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 3:52 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
Completely ridiculous: SD card can't be recorded over
View previous topicView next topic
Page 3 of 9 [133 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Author Message
Ghidra99
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 127
theShaggy wrote:
To assume that the subtle license they take with it implies something as huge as "it was all a dream" is the most extreme type of nitpicking.

DG, do you have any other reason to think it's a dream?


Other than him trying to stir up shit and get a bunch of us pissed off, I do believe we have ourselves a real, authentic troll.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:20 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
RobDET
Greenhorn

Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 5

 		I think the characters using the word "Tape" doesn't have any significance at all about what type of media is in the device. People called NES games "Tapes" all the time.

I think the SD card is not the original recording media. Just beacuse what we are seeing is on an SD card doesn't mean that the army ONLY has it on SD cards. It is VERY likely that this is a video intended for training or god-knows-what but it contains clearly valuable information about the monster and is probably part of a briefing, not an archive but a copy of one.

I like the idea that the FAT was corrupt on the camera and the military used a recovery tool.

He could have also used more than one set of media. IE multiple "Tapes" There is nothing saying that Rob didn't use multiple "tapes" on his day with his girl...

and i agree with the previous post about 5.1 sound... the camera was clearly alien technology anyway Very Happy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:31 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
h311b3nt
Decorated


Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 271
Location: OC

 		Wow...I have trouble finding words that would not sound insulting. You pointed out an inconsistency. One that was already pointed out by the way.

Lets spell this out:
Panasonic pays to sponsor the movie. Paramount, in turn, puts their camera into the movie. The director wanted to intertwine the two stories for artistic purposes. He is not going to compromise his artistic vision for corporate sponsorship. So this is what you get.
To try to discount the whole movie as a dream sequence based on ppl using the word "tape" seems ….how do we says this nicely…farfetched. I still use the word "tape" for recording with Tivo. Actually I have a DVR so even Tivo is a misnomer. My family still calls a remote a "clicker". You ever hear of "turning" a light? "Don't turn that dial." "Pop" a cap off a beer.
My point is: tape is just a way of saying record. Don't think so hard about it.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:57 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kayberry
Decorated


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 295

 		Most plausible explanation: It was an oversight. Someone took artistic license to make the SD-based recording work more like a raw tape recording that was overwritten, when it clearly does NOT. But there's another, less plausible explanation:

The camera, and the SD card were destroyed in the collapse. The camera is recovered, and some tech-savvy soldier gets the idea to recover the card's stored raw data without the filetable and write a new filetable that includes all of the content as one big file, then transfer to another SD card for viewing. The movie is the result - prerecorded video that was once deleted is restored when the raw data is lifted from the old card and becomes part of the full composite video, giving the effect of overwriting an old recording with a newer one.
This allows the original relationship footage and the monster footage to be recorded from the Panasonic SD-1 on the same card and later interleaved as one single movie since the old footage was not overwritten with zeroes when the footage was deleted to make room for Rob's going-away party.
_________________
Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!
The trail always leads into a trap.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:27 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
theShaggy
Unfettered

Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 417
Location: Toronto, Ontario

 		Though I'm not supporting the whole nitpicking thing, I will support the "tape" theory by reminding people that

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Rob asks Hud if he changed the "tape" in the camera, and when Hud says no, Rob looks CRUSHED. Since, y'know, it is recording over the perfect day with his beloved.

_________________
The Shaggy?
Playing nothing.
Being a student. Stupid education.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:31 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Slusho Addict
Entrenched


Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 920
Kayberry wrote:
Most plausible explanation: It was an oversight. Someone took artistic license to make the SD-based recording work more like a raw tape recording that was overwritten, when it clearly does NOT. But there's another, less plausible explanation:

The camera, and the SD card were destroyed in the collapse. The camera is recovered, and some tech-savvy soldier gets the idea to recover the card's stored raw data without the filetable and write a new filetable that includes all of the content as one big file, then transfer to another SD card for viewing. The movie is the result - prerecorded video that was once deleted is restored when the raw data is lifted from the old card and becomes part of the full composite video, giving the effect of overwriting an old recording with a newer one.
This allows the original relationship footage and the monster footage to be recorded from the Panasonic SD-1 on the same card and later interleaved as one single movie since the old footage was not overwritten with zeroes when the footage was deleted to make room for Rob's going-away party.


