Directed by Matt Reeves (writer:FELICITY; director: THE PALLBEARER with David Schwimmer and Gwenyth Paltrow), Produced by J.J. Abrams and written by Drew Godard the teaser trailer has been attached to Transformers.
Bascially it's a monster movie shot with POV handheld camers:
trailer here (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/) very bad quality but you can get the jist, and it probably won't last very long, a lot of link have already been removed from you tube as I was typing this
ADMIN EDIT to update trailer link
http://www.1-18-08.com/
monstercumentary.
i think its real.
Quote from: 72teeth on July 04, 2007, 03:53:55 PM
http://www.1-18-08.com/
wow, a picture from the future!
I saw this trailer on Transformers and when I got home I went to look it up and Wikipedia says it's being directed by Matt Damon haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield
It's Alive: 1-18-08
The scoop on J.J. Abrams' top secret project.
You probably saw the trailer in front of Transformers... A camcorder-filmed party scene gives way to what looks like a terrifying fireball attack on New York City. "It's alive! It's huge," someone in the crowd screams. What the heck is it!? We don't know... but it's produced by Lost creator J.J. Abrams and it hits theaters on 1-18-08.
The trailer for the mysterious movie, which has used the codename "Cloverfield" during pre-production, doesn't have a title. But what it does have is plenty of buzz! As soon as the trailer hit, bootleg versions were showing up on video sites like YouTube, and fans were going crazy posting their thoughts on what the movie might be. For their part, Paramount Pictures isn't shedding any light on the subject. In fact, they haven't technically acknowledged that it exists at all, except to request that certain sites remove the bootleg version of the trailer -- or so we hear. This, of course, is fueling speculation even more.
There's now a nondescript teaser site that's been subtly launched at www.1-18-08.com. As of now, the site only features a still image of two young women looking up at something that appears to be scaring the crap out of them. The image bears the timestamp "01/18/2008 12:36A."
Early indications are that the film is some sort of giant monster sci-fi movie presented in a "reality" style -- like The Blair Witch Project. And rumor has it that "The Parasite," supposedly what the crew is calling the monster in the film, is another working title for the production. All of this is just conjecture at this point, but we do have something concrete...
IGN Movies has learned that the "Untitled J.J. Abrams Project" may also be using the working title "Slusho," which hardcore fans of Abrams' Alias may remember as the Slurpee-type beverage that Vaughn offers to Sydney in the second episode of the series.
We received an email this morning with the details of a public notice of filming posted last week in downtown Los Angeles that illuminates a few details about the production. The notice states that a Paramount Pictures movie using the name "Slusho" was filming last week in several downtown locations during the late afternoon to early morning hours. Here's a description of the scene:
"Exterior dialogue. Driving scenes. Occasional traffic & pedestrian control. Camera & equipment on sidewalk, street and property. 200 extras. Military vehicles. Destruction aftermath. Weapons brandished. Emergency vehicles with flashing lights. Exterior dialogue on fire escape on 8th floor."
Sounds like "Cloverfield" to us!
So, what else is known about the top secret movie? Frequent Abrams collaborator Drew Goddard, a writer on Lost, Alias, Buffy, and Angel, penned the script.
Paramount rolls in the 'Cloverfield'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
While unleashing "Transformers" onscreen this week, Paramount also lifted the lid on a top-secret project in the form of a teaser trailer for a new film, "Cloverfield."
"Cloverfield," which revolves around a monster attack in New York as told from the point of view of a small group of people, is being produced by J.J. Abrams. It is being directed by Matt Reeves, who co-created "Felicity" with Abrams, and is written by Drew Goddard, who has worked with Abrams on "Lost" and "Alias."
Paramount greenlighted the project under a veil of heavy secrecy in February, about the same time that Abrams agreed to the take over the directing reins of the new "Star Trek" film.
The casting process was just as mysterious. No scripts or even scene pages were sent out; agents who were contacted were simply asked if their client wanted to be in the movie or not. Eventually a cast, made up mostly of relative unknowns, was put together; it includes Michael Stahl-David ("The Black Donnellys"), Odet Jasmin, Mike Vogel ("Supercross") and Lizzy Kaplan ("The Class").
The movie, which is believed to have a relatively modest budget of about $30 million, began shooting in mid-June in New York. With "Transformers" generating huge tracking numbers in the weeks before its release, the studio decided to put footage from "Cloverfield" in a teaser in front of "Transformers" to build buzz.
After first presenting the Paramount and Bad Robot logos -- Bad Robot being Abrams' shingle -- the trailer opens with scenes from a surprise going-away party in a New York bar with a view of the city. Before long, a thundering roar is heard, and by the time guests run downstairs, pandemonium and flaming debris are hitting the streets. After a huge explosion at the lower end of Manhattan, what appears to be the head of the Statue of Liberty comes hurtling up the street like a giant projectile.
