Cloverfield - dear god that sucked (spoilers)

Cafe Society
101

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
See, there’s the rub: in a universe that tries for realism, giant monsters can’t exist, period! Giant monster movies necessarily take place in an alternate reality. No matter how realistically the movie may have been filmed, the events which occur therein are still outright impossible, and the story remains entirely within the realm of fantasy.
[/QUOTE]

Your argument is a zero sum and it doesn’t have to be. I think there’s room for creating an alternative reality and still adhere to the rules of physics. To create a world where people act realistically and still have a freaking huge monster in it. That you can bend the rules and let it walk on land, but still be able to be wounded when carpet-bombed. I don’t think you have to say, because I’ve created this reality were monsters walk the earth, I also have to toss away every law of science; because I bended this one.

You can of course and that’s the right of the creators; but I don’t think I have a responsibilty to buy into all of it, just because i allow for one aspect of that alternate reality.

Let me ask you a question, let’s say when the monster eats HUD, instead of HUD dying, he punches his way out of the monster’s head, killing it…waves goodbye to his dumbfounded friends and rides of a winged horse, that magically appears…roll credits. The End.

I would like to think you would have a problem with that; even if you accept that you were watching an alternative reality, that you suspended your belief; that all the things you’ve written about being in the realm of fantasy..but I also wouldn’t have a problem if you didn’t.

Just because a person accepts one element of a film; doesn’t mean they have a responsibility to accept everything else in that reality as well. There’s nothing wrong with doing so; but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a line in which you’re not willing to cross, if it doesn’t work for you.

YMMV…of course.

102

Could you elaborate on what bugged you about the geography, Zebra? I live in New York as well, and I didn’t think that it was too wacky. But I also haven’t seen it in months.

103

[QUOTE=holmes]
Your argument is a zero sum and it doesn’t have to be. I think there’s room for creating an alternative reality and still adhere to the rules of physics. To create a world where people act realistically and still have a freaking huge monster in it. That you can bend the rules and let it walk on land, but still be able to be wounded when carpet-bombed. I don’t think you have to say, because I’ve created this reality were monsters walk the earth, I also have to toss away every law of science; because I bended this one.
[/QUOTE]

And how’s that work? Here’s my response to your movie:

"It was carpet bombed and it was only wounded? That’s complete and total bullshit. Obviously, and organic being being bombed that way would be completely destroyed. Either make it some sort of technomagicbabble bullshit that makes the beast immune, or kill it. Otherwise you’re just jerking around.

Having it “wounded” is just idiotic. Furthermore, its a huge logical hole. If the military could wound it with an air strike, why don’t they just do a couple more and finish it off?

This movie sucked, and it insulted my intelligence."

-Joe

104

OK,

Well the party is somewhere in the area of Chinatown, so far south that the Brooklyn Bridge is their logical choice for walking off Manhattan.

Girlfriend leaves party and returns to her dad apartment. IN THE TIME WARNER CENTER (59th and 8th Ave) located at Columbus Circle. Now, it doesn’t seem to take too much time from when she leaves the party, to when the monster appears. Not enough for her to get back uptown, but I’ll give them that. (Google maps says it is 4.4 miles or 22 minutes to drive)

They go to the BB to cross, because Clovie is tearing up Downtown, near them. While on the BB, boyfriend gets the call from Girlfriend that she is hurt in her apartment (Columbus Circle) Up to this point, Clovie has been downtown, exclusivly, they flee Clovie to get to the bridge. Then Clovie hits the bridge itself. How and why did Clovie run all the way up to Columbus Circle and then, apparently, knock over one side of the Time Warner Center, then run back downtown, go underwater and hit the BB? All of that had to take place in only a few minutes.

