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 4:21 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
[OFF TOPIC...Sorta] Monster Movie Questions?
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 4 [60 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
Fozziebare13
Boot

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 35

 		Re: What about...
Atyxs wrote:
The Relic. I thought it was a good movie and a great book.

The monster may not be as 'big' as some of the others but it's damn scary, or at least the thought of something like that.

Smile

I do love that movie. Also Clayton Rhoner from Just One of the Guys is in it. He's the main reason I wanted to see it, but then ended up loving the monster.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:21 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
gigantis2001
Decorated


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 282
Location: Columbus, Ohio

 		The Relic
Atyxs wrote:
The Relic. I thought it was a good movie and a great book.

The monster may not be as 'big' as some of the others but it's damn scary, or at least the thought of something like that.

Smile


I liked the book, but I haven't seen the movie since it came out, when I was still at that age where I would just fast forward to the good stuff, so I can't really speak about the quality of the movie.

From what I remember, though, the monster doesn't show up much until the end. This was not intentional. The animatronic (yes, they also used CG) monster, built by Stan Winston Studios, by the way (they do terrific stuff), was not completed on schedule, but filming continued anyway. I really liked the monster design.

I also know that Pendergast was not in the movie, which is a shame, cause he was an interesting character. Not as interesting as the monster, though. Very Happy

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:22 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Atyxs
Boot


Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 40

 		:)
Very true.

I really liked when you 'do' see the monster in it's full glory or at least while it eats. Yeeks...creepy stuff.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:29 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
gigantis2001
Decorated


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 282
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Lambo_Diablo_Svtt wrote:

*EDIT* BTW, If possible... list them in order of highest effects quality (such as Cloverfield) to lowest, (such as like... Power Ranger type effects.)


Sorry, man, I didn't see that edit. I won't go back, though, instead I will just say that, personally, I hate the use of CGI. It very rarely looks as good as the people involved with the movie would have you think.

When Jurassic Park came out (a movie I don't really like, by the way, and I'm also a huge dinosaur guy), it set a benchmark for CG animals. That benchmark is almost never met, or even approached. The only times I can think of off the top of my head that I don't mind, or even applaud, CGI are the first Tyrannosaurus scene in Jurassic Park (better than the CG in the rest of the movie), all of War of the Worlds (expect the aliens themselves), and the trailers for Transformers (I have not seen the movie, nor do I particularly want to, but, judging by the trailers, it's got some good effects).

Stop-motion, when done well, is my preferred special effects method. Just like CG, you can usually tell what it is right away, but at least you're looking at an actual physical object. Plus, there is just something about stop-motion that makes it exciting to look at (for me, at least).

I could go on forever, so I will just end by noting that the most realistic method is obviously using practical puppets or animatronics. Stan Winston is a great example of this (practical effects in Aliens, Predator 1&2, Jurassic Park, Pumpkinhead, the dog scene in The Thing, all three Terminators, etc.). My vote for most impressive special effects I've ever seen would probably be The Thing (a mix of practical and stop-motion).

Edit: my dislike of CGI does extend into Cloverfield. That was really the only aspect of the movie that disappointed me.

Edit numba too: the number one movie I would recommend (since that was your original question) would be War of the Worlds. It's not perfect, but it's kinda similar in that it's more about the people trying to survive something that they don't fully understand than about the attack itself. I was actually hoping Cloverfield would be more like War of the Worlds. However, it was definitely more realistic, so....hmmm...well, I don't know how to follow that up. Still liked War of the Worlds better overall.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:41 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
FTTM
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 78

 		Uncle Ray
If you're a monster fan, you've got to be a Harryhausen fan. No?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:06 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
gigantis2001
Decorated


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 282
Location: Columbus, Ohio

 		The Ray Harryhausen
FTTM wrote:
If you're a monster fan, you've got to be a Harryhausen fan. No?


