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

    • I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication 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.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!