WrongShui wrote: Not when I was standing in an office of Americans when it happened. |
The Official "Cloverfield" thread - 1-18-08
•
Page 11
-
-
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agophAge wrote:
Gremmi wrote:
You just didn't get it.
phAge wrote:
Gremmi wrote:
Yeah - same thing happened with Sunshine - all the mongs who just couldn't understand the movie, and then slagged it as a consequence.
This argument reminds me of Jericho - people who didn't like it because it didn't show how the entire world was coping and dealing with the attacks were genuinely missing the point..gif)
Sunshine was bollocks, though.
I got that it wasn't as good as Event Horizon.
You're in trouble when Anderson is doing better things than you. -
WrongShui wrote:
phAge wrote:
Gremmi wrote:
You just didn't get it.
phAge wrote:
Gremmi wrote:
Yeah - same thing happened with Sunshine - all the mongs who just couldn't understand the movie, and then slagged it as a consequence.
This argument reminds me of Jericho - people who didn't like it because it didn't show how the entire world was coping and dealing with the attacks were genuinely missing the point.
Sunshine was bollocks, though.
I got that it wasn't as good Event Horizon.
You're in trouble when Anderson is doing better things than you.
Bwahahaha, noice.
I liked both, incidentally.
If anything both rather weakly plotted films with very, very nice production design.
And still better than Mission To Mars.
-
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoWhich ones Mission to Mars?
I kinda liked the one with Mad Martigan and the Kung Fu Robot dog. -
ecureuil wrote:
Cloverfield DOES have an entire backstory plotted out, I posted a quote earlier where a producer said that the creative team had fleshed it all out. But again, since Cloverfield doesn't really tell you all that much, people assume they haven't thought about it.
Wasn't it plotted out after the first film was finished, though? After the money men smelt Franchise Opportunities? -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoEvent Horizon and Sunshine were both great for the first 2/3 to 3/4, but then turn to shit. -
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoDo you see? -
Quint2020 3,484 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 14 years agoecureuil wrote:
I never said it had lots of depth. But for the same reasons people criticise Lost, they're doing it here. Just because they don't explain everything in black and white, doesn't mean things are without reason. Lost has a massive, well thought out back story. Everything is considered, and I can't recall a TV show that pays so much attention to detail. They reveal a lot, but they hide just as much, and it's because of this, people accuse them of not knowing what they're doing. It's an unfair accusation.
Cloverfield DOES have an entire backstory plotted out, I posted a quote earlier where a producer said that the creative team had fleshed it all out. But again, since Cloverfield doesn't really tell you all that much, people assume they haven't thought about it.
Unfortunately this is a film and i paid to see a whole film, i didn't pay to have to wait 2 years to see the bloody rest of it. -
Quint2020 3,484 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 14 years agoWrongShui wrote:
Which ones Mission to Mars?
I kinda liked the one with Mad Martigan and the Kung Fu Robot dog.
That's Red Planet, i loved that movie. -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoecureuil wrote: Cloverfield DOES have an entire back story plotted out, I posted a quote earlier where a producer said that the creative team had fleshed it all out. But again, since Cloverfield doesn't really tell you all that much, people assume they haven't thought about it.
Well personally, I think it's just swell that they've thought about it, but if it doesn't find its way into the actual movie, it's no good to me or anyone else that watches it. -
@eucueril - You can only really judge a movie on what you're presented with. You could, in theory, actually develop massive theories about the hows and whys of ANY simple movie or plot when creating it. Take Feast, for example. Where did the creatures in that film, where four bizarre sex-crazed fiends attack a pub in the middle of a desert, come from? Or, for that matter, the worms in Tremors? Does it matter? No. Backstory does not equal depth. Unless said backstory appears in the picture, which it didn't.
And you DID say it had depth by attacking those who said it didn't. Otherwise why would you bother? I believe the writers of Lost at some point revealed they were making it all up as they went along. And to be honest, if that's really what people feel on watching (most of those I know gave up after the second season) then they're not doing a particularly good job at telling it.
