unforum

[KLind]

[CloverfieldClues.com]

Re: The Monster..

[psudub]

Someone, a couple of pages back, mentioned they'd like to have the battery life of (presumably) Hud's camcorder, which got me to thinking - I'd actually almost expect this movie, if it's done totally with a camcorder, to be almost like the stuff with Andy (the gun store owner) during the end credits of the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. For those who haven't seen it, it's basically a series of short clips that detail various points throughout the timeline of the film. If you think about it, that'd be ideal for this film, as they could go for nearly the entire duration of the movie without showing the monster, thereby cutting back on the CGI budget of the film. Of course, this would also force for a greater investment in character development, in theory causing the audience to become better connected with the characters and giving their eventual deaths a greater weight. This particular technique runs on a fine line, however, because you could either end up with one of Romero's "Dead" movies (a movie about zombies with amazing characters and social commentary) or Shyamalan's "Signs" (a movie about faith thinly disguised as an alien invasion movie). And while I'm one of the few people who actually enjoyed "Signs" (and "The Village", for that matter) for what it actually was, if JJ wants to give us our own Godzilla, he's going to need to stay on the Romero side of the line.

Edit: I actually have preferred "Monstrous" for the title of this film ever since I found out about it. That's just me, though.

[Patiently waiting...]

^ Thanks for the info. I kind of figured that was it. Lame.

I dont get the part about the shadow of the woman getting killed by one of the little monsters, or wait maybe 2. He could see the shadow of her but not the monster?? Arms, legs, shape possibly?? Size compared to the woman?? How was he killing her?? With his mouth, tearing her apart with claws, tail?? He could make out the woman though?? I dont believe this dude.

[/quote]

[Chump Force 1]

[detranova]

Actually, to clarify, wasn't there some news about filming a flashback for the next trailer at Coney Island? Had that been addressed already? Searching didn't turn up the particular thread and post I was looking for, but I'd think that if they did film a flashback scene, it couldn't be in a handycam-filmed movie. Thus, it'd have to be in any new trailer that crops up. Was the whole Coney Island thing for real, and actually for 1-18-08? Cuz if it was, then its absence from this trailer is pretty suspicious.

[Chump Force 1]

[Nighthawk]

[gypsy songman]

[quote="DougBThree"]

[Kingpin]

[DougBThree]

[Nighthawk]

Another thing, and maybe some of the legal eagles can chime in on this... if it is in fact the movie's name, why isn't "Cloverfield" a registered trademark for anyone?

We found "Overnight" as a sort of fluke, and I still feel that's the title. If "Cloverfield" were the title, it would have to be trademarked by now. Look through the PTO search for "Paramount Pictures Corporation" as the registrar and you'll see a who's who of movie title, ranging from "Mork and Mindy" to "Star Trek" to future movies. The fact that the movie's supposed title isn't there, or anywhere, doesn't feel right.

If "Overnight" isn't the title (again, I strongly feel that it is), I'm sure the title is in there *somewhere*, registered through a ghost company like Bold Futura.

On a side note, I just realized something: "PARAfun" could be a play on PARAmount.

[jojo]

Nighthawk, those are all excellent points. They would have to be completely idiotic to not have registered 'Cloverfield' by now, I completely agree. I think this is the strongest piece of evidence so far that this is total B.S. I'm guessing its very likely there will be a trailer before Beowulf, but not how this joker describes it.

[Nighthawk]

[Bruce]