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
the latest
latest episodes
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.
It's not that I have a problem with moderators posting anything, just the implication that one's being a moderator means that their subjective opinion should weigh more heavily. Posting as an ordinary commentator removes the air of this implication, and this is still my suggestion.
Also, I don't think my post carries any "ire" with it, as someone suggested. I think the word I used was 'tacky'.
"Forgive me for breeching some rule of yours by stepping out of the box momentarily."
I wasn't aware that your particular approach was stepping outside of the box. as I said. It's a pretty common tactic to raise yourself above what is being discussed. But don't worry karma will ensure that the next time you're discussing what to eat for dinner someone will sideline you with guilt over the 5 million dead people in the Congo conflict.
"No judgements, CPT. Don't worry, your lifestyle is totally safe."
Blog lifestyle? Talking about the subject at hand lifestyle? My sexual preference? You're using cheap tactics to make other people feel like bad people for not talking about grown up stuff. Theres no other way to take your statement. But its a cheap tactic that had no business being used in this thread.
You're amazed how many people are talking about this? Check out IMDB, theres millions of people talking about... movies! can you imagine people talking about movies when all this other stuff is going on?
since when was this movie supposed to be set in the "future?" it's set in the past actually (if you look at the gadgets the characters use and advertisements in the subway, etc.).
but yes, i saw that and thought it was stupid because it was. there was no need to say "formerly known as central park." because the next shot showed central park.
it's not so much about the accuracy of a DOD document, it's about having faith in your audience having the ability to put together context clues.
the movie is a good movie for average american viewers to see because it is not structured like a traditional blockbuster with a nice drawn out conclusion. and for that it should be praised, there's no need to rip on it because it's not setup like a book.
afterall... IT'S NOT A FREAKIN BOOK!
I'm considerate of details too. As a writer, producer and DGA director I've spent countless hours shooting footage, working on scripts and buried in the edit bay. So I contend that this opening line, whether you like it or not, was hardly brought on by inatention to detail. It was a very deliberate choice to sacrifce bureaucratic realism for a swift dramatic hook. Some of us agree with that choice, some don't, and others couldn't care less.
HymieTheRobot, i agree with your final assesment 100%, but looking at the story itself, what would be the best way for the tape to be labeled.
Assuming the damage is so severe there isn't a central park anymore, should the tape refer to where the camera was found in terms of the grid co-ordinates, a title that is no longer applicable, or a description of what the place used to be. such as: the area that used to be central park.
and more importantly.what happened to central perk?
I thought that Central Park was now known as Cloverfield. That's what I got from the movie.
what would be the best way for the tape to be labeled?
It's sad to me that so often, these discussions turn into arguments. And they're not arguments about your interesting question, they're personality arguments whether or not so-and-so is too nit-picky or snobbish. Boring.
To me, it's much more interesting to delve into the details of a story and discuss it, talk about whether it worked or not, and what would happen if you substituted alternative details.
Even if the title-card is fine the way it is, it's amazing how many people take an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude to story elements. That's too bad, because story consumption is a form of play, and it's fun to play with stories.
And those of us who are artists can benefit greatly from such discussions, even if we dislike proposed alternatives.
In order to drive the discussion this way, we'd have to talk about what specific function(s) the title card fulfilled. How well (or poorly) it fulfilled them. And we could brainstorm alternatives.
Or we could snark at each other. This is the Internet, after all.
The title "Cloverfield" comes from a street here in Santa Monica. That's where Abrams's offices are located (And no, I've never met the man and have only met one person who worked for him, a post production staffer on "Lost".)It was simply a cover title to mislead entertainment reporters and bloggers. The others were "Slusho" and "Cheese". Ironically, that made "Project Cloverfield" a logical choice, because the Military codenames things for that very same reason. And if the opening line was truly realistic, it would simply read: "...the area known as Central Park." As # 61 Capt. Tim pointed out,no one would ever refer to it as anything else.
The first poster i saw was a shot of new york with the statue of liberty torn up, and a line of destruction into the city. Pairing that up with the name cloverfield and I pondered whether anyone thought about possible racist connotations regarding irish immigration in new york in the 1800's
The title card thing in cloverfield has bothered me since the first trailer to feature it.
