Author Topic: cloverfield was great fun (Read 5422 times)

gunsmith · « **on:** January 21, 2008, 06:45:33 PM »

SPOILERS!!!! DO NOT READ THIS UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!!!
YOU SHOULD GO SEE IT, RIGHT NOW!

Pretty good film, a shtf fiasco hits NYC, of course EVERYONE is unprepared.
Several great scenes, a cell phone battery dies and our plucky hero joins in some looting to get a cell phone battery, I would have been grabbing flashlights.
Lots of mistakes that you can believe newyorkers making, like not keeping improvised weapons when its clear you'll need them. not taking advantage of
resources to get first aid kits, weapons, flashlights. (and footwear)

Things to you and I would be normal....I always have a knife,flashlight,gun with me unless I'm in court or on an airplane.

some things were unbelievable, the military got there way to fast,
and women in high heel shoes cant run that fast.

All in all, I really liked this movie and it made me want to stop being lazy and get my shtf bug out bag ready.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2008, 03:43:09 AM »

Quote

Several great scenes, a cell phone battery dies and our plucky hero joins in some looting to get a cell phone battery, I would have been grabbing flashlights.

Shame they didn't show a shopowner shooting the looters.

That's what should be done to looters after any disaster. Period. Anytime I've seen a mob whooping and hollering and carrying TVs out of a store, I've wished that a National Guard soldier would be authorized to open up with a SAW. That sort are parasites, and they USED to be shot on sight.

Firethorn · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2008, 06:15:57 AM »

Quote from: gunsmith on January 21, 2008, 05:45:33 PM

Pretty good film, a shtf fiasco hits NYC, of course EVERYONE is unprepared.
Several great scenes, a cell phone battery dies and our plucky hero joins in some looting to get a cell phone battery, I would have been grabbing flashlights.
Lots of mistakes that you can believe newyorkers making, like not keeping improvised weapons when its clear you'll need them. not taking advantage of
resources to get first aid kits, weapons, flashlights. (and footwear)

When they reach the mall that's one of the things I was thinking: Get the ladies some more practical clothing! Also, you know the girlfriend is at least wounded, grab a first aid kit from somewhere.

That's the sort of looting I can understand. Ignore the TVs and such, but going into a non-operating shop for true emergency supplies I can understand. Trading party dresses and high heels for pants and boots(or at least running shoes).

Quote

some things were unbelievable, the military got there way to fast,

Tanks got there awfully quickly, but I can see planes getting there really quick with enough work. Hmm... How close is the nearest army base with Abrams?

Personally, I'm surprised we kept going after the beast with cluster munitions and such. Personally I'd have been going in with A10s and AC-130s loaded with anti-tank and bunker busters such as hellfire-IIs. Laser guided, of course. Less damage to the surroundings and a better chance of getting through the tough skin. Initial attacks I can definitly see as being 'whatever I can get ahold of' while the supply chain is being stood up and knowledge is sketchy. After the first few anti-personnel and general purpose bombing runs failed, I'd be going for penetration.

The beast was fairly quick and maneuverable, but hitting a tank doing evasive maneuvers would be more difficult.

gunsmith · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2008, 07:36:11 AM »

Quote

How close is the nearest army base with Abrams?

Maybe Fort Dix, a good hour or two away in perfect conditions I believe.

Quote

Shame they didn't show a shopowner shooting the looters.

Well, a huge scary monster was chewing up the Infantry about 2 or 3 blocks away and dropping spiderthings the size of baby carriages that were also doing severe damage to every living thing they could attack, smart people like shop owners would be using the shotgun against spiderthings and trying to get massive distance from the scary monsters.

Also NY shop owners don't have access to shotguns like real Americans do anyway.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2008, 07:54:15 AM »

Quote from: Firethorn on January 22, 2008, 05:15:57 AM

Personally, I'm surprised we kept going after the beast with cluster munitions and such. Personally I'd have been going in with A10s and AC-130s loaded with anti-tank and bunker busters such as hellfire-IIs. Laser guided, of course. Less damage to the surroundings and a better chance of getting through the tough skin. Initial attacks I can definitly see as being 'whatever I can get ahold of' while the supply chain is being stood up and knowledge is sketchy. After the first few anti-personnel and general purpose bombing runs failed, I'd be going for penetration.

The beast was fairly quick and maneuverable, but hitting a tank doing evasive maneuvers would be more difficult.

It doesn't really matter, because any "animal" would be cut to shreds with most any modern munitions, even massed small-arms fire would do it in eventually. Then you have to factor in movement and speed with metabolism vs. size, proportional support vs. weight of endo or exoskeletons etc. which mostly don't work right.

If you postulate extra-terrestrial origins and evolution in a different planetary environment, or unique or exotic biochemistries to try and explain away the creature's capabilities, AND be realistic, you run into even worse problems. At least Earth produced the dinosaurs at one point.

