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 Mon Nov 25, 2024 9:35 pm
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
[META/RANT]Election year political allegory
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 4 [54 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
Arkaham wrote:
So there's a big monster created by the goverment that now trashes a major city and the army is trying to stop him, and that makes this a political movie instead of a monster movie?

Dude, have you even seen a monster movie? For God's sake, even revamped godzilla had exactly that plot, not to mention half of all the monster movies ever done.


Yes, Arkaham, I'm well aware of that. That's why I said it's been done before -- many times. MOST sci-fi "invasion" movies -- whether by giant kaiju monsters or mutated bugs, or transmorphing aliens, or giant robots, or a fleet of spaceships -- have always had an underlying political symbolism...usually about this very subject: i.e., either the gubmint or the furriners is bad, depending on which side of the political fence you're squatting.

So "Cloverfield" as political allegory would be no different, and would follow in the footsteps of Godzilla, War of the Worlds, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dawn of the Dead and others.

But to those above who like to post cutesy lil Screwy icons thinking that I pulled this out of left field, I simply ask you to explain these facts:

1) Why does Hud say (don't recall the *exact* words) "We need to film this you know...to let people know how it went down?" If it was simply a case of Giant Monster(s) Invade Manhattan, what the hell more needed to be explained? Instead, Hud's statement indicates that he (and the others) realize full well that the gubmint is already lying about the source of the attacks, and Hud wants to get the REAL truth out there to the people before the army can bury it under all the debris.
2) Why does the army look like they're doing more to RESTRICT the people than HELP them? They pretty much let Lena bleed out and 'splode and hold Rob and the others back and make 'em watch. And they seem to be pushing/herding people in other scenes instead of trying to lead them to safety or something.
3) The most basic question of all: if it's a standard monster romp-n-stomp, they WHY THE HELL RELEASE IT IN JANUARY? And why the secretive non-traditional viral advertising? And why a cheap-ass budget? And why film it in an experimental hand-held Blair Witch style motif that will only appeal to arthouse intelligentsia?

If this was a bona fide monster movie it would
a) be released in summer (or at least the holiday season)
b) have a huge fx budget
c) be hyped in a major way, right down to the merchandising tie-ins with McDonalds and Toys R Us and XBox360
d) be filmed in a typical fashion so that we'd get PLENTY of clear "kewl fx! ftw!" shots of the monster instead of dark & vague "WTF was that???" jerky hand-cam glimpses

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:41 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
clownnation wrote:
I mean, It could make for an interesting movie. But I think you are wanting to see a "Anti Bush" Movie here. It's like looking at clouds, you could take any movie and with enough thought and creativity make it represent almost anything.

And since you gave us your beliefs on how you feel about the government, I just want to say Politicians lie. Sometimes Politicians are misled themselves, Look at past Presidents like Clinton. The US system is still great. We vote for those people, we have the ability to say whatever we feel. Some countries dont have that. Agree with Bush or not, The US has done alot of great things for people. Ive served in Iraq. Ive personally been thanked by people there, that just want to provide for thier families but couldnt for so many years. Ive seen what is going on there. The News spins the truth so bad it makes me sick. No mention on the amount of Jobs that are there now, no mention that more people in Iraq and Afgahnastan has electricity and clean water today, than in the history of either country. No mention on the fact that Iraq has more hospitals and Universities opening than ever before. Did you know that the number of suicide bombers have declined nearly 75% since we got there? We think its so terrible when a bombing happens to us (not saying it isnt, because it is still horrible) but we didnt care when it was just heppening to the innocent that live there. The news only gives you stats from a specific time periods from after we got there.

I know Politicians can leave you feeling uneasy. But we got some great people over there, saving the world and standing up to tyranny and terrorism. Hopefully the Iraqi People can stand on thier own soon. Sorry to get on a soap box. I just think it stinks that people these days are ashamed to be patriotic because they listen to all the conspiracies and/or dont like the President. Thats cool, but America is still the greatest country on Earth in my opinion and Imdamn glad to serve this country and wear this uniform so that others wont have to.