Gibson's point seems to be about how the lack of clarity in the card takes you out of the movie rather than draw you in. If the card had simply flashed "RECOVERED FROM MANHATTAN ZONE" or "RECORDING 345 FROM THE NEW YORK RECLAMATION ARCHIVES" you get a sense of scale, a sense that something has clearly changed the very nature of New York (does it exist anymore, what's become of it?) to some huge extent. You get the dread and you can simply let that fester in the back of your mind while the monster movie unfolds. Too many words and it gets clumsy, distracts and even confuses.
Gibson's a master of using sparse text to give the audience a more clear mental image. Using the right words rather than more words. I can see why he pointed this out.
"It's sad to me that so often, these discussions turn into arguments. "
"Or we could snark at each other. This is the Internet, after all."
Duder. i said i agreed with the man on his final assessment, and then asked a reasonable question. Your snark detector needs calibrating. It should have pointed at my other posts, where i was being snarky at the other snarker.
Okay that was a wee bit snarky.
angryhippo -- got it in one.
I'm still torn on the issue of talking in movies. There are some that cry out for more audience interaction, and some that request respectful meditation.
Generally, though, if I want to worship at the temple of cinema, I'd rather do it in a small gathering at home. When I want to celebrate the spectacle of movies, I want to do it with a crowd.
Your snark detector needs calibrating.
No it doesn't, though maybe my ability to write clearly does.
I wasn't accusing you of snark. I was "accusing" you of asking a very good, very interesting question.
Your snark detector needs calibrating.
No it doesn't, though maybe my ability to write clearly does.
I wasn't accusing you of snark. I was "accusing" you of asking a very good, very interesting question.
tim do bad.
tim sorry.
:(
Sorry about the double.
No worries. Grumblebee try to be clearer next time. :-)
Hey Gumblebee, I wasn't snarking either. I'm sorry if any comments conveyed that.
"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"."
That's hilarious. No, originally the film was untitled with only a release date, which was put on the early trailer as well as the posters. The name "Cloverfield" was simply the name of the co-producing studio that first signed on with Abrams. Interesting that people would imagine a reference to Central Park being renamed Cloverfield because clover grows in ruined soil.
I feel so superior, now.
HYMIETHEROBOT, I wasn't accusing you (or any other specific person) of snarking, and I probably shouldn't have said snark.
I'm just sad that so many conversations about art turn into "You're stupid, it's great... If you think it's great, you're the one who is stupid."
I'm not saddened by this because I'm wondering "why we can't all just be friends." I'm saddened because I think it's noise that keeps us from having the really interesting conversations.
But I realize that I'm battling with human nature, here. People define themselves through cats-vs-dogs battles. And many people don't have the vocabulary or experience to have in-depth discussions about story alternatives.
Right Grumblebee. It's why I have a problem with the overuse of profanity in movies, even though I curse like a sailor. It's a lazy writer's substitute for real dialogue. And not to heap more praise on "Cloverfield", since their motivation was simply to garner a PG-13 rating, but I'm glad they kept swearing to a realistic minimum.
Right Grumblebee. It's why I have a problem with the overuse of profanity in movies, even though I curse like a sailor. It's a lazy writer's substitute for real dialogue. And not to heap more praise on "Cloverfield", since their motivation was simply to garner a PG-13 rating, but I'm glad they kept swearing to a realistic minimum.
Whether or not you agree with Gibson's reaction to the opening moments of the film, what I find interesting is the absurd notion that quality SciFi is the exclusive provenance of writers. Gibson may craft his details impeccably (easily debatable), but for every "perfect" William Gibson, there are another 1,000 utter crap "native science fiction minds" that make worse errors. And 99% of those "native science fiction minds" who wouldn't make this "error" couldn't write a compelling, likeable story if they watched every popcorn movie for the rest of their lives.
Sounds like a bitter writer. Sorry. Kubrick's "2001" is better than Clarke's. James Cameron's "Aliens" is better than anything Heinlein every wrote. And "Cloverfield" will make more many than any science fiction novel this year.