Then there is the scene in the subway. Two things bugged me here. One, the sudden, “Here, let me turn on the camera light!” followed sloppily by “Here, let me turn on the camera Night Vision so we can rip of Aliens”

Of course, one could walk all that way, from pretty far downtown, to Bloomingdales, but not without encountering loads of other stations and places to exit the tunnels. The movie presents it as the ‘next stop’. The subways are also remarkably clean and free of debris that one would trip over. Between the rails is smooth clean concrete.

The 4, 5, 6 or the N, R, W stop at Bloomingdales. ON the street, from the Manhattan side of the BB that is 4.1 miles. How fast could you walk 4 miles in the dark? Granted part of that was running in terror, but how far could you run in terror, in boots like the cute spunky girl? At least they could have stolen some sensible foot wear for their walk at some point.

Then we come to the ones that really bug me. The rest of the action is relativly close to each other neighborhood-wise. But…
So they come out of Bloomingdales and head over to the TWC to get the girl. Fine, They encounter no other survivors in the TWC, only she is left behind. We see Clovie taking the route he must have taken to get there hours earlier to damage this building and along the way, he is damaging the buildings that he just passed without hurting earlier.

OK so they have the girlfriend, now they are going to the helicoptors to be evacuated. Where in NYC would you land many helicopters to evacuate people? Where near the TWC would you land helicoptors? Anybody who knows NYC and Helicoptors would reply Central Park. Perhaps the great lawn or Sheeps Meadow or any of the other open spaces where whirling helicoptor blades wouldn’t be a big problem.

Where does the National Guard land their Helicoptors. Why Park Avenue at 39th Street! Just south of Grand Central Terminal, this street is cleary shown in the final sprint to the helicoptors. That’s the place to land helicoptors! Right between tall buildings where cross winds whip up all the time and the ground isn’t even very level. So they flee down from TWC (59th and 8th) to 39th and Park. (about 1.5 miles) How fan can you cover a mile and half with a wounded person? I can’t recall how much time they gave the kids to get the girl and get back but I don’t think it was enough.

Then when they take off, even though Clovie was RIGHT THERE near the take off point, he is suddenly trudging back up 8th ave AGAIN, as he gets hit by the stealth bombers.

Then the pilot of said Helicoptor, surly notices Clovie going near him. Does he turn away or climb? No he does not.

105

See, i find this interesting. It can’t be tough enough to resist being killed outright by the carpet-bombing, that would be bullshit…but being magical that’s ok.

We can’t suspend our reality long enough to allow that it could be wounded…maybe unto death by the weapons…that’s would be insulting; unrealistic. We can suspend it to allow for the creature to walk on land, for it to leap in the air, for it smack the head of the Statue of Liberty halfway across the Island,…insert your <nitpick> here; but its being wounded, but not killed outright is just an insult to our intelligence.

Well anyway, I wasn’t trying to convince anyone who enjoyed the movie that they were wrong to do so. Someone mentioned that they found the creature’s indestructability troubling and I agree; hence my posts; and this is the Cloverfield “sucked” thread.

YMMV…of course.

106

[QUOTE=holmes]
insert your <nitpick> here; but its being wounded, but not killed outright is just an insult to our intelligence.

[/QUOTE]

Sure. Did you see the video of the of the whale being blown up on the beach? Did it look like that would only “wound” the whale?

Oh, and what, did the Military run out of bombs? If it can be wounded by a bomb, it can obviously be killed by one, too.

See, nitpicking is stupid.

-Joe

107

They didn’t drop the final payload until the end of the film and the monster was covered in smoke and debris…and I think everyone thought it was down; before it lunged at the copter.

Intact.

Correct?

So the army didn’t need to ‘run of out bombs’, they didn’t use them until the end. The creature lunges, smacks the copter down we lose our POV.

I say the creature could’ve been wounded, at that point and was just so freaking big and tough it wouldn’t die right away, it would need several bombings to do it.

But that’s me. You’re comfortable with it being able to withstand it; okay.

And no, I don’t think nitpicking is stupid. I think it’s interesting to see what other people like or don’t like about films.

