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.

I have to agree on this.

I understand the effect they were going for with the camera style but I think they took a little too far.

Most people at a casual party can hold a camera somewhat steady. The camera was more wobbly and intense at a party than when they were running or getting attacked.

My head hurt watching this and I was in the back seat of the theater.

It was a good movie, don't get me wrong.

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

No its from Cloverfield I think we could be safe to say Thats the monster nothing is that big in the sea...or is it?

I have to agree on this.

I understand the effect they were going for with the camera style but I think they took a little too far.

Most people at a casual party can hold a camera somewhat steady. The camera was more wobbly and intense at a party than when they were running or getting attacked.

My head hurt watching this and I was in the back seat of the theater.

It was a good movie, don't get me wrong.

He was drunk at the party. Plus that was the first time he had ever used the camera.

Yes, the first 15 minutes of the movie were at the party. But think about it. You were watching what was on the tape. Thats why it cut back to old portions at certain points. When the night started, they were going to film the whole party for Rob, so that was what was on the tape.

And Abrams should be getting kudos for not giving the movie a 'proper' ending, not be getting knocked for it. Dare to be different.

The movie was about the survival of the friends from the party. Not about the monster. Everyone from the group, (except Lilly in the helicopter - which means that was resolved as well) died, so the movie WAS concluded. Thus, it had a proper ending.

No its from Cloverfield I think we could be safe to say Thats the monster nothing is that big in the sea...or is it?

Or is it a whale or something? I don't understand how it would be on a white sand beach when they were fighting it in Central Park at the end.

Or are there multiple monsters?

As shown in the end of the movie, the monster came down not far from NYC, but there was other 'attacks', like the one on the oil rig, that were much further away.

He was drunk at the party. Plus that was the first time he had ever used the camera.

Yes, the first 15 minutes of the movie were at the party. But think about it. You were watching what was on the tape. Thats why it cut back to old portions at certain points. When the night started, they were going to film the whole party for Rob, so that was what was on the tape.

And Abrams should be getting kudos for not giving the movie a 'proper' ending, not be getting knocked for it. Dare to be different.

The movie was about the survival of the friends from the party. Not about the monster. Everyone from the group, (except Lilly in the helicopter - which means that was resolved as well) died, so the movie WAS concluded. Thus, it had a proper ending.

Or is it a whale or something? I don't understand how it would be on a white sand beach when they were fighting it in Central Park at the end.

Or are there multiple monsters?

As shown in the end of the movie, the monster came down not far from NYC, but there was other 'attacks', like the one on the oil rig, that were much further away.

Yeah maybe, I think the fact the thing is pretty big could indicate they killed one and maybe its trying to tell us that they can kill them

I didn't much care for it. What was the point other than to show a bunch of people creating a drama and then trying to save themselves? No explanations of any kind for anything and an abrupt ending that really could have happened 20 minutes after the monster first attacked.

The director failed miserably if he tried to make it appear realistic as well.

This movie is hit and misses, mostly hit, an immense "experience" and very original style of depiction of movies in this specific genre. However the ending was quite a let down, I could have hoped for a better, having more impact and chaos. Otherwise this is an immense movie that everyone should go experience.

Well if your messiah JJ is trying to be so daring why did he feel the need to be so predictable?

1. When they are going over the bridge, who didnt see that one coming?

2. In the tunnels, c'mon again, predictable as the replies of JJ zealots..

On to other points:

1. How, how the devil did the thing sneak up and kill the camera guy at the end? I dont get it, did it just go into "Stealth" mode and manage to pop-up and surprise them? I see in typical JJ fashion, aka lost style, we dont actually get a nice picture of the monster until virtually the last scene...

