Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
 
The time now is Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:50 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)
View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
[SPEC]Art-house movie...?
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 3 [43 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340

I'm pretty sure your quote is from HP Lovecraft himself, Pegasissy...which would be appropriate and somewhat ironic. Wink

And no, I'm not talking about a dream sequence per se, or a "surprise" ending (only M Night Shymalan does those "punchline" kind of Twilight Zone flicks anymore). Instead, I'm talking about a paradigm shift about midway through or slightly later in the movie. Anybody who's seen Vanilla Sky, or Fight Club, or even Hitchock's original Psycho knows what I'm talking about -- you think the movie is about ONE thing, but then it turns into something altogether different. I.e., from watching a standard Godzilla-esque monster stomp into a psychological movie that gets inside your head and takes you places that are faaaaar scarier than anything a giant kaiju monster could conjure up.

And Mr Toasty: yeah, I like the Unruhe angle, too...(great ep, by the way) And when you consider that ONLY the party pics have writing on them, that could very well indicate that the party took place in the "real" world; but everything after (including the other 3 pix on 1-18-08.com....note how they get progressively blurrier/harder to make out?) is hallucinatory/manufactured/whatever.

Hell, for that matter, the pic of Jason dumping the drink down Rob's throat might actually be SHOWING Hawk giving his own brother(!) the drug that's going to take him off to TimothyLeary-Land, accompanied by visions of giant monsters and the National Guard doing battle on the streets of New York.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:25 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
suckaH
Unfettered

Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 672

Not gonna lie, i would hate this idea. One of my favorite movies is Donnie Darko and how it deals with this, but i just don't think it would work in this instance.
One of my biggest pet peeves is movies that advertise as one thing but deliver something totally different (The Village and Lady in the Water advertising as horrors but don't dwell on this point, Pan's Labyrinth advertising as a 100% fantasy film but has more historical drama elements in it, etc.). I think JJ would be hated by many if this supposed monster movie ended up to be rob stuck in an asylum.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:05 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Pathfinder
Boot


Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Dharma Radio Tower

BLAIR WITCH MONSTER
This theory is eons old, but plausible.

http://cloverfieldproject.com/2007/07/11/the-blair-witch-monster.aspx

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:40 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Uninvited
Veteran


Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 112

Quote:
My version of the witch was hideous. Slowly filleting children and sucking on their baby fat, licking her long dirty bloody fingers, moaning in delight as she takes another bite from some missing child.


Someone has issues...

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:56 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TaninimBait
Boot

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 22
Location: Lowell, MA

Thats really cool article. The author makes a great point. In that vein, something that I would think would make a great movie is tinkering with the concept of reality. And I think everyone has been essentially talking about that but I fiugred I would throw my unorganized thoughts out there. What if everyone's view of the monster is different. Some people may see a huge clawes whale, a massive bipedal lizard, or hell, why not lions and enormous compartmental robots? The obvious problem with that is how do we the viewer see it, considering we can technically only be shown one image. The solution to that would be to not show the monster at all. Another thought, what if it more like the book Amnesia Moon, in that for whatever reason, reality seems to "break" and things that shouldn't exist come stomping or rolling through the streets. I dunno, just some thoughts I guess. Although I'm willing to bet we'll see something of the monster.

Or maybe it'll have a super power - IT'S INVISIBLE, hahaha

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Euchre
uF Game Warden


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3342

Interesting ideas, and I think the element of mystery, especially questioning reality itself, are plot devices that JJ is almost certainly willing to use. I just haven't seen that to be his usual pattern though. I think keeping the monster a secret, almost completely hidden from us, is a fair bet. I think he won't 'spill the beans' too early but that we will in fact get to see the monster in question. I think part of the point of this secrecy about the monster is to stun us all with what it really ends up being. People are keen to mention the Blair Witch Project, but I'd rather point to The Last Broadcast which came out a year earlier with a similar concept. You are slowly moved towards the climax of seeing the 'monster' in question, and the suspense is built quite effectively. Considering how things are currently hinted to I think that'd be more likely of a way to 'almost' not show us the monster.

Overall, I could see this being a fantasy in someone's mind - if the film were by David Lynch.

As to the release in January, I think that's VERY intentional and NOT meant as 'dumping' it because it's expected to fail. I think it's probably because the 'suits' think it's risky (so 'dump season' is acceptable), and JJ (and maybe others) figure the competition will be weak at that time. Would you want to put together something you feel is very bold and clever, build lots of hype around it, and then have it compete with some other huge established name that the moviegoing cattle public would flock to like lemmings to the ocean?
Why not just schedule yourself on Ed Sullivan on the same night as The Beatles?
_________________
Any sufficiently plausible fiction is indistinguishable from reality.
Any sufficiently twisted reality is indistinguishable from fiction.
Welcome to the new world of entertainment.
ŠEuchre 2007


PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:22 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
IronJ146
Unfettered


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 634
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Does no one think that maybe the movie's being released on that date simply because 108 are numbers the Bad Robot folk seem to obsess over?

