William Gibson's been to see Cloverfield, and he's made note of a visual miscue that tells us the film was not "made by native science fiction minds." Hollywood sf is far removed from written sf, largely due to stuff like this -- tossed off, poorly-thought-through fit-and-finish details that miss opportunities to really conjure the future.
I saw Cloverfield last night, and nothing about it bugged me more than those quotes around "Central Park" on the DoD evidence tag that opens the film. It immediately tells us that this film has not been made by native science fiction minds. If Central Park is no longer called Central Park, but is officially referred to as "the area formerly known as 'Central Park'", but the DoD still exists, we know that this is not a *far-future* evidence tag. So if Central Park is now known as "The Killing Fields", or "The Ghastly Black Glass Ocean", then *tell* us. Those quotes are extraordinarily clumsy (and the card itself is typographically unconvincing).
Link
As I recall, the same 'card' provided an alphanumeric code reference for the area.
I think the standard of visual design and world building in SF film and TV is getting slowly better. Not consistently, but on average. There's an awful lot of geeks out there, and they're having an effect on what makes it on the big and little screen.
I remember, as a barely-teenager, being really offended by a detail in the movie version of Logan's Run. Logan, bored, tunes in the holographic girlfriend channel, and eventually chooses a chick who . . . walks out of the TV set. It's a teleporter, evidently.
Huh?
They have teleportation technology, but all they use it for is arranging one night stands?
Sloppy, sloppy!
Nowadays, you sometimes get neat, consistent stuff thrown into a film that's on-screen for mere seconds, but it helps set the mood. Like the cereal box in Minority Report that has animated characters running all over it.
I totally agree. I just saw this film a few hours ago and had problems with the authenticity. Not only do the characters seem empty and vacuous with only the thinest of back-stories, but also for a film that gets so much cheap millage by pushing our collective 9-11 emotional buttons, these New Yorkers make a lot of dumb choices without the slightest sense of a post 9-11 world. This one was a major let down.
I'm not a New Yorker, or else I'd be so pissed at the statue facing the wrong way on the poster that I wouldn't be able to think of anything else. Stuff like that drives me nuts. My own local geography (L.A.) is so often mangled that whenever someone gets it right I nearly explode in paroxysms of delight. (It doesn't happen too often.)
Personally, it sounds like a comment from a person who is unable to simply relax and have fun.
I feel that it definitely has a sci-fi feel in that the area formerly known as Central park, is now termed (mysteriously, and without explanation) US447. I think that that alone makes up for any gaffe or lack of creativity Gibson may perceive.
The evidence tag also says the footage is from "Digital SD". Distinct from "Analog SD", discontinued in the 80's.
imdb.com gives it "8.1/10 (21,222 votes)."
From what I could read, it sounds contriving and manipulating in place of artistry in plot, character development and cinematography. Couple that with cheesy special effects and obvious errors in the poster and most of the stills I viewed . . . I'm not sure one could pay me to got see it. And I didn't see anything about the score either, which is not good.
As has been noted, through numerous faux pas they seem to cut out a significant potential market of disenfranchised N.Y.C. are viewers, 18,000,000 plus.
Two hours can count for a lot if you're not in the wrong place.
Agree with #4. I like Gibson's work, but this sort of sci-fi snobbery is kind of ridiculous. Perhaps a film like this which is quite popular and well-received will get more of the masses interested in other (quite possibly 'better') sci-fi works, eh? Regardless, this argument is just sort of a 'who cares' for sci-fi elitists to sneer at.
...Is it me, or is Gibson lining himself up to be the next Harlan Ellison?
This isn't snobbery -- it's professional analysis. Gibson's very VERY good at using tiny details to conjure up whole futures (much better at it than, say, Abrams). What he's pointing out here is that the small details are not only what makes the futurism of a scene -- it's what breaks it, too. It's no more snobbery than when a painter points out errors in perspective in a sketch, or when a photographer notices problems with composition.
I think it's far more likely that the carpet bombing and "hammer down" erased what made Central Park Central Park and that Gibson's got an ego unsupported by his talent.
I think it is also not snobbery if want to enjoy a good meal, performance or movie as Joe Shmoe. If there is a bad taste in the meal, it should not be only the chef who cares. What is the point of the effort to do something well? If no one cares and it is snobbery to expect anything, we mind as well save all the effort and eat gruel every day. As for entertainment, in "Idiocracy" they sit in a theter and watch someone's arse fart for two hours and they can't get enough of it. Can't argue with happiness. They should have their hour without reproach. So should those who want more.
I don't really see a problem here. Sure, if you expect every detail of a sci-fi/fantasy movie to adhere to one's notion of "realism", then Cloverfield's opening DoD card is distracting. But within the context of the film it does a very simple job in an efficient way. Just dropping in the words "the area formerly known as Central Park" immediately sets the tone of what's to follow and basically forewarns us that Central Park's shit is going to get fucked up.
I like to extend some lateral leeway regarding such "errors" into the film's fictional universe. Perhaps the DoD employee decided to get a little bit creative when typing out a description of the footage on the video tape. Also, why are people complaining about the typography/design of the card itself? Does the DoD have someone like The Designer's Republic on staff to ensure all internal memos, labels and correspondence are conveyed via some post-modern design ethic to appease hyper-critical design students who happen to gain access to such material?
Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
That's called creative licence. Mr. Gibson's criticism is misdirected, because the real divergence is not between "native" science fiction and "movie" science fiction, but literature vs. film. The latter is an audiovisual form of story-telling that requires it's own set of rules to succeed dramatically, which is why space ships make noise, laser beams are visible, and characters can become invisible without going blind. If you want to quibble, the EMP from a nearby nuclear blast would have degaussed the tape, erasing th video. There would have been no movie at all, no doubt pleasing half the people posting these coments.