2. Couldn't we have taken 2 seconds to explain the whole "bite thing"

Despite the monster looking like something from the Resident Evil props and specialfx department I enjoyed it and the offspring were a surprising change. The ending is acceptable due to the clue from the credits, and the final scene at Coney island is a nice indication of its Origin, however I can clearly see why people would be disappointed with the movie as it does leave alot of unanswered questions, the camera work is almost nauseiating and the film is quite short. Perhaps I would have been in the same boat if not for the fact due to someone elses illness I got to see the movie for free :)

I'm curious as to why film makers seem to think that so much shaky/wobbly camera is good. I have great eyes and can stomach a lot, but Bourne Supremacy was borderline unwatchable and I did feel some strain on my eyes. I haven't seen this movie yet, so I can't comment on it, but from what others are saying, it looks to be not much different.

Note to Hollywood: shaky cameras are ok, just don't over do it. It's bad enough that we see tons of it on YouTube, but c'mon, you're professionals.

I'm curious as to why film makers seem to think that so much shaky/wobbly camera is good. I have great eyes and can stomach a lot, but Bourne Supremacy was borderline unwatchable and I did feel some strain on my eyes. I haven't seen this movie yet, so I can't comment on it, but from what others are saying, it looks to be not much different.

Note to Hollywood: shaky cameras are ok, just don't over do it. It's bad enough that we see tons of it on YouTube, but c'mon, you're professionals.

the shaky cam made the movie. it is what makes the movie so immersive. i could not see this movie being filmed with steady cameras. it just would not have the same effect.

the shaky cam made the movie. it is what makes the movie so immersive. i could not see this movie being filmed with steady cameras. it just would not have the same effect.

Yeah its pretty cool, it has that like Youtube Effect which makes it awesome.

I have an issue with the film and something J.J. Abrams stated in an interview.

As most of us know by now, at the end of the film something drops in the water. Now I haven't seen this yet, but I'll take people's word for it if they've seen that, but it doesn't add up with something Abrams said. In an interview with /Film, Abrams states the monster is "a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.” Obviously that "thing" that lands in the water isn't thousands of years old, so how can we rationalize this?

To say the least, I'm confused. If something did land in the water from outer space, (1) what was it? (2) is it really connected with the monster? (3) how long was it between April and it attacking the city? (4) why did it swim out to the other to attack an oil platform before coming back to NY to attack the city? (5) what is Abrams talking about if what landed in the water was indeed the monster?

I'm sure I could come up with more, but you get the picture.

I would assume maybe a meteor or something and it came with a bacteria on it that made something small really big and angry who knows, I think its the sort of the film that leaves you wanting more which is typical Abrams in a way.

I actually walked out of the movie theater and got my money back after about ~15-20min into it. As they didnt tell us at the beginning that it could cause motion sickness, and was completely video taped handheld. This movie was terrible and I was sick to my stomache for hours afterwards leaving the movies.

I was wasn't suprised either, when about 10 others walked out as well and were asking for their money back.

I actually walked out of the movie theater and got my money back after about ~15-20min into it. As they didnt tell us at the beginning that it could cause motion sickness, and was completely video taped handheld. This movie was terrible and I was sick to my stomache for hours afterwards leaving the movies.

I was wasn't suprised either, when about 10 others walked out as well and were asking for their money back.

First, how can you know it was terrible if you only watched 15-20 minutes?

Second, why would you see a movie you knew nothing about? If you knew anything about it, you would know it was filmed using a handheld camera.

First, how can you know it was terrible if you only watched 15-20 minutes?

Second, why would you see a movie you knew nothing about? If you knew anything about it, you would know it was filmed using a handheld camera.

