Thread: CloverField

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I think that the fact it sounded so unscripted and "fake" just made it seem so more real. When you go to see a movie, usually the dialogue is flowing and flawless, so when you go to the cinema, that's what you expect. In real life, no-one talks like that.

Well, I'm not really asking that it be flowing and flawless. Being unscripted wasn't part of the problem. I don't know how to put it other than it was just bad acting.

Personally I didn't think the acting was bad. In fact, I thought most of it was quite good. But that doesn't change the fact that I DISLIKED most of the characters. You can act realistically and still be LIKABLE. But in my opinion, this is just bad scripting/directing and has nothing to do with the actors. :/

Went to see it yesterday.

Against all my expectations it's actually quite good.

Had a looong talk about this with my friend on the phone last night. We sorta agreed that the world isn't really ready for Cloverfield yet. We came up with a good solution, though. At least I think.

We're used to seeing such perfectly set up shots. But this...is the exact opposite. The camera action is shitty because Hud is a shitty camera man, so it makes sense. But you can't just jump from perfect camera movement, to AWFUL camera movement. There should be something in between.

They should do something similar to this, but have the guy holding the camera actually be a professional camera man (in the movie, maybe he's filming a wedding or something and catches all the action), so that even though its all first person and stuff, the action shooting isn't SO horrible as it was in Cloverfield. People will eventually get used to the more realistic, man off the street camera action. But it's a drastic leap for the time being.

Someone really SHOULD make that movie though. Good camera man. First person. Etc. I dunno. I think it works.

Anyways. I'm going to give this movie another try on the big screen. (I promised my friend I'd see it in the theater)

I've discovered that every guy likes Hud, and therefore likes the movie. And every girl hates Hud, and dislikes the movie as a result. Sooo....yeah. They should make the character more likable for both sexes in the future.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Had a looong talk about this with my friend on the phone last night. We sorta agreed that the world isn't really ready for Cloverfield yet. We came up with a good solution, though. At least I think.

We're used to seeing such perfectly set up shots. But this...is the exact opposite. The camera action is shitty because Hud is a shitty camera man, so it makes sense. But you can't just jump from perfect camera movement, to AWFUL camera movement. There should be something in between.

They should do something similar to this, but have the guy holding the camera actually be a professional camera man (in the movie, maybe he's filming a wedding or something and catches all the action), so that even though its all first person and stuff, the action shooting isn't SO horrible as it was in Cloverfield. People will eventually get used to the more realistic, man off the street camera action. But it's a drastic leap for the time being.

Someone really SHOULD make that movie though. Good camera man. First person. Etc. I dunno. I think it works.

Anyways. I'm going to give this movie another try on the big screen. (I promised my friend I'd see it in the theater)

I've discovered that every guy likes Hud, and therefore likes the movie. And every girl hates Hud, and dislikes the movie as a result. Sooo....yeah. They should make the character more likable for both sexes in the future.

That's a good idea, and I was thinking about something somewhat similar, a little while ago.

I was thinking that maybe this would have been better received if it had perfect first person perspective - something like the 1st person sequence in Doom, where it's like the camera is on a track, and there is no shake whatsoever.

But then, I figured it would detract too much from the realism of being "put in the situation," because it would just be too perfect. But, if it was still shot by hand-held, and actually done with the concept of the camera man being a trained photographer...it just might be all the more effective.

[Edit: Oh, but not every guy likes HUD. I've heard/read a lot of guys bitching about HUD, for pretty much the same reason's you said (ie; he's annoying, etc. etc.)]

(Note: I have not yet seen this)


I love and hate movies like this, that give you so little information...

Basically, from what it looks like, it is a lot less about the monster and a lot more about the people. The trailer looked great, but what is this about exploding women? Those are the really scary moments in movies, (I may sound sick right now) but there is a certain disgusting, nauseous pleasure from hearing death cries, etc. (I guess that is why horror was invented, but horror is no good, I like good sci-fi things like this that make you think)Anyway, it is horrible in the extreme in comparison, and I would be better off as a person not hearing grisly screaming/blood gushing. That is what you go to bed thinking about. Not the monster, but that moment playing in your head, over, and over, and over...

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I've discovered that every guy likes Hud, and therefore likes the movie. And every girl hates Hud, and dislikes the movie as a result. Sooo....yeah. They should make the character more likable for both sexes in the future.

My sister just went to see it, and she loved the movie as much as I did, if not more. She didn't dislike Hud at all. Like me, she enjoyed the believability of his character, and the way he represented a vague average of humanity (at least in Western culture).

a vauge average of humanity in western culture. I dont know if I should take that as an insult or not. He wasnt by any means an average. but he did represent a jock sterotype quite well.

jock? Not the word I would have chosen.

well. there are plenty of fat football players. plus, he is cocky, annoying and takes any kind of oppertunity to try and mess with the chick. seems pretty much like a jock to me

apparently it's very bad because it is all done by video camera! I listen to a critics review on the radio. they said it was rubbish.

The thing I have learnt over they years is:

Don't listen to critics and go watch it yourself.

So far that advice has worked on a lot of films.

works for me as well, idk how many times I have strongly disagreed with the critics on a movie. They just want to push either A) The kind of movies they like or B) the ones that will pay them bucks to say its good

Have you guys seen this yet...

http://www.break.com/index/leaked-sc...overfield.html

I get the feeling new things are just going to keep coming out about this movie.

edit: and here's a good site if you want everything explained/like spoilers: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...59073680a6d56f

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Have you guys seen this yet...

http://www.break.com/index/leaked-sc...overfield.html

I get the feeling new things are just going to keep coming out about this movie.

Yeah. This was out before the movie came out. I thought it was an awesome idea.

Hey guys, Hasbro has just released the Clove Monster images they will be selling for $99 a pop. check em' out.







EDIT: Is it me or is he Missing the other set of limbs/arms or whatever they are.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Hey guys, Hasbro has just released the Clove Monster images they will be selling for $99 a pop. check em' out.
Is it me or is he Missing the other set of limbs/arms or whatever they are.

Yeah... the face looks right, but the body seems a little jacked. It was alot bigger than that...

You should use spoiler tags.

Anyways, I've already seen this. I think it's decent, but the body seems wrong. It's mising some things and it's not as skinny as that. I heard it also comes with several parasites.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

I heard it also comes with several parasites.

Haha, awesome. It should also come with terrified civilians and exploding women.