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 Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:17 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] HELP MAKE A CLOVERFIELD 2!
View previous topicView next topic
Page 4 of 5 [67 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
OliMango
Entrenched


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 1189
Location: Vegas
TheMaximum wrote:
OliMango wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
Some examples would be good right about now. If Cloverfield is an American Godzilla, than you should explain how.

In Godzilla, the monster's origin was explained as a product of nuclear weapons used in Japan. In Cloverfield, we have no such origin for our monster.

Also, Cloverfield isn't the same kind of movie, as I've said before. The monster isn't the focus at all and mankinds struggle to defeat him/her isn't the point either.

Seriously. Not being condescending. Since you're actually intelligent and capable of reason, I'd like to know what you mean.


Ok, imagine someone in the movie 'Godzilla' running around with a video camera. Just some guy, and maybe a couple of friends.

Now, watch that footage and you have Cloverfield.


You do know we aren't talking about the experience and the idea, right? We're talking about the movie. The FILM, man. What you said, would be creating a Japanese Cloverfield. Do you get it?


Yes, I understand.

But think about it. They are two of the same, just filmed differently. However, I hate the idea of it becoming like Godzilla. I don't want to see 50 spin offs describing Clover's powers.
_________________
http://handyreviews.blogspot.com/
http://www.faroveryonder.info/

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:21 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135
OliMango wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
OliMango wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
Some examples would be good right about now. If Cloverfield is an American Godzilla, than you should explain how.

In Godzilla, the monster's origin was explained as a product of nuclear weapons used in Japan. In Cloverfield, we have no such origin for our monster.

Also, Cloverfield isn't the same kind of movie, as I've said before. The monster isn't the focus at all and mankinds struggle to defeat him/her isn't the point either.

Seriously. Not being condescending. Since you're actually intelligent and capable of reason, I'd like to know what you mean.


Ok, imagine someone in the movie 'Godzilla' running around with a video camera. Just some guy, and maybe a couple of friends.

Now, watch that footage and you have Cloverfield.


You do know we aren't talking about the experience and the idea, right? We're talking about the movie. The FILM, man. What you said, would be creating a Japanese Cloverfield. Do you get it?


Yes, I understand.

But think about it. They are two of the same, just filmed differently. However, I hate the idea of it becoming like Godzilla. I don't want to see 50 spin offs describing Clover's powers.


But do you see the point I'm trying to make. Cloverfield and Godzilla are nothing alike, once you take a giant monster out of the equation. Not talking about the ideas, but the movies themselves.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:24 am
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
OliMango
Entrenched


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 1189
Location: Vegas
TheMaximum wrote:
OliMango wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
OliMango wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
Some examples would be good right about now. If Cloverfield is an American Godzilla, than you should explain how.

In Godzilla, the monster's origin was explained as a product of nuclear weapons used in Japan. In Cloverfield, we have no such origin for our monster.

Also, Cloverfield isn't the same kind of movie, as I've said before. The monster isn't the focus at all and mankinds struggle to defeat him/her isn't the point either.

Seriously. Not being condescending. Since you're actually intelligent and capable of reason, I'd like to know what you mean.


Ok, imagine someone in the movie 'Godzilla' running around with a video camera. Just some guy, and maybe a couple of friends.

Now, watch that footage and you have Cloverfield.


You do know we aren't talking about the experience and the idea, right? We're talking about the movie. The FILM, man. What you said, would be creating a Japanese Cloverfield. Do you get it?


Yes, I understand.

But think about it. They are two of the same, just filmed differently. However, I hate the idea of it becoming like Godzilla. I don't want to see 50 spin offs describing Clover's powers.


But do you see the point I'm trying to make. Cloverfield and Godzilla are nothing alike, once you take a giant monster out of the equation. Not talking about the ideas, but the movies themselves.


Yea, I get what you're trying to say.
_________________
http://handyreviews.blogspot.com/
http://www.faroveryonder.info/

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:27 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
xboyonfirex
Entrenched


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 1069

 		true, J.J. Abrams wanted something completely original. Nothing like we've ever seen before [and I know it's all been done before- but not like this].

So, yes- it isn't a Godzilla movie, w/ a guy in a costume destroying miniatures and such... But this is AMERICA'S style. This is how we could do it... That's what you're forgetting.