Tim F., I largely agree with yo, but the best results come from a synergy of literature, film, and even fan-based involvement. That dates back to the magnificant friendship of Ray Bradbury, Ray Harryhausen, and their High School chum Forey Ackerman. And the whole thing coalesced with the popular Giant-Monster-On-A-Rampage movie "Beast From Twenty Thousand Fathoms".
Which reminds me, Hymie, what has Gibson done to improve SciFi movies and TV? Two of the stupidest, most unbelievable episodes of X-Files ever and "Johnnie Mnemonic"? A few more failed scripts... (Am I missing anything else?) Maybe Gibson's right after all. Even his "traditional mind" and keen eye for details turns to utter crap when he tries his hand at the visual medium.
"Did you hear the one about the starlet that slept with the writer?" Old joke that exonerates Mr. Gibson for any failed adaptions of his work. I think his best contributions to the visual arts are probably indirect, based on the way he's inspired and influenced so many writers, directors and producers. Some are luckier than others at navigating the morass of greed, stupidity and ego-driven madness that binds Hollywood.
I can see how Gibson could be absolved of guilt for "Johnny Mnemonic" but not the X-Files episodes. Of course, as the prophet of cyberpunk Gibson would find quotation marks more jarringly unrealistic than a hot chick with silly makeup and bad fashion sense hiding in a trailer from an AI shooting laser beams from outer space while she tries to upload her consciousness into the programming.
Ha! I remember that episode. I'm a huge "X Files" fan, and had the absolute pleasure of recruiting Mitch Pileggi to host a series I supervised in 2000. Great guy, with only a sperficial resemblance to Skinner, who he described as "Having a real stick up his..." Uh, Cory, Mark...can I say "ass" on this site?
Bill is arguably one of the masters of worldbuilding and he's pointing something that sticks out in a bad way and is explicitly a part of the effort to suck the audience into that world.
Hmm...City 17, the area formerly known as Latveria, Central Europe.
Hey Gordon Freeman! In the flesh! Haven't seen you in a long while man. Even though we're in a hurry and we have no idea that you were in cryostasis we're going to give you a complete expository talk about the past 10 years.
To bring it back to 9/11, Gordon i.e. the player is confused because no one would bother giving an expository history lesson to a soldier fighting in Afghanistan. You'd assume he knows why he's there. You probably have more pressing concerns, like that whitefaced asshole knocking on your door. (Combine Overwatch, I'm not referring to the troops).
The tragedy of versimilitude. If the whole goddamn premise is a masturbatory 9/11 monsutâ daikaiju story filmed like a viral video, then maybe you should spend more time on the realism than on your viral marketing bullshit. Oh, and isn't the whole point of viral marketing to give the film a sense of mystery through realistic methods like fake blogs etc. and suck people in?
So why fuck up on a simple text bumper and datestamp? Really doubt the DOD took the time to select Myriad Pro for a classified semi-censored non-watermarked video.
Its about at stupid as the GUI shown in shitty hacker films. Philosophical hackery aside, even the Wachowskis took the time to use actual hacking software in Reloaded.
THAT's the way to do it, and it ain't all that hard. It's just that people like Abrams don't care.
He's about as groundbreaking as Kevin Smith. This is the same dude supposedly bringing Star Trek out of the shitpile. 'Cause there's always going to be people who can't let go (Kevin Smith, his fans, Trekkies, Lost-ies?..whatever) and Abrams knows how to work the pole.
I hope he makes decent money and then goes away. I'll be over here hugging my DVDs of Aliens and waiting for James Cameron's next billion dollar film.
'Cause no one remembers or gives a shit about the Blair Witch Project.
anangbhai, i appreciate that you feel that way about it, but it just doesn't make it so. people have already made a reasonable leap of logic that would result in the video being tagged as it is. It was proffered by gibson as an attempt to sound futury, and it flat out wasn't. I can see it as an attempt to sound all govermenty or something. But it wasn't trying to be all sci fi. And i'll agree wholeheartedly that there are ways in which the premise of the movie falls down, but for me it remained entertaining.
the stuff at the beginning was at the bottom of the list at what was straining credulity.
Also, just so you don't lump me in as a non-discerning abrams lover, I don't like lost, I didn't watch alias, and i didn't care for MI:III
Me neither. I enjoyed transformers. I've watched it more than my lord of the rings that i paid too much for. Had no problem with the film. I believe it has set the bar for future crazy balls out action films for at least a decade.
