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 Tue Nov 26, 2024 8:08 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
[SPEC] Will there be any toys or models for the monster?
View previous topicView next topic
Page 4 of 6 [85 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
Her wrote:
Ajking3 wrote:
You also have to remember, movies are being rated alot differently than they used to. According to cloverfieldmovie.com and the PG-13 rating thing (I dont know a better term to use here...), this film will feature violence, terror, and disturbing images. Thats about all I can ask for. Most movies that catch an R now days or either ridiculously gorey, have excessively foul language, and deal with sex or drugs or nudity, and of course as most movies now have, a fine combination of both. I bet after we all see the movie (at least I hope), that we would agree if it was released 10 years ago, it probably would have fetched an R rating.

thats just my $.02.
The rating really doesnt change my excitement level for this film...I'm still pumped.


Yup, PG-13 isn't a death sentence for a horror/sci fi/monster movie. Alien was rated R and would be PG-13 now.


Not according to the MPAA. By their guidelines, all the language (they say "fuck" a lot) would keep Alien at the R rating, even if the violence is tame compared to the splatterfest torture porn that passes for horror cinema these days.

As for the rating, I know full well that there are plenty of high quality PG-13s and plenty of low quality Rs. The rating doesn't set the quality level of a film....but it damn sure sets the maturity level of the film. An R-rated flick is expressly AIMED at grownups. PG-13s are really aimed at all age groups, but tend to focus on the coveted demographic of teenage boys.

What I'm saying is that all of the material covered so far in the ARG/ARE and trailers so far have definitely been aimed at a MATURE demographic, not a bunch of teenagers. It plays like an R-rated film, so to open it up to teeny-boppers (and younger) amounts to false advertising for the past 6 months.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:12 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
rose
...and then Magic happens


Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Posts: 4117

 		I wonder if we will get action figures of the party kids too? And a Statue of Liberty with a removable head?
_________________
I love this site for being free, in every sense of the word~Spacebass

Mankind was my business, the common good was my business.~ Dickens

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:15 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Caerwiden
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 651
brettoniasam wrote:
Caerwiden wrote:
brettoniasam wrote:
Yeah, the PG-13 rating is DEFINITELY a sellout, so I WOULDN'T be surprised to see Grumpypants Supaa-Kung-Fu Action!!! figures (Severed SOL(tm) Head(tm) Sold Separately) appear to complete the sellout.

SHOULD this movie have action figures or other merchandising...? HELL, no. This movie wasn't designed as a franchise; it was designed as an experiment in non-traditional marketing. So action figures and playsets and coffee mugs and bedsheets and lunchboxes (i.e., traditional marketing) would be an essay in hypocrisy on JJ's part.

I hope to god JJ doesn't sell out, but it looks like he is.


Hahah, sellout, the favourite word of people who don't know what they're talking about.

You think he ever intended to not make money from this film? He's a movie maker, he sold his soul the minute he signed a contract. If you don't like that, don't give him your money.

He got the idea for the film when he was looking at Godzilla action figures for crying out loud.


Caerwiden, I *understand* that JJ Abrams is in the business of making money. On movies that were DESIGNED to be moneymakers.

What you don't understand is the nature of JJ Abrams' contract with Paramount. Remember what he said when he inked the deal? He and Paramount agreed that he would produce the big-budget marquee products like Trek and Dark Tower, but JJ ALSO said that he intends to make smaller films, about 25 mil budget, that were story- and character-based and DIDN'T rely on all the cash and marketing.

I'll give you two guesses as to which of these categories "Cloverfield" would fit under.

Do you understand now? Paramount is letting JJ play with this movie, Cloverfield, as an experiment. It's HIS baby, not Paramount's. In return for granting him a long leash for expressing his creativity in *this* movie, they'll damn sure keep him on a short leash for the BIG stuff, like Star Trek.

