You know, I’m just glad to be working again, especially with a class act like JJ Abrams.

You know, I’m just glad to be working again, especially with a class act like JJ Abrams.

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Cloverfield is a great name for a monster movie. It’s so resonant with horror. King Kong; Godzilla; The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms; Cloverfield. It fits right in. If this movie is a success, no doubt we can expect a slew of giant monster films with names like **Pine Ridge Crescent ** and Middlevale.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I would call Lake Placid a creature feature horror film. Scary without having to call it Attack of the Giant Crocodiles.
It’s told from the viewpoint of somebody’s video cam?! That means they can lop 80% off the effects budget, and the audience will need some dramamine to ward off the vertigo. Bah. Cheepnis!
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
My nomination for creepiest marine parasite is Sacculina.
…
[/QUOTE]
That’s horrifying! :eek:
From his link:
thanks for the nightmare fuel.
Jeez, Zombie-Crabs? ugh.
[QUOTE=Baker]
Well, I would call Lake Placid a creature feature horror film. Scary without having to call it Attack of the Giant Crocodiles.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. On the other hand, **Lake Placid ** wasn’t a giant monster movie, just an “impressively large animal” movie. A giant monster movie deserves a giant monstery name!
Besides, the real sigificance of the title Lake Placid was the aura of subtle unease that it added to the film, as viewers were kept in a continuous state of subconscious anxiety wondering why the lake in the movie wasn’t actually named “Lake Placid.”
[QUOTE=anamnesis]
Part of me is hoping they buck the trend in overzealously applying CG effects and show as little footage of the menace as possible. Given the “amateur handheld” look of the film, that might be an easy excuse to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Or, alternatively, they could take a blockbuster-sized CGI budget and apply it to just a relatively small number of scenes, so that those scenes look friggin’ perfect.