The trailer's footage is shot by a hand-held camera, home-movie style, giving it a sort of "Armageddon" meets " The Blair Witch Project" feel, though it is not clear if the entire movie follows that style. While the trailer does not reveal the name of the movie, it does announce a release date of Jan. 18.
Several copies of the trailer, seemingly shot in theaters with a camcorder, were posted on YouTube by Thursday morning. But by Thursday afternoon, some links had been taken down, replaced by an advisory saying, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corp."
Producing the movie along with Abrams is Bryan Burk, who has worked on such Abrams shows as "Lost," "Six Degrees" and "What About Brian." Guy Riedel and Sherryl Clark are executive producing.
"Cloverfield" is shooting in New York.
http://ethanhaaswasright.com/
so this seems to be the next palm job... there's also a youtube account:
http://youtube.com/user/emkayde <M.K.D.???
but paramount has removed 3 of the 5 videos.
...reminds me of gogglesman.
If I didn't already know that J.J. Abrams had something to do with it, I'd SWEAR that J.J. Abrams had something to do with it.
countdown to something
http://www.parasitemovie.com/
It's counting down to the date they officially start the ARG that's promoting the movie.
cloverfield needs to shut the hell up.
Updated edison's link with the official Apple trailer.
the official version lacks the oomph of the recorded off the screen in the theatre version. looks too good. zooms are fake.. could this be the first movie better watched as a crappy bootleg?
Quote from: picolas on July 10, 2007, 04:24:17 PM
could this be the first movie better watched as a crappy bootleg?
I've always thought that Blair Witch would have been more effective if it was released initially on unlabeled videotapes left to be found in public parks, Salvation Army stores, and subway platforms.
Quote from: SPARR•O on July 15, 2007, 12:43:38 AM
Quote from: picolas on July 10, 2007, 04:24:17 PM
could this be the first movie better watched as a crappy bootleg?
I've always thought that Blair Witch would have been more effective if it was released initially on unlabeled videotapes left to be found in public parks, Salvation Army stores, and subway platforms.
i felt the same way about august underground
Only Gumshoes Can See This Movie
Buzz Proliferates After Mysterious Trailer for Film From 'Lost' Creator
Source: Advertising Age
Hollywood has always had chutzpah, but the most recent work from "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams may represent the ultimate in outsourcing: We, the moviegoing public, are now responsible for finding out what a movie is about. Isn't that what marketing departments are for?
Two weeks ago, moments before the opening credits of Michael Bay's summer blockbuster "Transformers," audiences were exposed -- and exposed seems the right term for a viral-marketing campaign -- to a recondite trailer for another Paramount film, one produced by Mr. Abrams.
In it, a surprise bon voyage soiree in New York City is rudely interrupted by a distant explosion and an ominous groan. The 20-something hipsters frantically run into Gotham's streets to investigate, but they're nearly bowled over by the severed head of the Statue of Liberty, caroming off a nearby skyscraper like a Brunswick Fury Pearl taking down a recalcitrant 10-pin.
The credits flash, and a release date appears: In theaters 1-18-08.
That's it. No title. No recognizable stars.
No YouTube
Audiences erupted in applause. YouTube was quickly infected. Within hours, Paramount, feigning horror, had its killer lawyers demand the ubiquitous and mysterious "Cloverfield" trailer be quarantined, citing copyright infringement.
The result has been exactly what the studio and Mr. Abrams must have been hoping for: a worldwide (or at least, a worldwide-web-wide) dissection of the trailer, repeating endlessly before the hoi polloi. Instantly, it became the Zapruder film of geekdom. Conspiracy theories abounded, and grassy knolls were identified: Much online speculation centered on EthanHaasWasRight.com, a site that was part of the movie's nascent online mythology.
It wasn't, or so Mr. Abrams himself claimed when he surfaced to tell fanboy site Ain't It Cool News that the "official" site for the movie is 1-18-08.com. Visitors to that site find what appear to be time-stamped stills from the movie. Mr. Abrams did say, however, that there were other sites to be found.
The man himself
Who cut the "Cloverfield" trailer? Paramount isn't saying. Execs at and spokesmen for the studio did not return calls seeking comment. But a person at a postproduction house that works closely with Paramount on all its trailers told Ad Age that the trailer "came out of left field for all of us" and that the consensus was Mr. Abrams had cut the trailer himself.
The trailer-house insider was puzzled by the lack of clear branding on the untitled film. "We try and push the title of the movie [in a trailer], so people will associate the 'Wow!' experience with the movie. I don't know if this will backfire or not."
Whatever the case, "Cloverfield" is clearly an initiative that will require constant feeding with new, related websites -- such as, perhaps, Slusho.jp. The Slusho name appears on a T-shirt in the "Cloverfield" trailer. Whether it's a fluke or germane is anyone's guess.
Keeping an eye out
And so, rival studios are also watching "Cloverfield" -- if that is, in fact, its title -- with abounding interest.
