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

    • 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
    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • 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
      577
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!