Mr. A
Super Moderator +
But Cloverfield had the same purpose of all movies: to make money and promote the people involved...
PS: It achieved both, BTW.
Not So Recommended Thread
- Thread starter Overmind One
- Start date
But Cloverfield had the same purpose of all movies: to make money and promote the people involved...
PS: It achieved both, BTW.
G
Graybrew1
Guest
But Cloverfield had the same purpose of all movies: to make money and promote the people involved...
PS: It achieved both, BTW.
I apologize , I misworded what I meant, the storyline had no purpose. Everybody died to absolutely no avail.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Sometimes, such is life, though. Not everyone will pass on in a cool and heroic manner, having a neat catch phrase as the last words they utter.
For a mindless movie, I found it enjoyable. I didn't find it was too filled with cliches or stereotypes. It was more of a "regular people at the wrong place, wrong time" kind of movie.
There are lots more...
In particular, SyFy shows some of the worst movies ever made on a regular basis. Example include:
Dinocroc
Supergator
I am Omega (oh buddy is this one bad)....
Annihiliation Earth (utter dreck - watch Marina Sirtis destroy the Earth through utter stupidity)
And I agree 2001 is SLOW and also lacks any coherent plot - I guess the line on this movie is true that its 60's popularity was due more to the viewers being stoned than any inherent quality. Ironically the sequel (2010 starring Roy Scheider) is much better - it actually has an understandable plot.
And also I would add 2012 - fancy SFX aside this film falls flat on its face in the characterization and plot departments - the exact things we rip SGU over. Consider:
1) The Protagonists are really, really dumb. Had their advice been followed nobody would have survived. Meanwhile the antagonist (Anheuser) is the one making reasoned and logical decisions that ultimately are the only reason there are survivors. Put in SGU language - picture Scott and Chloe as our heroes and OUR Rodney McKay as the antagonist.
2) Whoever designed the arks must have been chain smoking the bong while doing it. The engines cannot be started unless a loading door is shut? And why on earth is the loading door in the stern BELOW THE WATERLINE (in other words where it can never be used after launching)? And it's powered by fossil fuels when they have no idea how long they have to sail in it? Why not nuclear powered?
This film reminds me a lot of the Star Wars prequels that Red Letter Media ripped apart effectively.
In particular, SyFy shows some of the worst movies ever made on a regular basis. Example include:
Dinocroc
Supergator
I am Omega (oh buddy is this one bad)....
Annihiliation Earth (utter dreck - watch Marina Sirtis destroy the Earth through utter stupidity)
And I agree 2001 is SLOW and also lacks any coherent plot - I guess the line on this movie is true that its 60's popularity was due more to the viewers being stoned than any inherent quality. Ironically the sequel (2010 starring Roy Scheider) is much better - it actually has an understandable plot.
And also I would add 2012 - fancy SFX aside this film falls flat on its face in the characterization and plot departments - the exact things we rip SGU over. Consider:
1) The Protagonists are really, really dumb. Had their advice been followed nobody would have survived. Meanwhile the antagonist (Anheuser) is the one making reasoned and logical decisions that ultimately are the only reason there are survivors. Put in SGU language - picture Scott and Chloe as our heroes and OUR Rodney McKay as the antagonist.
2) Whoever designed the arks must have been chain smoking the bong while doing it. The engines cannot be started unless a loading door is shut? And why on earth is the loading door in the stern BELOW THE WATERLINE (in other words where it can never be used after launching)? And it's powered by fossil fuels when they have no idea how long they have to sail in it? Why not nuclear powered?
This film reminds me a lot of the Star Wars prequels that Red Letter Media ripped apart effectively.
I was able to accept and like Cloverfield for what it was. It was set up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla" and imo it worked very well. I didnt like it when I first watched it, but I have since watched it several times and it has grown on me. They did a good job with it! And as Mr. A pointed out, it did make money and it also promoted the people who created it to a position of respect in the Industry.
I was able to accept and like Cloverfield for what it was. It was set up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla" and imo it worked very well. I didnt like it when I first watched it, but I have since watched it several times and it has grown on me. They did a good job with it! And as Mr. A pointed out, it did make money and it also promoted the people who created it to a position of respect in the Industry.
Yep. One JJ Abrams who went on to resurrect Star Trek brilliantly.
Mr. A
Super Moderator +
I was able to accept and like Cloverfield for what it was. It was set up as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla" and imo it worked very well. I didnt like it when I first watched it, but I have since watched it several times and it has grown on me. They did a good job with it! And as Mr. A pointed out, it did make money and it also promoted the people who created it to a position of respect in the Industry.
Yes, good point! :beckettu:
G
Graybrew1
Guest
It must be some flaw in me but I just cant stand a movie when everybody dies.had one person made it i would have felt different. I just felt very let down by the end.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Have you seen "The Professional" with Jean Reno? IMO, one of the best movies.
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
2012 was waaaaaay to poltical for me- Anheuser ....come on who didn't automatically put Busch after that???
Didn't the arks, at some point, drift into a W formation when they collided?
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Agreed, wholeheartedly. :beckettu:
I absolutely loved the movie but disliked the bridge and hated engineering. They could have gone less Apple Store with the bridge and a little more 24th century with engineering. Using a brewery to give it that retro factory look was pretty stupid, IMO. It kind of threw Trek into a retro-futuristic look that I think it shouldn't have done.
G
Graybrew1
Guest
I also loved star trek 09.the other is just my personal preference.
G
Graybrew1
Guest
Didn't Portman's character survive?
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
Ok, you got me there. But the hero and everyone else died.
S
Stonelesscutter
Guest
Jean Reno.
Great actor.
About Cloverfield...
It sucked!
Though I didn't mind that everybody died.
If that is indeed the case coz I watched it a long time ago and apparently didn't care enough for it to remember.
Great actor.
About Cloverfield...
It sucked!
Though I didn't mind that everybody died.
If that is indeed the case coz I watched it a long time ago and apparently didn't care enough for it to remember.
Mr. A
Super Moderator +
Exactly my thoughts! But "Apple Store"?... "Brewery"?
Nope sir, you and GB are wrong. Not everybody died. The good guy survived: the monster!
2012 was waaaaaay to poltical for me- Anheuser ....come on who didn't automatically put Busch after that???
I didn't really see that. And the arks didn't drift into a W when they collided. Really the film didn't have a political angle for once.
I was commenting more on the problem that the person cast as the heavy in the plot is the one making the reasoned choices that enable there to be survivors while the heroes are really dumb (as in Scott and Chloe dumb).
Bluce Ree
Tech Admin / Council Member
I wasn't kidding about the brewery. Check it out:Exactly my thoughts! But "Apple Store"?... "Brewery"?
http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/star-treks-engineering-deck-brewery/
G
Graybrew1
Guest
Me no like the big bad monster. Maybe it is a girl thing. LOL