Haven't seen Cloverfield, but if one more person watches "The War Game"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Game
...as a result of reading Gibson's blog, it will be a very good thing. What an amazing movie.
I couldn't disagree more with Bill. I read the clunky quotation marks on the card as authentic clumsy use of quotation marks, like you might well get from a military functionary who's been assigned the job of tagging hundreds of evidentiary artifacts after a major disaster. I had criticisms of Cloverfield (Why didn't they hold on to their rebar clubs after it became clear that they were effective weapons against the mini-monsters? And how did they teleport all the way from Columbus Circle to Pershing Square?), but this wasn't one of them. By and large I found it an unusually clever and effective monster movie, particularly strong as an evocation of what it's like to be in the middle of a major disaster surrounded by terror, contradictory information that changes constantly, and the urgent need to make decisions in the middle of screaming panic. (Short answer: What it's like is that it really sucks.)
That said, Bill is entirely right that details matter, and the people here snarking on him for paying attention to this sort of thing are being foolish.
Perhaps the DOD employee who tagged the recently discovered evidence did so at a time soon after the disaster, before Central Park had been given a new name.
Clover is a great crop to grow in poor soil, and is one of the first plants to grow in an area after a disaster, such as a fire or volcanic eruption. So I was thinking that's the name that is ultimately settled on for post-monster Manhattan - Cloverfield.
At least Mr. Gibson went and saw the movie before opining on it. I took a friend to task last night for writing a screed about the movie without bothering to see it. He based his objections wholly on other people's (somewhat inaccurate) descriptions of the movie, which I find quite suspect.
SF? Where is the Science in Cloverfield? To be Science-Fiction the science has to play an important role in the story. This was a real-world, present-day monster movie, pure & simple.
And if you're letting the info card upset you so much you have more problems than you think the film has.
HymieTheRobot wrote:
"The latter is an audiovisual form of story-telling that requires it's own set of rules to succeed dramatically, which is why space ships make noise, laser beams are visible, and characters can become invisible without going blind."
===
Firefly didn't seem to require such "rules" (ie fabrications) to be a huge cult success.
Big deal. There's so many "that aint science fiction" snobs out there, it just gets tired listening.
"Firefly didn't seem to require such 'rules' (ie fabrications) to be a huge cult success."
In fact, Firefly is full of logical lapses, and certainly doesn't work as plausible "hard" SF. The 'verse is astronomically impossible, for starters.
Which is fine. Firefly is its own thing, an unusual and diverting mash-up of genres that works on its own terms. I've probably watched every episode three times. So don't tell me I'm a "'that aint science fiction' snob."
What a lot of people in this conversation don't seem to get is that it's possible to note logical flaws, continuity lapses, and other flaws in a story, movie, or television show, and also find it worthwhile. In fact, some of the most interesting discussions of any narrative are the ones that begin "This does all the following things wrong, so why does it work so well anyway?"
This is the way intelligent people talk about art, and there's nothing "snobbish" about it. Those of you who are saying things like "it sounds like a comment from a person who is unable to simply relax and have fun" or "if you're letting the info card upset you so much you have more problems than you think the film has" -- well, I hope for your sake that you're fourteen, because otherwise, there's really not much excuse.
As I noted above, I don't even agree with Bill Gibson's particular criticism of Cloverfield. But a lot of posts in this thread seem to be suggesting, often pugnaciously, that there's something inherently wrong with anyone who remarks analytically about the details of a work of art. This is rhetorical thuggery unworthy of smart people.
#16 echoes my thoughts. The card that Gibson's talking about does, in fact, have a code number assigned to the area (implying that Central Park, as well as the rest of Manhattan, is a wasteland and military research area) and the wording used is purposefully military-awkward.
Also, as always, if you haven't actually seen the movie (I'm looking at you, Agnot), don't waste time posting bad reviews of it.
New Yorkers would never rename the Park. Even if it was a nuclear waste site, they'd still call it the Park. Who would rename it, the City? A stupid bit of "future" affectation.
I agree with #16 and #22. Gibson is great, but he's simply misinterpreting things. It's not called "The Killing Fields" or "The Ghastly Black Glass Ocean," it's a freaking wasteland of rubble that doesn't have a name anymore. Oh well. I did enjoy the phrase "typographically unconvincing."
Also, the "card" is identified by the "DOD" as "digital SD card recovered from area formerly known as Central Park," but the D in SD stands for digital!
Science fiction professionals think long and hard about this stuff. Patrick can do ten minutes straight on the misuse of Helvetica in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. I can go on at least that long about Joss Whedon's wizardly expository technique in the first few minutes of Firefly. There's a long passage in a critical essay by Samuel R. Delany about the implications of a single short description of a door opening in one of Heinlein's novels. Tom Shippey devoted an entire chapter of critical analysis in J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century to the techniques Tolkien used to pull together and animate "The Council of Elrond."
I can't guarantee this of my own knowledge, but I suspect that everyone with a day job in the arts is like this about their own field. Keith Giffen once showed me an entire system of camera angles and sight lines for laying out two facing pages of panels when you're the penciller and the writer has given you a dismally long series of "talking heads" panels to work with.
It was just a movie. A "sit in the dark and eat your popcorn" movie - and a good one at that.
But its nice to see the Geeks nitpicking. For some reason, TRU-FANS can't allow themselves to just sit back and enjoy. They MUST find something wrong, if only to prove their own superiority.
