 |
The Official "Cloverfield" thread - 1-18-08
•
Page 13
-
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years ago -
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoAye. :'| *sniffles* -
WrongShui 6,858 posts
Seen 17 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoI didnt like the little monsters, they made a similar noise to murlocks. -
Telepathic.Geometry wrote:
For the record, I quite liked the look of the monster. Also, ecureuil, you never told me if I was right about my guess that the little mini-monster bastards look like the insects from RE4.
squarejawhero wrote: I give up, phAge, I've already explained it. You can have ambiguity and depth, by the way. Go watch Kairo or something and come back to me.
That is one fucked up movie.
Depressing too. Reeeeallly depressing.
-
Telepathic.Geometry 12,422 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 15 years agoTaskete.
Taskete.
Taskete.
Taskete.
Taskete. -
o_0
0_0
-_-
0_0
/runz -
/seals thread with red tape -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
and although I only cared about Lizzy Caplan
Isn't it a touch ironic to criticise the characters for being shallow Gap models when the only reason you cared about one of them is because you fancy her? -
Yes.
I love Lizzy Caplan.
I'm not ashamed of it. I want to boink her and that's the only reason I cared. Not cos I gave a shit about her character or anything, but because I want to cleft her in two with my man-bits.
-
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agoSo maybe the idea of using good looking people in a movie is something that might catch on in the future...
Also, for a budget of $25 million I'm struggling with the idea Cloverfield is a failure for bringing in $90 million in two and a half weeks at the slowest time of the year. -
You're reading too much into it, my friend, to try and set up a strawman. 
It's not (edit) JUST because she's phsyically attractive, but as an actress she's also the most talented one in the film. Sadly she don't get much screen time aside from being a bit sarcy, hitting a bug and exploding. BUT ITS ENOUGH FOR ME.
As for the amount of money it's making, you're saying 60% isn't a big drop off, no matter the first taking? -
Doesn't Blair Witch still hold the record for the budget-to-box office ratio? Something stupid like $2,500 back for every $1 spent? -
elredeyegrande 2,382 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI always thought Deepthroat had the record for budget-to-box office ratio. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
I must have missed it, then - on what page did you give your definition of "depth"?
I give up, phAge, I've already explained it.
You can have ambiguity and depth, by the way. Go watch Kairo or something and come back to me.
FWIW, Cloverfield made me think about what I'd do in a situation where something truly extraordinary and life-threatening occured, how I'd react to, well, having my city invaded by an alien/monster, and what it would all mean to me, and the world. The hand-held style really helped suspend my disbelief in a way that few monster-movies ever have, and the lack of what you call "depth" - i.e. some random punter explaining everything about the plot, monster and general state of affairs only emphasized that. Sure, the characters were a bit pretty, but that didn't block my empathy for them completely, as it seems to have done with you.
In short, I liked the style, and lack of explanation for everything, because it allowed my imagination to fill in the blanks. If you choose to call this "lack of depth", you are most certainly welcome to do so, although I find that rather shallow. Just like the people who snort at everything resembling modern art, because it doesn't "mean anything". -
Dirtbox 92,599 posts
Seen 43 minutes ago
Registered 19 years ago -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
As for the amount of money it's making, you're saying 60% isn't a big drop off, no matter the first taking?
No it is a big drop off, but not really unexpected seeing as Cloverfield holds the record for highest opening weekend in January ever. If it hadn't done so well to start with the drop off would have been a lot less, so the 60% number is fairly meaningless. -
Scurrminator 9,045 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 16 years agoplus just wait for the international revenue to come in, no wonder they want a sequel.
However, does anyone remember blair witch 2, with it's 'proper' filmed stlye? nope, no-one remembers it cos it was shit...as was the original to be honest. -
elredeyegrande 2,382 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 15 years agoDirtbox wrote:
The Blair Witch Project cost $35,000 and grossed internationally $248,300,000 according to this. That's over $7000 for every $1.
Deepthroat doesn't even register on the rickter scale.
Deepthroat's estimates range from $100 - $600 million dollars apparently. On a budget of $22,000. -
ruttyboy 7,950 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agoecureuil wrote:
Telepathic.Geometry wrote:
For the record, I quite liked the look of the monster. Also, ecureuil, you never told me if I was right about my guess that the little mini-monster bastards look like the insects from RE4.
They do a little, but it's not what I was thinking of. Maybe it's just my memory patching things up the wrong way, but I'm sure I've seen something in a game that is almost identical to the Cloverfield parasites. The main monster really is very similar to something from Resistance, though. [link=http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5049/widowmaker800id6.jpg">Example A, and B, -
Khanivor wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
As for the amount of money it's making, you're saying 60% isn't a big drop off, no matter the first taking?
No it is a big drop off, but not really unexpected seeing as Cloverfield holds the record for highest opening weekend in January ever. If it hadn't done so well to start with the drop off would have been a lot less, so the 60% number is fairly meaningless.
I wouldn't say it's meaningless in talking about trends. Juno's done rather well this month given its opening weekend and is still holding, for example.
When talking about repeat business, so far it doesn't stand up. Which is important when we're discussing hype affecting performance, for example. -
phAge wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
I must have missed it, then - on what page did you give your definition of "depth"?
I give up, phAge, I've already explained it.
You can have ambiguity and depth, by the way. Go watch Kairo or something and come back to me.
