Cloverfield Monster Revealed, SPOLIER!!!
- Thread starter Fubeca
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
You got to be kidding. I just saw it. I thought the monster design was terrible. The movie, if you can call it that, was OK, not great. As an experience, well... it's far from exciting.
This is only my opinion. I've been around too long to have this imapct me I guess.
im not going back because it's the greatest thing ever .im going back because i didn't get to see the ending .after the ending ill probably sneak in and see bucket list
Just curious for those who didn't like the film, what would have made it better? Less shakey camera - check. more revealing info about the monster - check. what else??
What would've made the characters more interesting and sympathetic to you? Being a fan of Lost I could see the parallel character types Rob=Jack, Beth=Kate, Hud=Hugo, so I probably had a quicker connection with those people than non-Lost fans did. What reasons do you need to care about a character? Would you rather Rob were trying to save/protect a small child or his bedridden mother instead of the girl he loves? Did you need more scenes getting to know them, their desires, fears and back story? Should they have played up the love triangle and included more tension between Rob and Travis? Would you prefer that it be set at a wedding instead of a going away party (there has to be some event with reason to have a camera going)? Think about yourself and your friends hanging out and something like this happens - what would make you interesting and sympathetic to watch?
BTW anyone think that Hud was a tongue-in-cheek name for Heads Up Display, aka the first person camera?
What would've made the characters more interesting and sympathetic to you? Being a fan of Lost I could see the parallel character types Rob=Jack, Beth=Kate, Hud=Hugo, so I probably had a quicker connection with those people than non-Lost fans did. What reasons do you need to care about a character? Would you rather Rob were trying to save/protect a small child or his bedridden mother instead of the girl he loves? Did you need more scenes getting to know them, their desires, fears and back story? Should they have played up the love triangle and included more tension between Rob and Travis? Would you prefer that it be set at a wedding instead of a going away party (there has to be some event with reason to have a camera going)? Think about yourself and your friends hanging out and something like this happens - what would make you interesting and sympathetic to watch?
BTW anyone think that Hud was a tongue-in-cheek name for Heads Up Display, aka the first person camera?
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
I think the people that didn't like it wanted more of a layed out story. Personally I think if they would have done that it would have been lame. It would have been just another monster movie.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,383
- Reaction score
- 533
Hud's name has been confirmed as an in-joke. All that was missing was a life-meter and a gun.
I still don't get the issues with the characters...Rob is, as described by his brother, a *********. He is avoiding the complications of a relationship that he thinks will get messy because he's moving. Then he decides to go in the face of disaster to rescue the girl he realizes he loves. As far a sci-fi/horror/disaster movies go, that's actually some notable character development. He loses his brother and, one by one, his friends, until he's left with just Beth and dies trying to comfort her.
It's not Oscar material, but it's not too bad. It's not any worse than Dr. Grant not liking children, and guess what happens by the end of Jurassic Park? He loves Timmy! YAY!
I remember an interview with Ridley Scott responding to the criticisms of ALIEN having no character development. He said something like, "I had an hour and a half to scare the piss out of you. There was no time for character development."
I'm telling you - Rob = Ross, Beth = Rachel, Hud = Joey. Just kill Chandler and Monica on the bridge and put Pheobe on the first helicopter that gets away, and there you have it - the best series finale ever!
I still don't get the issues with the characters...Rob is, as described by his brother, a *********. He is avoiding the complications of a relationship that he thinks will get messy because he's moving. Then he decides to go in the face of disaster to rescue the girl he realizes he loves. As far a sci-fi/horror/disaster movies go, that's actually some notable character development. He loses his brother and, one by one, his friends, until he's left with just Beth and dies trying to comfort her.
It's not Oscar material, but it's not too bad. It's not any worse than Dr. Grant not liking children, and guess what happens by the end of Jurassic Park? He loves Timmy! YAY!