Either way, I didn't buy the fake-ass DOD thing when it was in the trailers. I don't like Lost either, but Cloverfield is how lost should've been. Really hard to stretch mystery if you keep explaining it.
I think of the matrix as the product of a producer (the bad kind) watching blade runner and going, "If only it had kung fu in it" so I see Cloverfield as a producer (the really bad kind) watching Cameron's Aliens and going, "If only it didn't have realistic video interlacing, jerked like a modern home video camera that had its image stabilization turned off, and gave surprisingly non grainy results in a manhattan devoid of electricity, it would make for a really good film. Oh, and let's add some yuppies and a yuppie love story as well."
At least they didn't explain the monster's origins. I almost expected to see a post credits scene with the monster yelling, "ALL RIGHT! CLOSURE!" as he got nuked.
Like I said, no one remembers blair witch. Go transformers. I've never seen the original series btw.
Exactly who doesn't remember "The Blair Witch Project" Anangbhai? Personally, I don't read Bill Gibson, but I certainly know who he is and respect his place in contemporary lit. And as hooked as I am on "Lost", I couldn't stand "Alias", so I don't qualify as non-discerning Abrams fan either. And while "Aliens" is probably the greatest science fiction-action movie ever made, "Titanic" was a collosal drag. Therein lies the problem with condemning any director's entire output over a single film. Abrams is just getting started. He'll undoubtably release some turkeys down the road, but if I were you I wouldn't let my disenchantment with "Cloverfield" rule the future.
I wish that were so. Apart from Season 1 and maybe 2 of Lost, nothing that abrams has done so far has enchanted me in any way. Hey, he got my 10 bucks, i got a fairly decent but not all that great horror film jambalaya out of it.
It's like David Cross said, "I don't cum all over myself if the guy at the starbucks gets my order right."
Everyone went apeshit over Blair Witch, and everyone went apeshit over Cloverfield's viral marketing and the mystery of the monster. Now we're all wondering how Simon Pegg's gonna pull off Montgomery Scott.
I like to be drawn in, I like being suckered. See my above love-note to transformers. Funny, cause abrams worked on Armageddon and I hated that film.
I also drew comparison to Kevin Smith because their body of work is similar in the sense that they both used to be hot but after a while everyone realized that Smith is a one trick pony. Sure, he was hot potatoes back when, but he really doesn't like to tread new ground and he's content to sit and chew the fat and make money off of fans of his work.
Don't get me wrong, I have friends with producer credits on "Blair Witch", and I enjoyed it, but it's hardly a classic horror film, let alone a great movie. I just don't think anyone can deny it's influnce, for better or worse. I also hated "Armageddon", and agree with you completely re: Kevin Smith. What a huge disapointment. "Clerks II" almost drove me to immolate the "Dante" and "Randall" action figures on my book shelf in a ritual attempt to ward off future sequels.
Oh THAT was the detail that got ya Gibson? Not the 100 meter tall vertebrate tetrapod bopping its way around Manhattan? The absurdity of the physics wasn't a problem, not the biomechanics? For me, that was more of a stretch. But I thought, overall, the film was fun. The personal camcorder style POV kept me in the space with characters. I was engaged. I admit I made a deal with myself, before the film started, to not think too hard. But it kept moving and I wasn't bored and I went along for the ride.
It was a kick, it moved along, and it was a nice take on a theme we've seen half a hundred times before. Cripes. You better watch yourself. Next thing you know, you'll be on medication and analyzing the accuracy of the paleontology in Tremors.
Pass the popcorn.
