The Cloverfield Thread (SPOILERS)
 

So the wife and I went out and saw Cloverfield this afternoon. I liked it, thought it was well done, but as I get farther from the viewing it's beginning to bother me that I don't know what the hell really happened. What is the monster? Where did it come from? Why is it so pissed off? Did they kill it?
I need some closure here.
Anyone know the answers to these questions so I can stop trying to figure them out?

I don't think we're ever supposed to know, but check out:

www.cloverfieldclues.com

You can learn more about the backstory by checking out the other sites.

heath

But it's this whole internet sourced backstory that bothers me. Is a feature film supposed to rely on it's internet subculture to fill in the details for the viewer or is it supposed to stand on it's own? Without all the proper information being shared in the film itself, the viewer is left feeling a bit cheated and the film feels slightly hollow.
I liked the movie, I really did, but it just frustrated me somewhat that I wasn't given all the information I needed as a viewer to fully understand what was happening.

Oh, and I stayed through the end credits, but I couldn't understand what was said. Anyone care to fill me in?

I don't think it really matters. Eight years ago, I was editing my first feature film and the website I created filled in the backstory. I took that idea from Blair Witch's first website. But you didn't need the Internet backstory to make sense of the movie.

I'll email you what was said, so I don't spoil it!

heath

Since Ethan is asking for spoilers, I have edited the thread title to reflect that, so as not to ruin the movie for anybody else who hasn't seen it yet.

I was trying to keep my comments vague as not to spoil the movie for anyone. (but I guess my questions opened the door for spoilers... sorry) If you guys would like we can pause this discussion for a couple of days and give people a chance to go see the movie. I'm just being a bit impatient and wanting some answers now.

Thanks, Chris. I was going to ask someone to do that. Ethan, email me privately through DVi and I'll do my best to answer them, though I don't 100% know. And I think that's the point.

heath

check out the wikipedia page for a nother set of hints.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've been following casually the web bits on it.

Couple thoughts:

-It appears that some of the story bits that were taken for granted on the movie came from anonymous accounts of test screenings. Then various story bits went away in the final version (see Jamie & Teddy). Supposedly a test screening had some footage of Rob at a Tagruato press event, on the "roll" before the party.

-Abrahms appears to be trying to create a story/spectacle/movie franchise that is bigger than one movie. My reasoning for this centers around cryptic updates to the websites continuing AFTER the premiere. My bet is that Cloverfield is the first movie of a few that will tell the entire story in his head.

-This to me seems smart business, as there has been a gold rush in TV development for these huge intricate stories that have a world that can be spun off into multiple shows/webisodes/etc. See Lost and Heroes.

-Given the way Cloverfield was produced (somewhat smaller budget, trailer first as proof-of-concept), it appears Abrahms is trying to bring some television thinking to the big screen.

Funny thing I just found out tonight...if you live in L.A. you know that yellow signs with arrows pointing this way or that are signs directing crew to parking locations. Most of the summer there were signs with "Slusho" around downtown, I remember seeing them and thinking what a weird name for a production company. I guess it was Cloverfield shooting downtown L.A.

I saw it last night and enjoyed it immensely.
I really hope there is another movie about it
filmed in a similar manner. I think if it was filmed
like all the other monster movies it would reveal to much

this reminded me of the war of the worlds radio broadcast from buffalo
in 1968/1971. Where something huge happens and we're not quite sure what.

the monster turned out to be nothing like I saw on the net, and that's
all I'll say.

I too am hoping they make another movie about it, but this time I want it told form another perspective and made a little more traditionally. I was drawn into the story and would love to understand what was really happening.

Does anyone know what format was used for recording? I had a chance to see it on a Christie DLP for projection. To me it looked like either 16:9 DV or consumer HDV. My guess is probably DV.

IMDb says it was Panasvision Genesis, but I've seen behind-the-scenes photos of the director holding an HVX200. I think they also snuck in some footage from the teaser, shot on consumer cameras before the movie was done (and re-shot during production), during the party scene. The quality dropped.

heath

Thats funny, I've heard Viper and HVX.

I went to see this movie last night and when it was over, all that was heard was a collective "boo, that sucked" from the audience. I too, felt similarly after watching ...