It was just a movie, guys.
What Bill was saying was that for him, that detail was wrong in an obtrusive and irritating way. That doesn't mean he's objectively correct and you can't argue with him about it; but Bill Gibson has always had a very fine eye for details of style. Whether or not I agree with a specific observation, I listen to what he has to say on the subject.
"But its nice to see the Geeks nitpicking. For some reason, TRU-FANS can't allow themselves to just sit back and enjoy."
Actually, I sat back and enjoyed the movie a lot. Then I discussed details of it with the people I saw it with.
"They MUST find something wrong, if only to prove their own superiority."
What on earth does any of this have to do with anyone's "superiority"? You're just being silly.
One could just as easily observe that, for some reason, people like Steve Schnier can't bear to allow other people to have a relaxed conversation about the details of a movie. They have to attack and insult them, if only to prove their own superiority.
The day I can't enjoy a frickin' monster movie because I think it put frickin' quote marks in the wrong place is the day I blow my own frickin' head off.
Teresa, I listened to what he had to say as well, and came to the conclusion that he's mistaken. Lots of very smart people have a problem with the cast walking from Spring to 59th in about 10 minutes, because the "cut" in the tape is easy to miss. Nitpicking is fine, but only when you aren't demonstrably incorrect, as Gibson is here.
#28: If you have so much disdain for geeks, why in the world are you here? Maybe it's time to pack up your bafflingly random capitalization techniques and go play somewhere else.
Here is my 2 cents...
I have to disagree with #23 "New Yorkers would never rename the Park." - I disagree. Think of this in light of post 9/11. The World Trade Center, a New York landmark, has now been renamed (for better or for worse) "Ground Zero" in the popular vernacular. Six plus years later, and people in the city (from my experience, I'm not a New Yorker, but I visit NYC every other month) no longer refer to it as the WTC, but as Ground Zero. My take on the film was, now that Central Park, as we know it, is now gone, it has been redubbed "Cloverfield".
My only nitpick was we weren't told the origin of the term "Cloverfield". Other then that, I enjoyed it for what it was.
You're welcome to disagree with me. This is just my opinion. We all have 'em!
Uh yah, hi Captain Buzzkill. This is a fun popcorn monster movie, does it really need to be nitpicked to this level? Also, is it possible that the former Central Park is now codenamed "cloverfield" and we are left to make up our own minds and use our imagination? Crazy idea, I know...
Steve Schnier (27): Hogwash, boyo.
You make films yourself. Never tell me you don't obsess over what works and what doesn't. Or do you truly believe that people who pay attention to the technical details are only doing it "to prove their own superiority"?
If so: excuse me? Are you actually living in a world in which two award-winning SF authors, a couple of professional SF editors (one of whom is the head of the SF and fantasy line at Tor), and the interesting and diverse other Boing Boing readers who've commented here, are motivated by a need to "prove their own superiority" in front of you?
On a more minor note, I can also do without hearing a round of "I'm so superior to you skiffy geeks" from someone who knows and uses the word "trufans" (with or without its archaic hyphen).
I've had to edit videos for DoD submission. They have a very strict, very boring, very outdated system for slating EVERYTHING. What Cloverfield showed was inaccurate - but did I give a crap? No, because I liked the movie. This ain't hard sci-fi.
I think they say "Digital SD" so that the majority of viewers, who have no idea what "SD" means, have more of a clue that this is shot on a digital format.
What bothered me just a bit is that despite the fact the footage was shot on SD, Hud "overwrote" the old footage in linear-tape style, leaving bits strewn throughout of the overwritten original footage. Hud and Rob even discuss "the tape" early on.
In my experience, cameras that shoot to flash memory, like SD or P2, make new clips until the storage is full. Fill the card, and you have to individually pick clips to delete - you cannot inadvertantly erase over previous footage. Good thing they ignore this, since the leftover bits lead to a powerful, if subtle, coda, watching ol' Clovey dropping into the ocean unnoticed.
The point is, this bothered me for about four seconds, then I went back to me likey big monster kill movie fun time.
I still don't get Gibson's complaint. First, if it had said "Area formerly known as Central Park" instead of "Area formerly known as 'Central Park'" would that have made a difference? Second, to me this was an effective way to start the movie. It made me think that Central Park was going to be destroyed so thoroughly that it wasn't going to be Central Park by the time the movie was over. In short, it worked for me.
I get very annoyed when people nitpick movies. It doesn't match up with reality because its not real. I guess I am not disappointed because I know that going in.
Cableguy: Ouch! I hadn't even thought about the mechanics of the overwritten footage. I'll do my best to go on not thinking about it.
I had moments like that in the Lord of the Rings movies. Every time we got a sweeping shot of the landscape, the corner of my brain that automatically registers botany would pop up a card saying NOT EUROPE. That was problem, given that Tolkien's Middle Earth is such an emphatically European environment. But it was a problem for about 1.5 seconds, after which I went back to happily watching the movie. The downhill cavalry charge into massed pikes took more like six or eight seconds, but the outcome was the same: Dang, that was silly, gimme more movie nomnomnom.
@35: I believe that the DoD footage was an SD copy of analog data from the tape. The camera footage was on tape - they copied that footage from the tape into an SD format for the DoD file.
"They have teleportation technology, but all they use it for is arranging one night stands?"
Well, we have a global communication medium that could be used to bring all of the nations of the world together, yet many people use it to find pornography or post their insufferable daily musings. so...yeah.
#4: There is a difference between relaxing and having fun and going into a vegetative coma and letting your brain leak out your ears.
