Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jdjtcagle on January 23, 2008, 11:40:59 am

Title: Cloverfield
Post by: jdjtcagle on January 23, 2008, 11:40:59 am
It was awesome... very suspenseful!  :) :yes

Ending could of been just a little better, though
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Bobboau on January 23, 2008, 11:56:00 am
agreed the ending just pissed me off.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: BloodEagle on January 23, 2008, 12:16:45 pm
What did the 'monster' turn out to be?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Bobboau on January 23, 2008, 12:20:29 pm
eh, well, a monster.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: BloodEagle on January 23, 2008, 12:22:22 pm
Was 'it' a specific 'monster'? Cthulhu? Godzilla? Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dark Hunter on January 23, 2008, 12:36:19 pm
They give zero backstory on the monster. No explanations, nothing. So, like Bobboau said: a monster. That's all we know.

I think the point is that the viewer is meant to be just one of the civilians running away: having no clue what's happening, and not on the Army's "need-to-know" list.

I thought the movie was excellent as well. I highly reccomend it. :nod:
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: IPAndrews on January 23, 2008, 12:36:43 pm
It's this wierd thing so I heard.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: MarsNeedsWomen on January 23, 2008, 01:55:39 pm
From what I've heard, the movie seemed kinda "meh". I'll wait for it on Cable. I've also heard many comments about the monster from "It's unique" to "It's stupid and cheesy looking".
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: jdjtcagle on January 23, 2008, 02:01:47 pm
Bah the monster was pretty cool
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Bobboau on January 23, 2008, 02:37:30 pm
ok, take this thing (http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/toybox_112806_3.jpg), make it 300 feet tall, remove the tentacles and the wings, give it a set of semi-vestigial legs in the middle, make the rear legs smaller, front arms bigger the hands smaller, make the head smaller, make it walk on it's knuckles and give it two pulsating red sacks on either side of it's head and you'll have the cloverfield monster.
it also apparently is quite similar to some of the things in resistance: fall of man, though I've never played the game so I'm not sure.
if you are really interested go to youtube and type in cloverfield sort by date and look for the thing with really long arms.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Rictor on January 24, 2008, 10:18:27 pm
I really liked it. Granted, I missed the first 15 minutes because I walked into 27 Weddings by mistake.

The shaky-cam didn't bother me, although there's no assurance that others will feel the same way. It's a rare movie that has me on the edge of my seat throughout, and Cloverfield did. I would recommend it - it's not Citizen Kane, but it's a very enjoyable hour and a half.

Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Ransom on January 24, 2008, 10:52:31 pm
I thought it was excellent. I'm glad the creature wasn't Cthulhu, because that would have been stupid.

The ending didn't trouble me at all. That's me, though - I don't think I expected the same thing from the film's ending as most people did.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Rictor on January 24, 2008, 11:03:17 pm
I expected a good 20 minutes of hot we're-about-to-die sex, conveniently captured on camera. But the real ending was good too. I was afraid that they would somehow magically survive the massive bombardment, which would have just been cheesy.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Topgun on January 24, 2008, 11:06:43 pm
I expected a good 20 minutes of hot we're-about-to-die sex, conveniently captured on camera.
lol.
that would have taken a third of the movie :lol:. (it's 1hr and 20min)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Kosh on January 25, 2008, 01:11:18 am
I'm wondering about

A.) What happened to that women in the army command center (the one who had a nasty bite from the tunnel)? I wasn't entirely clear on that.

B.) What the hell were those little things? Mutant ticks?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dark Hunter on January 25, 2008, 10:14:29 am
Spoiler:
A. My theory is that when she was bitten, something was implanted within her, a la Alien.

B. I just assumed they were the monster's offspring.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: jdjtcagle on January 25, 2008, 01:23:31 pm

Spoiler:
A. I think the military would try and quarantine the situation, not knowing if there was any disease involved with it.  So they shot her...