I know this is a downer to some people so I wont debate, I just wanted to say my peace. God Bless America, and lets get back to the ARG PLAY BALL!


In response to ClownNation:

Thank you for a very intelligent, well-reasoned post, and thank you for doing your part to serve your country, and for helping the Iraqis. And like you, I agree that America is the greatest country and I'm damn proud of it and I'm damn proud of troops like you.

But. You know the old Tennyson line as well as I do about "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do or die..." You're doing your duty, and that's great. It's not your part to play politics or understand politics -- you HAVE to go wherever the White House sends you.

But understand that for all the great things we've done in ridding the world of another tyrant and pulling that country out from under a dictator's rule, there are DOZENS of countries around the world suffering a similar fate as we discuss this, and Bush has no plans to get involved with them because there's simply no financial/territorial interest there. UNLIKE Iraq. Afghanistan. Iran. Syria.

Look, the REAL War on Terror is against al-Qaeda, against Osama bin Laden, and should have ended six years ago with OBL's capture and/or death easily enough. Instead, Bush/Cheney chose to USE 9/11 as an EXCUSE to invade a completely unrelated country, against a petty tyrant who had no connection to the 2001 bombings, and in the meantime, allowed the REAL PERPS TO GET AWAY TO THE HIGHLANDS OF TORA BORA SCOT-DAMN-FREE.

I'm sorry, but that's the facts. Your president betrayed you and your family, and mine. Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, but EVERYTHING to do with big oil, big money and Western hegemony in the Middle East.

History will regard it as the greatest outrage ever perpetrated by a sitting US president.
[/soapbox]

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:54 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
clownnation
Decorated

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 160

 		Thank you for the kind compliments to me and my fellow servicemen. I can assure you, no one hates war more than those that fight it.

I have different opinions regarding our reasoning for invading iraq. I also have a differnt view regarding our President. This isnt the forum to debate that, because lets face it. I am no more than a bunch of text on a computer screen, You wont change my mind, and I wont change yours. Not like this anyways. I dont know you so I have no ill will towards you for your opinions. I've never seen things from your view point, and you have'nt seen mine.

As a request, when you post your opinion about a films imagery or underlining meaning, please stick to the things that you feel in regards to the movie only. If you think this movie has Anti government themes... then cool talk all you want about it and tell us why. Lets just keep personal ideals that are outside the film out of it. Not because I disagree with you, that really doesnt bother me at all, I just dont want to read a flame board. You know how quick that happens when you mention things such as religion, politics, McDonalds vs Burger King ect...

respectfully

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:07 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
SuperSquirrel
Unfettered


Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 396
motrbotr wrote:
Screwy Locky! Locky! Locky!


HA! Thats GREAT! Maybe brettoniasam has been hanging out at the Above Top Secret Forums too much!

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:38 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
motrbotr
Boot

Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 52

 		This Screwy was referring more to your Bush and the government being behind 9/11 statement that your speculations on the political motives or underlining currents of the movie. If you want to say this is a movie about a corrupt government or some military experiment gone haywire and a subsequent coverup then by all means, post away. But (and this is just my opinion) this is not the place to start a political debate or Bush/9-11 conspiracy theories.

So no hard feelings here, just please stick to the ARG. Very Happy

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:01 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Arkaham
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 353
brettoniasam wrote:

So "Cloverfield" as political allegory would be no different, and would follow in the footsteps of Godzilla, War of the Worlds, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dawn of the Dead and others.