In other words, Cloverfield is an artistic vision. Either of JJ Abrams, or of his peeps (Drew etc). It's not *meant* to be a moneymaker. Trek and Dark Tower will be the moneymakers for him.


So you're saying that Cloverfield isn't designed to make money? I'm pretty sure that, no matter what the film is that he's making at the time, he'd rather it make money than not.

If he were making it purely for artistic reasons then he would release it free online once it's filmed, I somehow think that's not going to happen.
_________________
Are you sure you want to delete these messages?
Yes No

*click*

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:16 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
tinytim
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 95

 		.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:24 pm
Last edited by tinytim on Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Caerwiden
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 651
brettoniasam wrote:
Her wrote:
Ajking3 wrote:
You also have to remember, movies are being rated alot differently than they used to. According to cloverfieldmovie.com and the PG-13 rating thing (I dont know a better term to use here...), this film will feature violence, terror, and disturbing images. Thats about all I can ask for. Most movies that catch an R now days or either ridiculously gorey, have excessively foul language, and deal with sex or drugs or nudity, and of course as most movies now have, a fine combination of both. I bet after we all see the movie (at least I hope), that we would agree if it was released 10 years ago, it probably would have fetched an R rating.

thats just my $.02.
The rating really doesnt change my excitement level for this film...I'm still pumped.


Yup, PG-13 isn't a death sentence for a horror/sci fi/monster movie. Alien was rated R and would be PG-13 now.


Not according to the MPAA. By their guidelines, all the language (they say "fuck" a lot) would keep Alien at the R rating, even if the violence is tame compared to the splatterfest torture porn that passes for horror cinema these days.

As for the rating, I know full well that there are plenty of high quality PG-13s and plenty of low quality Rs. The rating doesn't set the quality level of a film....but it damn sure sets the maturity level of the film. An R-rated flick is expressly AIMED at grownups. PG-13s are really aimed at all age groups, but tend to focus on the coveted demographic of teenage boys.

What I'm saying is that all of the material covered so far in the ARG/ARE and trailers so far have definitely been aimed at a MATURE demographic, not a bunch of teenagers. It plays like an R-rated film, so to open it up to teeny-boppers (and younger) amounts to false advertising for the past 6 months.


So Elisabeth: The Golden Age, A Beautiful Mind, Casino Royale, Dark Water, Hero, Seven Years In Tibet. The Grudge, The Ring and Ocean's 11 aren't mature films?

All that rating means is that there won't be excessive amounts of violence and swearing in the film. The story can be as mature or as silly as anything.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:25 pm
Last edited by Caerwiden on Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
Caerwiden wrote:
So you're saying that Cloverfield isn't designed to make money? I'm pretty sure that, no matter what the film is that he's making at the time, he'd rather it make money than not.

If he were making it purely for artistic reasons then he would release it free online once it's filmed, I somehow think that's not going to happen.


Caerwiden, people make movies that aren't designed to be moneymakers ALL.THE.TIME. Ever go to an art-house movie? Do you *really* think the filmmakers or indie studios are thinking "BLOCKBUSTER" when they put out those kinds of movies? Of course not. They're not looking for cash, they're looking for recognition by their peers, and maybe an award at Sundance or Cannes or Venice or Tribeca. Or maybe they're making the film just because they need to tell the damn story before it eats them up inside.

Whether or not those kinds of movies find an audience is an irrelevant point. It's about the auteur's *expression,* not the audience's *consumption.*

And THAT is precisely why I've said that "Cloverfield" is an art-house movie from Day One.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:27 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Caerwiden
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 651
brettoniasam wrote:
Caerwiden wrote:
So you're saying that Cloverfield isn't designed to make money? I'm pretty sure that, no matter what the film is that he's making at the time, he'd rather it make money than not.

If he were making it purely for artistic reasons then he would release it free online once it's filmed, I somehow think that's not going to happen.