Yup, hence the corruption between the old recordings and the new one.

Anyway, as it's been said, it's not worth thinking too hard about, and certainly not as the basis of the whole thing being a dream!

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:34 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
octaine
Boot

Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Belgium

 		What if the department of defence opted to copy the video from the TAPE found on site, to an SD card in order to make sure the original could be preserved??? With data that valuable I can imagine they'd make copies of it, and in particular an SD card for easier acces at their meetings/conferences/whatever...

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:46 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
tMan930
Unfettered


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 458
Location: Up In There

 		You can record over SD footage, though, right?

If you rewind to a particular point, and then start to record, it will record over what came after that. It does for my video camera, at least.

As for the amount of footage, I've got three hours' worth of live music footage on an 8 gig card. That's more than twice the length of the movie.

As for when:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Rob asks Hud if he changed the "tape" in the camera, and when Hud says no, Rob looks CRUSHED. Since, y'know, it is recording over the perfect day with his beloved.


it seems like another case of using "tape" because it's part of our language now.

That's my two cents, anyway.

Who cares, really? Shouldn't we all be more worried about hacking Hasbro's website to find a picture of the monster toy?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:57 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
darkgoob
Boot

Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 11
tMan930 wrote:


You can record over SD footage, though, right?

If you rewind to a particular point, and then start to record, it will record over what came after that. It does for my video camera, at least.


No you can't. It makes a new AVCHD format file every time you press "record." Now, you can delete a previous file, but when you start recording it creates a new file and doesn't selectively overwrite previous files. ONLY tape does that.

Kayberry wrote:

The camera, and the SD card were destroyed in the collapse. The camera is recovered, and some tech-savvy soldier gets the idea to recover the card's stored raw data without the filetable and write a new filetable that includes all of the content as one big file, then transfer to another SD card for viewing. The movie is the result - prerecorded video that was once deleted is restored when the raw data is lifted from the old card and becomes part of the full composite video, giving the effect of overwriting an old recording with a newer one.
This allows the original relationship footage and the monster footage to be recorded from the Panasonic SD-1 on the same card and later interleaved as one single movie since the old footage was not overwritten with zeroes when the footage was deleted to make room for Rob's going-away party.


Nice try, Kayberry, but no. Because, that would not explain why
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
"Rob asks Hud if he changed the 'tape' in the camera, and when Hud says no, Rob looks CRUSHED," as theShaggy said.


CoffeeJedi wrote:
You guys are funny.

I'd just like to also add that there isn't a camera that can record binaural audio in full Dolby Digital 5.1 channel surround sound with seat-shaking bass response either. Rolling Eyes


I think you're misunderstanding my criticism.

The opening shots -- the guy filming Central Park from his lovers' apartment window -- were clearly shot on an actual HD consumer camcorder. This "establishes" the reality P.O.V. in the audience's mind quite effectively. As the movie goes on, it "fades" into shots that were shot on the Sony professional cinema HD cameras that were used to film the majority of this movie. Obviously also, the sound quality is above and beyond what a consumer camcorder could produce. I don't have any problem with any of these things, it's something that gets filed under "suspension of disbelief."

However for the movie to indicate that it's SD card in the opening shot, then be based on the idea that there was footage that was recorded over, and have the characters say tape, is something that gets filed under "plot inconsistency."

There's a major difference there -- on the one hand, you have a consistent application of a modification of the supposed P.O.V. medium that smoothly fades and thus is unnoticable and draws the audience into the film. This is a very effective cinematic trick and was well-implemented, much more-so IMHO than in Blair Witch where it alternated roughly between two different film stocks. Whereas on the other hand, you have an inconsistent supposition of the nature of the P.O.V. medium as presented by the film via the opening sequence text, the character dialogue, and the editing which pervades the entire movie.

Since the nature of the P.O.V. medium is the main "trick" of this movie -- the main thing that separates it from other similar types of movies -- then it's completely fair game to criticize it on the basis of whether or not the implementation of this "trick" was done in a convincing and consistent fashion or whether they botched it in some way or another. And while for the most part, they pulled it off quite well in terms of camerawork, meanwhile their presentation of the recording medium is inconsistent.