But to those above who like to post cutesy lil Screwy icons thinking that I pulled this out of left field, I simply ask you to explain these facts:

1) Why does Hud say (don't recall the *exact* words) "We need to film this you know...to let people know how it went down?" If it was simply a case of Giant Monster(s) Invade Manhattan, what the hell more needed to be explained? Instead, Hud's statement indicates that he (and the others) realize full well that the gubmint is already lying about the source of the attacks, and Hud wants to get the REAL truth out there to the people before the army can bury it under all the debris.
2) Why does the army look like they're doing more to RESTRICT the people than HELP them? They pretty much let Lena bleed out and 'splode and hold Rob and the others back and make 'em watch. And they seem to be pushing/herding people in other scenes instead of trying to lead them to safety or something.
3) The most basic question of all: if it's a standard monster romp-n-stomp, they WHY THE HELL RELEASE IT IN JANUARY? And why the secretive non-traditional viral advertising? And why a cheap-ass budget? And why film it in an experimental hand-held Blair Witch style motif that will only appeal to arthouse intelligentsia?

If this was a bona fide monster movie it would
a) be released in summer (or at least the holiday season)
b) have a huge fx budget
c) be hyped in a major way, right down to the merchandising tie-ins with McDonalds and Toys R Us and XBox360
d) be filmed in a typical fashion so that we'd get PLENTY of clear "kewl fx! ftw!" shots of the monster instead of dark & vague "WTF was that???" jerky hand-cam glimpses


To answer your questions with a more plausible theory:

1)Hud says that because NY is falling down and having footage of the actual event is a big deal. It needs to be explained because there's a huge monster. It doesn't in any way implies there's a cover up in process.

2)Have you even seen a medical show? One person enters the ER with another one injured. 90% of the time one doctor take sthe injured and another pushes the other one away, being 'rude' in an attempt to calm him down so the doctors can get some rational facts. Add the fact that it seems to be a huge infestation of some sort.

3)Simple: Because JJ wants some originality. He knows if he does another godzilla, with big budget, standard publicity and regular screening but with a new monster people will forget about it two days after watching the movie. He's trying to make an icon. For that he needs to create a strong impression. For that he needs to try to subert the genre a little.

And just to comment on one of the last comments:

d)Even if this was a standard Godzilla vs Crazy Monkeys from outer space flick, creating large expectations with the beast is a great way to sell your idea. It's being done since Aliens. It's the base of any scary movie: People fear that which they don't know. The instant you show the monster, it loses most of its frightening factor.



So all we have is a fresh take on a very old genre: Monster movies. Part of the genre is that men think of themselves as top of the world, and either trought their own irresponsability or trought a lesson in humility, the monster breaks men dreams of power.

This movie is about Bush and terrorism as much as Frankenstein.
_________________
Drowning my worries in Slusho.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:03 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340

 		I have no desire to enter into a debate about it either.

And I'm not saying what theories I *do* believe about 9/11, Iraq, Bush or anything else, any more than what I already wrote above.

I was merely pointing out that I truly believe that ABRAMS seems to lean towards that kind of theory, and that it's no accident that this movie is set in New York or that the cinema verite handheld camera approach is deliberately evocative of the 9/11 footage we've seen countless times.

Tell you what -- I'll check back after the movie's release and we'll see if my theory still deserves a Screwy . But if I'm right, you better believe I'll be dishing out the humble pie to some of you guys. Razz

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:08 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
clownnation
Decorated

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 160

 		Fair

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:11 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
Arkaham wrote:
Even if this was a standard Godzilla vs Crazy Monkeys from outer space flick, creating large expectations with the beast is a great way to sell your idea. It's being done since Aliens. It's the base of any scary movie: People fear that which they don't know. The instant you show the monster, it loses most of its frightening factor.



So all we have is a fresh take on a very old genre: Monster movies. Part of the genre is that men think of themselves as top of the world, and either trought their own irresponsability or trought a lesson in humility, the monster breaks men dreams of power.

This movie is about Bush and terrorism as much as Frankenstein.


So...if it's a MONSTER movie, then why is the movie CLEARLY about the HUMANS instead of the MONSTER?