FWIW, Cloverfield made me think about what I'd do in a situation where something truly extraordinary and life-threatening occured, how I'd react to, well, having my city invaded by an alien/monster, and what it would all mean to me, and the world. The hand-held style really helped suspend my disbelief in a way that few monster-movies ever have, and the lack of what you call "depth" - i.e. some random punter explaining everything about the plot, monster and general state of affairs only emphasized that. Sure, the characters were a bit pretty, but that didn't block my empathy for them completely, as it seems to have done with you.
In short, I liked the style, and lack of explanation for everything, because it allowed my imagination to fill in the blanks. If you choose to call this "lack of depth", you are most certainly welcome to do so, although I find that rather shallow. Just like the people who snort at everything resembling modern art, because it doesn't "mean anything".
Sorry fella, but it's hard to see you doing anything but arguing the toss. Grant you, you've had a personal experience of the movie, but that's due to the situation presented to you. Not any kind of subtext or plot. Don't get that confused with depth. I'll go into more detail again but I've already given the example of The Host paaages back. But seeing as it's you...
I love ambiguity. I love David Lynch, I love the fact asian horror leaves it to the viewer to figure out what's going on, I love piecing together puzzles when viewing a film. But you can't argue that there's anything other than "where did it come from" in Cloverfield. Ambiguity without subtext is a lack of depth, if Lynch films lacked depth they certainly wouldn't have the same following. Even Blair Witch had more substance than Cloverfield, which to me makes it the better film - plus the at the time innovative marketing tied in very directly to the movie itself.
Depth is not explanation, it's not empathy. It's the stuff that hides behind what's going on. You don't have to explain anything, you can leave it up to the imagination. But Cloverfield leaves little to the imagination, nor gives any reasoning, nor contains much subtext beyond images inspired by 9/11, nor has characters with complex interpersonal relationships, providing broad strokes rather than any detail, so there's very, very little depth there. If any.
Not sure I can be any clearer. -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 18 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
And this, I think, is where we disagree. Even though I agree with some aspects of your definition of depth, I don't think that depth equals a good, just like the (apparent) lack of it makes Cloverfield a bad one. Movies are all about experiences, emotional and intellectual, and for me Cloverfield provided far more of both than, for example Mulholland Drive. Not saying that the former is better than the latter, but it certainly made me think quite a bit more about things.
... which to me makes it the better film - plus the at the time innovative marketing tied in very directly to the movie itself.
EDIT: I should thank you though, as your explanation of "depth" has made me realize that, while some movies are obviously better/deeper than others, a lot of the meaning a person gets from a movie, is created in the space where movie and person meets, so to speak. If there is nothing in the movie that resonates with you, it will leave you cold, and all the qualities of it will be wasted. Explains why I found Grave of the Fireflies to be a bunch of emo wank, and Sunshine a breathtaking tale about isolation, and what it mweans to be human, whereas f.x. Gremmi is the other way around. And gay. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 20 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
When talking about repeat business, so far it doesn't stand up. Which is important when we're discussing hype affecting performance, for example.
I don't think Cloverfield is the kind of movie that would have a lot of repeat business; it's an event, an experience and not really crafted for multiple viewings. The can-sit-through-this-only-once-but-can-see-its-purpose first 15 or so minutes exemplifies this for me. It's also got a narrower appeal - Godzilla and Knig Kong were summer blockbusters and didn't do as well as expected either - monster flicks appear to be a niche genre.
However, more than tripling your budget in less than three weeks just cannot be seen as a failure.
I don't think it has an awful lot of depth. Neither do many great films. If you need masses of depth to enjoy a movie I think your beret may be too tight. -
Dirtbox 92,599 posts
Seen 43 minutes ago
Registered 19 years ago -
Khanivor wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
When talking about repeat business, so far it doesn't stand up. Which is important when we're discussing hype affecting performance, for example.
I don't think Cloverfield is the kind of movie that would have a lot of repeat business; it's an event, an experience and not really crafted for multiple viewings. The can-sit-through-this-only-once-but-can-see-its-purpose first 15 or so minutes exemplifies this for me. It's also got a narrower appeal - Godzilla and Knig Kong were summer blockbusters and didn't do as well as expected either - monster flicks appear to be a niche genre.
However, more than tripling your budget in less than three weeks just cannot be seen as a failure.
I don't think it has an awful lot of depth. Neither do many great films. If you need masses of depth to enjoy a movie I think your beret may be too tight.
OK, you got me, it's not a failiure. However its missing a trick beacuse of its nature, that's fo' sho'.
I think its critics (including myself) count it as a bit of a disappointment because there was a lot of allusions to its depth through the marketing, and there was no payoff. Personally I think it lacked a spark to launch it into greatness, even though I enjoyed it. I'll probably buy it on DVD because technically it's superbly crafted.
Hell, Godzilla was a commentary on mans abuse of atomic energy inspired, as Dirtbox says, by the WW2 bombs. In that respect Cloverfield is overshadowed by its ancient inspiration!
As for masses of depth to enjoy a movie, one of my top faves of all time is Fast And The Furious; Tokyo Drift. That and I USED to have (til it got lost at a party) the actual hat Steve Zahn wore in Sahara. Er... think that says too much about me...
At least I didn't say 2 Fast 2 Furious... that's a bag o'shite of epic proportions... -
For those who care, various explanations of things worked out (not by me) from the film + viral marketing.
At the end of the film, during the Coney Island sequence, you can see something land in the ocean in the background. This is a satellite that crashed, owned by a Japanese company (the same one that main blokey guy was going to work for) who woke the monster by searching for it (the company is the same one who makes Slusho).
At the end of the credits, there's a brief burst of static with someone saying "help me". Played backwards, it says perfectly and clearly "It's still alive".
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.