[I was about to post this comment, when I saw that Mark had said (more elegantly) almost the same thing.]
I agree with Gibson that such details are important, but I think he missed that the new name WAS given (as a numeric military designation), which paints the picture of a devastated Manhattan with no visible way to distinguish one area from another. It was "formerly" Central Park because it wasn't a park anymore (or even inhabitable) and the only way to identify the area is to grid everything off geographically.
These two little lines of text did an outstanding job of world-building and are a prime example of what made the film so enjoyable for me.
#41: I want a movie that puts me in the latter state.
Mjolnir, at bottom it's not nitpicking. It's a form of appreciation.
What does 'DoD' stand for? I really don't understand this post at all.
Ok, in reading all of the critics comments the one thing that is forgotten is that this is a movie that was intended to be complete escapism. Not all sci-fi/fantasy is to be based in sweet dreams of Storm Troopers or Blade Runners. It can be also based in terrors such as non-motivated killing machines. Why do we need our escapism need to be based in some sort of reality. Can we not just suspend belief for 85 minutes and relax and have a good time? Abrahms wanted an American monster and I feel he created a pretty damn cool one!
#45 - Department of Defense.
Seems like Gibson is following the internet maxim of 'whenever someone on the net corrects someone else's spelling, they have inevitably made a similar error in their correction,' in not recognizing that the card has the info he wants it to have.
Well, yes. I do obsess over my own work. But I'm far more forgiving, able to let it go and enjoy someone else's work without obsessing over their details.
I enjoyed Cloverfield. I thought it was fun. I might even see it again. So what's the problem?
It doesn't have to be "perfect" to be enjoyable. And what is perfection anyway?
For some reason, TRU-FANS can't allow themselves to just sit back and enjoy. They MUST find something wrong, if only to prove their own superiority.
Sure, there are people who try to prove how smart they are by picking movies apart. I have dim recollections of doing that when I was a kid -- getting off on trumpeting my critical skills.
But I'm in my 40s now, and it must be 20 years since I've done that. Still, I can easily imagine myself writing something akin to Gibon's comment. I wouldn't write to it to diss the movie or to peacock my analytical abilities. I would do it out of genuine frustration.
I dearly love movies. I love all kinds of stories. There's not even a small part of me that wants them to be bad or flawed. (Unlike many of my friends, I've never had much fun watching and making fun of bad movies. "Plan 9" does nothing for me.) If I could wave a magic want and make all movies perfect, I'd do it in a second. True, I'd never be able to show off my brilliant critiques, but I wouldn't shed tears for them. Instead, I'd have a lot more fun at the movies.
Sloppy mistakes, even very small ones, can ruin big portions of a movie for me. One poster here said, "The day I can't enjoy a frickin' monster movie because I think it put frickin' quote marks in the wrong place is the day I blow my own frickin' head off." Although the poster was being sarcastic, that pretty much describes the bind I'm in, and I know I'm not alone.
It's one thing if you go to see movies because you want to be part of a cultural phenomenon; or because you want something to talk about; or because you want something to be superior to; or because you're into cool special effects; or because you like to think about the filmmaking process and the filmmakers...
But it's another thing entirely if you go to movies to fall into a dreamlike state, which is why I go. I really want to sink into the movie and believe it's real. I want to believe that a real monster is really attacking New York. I want to get really scared. That's the only reason I go to movies: to be immersed. But it's a profound reason for me, and I dig that immersion so much, I go to movies all the time, hoping to get lost in the dream.
Mistakes burst the bubble. They wake me up from the dream, sometimes with an unpleasant jolt. Even tiny mistakes do this. That may seem nit-picky, but the mental process goes something like this: I'm believing in the movie as if it's real. I've pretty much forgotten it's made up. This is a nirvana-like state I'm striving for. Then something happens that defies logic.
Now, in the real world, if I suddenly saw water run uphill or a pig flying, I'm not sure what I'd do. But when an error happens in a movie, there's a way out for my brain. My brain can parse the madness by remembering that it's not real. Which is exactly what it does. I start thinking, "the filmmakers made a mistake," which means I'm thinking about the filmmakers. Which means I'm thinking of the movie as a created fiction -- not as reality.
It can take me five minutes to get back into the dream state. Awaking from that state is unpleasant, so if it happens several times (if there are several bubble-bursting errors), I find myself unable to trust the movie again. I don't let myself sink back into the dream, because I don't trust that I won't continue to be jerked out of it.
Having discussed this with many people, I've realized that some can't connect with what I'm talking about at all. This is because they've never viewed a movie that way. They're always detached from it, at least a little bit. Often, this is for movie-going reasons I mentioned above (e.g. they're more interested in the filmmaking process than the story itself). I'm not knocking anyone else's reasons for enjoying movies; I'm just trying to explain mine.
I'm also aware that my childlike (naive) way of watching is somewhat archaic. It's pre post-modern. No ironic detachment. It's uncool. So be it. It's the only way I've ever been able to enjoy movies. And the enjoyment is intense, when things go right.
My main point is that the nit-picking is something I have no control over. It's how I'm made. I don't purposefully nitpick. I just notice the error and can't stop thinking about it. People constantly tell me that I need to "suspend my disbelief," but they don't tell me how to do that. Maybe it's a natural skill for them, but I'm baffled by the how I'm supposed to acquire the skill. I can't stop myself from thinking things. Thoughts just come into my head. Error-thoughts are not even thoughts I want to have. If I could suspend them, I would.
If I could wave a magic wand and make myself not notice errors in movies, I would wave it in a heartbeat.