Why are the makers of Cloverfield trying to make something bigger than what they've made? Simply to real suckers in. It's the oldest trick in the book, get people curious and rake in the cash. Except this time the trick kinda fell on its face because the film doesn't seem to have enough depth for audiences to have repeat viewings. 60%+ drop in box office take on the second week. Ouchie, there has to be a reason, and that reason can only be seen in the films criticism. -
S'like all that balls they did with Matrix Reloaded, with the plot being spread over EtM and the Animatrix shorts. -
Quint2020 3,484 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 14 years agoecureuil wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
No, it's a genuine criticism. They're basically an overly classy unrealistic bunch for about, ooh, 90% of the people who've seen it. Congrats, you live in a massive apartment in Manhatten surrounded by friends who got a haircut (sorry, style) today and spout inane dialogue at the drop of a coin, who run off on crazy journeys with seemingly little concern for their own safety with very little motivation. But for the rest of us, it's unreal.
Do you not have any basic human empathy? Why do they have to be just like you for you to care about them? Can't you want them to survive because they're humans?
Characters have to be likeable or at least have understandable motives for them to carry an entire movie imo most of the characters in Cloverfield failed miserably at both of these points. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 18 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that your sole agenda here is to show how you haven't been "reeled in" like all of the other "suckers" - i.e. to show how clever you are...
Why are the makers of Cloverfield trying to make something bigger than what they've made? Simply to real suckers in. It's the oldest trick in the book, get people curious and rake in the cash. Except this time the trick kinda fell on its face because the film doesn't seem to have enough depth for audiences to have repeat viewings. 60%+ drop in box office take on the second week. Ouchie, there has to be a reason, and that reason can only be seen in the films criticism.
/shrugs -
ecureuil wrote:
Who knows? I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, I reckon it's something they've thought about since the beginning.
Lost says Hello. -
jellyhead 24,356 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoAt least in Feast you weren't supposed to care about the characters. They were just fodder for the most part but at least there were one of two you could empathise with.
As for just wanting people to survive because they're people? Nope. Take Jurassic Park 3 for example, 10 minutes in and i *wanted* the dinos to eat every single one of them and poo them out into acid pits. I was willing to dinos to win because the characters were so annoying, wooden and just generally terrible that i no longer cared for them as people. -
ecureuil wrote:
Do you not have any basic human empathy? Why do they have to be just like you for you to care about them? Can't you want them to survive because they're humans?
What an absurd argument. It was either Lucas or Spielberg who once said to engage an audience all you had to do was strangle a puppy. No, I don't "just want them survive", I want to actually give a shit about their relationships, connections. I'm being asked to connect to characters to care about what happens to do that, and if I can't then I won't. Do you care about Tom Cruise in War Of The Worlds? Hey, you know - Hannibal Lectur is a human too. Let's care about him!
We're used to hearing about real life disasters all the time on the news. Do I weep every time that happens? Do you? No. Doesn't make me less human, it's life. Will I weep if someone I care about, love, dies? Fucking hell yeah. What about some people in a film I know is a fantasy? You'll have to make a connection, and I believe aside from, evidently, yourself many people here would agree. -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agosquarejawhero wrote: I believe the writers of Lost at some point revealed they were making it all up as they went along.
In fairness, I thought that they had the broad strokes of the main story covered, and were just making up the filler-type stories as they went along, which is fine. -
phAge wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that your sole agenda here is to show how you haven't been "reeled in" like all of the other "suckers" - i.e. to show how clever you are...
Why are the makers of Cloverfield trying to make something bigger than what they've made? Simply to real suckers in. It's the oldest trick in the book, get people curious and rake in the cash. Except this time the trick kinda fell on its face because the film doesn't seem to have enough depth for audiences to have repeat viewings. 60%+ drop in box office take on the second week. Ouchie, there has to be a reason, and that reason can only be seen in the films criticism.
/shrugs
That's unncessary. No, I like talking about films. I enjoy the dissection as well as the enjoyment of a good film. I'm not saying I'm cleverer here - in fact, it's my intelligence that's being brought to the jury if you read the thread!