I think there's a big difference between criticizing technical stuff that you know is wrong intellectually, like the fact that the monster's legs aren't nearly thick enough to support his weight, and criticizing social things relating to human behavior that "feel wrong" emotionally, along the lines of "that character would never say that." Criticisms of the first type can be pedantic if they're taken too seriously (although they can also be fun intellectual exercise), but criticisms of the second type I think are more valid because these sorts of human errors can be jarring, and can do more to ruin the viewer's sense of immersion in the world of the movie. And Gibson's criticism seems to be more of the social type than the technical type--I read him as saying that it "feels wrong" to have the document say 'the area formerly known as "Central Park"'. People today may refer to "Ground Zero" instead of "The World Trade Center", but given that everyone knows it used to be The World Trade Center, no one would write something like the area formerly known as "The World Trade Center", although they might write the same thing without quotes (on the other hand, when referring to some archaeological site that you wouldn't necessarily expect your audience to know the history of, you might say something like the area formerly referred to as 'Yautepec'). This felt off to me as well when I saw it, and in isolation of course it is pretty minor, but it sort of set the tone for the movie as a whole since a lot of the dialogue of the characters had a similar sort of artificial sound to me (unlike The Blair Witch, where the dialogue sounded pretty plausible). I enjoyed the movie, but it could have been even better if they had gotten more of these human details right.
I agree with Patrick at post 16 and I like his phrasing: "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".
It is lame, but lame in a because-it-really-would-be-this-lame sort of way. It would be cooler if it had said "The Killing Fields" but really, it takes a science fiction writer to name something "The Killing Fields". A bored government worker would call it, "Central Park" with quotations to help state the obvious, which is that it's not really "Central Park" anymore but he didn't have anything else to call it.
To me, little jolts of unconventional realism are what brings a show to life for me. The typical sci-fi conventions end up annoying me:
* Lasers that go "pew pew"
* Space ships that experience apparent friction when turning
* Main characters that are all awesome
* Background characters that are all worthless morons
* (etc)
I love to see these conventions broken. Firefly had no noise in space. Awesome. Battlestar Galactica had fighters that could fly along one vector and turn and shoot in another direction without executing an airplane type turn. Heroes season 1 brings forward a lot of main characters who are really pretty lame, but realistically so.
I'm trying to think of a show that didn't have lame background characters, but I always thought there should be one. Like why do stormtroopers have to all be so incredibly inept? Why is everyone on the Starship Enterprise totally, utterly worthless except for the bridge crew? Maybe writers call it "maintaining focus" but I often call it "breaking immersion". I get more immersed when sci-fi gets more real.
Klokwerk, that's why I think "Aliens" was such a terrific film. Every character seemed to be flesh and bone, every dialogue and action motivated, and real science provided the story's cohesive matrix. "Cloverfield" was really a "Disaster Film" and I don't see it as even attempting to be science fiction anymore than if Irwin Allen made it back in the '70s. This whole line of attack is akin to be mad at a cat for not barking like a dog. BTW: There was a place called "The Killing Fields" and it didn't need a Science Fiction writer to give it that name.It took the lives of one million Cambodians.
yer off by a million there
I think there's a big difference between criticizing technical stuff that you know is wrong intellectually, like the fact that the monster's legs aren't nearly thick enough to support his weight, and criticizing social things relating to human behavior that "feel wrong" emotionally, along the lines of "that character would never say that."
I have a lot of sympathy for this comment, because psychological/character gaffs tend to bother me the most.
But I think you're projecting your personal quirks onto everyone else. You're claiming that contrary to the non-character blunders can only affect one intellectually, so if someone complains about, say, a title cared, he's being pedantic.
While this may be the case for some people, it's not necessarily so for all.
Non-character blunders often slam into my gut, not just my intellect. I don't enjoy engaging with stories intellectually, anyway, so most of their effects on me are emotional.
If I'm watching a movie, and, say, there's a sound effect of wind and yet the trees don't move, I don't immediately think, "the filmmakers made a mistake."
Or rather, if I do think that, it's a sign that something is already wrong, because I'm thinking about the filmmakers rather than being immersed in the story, forgetting that it's made up.
So my initial reaction is emotional. It's exactly what my reaction would be in real life, if it was a windy day, but the trees and leaves were perfectly still. It's "What the fuck?!?"
Then, because I AM watching a movie and my mind is able to distance itself, I think, "Oh, yeah, it's just a movie. The filmmakers screwed up."
And then the bubble is burst.
Grumblebee,
Yes, yes, yes.
I go to a movie and I'm willing to work with the filmmakers to a point. I'm not looking for little blunders, but if they are big enough or stupid enough, I can't go along with it and I just plain feel offended.