Caerwiden, people make movies that aren't designed to be moneymakers ALL.THE.TIME. Ever go to an art-house movie? Do you *really* think the filmmakers or indie studios are thinking "BLOCKBUSTER" when they put out those kinds of movies? Of course not. They're not looking for cash, they're looking for recognition by their peers, and maybe an award at Sundance or Cannes or Venice or Tribeca. Or maybe they're making the film just because they need to tell the damn story before it eats them up inside.

Whether or not those kinds of movies find an audience is an irrelevant point. It's about the auteur's *expression,* not the audience's *consumption.*

And THAT is precisely why I've said that "Cloverfield" is an art-house movie from Day One.


He's not an indie or art house director though, is he? Not anymore at least. He's making a film for Paramount, the film has been trailed in front of one of the biggest films this Summer. Cloverfield is not and never has been an art house film.

It's a monster movie filmed in a non-standard fashion, it's going to be released in regular cinemas, it's going to make money, probably lots of money, if it weren't intended to make money then it would either be shown solely in art house cinemas or have a very short run in general cinemas.

There are huge standees at my cinema for this film, they wouldn't be there if they weren't bothered about getting people to come in, pay their money and watch it.

Sorry if you don't like that, but, well, tough.
_________________
Are you sure you want to delete these messages?
Yes No

*click*

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:34 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
Caerwiden wrote:

So Elisabeth: The Golden Age, A Beautiful Mind, Casino Royale, Dark Water, Hero, Seven Years In Tibet. The Grudge, The Ring and Ocean's 11 aren't mature films?


No, no, no, no, DEFINITELY not, no, DEFINITELY not, DEFINITELY not, and no.

All of the films you cited are aimed at ALL age groups. They're designed to be adventure or scary flicks. Even though there may be some mature elements in *some* of those movies (DEFINITELY not the kung-fu flicks like Hero, or the Japanese spookstory ripoffs Grudge or Ring -- these were AIMED at teenagers), there was nothing in any of them that was *expressly* aimed at grownups audiences. Unlike, say, a Tarantino film, or "Traffic," or "American Gangster," or "Blue Velvet."

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:34 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
brettoniasam
Unfettered


Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 340
Caerwiden wrote:

He's not an indie or art house director though, is he? Not anymore at least. He's making a film for Paramount, the film has been trailed in front of one of the biggest films this Summer. Cloverfield is not and never has been an art house film.

It's a monster movie filmed in a non-standard fashion, it's going to be released in regular cinemas, it's going to make money, probably lots of money, if it weren't intended to make money then it would either be shown solely in art house cinemas or have a very short run in general cinemas.

There are huge standees at my cinema for this film, they wouldn't be there if they weren't bothered about getting people to come in, pay their money and watch it.

Sorry if you don't like that, but, well, tough.


Bottom line: if it was designed to be a blockbuster, JJ and Paramount would have:
a) filmed it in a traditional fashion, NOT blurry handcam cinema verite "Blair Witch" style;
b) thrown a SHITLOAD more than 30 million towards the budget;
c) hyped the hell out of it -- there would be NONE of this viral advertising and hush-hush approach to almost zero interviews or media coverage of the cast, crew, and on-location reportage; and
d) they sure as hell wouldn't release it in Dump Time, the dead of January, where movies are GUARANTEED to die. Got that? GUARANTEED.

JJ understands the business far better than you or I do, and he knows damn well that he's not set this movie up to be a blockbuster franchise. Sorry if you don't understand that, but maybe one day...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:41 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Caerwiden
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 651
brettoniasam wrote:
Caerwiden wrote:

So Elisabeth: The Golden Age, A Beautiful Mind, Casino Royale, Dark Water, Hero, Seven Years In Tibet. The Grudge, The Ring and Ocean's 11 aren't mature films?


No, no, no, no, DEFINITELY not, no, DEFINITELY not, DEFINITELY not, and no.

