Secret J.J. Abrams Trailer Debuting with 'Iron Man 2'
by Christopher Campbell; Cinematical
The teaser trailer for the film Super 8 will be attached to prints of Iron Man 2 this weekend. Excited? You've been waiting for this moment for over a year, after hearing about the film's announcement via the trades, through casting update after casting update reported on all the movie blogs, then after getting glimpses of ... wait, no, you've experienced none of that. Somehow Super 8 is a complete mystery to even those geeks who scour each and every site for info on every film at any stage of development and production. How is this possible? It's a J.J. Abrams production, that's how. Just as you'd never heard of Cloverfield before seeing its teaser ahead of Transformers, this latest Bad Robot film has been a secret up until now.
Well, maybe it's not entirely the first time you've heard of this. According to HitFix, Super 8 is rumored to actually be the Cloverfield sequel we've been waiting on for two years. Abrams revealed back in January that Cloverfield 2 was finally in some early stages of development, and its IMDb page currently lists it as a 2011 release. If you recall, one idea for a sequel was to have it set during the same night as the first film but from the perspective of another, unrelated character. So if Super 8 is indeed the real title, perhaps it refers to another document of the Cloverfield Monster attack, this one shot on a Super 8 camera. Does that mean the protagonist will be some artsy experimental filmmaker sill working with 8mm stock?
Or, maybe Abrams, his co-writer, Drew Goddard, and returning director Matt Reeves changed their mind and have made a Cloverfield prequel, set in the '70s and documented with that era's home movie standard, as kind of a nod to the pre-YouTube days of amateur filmmaking. Or, of course, Super 8 has nothing at all to do with Cloverfield and we're all going to be pleasantly scratching our heads this weekend after we buy tickets for some little movie called Iron Man 2 just to be able to see what this teaser entails. And don't think you'll be getting any leaks before Thursday night, because HitFix reports that this teaser is under lock and codekey until then.
Spoilers on the trailer.
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/vulture_exclusive_details_of_j.html
Cloverfield was pretty fucking awesome if you take away the pretty people and that idiot main character who risks not only his own life, but his friends as well just to save some piece of ass he's been seeing for a couple months.
I hope this movie is like Cloverfield but the main character is like, "Oh,shit! I need to rescue Suzie! She's hot. I gotta go back! Wait a sec -- she's not life and death hot. What the fuck am I doing? I can get another girl to have sex with me. I gotta get out of this city, pronto. There's a fucking monster on the loose!"
I liked Cloverfield, but don't have an interest in a prequel. I didn't mind the girl being rescued, but the guy who held the camera and did all the idiotic yapping should have been killed off early and somebody else shooting it.
Nothing to do with Cloverfield, which makes me happy.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/05/jj-abramss-super-8-has-absolutely-nothing-to-do-with-cloverfield/
That's too bad. Oh, well. I just hope it has something to do with aliens/monsters.
Or magic beans. We haven't had a good magic beans movie in a while.
We have the details on the spooky Abrams-Spielberg project
Source: Hollywood Reporter
What if Stephen King and J.K. Rowling brainstormed an idea together? Just how big would the potential audience be?
Cosmic.
Well, moviemaking heavyweights J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg began collaborating on a hush-hush project a year ago called "Super 8" that they concocted from discussions of their own early filmmaking experiences. Despite Bad Robot's Cheney-level secrecy, bits and pieces about the project (some right, some wrong) started bubbling up last week.
Well, I saw the teaser trailer last night, and here's what I can finally tell you:
Abrams has written the original script and will direct the film this fall for a summer 2011 release through Paramount, where Bad Robot resides. Spielberg is producing the project, along with Abrams and his producing partner Bryan Burk. The film will be in the $45 million-$50 million range.
It has nothing to do with "Cloverfield" and will be shot traditionally (i.e. not hand-held). It's potentially a huge movie for Paramount, despite its midrange budget, which is why it's got a slot during Paramount's already crowded 2011 summer slate.
The studio will have to fit it in with "Thor," "Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom," "Transformers 3," "First Avenger: Captain America" and the Abrams-produced "Mission: Impossible 4." (UPDATE: Paramount has shifted "M:i4's" tentative Memorial Day release date back to Dec. 16.) And "Star Trek 2" isn't expected until June 29, 2012, with an as-yet-unfinished screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof, so Abrams could still direct that after "Super 8" if he chose (which, technically, he hasn't yet).
But on to the trailer.
It's 90 seconds long and plays out with utter simplicity. I'll leave it to others to ruin the surprises for the multitudes flocking to see it run in front of "Iron Man 2's" midnight screenings tonight (the trailer is not actually attached to the "IM2" reels, though they are locked away together in combo-locked canisters as they're delivered this morning to theaters at 8 a.m.).
But it's straightforward, effective and very, very enticing. Abrams shot it independently of the actual film shoot about a month ago, and the Bad Robot team cut together the teaser while putting together his new NBC series "Undercovers" and the trailer for their November release "Morning Glory" over the past month.
In terms of tweaking audience appetite for absolutely having to see the movie, Abrams and Spielberg are masters. This quick, visceral and creepy tease of "Super 8" certainly does the trick.
What it doesn't let anyone in on is the plot of the movie or the rest of the context that we had heard actually generated the idea. Namely, the possibility that a group of kids in 1979 are playing around making movies with their Super 8 cameras (as Abrams and Spielberg did as kids) and accidentally capture something ... sinister, on film.
Now, despite all our requests, Abrams and camp have refused to confirm anything about the plot. Abrams has said he doesn't want to comment on this -- he'd rather maintain the mystery and let the images speak for themselves.
Fair enough, and certainly expected. So take all these plot descriptions you're reading around the web with a giant heap of salt.
But the project is being produced by Amblin along with Bad Robot. So if you can imagine the supernatural styles of current BR and early '80s Spielberg combined, you should have a pretty good idea of where all this is going.
Bad Robot's first feature project, "Cloverfield," was rolled out in a similarly out-of-nowhere fashion, its teaser also filmed and cut together independent of the movie shoot. That teaser was thrown on the front of "Transformers" when it hit theaters in the summer of 2007. That monster movie ultimately grossed $168 million worldwide for Paramount when it opened in January 2008.
But again, "Super 8" has nothing to do with "Cloverfield." And "Super 8" is a solo J.J. Abrams movie, something we've never seen before and something sure to play much bigger.
