Gender: Male Location: Sailing the seas of cheese.
You guys are still on about this movie?
Yeah, well anyway, my co-worker, Devon, just walked by and saw your sig. He said he went to school with the lead guitarist's brother of Mastadon. His name was Jim Kelliher and he was a jerk. The school was Victor Central High in Victor, New York. Just thought you should know.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Why don't you use the magical words:
"suspense of disbelief"
Boom! Everything makes sense now.
"It IS a movie after all"
With that logic in mind....Let us know no longer bother to review and critique films like The Matrix Revolutions, The Saw films, and Van Helsing, or others....we'll all just agree whatever absurd coincidences they might have....It's just a movie. And we should sit back and swallow them.
Well, what a bunch of good friends. My friend is injured so please help her...but you know what...you think she look fine and her life wasn't in danger...oh well. I just happen to think that injure people should be helped...I mean that was the whole idea of going out there and rescue and make sure she was safe.
In those original films which you mention the jump scenes worked fine. It's what made the film stood out. This film did NOT needed that scene. Since you didn't follow my drift I'll explain.
Films like The Ring and The Grudge use and ABUSE jump scenes. That's the problem and faults in such films. As I mention earlier...the tunnel scenes of the parasites work PERFECTLY! The return of the parasites in the upper building wasn't....it was just not necessary.
So what? Common sense dictates run the *beep* out of there...they were doing it throughout the entire film. You forgot that? So Hud stood there filming instead of running away from the monster. Right there! The film lost their logic. But it's fine...they need to get to the scene of the couple underneath the bridge to say their final lines. You were sold...I'm not.
You know, I'm know what you're going to say. That I'm nitpicking....sorry...but I'm not. This is called an observation. If you feel I'm nitpicking...what are you doing then, covering up the holes in the story? I hope not.
Keep in mind that I still think this film is good. These are just things I caught up with after a second viewing. These observations do not hinder the film. It's just things you can't help to notice.
Was she not safe? Did they not save her and get her to the helicopter? My personal opinion is that she was able to talk, walk, and breathe. Therefore, it would have been a kick in the balls had they all said "WAIT! WAIT! Patch her up first.", and then all get killed by a monster that was essentially right next to them.
They had the option of getting the hell out and dealing with something that could obviously wait, later. What's so hard to understand? Nitpicking.
In those original films which you mention the jump scenes worked fine. It's what made the film stood out. This film did NOT needed that scene. Since you didn't follow my drift I'll explain.
I'll agree that it felt a little out of place. Just one of them randomly there, but at the same time, it was a precarious part of the movie where they had actually gotten a glimpse of hope, they needed something there to give a bit of a fright, and they did.
Necessary? Not entirely, but it worked.
I'm with you and Backfire in the sense that it was the scene I had most problem with, but it wasn't ridiculous to me that an animal would do that. It wasn't ridiculous to me that a man would do what Hud did. The only odd thing was that he was still filming, being frozen with fear isn't necessarily unbelievable.
If you come face to face with a lion, you don't run, because it can catch you. As long as it's sitting there, staring, you're safe.
Sold on what? You acknowledge it needed to happen for the two to have that last moment which sealed the film off. You didn't like it, he did, why does that equal to people sucking things up?
They're not holes in the story, they are areas of the movie that you found unnecessary or illogical, they're not plot holes. They do not demean or take away from, the plot (Which is what a plot hole is).
You can't help to notice them, but you managed to only catch them when you sat in the cinema/at home/wherever and watch it for a repeated viewing?
Those other films you mention have much deeper problems than just some coincidences. I don't complains about those films based on some convenient actions, so what do they have to do with this conversation?
Yes, that was the reason for going to get her; to make sure she's safe. And she was safe. And when they got to the chopper she was fine. It wasn't a life or death situation and again, her wound may have been totally covered up so the soldier may have had no way of knowing that she had a real injury.
Yes, The Ring abuses jump scenes. What does that have to do with Cloverfield? It had ONE jump scene. It didn't abuse them.
The film lost no logic. He was scared shitless. When you're truly frightened your body freezes, he was too scared to move. That's all. Him standing there like that, like a deer in the headlights, is the most logical thing that they could have done in the film, according to actual human responses. Plus, you're just changing your agument here. You didn't complain about Hud filming the monster, you complained that the monster was there looking at him. Now I debunk that argument (proven by you saying "so what", and not actually retorting) and trying to move the argument to something else that wasn't brought up prior.