One of the worst for me was in a Jurassic Park sequel where a character who was supposedly a scientist who had done fieldwork with lions hung a jacket stained with the blood of baby T. rex inside her tent.
Here's a situation where the filmmakers are not simply being sloppy, they are abusing their character and the audience too, because they are too lazy and just want to get the show on the road. Only it doesn't. It annoys and distances the viewer.
I guess the reason that the labeling of the opening shots didn't bug me is that bureaucracy leads to stupidity. I could totally see a gov't committee coming up with some idiotic new name for Central Park, especially if it was a group of military. And I wouldn't expect the names to be tied to reality at all.
I was willing to go along with Cloverfield because the initial premise was absurd. And by the time they got to a point that bugged (the rebar thing and yeah, then sprinting down the street like an olympian afterwards) I buckled in for the ride.
Do I think it was a fabulous movie? Nope. It was fun. The flaws didn't bother me too much. It was amusing and forgettable.
I go to a movie and I'm willing to work with the filmmakers to a point.
I'm curious about this statement. You're not the first person I've heard say some version of it. I'm not criticizing you. I'm sure it's a meaningful statement. It's just hard for me to understand. What sort of work are you doing?
If you don't notice a little blunder, that's one thing. Of course you're not bothered by what you don't notice. But you can't be talking about that. That wouldn't involve work.
Here are some ways I'm trying to parse your statement:
-- you notice the blunder, but since it's so small, you don't blame the filmmakers. After all: everyone makes little mistakes.
I totally understand this interpretation, but it doesn't really interest me. When I watch a movie, I'm not actively trying to assess blame or credit to the creators. I don't care about them. I just care about the story. An understandable blunder is just as bad as an careless one. Either is going to jar me out of the story-world.
-- you notice the blunder, but you do mental work to keep yourself from dwelling on it. You try to think about other things, etc.
I sort of understand this, and I guess other people are better at controlling their thoughts than I am. I'm pretty much going to think what I'm going to think. That doesn't mean I'm always going to dwell on a tiny error. It means I don't have any control over whether I dwell or not.
Bottom line, I'm not sure why you're working with the filmmakers at all? Do you view movie-going as a dialog between you and the makers?
If so, I sort of understand where you're coming from. If someone writes me a letter, and there a couple of typos in it, I'll "work with him" in the sense that I'll keep reading and trying to understand his meaning -- and I won't think he's stupid for making a couple of mistakes. On the other hand, if every other word is misspelled and all the sentences are grammatically incorrect, my patience with the writer will wear thin.
But for me, movie-going isn't a dialog. I'm not thinking about the filmmaker. I'm not having a conversation with him. I'm wondering what's going to happen next in the story. While watching "The Godfather," I don't care (or think) about Coppola's; I don't care about Al Pacino. I care about Michael Corleone.
good talk
@Grumblebee:
But I think you're projecting your personal quirks onto everyone else. You're claiming that contrary to the non-character blunders can only affect one intellectually, so if someone complains about, say, a title cared, he's being pedantic.
Well, I didn't just talk about character blunders vs. technical blunders, I talked about the broader category of errors related to "social things relating to human behavior" as opposed to technical blunders, and I included the title card in the former category. And I also said I had no problem with discussing technical blunders as a fun exercise, I just thought it'd be sort of pedantic to say that, for example, the fact that the ships in Star Wars made noise in a vacuum totally took away from your enjoyment of the movie.
I guess it sort of depends on the context of the movie and how realistic of a tone it's trying to set though, and also on whether the technical gaffes relate to a "fantastic" aspect of the movie or whether they're related to something we have more everyday experience with. For example, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to someone who was complaining about the characters' easy survival of a helicopter crash or being impaled than I would to someone who was making a big deal about the fact that the monster's legs weren't thick enough to support it, especially since the former type of unrealism feels a bit like "cheating" by the writers to help the characters out of a tough spot, while the latter is just an accepted convention of monster movies and the whole premise would pretty much fall apart if you tried to give the monster a realistic physiology. Similarly, SF stories often involve one central premise that may be fairly unrealistic, but then try to realistically work out what the consequences of that premise would be for the rest of the world.