I guess my issues just stem from several different things. Just too much of it felt unrealistic for me ... when the statue of liberty fell onto the street, I found it odd that no one was really screaming ... people were just walking around with their hands on their heads. And for a guy to be filming all this seems too implausible. I'd be inclined to believe it if it was a documentarian of some sorts, but they handed the camera to a guy that was reluctant to even shoot in the beginning saying his hands are full of other things to do. To then suddenly want to document everything while running for their lives is a little unbelievable. What was just as unbelievable was the humor some of the characters were using, even cracking some quick jokes while their lives were in imminent danger ... a little strange to me.

There are many more things, but I guess my biggest gripe is that I didn't care much for the characters. No development at all. I can live with the unexplained reason for the monster, but the characters had no depth. So it made it incredibly hard for me to care much for them. When Rob was in the Spring St. subway talking to his mom, saying that his brother was dead, I was like "hmm, oh well ..."

And then at the end with their demise, all I could think of was "hmm, oh well ..."

Though I don't think it's a bad movie, it certainly isn't anything great. My overall feeling:

"It's redeems itself by knowing that when you finally see the main characters die at the end, you know the movie is finally over."

ON A SIDE NOTE: Where can I get a camera like what they had? They dropped it so many times and the fact that it survived the nuke they did on New York at the end is making me think twice about shooting with the RED ... I should seriously consider that cam! Maybe it's the new XL-H2 ... what do you think Mr. Hurd?

:)

I'm not sure what they shot it on, but it couldn't have been a CMOS camera cause I didn't see any skewing going on with all the whip pans and running shots. My poor little FX7 and HV20 would have been skewing up a storm if shot like that.

I saw a production still from the final bridge scene and he's holding one of those Panasonic AVCHD cams. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find the link somewhere.
***EDIT***
It was the Panasonic HSC1U.
Here's the still on IMDB

Speaking of cameras, did it bother anyone else that at the beginning in the text explaining where the footage came from that it states it was from a SD card found in Central Park, but in the movie they keep saying things like "rewind the tape" and you keep seeing where they recorded over some old footage like it was tape. This kept annoying the geek in me.

They're selling the HVX that shot it on eBay. I won't link to it, but here's the story:

http://cloverfieldclues.blogspot.com...-for-sale.html

heath

So it was an HVX? I keep reading conflicting reports.

Someone in our crowd thought the same thing After one of the many times it should have died a person yelled out "That is one hell of a f'ing camera".

I have heard that they used the HVX200 as their main camera, with some Viper and F23 footage, plus a Panasonic handicam for one or two shots.

heath

That camera...
 

Absolutely must be the most bad-ass battery in the world...
I need to get some of those...

Also, did anyone else notice that the beginning of the film states that its the replay from an sd card and yet the shot the film as if it were a tape with old footage? They keep referring to the tape as well...

Woops...

Well, there's the "goof!" I thought of that when they kept saying tape. To be fair, I still say, "I'm gonna tape the simpsons tonight," when I really mean DVR it. Hold habits die hard.

heath

Maybe I'm just weird, but I could imagine wanting to document everything about a giant monster destroying New York. And I would be the guy to crack witty jokes in dangerous situations. lol. But maybe that's just me. =)

I think the only problem with the movie I had was how shaky everything was. I mean I know it's handheld and it's supposed to look like a home movie, but I had to look away a few times because I felt like I was gonna puke. When the helicopter crashed and the camera was on the ground for a minute, some kid in the audience yelled "finally, a still frame!" lol.

I didn't actually see it, but I saw on IMDB that in the final scene where they're on the ferris wheel, you can see a UFO crashing into the lake. I'm not sure though. I didn't notice it when I saw it.

I think it'd be funny though if in the sequel, it's just a continuation of the first movie and they just ran out of tape in the first movie so they changed the tape.

I was laying in bed with my ex- watching Thirteen about 3 or so years ago, and I had to stop because I was getting sick watching the movie. It wasn't super shaky, but the camera just kept rocking back and forth and I got ill.

You know, we had this discussion almost 9 years ago for Blair Witch, heh heh.

heath

well the funny thing is that in the beginning
it says the format the DoD has the footage on is
an SD card.