For added pleasure, if you want to get an explanation from Abrams himself about why he handles his creative life with such passionate protectiveness, check out this TED speech he gave two years ago about the Mystery Box.
As for "Super 8," we're all gonna have to wait another year until that mysterious train pulls into the station.
I love when JJ Abrams is doing shit like this instead of hacking it up.
This is at or near the top of my list for 2011.
Quote from: Stefen on May 07, 2010, 02:59:15 AM
I love when JJ Abrams is doing shit like this instead of hacking it up.
This is at or near the top of my list for 2011.
when is he hacking it up?
working with cruise was a calculated choice to show ppl he was in the big leagues. i wouldn't be surprised if his secretive shit brings the attention of malick, the wachowskis, and other ultra secret amazing ppl so they can hang out and trade like secret handshakes or someshit.
I expected more from this trailer...
for example, something.
They've already started with the viral marketing. At the end of the teaser, there are letters that flash before the title comes up, which spell "Scariest Thing I Ever Saw."
So, of course:
http://www.scariestthingieversaw.com/ (which was registered by Paramount)
Leads you to an old-school DOS type emulator and ends with it having to load a lot of data, which will finish loading on May 15th I think. It's clear that there's going to be a whole year of little clues leaking out, for those few who are into that sort of thing.
Quote from: Stefen on May 07, 2010, 02:59:15 AM
I love when JJ Abrams is doing shit like this instead of hacking it up.
This is at or near the top of my list for 2011.
The two movies he's done are great.
I wasn't feeling either of them. Star Trek just felt hippified. Haven't cared for his television shows either.
I'm super-duper excited for this though.
Quote from: Stefen on May 07, 2010, 05:16:40 PM
Haven't cared for his television shows either.
you just won the TV equivalent of the thread where you embarrass yourself with movies you haven't CARED FOR.
he's about as far as you can get from "hack". hacks are ppl who try to do what he does but without any real inspiration, hack is HEROES. Lost is the real thing. it's like saying Tarantino was a hack when he made Pulp Fiction when in fact he redefined what hack means by creating a new template for everyone TO hack. and no this doesn't negate my QT hate cos i admit his 90s output was genuinely brilliant.. before he himself became a hack.
in conclusion, this is your favourite film:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.answers.com%2Fmain%2Fcontent%2Fimg%2Famg%2Fpop_albums%2Fcov200%2Fdrc700%2Fc774%2Fc77470877um.jpg&hash=acd4a089466851f18248c1dc664fdd78ce5a48ec)
Quote from: P on May 07, 2010, 09:43:59 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.answers.com%2Fmain%2Fcontent%2Fimg%2Famg%2Fpop_albums%2Fcov200%2Fdrc700%2Fc774%2Fc77470877um.jpg&hash=acd4a089466851f18248c1dc664fdd78ce5a48ec)
Off Topic, I met Matthew Lillard at an Improv festival I was at in Phoenix. He was a super nice guy, said he was going to come see my troupe, took pictures with me and my friend, chatted us up for a bit, then my friend (for who-knows-what-reason) said "So, we do this thing every Sunday night where we watch really bad movies and make fun of them and last week, we watched Hackers.
ML said "But Hackers wasn't that bad... I've been in bad movies, but I kinda like that one"... awkward silence... "Well, it was nice talking to you guys"... he walks away.
Quote from: socketlevel on April 22, 2010, 04:14:49 PM
damn that's cold, and he was being nice!
Quote from: // w ø l r å s on April 22, 2010, 04:55:10 PM
Plus, you could pick a much worse Lillard movie than Hackers.
Hackers is still pretty cool in it's own right.
I have embarrassed myself by repeating a story, haven't I?
I feel like such a Hackers.
Trailer here. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/super8/)
what is it?
Aliens show up. Kids film it. Hilarity ensues.
Quote from: Reelist on May 11, 2010, 01:48:20 PM
what is it?
I went and saw Iron Man 2 this weekend with my parents. They live in the middle of nowhere and the closest movie theater is tiny and full of giant rednecks.
When this trailer came on, at the end, this woman announces with utmost certainty "It's Bigfoot".
Quote from: RegularKarate on May 11, 2010, 02:38:01 PM
When this trailer came on, at the end, this woman announces with utmost certainty "It's Bigfoot".
Off Topic, I met Bigfoot at an Improv festival I was at in Phoenix. He was a super nice guy, said he was going to come see my troupe, took pictures with me and my friend, chatted us up for a bit, then my friend (for who-knows-what-reason) said "So, we do this thing every Sunday night where we watch really bad movies and make fun of them and last week, we watched Harry and the Hendersons.
BF said "But Harry and the Hendersons wasn't that bad... I've been in bad movies, but I kinda like that one"... awkward silence... "Well, it was nice talking to you guys"... he walks away.
Quote from: Reelist on May 11, 2010, 01:48:20 PM
what is it?
A truck driver under the influence of magic beans drives onto the train tracks and crashes into a train filled with magic beans, spilling magic beans all across the countryside. Meanwhile, a boy and his estranged father go on an unrelated quest that ultimately reaffirms their love for each other. The title "Super 8" refers to the number of magic beans you have to eat before experiencing life-altering hallucinations. It's a romantic comedy.
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 11, 2010, 01:29:51 PM
Trailer here. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/super8/)
wtf? i hope JJ knows that Spielbey already has Oren Peli working on an Area 51 film..
and whatever is in that truck, it must be pretty stupid. why is it turning the wheel thing to open the door AND trying to smash its way through it? you turn the thing and slide it open.. idiot alien! also if it's so strong and half-smart why didn't it try to do that while the train was moving -- unless we're sposed to think the electrical wires jump started their baboon hearts.
also, i'm thinking if the title isn't a red herring the Super 8 is not just the shitty film being used but 8 super beings of some sort. maybe the aliens or the 8 douche bag kids who shoot the footage, or a combination of those things.
Useless compulsive approbation: This thread obviously > this movie. And seriously these last two posts are above the level of imaginative intelligence I've ever seen Abrams demonstrate, whose favorite work of mine is Joy Ride aka not a real fan (except maybe the batshit lunacy of Armageddon was intentional [...]), but I have begun to admire the wild speculation encapsulating his projects. I'm very serious when I say I wish the dude only produced and directed trailers.
Quote from: P on May 11, 2010, 08:57:05 PM
i'm thinking if the title isn't a red herring the Super 8 is not just the shitty film being used but 8 super beings of some sort. maybe the aliens or the 8 douche bag kids who shoot the footage, or a combination of those things.