I've met a few lucky people who share my love of immersion but don't suffer the bubble-burst as often as I do. When I talk to these people about why they weren't bothered by such-and-such error, they usually say, "I didn't notice it." (Contrast them with the people who do notice the error but don't care about it, because they don't got to movies for immersion.)
These people are less skilled than I am at noticing small details. Which sounds like I'm bragging about myself or insulting them. I guess an eye for detail is a good thing, but too much of it can be a problem, at least when you want the sort of movie-going experience that I want.
I know people who are even more detail-oriented than I am. My wife, for instance. She's often distanced from movies when I'm still immersed. Afterwords, she will complain about a gaff that went right by me. So I understand how some people can be bothered by errors that don't bother others.
I like to extend some lateral leeway regarding such "errors" into the film's fictional universe.
That sort of statement strikes me as very odd, and yet I hear it all the time in these discussions: "I make allowances for... well, since I knew they had a small budget... I don't blame them for..."
It's as if the discussion is about whether or not we should let the filmmakers off the hook. I guess that is how some people frame the discussion. As for me, I don't really care about placing blame or excusing faults.
I'm an artist myself, so I understand how hard it is to rid a story of errors (it's generally impossible to get rid of all of them). But if there's an error in one of my stories -- even if it's "excusable" -- there's still an error in one of my stores. It's still going to have the effect on the viewer that it's going to have.
Fine, let's give the filmmakers leeway. Let's be understanding. Let's let them off the hook. Fine! But the error is still in the movie.
It's just a movie.
I feel like the cool kid is telling me to stop being a wittle baby. Like I shouldn't get so worked up over something trivial. What can I say? Strange as at may be to some people -- perverse as it may be to some people -- I do care about movies. I care deeply. Maybe I need to get outside more. Maybe I need to get laid. Whatever. I care about movies. I care about stories.
That's not a cool stance (especially if you care about stories without taking an ironic, cynical stance towards them), but it has a long history. To the ancient Greeks -- and in many older cultures -- stories and plays were akin to religious rites. To me, they still have such power. I rarely go see a movie because I'm bored on a Saturday night. When that happens, I make dinner, play a video game or have a conversation. I go see a movie when I want something more profound.
Is it silly to look for profundity in a monster movie? Sure, it you're looking for deep meaning. If you're looking for a complex theme or a fascinating array of ideas, you probably won't find them. But if you're looking for a profound emotional experience, which is why I seek, you may find it. Romances can offer one kind of emotional experience; mysteries offer another; horror films offer yet another... they are all different, wonderful flavors.
But sloppy errors -- if they come within my radar -- dampen the emotion. Without immersion, I can't feel deeply, because I know it's unreal. When it's unreal, the stakes are lower.
sorry i'm just running out the door for work so i haven't read everyones comments yet, but what bugs me most about the movie are the people complaining about the cheap exploitation of 9-11 imagery, to me, feeling the need to bring 9-11 into it was cheap.
i think theres one reference to terrorists in the actual film, which probably is more unrealistic.
the only thing that really reminded me of 9-11 was the wall of dust that rushed toward them, which i guess is a post 9-11 effect of actually knowing what something like that would look like.
other than that. Its a GIANT MONSTER MOVIE. buildings will get destroyed. People will be terrified. Its the thousandth time those particular buildings have been destroyed. the cheap thing is feeling that you have to relate everything to 9-11. We have a cinematic world where there were newspaper articles about whether having megatron smash through a building was couth nor not, or even earlier when they edited lilo and stitch so stitch no longer stole an airplane to rescue lilo.
move along please.
Gibson's mention of importance of the first visual in a movie reminds me of when I saw The Madness of King George (which, incidentally was called The Madness of George III in Commonwealth countries, but the title was changed in the U.S. for fear of moviegoers thinking it was the third in a trilogy).
Anyway, the first shot in the movie has the camera tracking forward towards a door. The door was graffitied with some date (perhaps 1809) scratched into the wood. I thought "wow, what a cool way to establish the year the movie takes place in"). But no, the movie was set in an earlier year--it was just sloppiness that the movie crew didn't catch & cover up the anachronism.
Ya know? I get the feeling that you guys are going to HATE my movie. Just a feeling...
Mark Frauenfelder (43):
So do I. I love it when I can trust a movie that thoroughly. It's a genuine high. Then the day ends, and I go to bed. And when I wake up, my brain is going Hey, didja notice how this worked? And how it hooked up with that little bit over there? And how the [whatever] in that scene was a honkin' big symbol they repeated in two more scenes, only you didn't notice it because they'd set it up to be necessary to the plot, so you didn't think what else it might be doing there? And ...I really appreciate a work of art that can temporarily short-circuit the analytic engine between my ears. Nothing ever shuts it up for good.
I've been this way all my life. It's a turn of mind. My earliest or second-earliest memory is of fiddling with a plot. (Long story. Never mind.) When I was a little kid suffering through endless church services, I was noticing that the King James English in the Book of Mormon wasn't as solidly a part of the language as the King James English in the Bible. When I was eleven and had just finished reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time, the uppermost thought in my mind was, "How did he make that work?" Yesterday morning on the subway, I was telling Patrick how I'd finally sorted out a much-pondered question about the a certain class of characters, and what is it about them that makes audiences react the way they do.
Want to know why so many writers have an alcohol problem? Because after one or two shots, you reach a state where that little nonstop critical voice in your head will shut the hell up and let you get some writing done.
#50 -- I think that fear of people (read: reviewers) cheaply writing the film off as a 9/11 allegory is why the filmmakers changed the title to the ambiguous "Cloverfield" from its original title, "1/18/08".