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:35 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Euchre
uF Game Warden


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3342

IronJ146 wrote:
Does no one think that maybe the movie's being released on that date simply because 108 are numbers the Bad Robot folk seem to obsess over?

Very good point, something I was not aware of.
It'd be even more likely if they are thinking of this film as their crowning achievement.
_________________
Any sufficiently plausible fiction is indistinguishable from reality.
Any sufficiently twisted reality is indistinguishable from fiction.
Welcome to the new world of entertainment.
ŠEuchre 2007


PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:52 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
NYC5
Unfettered


Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 418
Location: New York City

Wow

The 108 point is very smart. I'm a big Lost fan, as I'm sure a ton of people here are. I never picked up on that, but it makes great sense. If its true, I would still be shocked that they would set an entire movie around a date just because its a number they're known for. But what do I know...4-8-15-16-23-42

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:19 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Be@rbrick
Boot

Joined: 16 Sep 2007
Posts: 69
Location: Ohio

Euchre wrote:

As to the release in January, I think that's VERY intentional and NOT meant as 'dumping' it because it's expected to fail. I think it's probably because the 'suits' think it's risky (so 'dump season' is acceptable), and JJ (and maybe others) figure the competition will be weak at that time. Would you want to put together something you feel is very bold and clever, build lots of hype around it, and then have it compete with some other huge established name that the moviegoing cattle public would flock to like lemmings to the ocean?
Why not just schedule yourself on Ed Sullivan on the same night as The Beatles?


I agree with you on January not being thought of as a month to dump bad films. There's going to be less competition, and movie studios love having words like "Biggest movie of the weekend" associated with their films. Also, people laughed at Speilberg for debuting Jaws in the summer. There was no such thing as a summer blockbuster before him. Who's to say they aren't trying to capitalize on all of the people returning Christmas presents and taking advantage of clearance sales? Now that I think of it, I don't know why January isn't another big movie time of year.

Getting back on topic, I think we'll see the monster based off of the epic-ness of the movie poster and the trailer. Those two factors alone are a lot to promise to the public. Couple that with Abrams comments and I'd be VERY surprised to not see the monster. If they can hurl the SOL's head down a NY street on a $35 million budget, they can show us a monster. As technology ages, it not only gets better but cheaper. Special effects aren't exempt to this rule. Most movie budgets are so huge these days due to paying actors $20 mil apiece. Forget about handheld cameras, JJ has enough money to give us one hell of a monster based off of the savings he incurred from the relative unknown actors he's chosen alone. Also, who's to say they haven't or won't go over-budget, which I'm sure, is fairly common as well.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:27 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Red Walrus
Unfettered


Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 589

IronJ146 wrote:
Does no one think that maybe the movie's being released on that date simply because 108 are numbers the Bad Robot folk seem to obsess over?

I'm positive that's the reason. It was also why it played a big part in my FOUND title theory:
http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20323

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:10 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Pathfinder
Boot


Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Dharma Radio Tower

JP T-REX
Wow what a scene.

Perhaps JJ would use the same magic as the JP Rex reveal? A goat disappears, a concussion tremor, giant fences go down, a growl, another concussion tremor. Friggin Brilliant!

Ok so how long was the most terrifying creature on JP on screen for? EXACTLY!

You could do 8 minutes of the Clover Bug on screen and that would be enough.

FLASHBACK: The longer the monster is shown, the less awe there is. Just look at Godzilla. There was more awe when they barely showed the GZ. IT almost became boring to constantly see the thing. The GZ Production company used that glimpse awe in the trailers and then saturated with the monster in the film. The Trailer was slick, the movie was suck.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:41 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
TaninimBait
Boot

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 22
Location: Lowell, MA

If the 108 is on purpose, making it significant, than I think there might be an actual chance that it plays into the Lost "mythos." Maybe not explicitly, like having Sawyer or Locke show up to resuce the Slusho 7 from the mighty beast. Moreso like the way that most of Stephen King's works exist in the same universe. (They were all tied together explicitly in the Dark Tower Series - awesome reads, highly recommended). They were connected on a far more subliminal level that linked themes, places, and minor characters (Castle Rock anyone?). Just throwing that out there.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:42 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
tygr20
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 554
Location: New Albany IN(READ: Louisville KY)

Re: Good point

SV18 wrote:
Since the budget is $30 million and the release date is in January, I think it's right that the movie simply cannot be a spectacle at the level of Godzilla/Independence Day. However, I don't think this suggests any particular plot device; instead, it suggests that there's a real limit on the amount of destruction/action one should expect to see.


Maybe the $30M budget is why the lead actors are not Tom Cruise and Jennifer Garner? I'm sure you can make a much cheaper picture without cutting costs everywhere else if you don't have to give half of your budget to your lead character, know what I mean? Smile
_________________
Followed Nate, couldn't find Tom Tooman, anyone got any good leads for someone else to stalk help?

@tygr20
www.tygr20.com


PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:22 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
stugots
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 141
Location: Durham, NC

I actually like this theory....but if it turns out to be true, thanks for spoiling it for us

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:08 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 3 [43 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: Cloverfield (1-18-08) » Cloverfield: General / Updates
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group