Think about the low budget. Sure does leave LOTS of room open for numerous movies doesn't it? This movie was made at a fourth of a regular blockbuster, They could make 3 more films and it would finally equal out to 1 'over-the-top' movie.

Now, use some math on that.

Take for example- LOTR's.

Helluva movie right? Except there were 3 of them.

So, if Cloverfield's budget was just a fourth of 1 LOTR's movie...
They could make 12 movies, for the same price of LOTR's.

Will they? Probably not. ESPECIALLY not by the same director.

But right now, the possibility outweighs the odds of there not being a sequel... especially if a sequel is of the same low budget.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:57 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135
xboyonfirex wrote:
true, J.J. Abrams wanted something completely original. Nothing like we've ever seen before [and I know it's all been done before- but not like this].

So, yes- it isn't a Godzilla movie, w/ a guy in a costume destroying miniatures and such... But this is AMERICA'S style. This is how we could do it... That's what you're forgetting.

Think about the low budget. Sure does leave LOTS of room open for numerous movies doesn't it? This movie was made at a fourth of a regular blockbuster, They could make 3 more films and it would finally equal out to 1 'over-the-top' movie.

Now, use some math on that.

Take for example- LOTR's.

Helluva movie right? Except there were 3 of them.

So, if Cloverfield's budget was just a fourth of 1 LOTR's movie...
They could make 12 movies, for the same price of LOTR's.

Will they? Probably not. ESPECIALLY not by the same director.

But right now, the possibility outweighs the odds of there not being a sequel... especially if a sequel is of the same low budget.


Oh, you're totally right, friend. The possibility of sequel is far greater than that of no sequel. I've never argued that.

I just think that welcoming or hoping for said sequel is like praying to die a gruesome death tommorow morning or like driving your favorite car in the world over a cliff. I can't fathom why any sane, rational person would do it.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:11 am
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
xboyonfirex
Entrenched


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 1069
TheMaximum wrote:
xboyonfirex wrote:
true, J.J. Abrams wanted something completely original. Nothing like we've ever seen before [and I know it's all been done before- but not like this].

So, yes- it isn't a Godzilla movie, w/ a guy in a costume destroying miniatures and such... But this is AMERICA'S style. This is how we could do it... That's what you're forgetting.

Think about the low budget. Sure does leave LOTS of room open for numerous movies doesn't it? This movie was made at a fourth of a regular blockbuster, They could make 3 more films and it would finally equal out to 1 'over-the-top' movie.

Now, use some math on that.

Take for example- LOTR's.

Helluva movie right? Except there were 3 of them.

So, if Cloverfield's budget was just a fourth of 1 LOTR's movie...
They could make 12 movies, for the same price of LOTR's.

Will they? Probably not. ESPECIALLY not by the same director.

But right now, the possibility outweighs the odds of there not being a sequel... especially if a sequel is of the same low budget.


Oh, you're totally right, friend. The possibility of sequel is far greater than that of no sequel. I've never argued that.

I just think that welcoming or hoping for said sequel is like praying to die a gruesome death tommorow morning or like driving your favorite car in the world over a cliff. I can't fathom why any sane, rational person would do it.


and believe me- I've completely considered that a big possibility... Usually most sequels are HUGE disappointments, but that's only because fans don't actually accept that as a possibility. So many people have made that mistake before. Perhaps expectations should be lowered, perhaps even an open mind to whatever direction the movie goes.

But... there's also that hope that maybe, just maybe the grand creators of this movie will learn from their mistakes, hear out the arguments of 'what was so bad about this movie' and critique the next one.

I for one would like to see more of 'Big Bad' and his 'little nasties' [the parasites]. Perhaps less 'shaky camera' [even though I personally had no problem w/ it. and ABOVE ALL- for the TRUE fans: An explanation... of any kind really. I wanna see some viral mentioned in the next movie. I don't care if we don't hear a damn thing about the monster's origin... just more about Tagruato's involvement w/ 'Big Bad'.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:18 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135
xboyonfirex wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
xboyonfirex wrote:
true, J.J. Abrams wanted something completely original. Nothing like we've ever seen before [and I know it's all been done before- but not like this].