Absolutely. Favorites:
1. Jason and the Argonauts
2. 7th Voyage of Sinbad
3. (tie) Mysterious Island/The Valley of Gwangi

The only ones I don't like:
Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (well, I hated it the first time, thought it was just okay the second)
First Men in the Moon (the effects are still cool, but I don't like the comedy mixed with more serious sci-fi, just like The Host)
The Three Worlds of Gulliver (I just saw this for the first time last weekend and was very disappointed)

I haven't read any of the comic book follow-ups. Also, haven't seen It Came From Beneath the Sea yet. I think a colorized version is set to come out on DVD (along with I think Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and 20 Million Miles to Earth, which is already out). Looking forward to it.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:18 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Lambo_Diablo_Svtt
Entrenched


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 914
gigantis2001 wrote:
Lambo_Diablo_Svtt wrote:

*EDIT* BTW, If possible... list them in order of highest effects quality (such as Cloverfield) to lowest, (such as like... Power Ranger type effects.)


Sorry, man, I didn't see that edit. I won't go back, though, instead I will just say that, personally, I hate the use of CGI. It very rarely looks as good as the people involved with the movie would have you think.

When Jurassic Park came out (a movie I don't really like, by the way, and I'm also a huge dinosaur guy), it set a benchmark for CG animals. That benchmark is almost never met, or even approached. The only times I can think of off the top of my head that I don't mind, or even applaud, CGI are the first Tyrannosaurus scene in Jurassic Park (better than the CG in the rest of the movie), all of War of the Worlds (expect the aliens themselves), and the trailers for Transformers (I have not seen the movie, nor do I particularly want to, but, judging by the trailers, it's got some good effects).

Stop-motion, when done well, is my preferred special effects method. Just like CG, you can usually tell what it is right away, but at least you're looking at an actual physical object. Plus, there is just something about stop-motion that makes it exciting to look at (for me, at least).

I could go on forever, so I will just end by noting that the most realistic method is obviously using practical puppets or animatronics. Stan Winston is a great example of this (practical effects in Aliens, Predator 1&2, Jurassic Park, Pumpkinhead, the dog scene in The Thing, all three Terminators, etc.). My vote for most impressive special effects I've ever seen would probably be The Thing (a mix of practical and stop-motion).

Edit: my dislike of CGI does extend into Cloverfield. That was really the only aspect of the movie that disappointed me.

Edit numba too: the number one movie I would recommend (since that was your original question) would be War of the Worlds. It's not perfect, but it's kinda similar in that it's more about the people trying to survive something that they don't fully understand than about the attack itself. I was actually hoping Cloverfield would be more like War of the Worlds. However, it was definitely more realistic, so....hmmm...well, I don't know how to follow that up. Still liked War of the Worlds better overall.


You mean the Tom Cruise version of WotW? One thing I really disliked in that movie was how they made the things come up from under the ground. As cool as it was in the movie, thats NOT how it was in the original story.

Also, you said the CGI dissapointed you in Cloverfield? Confused Well.... can you offer any other ways they could have put the monster in and have it look real? In this situation, CGI is pretty much the only way you can do it other then not showing the thing.

Personally, I prefer well done CGI over anything else, because the other things, unless VERY well done (see Jurrasic Park) can seriously kill the realism of the movie, If you look at it and see ways that it doesnt match up with the environment around it or anything like that... it makes it much harder for me to put myself in the situation. Older movies I will accept when they dont look as good, because they looked the best they could at the time, but now-a-days, theres no reason it shouldnt look believable.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:36 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
FTTM
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 78

 		It came from beneath the Sea is pretty cool. They cut the budget so the Octopus only has 6 legs. A bit quicker (cheaper) to animate.
I met the great man in the late 70's and had the chance to play with the original models. Quite a moment...

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:39 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Patrick Star
Unfettered


Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 409
Location: Oregon

 		Although this is an enjoyable and robust discussion about monster movies, I think you should have started this in the SOCIALIZING section of the FORUMS.

Fish and Wildlife will be notified immediately.

It is my thought that Bass and Company are trying to clean up the FORUMS into a tidy little format.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:44 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
FTTM
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 78

 		You are, of course, correct Patrick. But there's bugger all to talk about at the moment...