I'm not saying that they should have made the movie WITH the actual camera that is supposed to be being used by the characters. I'm just saying that they should have presented it in a consistent way and thought it through better. Since quite obviously, their target audience is the tech-savvy YouTube generation, and the main characters are of this generation as well. If it was a bunch of 50-year-olds, then I could see them calling it "tape" and being afraid they were recording over something when really they were not. But not with the 25-30 set, at least not Rob who clearly was the one who knew everything about the camera.

I don't think this detracted substantially from my actual enjoyment of this movie, which I found to be very enjoyable. In fact I love this movie. I think the CGI was phenomenal and the "reality P.O.V." and natural camera movement compensates well for the normal unrealism that CGI suffers from.

RobDET wrote:

I think the characters using the word "Tape" doesn't have any significance at all about what type of media is in the device. People called NES games "Tapes" all the time.


Yeah, my grandma did. But the main character (whose camera it is) was a tech-savvy dude from our generation. Why would he ask "did you take out the tape" unless it was a tape-based camcorder? Because if it was SD-card based he would know not to worry about if it was taken out, since you can't accidentally record over SD cards. DUH!

h3llb3nt wrote:

Lets spell this out:
Panasonic pays to sponsor the movie. Paramount, in turn, puts their camera into the movie. The director wanted to intertwine the two stories for artistic purposes. He is not going to compromise his artistic vision for corporate sponsorship. So this is what you get.
To try to discount the whole movie as a dream sequence based on ppl using the word "tape" seems ….how do we says this nicely…farfetched. I still use the word "tape" for recording with Tivo. Actually I have a DVR so even Tivo is a misnomer. My family still calls a remote a "clicker". You ever hear of "turning" a light? "Don't turn that dial." "Pop" a cap off a beer.
My point is: tape is just a way of saying record. Don't think so hard about it.


Wrong, because the Panasonic camera never appears in the movie, nor does the Panasonic logo. Only Nokia does. Your excuse for this inconsistency makes even less sense than the inconsistency itself.

And, when did I ever say I was trying to "discount the whole movie?" Saying it's a dream does not detract from it in any way.

And suggesting that Rob, the owner of his camera, would think that recording onto the same SD card would overwrite stuff, would mean that he was retarded and so are the filmmakers. Which is not the case. He said "tape" and meant "tape." I know that "to tape something" is common parlance for "to record something," but someone who paid over $1000 for an SD-card-based camera and knows all the other features of it, would know that it was impossible to record over things and therefore this makes no sense.

RobDET wrote:

I think the SD card is not the original recording media. Just beacuse what we are seeing is on an SD card doesn't mean that the army ONLY has it on SD cards. It is VERY likely that this is a video intended for training or god-knows-what but it contains clearly valuable information about the monster and is probably part of a briefing, not an archive but a copy of one.


Again, this is a big stretch. The film clearly presents it as an SD card that was recovered from the camera. Ask any normal person who saw this movie about their interpretation of that, and that's what everyone who saw the movie walked away from thinking:

" in the beginning the government thing said they recovered it from an sd card" - YouTube comments
"they noted it was from a recovered SD card, so that is one nice SD card too!" - gencon forums
"I had a good time nerding-out with Jared and co wondering how the hell an SD card could hold 90 minutes of High Def footage." - Borked.com
"The camera doesn't have to survive at all: the SD card does" - Cloverfieldclues blogspot
"Did anyone else understand it this way: The beginning text states that this footage was found on an SD card... but the movie clearly shows that the footage is being shot to tape. They refer to it in the dialogue and the whole intercutting of the Coney Island footage would only work with tape. It might be nitpicky, but that kept bugging me... just because everything else seemed so well thought out as far as convincing camcorder / home video feel etc." - dvxuser.com Panasonic camcorder forums
"A nuke would've scrambled the SD Card." - 3dfrontier forums
"I want to know where there is a consumer level SD card that shoots 90 minutes of HD!" dvinfo.net forums
"the opening of the film makes it appear that the footage came from an SD card" - chud.com review
...
DO I REALLY NEED TO GO ON???