Those quotes are extraordinarily clumsy (and the card itself is typographically unconvincing)
Nonono! You see, the "use" of "spurious" "scare 'quotes'" is clearly a "genius" touch of futurology -- taking an already-nascent "trend" and extrapolating into the future, "scare" or "emphasis" quotation "marks" are de rigueur in the forecasted post-monster US "English".
Of course, what the "film" makers really drop the ball on is the "rest" of that DoD tag -- which "should" have read teh aera frmrly knon s "Sentral Park".
"at bottom it's not nitpicking. It's a form of appreciation."
Yeah, a form of appreciating the notion that apparently typos and/or odd phrasings aren't found in the real world, so when they're found in fiction it's just so darn-golly jarring! (Afterall, boingboing editors have never linked to mislabeled signs).
Why isn't your argument that the Cloverfield design team should be applauded for having such magnificent attention-to-detail that they even use really-real world bad grammar?
This is nitpicky, pedantic crap from people who obsess over titles and awards.
"...two award-winning SF authors, a couple of professional SF editors..."
You're trying to show off what you consider a superior understanding of the minutia of SF.
"So if Central Park is now known as "The Killing Fields", or "The Ghastly Black Glass Ocean", then *tell* us."
Maybe, *just maybe*, the Central Park area isn't known by a new name yet? I'm willing to suspend my belief that the fictional Cloverfield world didn't have "rename Central Park!" as their top priority post-monster attack.
I like nitpicking (sorry, appreciation) as much as anyone else but this level of scrutiny is a little weird. Movies will continue to be riddled with stuff that makes the geeks, the purists and the natives cringe... so what? Its the gaffes that make us see the movie more than once or search for them on YouTube or IMDB.
Unless a director wants to make a visual statement like Wes Anderson or has a hawk's eye view for detail like David Fincher, most mainstream filmmakers will neglect certain details, have contradictory plot elements and just be flat out erroneous in order to move the plot along. Often in the script-storyboard-shooting-editing process, some elements are going to be lost or sacrificed.
teresa:
I'm just curious why you find it necessary to post your opinions about this as a moderator. Don't you think it's a little tacky?
MrFitz, that's her login to the forum. She isn't doing it to impress anyone (or in your case - draw your ire).
I'm just curious why uou find it necessary to post your opinions about this at all...
I think a better example of real science fiction would come from comparing George Pal's "War of The Worlds" with Steven Spielberg's version. The 1953 classic addresses the science aspect from beginning to end, with Gene Barry's "Dr. Forrester" speculating on everything from the Martian's physiology to the nature of their weapns with as much expertise as that era held.On the other hand, Spielberg ignores science entirely. Two entertaining blockbusters, but one's science fiction and the other fantasy.
"New Yorkers would never rename the Park. Even if it was a nuclear waste site, they'd still call it the Park. Who would rename it, the City? A stupid bit of "future" affectation."
This has been pointed out, but to harp on it some more. If new york was really leveled as 'hammerdown protocol' suggested. they would probably have a grid system for the island.
I didn't think it sounded fakey sci fi in the least. It was pretty realistic. if they served up the tape for some military brass they wouldn't say the tape was found in sector bravo-niner (or whatever)
If you think thats unrealistic you should have waited a little bit and saw a giant monster attack the city.
mrfitz, outside of talkbacks on corporate entities like say CNN, forums or talkback sections usually have moderators who are part of the community and they actually have and voice opinions.
I agree with #4.
I am a HUGE Gibson fan, but really, do you (I mean everyone and/or anyone) have to nit pick every detail of life to enjoy life? I think not. Well, maybe Gibson does and maybe some of these other folk do, but to discount a project simply because it was either not done the way you would do it, which I find to be very egotistical, or because a title card maybe or may not be correct in your opinion is rather, well, catty and small.
Was Cloverfield perfect? No. Do any of us expect it to be the next great industry altering project? No.
So back to #4. Relax and have fun.
Oh and entry #7. Talking bad about something you have never seen is ignorant. Also, there is no "score" in the movie to speak of. There is hipster music at a party, then music during the credits. That's it (if I recall).
GRUMBLEBEE @49 (why can't user names be in mixed case?): Nicely put.
I was going to reply to Teresa at #38, but she beat me to it with #53.
As soon as one starts to do anything 'for real', professionally or not, you have to adopt and train the analytical instinct. That holds for writing, art, sports, cooking, human resources, whatever. It's necessary to critique and strengthen your own abilities and those of others. But having honed that weapon, it's now constantly ready and weighing on your mind. You have to separate it from yourself with effort, and pretend not to know what you know, to enjoy your field the way you did when you were a joyous rookie in the beer leagues. That love was what made us start on the path to professionalism, and leave behind forever the level of innocent play. It's serious work now, with its own beauty. But sometimes, through immersion in someone else's world, or maybe by teaching newcomers, we can recapture some of what it meant to be fresh and new.
"Want to know why so many writers have an alcohol problem? Because after one or two shots, you reach a state where that little nonstop critical voice in your head will shut the hell up and let you get some writing done."
QOTD.
"Want to know why so many writers have an alcohol problem? Because after one or two shots, you reach a state where that little nonstop critical voice in your head will shut the hell up and let you get some writing done."
I suggest just learning how to tell the little voice to say something helpful or just stay quiet. We control our daemons. We have to.
I didn't notice that, the quotes that is. I'm not a huge SF buff, but I love me some huge monsters in a city. I really like this movie, the people I went with, not so much. My point is this, I REALLY liked the movie, but spent my whole walk from the theatre home, dissecting the film, and here is most everything that is really wrong with the movie in chronological order.