So, yes- it isn't a Godzilla movie, w/ a guy in a costume destroying miniatures and such... But this is AMERICA'S style. This is how we could do it... That's what you're forgetting.

Think about the low budget. Sure does leave LOTS of room open for numerous movies doesn't it? This movie was made at a fourth of a regular blockbuster, They could make 3 more films and it would finally equal out to 1 'over-the-top' movie.

Now, use some math on that.

Take for example- LOTR's.

Helluva movie right? Except there were 3 of them.

So, if Cloverfield's budget was just a fourth of 1 LOTR's movie...
They could make 12 movies, for the same price of LOTR's.

Will they? Probably not. ESPECIALLY not by the same director.

But right now, the possibility outweighs the odds of there not being a sequel... especially if a sequel is of the same low budget.


Oh, you're totally right, friend. The possibility of sequel is far greater than that of no sequel. I've never argued that.

I just think that welcoming or hoping for said sequel is like praying to die a gruesome death tommorow morning or like driving your favorite car in the world over a cliff. I can't fathom why any sane, rational person would do it.


and believe me- I've completely considered that a big possibility... Usually most sequels are HUGE disappointments, but that's only because fans don't actually accept that as a possibility. So many people have made that mistake before. Perhaps expectations should be lowered, perhaps even an open mind to whatever direction the movie goes.

But... there's also that hope that maybe, just maybe the grand creators of this movie will learn from their mistakes, hear out the arguments of 'what was so bad about this movie' and critique the next one.

I for one would like to see more of 'Big Bad' and his 'little nasties' [the parasites]. Perhaps less 'shaky camera' [even though I personally had no problem w/ it. and ABOVE ALL- for the TRUE fans: An explanation... of any kind really. I wanna see some viral mentioned in the next movie. I don't care if we don't hear a damn thing about the monster's origin... just more about Tagruato's involvement w/ 'Big Bad'.


See, I have no problem with explanation in the ARE. At all. Because the ARE isn't the same as the film. The film is sacred ground. If they wanted to ruin everything that makes the monster mysterious and terrible, they could explain through the ARE without hurting the original film. I just think that using a sequel to solve questions would just hurt the power the monster has in Cloverfield. Explaining the monster in another movie would also ruin some of it's terribleness and mystery.

Using the ARE is fine. Another movie will hurt Cloverfield's legacy, quite possibly even if it's only a little crappy. The movie isn't meant to answer questions about Tagruato or Slusho! because that's not the point. The movie is still everything it is WITHOUT any Tagruato influence or Slusho! references. The movie Cloverfield is PERFECT on it's own.

What most people are doing is letting their obsession with the ARE ruin their love for the movie. The ARE was made to compliment the movie, and it did, very well. The movie exists without the ARE and doesn't need it. And some of you guys just want another movie to answer your ARE questions, which is incredibly selfish and is just adding in unnecessary elements into the original Cloverfield story. It would complicate things and take away from the "normal guy on the street trying to survive" style. Too much information hurts this kind of movie. Wanting information is asking for trouble.

The ARE, the marketing, the FILM ITSELF is based on mystery. Explaining anything about the monsters origins or the shady organization behind the Chuai Station would be the opposite of that. Don't you see how a sequel (especially one explaining Tagruato, or Slusho or MGP) would be counterproductive to the very element that made Cloverfield so powerful and appealing to all of us?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:53 am
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
xboyonfirex
Entrenched


Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 1069
TheMaximum wrote:
xboyonfirex wrote:
TheMaximum wrote:
xboyonfirex wrote:
true, J.J. Abrams wanted something completely original. Nothing like we've ever seen before [and I know it's all been done before- but not like this].

So, yes- it isn't a Godzilla movie, w/ a guy in a costume destroying miniatures and such... But this is AMERICA'S style. This is how we could do it... That's what you're forgetting.

Think about the low budget. Sure does leave LOTS of room open for numerous movies doesn't it? This movie was made at a fourth of a regular blockbuster, They could make 3 more films and it would finally equal out to 1 'over-the-top' movie.

Now, use some math on that.

Take for example- LOTR's.

Helluva movie right? Except there were 3 of them.