I want to know where there is a consumer level SD card
that shoots 90 minutes of HD!

And how's that monster... that can't be real. I mean, how many times was it shot, yet I didn't see any blood? :)

Abrams has suggested the possibility of a sequel in which a different tape from the same event is discovered and we see the happenings again from an alternate viewpoint.

I personally did not get sick from watching it but my eyes did get a little tired.

Read my friend's opinion on making a sequel like that:

http://screenrant.com/archives/clove...idea-1300.html

I think they should go in another direction, for sure.

heath

Just got back from the afternoon screening of "Cloverfield" and for once, teenagers messing with their cellphone during the movie didn't really bother me--- it just added to the "atmosphere" of this film.

[I haven't seen a film in the theaters for over a year and half!]

It is part "Blair Witch" and part "War of the Worlds"[Spielberg's version] with a little of bit of "Aliens" thrown in for good measure.

I thought it was a fun thrill ride--and actually laughed out load through most of it.

I didn't bother to nitpick about video camera issues--- because if I did, I would have wondered what camcorder can record such great realistic sounds.[Machine gun fire]

My wife got dizzy from the "handheld" camera work though.

Fun!

John,

Good analogy with Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Both movies had that "end of everything" feeling to it, that hit that post-9/11 nerve.

Heath

I thought it was like Godzilla on PCP.

Overall I loved the movie. I did have some problems at the end after they lived through the helicopter crash, I think it would have been better if they all would have died then.

Maybe it's just me, but I like to watch the movie for what it is, and the way the director is telling the story. When you start thinking about why the camera is lasting so long and why it hasn't broken, etc, your taking your focus away from the continuity of the plot... It's not about why the battery hasn't died yet or why this random guy feels the need to "document" everything. It's about a group of friends struggling to survive in a disaster, which has definitely been done before, but I felt like Cloverfield nails it.

I found the way the story progressed and the footage that they captured extremely realistic. This captured me from the very beginning. I really feel like this film has definitely progressed low-budget hollywood feature films for the better. I'm not saying it should be copied, but it is extremely inspiring.

I wish I could have been involved in this sort of production.

-Anthony

Abrams, or whoever pitched this idea, is a genius.

Try to imagine the fallout from this movie and how many fan films are going to start floating around the net. The film obviously had a serious budget and proper cameras, but the 'handicam' technique was refined enough to NOT distract from the storytelling. This is the complete opposite of 99% of consumer-created video. Yet, that consumer-created content will be compatible simply because of its format.

They are intimately identifying with their myspace generation audience without sacrificing the general appeal of a big budget production. If they were smart enough to run tons of b-roll, they could ride out this franchise for years on viral marketing alone. Of course, considering they made 175% of their production budget on opening weekend, I'm sure we're going to see at least one more feature.

...and this is exactly what the industry needed right now: A huge push in a new direction. Well, not so new, but the extent that they used it and pushed it to felt new to me. And that's all that matters!

Buy the action figure (plus theories on the inevitable sequel):

http://screenrant.com/archives/scree...b-ba-1304.html

heath

Waste of time
 

Personally, this film is a huge disappointment, and a waste of time and money. I only went to see it because it was someone's birthday and that was their movie of choice. They regret that choice now. Another example of style over substance; well done marketing perhaps, but that's all that brought the masses.

What does one have at the beginning, middle and end? A big nothing. What was the point of this movie? Showing that audiences will come if you have a great marketing plan and no story? No true conflict, forced tension, bad acting, poor dynamics, no character development. I should be so lucky to write something that bad and have it make some cash. Although it's seen progressively big falloffs everyday; if there were some real competition at the box office, I don't think it would have brought anything significant in.

Godzilla did this story better and it sucked. For those who don't remember it, ha, you're not missing much.
Blair Witch had real character and story development, plus a plot. It had the best marketing, word of mouth.
War of the Worlds captured that "caught in the middle of something bigger than yourself" feel much better.

If a sequel were done, I wouldn't touch it with a free movie pass, not even on cable.