I just thought it'd be sort of pedantic to say that, for example, the fact that the ships in Star Wars made noise in a vacuum totally took away from your enjoyment of the movie.
It wouldn't be pedantic to say the the noise took away from your enjoyment if the noise took away from your enjoyment. It would just be honest.
I do share your feeling that movie worlds don't have to share the rules of the real world. I tend to enjoy movie worlds as-long-as they're internally consistent.
Here's just a thought...what if the New York in the movie is similar, but not quite the same as our New York? Maybe (dare I say it?) it is an alternate universe? Ooh...where things aren't quite right by our standards? Where giant monsters exist? Chew on that, fanboys...
Every movie depicts an Alternative Universe: Endless fistfights but no missing teeth, 24 year-old police detectives, Sean Connery seducing Catherine Zeat-Jones...You get the point. I'm sorry Grumblebee, but I have to go back to what I said earlier. If that little title card, which is only arguably and not emphatically wrong, causes you that much consternation, I really don't understand how you can watch anything for 5 minutes without being distracted by some visual gaff or questionable choice in the script, performance or direction. That's not a put-down, but rather an honest bit of puzzlement on my part.
I have another comment and I'll leave it be. Cloverfield and The Mist have something in common. I think that they both show (effectively and sadly) what human beings do during horrific, stressful events. If you replace the giant monster with a full-scale terrorist attack, I think that you would see the same dynamics.
As I've explained to friends (who did not like the movie), Cloverfield is amazing for what it's supposed to be...a first hand account of a monster attack on New York City. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it. Period.
Minor, obscure errors in detail detract from a movie? Come on, these are the things that make movies more interesting. Look at the number of comments on this single article.
Yeah. What Deadfrogboy said.And done.
HYMIETHEROBOT, I understand your confusion, and I'm not offended.
Perhaps my stance will make more sense if you give up viewing me as a completely rational, consistent movie-watcher and view me more as an emotional one.
If there's a small error, sometimes I won't notice it. I'm pretty observant, but I don't see everything. Sometimes, whatever else is going on, before or after the error, will affect me so profoundly (in a good way), that the error, though noticed, won't make much of a dent in my immersion. Sometimes my bubble will be burst (as it was when I noticed the infamous helicopter shadow in "The Shining"), but what follows will be so compelling, I'll quickly sink back into the movie.
All I can say is that small errors CAN, at times, be problematic for me.
Here's just a thought...what if the New York in the movie is similar, but not quite the same as our New York? Maybe (dare I say it?) it is an alternate universe?
Sure, that's possible, but for me, that's an intellectualization which would come too late. While watching the movie, I get tons of clues that I'm seeing the real New York. So my default assumption is going to be that it's set in the city I live in (I'm a NYer) and I'll be jarred if some NY detail isn't right.
The fact that later, I can go back and justify the difference by imagining that the movie is set in a parallel universe, doesn't change my feelings WHILE I'm seeing it.
Minor, obscure errors in detail detract from a movie? Come on, these are the things that make movies more interesting. Look at the number of comments on this single article.
It's great if you find these things interesting. I DO like general discussions about story mechanics and aesthetics. But I don't like story errors. They're not interesting to me. I don't have fun spotting them.
Gotcha Grumblebee. Makes perfect sense. And since I'm done arguing FOR the movie, I'd like to bring up another visual gaffe: With all the New Yorkers in this string, did anyonyone comment that The Statue of Liberty's head was way too small? Didn't bother me, but I went to "Cloverfield" with a woman from Staten Island, and though she generally liked the movie a lot, that error really bugged her. Uh oh, did I just open a whole new can of worms?
I noticed that, too. Like a typical New Yorker, I haven't been to the statue since I was a little kid. So though it seemed way too small to me, I wondered if maybe I was misremembering the scale. I seem to remember that the actual head is big enough, inside, for quite a few people to roam around in.
The whole head effect, though cool, confused me in a bunch of ways. It looked like the monster was already in Manhattan before the head came crashing down. So what happened? It left the island for a minute, went back into the water, get behind the statue, knocked its head off, and sent it flying uptown?