I think you are nitpicking, I already said that. Call them observations - whatever, it's still nitpicking. You're concentrating on microscopically minor and trivial "problems" that have no bearing on the plot, the action, the story, the character or the tension. You're just complaining about things that everyone noticed, but were recognized as too small and worthless to really worry about.
What I'm doing, I'm not covering any holes, these aren't holes. These are minor things that don't matter and have nothing to do with the quality of the film and most of them can be easily and logically explained. I'm also saying that every film in existence, if you really look, have these conveniences and coincidences that occur in order to make the film work and move forward (as explained in my last post using Dawn of the Dead as an example, a film we both love, which you wholly ignored).
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on May 7th, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
I'm using them as examples of how bad jump scenes can get. That is why I mention them. I bring out examples just like you're bringing out DOTD and NOTLD. Which I will touch on later in this post.
Thinking back it wasn't just to see if she was safe. It was a rescue mission. You can't say she was fine when she got to the helicopter. You're making that assumption. I'm going with the fact that she was injured and she need it medical help. You trying to prove she was fine is a weak attempt to split hairs. If you want to say she was fine because you saw her running....well, see that opens another can of worms....if she really was able to run why the hell she need to be rescue for? She's strong enough to overcome pain....ah heck...watch the last twenty minutes and you'll know what I mean.
Hate to do this to you but I'm gonna quote you from here on. I only quote certain people but you're different...this time I have to do it.
One jump scene that wasn't necessary. Cloverfield already had a very good scene with the parasites in the tunnel. That scene served no purpose for the story. Also I wasn't comparing The Ring to Cloverfield. I used The Ring as an example only.
Yes it lost the logic in that particular scene. Prior to entering the tunnel Hud got pretty close to monster. Why didn't he froze the first time? Why didn't he froze the third time before they got to the extraction zone?(right before the monster step on the tank)
Your deer in the headlights falls flat on it's on. His human responses have zero validation here. In all the previous close encounters with the monster he was able to run. He didn't run this time....why? maybe because the director (JJ whatever) wanted the audience to get a good feeling of the size of the monster.
The scene works only makes sense in a visual perspective to show how big the monster looks. However, storywise it doesn't connect. I didn't brought it earlier because I felt it wasn't necessary. Now I do. Since we're analyzing the material.
You call it nipicking and I call it observation. Fact is that these nitpicking/observations are there in the film. Neither you or I put them there. We're the audience. The only difference here is that we saw the same car crash from different corners. Except I saw it again.
These are not holes you can drive a truck through. They maybe minimal but they're there and I spotted them. You chose to skip them (or maybe didn't notice them before) Again, if you want to say that this is the case with every other film then by all means Matrix Revolutions and Saw have them as well.
Therefore any prior critiques you or I have done in the past are voided. So to make it easier just say the magical words I mention earlier.
"Suspense of disbelief" and nothing happen.
Why I chose not to touch on DOTD? Quite simply, you're trying to bring in a classic horror/cult film and use it to defend this film. That's a foul! I refuse to take something which I treasure so much and use it poorly. Nu-uh!
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on May 7th, 2008 at 03:52 AM
That's intense nitpicking. She was injured and needed medical help, yes, but coming from a man who is arguing about what is and isn't necessary regarding human reaction in that situation, it was not necessary to wait around and get her help.
She wasn't "fine" as in she had a clean bill of health. She was capable of moving, standing, walking, running. The reason they went to get her was because she called Rob and happened to have a piece of metal through her shoulder. They had to have SOMETHING happen, because it's a movie. Then you could argue "Well, why didn't she stay awake? Why didn't she pull herself off?", that's nitpicking that can simply be answered with the logic: "Because she had lost hope, she didn't expect rescue.", or the simpler answer: "Because it's a movie and this needed to happen.".
An example of what, then? Why are you talking about abusing jump shots if Cloverfield never came close to abusing jump shots? It had one jump shot that you don't think was necessary, that's not abuse of jump shots, that's a misplaced jump shot, if anything.
Because the monster was being whooped and trying to get away, it wasn't on top, one-on-one, looking at him. It just happened to be roaring as he was running toward the subway. The scene near the chopper was entirely different because it was actually on the other side, not only of Grand Central Station, but on the other side between two buildings, again, being hounded by the military and trying to get away.
Those were entirely different scenes and circumstances.
Because those were not the same, they were instinctive panic, action moments in the movie. Neither Hud nor the monster were paying any real attention to each other like they were in the main face-to-face scene.
In the first scene, the monster was moving quickly, he was moving. The second, he was more or less safe and the monster turned away almost as soon as it roared. That cannot be said in the last scene.
