View topic - [META] Just Say No.

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

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.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Tue Nov 26, 2024 7:41 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

[META] Just Say No.

Page 3 of 6 [81 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Author

Message

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

ScubaSteve1717 wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

Who had more screen time, Rob or the monster? Who was the main character, Rob or the monster? I know what you're saying about Paramount wanting to start a franchise, but you DO understand that a franchise has a thousand times more potential to hurt the film than to help it... right?

You keep forgetting that they wanted to make an American monster movie, not a movie about Rob. The movie is about the monster, Rob's story is just highlighted in this instance.

I'm not forgetting anything. I know that very well. Whether or not the movie was intended to be solely about an American monster, the result was a movie about Rob and his friends trying to survive the attack. Rob is our main dude, for good or ill. That argument is flawed, because it doesn't match the movie that I saw on Friday.

About me thinking you didn't like the movie, my bad. The vast majority of your posts lead me to believe you were horribly dissatisfied with the film. Almost as if you have a love-hate relationship with it. Regardless, I just think your arguments are flawed. The reason for me being so hostile, is that a sequel would hurt the legacy of Cloverfield. Period.

I live in a world where I think everything is as advertised? Wow. You just pulled that one out of your ass. For the record, everything I have said about you has been based on different things you've said that are easily found within your posts. That was just a random, gross generalization about me that is unfounded and has no basis within my posts. Seems like a desperate attempt to discredit my opinions. Failed, didn't it?

You say the movie's trailers implied intellectual depth? I suppose so. And you know what? The film delivered. If Cloverfield had been the same Godzilla/Gamera/Whatever films we'd seen before, than it would be LACKING in depth. As the movie stands now, it has plenty. The characters are unique and interesting, and the movie takes itself seriously without being too serious.

What "Deeper meaning" did you want? Did you want the monster to be some sort of symbol for man's impact on the world due to arrogance/technology/pollution? We have that. He's called Godzilla, and he's NOT in this movie, get used to it. Did you want it to be some sort of answer to the existential purpose of mankind's existence? Be more specific. The trailers advertised an intelligent , character-driven "monster movie" and it delivered in spades.

You say I've done nothing to provide evidence to the folly of desiring a sequel? I'd say I've given plenty. In more threads than this. Please read through my posts and I'm sure you can put together my opinon. I've stated it many times in well-spoken North American English.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:10 pm

The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

Surely Sir, You Jest

After reading this thread I didn't even know where to start... so I'll start with this:

Dr. Awkward wrote:

As JadedMax mentioned, "Some movies do well as a series. Monster
movies as a rule generally suck at them.", and for the most part,
I agree. Tho if anybody could pull this off - I'd start pointing towards JJ.
I envision a trilogy that creates as many questions as it answers - while
continuing to immerse us into it's well crafted, ever-unfolding mythos.

I think the encyclopedia sized Godzilla Perfect DVD Collection begs to differ. Now if you meant regular monster movies then sure (maybe) sine America is like, the king of monster sequels. GIANT MONSTER movies on the other hand... are another story. I'm not the authority on these things by any means but from my limited knowledge I can tell you typically people who watch giant monster movies and like them LIKE GIANT MONSTER MOVIES. Maybe the monster comes in and smashes a city or two, maybe another monster falls from space and the monsters fight, maybe BOTH monsters fell from space on different sides of the planet smash their way through the world and fight in the middle, maybe there's a moth too and a robot. Maybe it's a Japanese man who TURNS into a robot. Could be anything really, and you're guaranteed an awful dub and science that doesn't make any sense, but you're going to love it anyway because it's a giant monster movie and they're made like that on purpose. It flies in the face of logic that events like that could take place so you have to take ridiculous measures to solve the problem. And you can do it as many times as you can come up with monsters.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to say giant monster movies suck. If you don't like them, then don't watch them. But don't try to make it a general rule that a genre you don't like sucks.

And what IS with all the ripping on Godzilla movies? Just because he has an established origin doesn't make him cheaper or anything or dumbed down in any way. It's as though your saying Godzilla is for stupid people who need to be spoon fed and Ambiguously Sized Unknown Entity is for the educated who don't need any explanation 'cuz that's how damn educated they are.

Speaking of giant monster movies, when have you ever seen one that stopped at just one? (Well... besides The Host... but that was more medium monster movie...). They scream sequel just by existing. And while you can rave all you want about it being different, edgy, stand-alone, or... whatever, first and foremost The Man himself said he wanted to create a giant monster that America could call it's own. To even begin to do that there'd have to be more. If he stopped at just this movie then he'd have failed his personal quest on several levels. At this point I'd say at least half the people who've seen it don't really even like it that much. (I've seen it twice, but then... I knew what I was looking at...). In fact EVERYONE I've spoken to about it either didn't like it outright, or liked it but were disappointed in one way or another. And these aren't stupid people, they get it... well, the one guy who didn't like it is kind of... yeah... if you know what I mean and he kept raving about the movie not having an ending and I kept trying to explain to him that the movie was the tape and not about the tape but he didn't get it.