Thats what they used to film those aliens in Roswell, am I right? I saw some movie Alien autopsy or something that tried to do it before.
You have to be all invested in Abrams work to get something out of it. Thats why he kind of falls under my radar, I let him come to me.
J.J. Abrams begins shooting 'Super 8'
Paramount to release pic in summer 2011
Source: Variety
J.J. Abrams has begun principal photography on Paramount's "Super 8" in West Virgina, with Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning confirmed in the lead roles.
Pic is a produciton of Abrams' Bad Robot Prods. and Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment. Spielberg and Abrams are producing with Bryan Burk.
Par will release "Super 8" in summer 2011.
Abrams wrote the screenplay, based on his original idea. Logline is being kept under tight wrap, except to say it is inspired by Abrams' favorite movies growing up, including some of Spielberg's.
"Super 8" also stars Ron Eldard, Noah Emmerich and Gabriel Basso, along with newcomers Joel Courtney, Riley Griffiths, Ryan Lee and Zach Mills.
Film is not a sequel to Abrams' monster pic "Cloverfield," as rumored by numerous bloggers.
J.J. Abrams' 'Super 8' gets release date
Paramount to release sci-fi pic on June 10, 2011
Source: Variety
Paramount Pictures has set a high-profile summer release for J.J. Abrams' "Super 8," which hits theaters on June 10, 2011.
Pic goes up against Universal's franchise installment "Fast Five" and Warner Bros.' romantic comedy"Something Borrowed."
"Super 8" is written and directed by J.J. Abrams. He's producing with Steven Spielberg and Bryan Burk.
Logline is being kept under tight wraps. There's been some speculation that film will pay homage to some of Abrams' favorite movies a kid, including Spielberg titles.
Cast includes Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, Ron Edlard and Noah Emmerich.
This has probably shot up to the top or near it on my most anticipated list thanks to this 30 second spot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9pZmxPzC1A
Abrams seems to be doing his best Spielberg impression, but in a good way since he's emulating late 70's, early 80's Spielberg, when he used to be awesome and not the current businessman Spielberg, where he's only out to make a buck.
I knew it, that was Kyle Chandler!
looks so freakin rad
Quote from: Stefen on February 07, 2011, 01:15:54 PM
Abrams seems to be doing his best Spielberg impression
Yeah, its like E.T. crossed with War of the Worlds
New trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtn5dm9uYi8
This. Looks. Awesome.
Yep. I. Can't. Wait.
As someone said (http://twitter.com/joblocom/status/46218312681664512) on Twitter: The Amblin logo itself sparked some kind of Pavlovian nerd response within me.
Looks like an amazing throwback of Spielburg of the 80's. Sooo sooo yummy.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intvfunhouse.com%2Fintellivisioninc%2Fbox%2Fburg-100.jpg&hash=b25fb58e9a356652482e4638c3379649b95f1835)
Nice to see a throwback inclination, but I never thought the missing element of the early Spielberg films was absurd special effects. This is going to have a really great story to make the homage effort feel valuable.
I'm not the biggest Abrams fan (I've called him a hack many times here), but I think the guy knows how to tell stories and come up with good and interesting ideas.
This trailer just gives me that feeling I used to get as a kid. I don't know if that has anything to do with the Amblin connection or what. I remember when I first saw the Jurassic Park trailer when I was 10 years old and I just thought it was the greatest thing I had ever seen in my life. Just that sense of wonderment and awe. This trailer has that same feeling. Like, nothing about it really feels dangerous, just really, really exciting.
i also loved seeing the Amblin logo, this movie certainly knows who it's marketing to. Is Amblin still even a legit company? Kyle Chandler looks to be in Coach Taylor mode, which means this movie will probably make me cry more than once.
the girl at 1:42 really knows how to walk
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/06/review-super-8-is-this-summers-indiana-jones-4
Review: Super 8 is this summer's Indy 4
Wow, you guys. Did I miss the memo that Super 8 was a kids movie? Because I must admit, with all the hype, the super-secret teaser trailers, the squeals of the Lost fanatic, no-spoiler gestapo (relax, I'm not going to ruin anything for you, freaks), I never heard the part where JJ Abrams was making a really expensive Disney Channel movie. Because that's what Super 8 seems to be. Either that, or a painfully earnest, non-comedic parody of 30-year-old Spielberg films where the hot new element is "LENS FLARES!"
All you really need to know about Super 8 is that at one point, it commits the cardinal sin of "YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU!" But blah blah plot summary wank fart (*snooze*). Okay, so there's this group of kids. Each of them has a paper-thin gimmick disguised as characterization. For instance, there's a fat kid who says "Mint!" every five seconds, an ugly kid with braces who loves fire, a pussy who vomits, and a protagonist who keeps his dead mom's locket with him wherever he goes. All interactions between them seem designed to make sure you don't forget their central conceit. EXAMPLE:
(*external threat*)
"Have you seen my mom's locket?"
"MINT!"
(*explosion*)
"AWESOME!"
(*puke, cry*)
(*audience laughter*)
Occasionally they do this with additional stock characters in the background, such as a secretly-deep hot girl, an alcoholic father with a terrible secret, a used car salesman with a bad toupee, the slutty older sister from That 70s Show, a stoner, bratty twins, a stern cop, etc. Anyway, the main group of annoying kids is hard at work helping the fat one direct a zombie movie, and one night, they're filming a scene at a train station between Deep Hot Girl and Vomit Pussy that Lardass says he wants to time to coincide with a passing freight train. He says he wants the train in the shot for "production value," which I assume means "unusable audio." While they're shooting, Dead Mom zones out, probably thinking about his dead mom again, and as he takes his eyes off Vomit Pussy's terrible acting, he sees a pick-up truck about to play chicken with the oncoming train. The train hits the crappy pick-up truck and as movie physics would dictate, derails while its cars break apart and explode into a billion flaming pieces. After the crash, the now-dirty-faced (this will become a theme) wiener kids, once they finish vomiting/praising the explosions/gripping their dead-mom lockets, survey the damage. The One Without A Gimmick says "What the..? A truck can't derail a train!"
To which another one glibly responds, "Yeah... well apparently it can!"
HAHA, GOOD EXPLANATION, JJ! SPEEDY DELIVERY, A+ WRITING, WOULD EXPOSIT AGAIN!
