J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield Questions


Recommended Posts

To be honest, I don't think the movie lived up to the hype. The monster was just a typical horror/godzilla type monster, the camera work, although part of the story, was unsettling and got old. The ending was abrupt, but it did make an impression. The first 20-30 minutes all take place at some party and it sounds like an episode of gilmore girls. So all in all i liked the middle of the movie when all those stupid people from the party died. Looking forward to star trek being much better than colverfield.

Just saw the movie, it was pretty good although the filming style was HORRIBLE.

Besides being so shakey that you can hardly see anything half of the time, they even added extra blur just to make it even harder to see.

But the monster doesn't really look anything like what it does in the picture posted, doesn't even resemble a whale. And the louse things were a lot smaller than in the picture.

The ending was cut short and they never really showed the monster in detail until the end to obviously cut the production costs. The monster was cool though, they just didn't show it getting blown up enough, where it came from, how it became...etc.

Over all I think that this movie was worth watching though, it was entertaining and that is what a movie is for.

i thought the movie was excellent. worth seeing a second time in my opinion. my only gripe is that it at times it got a bit boring. an example of this is the beginning. i dont want to ruin it for anyone who has not seen it but those who have will know what i mean. the ending area was meh but the final closing scene was great. i thought the camera work was excellent. it really made you feel like you were there. although, it did give me a headache and i had to look away at times to get my focus back. best movie i have seen in the past year.

Absolutely amazing movie. Best I've seen in a long time.

I think I should start building my shrine to JJ Abrams.

Sold me on seeing the new Trek just to see what he does with it.

Though ... why in the name of holy hell was 'Step Up 2' one of the previews?

Killing basically the entire cast -- awesome.

Not showing the monster live or die -- awesome.

Though, if he does EITHER of those with Lost, I will hunt him down and punch him in the nuts.

Just saw the movie, it was pretty good although the filming style was HORRIBLE.

Besides being so shakey that you can hardly see anything half of the time, they even added extra blur just to make it even harder to see.

But the monster doesn't really look anything like what it does in the picture posted, doesn't even resemble a whale. And the louse things were a lot smaller than in the picture.

The ending was cut short and they never really showed the monster in detail until the end to obviously cut the production costs. The monster was cool though, they just didn't show it getting blown up enough, where it came from, how it became...etc.

Over all I think that this movie was worth watching though, it was entertaining and that is what a movie is for.

No offense to you at all. I mean this with all respect but, you did not get the film. The directing style was obviously done in that format because if you were running around with a digital cam, do you think you would hold it steady? It made you feel right there with them. In the midst of the chaos, the unknowing, the confusion and the panic. in the 20 min building up to the start of the film, it set such a natural REAL feel to the entire thing. This is not entirely a monster movie. This is not Godzilla. This is about real people and the effect of 1 night with an unimaginable terror that hits there lives and breaks it apart. I loved this movie and the fact that they made this feel so real is what is truly the highlight of the experience.

They did not show the monster in in great detail for a reason. It had nothing to do with production costs what so ever. If this really happened to any of us, do you think you would know everything, the history, where it came from etc? Again, this was not the point of the film. I could go on and on.

Great movie and if you go in expecting a neat little package with everything explained for you, then do not go see it.

Just saw the movie, it was pretty good although the filming style was HORRIBLE.

Besides being so shakey that you can hardly see anything half of the time, they even added extra blur just to make it even harder to see.

Wasn't that the purpose?

Granted I haven't seen the movie, but this is what caused half of the Hype, I think.

It made you feel right there with them. In the midst of the chaos, the unknowing, the confusion and the panic. in the 20 min building up to the start of the film, it set such a natural REAL feel to the entire thing. This is not entirely a monster movie. This is not Godzilla. This is about real people and the effect of 1 night with an unimaginable terror that hits there lives and breaks it apart. I loved this movie and the fact that they made this feel so real is what is truly the highlight of the experience.