B. spider babies :D
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Bobboau on January 25, 2008, 01:50:48 pm

Spoiler:
most explanations I've read says she goes 'pop'.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Rictor on January 25, 2008, 08:58:41 pm
Spoiler:
To me, it looked like she way attacked by a silhouette of something that looked like a giant beat before a'sploding, but I have to watch it again to make sure.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Black Wolf on January 26, 2008, 02:10:42 am
I liked it. The eding was what I expected, the monster was cool looking though a little... behind cutting edge inthe CGI department (though full props to the cgi peeps for keeping it fairly believable despite the shakycam, whic I thought worked well, incidentally. The only thing I dodn't like were:
Spoiler:
Those silly little sider things. They were cool looking yes, and the bit in the subway was awesome and atmospheric, but why in the hell were they neccessary? It made it feel less like a random attack and more like a military invasion, which I doubt was the effect that Abrams was going for. If he needed sub-baddies, put in insane humands trying to rape the girls or something, ala War of the Worlds. That creepy guy in the cellar was one of the things that made that movie,and yet, apart from the military and the guys looting the store, we see basically no non-main character humans. Otherwise though, top notch.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Ransom on January 27, 2008, 06:20:24 am
Spoiler:
They were necessary because the characters couldn't be confronted by the monster at every turn. Putting in some crazy humans would be pretty uninspired and hard to justify, I think. That was a great part of War of the Worlds, I agree, but it's a different set of circumstances. For that character insanity set in after hope was lost, but in Cloverfield the military was still evacuating people until right near the end. More importantly: the film's all about a lack of understanding, on both our side and (according to Abrams) the creature's. Including human antagonists, which of course we can understand, would spoil more than what the spiders did, I think.

I agree that they created an unwanted sense of invasion, though. But they're also responsible for what I found to be the most memorable scene in the film - the portion in the field hospital - so I forgive them.

Re: what they are - I got the impression that they were some kind of parasite/symbiont that lived on the body of the creature. I couldn't give any evidence to back that up, though.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Stealth on January 28, 2008, 12:06:46 am
anyone else think those parasites looked like mini-shivans? :D
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Depth_Charge on January 29, 2008, 12:31:03 am
My apologies to my language here but, this is what piss me off the most.  if they can kill godzilla in the 1998 movie with 6 missles and how come the military can't down the clover aka monster while there bombing the hell out of him???   i don't see why they create a monster who can withstand our weapons system,  more like war of the worlds all over again =/
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Kosh on January 29, 2008, 01:13:56 am
My apologies to my language here but, this is what piss me off the most.  if they can kill godzilla in the 1998 movie with 6 missles and how come the military can't down the clover aka monster while there bombing the hell out of him???   i don't see why they create a monster who can withstand our weapons system,  more like war of the worlds all over again =/

Because the 1998 Godzilla movie was a bastardization. The real Godzilla could never be killed so easily.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Rictor on January 29, 2008, 07:51:02 am
Because any time that a monster can be killed with standard military weapons, it's bound to be a very short, uninteresting movie. At least if it's set in New York city....if they were on a deserted island or in a jungle with no access to help, that would be a different story.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: NGTM-1R on January 29, 2008, 08:02:21 pm
My apologies to my language here but, this is what piss me off the most.  if they can kill godzilla in the 1998 movie with 6 missles and how come the military can't down the clover aka monster while there bombing the hell out of him???   i don't see why they create a monster who can withstand our weapons system,  more like war of the worlds all over again =/

Brainfart.

They should have killed Godzilla in the water if anything. Damn near a ton of torpex in a Mark 48.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: IceFire on January 29, 2008, 10:36:14 pm
My apologies to my language here but, this is what piss me off the most.  if they can kill godzilla in the 1998 movie with 6 missles and how come the military can't down the clover aka monster while there bombing the hell out of him???   i don't see why they create a monster who can withstand our weapons system,  more like war of the worlds all over again =/
You're forgetting how they managed to shoot up half of New York just trying to get a shot off at him.  How do a pair of Apaches miss a giant monster...no matter how fast he's moving.  More to the point...why even bother flying down at his level.  Fly up higher idiots!  Sit at standoff range and pelt the guy with Hellfires till he goes down.  I know they want to make dramatic movies so give us some good reasons why the military can't do that or show the military doing the smart things and being forced to adapt their tactics.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 07, 2010, 06:02:00 am
:bump: It's on channel 4 tonight.
 
I miss Marlena Diamond.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nuke on June 07, 2010, 06:35:42 am
i was gonna smack someone for nekroing this, but then i found out it was dekker :D
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dilmah G on June 07, 2010, 06:43:09 am
You're forgetting how they managed to shoot up half of New York just trying to get a shot off at him.  How do a pair of Apaches miss a giant monster...no matter how fast he's moving.  More to the point...why even bother flying down at his level.  Fly up higher idiots!  Sit at standoff range and pelt the guy with Hellfires till he goes down.  I know they want to make dramatic movies so give us some good reasons why the military can't do that or show the military doing the smart things and being forced to adapt their tactics.
You probably need to be fairly close to get accurate Hellfire fire in. (I'd assume those things drop like crazy after the first 2 k's).

