#1 2007-12-25 20:17:52
...Of a vaguely cetacean sort. That is all. Discuss.
"...another theme in the Cthulhu mythos is one of madness. Whether or not there are little beasts running around in this film is uncertain but even if those beasts are human it still plays to the material. Who's to say that the secondary creatures aren't folks who go mad under the influence of Mr. Cthulhu? Who's to say that it doesn't transform them? Who's to say that the fucker doesn't give birth to little versions of himself who run amok?" (source)
As a matter of fact, there are "little versions."
Offline
#2 2007-12-25 20:33:53
I hope not.
The internet hype for this movie (which began, what, last June?) has been so frantic that the film itself can only be a letdown. It'll have to be a cinematic miracle not to be a letdown.
I like Abrams' storytelling, generally, and I'll be interested to see his little monster movie; but what has me excited at the moment is the slowly growing chatter about Guillermo del Toro getting a shot at filming At the Mountains of Madness (mentioned further down in your link).
He won't get it right, of course--no one could--but judging from his previous efforts the visuals will be breathtaking. I'd pay cash out of pocket just to peek at the storyboards.
P.S. Where did that sketch of that fucking whale-thing come from? Is that supposed to be The Monster? And is it supposed to be scary? I thought monsters were supposed to be scary...
Last edited by George Orr (2007-12-25 20:35:51)
Offline
#3 2007-12-25 23:11:23
I didn't want to make this a pseudo-IM between the two of us, Georgina, but since we're the only barflies a-flitting...
I also hope not, insofar as I ignore all hype and simply decide if I care to see a film or not. No amount of "viral marketing" could compel me. If anything, it'll turn me off...and so far, things are looking dim. I may wait for DVD, since the Blair Witchy-poo camera work is not reassuring.
Yeah, they've apparently been trying to drum up interest since at least June. With Alias and Lost to his credit, there are some out there who think Abrams can do no wrong. These are the same folks who think merely attaching a name to a product makes it shiny goodness. The apparent answer to avoiding the prototypical Monster Movie is in post-production, where you too can make a polar bear on a jungle island seem more menacing than usual.
'Breathtaking visuals' are largely reliant on static, slow-pan, or richly composited shots with good framing and depth of field (sue me, I had to live with film majors). Two hours of deliberately unstable hand-cam work is far more frightening than human-sized crustacean parasites. What doesn't borrow from the Alien franchise, or any of its precursors (Them!, for example) would surprise me (you might also like this and this).
I included the link for Whale-thulhu first. Illustrations seldom do a movie creature justice, but you have to admit, we're jaded. Unless it's got baleen made of barbed wire ("All the better to strain you with, my dear"), then the front end of Godzilla-Kong may have been 'reimagined' since that sketch. Monsters are almost always metaphors, and I'm not convinced that Abrams--or anyone else attached to the film (except Lovecraft, who is not in a position to complain)--knows anything about those.
Offline
#4 2008-01-28 06:32:25
Just a minor follow-up...
Despite the fact that it's been in theaters for ten days now, few people--even those enlisted to do post-screening "sketches" of the monster--can come to a consensus about what it is or looks like. This drawing seems to be the most accurate, but bears little to no resemblance to an action figure that Hasbro has supposedly been licensed to produce, later this year. Leaked images of that make it indistinguishable from Godzilla.
Perhaps, Cthulhu went on the Atkins diet (eat people only, no buildings).
Offline
#5 2008-01-28 07:07:18
Didn't these people read Lovecraft?
Offline
#6 2008-01-28 08:59:48
My wife and I saw Cloverfield over the weekend. Does anybody know why it is CALLED Cloverfield?
Offline
#7 2008-01-28 12:54:43
Bigcat wrote:
My wife and I saw Cloverfield over the weekend. Does anybody know why it is CALLED Cloverfield?
As far as I know, Cloverfield began as just a working title, an innocuous film name that works to keep the curious from spying on you while you're filming. Most films with any buzz around them use working titles for concealment while in production. (Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, for instance, both filmed under "camouflage" titles.)
In the case of Cloverfield, the working title became the actual title, I think because there was so much pre-release buzz about it that that's the name the public now knows the movie by.
Last edited by George Orr (2008-01-28 14:13:38)
Offline
#8 2008-01-28 13:37:10
I saw it last week with a buddy from LA. I enjoyed it; he did not.
Without giving too much away, one of the things I liked was that it didn't have a happy ending. There was no attempt to wrap everything up neatly, and no explanation as to the whats, whys, or how comes. The monster suddenly appears, wreaks some pretty damned good destruction, and does an admirable job of leveling Manhattan.
The story itself, consequently, is about what several people endure during the mayhem and what they see. If I had any complaints about the movie, it was definitely the camera work. I felt as if I had been on a roller coaster for an hour-and-a-half.
The full bag of popcorn probably didn't help matters too much.
Offline
#9 2008-01-28 14:09:34
Taint wrote:
If I had any complaints about the movie, it was definitely the camera work. I felt as if I had been on a roller coaster for an hour-and-a-half.
I've heard the same from several people who have seen it. Apparently the director's attempt at cinema verite went over the top and some people are puking in the theaters.
Last edited by phreddy (2008-01-28 14:50:12)
Offline
#10 2008-01-28 14:54:48
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
If I had any complaints about the movie, it was definitely the camera work. I felt as if I had been on a roller coaster for an hour-and-a-half.
I've heard the same from several people who have seen it. Apparently the director's attempt at cinema verite went over the top and some people are puking in the theaters.
I had to look away several times just to get my bearings. It was almost enough to put you into a seizure.
Offline
#11 2008-01-28 16:46:48
Bigcat wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Taint wrote:
If I had any complaints about the movie, it was definitely the camera work. I felt as if I had been on a roller coaster for an hour-and-a-half.
I've heard the same from several people who have seen it. Apparently the director's attempt at cinema verite went over the top and some people are puking in the theaters.
I had to look away several times just to get my bearings. It was almost enough to put you into a seizure.
It's a common mistake. The technique he was using was actually Cinema Vomite.
Offline
#12 2008-01-28 22:18:01
tojo2000 wrote:
The technique he was using was actually Cinema Vomite.
[insert cabaret-style sting]
Bigcat wrote:
Does anybody know why it is CALLED Cloverfield?
The 'working title' theory is more widely accepted, but the marketing/reviews have additionally suggested that it's just like any other military designation, only tangentially related to anything real. Like "Operation Enduring Occupation," or to refer to the whole of Central Park as a 'cloverfield.'
Offline