Very true. I didn't think it was too "shakey" and the sense of realism is fantastic. To be honest, I could almost visualize I was there. Throughout the movie, I keep praying that the battery to the camera wouldn't die so I could see what happens. Although the ending was very abrupt, it didn't ruin the whole movie. Plus it leaves a possibility of a sequel, that could explain a little bit more. But of course it, J.J. Abrams has to be involve for it to be any decent. This is a great movie. Great one to start out 2008.

Saw a few thread comments. Seems like I'm different in that I'm not the biggest fan.

The movie was good, nothing special. It's only worth seeing in the theater, and not at home on DVD.

Finally, no camcorder battery lasts that long, and Rob's girlfriend would have definitely died.

Absolutely amazing movie. Best I've seen in a long time.

I think I should start building my shrine to JJ Abrams.

Sold me on seeing the new Trek just to see what he does with it.

Though ... why in the name of holy hell was 'Step Up 2' one of the previews?

Killing basically the entire cast -- awesome.

Not showing the monster live or die -- awesome.

Though, if he does EITHER of those with Lost, I will hunt him down and punch him in the nuts.

:laugh:

Reply of the day :D

New Picture on the Official Site (WTF is that washed up on the beach!)

Edited by Rappy
No offense to you at all. I mean this with all respect but, you did not get the film. The directing style was obviously done in that format because if you were running around with a digital cam, do you think you would hold it steady? It made you feel right there with them. In the midst of the chaos, the unknowing, the confusion and the panic. in the 20 min building up to the start of the film, it set such a natural REAL feel to the entire thing. This is not entirely a monster movie. This is not Godzilla. This is about real people and the effect of 1 night with an unimaginable terror that hits there lives and breaks it apart. I loved this movie and the fact that they made this feel so real is what is truly the highlight of the experience.

They did not show the monster in in great detail for a reason. It had nothing to do with production costs what so ever. If this really happened to any of us, do you think you would know everything, the history, where it came from etc? Again, this was not the point of the film. I could go on and on.

Great movie and if you go in expecting a neat little package with everything explained for you, then do not go see it.

Wasn't that the purpose?

Granted I haven't seen the movie, but this is what caused half of the Hype, I think.

Very true. I didn't think it was too "shakey" and the sense of realism is fantastic. To be honest, I could almost visualize I was there. Throughout the movie, I keep praying that the battery to the camera wouldn't die so I could see what happens. Although the ending was very abrupt, it didn't ruin the whole movie. Plus it leaves a possibility of a sequel, that could explain a little bit more. But of course it, J.J. Abrams has to be involve for it to be any decent. This is a great movie. Great one to start out 2008.

I think I figured out that it was filmed from a handheld....

I was saying that they obviously made it even more blurry than it should have been. No video camera takes that long to focus, I walked out of the movie with a headache because I had to keep squinting to try and see through the lack of auto-focusing blur.

And like already posted, if I had to tell someone what the monster looked like, I honestly could not. I really can't even remember what it really looked like since you never got to see it well. Any monster movie that I don't know what the monster looks like, needs some work imo.

I think I figured out that it was filmed from a handheld....

I was saying that they obviously made it even more blurry than it should have been. No video camera takes that long to focus, I walked out of the movie with a headache because I had to keep squinting to try and see through the lack of auto-focusing blur.

And like already posted, if I had to tell someone what the monster looked like, I honestly could not. I really can't even remember what it really looked like since you never got to see it well. Any monster movie that I don't know what the monster looks like, needs some work imo.

Or maybe its your definition of a monster movie that needs some work.

Why must they all be the same?

Omg, is this from Lost? :omg:

I saw Cloverfield last night as well. And I must say, it's one of the most immersive movies I've ever watched. I could almost feel the dust in the opening attack scenes.

Props to J.J. Abrams for creating one of my new favorite movies. A very deserved 8.3 on IMDB

-Ax

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!