As I assume you already know, there's an alien-monster (NO SPOILERS!) on the train, which JJ tastefully keeps hidden for the first two-thirds of the movie, so that we might experience the full range of predictable interactions between grating clichés, and keep the trained seals in the audience clapping their flippers together every time the ugly kid says something about fire. From there, some evil soldiers come, the wiener kids fall in love, and a wild-eyed science teacher drives his Delorean around the moon or something, I wasn't really paying attention. I think at one point they pulled off the alien's mask and it was really Old Man Jenkins from the abandoned amusement park. HE WOULD'VE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT, TOO, IF NOT FOR THAT FAT KID SAYING 'MINT' A LOT!
This is the film currently tracking above 80% on RottenTomatoes? I'm so confused. Does watching someone hammer decades-old clichés make you feel young? Give you a child-like sense of wonder and glowy nostalgia? Because it makes me feel old and bitter, as the realization sinks in that I've developed both critical faculties and life experience since I saw ET. GAH, DREW BARRYMORE USED TO BE SO HOT! I can only assume the Super of the title refers to what a Super-Supercut of bad movie clichés this whole thing is. Besides the aforementioned "YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU", we've also got:
"YEAH, GO AHEAD, LEAVE! JUST LIKE YOUR MOTHER!"
"IF HE COULD TRADE PLACES WITH HER, I KNOW HE WOULD!"
"BOB, I'M TELLING YOU THIS AS A FRIEND: YOU NEED A VACATION. HUG YOUR KIDS."
"IT'S A MESS OUT HERE, SIR!"
That scene where one kid backs into something, turns around to see that it's a corpse, opens his mouth to scream and his buddy has to cover the first kids' mouth and stifle his scream to keep them from getting caught.
"What's a zombie?"
Okay, that last one isn't a cliché per se, but only because it's so insanely idiotic that it doesn't get used very often. But aside from the clichés, the plot is just really dumb and nonsensical. I'd tell you all about it, but I know the Lost pussies would cry their no-spoilers tears and short out my server. SPOILER ALERT: Super 8 sucks. The only thing remotely interesting about it is the alien-monster, who quickly becomes as hackneyed as everything else once we learn anything about it. In its absence, we're left with painful, after-school-special-level drama between the wiener kids, all set to a twinkling piano that I wanted to tear apart and shove up JJ Abrams' ass one key at a time.
But aside from that, I really liked it.
Grade: D
Haha, awww.
Well a friend of mine saw it and liked it, and it's doing well on The Rotten Tomatoes Dot Com. But I think it'll be fun to keep this review in mind when I see it.
Are there spoilers in there? Not gonna chance it!
Quote from: S.R. on June 08, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
Are there spoilers in there? Not gonna chance it!
nope. unless you want your childhood sense of wonderment spoiled. MINT!
The things that article bashes Super 8 for are the same things that make the movies of our childhood so awesome.
Rewatch The Goonies. It's full of stuff like that. Doesn't mean it isn't awesome. Because it is.
Still mad stoked about checking it out.
Wasn't excited until this review. It does sound like a live action cartoon. That's what Hollywood is right? It's been proven by science that Hollywood filmmakers suck at drama so why shouldn't this movie be ridiculous fun?
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 07:06:20 PM
Wasn't excited until this review. It does sound like a live action cartoon. That's what Hollywood is right? It's been proven by science that Hollywood filmmakers suck at drama so why shouldn't this movie be ridiculous fun?
Werd. That's what I'm hoping for is fun. It's been like 10 + years of corny ass fanboy movies and raunchy comedies during the summers. I'm glad to see something fun and exciting is coming out. Something new, even.
I wasn't being sarcastic and 100% agree.
edit oh you said werd not weird. High five.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 07:06:20 PM
Wasn't excited until this review. It does sound like a live action cartoon. That's what Hollywood is right? It's been proven by science that Hollywood filmmakers suck at drama so why shouldn't this movie be ridiculous fun?
That's what Michael Bay defenders say too.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 08, 2011, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 07:06:20 PM
Wasn't excited until this review. It does sound like a live action cartoon. That's what Hollywood is right? It's been proven by science that Hollywood filmmakers suck at drama so why shouldn't this movie be ridiculous fun?
That's what Michael Bay defenders say too.
Love Michael Bay.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 07:24:10 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 08, 2011, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 07:06:20 PM
Wasn't excited until this review. It does sound like a live action cartoon. That's what Hollywood is right? It's been proven by science that Hollywood filmmakers suck at drama so why shouldn't this movie be ridiculous fun?
That's what Michael Bay defenders say too.
Love Michael Bay.
Cool. I'm interested like the next guy in this movie, but because it's J.J. Abrams at the helm. I remember when Signs was advertised as a Speilberg 70s throwback and everyone was excited. The movie got nice reviews but it was an exercise in filmmaking and not memorable. The Goonies is memorable and fun, but it's hard to recreate that timeliness. I don't know if it can be done. I also don't know if I can be 12 years old again and fall into that same kind of wonderment. Mainly, I'm not trying to have any expectations for this movie.
I know what you mean. It's weird (not werd) because film is the most fun artform ever but the tendency is to forget this and become only serious about it. I guess as we grow old and our lives become serious. But film is fun! I know you know this because I know you like Lester.
No need to identify a slightly skeptical reminder as the person being "too serious" or needs reminder that "film is fun". A person only interested in Hollywood entertainment could have written that last post by me. There needs to be a little grain to the salt of this thread.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 08, 2011, 08:16:44 PMThere needs to be a little grain to the salt of this thread.
What?
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 08, 2011, 08:16:44 PM
No need to identify a slightly skeptical reminder as the person being "too serious" or needs reminder that "film is fun". A person only interested in Hollywood entertainment could have written that last post by me. There needs to be a little grain to the salt of this thread.
What trouble I have with tone! Are you being deffensive? Because I meant "don't even have to tell the guy who likes one of cinema's funnest directors" not "this guy won't even get it he's too serious."
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 08, 2011, 08:16:44 PM
No need to identify a slightly skeptical reminder as the person being "too serious" or needs reminder that "film is fun". A person only interested in Hollywood entertainment could have written that last post by me. There needs to be a little grain to the salt of this thread.
What trouble I have with tone! Are you being deffensive? Because I meant "don't even have to tell the guy who likes one of cinema's funnest directors" not "this guy won't even get it he's too serious."