Face it-- MONSTER movies are about THE MONSTER. Nobody gives a rat's ass about Raymond Burr wandering around smoking his pipe, or a bunch of Japanese people running around and screaming "Gojirrrrra!!!!" It's all about Godzilla. Or Mothra. Or Ghidrah. Campy, yeah, but people go to monster movies to see MONSTERS, *not* people.

And this trailer has confirmed what some still doubted: this movie is about THE PEOPLE. Especially Rob, Hud, Beth and Lil (the other members of the Slusho Seven seem to have been marginalized to redshirts or Sir-Not-Appearing-In-This-Film).

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:16 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Arkaham
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 353

 		If you see the examples I'm using you'll know what I mean by 'monster movie'. Godzilla is a monster movie, but Aliens is one as well and Frankestein too. And those are as much as the people involved as they are about the monsters. That's why Aliens is so much better than AVP. because the first one it is about Ripley's struggles while teh other one is about cool beast beating the crap out of each other.

The twist JJ is doing is that he's treating a gigant monster more as a horror monster movie than as a sci fi monster movie. Yes, it is original, but no, it's not something you only see in political movies.
_________________
Drowning my worries in Slusho.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:23 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340

 		The movie you cited -- "Alien" -- already did the innovation of sci-fi monster flick as horror story way back in '79. So if JJ is trying to pass "Cloverfield" off as innovative in THAT regard, he's sadly mistaken. Wink

No, the innovation here comes from the "Blair Witch" approach of documentary-style realism -- never been done in a monster movie before, ESPECIALLY a kaiju subgenre that's always been noted for the cheesiest of fx and guys in rubber suits.

And from the viral marketing campaign, of course. Which was utterly derailed by an untimely writers' strike. So he doesn't get Style Points for that anymore, either.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:29 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Arkaham
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 353

 		But an Alien couldn't take down a building. (Well, maybe, if he had the time and bleed in all the right places, but you know what I mean). Sure, a big part of Kaiju was cheesy fx, but the idea of some thing that can wipe a city just by walking around it is also a big part of it.

But I concede. The handheld camera is a big innovation for the genre. But It is still inside the genre, from that comes the big monster produced by the hubris of men and the trashing of New York. Those things say this is kaiju, not this is a jab at the war on terror.

I do agree that JJ loses lots of points for the so called 'original viral campaign'. It's not original, it's been very dissapointing and up to this day, it's been lame as hell.

EDIT: A small typo that made things confusing
_________________
Drowning my worries in Slusho.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:40 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Patrick Star
Unfettered


Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 409
Location: Oregon

 		Re: [META/RANT]Election year political allegory
brettoniasam wrote:
So...

the new trailer pretty much confirms what I've been saying all along:

This is an avant-garde, experimental thinly-veiled political allegory condemning the politics of deceit and fear that this Bush administration has inflicted upon America (and the world) for the past 7 years.

Monsters? What monsters? The "monsters" you "see" (or THINK you see) in the new trailer are absolutely and deliberately as vague and open to interpretation as any "real" video of boogeymen and bugbears like Bigfoot and ghosts and space aliens.

And, as many have long surmised, you've got damn good odds that the full movie won't give you any clearer shot of the "monsters" than what you already "see" in the trailer.

That's cuz they ain't there. Simple enough plot, seen it a thousand times before: military creates killer virus for biowarfare; accidentally releases it in America; needs to kill off the poor bastards who are infected; need to create a cover(up) story to explain all the deaths; so they invent a story about "monsters" in order to quarantine Manhattan and kill off the disease carriers.

In much the same way that Cheney-Bush lie and invent nonexistent "imminent threats" to cover up their real reasons for military adventurism/conquest in the Middle East. You don't have to be Fellini to see the political symbolism there.

And considering that this movie is falling close on the heels of a veritable rash of anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War movies (In the Valley of Elah; Rendition; Lions for Lambs; more to come) in an election year...