So now you're shifting your argument to "It wasn't relevant to the story." as opposed to "It was stupid to have it posing for the camera.". Nobody is saying it was a scene integral to the plot, but it wasn't entirely pointless or incapable of logical inclusion, as you are proposing. You are comparing his reactions when there's a lot of shit going on, to the reaction of him being underneath the monster, in broad daylight, staring at it, with it then staring at him.
I've seen it more than once, I still disagree with you. Times watching doesn't hinge the debate, here. We're all seeing the same thing, but you are comparing multiple scenes when they are clearly not the same circumstance.
They have massive plot holes, holes in the story, places where the story inherently and logically fails. Cloverfield's story does not do that, you just have an issue with one of the scenes. It doesn't detract from the story, it's you seeing him do one thing and saying "Well why didn't he do it again?". Circumstances were entirely different.
So this critique goes out the window when it's a film you like? You're willing to turn a blind eye to a movie that arguably does have more "problem" moments than Cloverfield, simply because it's older and you like it?
Do you have any idea just how void anything about "Swallowing" you've said to me is, now?
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
I'm just going to touch this with AC.
DOTD and NOTLD are not just films I happen to like. They're classics and they earn their rights to be classics of their respective genre. I'm sure one day Cloverfield will be a classic but I wouldnt label anywhere near the other two. At least not at this time.
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".
But she was fine. She was walking, talking, she was conscious; in the eyes of the soldier, there was no reason for him to put the entire group in danger to check on her while there's a damn monster running around killing everything, possibly heading towards them, all while there is a huge missile strike in bound near them. She seemed fine, there was another chopper there that she was loaded into within 10 seconds of the other one taking off, the soldier was aware of this and acted logically and appropriately considering the circumstances. It's a moot and silly point.
The jump scene you mention wasn't necessary, meaning that the story would have functioned fine without it, but it had a purpose. It was there to keep the sense of danger and tension alive during a segment of the film that changed focus for a bit. So yes, it had a purpose, it had a point. You just didn't like it. You use The Ring as an example of what? How jump scenes can be bad if overused? That's great. That doesn't mean one jump scene in Cloverfield is bad.
Hud didn't freeze during those other scenes because the monster's focus wasn't on him. He wasn't in DIRECT danger. In that other scene, the monster was standing right above him staring at him. There is a clear, factual, logical difference between a scene where the monster is standing directly in front of Hud, focusing completely on him, growling and snarling at HIM, and a scene where the monster is smashing everything but not even noticing Hud directly, and I am stunned that you can't figure that out on your own.
I saw the film twice as well. Yes, we saw the same car crash. Except I noticed the things that matter over the things that don't. You instead concentrated on the fact that the windshield broke in a somewhat odd way, and the airbag didn't look quite like how you think it should, and that the cops didn't respond exactly how you think they would in that theoretical situation based on pure speculation.
And again, any complaints or critiques about Matrix Revolutions or Saw go far beyond that of complaining only about some convenient actions that take place during each film. I already said this and you simply ignored it and brought it up again. This argument, implying that I now can't have complaints and critiques about these two films because they too have some conveniences is incredibly flawed and broken, because it also implies that all complaints are based on these types of things, and they're not.
These are not holes period. You can't drive a truck through them, you can't even put an ant through them. These are simply things that happened in order to make the film move and flow and progress in a way that kept the pace and drama high; things like those that happen in every film in existence. You can choose to ignore them in films you like, that's just proving you to be inconsistent and hypocritical. Fact remains that they are still there - they are in every film ever made, and that is no hyperbole. So Dawn of the Dead is a classic, that doesn't dissolve the fact that such conveniences exist in the film, does it? They exist, and one could pick them out and complain about them and have just as much credibility and validity to their complaints as you do with your trivial complaints about Cloverfield, that is, not much.
Oh, and yeah AC swallows. I agree.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on May 7th, 2008 at 04:44 AM
how can someone who presumably loved Batman Begins become so nit-picky over the logic of a couple of scenes in Cloverfield?
Batman Begins, good film though it was, was full of massive contortions of logic, character and manufactured - forced - coincidences.
we watch these things and forgive them, if the film is entertaining, coherent, engrossing and/or otherwise powerfully affecting. Cloverfield was a very great film, imo, it isn't for everyone but it was just an awesome spin on alien/monster movies compared to the formulaic stuff like Independence Day or War Of The Worlds...
KMC Community Forums
May 6th, 2008 08:49 PM