So, if Cloverfield's budget was just a fourth of 1 LOTR's movie...
They could make 12 movies, for the same price of LOTR's.

Will they? Probably not. ESPECIALLY not by the same director.

But right now, the possibility outweighs the odds of there not being a sequel... especially if a sequel is of the same low budget.


Oh, you're totally right, friend. The possibility of sequel is far greater than that of no sequel. I've never argued that.

I just think that welcoming or hoping for said sequel is like praying to die a gruesome death tommorow morning or like driving your favorite car in the world over a cliff. I can't fathom why any sane, rational person would do it.


and believe me- I've completely considered that a big possibility... Usually most sequels are HUGE disappointments, but that's only because fans don't actually accept that as a possibility. So many people have made that mistake before. Perhaps expectations should be lowered, perhaps even an open mind to whatever direction the movie goes.

But... there's also that hope that maybe, just maybe the grand creators of this movie will learn from their mistakes, hear out the arguments of 'what was so bad about this movie' and critique the next one.

I for one would like to see more of 'Big Bad' and his 'little nasties' [the parasites]. Perhaps less 'shaky camera' [even though I personally had no problem w/ it. and ABOVE ALL- for the TRUE fans: An explanation... of any kind really. I wanna see some viral mentioned in the next movie. I don't care if we don't hear a damn thing about the monster's origin... just more about Tagruato's involvement w/ 'Big Bad'.


See, I have no problem with explanation in the ARE. At all. Because the ARE isn't the same as the film. The film is sacred ground. If they wanted to ruin everything that makes the monster mysterious and terrible, they could explain through the ARE without hurting the original film. I just think that using a sequel to solve questions would just hurt the power the monster has in Cloverfield. Explaining the monster in another movie would also ruin some of it's terribleness and mystery.

Using the ARE is fine. Another movie will hurt Cloverfield's legacy, quite possibly even if it's only a little crappy. The movie isn't meant to answer questions about Tagruato or Slusho! because that's not the point. The movie is still everything it is WITHOUT any Tagruato influence or Slusho! references. The movie Cloverfield is PERFECT on it's own.

What most people are doing is letting their obsession with the ARE ruin their love for the movie. The ARE was made to compliment the movie, and it did, very well. The movie exists without the ARE and doesn't need it. And some of you guys just want another movie to answer your ARE questions, which is incredibly selfish and is just adding in unnecessary elements into the original Cloverfield story. It would complicate things and take away from the "normal guy on the street trying to survive" style. Too much information hurts this kind of movie. Wanting information is asking for trouble.

The ARE, the marketing, the FILM ITSELF is based on mystery. Explaining anything about the monsters origins or the shady organization behind the Chuai Station would be the opposite of that. Don't you see how a sequel (especially one explaining Tagruato, or Slusho or MGP) would be counterproductive to the very element that made Cloverfield so powerful and appealing to all of us?


True enough, and for that much I can say I couldn't agree w/ you more. I do however want this grow... The most recent 3 Star Wars movies were made because of 2 reasons; the money and the fans.

The upcoming Star Trek movie is being made for 2 reasons; the money and the fans.

Legacies built from scratch, both of them... Just as this movie is. Now, there is a complete Universe surrounding both Star Wars and Star Trek. I can only hope that Cloverfield's mysteries will unfold as time progresses. I hate the idea of a Manga, but would love the idea of a "Graphic Novel" to do just that.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:58 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

 		See, I see where your going. If they wanted to unfold the mysteries to unfold, they could use graphic novels (for US-based stuff) or manga (for tagruato, that would make sense and be cool to use such a japanese style of comics) and ARE to do that.

I just think a sequel would be a bad idea. if they cant help but make a sequel, make it exactly like the first movie. Shaky handcam, random actors, no explanation, and ends with nuke/bombardment or death of all. Explaining in the film is a terrible idea. If they do that and it's a great movie, I will run naked through the streets proclaiming their omnipotence in the world. If not, I'll be the crazy lone gunman that has to kill a director.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:06 am
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
ScubaSteve1717
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

 		i'll go in on that

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:12 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135
ScubaSteve1717 wrote:
i'll go in on that