Disaster strikes, I'm dropping the camera, it's hard to run with those things.
If I'm anywhere between the 2 towers of the BK bridge and it breaks in the middle, I or no one else is going to survive.
A walk from Spring ST. to 59th takes a while, not to mention they would run into stopped trains on the tracks. During the black out hundreds of people spent Hours down in the tunnels trapped in trains.
The military will take your camera away.
If impaled by a metal rod and left there a while, the last thing you want to do is lift me off of it quick, I will bleed to death.
The monster was very kind to let that helicopter take off.
Sitting in the back of aircraft is safer, but not that safe.
anyway, i could keep going, Point is, you can like something and pick it apart.
"The military will take your camera away."
I don't think in that situation they necessarily would. but yes, i thought of that too.
"If impaled by a metal rod and left there a while, the last thing you want to do is lift me off of it quick, I will bleed to death."
not necessarily. It depends on the path of the rebar took. yes, there will be blood, but not necessarily enough to bleed to death. since they didn't have anything to cut the bar as to leave it in, they made the right call, all things considered. she would have died up there if she stayed in the building, as evidenced by the fact that they stayed in the city, and died.
I have yet to read a single review, that makes me want to see this movie...
Jeff (66), if you're not going to make condescension an artform, could you possibly consider not working so hard at it?
Cory, I agree that detailed examination of any films flaws is an appropriate form of appreciation, but it seems odd that one of the world's most respected science fiction writers would seize on such a trivial element to summarize his experience. Getting the technical details right is a relative cinch. Pacing, character development,and asthetic style are far more elusive and important goals, and the "Cloverfield" team nailed it across the board. That defined my experience as a moviegoer, and it's why I defend the results.
"but it seems odd that one of the world's most respected science fiction writers would seize on such a trivial element to summarize his experience."
especially since the viral material seems to suggest that the monsters creation revolves around a soda pop ingredient.
Fixating on the "Digital SD card" and "the area formerly known as Central Park"? How about the huge freakin' monster destroying the city? THAT was sooo realistic...
Grumblebee's comment (#49) made me register for BoingBoing - I couldn't have said it any better.
I don't understand why people are bashing Gibson, but I guess they're trying to understand his motives. Maybe pointing his post makes him look snobby or pretentious, but I think it's just a detail that stuck out. I noticed the same thing when I saw the movie. And though it didn't bother me, it made me snap out of the trance. Not a good way to begin.
Personally, I'm grateful to get a clear understanding of how a renowned artist interprets details.
And Grumblebee, thanks again, great comment.
I can't answer for Gibson, but my guess is he focused on the "trivial element," because it's the first thing you see. First impressions have a big impact on many of us.
Imagine that you started reading a novel, and the first sentence was...
John woked up one morning and brushing his teeth.
... maybe after that, the prose gets better, but for me, it would be hard to read on.
"Mistakes burst the bubble. They wake me up from the dream, sometimes with an unpleasant jolt. Even tiny mistakes do this."
I don't know about you, but from my own experience (and everyone else's I have talked to) it wasn't small mistakes that took me out of the movie. It was the a-holes in the theater that feel the need to share with the rest of the class. I.e. getting loudly upset when the test screen came up, thinking something went wrong with the film. Or getting loudly upset with the ending, expecting a tidy happy ending I suppose.
It's thing like that that ruin the immersion much more than slip-ups in details. Or it could be that I hate people. Strike that- people in theaters. Nah- people in theaters who won't STFU when it goes dark.
Yeah, Grumblebee, it's the first thing you see in the movie, but at worst the line is unlikely, not impossible, and it's a very succinct way to brace the audience for the grand-scale destruction to follow. If one's asthetic is so sensitive that it registered that negativly and spoiled the remaining eighty-plus minutes of the picture, I'd be surprised that any film would pass muster.
Just saw the movie on Tuesday, and loved it. My friend & I caught a 5:05 showing (in beautiful downtown Scranton PA) and we were half the crowd -- it was like having a private screening-room. Nice.
But the title card did irritate me -- formerly known as? If it is no longer known as CP, then why even point it out?
Because it's there for the audience, not the hypothetical military. But it's not a genuine sop to the audience, it's a cheap shot by somebody that doesn't trust us.
But don't fret too much -- as many have pointed out, there are inconsistencies all over the place.
The title and credit sequences, f'r instance, featured digital time-code stamps. Artfully degraded as though there had been several generations of analog copies made. Intermixed with a lot of other arty digital "facts".
It's FUN finding these things. Because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And when the parts are flawed, the amazing whole is even moreso.
angryhippo which do you prefer -- classical concerts, or pop concerts?
the Other michael- I expect you are referring to a quiet crowd vs. a loud one. Time and place for everything.
I don't go to a movie theater wanting to hear Fratboy's low-IQ opinion three rows back designed to make his friends laugh. But I suppose that's my fault for wanting to see it on opening day rather than waiting a few...
really when it comes down to it, this movie is the godzilla of our time.
Godzilla was really a poignant metaphor over the collective fears of the atomic bomb, and the united states continued nuclear testing.
The cloverfield monster, assuming i'm reading the viral material right, was caused to grow large by a material that the slusho corporation found under the ocean by drilling. The soft drink ingredient made the monster grow huge.
High Fructose Corn Syrup. The A-bomb of our time.
Wow, when did Gibson morph into a grumpy old man intent on sucking the fun out of everything?
You know what's REALLY dumb about this movie? It's about a gigantic 6-legged monster tearing the hell out of Manhattan and devouring hipsters! I mean, COME ON!!
