Comments on: Cloverfield Loses Some Shine Second Time Around http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:43:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jesse Rosenberg http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-130738 Jesse Rosenberg Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:25:14 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-130738 No i wouldnt have put cloverfield on there Paranoid Park Caramel A bunch of the smaller documentaries you always forget to put on your lists Diary of the dead be kind rewind ALL BETTER THAN VANTAGE POINT AND RAMBO ECT No i wouldnt have put cloverfield on there
Paranoid Park
Caramel
A bunch of the smaller documentaries you always forget to put on your lists
Diary of the dead
be kind rewind
ALL BETTER THAN VANTAGE POINT AND RAMBO
ECT

]]> By: HisDivineShadow http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-128917 HisDivineShadow Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:18:44 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-128917 Cloverfield kicked ass! And I even got a little motion sickeness. Great movie! Screw all ya that think it sucks! Lol. Cloverfield kicked ass!

And I even got a little motion sickeness.

Great movie!
Screw all ya that think it sucks! Lol.

]]> By: Daniel http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-118399 Daniel Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:10:44 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-118399 David - You are clearly missing the entire point of the movie, Brandon is trying to explain it to you but you are WAY WAY WAY to caught up in wanting the movie to be how YOU want it to be.. ITs not made for you or with you in mind, take a step back and consider that, the director was (and this was VERY obvious to me watching the movie) not trying to make the movie that you wanted to see, its not about the monster looking good whatsoever.. step outside yourself and try to see this movie for what it is... David – You are clearly missing the entire point of the movie, Brandon is trying to explain it to you but you are WAY WAY WAY to caught up in wanting the movie to be how YOU want it to be.. ITs not made for you or with you in mind, take a step back and consider that, the director was (and this was VERY obvious to me watching the movie) not trying to make the movie that you wanted to see, its not about the monster looking good whatsoever.. step outside yourself and try to see this movie for what it is…

]]> By: Brendan http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-118346 Brendan Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:25:37 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-118346 So having a pedestrian chasing after a monster 10 stories high that's killing everyone would be realistic? I don't think that they did the shaky cam thing to save time or money- I think it was a conscious choice to do the movie that way. For example, I think it took a lot more time and effort to think of how the characters would act in real life, operate the camera, what they would focus on, when they would run, when the camera would get choppy, etc etc than it would be to create some cool CGI shots of a monster. CGI artists are a dime a dozen these days in Hollywood and I really don't think they simply chose not to show the monster for budgeting reasons. I point you to Abrams' TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/205 Abrams is obsessed with the idea of mystery and letting the audience make up their owns stories rather than hit them over the head with his own. I think he chose to hide the monster for that reason- Because let's be honest- If Abrams wanted more budget he could damn well get it. So having a pedestrian chasing after a monster 10 stories high that’s killing everyone would be realistic? I don’t think that they did the shaky cam thing to save time or money- I think it was a conscious choice to do the movie that way. For example, I think it took a lot more time and effort to think of how the characters would act in real life, operate the camera, what they would focus on, when they would run, when the camera would get choppy, etc etc than it would be to create some cool CGI shots of a monster. CGI artists are a dime a dozen these days in Hollywood and I really don’t think they simply chose not to show the monster for budgeting reasons.

I point you to Abrams’ TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/205

Abrams is obsessed with the idea of mystery and letting the audience make up their owns stories rather than hit them over the head with his own. I think he chose to hide the monster for that reason- Because let’s be honest- If Abrams wanted more budget he could damn well get it.

]]> By: David http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-118309 David Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:35:58 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-118309 Yes Brendan, and obviously you didn't read my post closely enough. Did I say that there was no CGI animation....? Hmmmm? Uh...no. I said that he saved a ton by not having to show the monster very much. Creating a realistic looking CGI monster that moves through the real world takes a little more time and effort that shaky cam effects and explosions. Yes Brendan, and obviously you didn’t read my post closely enough. Did I say that there was no CGI animation….? Hmmmm? Uh…no. I said that he saved a ton by not having to show the monster very much. Creating a realistic looking CGI monster that moves through the real world takes a little more time and effort that shaky cam effects and explosions.

]]> By: Brendan http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117977 Brendan Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:30:16 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117977 David- Obviously you didn't see the movie because if you had you would have seen that there was tons of CGI and tons of other special effects (such as all the stuff to make it look like a camcorder. David- Obviously you didn’t see the movie because if you had you would have seen that there was tons of CGI and tons of other special effects (such as all the stuff to make it look like a camcorder.

]]> By: dominic http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117954 dominic Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:19:28 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117954 To add to my post, people who were expecting Godzilla or something of the sort (and the ones who also saw the preview and thought this) are going to be disappointed (obviously, see above posts)..but this movie was never supposed to be Godzilla or anything like that, the previews did not even elude to that whatsoever.. it was more about people not knowing what the hell is going on , which is what the movie was about.. this movie was never advertised as a monster movie at all, why would you expect it to be one like Godzilla?? Go see godzilla if you want godzilla, this is not that and never intended to be. To add to my post, people who were expecting Godzilla or something of the sort (and the ones who also saw the preview and thought this) are going to be disappointed (obviously, see above posts)..but this movie was never supposed to be Godzilla or anything like that, the previews did not even elude to that whatsoever.. it was more about people not knowing what the hell is going on , which is what the movie was about.. this movie was never advertised as a monster movie at all, why would you expect it to be one like Godzilla?? Go see godzilla if you want godzilla, this is not that and never intended to be.

]]> By: dominic http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117953 dominic Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:14:47 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117953 Man, I can't belive that people dont just come out and saw that Cloverfield was fucking awesome and one hell of a ride , I only saw it once and don't really intend to see it again but nearly EVERY horror movies in the last 5 years that is American made is eaither A)A piece of shit remake or B) just a plain piece of shit.. Face it , the original horror movie in america is DEAD (hats of to france and spain, doning some amazing stuff) but this was a whole new thing and blew my mind, anyone who bitches is just being to much of a critic.. Man, I can’t belive that people dont just come out and saw that Cloverfield was fucking awesome and one hell of a ride , I only saw it once and don’t really intend to see it again but nearly EVERY horror movies in the last 5 years that is American made is eaither A)A piece of shit remake or B) just a plain piece of shit.. Face it , the original horror movie in america is DEAD (hats of to france and spain, doning some amazing stuff) but this was a whole new thing and blew my mind, anyone who bitches is just being to much of a critic..

]]> By: David http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117540 David Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:44:21 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117540 Oh, I almost forgot, he also saved a load on cameramen. Oh, I almost forgot, he also saved a load on cameramen.

]]> By: David http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117539 David Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:39:08 +0000 http://themovieblog.com/2008/01/cloverfield-loses-some-shine-second-time-around#comment-117539 So, basically 'ol J.J. boy made a "monster" movie with no monster so he saved a bunch of money on CGI staff and cast of bunch of no-name actors who wouldn't demand high salaries and is laughing all the way to the bank at all the people that rushed to go see this film, brilliant. So, basically ‘ol J.J. boy made a “monster” movie with no monster so he saved a bunch of money on CGI staff and cast of bunch of no-name actors who wouldn’t demand high salaries and is laughing all the way to the bank at all the people that rushed to go see this film, brilliant.

]]>