Haha, no worries. Sometimes when I hear a few buzz words in a reply, I project a tone.
And JB, I rushed the thought of that sentence. My previous clarity remark disproved quickly.
Oh I see. That kind of inductive logic is really harmful to a conversation.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 08:31:41 PM
Oh I see. That kind of inductive logic is really harmful to a conversation.
Speed bumps happen. Some of us aren't so friendly to each other.
I can't tell when knives are being wielded. I'm a blind man in an alley.
Is this a bromance brewing or not? :ponder:
It's hard to tell.
Fuck I don't even know what the conversation is anymore.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 08:35:06 PM
I can't tell when knives are being yielded. I'm a blind man in an alley.
Yea, but even if you get stomped on, it's just an internet forum. It doesn't mean anything.
I'm getting fucking stomped? I'm being Barry Eganed? Lame.
Quote from: Merrill Errol Lehrl on June 08, 2011, 08:54:28 PM
I'm getting fucking stomped? I'm being Barry Eganed? Lame.
"If" you ever do, and if you hang around long enough, it will happen.
Yeah, everyone who spends enough time here eventually takes their ball and goes home and vows "never to come back again!"
Every single main poster on this site has taken an extended break of some sort.
It looks fun. The review was fun to read, though.
I love Filmdrunk, but there are a lot of movies that I disagree with Vince on. Atonement was good, damn it!
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on June 06, 2011, 01:39:21 PM
What?
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on June 08, 2011, 12:02:32 PM
What?
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on June 08, 2011, 08:28:01 PM
What?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fbowling_turkey_xxx_card-p137639372085884300q0yk_400.jpg&hash=b50b132ad0d528d4c9aa69150ee3aa0b75155477)
Quote from: polkablues on June 09, 2011, 12:25:21 AM
I love Filmdrunk, but there are a lot of movies that I disagree with Vince on. Atonement was good, damn it!
atonement was pretty terrible
Oh shit, sorry. My mistake.
This thread taking off with whatever before we have even seen the movie reminds me of the old days of xixax.
yeah i love filmdrunk too but vince's reasons for disliking things can often be as snobby as the snobs he crusades against. or just random/part of a made-up narrative. he didn't like 127 hours because [i forgot cause it made so little sense.. google.. ah yes,] he thought danny boyle was "seeking approval" by making it.
having said that, i did find the children in this movie mostly annoying from the extended clip i saw the other day, and i know it's damn near impossible to get great performances from children, let alone a child ensemble. but my hopes remain pretty high.
Quote from: pete on June 09, 2011, 02:00:59 AM
Quote from: polkablues on June 09, 2011, 12:25:21 AM
I love Filmdrunk, but there are a lot of movies that I disagree with Vince on. Atonement was good, damn it!
atonement was pretty terrible
I remember your complaints. I thought you read the film wrong.
I've lowered my expectations of this film based on what I've read (not including "film drunk" or whatever because I can't read that unfunny comedic copycat garbage), but I'm still very interested in it.
I think we need to take credit away from Abrams though. He needs a failure so he can chill out on the lens flares and find better screenplays. He's got some talent for damn sure, he just needs to breathe and rethink his approach then he could really be great.
I'm going to see Attack the Block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0gm7dHKKc) tomorrow night. it's looking more and more like the movie Super 8 wants to be.
Quote from: pete on June 09, 2011, 02:19:01 PM
I'm going to see Attack the Block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0gm7dHKKc) tomorrow night. it's looking more and more like the movie Super 8 wants to be.
If Super 8 wanted to be set in a world where black people existed.
Quote from: pete on June 09, 2011, 02:19:01 PM
I'm going to see Attack the Block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0gm7dHKKc) tomorrow night. it's looking more and more like the movie Super 8 wants to be.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on June 08, 2011, 12:02:32 PM
What?
Quote from: S.R. on June 09, 2011, 03:38:12 PM
Quote from: pete on June 09, 2011, 02:19:01 PM
I'm going to see Attack the Block (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0gm7dHKKc) tomorrow night. it's looking more and more like the movie Super 8 wants to be.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on June 08, 2011, 12:02:32 PM
What?
ATTACK THE BLOCK is nothing like what SUPER 8 is (or is striving for). It's got a Spielberg vibe, for sure, but it's not the awe-and-wonder-innocence Spielberg (which is what SUPER 8 is after), but more like the Spielberg who let other directors handle the movies that were just too far outside his developing brand for him to handle himself, even though his fingerprints are all over them.
They don't seem very much alike to me, either. Other than involving children and aliens/monsters. Super 8 seems to be doing what it wants to do pretty well.
I really want to see them both.
Having seen it, I was right about my above comparisons. However, Super 8 would make an AWESOME double feature with Attack The Block. In that order.
I'm not sure I get the hype about this film. I was discussing it with a co-worker and they said the reason they weren't interested in seeing it was that the trailer seemed just like an M Night film.
Can someone explain why I should be excited about this (other than just saying it's JJ Abrams)?
Quote from: Sleepless on June 10, 2011, 10:52:12 AM
Can someone explain why I should be excited about this (other than just saying it's JJ Abrams)?
bc these niggaz are up in dis!!!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.star-kidz.net%2Fpics%2Fresume%2FMillerTwins1.jpg&hash=415a5126fb31edffbf5ff3a0470c7f7c3f191391)
I think this is the first film I've seen at the theater since Inception?
I've wanted to see Tree of Life and Midnight in Paris, but it's not an option yet.
For me the CGI will keep it from being a classic kids' film like the aforementioned Goonies or ET. Sure those had special effects of the times, but something is infinitely more believable when it's handcrafted than computer generated in my book. Sloth is pretty ridiculous, but it's not too far-fetched from the real Elephant Man. Even the cheesy looking pirate ship on the horizon at the end is so much more endearing to me..
The director kid made me think of Buzz from Home Alone 1 & 2.
Fanning 47 impressed me after seeing her interview on Leno as a spastic teenager. She really did a good acting job in comparison to her true self.
But man, that train wreck was just ridiculously over the top for me.
p.s. Don't leave immediately when the credits start.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on June 09, 2011, 08:08:03 AM
Quote from: pete on June 09, 2011, 02:00:59 AM
Quote from: polkablues on June 09, 2011, 12:25:21 AM
I love Filmdrunk, but there are a lot of movies that I disagree with Vince on. Atonement was good, damn it!
atonement was pretty terrible
I remember your complaints. I thought you read the film wrong.
yes and I remember your defense being "yeah [whatever I didn't like about the film] was the point" ish. I don't mean to hijack this thread though sorry.