Clearly EVERYONE who saw this movie thought, rightfully, it was shot on an SD-card camcorder. The opening sequence -- the FIRST thing you see when you watch the movie -- indicates this to be the case. All the promotional and behind-the-scenes shots from the movie indicate this to be the case. And, *I'm* not the only one who had a problem with this. Anyone who knows anything about cameras would have walked out of this movie going, "WTH?"

theShaggy wrote:

Hud was filming the whole night, over EIGHT HOURS, but the HDC-SD1 only has a battery life of 97 minutes! Even if he kept turning it on and off, he didn't when the helicopter fell (and the sun came up while they were knocked out), and he used lights and night vision and stuff!


I'm willing to allow for a battery that lasts that long. Because I own a video camera and I bought a $150 battery that lasts seven hours. I'm willing to allow that a video camera that's being used with the smaller internal viewfinder (and not the fold-out screen) could last even longer, maybe 10 hours with a high-capacity battery. Even with 10 minutes or so of using the video light. And Marlena *does* tell Hud to take the camera away from his face so she can recognize him, which indicates that he was holding it up to his eye, using the smaller internal viewfinder that would extend battery life.

theShaggy wrote:

Chill out about the aberrant tech like that. If they went for utter, complete realism with everything, then the movie would not exist the way they wanted it to be filmed.


I'm not criticizing it for being unrealistic. It's a monster movie! I'm criticizing it for being *inconsistent*. There's a HUGE difference.

theShaggy wrote:

DG, do you have any other reason to think it's a dream?


Well, another thing is [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBee1TuUSJE"]the recently-released Slusho commercial that looks very dreamlike[/url]. Just watch that and tell me it's not supposed to be a dream the guy is having.

Also, the official slusho.jp site says about Ganu, the discoverer of the secret ingredient of Slusho:
Quote:

"And one fateful day, he and his teammates discovered a deep sea ingredient unique to anything else!!! While the team pondered miraculous ways to use it, Ganu had the best idea of all!! Because that night he had a dream - he was a tiny fish, and a whale came and told him to drink the new ingredient. And as he did drink lots and lots of the ingredient, Ganu grew from a small fish into an enormous whale!!!"

(bold mine)

So you see, there's a couple of other things that points to it being a dream. I'm not convinced the filmmakers did not leave this open as a possible interpretation, though clearly it seems they have left it open to not have been a dream as well, as other posters have shown the director has indicated in his interviews regarding possible sequels being based on other cameras that filmed that night.

golfguitarist wrote:

whether the movie was taped on a tape, or on a SD card, or transfered on to and SD card...... its still a good movie. And if you disprove that by saying that its "fake" b/c you couldnt do this or that with an SD card........... rememebr this movie is about a monster. The movie itself is fiction and fake. And if you watch some of the behind the scenes footage of the movie, they arent even filming with camcorders on all the shots. so what!


So what are you saying, that one should never criticize or think critically about anything? We should just be spoon-fed everything mass media puts forth and never question even major flaws in it? Besides, I rather enjoy a good critique of a film; to me, it adds to the enjoyment. Otherwise I would not be doing it. I have also found that through the critical process, often the most interesting revelations about a film can come forth. (Sorry, I went to film school; I guess I never got over it.)

-=DG=-

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:17 pm
Last edited by darkgoob on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:31 pm; edited 3 times in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Ghidra99
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 127

 		Confused

You're really stretching the limits of "critique". I think you're being deliberately obtuse just to annoy people.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:21 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Tsakara
Veteran


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 74

 		I thought it might help if you knew what camera they were using:
http://cgi.ebay.com/PANASONIC-HVX-200-CAMERA-USED-ON-THE-MOVIE-CLOVERFIELD_W0QQitemZ130190870984QQihZ003QQcategoryZ107937QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

as for it saying SD card. what a lot of cameras will do is record the entire thing on tape then dump the tape over onto an SD card when its full. this fills up the SD card and but leaves the little bits that weren't "taped" over.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:25 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
daisho
Veteran


Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 110
Location: Aussie Land

 		Jeebus. I thought I was a pedantic geek. That's all, resume your madness.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:58 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
danieltx13
Kl00

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 42
Ghidra99 wrote:
Confused

You're really stretching the limits of "critique". I think you're being deliberately obtuse just to annoy people.