On a more related note, is the movie worth watching? I ended up seeing I Am Legend instead of this.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Scotty on June 07, 2010, 06:44:19 am
Not sure if it's a good movie (still haven't seen), but I don't think you went wrong with I Am Legend.  That was a good movie, even if it had very little to do with the book.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dilmah G on June 07, 2010, 06:50:19 am
Yeah, I liked it quite a bit. 3.5-4/5 IMO.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Kosh on June 07, 2010, 07:09:45 am
i was gonna smack someone for nekroing this, but then i found out it was dekker :D

Well don't let that stop you. :p
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 07, 2010, 07:27:43 am
For anyone not in the UK wanting to watch this. Try googling 4OD it's like BBC iplayer.
I heavily recommend this film to anyone who hasn't seen it. If you already have. . . . Then it speaks for itself.
 
 
And :p to smacking me. I may not be here as much nowadays but I can still edit your posts to make you say you wear dresses. ;) 
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Wobble73 on June 07, 2010, 10:00:22 am
For anyone not in the UK wanting to watch this. Try googling 4OD it's like BBC iplayer.
I heavily recommend this film to anyone who hasn't seen it. If you already have. . . . Then it speaks for itself.
 
 
And :p to smacking me. I may not be here as much nowadays but I can still edit your posts to make you say you wear dresses. ;) 


I'm not sure 4OD is allowed to stream movies? Just tv shows they broadcast! Same for all the other TV websites (ITV Player, BBC Iplayer etc.)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 07, 2010, 10:39:50 am
I Am Legend is pretty generically terribad. I would definitely take Cloverfield over it.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 07, 2010, 11:20:59 am
Try here then,
www.tvcatchup.com/
 
I don't think you can search back through missed TV programs.
 
It should show the movies though.
 
The registration doesn't bother me with spam.
 
Just set up a dummy hotmail if you're worried ;) 
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Flipside on June 07, 2010, 11:25:26 am
As far as dealing with Cloverfield was concerned...

Clear the Area. Send in Warthogs. No more monster. ;)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Klaustrophobia on June 07, 2010, 11:50:01 am
I Am Legend is pretty generically terribad. I would definitely take Cloverfield over it.

lies.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 07, 2010, 11:54:58 am
I Am Legend is pretty generically terribad. I would definitely take Cloverfield over it.

lies.

It missed its own point so badly that it couldn't even make sense of its own title.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: BloodEagle on June 07, 2010, 12:15:09 pm
Try here then,
www.tvcatchup.com/
 
I don't think you can search back through missed TV programs.
 
It should show the movies though.
 
The registration doesn't bother me with spam.
 
Just set up a dummy hotmail if you're worried ;) 

Does that require a client program, or does it run through a flash applet (or something like it)?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Scotty on June 07, 2010, 12:31:56 pm
I Am Legend is pretty generically terribad. I would definitely take Cloverfield over it.

lies.

It missed its own point so badly that it couldn't even make sense of its own title.

It was still a good movie.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 07, 2010, 12:38:16 pm
I Am Legend is pretty generically terribad. I would definitely take Cloverfield over it.

lies.

It missed its own point so badly that it couldn't even make sense of its own title.

It was still a good movie.

It had a good opening, but beyond that it was tissue paper. It lives on in the I, Robot school of insubstantial adaptations of good stories.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Scotty on June 07, 2010, 12:54:43 pm
See, there's your problem.  Stop thinking of it as an adaptation and more of it's own movie with a little creative help for the setting. :P
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 07, 2010, 01:02:00 pm
But the story shows what could be done with the setting, including an amazing ending, which I Am Legend...really did not have.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Wobble73 on June 07, 2010, 01:05:22 pm
It made a good movie for those who had never read the book.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 07, 2010, 01:06:26 pm
No it didn't. I didn't read the story until after the movie.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Wobble73 on June 07, 2010, 01:10:45 pm
Books are always better than their movie adaptations! I read Jurassic Park before seeing the movie and although the movie was a spectacle, it never could live up to the book.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 07, 2010, 01:11:48 pm
Try here then,
www.tvcatchup.com/
 
I don't think you can search back through missed TV programs.
 