This was a mostly fun film, but once the kids found out what was going on the revelation wasn't that interesting, and it was sort of on autopilot from then on. But the performances were terrific, and the first half or so is really exciting. The film reminded me of what it felt like to be a kid making little movies with my parents' camcorder.
It was an enjoyable Summer film. Thought the kids were pretty good throughout, and I laughed quite a bit more than I was expecting too. I wasn't a fan of the train wreck scene.
Spoilers
The train wreck scene was too much and I would have lessened some of the later action scenes because the kids started to look like stand ins for action heroes, but I talked to another friend who saw it and she said the film was too slow. Guess it's a sign of the times.
However, I loved the movie. J.J. Abrams best decision was to let the movie just develop and keep the main explanation parts of the alien subplot until the far end - a little before the climactic chase sequences. Even when some parts of the alien story was starting to develop, more things between the two young characters were in greater focus. You can't make much interesting out of an alien story in this vortex so I loved how slimmed down it was. A love story between two young leads is predictable, but the film had enough within each scene that I never thought about the moving plot parts. The movie is definitely better than the Goonies. No question about that. And unlike any recent summer movie, I also want to own it.
Ha, we are truly opposites.
Oh, the disappointment. Usually I would take responsibility for this, knowing full well how silly it is to rest an entire summer of film's enjoyment on the shoulders of one film. That's what I had done with "Super 8," but I didn't act alone. My accomplice was none other than J.J. Abrams, co-creator of "Lost," creator of "Alias" and director of two previous summer blasts "Mission: Impossible III" and 2009's "Star Trek." I enjoyed both of those films but there was nothing in them to believe that Abrams should be placed up on the level with Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker who knew how to build a better, smarter summer movie. But "Super 8" was different. This would be an original story, with a script by Abrams himself and no franchise limitations to hold back his imagination. Early footage looked great and the filmmaker employed his notorious veil of secrecy on every aspect of the project with details about the film coming out only recently. On top of all that, Steven Spielberg was producing the film and it seemed to have just a spark of that classic Amblin feeling. How could it go wrong?
Within the first minute of the film, I knew something was off and it never quite settled for me again. The very first lines of dialogue are spoken by an incidental character describing the relationship between the lead Joe Lamb (15 year old Joel Courtney) and his father ("Friday Night Lights" supercoach Kyle Chandler). The character described how it was going to be tough for Joe now that his mother was gone since his father wasn't used to being around much doing the day-to-day raising a child. It was the first line of dialogue spoken in the film, a line that any audience member would have figured out within minutes had it not been spoonfed to them with dialogue. And I'm not sure the film ever really recovered. That's not to say the film's heart wasn't in the right place. "Super 8" succeeds in establishing it's young characters as believable, enthusiastic kids. Elle Fanning in particular delivers a performance just completely beyond her years and compared to most summer spectacle that goes a long way.
Unfortunately there was that story to get to, the one that had been kept hidden from the public for so long. The film is basically about a group of kids who are making a zombie movie and witness a train crash that happens to be carrying an alien that's now wreaking havoc on their small town. Yep, that's basically it. If you're looking for a twist, or mystery or something to distinguish this from the dozens of other monster movies of it's type, it isn't the story. And that's fine, "Cloverfield" (which Abrams produced) had a similar hush-hush marketing campaign and the film was still an entertaining spin on a found-footage Godzilla movie. "Super 8" is disappointingly flat. Most of the attack sequences were staged poorly and featuring completely tertiary characters like "the gas station attendant" that drained them of their suspense. (The film could have really used producer Spielberg stepping in to sprinkle some of his "Jaws"/"Jurassic Park" magic on the suspense sequences.)
And when it was all over all I could think was "that's it?" That's the story you wanted to tell? The raw ingredients were all there for a classic but the script seems like a first pass. I've tried to imagine if I would have felt the same way about the film were Abrams name not on it and I think I would have. It's a solid C+ but I still believe he's capable of so much more. Most of the criticism I've read about the film has been that it's aping Spielberg too slavishly but having recently rewatched "E.T." I didn't find them to be that similar various surface details aside. The other easy mark is that there are too many lense flares but I hardly noticed them. "Super 8" isn't a bad film but there was no magic and certainly doesn't come close to capturing the wonder and awe of Spielberg's early films. And for a man obsessed with mystery boxes, he should have known better than to make one where the box was empty.
Quote from: modage on June 11, 2011, 06:10:00 PM
Ha, we are truly opposites.
Hah, it can be a good thing.
I thought it was really fun. Just a good time at the movies. It didn't have that sense of wonder that I would get when watching stuff like E.T. and The Goonies. It was a lot darker than I thought it would be.
Am I the only one who likes Abrams lens flares? Seems that way. I really like the way they look. :bravo:
Question for those who have seen it.
SPOILER (it's not letting me use spoiler tags. Says I don't have permission? :ponder:
What was the deal with the pets going missing? They just left but it never explained why.
On your last sentence Stefen, my friend complained about that too. For me, since the story isn't Nolan-like and has an explanation for everything, I just think Abrams wanted to let that be. No real need to explain something that didn't factor into the story much at all. But I do imagine an early cut delved into it more.
Its easy to be cynical and hate on a movie like this, but you can just as well surrender and enjoy it for the stuff it does right. I'm somewhere in between. That said, I do wish that there could be summer blockbuster about a bunch of kids making a movie, and not have it become the kind of movie they are trying to make.
Quote from: JG on June 11, 2011, 09:54:58 PM
Its easy to be cynical and hate on a movie like this, but you can just as well surrender and enjoy it for the stuff it does right. I'm somewhere in between.
GOD WILL SPIT YOU OUT
B-
This was Spielberg's "War of the Worlds", "The Goonies" and a Zergling creature from Starcraft all rolled into one! Fun movie overall. One of those good but not great summer blockbusters.
It was just nice to have something new. Even tho it's an homage to the flicks from the late 70's early 80's, it was just really nice to not involve a superhero or a reboot of something. I'll always support fresh things. :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: Myxo on June 12, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
Zergling creature from Starcraft
HA! Wasn't gonna see it before, but now i have to.
psh... more like Super Lame...
Hay-Ded Et!