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:48 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
gigantis2001
Decorated


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 282
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Lambo_Diablo_Svtt wrote:

You mean the Tom Cruise version of WotW? One thing I really disliked in that movie was how they made the things come up from under the ground. As cool as it was in the movie, thats NOT how it was in the original story.

Also, you said the CGI dissapointed you in Cloverfield? Confused Well.... can you offer any other ways they could have put the monster in and have it look real? In this situation, CGI is pretty much the only way you can do it other then not showing the thing.

Personally, I prefer well done CGI over anything else, because the other things, unless VERY well done (see Jurrasic Park) can seriously kill the realism of the movie, If you look at it and see ways that it doesnt match up with the environment around it or anything like that... it makes it much harder for me to put myself in the situation. Older movies I will accept when they dont look as good, because they looked the best they could at the time, but now-a-days, theres no reason it shouldnt look believable.


What I found kinda stupid 'bout WotWz was the way the aliens came down in lightning blasts or whatever. I thought that was creative, but sometimes creative isn't the way to go, no matter what your elementary school teachers told you. If they had either stuck to the novel, or found some other way of having them come out of the ground (falling into the ocean and burrowing underground, then coming up in the middle of many cities simultaneously would have been much cooler) it would've been better.

I don't get what you mean by "the other things, unless VERY well done (see Jurrasic Park)." Do you mean the practical effects in that movie?

I agree with everything else you say, and I agree that CGI was really the only option, but, as you said, "now-a-days, theres no reason it shouldnt look believable" and it was just average (which isn't very good) CGI.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:48 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
gigantis2001
Decorated


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 282
Location: Columbus, Ohio
FTTM wrote:

I met the great man in the late 70's and had the chance to play with the original models. Quite a moment...


Oh, man, that is awesome! I would kill (well, maybe not kill) for a chance to do either of those. How did that come about? Was it just like some kind of convention or something?

Patrick Star wrote:
I think you should have started this in the SOCIALIZING section of the FORUMS.


FFTM wrote:
You are, of course, correct Patrick. But there's bugger all to talk about at the moment...


What he (FFTM) said...plus, I mean, does anyone really go over there? I know I never have. Plus, my purpose in doing this was so that whenever the topic of comparing Cloverfield to another monster movie comes up (as it so often does, no offense), they could just take a peak into this thread to get some info before tossing out their assumptions (because they are usually incorrect).

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:55 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Patrick Star
Unfettered


Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 409
Location: Oregon

 		Ask yourself, "DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ARE/ARG?" If it does not, then it belongs in the SOCIAL section. This section of the FORUM is supposed to be Clues, Spec, Discoveries etc. of the Cloverfield Universe.

There are some of us who are still working on the ARE/ARG of this movie. There are still some who believe there will be a real ARG ramping up to the Sequel and or Manga.

In closing, "IF I HAVE TO STOMACH ONE MORE GODZILLA OR LOST REFERENCE I AM GOING TO F-ING PUKE."

Thanks!

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Last edited by Patrick Star on Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
FTTM
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 78

 		Briefly, I was at college in Leeds and my tutor was asking for suggestions for seminars. Being a huge RH fan a put his name forward. My tutor thought it was a good idea but didn't know how to contact him.
I was going to London that week, so I went into a phone box and looked up Harryhausen R. oddly, there was only one.
My tutor phoned him and a month later the man arrived with a large box and a reel (16mm in those days) of clips.
He stayed for hours and we had a few beers in the student union bar.
What a gent...

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:04 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Fozziebare13
Boot

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
Patrick Star wrote:
Ask yourself, "DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ARE/ARG?" If it does not, then it belongs in the SOCIAL section. This section of the FORUM is supposed to be Clues, Spec, Discoveries etc. of the Cloverfield Universe.

There are some of us who are still working on the ARE/ARG of this movie. There are still some who believe there will be a real ARG ramping up to the Sequel and or Manga.

In closing, IF I HAVE TO STOMACH ONE MORE GODZILLA OR LOST REFERENCE I AM GOING TO F-ING PUKE."

Thanks!


I think this as good a time as any to ask, what does ARE/ARG mean?

P.S. Please don't puke. We're just chatting.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:06 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 4 [60 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