It should show the movies though.
 
The registration doesn't bother me with spam.
 
Just set up a dummy hotmail if you're worried ;) 

Does that require a client program, or does it run through a flash applet (or something like it)?

 
 
It runs in the browser via flash or applet magics.
 
 
I am legend started well. Then it floundred and choked on it's own sense of self indulgence.
 
Cloverfield is consistently WOW.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Wobble73 on June 07, 2010, 01:13:39 pm
How would you describe it to someone,

Spoiler:
I told someone today that it's Blair Witch meets War of the Worlds meets Godzilla
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 07, 2010, 01:19:11 pm
That's pretty accurate.
 
By the way. I happened to look for the "satellite scene" on youtube today. At normal speed I just about missed it. I'm gonna check on telly tonight to make sure i'm not going blind.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: redsniper on June 07, 2010, 02:36:05 pm
I Am Legend movie was pretty good, but the book was infinitely superior.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Wobble73 on June 07, 2010, 02:47:34 pm
I Am Legend movie was pretty good, but the book was infinitely superior.

Same with Jurassic Park, though that wasn't hard, it still made a good movie!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Scourge of Ages on June 07, 2010, 02:53:09 pm
Speaking of Jurassic Park, did anybody else see Timeline?

Spoiler:
Don't do it, just read the book.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: watsisname on June 07, 2010, 02:57:25 pm
That's pretty accurate.
 
By the way. I happened to look for the "satellite scene" on youtube today. At normal speed I just about missed it. I'm gonna check on telly tonight to make sure i'm not going blind.

Oh man, I never caught it myself but heard about it afterward.  Thanks for the indirect reminder to look for it.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Colonol Dekker on June 07, 2010, 03:00:03 pm
Whoop. It's on ANY SECOND.
 
I do own it on dvd but not watched it in ages.
 
 
The satellite is the last scene. Watch the top right of the screen.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: mxlm on June 07, 2010, 05:07:15 pm
Books are always better than their movie adaptations!

Two words: Dan Brown. Probably Stephanie Meyers as well. And I'd probably think Crichton's movies are better than his books, as I didn't rate those books of his I read.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 07, 2010, 07:21:26 pm
I Am Legend's alternate ending was by far better than the one that made it in the movie.  For the most part I liked the movie but...
Spoiler:
I actually had to stop the movie and cry a little bit when he had to kill Sam :(

Cloverfield was just straight awesome the whole way through. 
Spoiler:
The entire underground sequence was great...the bugs and the flaming hobo bit too.

Still convinced that the monster was just after that camera...I mean, it held up to so much in that movie, he just wanted a nice quality video camera! :D
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Ransom on June 07, 2010, 10:43:13 pm
The I Am Legend adaptation always amazed me. The theatrical ending was so carelessly shoehorned in that they didn't even bother to remove the contradictory foreshadowing from the rest of the film.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 07, 2010, 10:44:14 pm
The I Am Legend adaptation always amazed me. The theatrical ending was so carelessly shoehorned in that they didn't even bother to remove the contradictory foreshadowing from the rest of the film.

I know. All that buildup about their intelligence and their society and the male wanting his female back and...

...uh...
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dilmah G on June 08, 2010, 03:32:45 am
Well as someone who saw it as a 13 or 14 year old and never read and probably isn't going to read the book, I'd rate it 7.5/10.

Adaptation or not, I saw it as a standalone movie, and I'll take it that way.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: General Battuta on June 08, 2010, 03:45:02 am
Well as someone who saw it as a 13 or 14 year old and never read and probably isn't going to read the book, I'd rate it 7.5/10.

Adaptation or not, I saw it as a standalone movie, and I'll take it that way.

Right, but adaptation or not, it's also a movie that doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dilmah G on June 08, 2010, 04:10:51 am
I don't remember a lot of the details, but it made enough sense to me for me to like it. I can't remember any gaping inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Wobble73 on June 08, 2010, 06:06:23 am
I found myself watching Cloverfield last night with my "Comic book store guy" from the Simpsons hat on.

1. The lead characters cell phone battery dies, he goes into an electronics store and picks a new cellphone battery up of the shelf, fits it into his phone and it works...............without charging?? All my cell-phone batteries need charging for a good few hours first!!