I enjoyed the movie because I set my expectations lower after accepting that Abrams needs a good screenwriter and that wasn't happening this time.
The acting was great and the adventure-y parts were well shot, but the strings tying the two stories together were loose. I don't think it would have been that hard to strengthen the parallels between what was going on with the kids and what was going on with the town. SPOILER: Waiting until the end to reveal the obvious and poorly designed creature really hurt the story. Why does JJ think he needs to "surprise" people? Did he really think we didn't know what was going on?
Spoilers
I didn't mind your complaint, RK, because I thought if the audience would have known all along, I fear more of the story would have been paid to understanding the alien. He's not an integral part of the emotional story. In this way, all the end revelation did is explain some of the early weirdness in basic ways and help to support the finale. It felt like an adequate subplot mechanism for the plot.
BIG SPOILER
Once we know that the alien can E.T. (share an understanding with human characters), we know that's going to happen. Waiting until the end to have it happen makes it feel like a shitty "magical" solution to everything in the movie. Why does that get him over his mother? Why does him saying what he said to the alien make the alien not want to kill them all of a sudden? If the parallels between what he was going through and what the alien was going through had been stronger, it would have maybe been okay, but they weren't.
***SPOILER***
I think the main problem is that he's already seemingly accepting his mother's death, it's the father that needs to let go.
^ was that a spoiler response to the big spoiler?
Quote from: RegularKarate on June 13, 2011, 12:02:01 PM
BIG SPOILER
Once we know that the alien can E.T. (share an understanding with human characters), we know that's going to happen. Waiting until the end to have it happen makes it feel like a shitty "magical" solution to everything in the movie. Why does that get him over his mother? Why does him saying what he said to the alien make the alien not want to kill them all of a sudden? If the parallels between what he was going through and what the alien was going through had been stronger, it would have maybe been okay, but they weren't.
Spoiers
I agree with what Socketlevel says. The emotional resonance the alien has is very limited. Him simply wanting to leave and not be held prisoner mainly allows the children to identify with him and find their extra gear in bravery. In a general sense, it gets the boy to be more confident about certain things, but the situation was already getting him challenge himself anyways. When the alien touches people's hands, it gets them to change their opinions about the alien, but the alien does not affect any major relationships. The girl still cares about the boy and he cares about her but both are mainly dealing with uncertainty in their parents. The disaster scenario itself is what gets them to prioritize their interests and see beyond their past grievances.
Quote from: Pozer on June 13, 2011, 12:36:40 PM
^ was that a spoiler response to the big spoiler?
I didn't think it was, or i would have put a spoiler warning like i normally do. in any case i edited the post. If you haven't seen the film, I didn't ruin anything. My comment was in the child's performance and JJs direction.
sorry.
Spoilers
When the credits rolled, all I could think was "shouldn't they be more pissed about all the dead people?" There was a lot I loved about it, namely the Goonies-esque treatment of the kids. The jealousy issues between Joe and Charles were over as soon as they were brought up, and there were a few other scenes that felt missing from the final cut (was that the train car Alice was holding when she came home? did we miss a scene where he gave that to her?), but aside from that the kid actors were all very good. Elle Fanning was pretty fantastic as Alice, especially in that rehearsal scene at the train station where everyone stood speechless. Kyle Chandler's escape from the army base got the biggest cheer at my screening, which was a cool moment I guess but everything from there felt kind of rushed for me. Most of the monster attacks were pretty forgettable except for that final bus attack. In fact I'm surprised people were calling this a slow film because if anything I thought they should've scaled back several scenes, like the train crash and the last attack on the town where all of the tanks were going haywire. It just seemed rather silly that everything at the train crash was destroyed but the car didn't have a scratch on it.
These quibbles are pretty minor though, I thought it was a great time at the movies. Early Spielberg is something that even Spielberg can't replicate. You had a variety of factors working on all cylinders at that time. John Williams was doing his best work, practical effects were necessary, and audiences had more patience for character development. I applaud Abrams for trying to tell a patient, original story but what he's going for is lightning in a bottle. Film nerds who appreciate what he's doing will just complain that it's not as good (like i'm doing now) and casual audiences won't have the patience or understanding to really get it.
Loved the "film within a film" over the credits, nice Romero shout out.
Spoils.
Yeah, all the dead people kind of bothered me as well. It kind of gave it an edge that I didn't want it to have. I didn't want the creature to be dangerous, just misunderstood. When they're in it's lair and it's eating that limb, that kind of bothered me.
spoilies
hey, well a monster's gotta do what a monster's gotta do. I wish it was more vicious. I don't understand how it could turn from a mass killing machine to just a lovable extraterrestrial trying to get home at the end, wtf? It also really bothers me that none of those kids died. There were too many of 'em, we can't care about 'em all equally, knock 'em off. Kill the drunky too, and the stoner while you're at it. I guess I like my movies a little more straightforward.
Spoils
Did you ever see the goonies? damn man, let your heart soar! You wanted kids to die... dark days my friend.
Spoilers
THe 180 thing at the end wasn't handled very well. The monster just ate two people no more than 10 seconds before picking the boy up. Those other people weren't scared and innocent too? Everyone is sitting there watching his ship take off like it's the end of E.T., but E.T. didn't eat anyone before takeoff.
That stoner was on some strong weed.
May be old news to most of you, but I had never heard that Spielberg let a teenage Abrams handle his personal home movies after seeing that he won a contest in the paper. Have Spielberg home movies ever been included as DVD extras? Kimmel also showed a clip of one of Abrams' home movies.
SPOILS
Quote from: ddiggler on June 14, 2011, 10:20:46 AM
Spoilers
THe 180 thing at the end wasn't handled very well. The monster just ate two people no more than 10 seconds before picking the boy up. Those other people weren't scared and innocent too? Everyone is sitting there watching his ship take off like it's the end of E.T., but E.T. didn't eat anyone before takeoff.
That stoner was on some strong weed.
He ate them? I don't remember seeing that. I thought he just grabbed them and moved them to the side.
Spoilers
Well, you saw the monster eating one girl when they first went down there. You didn't see him eat the cop and the girl in hair curlers, but you didn't see them get out of the hole either. I assume they were either eaten or at least dead.
I was touched and exhilirated by this film. Been a while since that has geniunely happened. Made me happy and the amount of sentiment won me over. I fell in love with these character cause I knew each of them growing up. They were my friends. Made me really smile. This could have been made in the early 80's and without the special effects which took me out of it for a bit here and there. But, my god, this made me happy.