Said Doug Neil, senior VP-digital marketing at Universal Pictures, "We like our materials to always be on-message. There's always a risk if fans are discovering that [message] on their own."
Whether viral marketing grants Hollywood immunity from clutter or becomes a pox on its house remains to be seen, but one thing seems clear: Even in an age of media overload, Mr. Abrams' latest message is anything but "Lost."
Apparently someone found the poster in a comic book store in CA and took a really crappy pic of it here (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showpost.php?p=11099459&postcount=3070)
Monstrous?
Is this the new Snakes on a Plane?
Bullshit.
At least, I imagine it to be. I doubt the first "official" word about the title that would leak would be from some poster found in a random comic book store.
Though, if this IS how they're sneaking early word out there, it's kinda charming marketing.... almost makes up for that terrible title.
I haven't been following this all that closely... it's not entirely my bag, plus "from the director of The Pallbearer" doesn't send me into film geek convulsions of ecstasy... but Cloverfield seemed a much better title.... suitably vague, a tad ominous.
But Monstrous? Really?
"Monstrous... from the creators of Mission: Impossible 3 and The Pallbearer"
It's like the studio realized that even the dullest of audiences have started to come to the conclusion that January is a dumping ground for pure shit at the cinema... but, hey, if they throw some clever marketing behind it, and hype it up months in advance... maaaayyybeee people will think they're in line for something special. Something different.
Maybe it could be... and maybe this is a legitimate poster... either way, save for the title it's a nice little image. But the more I hear about this, the less I want to see it.
By the time November rolls around that the three minute long trailer is before every Paramount DVD I buy and before every film I go see, I'm sure I'll have already be sick of this film.
Now I'm sick of typing about myself being sick of, presumably, being sick of this film.
Rock my world, Cloverfield/Monstrous... I fucking dare you.
WORK.
Quote from: john on July 23, 2007, 09:51:41 PM
but, hey, if they throw some clever marketing behind it, and hype it up months in advance... maaaayyybeee people will think they're in line for something special. Something different.
It worked for 300
Cloverfield : Blue Harvest :: Monstrous : Revenge of the Jedi
Perhaps? Hopefully? Monstrous sounds like it should work as a title but I bet this whole 1-18-08 marketing stemmed from execs balking at the name and no one's decided on one yet.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogsmithmedia.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2007%2F07%2F1_18_08.jpg&hash=68a611671b2429d27fd4ff6ec193813539d1588e)
J.J.'s Mystery Movie: Secrets revealed!
An exclusive peek at the new teaser poster for J.J. Abrams' latest cinematic enigma -- codenamed ''Cloverfield'' -- and a few other hush-hush details
Source: EW
J.J. Abrams sure knows how to tease. Earlier this month, the pop auteur (Alias, Lost, and Mission: Impossible III) ignited a firestorm of curiosity by blowing the head off the Statue of Liberty in a grainy trailer for a nameless film. Now he's upping the intrigue with this teaser poster.
Unofficially known as Cloverfield (the name of a street in L.A. where Abrams has an office), the film, at press time, does not have an official title. If you're looking at that gargantuan hole bored in the Manhattan skyline and thinking, It's a monster movie! — congrats, you're right. Scripted by Lost writer Drew Goddard, the movie reunites producer Abrams with Felicity co-creator Matt Reeves, who's directing and shooting it cinema-verité-style on digital video. (Think Blair Witch and the City.) The cast is made up of relative unknowns, with the lead being played by Michael Stahl-David (The Black Donnellys). As for the monster itself, contrary to Internet speculation, it isn't a parasite, and it ain't a colossal Asian robot, either. (Some suspected Abrams was mounting a live-action version of the Japanese anime/manga classic Voltron. Nope.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comic-Con '07: 1-18-08
Source: ComingSoon!
J.J. Abrams spoke to an enthusiastic crowd at the San Diego Comic-Con this afternoon about 1-18-08. His stay on stage was brief, but here's what Abrams says...
- He's not revealing the title just yet. We've still got to wait...patiently.
- "I want a monster movie," says Abrams. He said he's wanted to do one for a long time and was inspired by a recent trip to Japan with his son. He wants something "insane" and it's almost done shooting.
- He thinks America should have their own monster and the dailies are looking great.
last night when i was walking home i walked through this...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Fcloverfieldshooting1.jpg&hash=8190c01588f6284b26ced8515dc866841f0618ae)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Fcloverfieldshooting2.jpg&hash=7387916231b8ef752ba4432b0b6863a0e8825353)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Fcloverfieldshooting3.jpg&hash=61ac223d7d3ca5d57f910930c9745c984a234e39)
but i had no idea what it was for until this morning. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33520) it was literally one block from my apartment.
more here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigspider/sets/72157601138027914/
JJ Abrams Is a 'Wreck' Over Monstrous Movie...
