite. You actually argued with me about how good Snakes on a Plane was, and here you're calling me and Backfire out for logical deductions about Cloverfield?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Fact is a fact if we're talking common sense here....Beth should have been lifted first.

Yeah, and fact says that she'd get on the chopper to safety before receiving medical attention. It wasn't like they had to walk for ages, they were being herded, by the army, a relatively short distance to the meeting point, and then a couple feet to the chopper.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Those are my observations. I think they're fair and spot on. Oh, I'm not even going to bring out the absurd idea of the film to nuke a city in a 7-10 hour period without proper evacuation.

Where did they nuke it? They used the Mother of All Bombs, the largest non-nuclear attack you can use. That or a large firestorm is generally what's accepted. The tape wouldn't have survived the nuke.

Again, attention, pays to pay it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Glad you like the film. I know I did and just caught these mishaps.

These are not "mishaps" and you didn't "catch" them. You've clearly stewed over this.

-AC

Let this be a lesson for you kiddies.

AC is like the cheap prostitute at a Brothel.

You're making the deal with the Madam and the cheap prostitute keeps interrupting trying to get attention.

Funny thing....he's not making any money. Doing it for free...how sad.

Sorry folks...I just had to say it.

Worst planned analogy of all time, and says all kinds of things about you I'd rather not know to be honest.

Who exactly are you talking to, and you are hardly washing your hands of me, are you? You're still here, replying, when you could just be replying on topic and none of this would happen, just like you're doing with Backfire.

The sadder part is that you are spending time replying to me, insulting me personally, but you won't reply on topic, I'm contributing more to it than you are. I am expressing my opinion on your opinion, no more, no less. Can't handle it? Weep...wasn't that it?

Perhaps go buy your action figure of The Joker and let us talk about the movie we understand.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Worst planned analogy of all time.

-AC

Hey; I thought you gave my burrito analogy that prize earlier on in this thread. Or do you just say that to all the guys you meet.

😎

(a joke, just in case.)

You were the first.

-AC

All I heard was "Joker action figure"

ermm

do want

I absolutely loved this movie, it was a break from traditional giant monster movies and truly is unique. I hope that we get a sequel with us seeing more of the creature....or his mother.

I don't want to be a "cheap prostitute" so I'm going to just throw in a quick opinion. Hud recorded the monster up close for visual effects, because even if he was scared shitless, he owuldn't have sat there recording, he would have dropped the camera.

And Beth stayed behind because the guy went out of his way to save her. What would be the point of them trying to find her and then her escaping after ten minutes of being in the film? They couldn't have made any romantic connection with the guy and his sister(?), which is obviously the angle they were going for in the end.

Why are you saying what he would have done?

He only could have done and would have done what the director said he could and would do. There's no other way around it.

-AC

I think he means if the character's were real but I see what you mean, Alpha. Whenever you think about what they should've done, you have to keep in mind that the movie is fictional. You can still said what you'd do in that situation though.

I heard that it was a mutated whale. Which actually wouldn't surprise me because there's so much we haven't explored. Isn't a godzilla a lizard though?

I can't believe the actor that played Hudd had to carry that camcorder through three quarters of the film while acting lol.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Wow. that's clearer that the theatrical version. But yea, it's definitely Godzilla, man.. No doubt about it.

it didn't really LOOK lik Godzilla to me. I read an intrview somewhere that said it was supposedly some kind of mutated whale that drifted this way when the waters warmed up or something like that. And Godzilla was never found covered in giant, man-eating parasites.

I could be dead wrong, but I don't think that was godzilla. The companies would want some recognition for their new recreation of him if it were.

Clover...Godzilla? That's ridiculous. And the whale design was never used for the movie, the creature looks nothing like a whale.