I remember an interview with Ridley Scott responding to the criticisms of ALIEN having no character development. He said something like, "I had an hour and a half to scare the piss out of you. There was no time for character development."
I'm telling you - Rob = Ross, Beth = Rachel, Hud = Joey. Just kill Chandler and Monica on the bridge and put Pheobe on the first helicopter that gets away, and there you have it - the best series finale ever!
It's not that I didn't like the movie. I liked it for many reasons: I like that it had a low budget, I like that is was 85 minutes (few movies need to be 3 hours), I was fine with the docu-style, I could care less about character development a lot of the time especially in this context.
However, the thing that bugged me most about this monster movie was that I didn't like the monster. I didn't need to know more about it, I didn't need to see it more. I just thought the design was uninteresting.
I also felt the movie was a docu-version remake of the American Godzilla -- complete with little monsters chasing the heroes.
I was into it in the beginning, loved when the fire escape shook and it all began, the anticipation was fun. Somewhere along the middle, after I saw the monster, I grew tired of it all. I liked climbing into the crooked building, that was nerve-racking, then you see the monster coming while they're up there, that was scary.
But all in all, I just didn't love it. I wanted to.
However, the thing that bugged me most about this monster movie was that I didn't like the monster. I didn't need to know more about it, I didn't need to see it more. I just thought the design was uninteresting.
I also felt the movie was a docu-version remake of the American Godzilla -- complete with little monsters chasing the heroes.
I was into it in the beginning, loved when the fire escape shook and it all began, the anticipation was fun. Somewhere along the middle, after I saw the monster, I grew tired of it all. I liked climbing into the crooked building, that was nerve-racking, then you see the monster coming while they're up there, that was scary.
But all in all, I just didn't love it. I wanted to.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,383
- Reaction score
- 533
Wor-Gar, I hope you don't think I was addressing you above. I'm responding more to the general vibe I'm getting from the movie sites I visit than anyone on this board.
A lot definitely depends on whether you like the monster, that's for sure. And I can understand people not liking it. I said in my first post I think a lot of the criticisms agains the movie are valid.
I agree that this is totally Broderickzilla in a different format, but in my opinion this film did everything right that they did wrong.
A lot definitely depends on whether you like the monster, that's for sure. And I can understand people not liking it. I said in my first post I think a lot of the criticisms agains the movie are valid.
I agree that this is totally Broderickzilla in a different format, but in my opinion this film did everything right that they did wrong.
No, no, I didn't take it personally. I was just responding in general. Thanks for the concern though.
And I do agree that this was much, much better than the Broderzilla 'Iguana' version.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,383
- Reaction score
- 533
I still can't bring myself to re-watch Amerizilla, I have such bad memories of it.
A hardcore G-fan friend of mine was so psyched he went to Toys R Us before the movie and showed up with a 6" Godzilla toy. Immediately after the movie he sped away, receipt flapping in the wind, back to TRU. HE may have been crying.
A few years later I saw there was a modern Japanese Godzilla movie on tv late one night, so I sat down to watch it. In the first few minutes a bunch of characters are discussing how Godzilla hasn't appeared in a long time. Someone asks, "Didn't he recently attack New York?" Someone else replies, "No, that wasn't Godzilla."
A hardcore G-fan friend of mine was so psyched he went to Toys R Us before the movie and showed up with a 6" Godzilla toy. Immediately after the movie he sped away, receipt flapping in the wind, back to TRU. HE may have been crying.
A few years later I saw there was a modern Japanese Godzilla movie on tv late one night, so I sat down to watch it. In the first few minutes a bunch of characters are discussing how Godzilla hasn't appeared in a long time. Someone asks, "Didn't he recently attack New York?" Someone else replies, "No, that wasn't Godzilla."
In the first few minutes a bunch of characters are discussing how Godzilla hasn't appeared in a long time. Someone asks, "Didn't he recently attack New York?" Someone else replies, "No, that wasn't Godzilla."