YMMV…of course.

108

So Abrams is saying that a) it was a baby b) it died, and c) the splash was not the monster but a satellite that woke it up? i guess we are gonna be getting a very pissed off mama in the sequel.

109

Yeah, that’s the plot of Gorgo I was referring to upthread.

110

Jeez next you’re going to tell me that Godzilla couldn’t have been created by radioactive fallout. You don’t go into a Harry Potter movie complaining about how magic does not exist. You don’t go into a giant monster movie without being able to suspend your disbelief that giant monster can exist. And in the giant monster genre they have to be pretty close to indestructable or else the first PVT Joe Snuffy that shows up with a big gun will be the hero and end the movie about 10 minutes in. The reason for the movie was to make a film in the same genre as the old Japanese monster movies but turn it on it’s side. They made it an American movie, not a remake and changed the perspective. If you can suspend your disbelief for Godzilla and enjoy it you should be able to do the same for this movie. If you didn’t enjoy the monster movies of your youth than you really had no reason to watch this in the first place.

111

[QUOTE=DigitalC]
So Abrams is saying that a) it was a baby b) it died, and c) the splash was not the monster but a satellite that woke it up? i guess we are gonna be getting a very pissed off mama in the sequel.
[/QUOTE]

None of which happened (or was explained) in the movie so it didn’t happen. If there is a sequel he may decide something very different when it comes to putting pen to paper.

112

Why are you guys taking this personal? I don’t get it. I think I’ve explained my rationale here; without telling anyone they don’t have reason to see the fim if they don’t agree with certain aspects of it.

I’m sorry, i didn’t realize there was a rule entering a thread entitled **Cloverfield - dear god that sucked **and was expected not to say why it sucked…for me.

I am suitably chastised…

113

I don’t see where anyone was taking anything personal. You expressed your opinion. Others expressed how they disagreed. I did not find it to be a great movie, but I did enjoy it. I just don’t understand the idea of going to a big giant monster movie and not liking it because you find big giant monsters to be unbelievable.

114

[QUOTE=holmes]
Your argument is a zero sum and it doesn’t have to be. I think there’s room for creating an alternative reality and still adhere to the rules of physics. To create a world where people act realistically and still have a freaking huge monster in it. That you can bend the rules and let it walk on land, but still be able to be wounded when carpet-bombed. I don’t think you have to say, because I’ve created this reality were monsters walk the earth, I also have to toss away every law of science; because I bended this one.
[/quote]

The monster itself is already a massive violation of everything we know about physics. It should not, and indeed, in the real world, cannot, exist. Not just be unable to move, but exist.

Therefore, the monster’s presence tells us that this is not the real world. In this alternate reality, we do not know how bombs & bullets affect this particular giant monster, without some input from the denizens of this world. We only know about this world what the movie tells us about it. And, in this particular world, bombs are not sufficient to kill the monster. It’s really as simple as that. Those are the rules for this alternate reality.

That would depend entirely on the setup. In the case of this movie, the bombing established that while it could be affected (it did drop under the initial bombing, after all), it could not be destroyed by conventional bombs. I don’t have a problem with that; Godzilla and friends pull the same stunt in shrugging off massive firepower, so there’s a precendence for giant monsters to be nigh-invulnerable.

My point, however, is that appeals to biological reality fail when applied to giant monsters. They are already, in their mere existence, violating numerous biological and physical laws. This is true of Godzilla, rhedosauruses, giant flying turtles, three-headed monsters from other planets, and our subject here. Therefore, to argue that bombs “should” be able to hurt it is missing the point, in my opinion. That it exists and violates everything we know about biology and physics (and probably chemistry and several other scientific disciplines, as well) to me says that we cannot make any inferences about how it should react or be affected by anything, beyond what we are shown on the screen. What matters is internal consistency. If it is said to be bomb-proof, then we shouldn’t expect a lone grenade tossed by the hero to kill it, for example. It really doesn’t matter why or how it manages to be bomb-proof, because it’s not a real creature. If it is meant to be a 300’ tall city-destroying behemoth that is seemingly indestructible, then I don’t have any problems accepting that, as long as it’s played consistently. That’s all I’m saying.