Source: Bloody-Disgusting
I can pretty much guarantee that by us reporting this, it will either be denied or changed - again. We learned exclusively here at Bloody-Disgusting that JJ Abrams' monster movie was in fact going to be titled "Monstrous", but was changed the second it hit the web (man we all gossip way too much!) Now it's our turn to ruin a possible title for the Matt Reeves' helmed giant monster movie, which wrapped last month in Los Angeles and New York... the title just might be..........
WRECK
Quote from: kal on July 23, 2007, 08:52:50 PM
Is this the new Snakes on a Plane?
Yes, I'm afraid it is. Though this time, they're at least limiting the Snakes on a Plane-ness to testing the title. Monstrous would work if it was intended to be a throwback to 50s monster movies but it's intended to be a monster movie for the post-9/11, youtube generation. Wreck is a title for a Fast and the Furious car-porn movie. They should just call it, "***OMG, scaryst thnig EVAR, 4 realz" and leave it at that.
Quote from: just sparrow on September 05, 2007, 09:46:19 AM
They should just call it, "***OMG, scaryst thnig EVAR, 4 realz" and leave it at that.
that would be awesome. but they seem to be going for one word, so maybe something like:
TERROR
(that's pretty good actually)
they should take a break on the PR campaign, just call this "Overrated" or "Overexposed"... and go back to the fucking editing room before this film sucks big time
actually, the problem is the lack of a campaign.... what they need to do see give us a title, tell us what the fucks it's about, give us a new trailer, and start treating this like a goddamn monster movie and not some damn Almighty top secret.. uh ..movie..thing.. those a-holes.
otherwise...
Can't Wait!!! :-D :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
2nd trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qLjW1vQBLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qLjW1vQBLo)
its playing in front of beowolf... theyre gonna go ahead and call it cloverfield afterall...
...good for them.
Better quality trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/)
Sure, I'll see it. But god help me, if the monster turns out to be a fucking black cloud, I'm going to eat J.J. Abrams' babies.
Five Minute Clip here. (http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=4017)
Even though that clip showed us nothing we haven't seen already, I'm still excited for this movie. But I miss that one brief moment right before Transformers started when we had no idea what the fuck this movie was.
EXCL: Cloverfield Director Speaks!
Source: ShockTilYouDrop
Here's the man behind the monster movie. The wizard hiding behind the curtain. ShockTillYouDrop.com scored an opportunity to speak with director Matt Reeves whose Cloverfield is poised to turn the giant creature/disaster genre on its rancorous, scaly head. Opening January 18, 2008 from Paramount, the film has attracted a blistering amount of hype and speculation. And while Reeves deftly dances around spoilers during our conversation, he does shed some light on what's in store for us next month.
Starring Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman and Lizzy Caplan, Cloverfield is told through discovered home video footage taken during an evening when Manhattan suffers an attack by some..."thing." See five minutes of the film via a special "widget" right here; and while you're at it, learn how you can win a special screening in your hometown.
ShockTillYouDrop.com: When he addressed the geek nation at Comic-Con, J.J. Abrams voiced his desire to give America their own giant monster to fear. Did you feel the same way? That the genre still hadn't been approach properly on our own turf?
Matt Reeves: Absolutely, but also the thing that was exciting to me was the approach to the film. Take a monster movie but do it in a way that was very naturalistic and authentic. The idea of that juxtaposition - a realistic monster movie was the thing that excited me most. That was the best way to create a monster that we could proud of.
Shock: There's concern out there that you're using this style to hide the monster and that we won't ever get a good look at it - similar to "The Blair Witch Project."
Reeves: It's funny, when we first started I hadn't seen "Blair Witch" at the time and thought I should go look at it because obviously there will be comparisons with the Handicam approach. I thought the concept was effective but I noticed immediately that they hadn't followed their idea through as clearly as what we were going to do. I think in that movie, it's not only the Handicam but there's 16mm black-and-white footage inter-cut, too. We wanted this to be as if someone found a Handicam, took out the tape and put it in the player to watch it. What you're watching is a home movie that then turns into something else. But the other thing I noticed was that the "Blair Witch" guys obviously didn't have the resources to make a big movie and this was a great way to tell their story. They used that to their advantage to create great suspense. We're creating great suspense while you see the great features of this monster. The other thing I think is very exciting is this monster is huge and you see everything. You see it in a way that is if you're shooting it with a Handicam. If you're hiding under a car, you see it that way, and there are other moments - I can guarantee you - you are seeing this monster in a huge way.
Shock: That must have been an interesting creative challenge to shoot something that big through unconventional - by cinematic standards - means.
Reeves: Yes! People who see the trailer probably think they won't see anything. They're going to see a lot and that will hopefully be a big surprise to them. A satisfying surprise. We've used the vibe of that Handicam thing to create a mood, feeling and an experience. Normally where you might shoot one of these set pieces in a way with huge wide shots and angles - this particular style creates an authenticity. The clip we put up [in the widget] shows you the experience you're going to have. There are going to be jump cuts as there would be in home movies. The only cuts you see in this movie are when the camera is turned off and back on. There's a feel as if it was all edited in-camera.