2. He then receives a phone call from his mother while in a subway tunnel?? How the hell did he get a signal down there?

3. The building leaning against another building...........how would that be possible??

4. His girlfriend (Beth?) when found has a spike through her shoulder/chest and she appears close to death.......they lift her off the spike, she doesn't go into shock? She then seen running around the city few a good few hours later, by the end of the film, when they are under the bridge, she hardly seems injured at all!

Still a bloody good film though!  :lol:
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Dilmah G on June 08, 2010, 06:14:44 am
4. She was probably right up on it with adrenaline.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: BloodEagle on June 08, 2010, 07:37:25 am
I found myself watching Cloverfield last night with my "Comic book store guy" from the Simpsons hat on.

1. The lead characters cell phone battery dies, he goes into an electronics store and picks a new cellphone battery up of the shelf, fits it into his phone and it works...............without charging?? All my cell-phone batteries need charging for a good few hours first!!

2. He then receives a phone call from his mother while in a subway tunnel?? How the hell did he get a signal down there?

3. The building leaning against another building...........how would that be possible??

4. His girlfriend (Beth?) when found has a spike through her shoulder/chest and she appears close to death.......they lift her off the spike, she doesn't go into shock? She then seen running around the city few a good few hours later, by the end of the film, when they are under the bridge, she hardly seems injured at all!

Still a bloody good film though!  :lol:

Did they have time for '5. Re-apply make-up several dozen times'?
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: watsisname on June 08, 2010, 08:37:30 am
4. His girlfriend (Beth?) when found has a spike through her shoulder/chest and she appears close to death.......they lift her off the spike, she doesn't go into shock? She then seen running around the city few a good few hours later, by the end of the film, when they are under the bridge, she hardly seems injured at all!

What?!  I thought she died shortly after they found her.  Unless I'm thinking of someone else? /me needs to see the movie again
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 08, 2010, 10:50:38 am
4. His girlfriend (Beth?) when found has a spike through her shoulder/chest and she appears close to death.......they lift her off the spike, she doesn't go into shock? She then seen running around the city few a good few hours later, by the end of the film, when they are under the bridge, she hardly seems injured at all!

What?!  I thought she died shortly after they found her.  Unless I'm thinking of someone else? /me needs to see the movie again

Spoiler:
That was Marlena who died from the bite.  Rob and Beth were the two that were hunkered down in the tunnel at the end when the bombing started.

Damn you all use spoiler tags! :p
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: iamzack on June 08, 2010, 10:55:48 am
Spoiler:
That was Marlena who died from the bite.  Rob and Beth were the two that were hunkered down in the tunnel at the end when the bombing started.

Spoiler:
BOOOM!!!!!
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Flipside on June 09, 2010, 12:35:35 am
There's talk that Super 8 might be part prequel to Cloverfield, it's all scuttlebut at the moment, but personally, I wanted that trailer to end with a long-fingered hand rising from the wreckage and a voice saying 'E.T. Kick Ass....'

http://super-8.movie-trailer.com/

Not a million miles from possibility, I could be wrong, but that face at the end of the trailer... Is that... Elliot?


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Nu-Dh8Es55E/S-mSo7dmDaI/AAAAAAAAABM/lvSFJiXUvMQ/s1600/ET+Super+8.png)
(http://daftcrunk.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/et.jpg)

Hopefully the hotlinking will work without Deckering me or anything...
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Nuke on June 09, 2010, 12:57:39 am
Hopefully the hotlinking will work without Deckering me or anything...

im sure that dekker wasnt the first to hotlink and have his image replaced by goatse man and tub girl. :D
but then again he is cool enough to name things after.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Ransom on June 09, 2010, 01:18:21 am
Pretty sure Abrams has said Super 8 has nothing at all to do with Cloverfield.
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: Flipside on June 09, 2010, 01:26:03 am
Yup, been looking it up, it was theorized, but he announced it was nothing to do with it.

Still, that face at the end does have me wondering, especially considering this is a joint project with Speilberg, a Close Encounters beginning, a flash of a young boy who does, to my eyes, looks quite a lot like Elliot McNaughton, it's got me interested :)
Title: Re: Cloverfield
Post by: FireSpawn on June 09, 2010, 03:39:52 pm
I've read on the net that there is a manga out there that can either be seen as a stand-alone jobbie or tie-in. Apperently it eplains more about the monster and its reason for attacking. Info is kinda vauge as i have not read it, so find it, read it and tell everyone about it.