#72 - You weren't paying attention. In the last second of the film, the monster's origin is revealed. The corporation in the viral marketing is the company for which the lead works.
HYMIETHEROBOT, unlike other people here, I guess, I'm not trying to defend an aesthetic. I'm not saying that other people should be as nitpicky as I am (heck, I don't want to be as nitpicky as I am, but I'm powerless to stop).
I don't believe aesthetics can be defended in any rational, universal way. But I do believe that a mindset can be explained. My goal here was never to say "Cloverfield is a bad movie, because..." It was to explain who certain people, who look for a very specific experience from a movie, might be deeply troubled by what seems to others to be a trivial issue. And that those of us who feel that way are not necessarily trying to show off how smart we are.
I also don't think it's fair to expect a consistent logic to what sort of details bother people like me. When I explain how I think, and bring up detail X that bothered me, inevitably someone says, "Well, you didn't seem too bothered by Y, and that was a much bigger goof." And they grin as if they've just laid a big gotcha on me.
To me, stories are like meals. You might hate a certain three-course meal, because the soup is a little off. It's silly for me to say, "You hated the WHOLE meal because you didn't like the SOUP?" You're going to have the reaction that you have, and it's going to be different from my reaction. Maybe it just so happens that you get great pleasure from soup -- when it's well cooked -- whereas for me, it's just a prelude to what I'm really waiting for: the main course.
When someone gets hung up on a small item -- an item that seems small to us -- to me, the most rational thing we can say is, "That's too bad. I got great enjoyment out of the movie. I'm sorry you couldn't."
It's stupid to tell them to stop worrying about a small detail. They probably can't help it.
According to Wikipedia, the monster had lain dormant for several millennia util a fallen sattelite awakened it. And if Abram's concept is "an immature creature suffering from seperation anxiety", imagine what it's "mature" parents would look like! That was the story line in the giant monste clasic "Gorgo": People think they've dealt with the "Giant" dinosaur, until his much bigger Mom shows up to flatten London. Fun old flick with middling effects.
gobo @ #22
I review movies in advance routinely. Thereby I avoid wasting time and money. To tell you the truth, I can't remember ever being wrong although I am sure I must have been pleasantly surprised once or twice.
Reviewing any art is necessary. It is how one finds something they can appreciate.
Evidently it is also how teenagers release angst.
And if you think it is all relative, bear in mind that the vast majority of movies are a liability that Hollywood pays for with obscene profits from the few that make it. Also the vast majority of art galleries, restaurants and bands fail early.
haven't sen it yet, but the glimpses of spoilers I have seen make me think the monster was lifted from a Calvin and Hobbes illustration. Am I right?
"#72 - You weren't paying attention. In the last second of the film, the monster's origin is revealed. The corporation in the viral marketing is the company for which the lead works."
I was, I saw the object fall in the end. According to a manga that ties in, this was a satellite, the creature was already around at the time this satellite fell if i'm remembering the other viral material correctly. The satellite was a nice touch tying in the other material.
88 comments and counting. Nice to know what gets people talking. Recession? Class Warfare? No! Misuse of grammar in a popcorn movie? Storm the castle and boil the babies!
Just a casual observation about my spoiled generation. Don't get your hate on.
Grumblebee, I completely agree with your last entry. No critique, commentary or analysys is likely to alter anyone's enjoyment or lack thereof. Our experience is ours alone,flavored by countless subtle differences.But if there are detractors there are going to be defenders, or, as some "obscure physicist" once said "For every action there is a direct and opposite reaction." (Just trying to maintain the science theme here.)
"Recession? Class Warfare?"
really thats the best you can come up with? With all those people starving and dying of aids in africa and you cite economic and class issues?
my point being, you can sideline any discussion with the "Why do you care about X when Y is worse?" game. if you want to talk about Y, why not go somewhere where people are talking about Y?
Here it comes... I'm just observing the sheer number of posts about this topic. Why don't I go somewere else to discuss? I'm ALWAYS on those places and BB and the discrepancy between those posts and these was just notable to me. Forgive me for breeching some rule of yours by stepping out of the box momentarily.
No judgements, CPT. Don't worry, your lifestyle is totally safe.
Details create verisimilude, or the illusion of verisimiltude - in film as in fiction. Whether Gibson is right or wrong about this particular detail, he is undoubtedly right to be thinking about it. However, there is a tendency in some SF to sacrifice other literary qualities - style, psychological depth etc. - to world-building.
Here's another angle: I don't know how many of you folks work in the collaborative arts. I work in the NYC theatre community. Over the years, I've learned that some artists care much more about small details than others.
Once, when I was younger and used to assistant-direct, I pointed out a tiny, easy-to-correct flaw to the director. To my surprise, he said, "If that's what the audience is paying attention to, we're sunk." And then he didn't fix the flaw. It would have taken two minutes to fix it. As someone who obsesses about details, that mindset is totally alien to me.
So I think people like Gibson do a service by pointing out that there ARE viewers out there who care (and notice) the small stuff.
As I wrote in my long post, I'm not very interested in playing the blame game. I don't care about blaming (or exonerating) artists. But pretending that I do for a second, I can relate to an artist who tries his best to get the details right and fails every now and then. I can't relate to one who doesn't care about the details or scorns them.
When I watch movies by the real greats -- Kubrick, etc. -- I feel a great well of trust falling over me. I know I'm in the hands of a mind that attends to every detail. Those guys fail, too. But I know that they really try, that they really care, and that I'm less likely to be continually bothered by sloppiness. I am much better able to sit back and enjoy the ride.