Shock: Regarding the widget clip, when the Statue of Liberty head falls to the street, I loved how everyone broke out their camera phones to document the moment. That was a nice touch.
Reeves: We thought that was very accurate for the time. To me, I felt that if you do it in this style - if this event had happened in New York and you had been there with a cell phone or camera you could've told the story yourself. The fun thing I had in mind was there's this hidden idea that there's this Rashomon experience that exists - everybody who experienced this night had their cameras, they made their movie of this event. In our case, "Cloverfield" is one of them.
Shock: Is that to say there are more stories to be told then post-"Cloverfield"? More to learn about the event that unfolds throughout the night?
Reeves: No, I don't think so. I don't know what we'll do next, there are a lot of fun things we're talking about. That was just something I wanted to put in the movie, to remind people that this is an Everyman experience. Media is so much an aspect of our lives today that even evoking that idea was exciting to us. That there could be different stories out there.
Shock: The vérité style seems to be very "in" these days. Romero applied it to the zombie genre with "Diary of the Dead" recently. Do you feel the approach is reinvigorating a sub-genre like the giant monster film?
Reeves: I do because in this case - what we're doing is a very current idea. I think the genre movie like a giant monster movie - the fun of them is metaphor and the idea of how they speak about the anxieties of our time. "Godzilla" was very much about the A-bomb. "Cloverfield" very much speaks to the fear and anxieties of our time, how we live our lives. Constantly documenting things and putting them up on YouTube, sending people videos through e-mail - we felt it was very applicable to the way people feel now.
Shock: Can you explain how you went about shooting in NYC? Was it guerilla-style or was it very much like shooting any other big budget production?
Reeves: There was a guerilla approach in certain areas that we wanted to shoot in. Then we were shooting scenes where it wasn't guerilla at all. It was big movie stuff, but the challenge was to treat it with a guerilla mentality. We had to keep it authentic, leave room for improvisation. That kind of guerilla style was very much the spirit of the movie even though we may not have been doing it guerilla style.
Shock: How many digital FX shots are on order for this film?
Reeves: I can't put a number to it because we have so many continuous takes. There's a lot of continuous action. So what might be 20 or 30 shots in another film is going to be one big one in our film. It's hard to quantify. The FX people are working overtime right now to finish this. It's just enormous. And a huge undertaking. Having never done a visual FX film before, I'm incredibly thrilled. When they gave me the outline of the film, I was like, 'This is huge, how are we going to do this?' We're going to see a grand-scale epic movie but from a certain point of view. At times you're seeing enormous stuff, you don't exactly get it the way you would expect because we want it to be authentic. If there's a monster moment - you might not have this grand shot of him, you might get it after the fact because you want to have realistic action. But you will absolutely see everything - and you will see the monster in very intimate detail. You will get a very close look. People who have seen the trailer might think we are using this style to avoid seeing the monster, but that is definitely not what we're doing. We're using it to build dread and anticipation.
Shock: Beyond the FX, this film has a human element to it as well, right?
Reeves: When J.J. and Bryan [Burk, producer] came to me I said, 'This is all grand scale stuff. Huge scope. Everything I've done until this point is very character-based!' They wanted me to bring those character sensibilities to this film. So they introduced me to Drew and we started to talk about how we could go further with the characters. And while we did the casting process, we were looking for people who could improvise as well. We were trying to find people that could provide an intimate relationship with these characters and they were ones we were discovering through Handicam footage so it wasn't your traditional movie exposition where you meet people. That was another aspect of the movie that was very different.
Shock: How funky is it to see the public Internet reaction surrounding this film?
Reeves: The fun thing about doing the teaser trailer was that it was a throwback to a time when we would see a trailer for a film like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." You were sitting there seeing a trailer for a movie that was completely mysterious. There's so much media saturation now we felt we'd shoot a quick teaser and throw something out there. Throw it out to the people so they can have a sense of discovery again. Then Paramount said, 'What if we don't even put the title out there so people can speculate?' We wondered if the MPAA would go with it, they didn't even know how to respond at first. They were like, 'That's never happened before.' But they let us do it. We knew people would be intrigued, but we had no idea the level to which they would begin to engage. We spent a large part of our prep period making the teaser trailer and using it as a basis as a prep for the movie. Shooting the teaser trailer was our way to understand how we were going to pull this off.
Shock: The theories that permeated message boards were all over the map. Did you guys find time to sift through them all?