Although thanks if you're saying I'm clever, in a roundabout way. Again, I ENJOYED the movie. I thought it had some really clever techniques, the sound design was brilliant, and although I only cared about Lizzy Caplan, it was tense throughout. But only because of the intensity of the situation.
However, if you're gonna say something in a discussion that I feel is wrong or I disagree with, like anyone else I'm gonna call you on it. OK? -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agophAge wrote: If I didn't know any better, I'd say that your sole agenda here is to show how you haven't been "reeled in" like all of the other "suckers" - i.e. to show how clever you are... /shrugs
That's funny, because if I didn't know better I'd say you were suggesting that people who didn't like the movie didn't get it like you did, i.e. to show how cultured a movie-goer you are. :-/ /shrugs -
Telepathic.Geometry wrote:
squarejawhero wrote: I believe the writers of Lost at some point revealed they were making it all up as they went along.
In fairness, I thought that they had the broad strokes of the main story covered, and were just making up the filler-type stories as they went along, which is fine.
I wrote that knowing I'd be called on it, but it was a criticism that was flung at them from the second season onwards. Structurally for me, it was a complete mess at that point and I gave up on it.
BSG had a third series wobble too. I kept up with it for a bit as I love that one, but eventually felt myself losing interest. Had to stop as I moved and lost Sky so don't know how that turned out... -
Who mentioned ending it? We were talking about backstory. -
ecureuil wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
ecureuil wrote:
Do you not have any basic human empathy? Why do they have to be just like you for you to care about them? Can't you want them to survive because they're humans?
What an absurd argument. It was either Lucas or Spielberg who once said to engage an audience all you had to do was strangle a puppy. No, I don't "just want them survive", I want to actually give a shit about their relationships, connections. I'm being asked to connect to characters to care about what happens to do that, and if I can't then I won't. Do you care about Tom Cruise in War Of The Worlds? Hey, you know - Hannibal Lectur is a human too. Let's care about him!
We're used to hearing about real life disasters all the time on the news. Do I weep every time that happens? Do you? No. Doesn't make me less human, it's life. Will I weep if someone I care about, love, dies? Fucking hell yeah. What about some people in a film I know is a fantasy? You'll have to make a connection, and I believe aside from, evidently, yourself many people here would agree.
Well, anyway, I cared about the characters. They didn't have any particular hook, but I wanted them to get out of there. People have too much hate.
Are you just arguing for the sake of it, because you don't like people picking apart the movie, no matter how justified any well-thought criticism might be? Because that's how it reads.
AGAIN - I don't HATE the film. I don't HATE the characters. They're badly written for the most part, have very intangible connections, but they worked broadly in the context of where the filmmakers wanted to go. Which is enough in a simple film like Cloverfield. Fire and forget, that's all it is. -
squarejawhero wrote:
I'm merely commenting on the way you get to decide what "depth" is, and then conclude that Cloverfield doesn't have any. That, to me, is a bit arrogant, and when you on top of that state that anyone who thinks that the movie is more than just another silly monster-flick are "suckers", well...
phAge wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that your sole agenda here is to show how you haven't been "reeled in" like all of the other "suckers" - i.e. to show how clever you are...
Why are the makers of Cloverfield trying to make something bigger than what they've made? Simply to real suckers in. It's the oldest trick in the book, get people curious and rake in the cash. Except this time the trick kinda fell on its face because the film doesn't seem to have enough depth for audiences to have repeat viewings. 60%+ drop in box office take on the second week. Ouchie, there has to be a reason, and that reason can only be seen in the films criticism.
/shrugs
That's unncessary. No, I like talking about films. I enjoy the dissection as well as the enjoyment of a good film. I'm not saying I'm cleverer here - in fact, it's my intelligence that's being brought to the jury if you read the thread!
Although thanks if you're saying I'm clever, in a roundabout way. Again, I ENJOYED the movie. I thought it had some really clever techniques, the sound design was brilliant, and although I only cared about Lizzy Caplan, it was tense throughout. But only because of the intensity of the situation.
However, if you're gonna say something in a discussion that I feel is wrong or I disagree with, like anyone else I'm gonna call you on it. OK?
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