As for worrying about the camera, batteries, etc. Throughout the movie what the characters say and do, reference these things and show the huge holes in the script. Who was playing the tape/SD card? Why? Battery life...well they say how long the camera was running for...footage jumping back and forth, on tape?, even on SD Card that's laughable...audio quality, wow, get me on of those...lighting...colors...wow, great camera...if the filmmakers didn't draw attention to these things, they wouldn't stand out.

Worst movie I have seen in a long time.

If you like it, perhaps you could say WHY you did, so I could work that into a film discussion class I have.

K.

I liked the concept of an eyewitness video horror movie ever since Special Bulletin around 83...about a terrorist nuke incident captured as a live news broadcast. At the time I thought it would be really cool if something like War of the Worlds was done the same way. As a series of tv broadcasts.

Alien Nation the movie had a bit of that approach with news shots of the ship arriving.

Then an updated radio version of War of the Worlds came out in the late 80s which really sold me on the idea. I thought about doing a Hindenburg-ish news reel with the Welles' soundtrack as a template in school.



There was a Learning Channel show in the mid 90s that did that--with crude graphics but still very effective. They took WW1 and 2 war footage and stuck a martian tripod in it.

After Blair Witch I thought about the War of the Worlds idea again...I had once seen an avalanche video taken by a guy who was way off in the distance as the snow started to fall--and as he records you realize that the avalanche wasnt slowing down --and eventually it swept right over the camera. pretty scary--he didnt survive.

I thought it would be neat if someone was recording on a bridge as a giant martian machine or Godzilla like monster was stomping in the distance, and then it starts advancing on the bridge before the camera operator has to turn and run like hell. It could be very effective--but it would take great skill to make it seem authentic without shaking the camera too much or sounding too scripted. I thought Blair Witch was awful.


I was toying with the idea to do a WotW version via camcorder back in 2004-the book itself is well suited for it since it is a first person narration and the radio versions had the narrator walking around with a portable recorder-but I swear, on the day I decided to do it--the Spielberg film was announced! Talk about stiff competition! I didnt pursue the idea.

He didnt go in the eyewitness video direction except there were a couple of scenes where you see footage(a pedestrian with a camera and then the news van showing an attack on New York).
I really wish they had done more of that. There is something horrifying and intimate about following someone along who has a camera and is recording a supposedly live event.

If you hear the 88 radio version the attack on New York is really menacing. They shot it at Skywalker Ranch. You hear the news reporter and then this weird humming noise in the distance(which sounded like a giant machine!).


Its a great gimmick idea but for it to create a genre in itself(zombie invasion, vampire plagues, werewolves or bigfeet attacking campers), ehh a flood of camcorder garbage is right.

I dont think its good that Hollywood has to resort to camcorder epics that still cost $25 million(that's low budget!?!). A good giant monster movie done in the traditional way can still be done, Godzilla 98 was just a poor execution.

Heck, the 1970s-style show they did for Blair Witch was so convincing, I kept reminding myself it was fake. But they did a great job of doing the 1970s/myth-style show!

heath

Kelly,
War of the worlds is one of those things that will be done and done and done while there are humans on this planet making media. I think the more WotW there are the better. I still want to see a movie from the newscasters point of view, just like the radio version. DOn't get me wrong Speilbergs was good, but for a WotW diehard like me itwas just an alien movie.

if you want to listen to a GREAT version of WoTW, WKWB 1520 in Buffalo did their own version of it in 1968/and again in 1971. The only versions that exists (or that I've found) is the 1971 version, and it can be found at the below link.

Take a listen to it. I listen to iot all the time, it's highly entertaining.

War of the Worlds
Buffalo 1971
WKBW 1520
http://www.reelradio.com/gifts/wkbwwotw71.html

**I discovered that one a couple of years ago! Had no idea it existed.

Yeah it has some spooky moments--very effective newscaster reports. i think the 88 version used NPR reporters--the reporters werent so authentic sounding but the sound effects were great. Jason Robards did the Orson Welles part.

Another factor in this is eyewitness UFO and Bigfoot/Loch Ness sightings.

It may look like a guy in a costume but there is something spooky about that Big Foot walking footage--just the idea that it "might" be real. I think this sort of approach jumpstarts the imagination for some reason.

And remember that alien autopsy video. It sure looked fake but the idea was sound.

I would love to pull off a good hoax. lol