Reeves: Around the time the trailer came out, we were a week into shooting the movie. And as we were shooting the movie we were starting to see this reaction building and that was exciting for us. We'd be on set creating this thing, finding out the language of it. I'd come home and these people have seen the trailer and are creating their own movie in a way based on their speculations. That was awesome. At the last minute, when we were shooting the trailer, we wanted people to know - 'cause we hadn't created the monster yet - that it was a giant monster movie, we wanted a tease of that. I jumped to the microphone and said the line, "I saw it! It's alive! It's huge!" And one of the most amusing things is I had come home and someone on the web had taken that section and started to do an analysis on it and thought I said, "It was a lion." The way I speak was too fast sometimes and they couldn't make it out.
Can we place a retroactive ban on the word "widget", please? It's like getting kneed in the taint every time I read that word.
Is that the thing in a can of Guinness?
that interview is soooo fucking savvy and pretentious, I can't take it.
Holy shit, I don't know if I should be embarrassed, but I just now realized JJ is not directing this. Haven't seen the Matt Reeves name before this interview, just JJ this, JJ that whenever Cloverfield comes up.
Quote from: Gamblour. on December 15, 2007, 03:19:09 PM
Holy shit, I don't know if I should be embarrassed, but I just now realized JJ is not directing this. Haven't seen the Matt Reeves name before this interview, just JJ this, JJ that whenever Cloverfield comes up.
Totally understandable, in the same way that it would be understandable to assume, based on marketing, that Judd Apatow has directed six movies rather than just two.
or tarantino directed every re-released film from the 70's.
i'd say it's more on par with thinking Tim Burton directed Nightmare Before Christmas.
oh my god.
dude, i had no idea.
i knew.
i learned back in the Life Aquatic days.
The (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqESrOQ8EsE) monster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo-SDvU0oio) attacks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVdGazyG9A) on its way to New York.
The only reason to get excited about this flick is how mysterious it is.
The more I find out about it the more silly it is.
Also, JJ Abrams is a hack.
My girlfriend's philosophy is something like the originality and creativity of the marketing campaign portends an at least equally stimulating monster experience (and she thinks it's parasitic). So the hype must be greater than or equal to the pay-off. I think that's a terribly positive expectation.
if she actually said "less than", it is.
Yeah. Mine is the hype is greater than the pay-off and hers is that the hype is equal to or maybe even less than the pay-off. I needed the crocodile image.
And since I'm here again, I'd like to add that the marketing is driving me finger-nail-chalkboard crazy and so wholely succesfull. I haven't been this interested in a movie there's little chance of me seeing since Snakes on a Plane, a movie I didn't see.
An incoherent, blindingly positive review of Cloverfield by Harry Knowles. In exchange, JJ Abrams probably told him he would hang out with him, or bought him a hooker or a burger or something. Anyway, enjoy. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35236)
'Cloverfield's' monster concept
Producer J.J. Abrams aims to provide an old-time rush.
By Mark Olsen, Special to The Times
WHEN the unusual teaser trailer for "Cloverfield" first appeared unexpectedly before last summer's blockbuster "Transformers," it set off a wave of interest verging on hysteria. The clip featured what looked like home-video footage of a New York City house party suddenly erupting into total chaos -- earth-shaking explosions followed by the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty crashing down the street as stunned onlookers whipped out their camera-phones.
Hastily posted on the Internet, the trailer was soon being dissected with a fever perhaps not seen since the landmark buildup to 1999's "The Blair Witch Project," as fans began concocting wild theories about what caused the destruction (a humongous monster), what happens (it goes ballistic on Manhattan) and how much would viewers ultimately get to see (plenty).
But the surprise and secrecy were one component of the inventive film, which opens Friday. While the teaser left potential viewers salivating for more, the most concrete piece of information it provided was that the film came from producer J.J. Abrams, best known for television shows such as the cerebral "Lost," the action-filled "Alias" and the wistfully romantic "Felicity."
"Cloverfield" originated with Abrams wanting to reenergize the monster movie, to bring into the 21st century the creepy-fun flicks he had enjoyed as boy; not the charnel-house blood baths of current horror films but rather such enigmatic thrillers as Ridley Scott's "Alien," David Cronenberg's "The Fly" and John Carpenter's "The Thing" -- movies that surpassed any supposed limitations of the genre.
"I loved monster movies when I was a kid," Abrams said recently, "and I had not seen a monster movie since then that made me feel anything, where I got that rush. I just desperately wanted to have that sensation."
With both an idea for the story and a concept for how to shoot the film, Abrams and his producing partner Bryan Burk enlisted writer Drew Goddard (TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"), who was working with Abrams on "Lost." Eventually Abrams would also draft Matt Reeves, a childhood friend as well as a co-creator of "Felicity," to direct. The film's $25-million budget was financed by Paramount Pictures, for whom Abrams had directed "Mission: Impossible III" and is directing "Star Trek."
Reeves had previously directed the feature film "The Pallbearer" with David Schwimmer and Gwyneth Paltrow -- not the most immediate calling card for a Monster-Eats-Manhattan picture. "They came to me because what they really wanted was a sense of intimacy and character and realism," said Reeves. "The thing that ended up being different about this film is the concept of having it be this Handycam story where everything is supposed to be told as if it's found footage. The whole movie, even though it's this epic-sized story, it's shot and done in an intimate manner. So it's this kind of realistic portrayal of an absolutely outlandish idea."