So ultimately, over-thinking it leaves you with no movie to enjoy. So it's best to just say "Big scary monster, guns and bombs don't work!" and leave it at that. And then try to add "realism" with gimmicks such as all the hand-held camera work and first person POV's, which is why this movie is somewhat unique.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2008, 08:13:59 AM »

Quote from: gunsmith on January 22, 2008, 06:36:11 AM

Also NY shop owners don't have access to shotguns like real Americans do anyway.

Legally.

How much do you want to bet that plenty of shopowners and other people have something hidden somewhere just in case? Even aboveground, the city is like an anthill. Plenty of places for people to hide stuff.

jefnvk · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2008, 11:28:04 AM »

Quote

Shame they didn't show a shopowner shooting the looters.

That's what should be done to looters after any disaster. Period. Anytime I've seen a mob whooping and hollering and carrying TVs out of a store, I've wished that a National Guard soldier would be authorized to open up with a SAW. That sort are parasites, and they USED to be shot on sight.

Because when your eventual plan involves levelling Manhattan anyways, looters matter.

When there is a flood, yes. Take care of looters. When a monster is ravaging Manhattan, as long as the looters aren't interfering with the military, methinks that the military has bigger problems.

But yes, I too loved the high heels. And my first thought when the lights went out when they were hiding in the first shop, was to find a flashlight. And when herds of rats, of all things, are running away in fear, my first thought is not going to be to stop and see what it is.

As far as the actual movie goes, I kinda like the through the personal camera POV.

gunsmith · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2008, 07:41:04 PM »

I was talking to the cute checkout girl
at the local supermarket (here in Reno)
and I mentioned the movie and she liked it too.
I mentioned that the story wouldn't work in Reno
but before I could say why she said "oh yeah those little critters would be blasted with a shotgun and on a BBQ in no time" grin

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 02, 2009, 03:03:35 PM »

Zombie thread.

I just saw Cloverfield yesterday. Wow... I thought it was going to be a headache-inducing camera chase with no view of the monster.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Wish I saw it in the theater.

Skimming the fan sites, and the rumor mill suggests that the original monster is a baby, and it is from uncharted depths of the sea. Awakened by a satellite falling out of orbit and splashing into the ocean.

From how it ended... I'd love for mama to wake up and come looking for baby. I'd be happy with a sequel, as long as there's a bit more steady-cam. The 1st person POV was unique and the camcorder angle made a neat social commentary on our society's fetish for film... but I'm ready for a shoot 'em up monster movie with even bigger critters.

Thousand foot tall Clover-mama!

jackdanson · « **Reply #9 on:** June 02, 2009, 03:39:54 PM »

Yeah it was decent, saw it at the theatre... might give it a rent again.

brimic · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2009, 08:51:38 PM »

The movie kind of creeped me out- not bad.

BryanP · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2009, 09:04:23 PM »

Yeah, it was good fun.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #12 on:** June 02, 2009, 11:08:01 PM »

But you know it's not looting if you leave a note. (applies to supplies, not entertainment.) (BTW, alcohol is supplies unles you live in Ireland where there are no snakes. There, you need it just because.)

I remember that line, but cannot remember from where.

stay safe.

skidmark

MechAg94 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2009, 10:42:10 AM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on June 02, 2009, 03:03:35 PM

Zombie thread.

I just saw Cloverfield yesterday. Wow... I thought it was going to be a headache-inducing camera chase with no view of the monster.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Wish I saw it in the theater.

Skimming the fan sites, and the rumor mill suggests that the original monster is a baby, and it is from uncharted depths of the sea. Awakened by a satellite falling out of orbit and splashing into the ocean.

From how it ended... I'd love for mama to wake up and come looking for baby. I'd be happy with a sequel, as long as there's a bit more steady-cam. The 1st person POV was unique and the camcorder angle made a neat social commentary on our society's fetish for film... but I'm ready for a shoot 'em up monster movie with even bigger critters.

Thousand foot tall Clover-mama!

Yeah, but if I get too realistic, that origin only makes it more likely the creature would be slow and weak on land and not an air breather. Not to mention there is no precedent for an earth animal to be impervious to 120 mm AP rounds. Thick skin than can shrug off small arms sure, but not the big stuff.

As far as the movie, I don't mind the first person POV, but at least give me a steady camera. I think I would have gotten a headache trying to watch that at the theater with the camera view shaking all over the place all the time. It is fine for a little bit, but not all the time.

zahc · « **Reply #14 on:** June 03, 2009, 11:56:03 AM »

They were probably just mimicing contemporary blockbuster cinematography. The new guidelines for cinematography seem to involve keeping the camera pointing in any direction that does not include your subject. I think nowadays they just duct tape the camera to a beach ball and roll it through the scene.

I watched Full Metal Jacket a couple nights ago and it was amazing, there were people. You could even see them, and what they were doing. The movie managed to be enjoyable and have impact even though you could see it.

During the end, with the bit with the sniper, due to competent direction and cinematography I became aware of the fact that I actually had a spatial sense of the battlefield, and where the characters were, and what they were trying to do, during every shot, as if it was a real place. It was almost alarming.