Yeah, I think a ban is in order here.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:59 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kayberry
Decorated


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 295
darkgoob wrote:
tMan930 wrote:

Nice try, Kayberry, but no. Because, that would not explain why
Spoiler (Rollover to View):
"Rob asks Hud if he changed the 'tape' in the camera, and when Hud says no, Rob looks CRUSHED," as theShaggy said.



If we're to acceptably assume that Rob is not so anal-retentive about technical accuracy as you are, like the majority of average people in the audience who would refer to recorded content in a handycam as tape, he would most likely not have said something along the lines of "Did you swap out the SD card for an empty one?" Besides, you have to grant a little leeway to movies in their accuracy because they generally take place in fiction.


Tsakara wrote:
I thought it might help if you knew what camera they were using:
http://cgi.ebay.com/PANASONIC-HVX-200-CAMERA-USED-ON-THE-MOVIE-CLOVERFIELD_W0QQitemZ130190870984QQihZ003QQcategoryZ107937QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
as for it saying SD card. what a lot of cameras will do is record the entire thing on tape then dump the tape over onto an SD card when its full. this fills up the SD card and but leaves the little bits that weren't "taped" over.


This was the camera used to actually shoot the movie. This is not the camera that Hud was supposed to be using. The movie only has to plausibly allow for the features of the camera that Hud was using, the Panasonic SD-1 we see in the photo on 1-18-08.com, which records straight to the SD card. SD cards go up to 8 GB, which while using the embedded compression recording with no noticeable quality loss would plausibly allow you to record 90 minutes of HD video.
_________________
Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy! Ooh, a piece of candy!
The trail always leads into a trap.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:09 pm
Last edited by Kayberry on Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
theShaggy
Unfettered

Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 417
Location: Toronto, Ontario
darkgoob wrote:

However for the movie to indicate that it's SD card in the opening shot, then be based on the idea that there was footage that was recorded over, and have the characters say tape, is something that gets filed under "plot inconsistency."


This has departed quite a bit from "it MUST be intentional, an I can only conclude that it was a dream!" Not it is "the crew are lazy or missed something important!"

Fair enough. I'll concede that, because you're probably right. Whomever made the graphics to start the film didn't pay close enough attention, the director probably didn't pay close enough attention. Hell, the continuity person didn't pay close enough attention! You're right on that, man Smile Filmmaking involves a lot of people, and things are missed.

I think I took issue with the outlandish interpretation of it being a dream and the assertion that it was intenional.

Quote:
I don't think this detracted substantially from my actual enjoyment of this movie, which I found to be very enjoyable. In fact I love this movie. I think the CGI was phenomenal and the "reality P.O.V." and natural camera movement compensates well for the normal unrealism that CGI suffers from.


True. Nitpicks happen, but in the long run they don't REALLY make that much of a difference. Glad you enjoyed the film.


(I'm taking out all the in-movie argument because I don't think it goes anywhere on either side of the fence)

Quote:
Again, this is a big stretch. The film clearly presents it as an SD card that was recovered from the camera. Ask any normal person who saw this movie about their interpretation of that, and that's what everyone who saw the movie walked away from thinking:

" in the beginning the government thing said they recovered it from an sd card" - YouTube comments
"they noted it was from a recovered SD card, so that is one nice SD card too!" - gencon forums
"I had a good time nerding-out with Jared and co wondering how the hell an SD card could hold 90 minutes of High Def footage." - Borked.com
"The camera doesn't have to survive at all: the SD card does" - Cloverfieldclues blogspot
"Did anyone else understand it this way: The beginning text states that this footage was found on an SD card... but the movie clearly shows that the footage is being shot to tape. They refer to it in the dialogue and the whole intercutting of the Coney Island footage would only work with tape. It might be nitpicky, but that kept bugging me... just because everything else seemed so well thought out as far as convincing camcorder / home video feel etc." - dvxuser.com Panasonic camcorder forums
"A nuke would've scrambled the SD Card." - 3dfrontier forums
"I want to know where there is a consumer level SD card that shoots 90 minutes of HD!" dvinfo.net forums
"the opening of the film makes it appear that the footage came from an SD card" - chud.com review
...
DO I REALLY NEED TO GO ON???