I for one believe that as long as a giant monster shows up, smashes some building, takes some missiles and maybe some anti-aircraft fire, and calls it a day you pretty much succeeded at making a giant monster movie.

Also, I read a couple of times people were harolding the film style as bringing something new to cinema. The Blair Witch is an obvious comparison but they didn't have the special effects of this movie so it's not really a very good comparison. Those Ratchet and Clank: Weapons Not Fit for this World commercials on the other hand... Where basically they were "home recording" ridiculous alien weapon tests in their backyard are closer. It's not really new, it just hasn't been done on this scale before. Which I certainly don't want to take credit from them for doing that. I'm glad they did, I've been wanting to see a movie like that for a long time.

There's no way given the chance that they WON'T make a sequel. If anything, I'd vote for a military perspective. Anybody notice a lack of military heroes in this movie. Nobody was like I'll go with you guys and make sure you get back to the rescue site in time...

Sorry this post was so long but it's been a while sine I read so many things that made me think "whaaaaaat?" Didn't mean to come off hostile if I did.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:14 pm

Some Thing
Unfettered

Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 427
Location: Colorado

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

blaaaaaah wrote:

come on now, this NEEDS a sequel. If this is America's answer for Godzilla, it can't just be one movie. We need more. And we'll get more.

Agreed!

What's the point of creating 'America's answer for Godzilla' just to make ONE movie in which you BARELY see the creature.

Also, if there's money to be made, Paramount will definitely greenlight another one.
Cloverfield will have already made back it's budget in the first four days...there's no way Paramount would want to waste the opportunity to start a new franchise.

The budget was only $25 million.
This was a test to see if a new franchise could be started.
If you're thinking more cool monster movies are a bad thing, then you have my sympathies. Dunce

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:22 pm
Last edited by Some Thing on Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

Re: Surely Sir, You Jest

The Stray wrote:

After reading this thread I didn't even know where to start... so I'll start with this:

Dr. Awkward wrote:

I'm going to sum up your post because I don't believe it:

JadedMAX: Monster movie sequels suck
The Stray: NUH UH (holds up Godzilla boxed set)

Okay. Two things. JadedMAX has a point, sort of. Sequels tend to suck, regardless of genre. And the Stray has a point, sort of. Godzilla sequels are the point to the Godzilla franchise.

Now, here is what is truly important. Cloverfield and Godzilla are totally different. Everybody knows everything about Godzilla, as he's the main character of Godzilla. Hell, the title usually tells you everything you need to know. Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla is obviously about Godzilla fighting a mechanical version of himself. Cloverfield is meant to be a mysterious film about the plight of Robert Hawkins and his friends during a monster attack. The two films have seperate focuses.

I love Godzilla, my favorite film being Godzilla vs. Megalon because it was the first one I ever saw as a child.

What you need to remember is that they are totally different movies. Just because they both feature monsters, does not make them both monster movies of the same nature. Comparing them in this way is completely stupid, the Stray. Really. I don't compare Cloverfield to other movies, because few movies are like Cloverfield. And I won't try to make lame movies (like Godzilla, despite my love for the guy) try to fit my point.

The boxed set you mentions proves our points in that it illustrates the point of Cloverfield being completely different from Godzilla. Please realize that.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:23 pm

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

Some Thing wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

blaaaaaah wrote:

come on now, this NEEDS a sequel. If this is America's answer for Godzilla, it can't just be one movie. We need more. And we'll get more.

The budget was only $25 million.
This was a test to see if a new franchise could be started.
If you thinking more cool monster movies are a bad thing, then you have my sympathies. Dunce

If you think more CLOVERFIELD movies is a good thing, you have a mental problem and should stop replying to my posts.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:24 pm

Some Thing
Unfettered

Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 427
Location: Colorado

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

blaaaaaah wrote:

come on now, this NEEDS a sequel. If this is America's answer for Godzilla, it can't just be one movie. We need more. And we'll get more.

The budget was only $25 million.
This was a test to see if a new franchise could be started.
If you thinking more cool monster movies are a bad thing, then you have my sympathies. Dunce

If you think more CLOVERFIELD movies is a good thing, you have a mental problem and should stop replying to my posts.

You're the one with the problem...as it seems you are in a very small minority. Laughing

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:28 pm

ScubaSteve1717
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

I loved the movie for what it was, and to me it was a way of throwing a monster into otherwise mundane lives. I believe this should be further developed.

The only reason I made the comment about you believing everything is as advertised is because I read what you said wrong. So, I guess that's my bad.

It is obviously entirely subjective, where you see unique and interesting, I see flat, shallow BUT I do feel that they could become more.

I guess what I saw in the trailers and the viral is that this is going to be much more then just a monster movie, but what I saw was a monster movie from a handheld camera. That is why I want more, because I feel as though their is just to much to leave it as it is.

In my opinion not one of the trailers showed the movie as character driven, I couldn't tell the main characters apart from the other people at the party or running around on the streets. (this statement is based on the trailers alone)

As for "deeper meaning" I'm not sure what I wanted, I was hoping the movie would put something new out. What I got was a bunch of 9/11 allusions and a summary of the fears that people have in the world today, which is part of what I expected. Maybe I just expected too much, not from this movie, but from the whole story. I don't see this movie as being intelligent. I don't think it's intelligent to show what people would do in a desperate situation such as this one. I think it is interesting, and worth seeing more of which is all I want.

