unforum

[JookNy21]

[PRESS] NY Post..

[Slusho Addict]

Re: NY Post..

[m_talon]

Re: NY Post..

[Lambo_Diablo_Svtt]

Re: NY Post..

[Euchre]

Another 'reporter' that doesn't know what they are talking about.
So much of what's said in the 7 items can be answered if they'd had a clue about the whole movie project.

1. The unknown cast and director: Uh, the film is about the monster. If you put "Cruise" or "Smith" or any other big name on the marquee, the movie becomes all about them. Abrams said that he wanted to use such unknowns because of this and the feeling that these are average people like you and me. The curiosity about them also adds to the mystique which has driven such a secretive film. Consider all that and we think of the main character as "Rob", not "Michael Stahl-David". Oh, and then there's the cost thing...

2. Small budget: Yeah, this makes things tricky - but that's because it's something daring, risky, and new. Most films can make as much as was spent on this film back in under 2 weeks. This is one of the bigger dangers, but as with any film they probably spent it all on the star of the film - the monster - instead of the aforementioned unknown cast. The moviegoing public doesn't care how much it cost to make a film as long as what they see is good. Blair Witch was made for $22 thousand, Waterworld for $175 million - which do you think the public thought was better?

3. January release: This is a genuinely daunting thing if you ignore everything else about a film and assume a date reflects what the quality of a film must be. It may be true that weaker films are often 'dumped' in January, but when it's got a low budget that can't compete in the ad market against summer blockbusters purses for advertising you take the time that you have the most chance for impact - and it's cheap because nobody else wants it.

4. Nobody has seen it: WTF? Early screenings have already happened. Just because somehow the big reviewers didn't get an invite but genuine fans found out about them and made it isn't our fault. Notice the sense of 'god' status and self importance of 'journalists' and reviewers implied - if we haven't seen it you peons don't matter, even if all of you end up liking it.

5. Abrams isn't directing: This writer already noted that Reeves is a lifetime friend of Abrams, then asks how much influence he could possibly be on the content of the film. Uh, does the left hand know what the right is doing here? I bet Reeves and Abrams know better what each other are doing than this writer knows about what they alone are saying.

6. Made too fast: Another genuine concern, especially relative to the mentioned CGI content. But then there's the mention of the script... Did this writer do any research or at least actually read all of the interviews they keep citing? The script wasn't really a fixed dialog, so there wasn't this big writing project with a hard timetable. Did anyone notice there's a writer's strike going on? We knew since before Abrams started this project that it was likely to come, so do you think maybe this method could have been a little bit intentional?

7. Interest based on hype not the film: This sort of reasoning has a flaw I've explained before thusly - it's like saying a yard of grass has nothing to do with home ownership, just because it doesn't grow inside the house. If the viral campaign creating the hype was full of characters that weren't in the film (like oh, The Beast?) this would make more sense, but that's not the case.

If a writer wanted to talk about reasons to worry about the film's reception, why not speak of real dangers like being thought of as 'just another monster movie' or mistaken for Godzilla - especially in light of the theatrical and fan flop that was Zilla? (Sorry, more people hate Zilla than love it.) The general public that doesn't know about the viral campaign is more likely to dismiss the film for that reasoning than anything else.

[Pandafarmer]

Definitely has some good points... but I can also remember a time when no one released blockbuster action/SFX films before Memorial Day because "no one saw movies before school let out for summer."

I would also say, people are still burned by the fact Snakes On A Plane saw so much hype and fizzled. They also fail to remember or realise that the hype was "pretend" on many levels. Sure the name kicked ass! Sure the concept was insanely wonderful! Samuel L Jackson is in the whole mix! He says F Words! But I'd still never pay to see it because of the stupid name, lame concept, and Samuel L Jackson's dirty mouth.

[kosmopol]

I don't agree with the "deadly signs", because the most of them require a stereotypic movie rating...

To his signs I'd say:

1 It has no stars and an unknown director.

Well, it was never a problem. I mean, if the stars are charismatic and director is good, it doesn't matter, whether you've heard their name before. And: movie with stars and famous director can easily be disappointing.

2 The budget is tiny.

Budget also doesn't matter. I mean, what we watch in cinema is a movie and not a fiscal report about the movie budget. "Pi" of Aronofsky had $60.000 budget, and the movie rocks!

And even monster full of special effects movie could be great, if you use your money wisely.

3 It's coming out now.

[Random_kid]

the thing that makes me mad is the no name actors thing....
uhhh look at the the Saw movies(which have TERRIBLE no name actors in them)
and how well do they do?
this guy is a FARTIN idiot

[noimagirlrlly]

A movie that i like to attach cloverfield to is M. Night Shmaylon(SP?)'s Lady in the water.

It had absolutley no "famous" actors and grossed over 72 million. I think Cloverfield will end up grossing around 100 million, and be a major sucess.

[rose]

[tiny420]

This guy sounds like a pompous asshole. I hate when f* writers love to bash "geeks" and anyone who loves anything sci-fi related.

[rose]

[Random_kid]

[Helo]

The review is dead-on, and if you're not an UnFiction nerd/geek, then the so-called "hype" surrounding the film is virtually unheard of.

To most normal people, it's just a cool trailer for what will hopefully be a cool movie.

To the UnFiction nerds and geeks, it's turned into a lifestyle. It's almost like this forum is a gathering for the throwaways of the nerd lifestyle.

Have you heard what a fit of nerd rage you guys throw when you heard that some of your obsessions might not be in the movie? And these are really dumb things too, such as:

- The date. The release date was 1-18-08. No where did it ever say that it was going to happen on 1-18-08. You guys just found some pictures and got your tighty-whities in a bunch.
- Slusho. I hate to tell you this, but the name is stupid, and Abrams sticks it in his movies just for fun. Slusho isn't mentioned, and it won't be. If a movie revolved around someone turning into a monster because they drank "Slusho," then the movie deserves to die a flaming death. Seriously, Slusho? Drinking something and then turning into a monster?
- SBN... or "Sea Bed Nectar." Once again, put down the video game controller and listen to your dumb asses.
- DSI... or "Deep Sea Ingredients." If I told someone about this and said that a really cool monster movie was being made based on the above, they would ask me how the fourth period in seventh grade is going. Those things might be cool to you guys, but you're the small minority, not the majority.

The fact is, a lot of this stupid stuff sounds cool to you guys because you're nerds and geeks who enjoy the Japanese style RPG's that no one cares about. But for a real movie that needs to make money and appeal to the rest of us, it's stupid. I jumped off this board when they started talking about that crap, but now your turbo-nerds are throwing a fit because it's not going to be in the movie.

Get a grip. The stuff that you're into in your moms basement doesn't make money, and it makes for really crappy movie ideas.

I think I hear Euchre putting down the cake frosting and stepping off his moms couch to give me a cyber tongue lashing. Bring it on.

Edit - language Timothy - MikeyJ

[Random_kid]

seriously whats your problem
just because youre not into the same stuff were into doesnt mean you should shit on us
how old are you like 13?

Edit - language Timothy, there's nothing wrong with being 13 - MikeyJ