The secrecy surrounding the project extended to the casting process as well. The team behind "Cloverfield" hired a group of relatively unknown actors, making the true star of the film not just the monster but also the mystery, which is slowly revealed in the shaky, post-YouTube, faux-found-footage style in which the film was shot. Though the story is supposedly all captured on a single camera, in reality a variety of cameras were used, from top-of-the line professional gear used to seamlessly blend with digital effects to consumer-grade footage shot by the actors themselves
In many ways the story line of "Cloverfield" perfectly joins the conceits of Abrams' past work -- a shotgun wedding of the puzzles of "Lost" with the yearning of "Felicity." The film opens with a group of twentysomething New Yorkers gathering for a farewell party as one of their circle departs for a new job in Japan. Romantic entanglements are quickly established, all seen from the perspective of a video camera carried by a hapless character named Hud.
Once the destruction starts, the party empties into the street and the protagonists are plunged headlong into a nightmarish odyssey trying to escape the city. Hud dutifully captures it all on video, driven by the contemporary urge to self-document and a strange need to eke out some control over what's happening around him.
It is exactly this unlikely mix of the big-shock thrills of a Hollywood action movie and the small-scale interactions of a youth-oriented drama that give "Cloverfield" its charge. Rather than focusing on the attempts to battle the monster, the film settles in with the individual dramas of those caught up in its destructive wake.
According to Lizzy Caplan, who plays the wise-cracking Marlena, the initial audition was a scene that led her to believe the project would be like a film version of "Felicity," full of heartfelt conversations and lovelorn moments. She was surprised when a callback audition consisted of a frantic action scene that turned out to be from an episode of "Alias." "Only after being offered the part did we hear it was a monster movie, and only after signing on did we get to read the script," said Caplan.
Twenty-six-year-old T.J. Miller makes his movie debut as the endearingly beleaguered Hud, who is head over heels for Marlena. Since his character is holding the camera for essentially the entire movie -- and Miller himself often served as camera operator while performing -- he is actually seen for only a few moments. Yet Hud, in directing the viewer's point of view while also providing a running commentary to the action, is an indelible character. "The audience becomes unified with Hud," said Miller. "He's not a character that they watch, he's a character that they sort of are."
"The point of view was so restricted, it felt really fresh," explained Reeves of the film's unique perspective and format. "It was one of the things that attracted me [to this project]. You are with this group of people and then this event happens and they do their best to understand it and survive it, and that's all they know."
The original Japanese version of "Godzilla," arguably the precursor of the modern, urban monster movie, has always been seen as a direct extension of the Atomic Age anxiety over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Among the imagery used in "Cloverfield" are collapsing skyscrapers, great clouds of dust and swirling drifts of paper that directly reference the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the hands of Abrams, Reeves and Co., the monster movie remains a repository for the collective unease felt in the wake of a national tragedy.
" 'Cloverfield' is meant to explore the very real and obvious fears we are all living with everyday," said Abrams, "to let the audience have the experience but in a much more safe and manageable way. . . .
"I believe there are a whole lot of people who want to have that kind of catharsis and who don't necessarily want to see documentaries about the very issues they are grappling with internally."
"In a way, what 'Cloverfield' does," said Reeves, "is it puts a name on the unthinkable."
Clip. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809873032/video/5955724)
Picture of Rancor Zoidberg Clovie (http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/Cyborginator/MGP001a.jpg)
Our deal was that I wouldn't spoil her enthusiasm by attending the screening of a film she was excited about and I wasn't but that I would see it with her for a second time if it was a film she liked so much that she wanted to see it for a second time. So she got home late from the midnight screening. She told me it sucked. I was too tired to ask her to qualify this and there's a chance that she only meant if I saw it I'd think it sucked. She did say the script is awful and that it reminded her of a Shyamalan (she wouldn't have been referring to the filmmaking style so she must have meant the presentation of the story).
That's good enough for me.
I thought it was pretty awesome, but I could see why some thought it sucked as mentioned by some members of my audience on their way out. It will be another Blair Witch, two sides of the fence film.
First off, if you have motion sickness, then you should take some pills before seeing it. Luckily, I don't. I will admit that the film works only because of the handheld camerawork. If not for that, and how well it was done, this would have failed right from the get-go since there's much lacking in a story, but there's supposed to be one really since this is all a "document" of that night. But I got caught up in the "you-are-there," first-person account. I found myself craning my neck, wanting to see more. At the start, the monster works because of the Jaws, the less you see, the more suspenseful-type editing, but once you get good looks, it's nothing that your imagination would have a better job working up. I just appreciated more the technique of how this monster film was done.