But here's the (small, nitpicky) thing that bothered me the most: HOW did that guy get cellphone reception in the Subway? That was REALLY sloppy. They could have had him talk to his mom somewhere else.
>
YES!! That's the thing that really bugged me.
And I can totally see how a non-NYer would consider that a trivial, nitpicky thing to get annoyed by. But as one who has tried many, many times to get reception in the Subway, I can't help but see a scene like that and think "WTF?"
Or maybe they're just like my grandmother and put quotes around "everything."
Like items on a grocery list, or people's names.
you cannot derive a rule from one example (eg, "probably a sloppy army typist"). You need several examples for something to seem deliberate, otherwise people will think its an accident, even if it _was_ deliberate.
uh...hmm...er...nevermind
In response to Grumblebee #136:
"I go to a movie and I'm willing to work with the filmmakers to a point.
I'm curious about this statement. You're not the first person I've heard say some version of it. I'm not criticizing you. I'm sure it's a meaningful statement. It's just hard for me to understand. What sort of work are you doing?...
-- you notice the blunder, but you do mental work to keep yourself from dwelling on it. You try to think about other things, etc. "
That's almost exactly what I need to do. A mistake that falls in one of my fields of depth is as distracting as a physical blow, and takes an effort to ignore both the initial shock and then the sense of alarm, betrayal, or outrage that follows. The severity of the shock, and thus the mental effort needed to resist it, depend on my own constellation of fields which are of great value to me. In my case, they are genetics, animal behavior, medicine, strategy, and sports.
So the aforementioned downhill cavalry charge into massed pikes, for instance, burned me some. My strategy calculator says the sun in the enemy's eyes and breaking their morale was insufficient to overcome their strategic advantage. The mental reaction though was 'WTF... no, no, no.' and then to grope desperately for some assumption that would repair the damage. It didn't quite ruin the movie for me, but on every viewing I can't forget that scene is coming up and I'm relieved when it's over. I have to look away from the screen, mentally dissociate from the scene and just pretend that the orcs were so shocked that they didn't get their pikes grounded in time.
Labeling errors such as the Cloverfield sign just cause me a flinch and a raised eyebrow, easily ignored. However, when some story makes a fundamental screw-up about what DNA is for, I'll go into a hopping rage and never watch that thing again.
WOW, I was looking for a blog spot that could talk about all the different aspects of this awsome movie "Cloverfield", but instead I found what has to be the longest and saddest whiners blog on the web. You guys are really sabataging yourselves by setting your expectations to a level that is, to be quite honest,unreachable. Im surprised that any of you can find any movie enjoyable with such high expectations. I always say that you should enjoy the movie for what it really is and not what you want it to be. If you want a movie that is flawless and unbelievably realistic, then go and make one yourselves. Then you will understand what it feels like to have all your hard work and dedication ripped on by people with thier own high hopes and expections on a web page that much resembles this one. To all you sinics and critics; STOP WATCHING MOVIES, THEY ARE CLEARELY MAKING YOU MISERABLE!
Dont bother replying to me, I'm not comming back here. The people here make this place depressing.
Agnot
See it, or GTFO.
(yes, I totally missed this post the first time around)
#86 AGNOT
"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."
I can say with absolute certainty, that your way of viewing/enjoying/experiencing film/art is the very antithesis of mine.
I avoid any fore-knowledge of films, trailers are my bane. I avoid them like the plague.
Either I explore films or get news of "a great movie" through the grapevine.
I want to start at the start and be shown step-by-step what the director wants me to see. I want to be told a story. I want to be surprised or shocked. I love watching a film and then thinking, that is not what I expected at all.
I don't want to go into the movie thinking, "oh, when does the guy with the axe come into it?", "is this the bit where the aliens come?".
I don't want to know about aliens until the reveal, otherwise, what's the point?
I often wonder if directors aren't annoyed by promo rights, and how much (no matter how cleverly misconstrued) is given away in the trailer. Even to the point of DVD menus, I think the intro/menu on most DVDs gives me far too much information, just before I'm about to be told the whole story..
If I can help it, I don't even want to know the genre. If someone says, "there's this great moving, I think you'd like it", that's enough. Not one word more.
Also, I realize that's is overly pedantic to some, but it's how I like to experience the art.