115

I just watched Cloverfield over this past weekend, and it made me ANGRY. Here’s the thing: for those of you with normal vision, the ShakyCam might have been annoying, or brilliant, or sickening, or whatever; for me, it made the movie essentially invisible. My husband was sitting next to me on the couch, enjoying every minute, and meanwhile here’s what I got out of Cloverfield: a tree… someone’s elbow… the sidewalk… pretty girl… streetlight. I really, really wanted to see this movie, and it was incredibly frustrating not to be able to make out any of the plot at all. I had to leave the room after about 20 minutes, because it was so pointless for me to even sit there.

116

[QUOTE=Red Barchetta]
^ Curious, because from what I’ve read, Cloverfield appeared to be pretty accurate with the geography.
[/QUOTE]

Except for a couple of imaginary subway stations and buildings, I do not recall anything outrageous about the geography in the film either.

117

Cloverfield was the suckiest suck that ever sucked! I didn’t mind the shaky cam at all. I like monster movies. Heck, I even liked Blair Witch! At least in Blair Witch they gave us an idea of what the monster was and as the film went along we learned more about the monster and how it operated. When the movie ended and everyone in the theater got up to leave we all kind of looked at each other and said, “So, that’s it?” I have just as much understanding of the monster now as I did before I knew the movie existed. I wanted to know what it was, where it came from, why it was so damn pissed off, etc. They even had a perfect opportunity to explain some of that with the army general in Bloomingdale’s but just left it at “We don’t know what the hell it is so we are just trying to kill it.” Great, that is very realistic and all, but I wanted to know more about the creature and why it hates my fair city so much. When I left the movie and other people asked me what it was about I really didn’t know what to say. “It is a big thing that destroys a bunch of stuff and then gets bombed.” is a poor movie plot to say the least.

118

[QUOTE=pbbth]
Cloverfield was the suckiest suck that ever sucked! I didn’t mind the shaky cam at all. I like monster movies. Heck, I even liked Blair Witch! At least in Blair Witch they gave us an idea of what the monster was and as the film went along we learned more about the monster and how it operated. When the movie ended and everyone in the theater got up to leave we all kind of looked at each other and said, “So, that’s it?” I have just as much understanding of the monster now as I did before I knew the movie existed. I wanted to know what it was, where it came from, why it was so damn pissed off, etc. They even had a perfect opportunity to explain some of that with the army general in Bloomingdale’s but just left it at “We don’t know what the hell it is so we are just trying to kill it.” Great, that is very realistic and all, but I wanted to know more about the creature and why it hates my fair city so much. When I left the movie and other people asked me what it was about I really didn’t know what to say. “It is a big thing that destroys a bunch of stuff and then gets bombed.” is a poor movie plot to say the least.
[/QUOTE]

He was a Lt Colonel. No generals to be found. Kind of the whole point of the movie. It was “What would it be like to see a monster movie from the POV of the guys you see running from the monster?” The other type of movie has been done. It starred Mathew Broderick.

119

[QUOTE=pbbth]
Heck, I even liked Blair Witch!
[/QUOTE]

Well, there’s your problem.

120

[QUOTE=Zebra]
but how far could you run in terror, in boots like the cute spunky girl? At least they could have stolen some sensible foot wear for their walk at some point.

[/QUOTE]

That’s what killed it for me. No one but no one asked, ‘Why not have her in ballet flats or combat boots? It’d fit the character and make it more believable when they walk a hundred freaking blocks.’ Monsters are one thing, but every time the camera caught a glimpse of the ladies’ shoes I couldn’t help but scoff.