I contrast this with modern action sequences such as the one involving the semi truck in The Dark Night, in which it is impossible to make spatial or even chronological sense of the action, which occurs in a tunnel in a street as people shoot in a direction. There is no attempt at all to create a believable scene, only to showcase action that becomes meaningless outside of context.

This kind of cinematography is just a higher-budget version of the recognizably bad "guy shoots at something off-screen...cut to another guy falling down, completely other camera angle, completely other lighting, no scene building, no characterization, no sense of space or time. You can find bad cinematography and recognize it instantly when it's in the form of a amatuerish home movie or no-budget tv show. If you throw lots of production value at it, apparently people will accept it as a proper movie and even buy tickets to go see it.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2009, 12:07:36 PM »

Quote from: zahc on June 03, 2009, 11:56:03 AM

I watched Full Metal Jacket a couple nights ago and it was amazing, there were people. You could even see them, and what they were doing. The movie managed to be enjoyable and have impact even though you could see it.

Saw that for the first time this week, too.

Good flick. Didn't know Ermey died so soon in it. Old Mary Jane sure got a bad rap in it, though. I sure liked that girl.

Ermey was at Ben Avery last year at the Western CMP games... my buddy bumped into him while Garand shopping. Reportedly a very nice guy and down to earth.

K Frame · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2009, 12:17:14 PM »

"I'd love for mama to wake up and come looking for baby."

GROXGRRR! YOU COME HOME RIGHT NOW! IT'S TIME FOR DINNER!

But MOM! I'm playing with my action figures! They're just so darned lifelike!

HankB · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2009, 12:55:10 PM »

Quote from: zahc on June 03, 2009, 11:56:03 AM

They were probably just mimicing contemporary blockbuster cinematography. The new guidelines for cinematography seem to involve keeping the camera pointing in any direction that does not include your subject. I think nowadays they just duct tape the camera to a beach ball and roll it through the scene.

Don't forget today's sound editing - while the characters are whispering, dub in a LOUD sound track at least 20dB above voice level - background noise is OK, but preferably some rap garbage (a redundancy, to be sure) so there are nonsense WORDS interfering with your attempt the make out the dialog.

freakazoid · « **Reply #18 on:** June 03, 2009, 08:36:08 PM »

I really liked Cloverfield. Hope they make a sequel like the rumors. Although I though the POV was pretty cool, I too would like the sequel to be a steady cam. The shaky cam movie that really bothered me was The Born series. They could of been WAY better if you could actually of seen the fight scenes. :(

RevDisk · « **Reply #19 on:** June 03, 2009, 09:47:35 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on June 03, 2009, 10:42:10 AM

Yeah, but if I get too realistic, that origin only makes it more likely the creature would be slow and weak on land and not an air breather. Not to mention there is no precedent for an earth animal to be impervious to 120 mm AP rounds. Thick skin than can shrug off small arms sure, but not the big stuff.

Even easier. Drop liquid oxygen or liquid nitrogen on it. Less collaterial damage, and it would kill the sucker pretty quick. Anything that large needs lungs or huge gills. Crystalize either of those with some LOX, and the critter is dead.

I saw it. Ok movie. I was just glad all the hipsters died pretty horrible deaths. I'm not fond of them.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 04, 2009, 09:09:01 AM »

Just dropping LOX or LIN across it would not likely be enough to freeze anything critical. It would take a LOT of liquid I think. Now if you were able to get it inside an orifice or inside some gills, that is something else.

Something like white phosphorous incendiary explosives might be better or napalm.

Sawdust · « **Reply #21 on:** June 04, 2009, 09:55:59 AM »

I always find it best to dust-off and nuke it from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Sawdust

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 04, 2009, 10:32:05 AM »

The final impression I got was that they did end up nuking it.

Either that, or a bunkerbuster fell directly on the bridge where the 2 main characters were hiding. There was suddenly a lot of fire in the picture (though the camera was pointed at the brick wall inside the bridge) and then bricks and loose earth fell all over the camera.

I also got the impression that an AC-130 (or the main gun on an M1 Abrams) would have been quite capable of quickly ending the movie. Perhaps the explosive ordnance only caused (insanely large) flesh wounds and they just needed solid steel projectiles for maximum penetration?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2009, 08:06:58 PM »

I guess it isn't a very new thing in monster movies to invent some reason why normal weapons don't work.

makattak · « **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2009, 12:16:12 AM »

Small amount of thread necromancy here (AGAIN), but we just finished watching Cloverfield for Halloween.

WOW. I was shocked at how good that was.

Undoubtedly the main characters made mistakes (as mentioned before), but I was surprised by a monster movie where people were relatively smart.

MORE SPOILERS!

Very suspenseful. I actually would have preferred it if the last two to die had survived, but that's just wanting a happy ending. Not every movie needs that- and I realize it was more realistic this way (except for the helicopter crash- What the heck!?)

News:

Author Topic: cloverfield was great fun (Read 5422 times)