I know we had a big argument a while back, but I'm glad we can agree on this. Movies are more powerful when they tell you less than you need to know. It allows the mind to work for itself, and leaves you wanting more. If they want to make a sequel that'll ruin Cloverfield, they will. Hell, they're going to. But at least hope they could use the movie to be a really good shot at making another movie using the Cloverfield formula and tragedy, while saving all the ARE mysteries for other outlets, that way, the films aren't burdened with content that casual viewers won't understand.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:16 am
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
uberjim
Boot

Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 28

 		re:nay-sayers
The whole reason that people give movies cliffhanger endings is because they want the audience to watch the prequel. Cloverfield was clearly made with a sequel in mind. It wouldn't end with the "it's still alive" clip and not let the audience see any actual conclusion to the disaster unless they were already planning on making a sequel. They might make us wait for it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they wrote the movie as a small part of a larger story right from the very beginning.
That, after all, is the reason why the Godzilla sequels are so silly. In the first Godzilla movie, you fully revealed the character and KILLED HIM AT THE END. You know where he came from, what he's here for, and what happened to him. A sequel to that kind of movie is superfluous and was obvious pandering to people's love of the character. With Cloverfield, Abrams left lots of loose ends, like the first third of a mystery novel.

A couple people have said that revealing the backstory would ruin the mystery of the movie. Those people evidently went into the theatres trying NOT to get their questions answered, which makes me wonder why they were attracted to this forum or the movie in the first place. With no curiosity, a mystery has no appeal. If you get an audience asking enough questions, they'll be begging for answers! If you think providing an answer in the end ruins the mystery, then you have missed the point of mystery in the first place. They are there to be solved! Otherwise, you'd never read all the way to the end of a mystery novel. You'd just read the first half, be puzzled, and walk off. If that's what you like, then don't watch the sequel.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:35 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
TheMaximum
Veteran


Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 135

 		Re: re:nay-sayers
uberjim wrote:
The whole reason that people give movies cliffhanger endings is because they want the audience to watch the prequel. Cloverfield was clearly made with a sequel in mind. It wouldn't end with the "it's still alive" clip and not let the audience see any actual conclusion to the disaster unless they were already planning on making a sequel. They might make us wait for it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they wrote the movie as a small part of a larger story right from the very beginning.
That, after all, is the reason why the Godzilla sequels are so silly. In the first Godzilla movie, you fully revealed the character and KILLED HIM AT THE END. You know where he came from, what he's here for, and what happened to him. A sequel to that kind of movie is superfluous and was obvious pandering to people's love of the character. With Cloverfield, Abrams left lots of loose ends, like the first third of a mystery novel.

A couple people have said that revealing the backstory would ruin the mystery of the movie. Those people evidently went into the theatres trying NOT to get their questions answered, which makes me wonder why they were attracted to this forum or the movie in the first place. With no curiosity, a mystery has no appeal. If you get an audience asking enough questions, they'll be begging for answers! If you think providing an answer in the end ruins the mystery, then you have missed the point of mystery in the first place. They are there to be solved! Otherwise, you'd never read all the way to the end of a mystery novel. You'd just read the first half, be puzzled, and walk off. If that's what you like, then don't watch the sequel.


Once again, I am forced to ask someone, what were you more interested in, the ARE or the movie? I know what the answer for you was, as you've given it away in your post. If the ARE was more important, your logic is based on the ARE rather than the movie. You're doing it wrong. The move is far more important. A sequel will jeopardize the movie. Any sequel will ruin the first movie's legacy. You think you're some sort of expert on mystery movies? Hardly. If you were, you'd realize that the best mysteries are; Number one, never truly solved. And number two, far more powerful and significant without a solution.

Care to try that again?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:04 am
 View user's profile AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
yourmomsbox
Greenhorn


Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 7

 		 
What all the Arguing about. JJ already confirmed a sequel. He stated that they have several idears for sequel already. He also stated that There will be deleted scenes on the DVD Smile

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:13 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Trixx
Decorated


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Sydney, Australia
yourmomsbox wrote:
What all the Arguing about. JJ already confirmed a sequel. He stated that they have several idears for sequel already. He also stated that There will be deleted scenes on the DVD Smile



really? where did he say that. Please link me! I've been on holiday for a few days...so i haven't heard any news...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:26 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 5 [67 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 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