Thrills and chills galore!
Childlike wonder abounded!
Just don't think too hard.
SPOILERS
BTW, should people even be reading this thread now not expecting spoilers???
Okay, so I wasn't quite sure of a couple things in the writing, and that's what bothered me. Luckily, these things came close to the third act, so I wasn't completely hurt by the film's overall choices.
A) When the kids heard the monster could read emotions on the tape, why were they still afraid of it? I suppose you could say "people are dumb and only the kid with the dead mom wanted to take advantage of that" and there you have it.
B) The Monster's agenda was a little blurry. Eating people for no reason while simply trying to build stuff? What, did they find out his identity and try and tell his mom about his stealing habits or something? "It was like an animal, though!" sure, sure.
C) How did Dr. Woodward know the train was coming, huh? Why didn't he stop it before? Or did he just suck at stopping it?
I did like many elements too
A) Didn't play it safe with the kids' behavior
B) The main character was peripheral to the filmmaking game, but had a connection to film nonetheless
C) it was only set a few months after the death, so the incident was still vital to the characters from an emotional standpoint
D) The fact that if a Kid saw this and the Joel character was the one who stopped the Monster with a few short, terse lines that any emo-loving scene kid will be painting on their skateboards (that they don't have the commitment to try and skate with) from now until forever? That I actually like better than I thought I would. Thanks to a Kid, the monster became less of a threat.
You see, if more kids nowadays would use their BRAINS instead of just reacting and accepted that 'bad things happen', we wouldn't have as many dumbasses with guns trying to prove something. They'd still be around, just not as many.
The one thing I see in this film that I saw in LOST and Cloverfield that was kind of annoying but is sort of a JJ thing is the character REACTIONS to the Sci-Fi element.
Do we even know the Agenda of The Others or The Cloverfield Monster (or even what the title means) or Why the Super 8 Monster did what it did? No. Not that it doesn't matter.
The movies/shows in question have a powerful outside force affecting the lives of a group of characters. We don't know the force's agenda, but the force is taking over anyways. These pieces of entertainment assume we want to have the payoff be a strictly internal, wherein the characters matter more than the details of the sci-fi element. That might not be true, but I can respect this shift in storytelling practices by JJ.
(NOTE: I do know "Lost" was mostly Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof, not so much JJ, but after this movie I just know he had lots of input as a producer on that show on how that show would end, and Super 8's ending reminds me too much of that show's to let it go.)
Quote from: polkablues on June 16, 2011, 06:11:19 PMJust don't think too hard.
I liked this part of polka's review.
Super 8 was an experience that is somewhat rare to me these days: A movie where you´re taken on a ride and gets you more and more excited as it evolves. And a movie that is NOT a remake, sequel or prequel.
Also, how often is your childhood been portrayed up on the big screen? I remember my room to look very much like Charles´s room and who cannot identify with Joe´s love for the pretty girl at school?
I loved the dynamic between the kids. I found them all very believable and funny to a degree I don´t see very often.
How Abrams showed the alien only in glimpses was amazing and I was seriously frightened by the first encounters.
I agree with the comments on the alien. Once it was told it could sense good from evil, it was obvious that the kids was going to be OK and thus making the 3. act less exciting.
But I guess the alien had to eat something, since all the dogs ran away. (I did get quite touched by the alien when it showed its real eyes to Joe, that was a nice touch).
I have a question though...
Why did they have to move the alien from the place where they had it captured?
It would seem like an awful lot of trouble if there was no reason to do so?
I just really liked the movie, specially the first half. Weird thing is the good stuff is actually in the acting of the kids and their chemistry rather than the special effects or concept of the film itself.
spoils
mod almost totally nailed my feelings. basically, JJ isn't a good screenwriter. so much of the dialogue is spoonfeeding, nail-on-the-head crap, and he actually stumbles into shyamalan territory when writing townspeople. every few seconds he has to remind you that all these people are dumb. just in case you forgot. most of the humour comes from people being dumber than you are, or being kind of annoying/rude eg. "mint! mint! did i mention mint?" or "asshole, no one develops film overnight." it's exactly the opposite of the endearing/charming vibe he must've been going for. the dad is meant to be a sympathetic single dad trying to make ends meet but he comes off as a stick-in-the-mud jerk. it's very difficult to care about anyone or laugh at anything. and i'm totally in sync with the critical reaction being strange. the problem with this movie is not its spielbergian aspirations. it's just kind of a dumb movie. and yeah, the marketing was off-base, making the alien a secret. it's an alien.
what's odd to me is that the last big summer movie i saw (not my idea) was transformers 3, and i enjoyed it as a callback to exactly what i wanted when i was 12. never thought i'd defend that over this, but there's an honesty about transformers 3. (for the record i abhorred 1/couldn't make it halfway, never saw 2.) i wouldn't call the characters in transformers 3 stupid. more like very eccentric, and written for children. super 8 doesn't have half the charm because it has no esteem for its characters.
how's the dad a jerk? he was mourning, he was supposed to be distant and cold towards his son.
i bet the film development joke is based on a true incident.
I never saw any marketing or trailer for the movie, I avoid that shit at all costs with most movies. It's much more rewarding.
spoils
Quote from: Alexandro on August 09, 2011, 09:26:44 AMhow's the dad a jerk? he was mourning, he was supposed to be distant and cold towards his son.
yeah but he doesn't even TRY.. there's not one moment of warmth or understanding between them until the very end when it's too late and comes off as unearned/weird.
Quote from: Alexandro on August 09, 2011, 09:26:44 AMi bet the film development joke is based on a true incident.
then it's truly lame. not that i
hated that moment, but it's a pretty good example of the overall tone of the film. it's not charming, it's like.. why are you being a jerk? this happens so often, even when they're trapped in the cave and the police officer's like "shaddup! damn kids!" even though they clearly know something and he's woken up in the cave of an alien!
Quote from: Alexandro on August 09, 2011, 09:26:44 AMI never saw any marketing or trailer for the movie, I avoid that shit at all costs with most movies. It's much more rewarding.
yeah my point is purely a criticism of the marketing, not the movie itself. although i think we should expect more than JUST an alien these days unless you have something special to back it up. especially when you cloak the alien in secrecy for most of the film.
for the record, I didn't particularly liked the alien angle, or the monster angle for that matter.