That's excellent. I was a huge Toho/Godzilla fan in my younger days, and the American version was just so wrong in so many ways. I really wanted that movie to be great. One of the worst aspects was, again, the creature design. It really wasn't anything more than a giant iguana. Not very inventive. Not very visually appealing.
The monster in Cloverfield was more unique. I did like that one shot from the helicopter where it looked like it was struggling to crawl, like a giant creepy corpse or something. It looked nasty there. I though that would have made it more cool -- if the Cloverfield monster moved as if gravity created problems for it, moved more sickly. Could have been creepy and nasty, yet given some insight into what effects the beast, and would have been more of a signal that it was not from this earth.
galactiboy
OT Preferist
I love Godzilla, but I've never seen the American movie... it just looked so crappy and reviews so damning that I stayed away. I felt like it wasn't Godzilla and therefore a copycat, so I've stayed pure in my none viewing
Like most of those Dean Devlin films, Godzilla is a hodge-podge of great movie moments from other movies: the boats being pulled back like Jaws, the mini-zillas chasing our heroes like the Raptors in Jurassic Park, something creepy in the eggs rattling inside like Alien, etc.
Shropt
Super Freak
I saw this movie and loved it. This was a great experience that is so different than anything else out there. (Remember, Blair Witch is 9 years old. Its ok to steal one element from that movie.)
The monster design was interesting. It has a "King Kong" head with "War of the World" legs and long gangly arms. I LOVED that the thing never breathed fire. I think I would have walked out if anything other than roars came out of its mouth.
The story was also cool. Its nice to have simple motives create a story. Not every movie needs to be filled with plot twists and conspiracies. Were the characters likeable? I don't know. The were a tad bland but you cared a little bit when they died. Not much, just a little.
But the movie was cool. Was it a movie? Was it an experience? Maybe a video game which you never touch a controller? I'll pick the last one. Was it worth the $5 I paid to see it? HELL YES!!
GO SEE THIS FILM. Love it or hate it, you will think and talk about it afterwards.
The monster design was interesting. It has a "King Kong" head with "War of the World" legs and long gangly arms. I LOVED that the thing never breathed fire. I think I would have walked out if anything other than roars came out of its mouth.
The story was also cool. Its nice to have simple motives create a story. Not every movie needs to be filled with plot twists and conspiracies. Were the characters likeable? I don't know. The were a tad bland but you cared a little bit when they died. Not much, just a little.
But the movie was cool. Was it a movie? Was it an experience? Maybe a video game which you never touch a controller? I'll pick the last one. Was it worth the $5 I paid to see it? HELL YES!!
GO SEE THIS FILM. Love it or hate it, you will think and talk about it afterwards.
It looks like a few people went to see this. $41 million for the weekend.
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22756913/
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22756913/
CAhobbit
Super Freak
"Cannibal Holocaust" is even older, 1980, (that's where "The Blair Witch Project" took the home movie camera idea from)
And don't forget The Last Broadcast. It came out a year or so before The Blair Witch Project. Although I didn't think it was as good.
Yes, I liked The Blair Witch Project a lot. I remember seeing it in the theater, not knowing much about it, and truly being creeped out by it.
CAhobbit
Super Freak
I really liked "The Blair Witch Project" as well. It's the only film in the horror genre that has achieved truly creeping me out. I have yet to find another horror film to cause me to be that creeped out.
EVILFACE
Insufferable S.O.B.
BW was pretty good concept.
The sequel is underrated.
The sequel is underrated.
100% agree about the BW sequel. I actually hated it when I was watching it the first time until the twist ending. The Ending made me love it. And after repeat viewing I don't know what I hated about it in the first place.
As for the monster in Cloverfield. I liked the look. It reminded me of a Ray Harryhausen creation. Sort of what the Ymir from 20,000,000 Miles to Earth would be like if he walked on all fours.
Similar threads