...and considering that those other movies failed at the box office (hey, Hollywood is preaching to the choir: we KNOW Bush lied. We GET it. These movies would have been edgy/ controversial/ effective two, three years ago; but now they're just redundant. Too little, too late), I'm sure "Cloverfield" will meet a similar fate among the art-house intelligentsia and the confused fanboys who were expecting a classic monster movie.


OMG you need an MRI Stat! Rolling Eyes

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:44 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
clownnation
Decorated

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 160

 		Also the Writer's strike would'nt effect the viral marketing. The writer's strike prohibits members of the writers guild to submit screenplays to studios or networks.

Networks and Studios have known of the strike for a long time. They have stockpiled screenplays so they can continue to make films without new writers for several months.

Im a fan of a special effects artistist who told us about six months ago that a strike would happen. We were on his forum talking about how there is alot of "popcorn" movies coming out, especially around Christmas time. He told us that studios are trying to crank out as many large profit margin films because once the stock pile runs out (no one know how long the strike would last) the studios and television networks are gonna go into a massive slump.

Thats why I think Cloverfield was greenlit with a $30 mil budget. Any movie about a giant monster would bring people to the theatre, at least for the opening weekend.You could clear $30 Mil easily with a movie like that. The next step is to hype the film. I believe JJ Abrams pitched the idea about the viral marketing and explained the innovation of making it "Blair Witch style" This would save a grip on budget. Its a win win for the studio. If the film is highly hyped, and a big enough buzz is created (what we are doing now) Then it could amass an amazing profit to cost ratio. Which is what the industry needs at this time

On a side note, The writers striked before back in 1987 or 1988 I believe. The special effects artist i mentioned before said that Writers no longer wrote screenplays for network television and Movie studios, but nothing stopped them from writing for a new medium. Pay TV. He claims that this is what created Cable television and made alot of unknown writers very wealthy. He has suggested that we get our scripts copywritten because he believes that if this strike lasts for a while, then a new medium would be created (writers till want to make money)

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:52 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340

 		Re: [META/RANT]Election year political allegory
Patrick Star wrote:
brettoniasam wrote:
So...

the new trailer pretty much confirms what I've been saying all along:

This is an avant-garde, experimental thinly-veiled political allegory condemning the politics of deceit and fear that this Bush administration has inflicted upon America (and the world) for the past 7 years.

Monsters? What monsters? The "monsters" you "see" (or THINK you see) in the new trailer are absolutely and deliberately as vague and open to interpretation as any "real" video of boogeymen and bugbears like Bigfoot and ghosts and space aliens.

And, as many have long surmised, you've got damn good odds that the full movie won't give you any clearer shot of the "monsters" than what you already "see" in the trailer.

That's cuz they ain't there. Simple enough plot, seen it a thousand times before: military creates killer virus for biowarfare; accidentally releases it in America; needs to kill off the poor bastards who are infected; need to create a cover(up) story to explain all the deaths; so they invent a story about "monsters" in order to quarantine Manhattan and kill off the disease carriers.

In much the same way that Cheney-Bush lie and invent nonexistent "imminent threats" to cover up their real reasons for military adventurism/conquest in the Middle East. You don't have to be Fellini to see the political symbolism there.

And considering that this movie is falling close on the heels of a veritable rash of anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War movies (In the Valley of Elah; Rendition; Lions for Lambs; more to come) in an election year...

...and considering that those other movies failed at the box office (hey, Hollywood is preaching to the choir: we KNOW Bush lied. We GET it. These movies would have been edgy/ controversial/ effective two, three years ago; but now they're just redundant. Too little, too late), I'm sure "Cloverfield" will meet a similar fate among the art-house intelligentsia and the confused fanboys who were expecting a classic monster movie.


OMG you need an MRI Stat! Rolling Eyes


And you, Patrick Star, need an enema. Cheers. Very Happy

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:57 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 4 [54 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 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