That's exactly what I was thinking as well.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft finally admits its default Windows 11 25H2, 24H2 action broke key legacy component by Sayan Sen Microsoft last week released Windows 11 KB5094126 and KB5093998 as the latest Patch Tuesday updates. Following that the company also published the accompanying dynamic updates under KB5094149, KB5095971, and KB5094156. So far the company has acknowledged two known issues that have popped up after the release which include bugged-out Office apps as well as the Recycle Bin; though there could be more at play too. Speaking of bugs and issues, Microsoft seems to have finally acknowledged a problem that probably has been around for close to a year. That's because back in July of 2025 the company made a default change to the latest Windows 11 versions, wherein it switched to JScript9Legacy on Windows 11 24H2 and later releases. Hence following the release of version 25H2 in October 2025, JScript9Legacy also remained default-enabled. As a result there has been a compatibility issue ever since then. For those wondering, by switching to JScript9Legacy Microsoft intended to improve the security of modern Windows PCs by reducing vulnerabilities tied to legacy scripting like cross-site scripting (XSS), among others. XSS exploits can allow cyber-attackers to attach malicious code onto legitimate websites and use them to execute the code when a potential victim loads such a website. Hence the new JScript9Legacy engine enforced stricter execution policies and improved object handling, which should help mitigate such attacks. Microsoft today has published a new support article detailing the problem. Neowin spotted it while browsing. The company says that JScript global definitions and execution context may fail to persist across scripts, potentially breaking older dependent apps and web-based components that relied on this legacy behavior. In the article Microsoft has confirmed that the issue stems from its move away from the older jscript9.dll engine in favor of jscript9legacy.dll. As mentioned above, while the newer engine was designed to address vulnerabilities and strengthen security it also changes how JScript handles execution context. As a result functions and definitions loaded by one script could no longer remain available to subsequent scripts once execution ended. The company notes that some applications worked correctly on earlier Windows versions because the older JScript engine automatically retained global definitions and execution state between scripts. Under the newer model though that behavior is disabled by default causing certain legacy workloads and polyfill-dependent scripts to fail. Microsoft says it addressed the problem via the KB5077241 update though the fix had not been enabled automatically in the following updates. As such admins must explicitly turn on persistent JScript execution context using a Registry setting that the tech giant shared today. The configuration can be applied to individual processes or system-wide through the FEATURE_ENABLE_PERSISTENCE registry key. The steps have been outlined below: Run the following command to create the feature control registry key: reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\FeatureControl\FEATURE_ENABLE_PERSISTENCE" Under this key, create a new DWORD (32-bit) value. Configure the value as follows: To enable persistence for specific processes only: Set the value to 1 for each target process name. To enable persistence for all processes: Add * as the key name and set its value to 1. You can find the official support article here on Microsoft's website.
    • The possibility that milk gathers back into a glass implies that gravity can be 'reversed'.
    • VidCoder 12.20 by Razvan Serea  VidCoder is a DVD/Blu-ray ripping and video transcoding application for Windows. It uses HandBrake as its encoding engine. Calling directly into the HandBrake library gives it a more rich UI than the official HandBrake Windows GUI. VidCoder can rip DVDs but does not defeat the CSS encryption found in most commercial DVDs. You’ll need the NET 8 Desktop Runtime. If you don’t have it, VidCoder will prompt you to download and install it. The Portable version is self-contained and does not require any .NET Runtime to be installed. You do not need to install HandBrake for VidCoder to work. Feature list: Multi-threaded MP4, MKV containers Completely integrated encoding pipeline: everything is in one process and no huge intermediate temporary files H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VP8, Theora video Hardware-accelerated encoding with AMD VCE, Nvidia NVENC and Intel QuickSync AAC, MP3, Vorbis, AC3, FLAC audio encoding and AAC/AC3/MP3/DTS/DTS-HD passthrough Target bitrate, size or quality for video 2-pass encoding Decomb, detelecine, deinterlace, rotate, reflect, chroma smooth, colorspace filters Powerful batch encoding with simultaneous encodes Customizable Pickers to automatically pick audio and subtitle tracks, destination, titles and more Instant source previews Creates small encoded preview clips Pause, resume encoding VidCoder 12.20 changes: Updated HandBrake core to 1.11.2. Download: VidCoder 12.20 | 47.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Portable VidCoder 12.19 | 89.3 MB Link: VidCoder Home Page | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Too soon, I'm still not over this death!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Jordan Smith earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      593
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      185
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      76
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!