Clearly EVERYONE who saw this movie thought, rightfully, it was shot on an SD-card camcorder. The opening sequence -- the FIRST thing you see when you watch the movie -- indicates this to be the case. All the promotional and behind-the-scenes shots from the movie indicate this to be the case. And, *I'm* not the only one who had a problem with this. Anyone who knows anything about cameras would have walked out of this movie going, "WTH?"


And history buffs woul have walked out of Raiders of th Lost Ark saying THAILAND?!, or how about the bazillons of goofs in some of film's most beloved works - most of which are far more glaring than yours.

When the whole thing is said and done, the SD-card/Tape issue will be lited on is Wikipedia page as a goof, Reeves and Goddard and Abrams will mention it on their commnentary as a blunder, and there ya go.

Quote:
theShaggy wrote:

Chill out about the aberrant tech like that. If they went for utter, complete realism with everything, then the movie would not exist the way they wanted it to be filmed.


I'm not criticizing it for being unrealistic. It's a monster movie! I'm criticizing it for being *inconsistent*. There's a HUGE difference.


Just to repeat: I concede your point because I understand your criticism a bit better now. I agree that it was a blunder, but I think that's all it is: a blunder. I don't think it has any meta reasoning behind it, nor larger context, nor do I think it is intentional.

Quote:
theShaggy wrote:

DG, do you have any other reason to think it's a dream?


Well, another thing is [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBee1TuUSJE"]the recently-released Slusho commercial that looks very dreamlike[/url]. Just watch that and tell me it's not supposed to be a dream the guy is having.


That's supposed to be a Japanese commercial. They mocked them almost identically on the Simpsons with the "Mister Sparkle" add. Flying heads, random animals, etc. Hardly what I would call evidence that Cloverfield was a dream.

Quote:

Also, the official slusho.jp site says about Ganu, the discoverer of the secret ingredient of Slusho:
Quote:

"And one fateful day, he and his teammates discovered a deep sea ingredient unique to anything else!!! While the team pondered miraculous ways to use it, Ganu had the best idea of all!! Because that night he had a dream - he was a tiny fish, and a whale came and told him to drink the new ingredient. And as he did drink lots and lots of the ingredient, Ganu grew from a small fish into an enormous whale!!!"

(bold mine)

So you see, there's a couple of other things that points to it being a dream. I'm not convinced the filmmakers did not leave this open as a possible interpretation, though clearly it seems they have left it open to not have been a dream as well, as other posters have shown the director has indicated in his interviews regarding possible sequels being based on other cameras that filmed that night.


They also had that thing falling into the ocean, which WAS intentional. And the Slusho site incorporates five robots as flavours - are we to believe that a Giant Monster will be fought by a Giant Robot in the sequel (which happens on TV all the time)?

For all the talk of sequels, the filmmakers have been pretty concretely clear about the reality of the events that took place, I don't think they've ever given us reason to doubt that. They could go any number of ways, including making it a dream, but your interpretation is honestly pretty shoddy.


Quote:

So what are you saying, that one should never criticize or think critically about anything? We should just be spoon-fed everything mass media puts forth and never question even major flaws in it? Besides, I rather enjoy a good critique of a film; to me, it adds to the enjoyment. Otherwise I would not be doing it. I have also found that through the critical process, often the most interesting revelations about a film can come forth. (Sorry, I went to film school; I guess I never got over it.)

-=DG=-


Heh, don't worry, I am a nitpicker too, and a lot of little inconsistencies often drive me mad.

HOWEVER, just to argue on small little point for the sake of humour:

You know all about SD card technology with video and film and such, but you went to film school. Rob's off to be vice-president of a soft-drink company... how would that lend him to know the ins and outs of file-formats of SD cards on Hi-Def Sony/Panasonic camcorders?

Wink
_________________
The Shaggy?
Playing nothing.
Being a student. Stupid education.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:09 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 9 [133 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 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