Come on, is the sarcasm necessary?

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:33 pm

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

To Something:

Alright, then. Even if I am in a very small minority, I know we are correct and that you are wrong. Sad thing is that you are incapable of intelligent debate. Those without intelligence aren't worth my time. Our conversation is done.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:34 pm

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

ScubaSteve1717 wrote:

Alright, sorry about the sarcasm. That was a bit much.

Although, I was also kind of serious. I didn't really know exactly what you had been expecting, but I see your point. It's just that the deeper meaning I saw was in the fact that Cloverfield presents a different kind of monster film than has been succesful in the past, and that made me very happy.

I guess it's just a major difference in our film tastes and expectations. I walked out feeling very excited and satisfied. You may not have felt the same way, but I don't think a sequel could answer your questions or fulfill your expectations without hurting Cloverfield's legacy or impact. That's it.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:40 pm

The Stray
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 141

Surely Sir, You Jest II
The Jestening

TheMaximum wrote:

The Stray wrote:

After reading this thread I didn't even know where to start... so I'll start with this:

Dr. Awkward wrote:

Of course they're DIFFERENT. I know that. I wasn't comparing the monsters, I was speaking about giant monster movies in general using what is King of Them All as a point of reference. Giant Monster movies are sequel driven. That guy was quoted as saying Giant Monster movie sequels generally suck as a rule which is wrong, again citing the millions of Godzilla movie fans and just about as many sequels. And all that just to say because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it sucks as a rule. Now, you could make that argument for movie sequels in general especially movies that were bad to begin with or went straight to DVD, but I don't believe that fits for the types of movies that are made to have sequels (if that makes sense).

How you go about something doesn't mean you change, fundamentally, the thing you are doing. Regardless of how they did it or what style they used they still made a giant monster movie and that was my other point. Otherwise the creator of the movie wouldn't have been telling stories about how he wanted to make A MONSTER MOVIE. I don't remember the interview where Abrams was quoted saying I've always wanted to make a love story and then I was in a Japanese toy store and I thought hey... why don't I make a love story with a monster in it.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:46 pm

longhorn07065
Boot

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 43

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

blaaaaaah wrote:

come on now, this NEEDS a sequel. If this is America's answer for Godzilla, it can't just be one movie. We need more. And we'll get more.

The budget was only $25 million.
This was a test to see if a new franchise could be started.
If you thinking more cool monster movies are a bad thing, then you have my sympathies. Dunce

If you think more CLOVERFIELD movies is a good thing, you have a mental problem and should stop replying to my posts.

you have a problem its a opinion
your acting like were dealing with the bible or something
seriously chill i support somethings views too
the movie has to continue into a franchise or a sequel
there were a million un answered questions that
paramount could make millions on answering in a new film

this movie wasn't designed to make you think
it wansnt designed to make you argue or to
inform you about this whole incident that happend in new
york the movie was designed to one and only

make money

if they realize they can capatialize on another movie
its gonna happen no matter what so please maximum go shove it
i do believe your not working for paramount

the end.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:04 pm

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

Re: Surely Sir, You Jest II
The Jestening

The Stray wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

The Stray wrote:

After reading this thread I didn't even know where to start... so I'll start with this:

Dr. Awkward wrote:

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:10 pm

ScubaSteve1717
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

TheMaximum wrote:

I walked out feeling very excited and satisfied. You may not have felt the same way, but I don't think a sequel could answer your questions or fulfill your expectations without hurting Cloverfield's legacy or impact. That's it.

Don't get me wrong, I 100% enjoyed that movie, I loved it, I want to see it again, I would recommend it to others, and clearly I'm willing to talk the shit out of it. Words can't express the feelings I had seeing a monster struggle to survive along with the people around it in an extremely believable way. I was not once disenchanted with the film.

But you are right, a sequel might not answer my questions or fulfill my expectations without ruining the original, but I'm just hoping it won't screw up.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:13 pm

TheMaximum
Veteran

Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

longhorn07065 wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

TheMaximum wrote:

Some Thing wrote:

blaaaaaah wrote:

come on now, this NEEDS a sequel. If this is America's answer for Godzilla, it can't just be one movie. We need more. And we'll get more.

The budget was only $25 million.
This was a test to see if a new franchise could be started.
If you thinking more cool monster movies are a bad thing, then you have my sympathies. Dunce

If you think more CLOVERFIELD movies is a good thing, you have a mental problem and should stop replying to my posts.

Wow. The English major in me finds your post utterly hilarious and sad. Please learn something about sentence structure and spelling before you tell me to go shove it. Also, it's THEMaximum, kid.

And I never said the movie was meant to make me think. Not once. You're just stupid. And I won't talk to you again unless you can express yourself with some measure of intelligence.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:16 pm

ScubaSteve1717
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

longhorn07065 wrote:

We all know that, it's just a discussion, we are allowed to do that.

Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:18 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 3 of 6 [81 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

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