All of the films you cited are aimed at ALL age groups. They're designed to be adventure or scary flicks. Even though there may be some mature elements in *some* of those movies (DEFINITELY not the kung-fu flicks like Hero, or the Japanese spookstory ripoffs Grudge or Ring -- these were AIMED at teenagers), there was nothing in any of them that was *expressly* aimed at grownups audiences. Unlike, say, a Tarantino film, or "Traffic," or "American Gangster," or "Blue Velvet."


Oh god, you're hilarious, Hero is a 'kung-fu' flick aimed at all age groups, hahahahahahahah!

Elisabeth isn't aimed at grownups, oh god, you're so funny.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing 'films which are only suitable for adults because of the content' and 'mature films'.

How about Catch a Fire? Is that not a mature film? A film about terrorism in apartheid-era South Africa?
_________________
Are you sure you want to delete these messages?
Yes No

*click*

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:45 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Caerwiden
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 651
brettoniasam wrote:
Caerwiden wrote:

He's not an indie or art house director though, is he? Not anymore at least. He's making a film for Paramount, the film has been trailed in front of one of the biggest films this Summer. Cloverfield is not and never has been an art house film.

It's a monster movie filmed in a non-standard fashion, it's going to be released in regular cinemas, it's going to make money, probably lots of money, if it weren't intended to make money then it would either be shown solely in art house cinemas or have a very short run in general cinemas.

There are huge standees at my cinema for this film, they wouldn't be there if they weren't bothered about getting people to come in, pay their money and watch it.

Sorry if you don't like that, but, well, tough.


Bottom line: if it was designed to be a blockbuster, JJ and Paramount would have:
a) filmed it in a traditional fashion, NOT blurry handcam cinema verite "Blair Witch" style;
b) thrown a SHITLOAD more than 30 million towards the budget;
c) hyped the hell out of it -- there would be NONE of this viral advertising and hush-hush approach to almost zero interviews or media coverage of the cast, crew, and on-location reportage; and
d) they sure as hell wouldn't release it in Dump Time, the dead of January, where movies are GUARANTEED to die. Got that? GUARANTEED.

JJ understands the business far better than you or I do, and he knows damn well that he's not set this movie up to be a blockbuster franchise. Sorry if you don't understand that, but maybe one day...


Did I say it was going to be a Blockbuster? I think not. I said it's going to make money, it's designed to make money, it's not a bloody art house film.
_________________
Are you sure you want to delete these messages?
Yes No

*click*

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:47 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Kitsuhime
Boot


Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 56
Location: VA Beach

 		If The Grudge and The Ring could succeed in being 'scary' without tumultuous blood, gore, swearing and nudity, why does Cloverfield have to be different? Ah! Forget it.

This debate is getting ridiculous. Either it's okay and you're going to see it, it's not okay but you're still going to see it, or you're going to bitch and whine because there's just no way a PG-13 rated film will ever be good, ever, ever, ever. No one is convincing anyone of anything.

This thread makes me tired Confused

Edit: Aren't we supposed to be talking about toys?!

Maybe they'll make a 'Xploding Marlena Barbie (tm)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:47 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TBILL
Veteran


Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Posts: 116

 		AS much as I hate to fuel yet another argument around here brettoniasam, I am pretty sure that when JJ said he got the idea from GODZILLA that he wasn't referring to some ART HOUSE FILM. I am confident he was referring to the cheesy movies from Japan featuring a giant lizard trashing cities. Not really anyones idea of a "mature" film.


EDIT: I would sooo buy my niece an xploding Marlena Barbie Very Happy

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:50 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Caerwiden
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 651

 		I mostly hope that they actually start making Slusho!, that would just be the best thing ever.
_________________
Are you sure you want to delete these messages?
Yes No

*click*

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:55 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
bk1
Boot

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 32

 		Hasbro is going to be manufacturing the toy(s) and I can't tell you how I know because I would get in trouble with my work...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:06 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 6 [85 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 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