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

    • I don’t get why if I bought the game on the last get I needed to pay $40 to upgrade to the new version in the first place and people who love the game and play a lot would have upgraded already so this is just PR and a chance to grab new players who forgot the game long time ago I think
    • The term "use" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline. "Use" can mean opening ChatGPT occasionally to ask for the definition of a word or information about a specific topic. If you frame the question around how many people use it as a daily driver in their work or personal lives, that number is a lot smaller. Those are the people who pay for AI. Nearly everyone else is happy to use it for free, but doesn't see enough value in it to pay for it.
    • No support for Windows Hello!
    • I think you meant the "ntfs3" driver, but yes there have been a lot of fixes for it in this release and previous releases, not 100% sure if the issue you mentioned is fixed though. In any case, the new "ntfs" driver in 7.1 doesn't have that issue (at least, no reports of such have come thru), but your kernel needs to explicitly enable support for the new driver first (like how CachyOS kernel has it), and you need to edit your mount points in /etc/fstab to use "ntfs" instead of the other drivers.
    • Epic Games says Unreal Engine 6 will help developers "build content faster" using AI models by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe Epic Games is rolling out the latest major update to Unreal Engine 5 today, and at the same time, the company also dropped some information on the next-generation version of the product, Unreal Engine 6. This was already revealed a few weeks ago alongside the new Rocket League upgrade reveal. The company says it is combining the features of Unreal Engine and Unreal Editor for Fortnite to create this new version of its popular media creation tool. On top of creating entire games, the new engine will also focus on letting developers operate large-scale live service titles more easily, whether by shipping content into their own ecosystems or into Fortnite. The use of large language models is also mentioned here, with Epic saying it will be a core part of the engine. "We see LLMs, generative AI models, and tools like Claude and Codex playing a central role in helping you build content faster while maintaining the creative control you need," adds the company. Here is the rundown of what's new about version 6 of Unreal Engine: With all these changes to the programming model, portability upgrades, and generative AI integration, Epic says the new version of the engine will "change a lot about how games are made." The company aims to ship Unreal Engine 6 into early access in late 2027, with a full release planned for 12-18 months later. Epic Games also dropped a lengthy blog post about the new Unreal Engine 5.8 update for game developers over here. The release is focused on delivering better performance, customization, and streamlined workflows for development teams. This will be the final major update for this version of the engine before Epic switches to focus fully on Unreal Engine 6's early access launch.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Vincian earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      502
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      162
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      86
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      67
    5. 5
      neufuse
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!