And for all you Lost fans, look for the numbers. "The numbers are bad."
The best thing this movie had going for it was that I knew so little about it going in. The obvious 9/11 imagery is especially frightening as a New Yorker and even moreso when you see the characters running down your street in handheld POV. Unfortunately the scariest part of the film is what happens before you actually see the monster. Because nothing can ever be as scary as what you can imagine, the movie comes with slight disappointment but is still an effective and worthwhile theatrical experience.
it was so anticlimactic for me.
i enjoyed it, but the lack of a great climax ruined it.
i still liked it though, overall.
I liked it, it was a lot of overwhelming sight and sound, and I felt like I saw enough of the monster to not feel ripped off. Everything went pretty much how anyone would expect it to go down, but the video device was used very convincingly and the sound design was immensely enjoyable. all of the actors were really good. if bros were this cool in real life then I'd be so down with bros.
What a fun fucking movie! It was the perfect length, I did actually care about the characters and thought it felt very real under the given circumstances. People seemed to be eating it all up at the showing I was at...until the ending and then there was quite a bit of laughter. This is the rare exception of a film I would like to see a sequel to. It could be fascinating to see what some other people were up to during the attack...I'm sure they would use a sequel to give more details about the monster and I think that would sort of be a mistake...actually it would probably be just like Lost and for every answer they'd raise three more questions. Usually I can guess exactly how I'm going to feel about a film before I see it (which is sad, I know) so it's all the more satisfying to see something that greatly exceeds expectations. Yay.
I really liked this but it makes Greengrass look like Kevin Smith, movement-wise. I wish I had taken dramamine ahead of time. But it's effective and it was exactly what I expected: great fun but not the best movie ever.
Quote from: cinemanarchist on January 19, 2008, 11:38:13 AM
It could be fascinating to see what some other people were up to during the attack...
SOME SPOILERSThat was the big thing I thought was missing from this movie: other perspectives. Ideally, it would have been a cutting together of other tapes, news footage and camera phone videos that would have told a complete story about it. The fact that the tape was recovered from Central Park leads up to believe that eventually, they kill the monster. I don't need to know where it came from and I don't need to know that it's dead but it would have been cool just to see something else other than one group's perspective, as compelling as this one perspective was. In the triage in Bloomingdale's, one of the soldiers had a camera on his head, didn't he? It felt like a tease.
But other than that, it's a good time, despite how eerily spot-on they nailed the experience of trying to get out of Manhattan after a major horrific event that you simply can't wrap your head around. They took just about every convention of a sci-fi/horror movie and turned it on its head. However, from the sound of the audience by the end, I don't think the word of mouth is going to be terribly hot on this one. Most of them groaned at the end.
A quote from the guy behind me who wouldn't SHUT THE FUCK UP throughout the movie: "That ending sucked donkey cock." He was wrong, of course, but that may end up being the prevailing opinion.
Quote from: polkablues on January 19, 2008, 06:28:07 PM
A quote from the guy behind me who wouldn't SHUT THE FUCK UP throughout the movie: "That ending sucked donkey cock." He was wrong, of course, but that may end up being the prevailing opinion.
Unless you are a donkey. Then I suppose Cloverfield's ending is on par with that of Citizen Kane, Fight Club, or dare I say, TWBB? Are there any endings on par with getting your dick sucked? That's obviously for another topic so let that be rhetorical for now.
i thought it was awesome! but yeah people hated it.
Somewhere in Hollywood, Jeff Goldblum is thinking, "How the fuck am I not in this movie?"
..and we're grateful he isn't.
Reeves Runs Merrily Through Cloverfield
Source: ComingSoon
**SPOILERS**
Now that the long weekend is almost over, it's pretty safe to say that most of you reading this have probably already seen the hotly anticipated Cloverfield. Yes, the J.J. Abrams-produced "Godzilla"/"Blair Witch" mash-up has made some serious bank this weekend from all those curious folks who wanted to discover what all the hype was about since the cryptic teaser trailer debuted last July 4th. We've all seen the monster (anyone else think it looked like the Cave Troll from "Lord of the Rings"?), we've all seen Hud continue to bravely film even while chased by the out-of-work bugs from Starship Troopers, and we've all seen Beth looking into the camera crying "I'm so scared" and thought to ourselves "I've never seen that before."
Not to editorialize or anything.
What we do have in store for you is a nifty interview with the director of Cloverfield, Matt Reeves (The Pallbearer). In this interview, you'll find Reeves' thoughts on the internet rumors, the evolution of the monster, his next project The Invisible Woman, and some interesting sequel possibilities. You'll also read about the clue to the monster's origins hidden in the final shot of the movie, which this author spotted with his eagle eyes. Read on...
ComingSoon.net: Were you amazed at the life the movie took on after the trailer came out and the wave of internet speculation happened?
Matt Reeves: Thing about it is, when we were kids, when Bryan Burke and J.J. Abrams and I were kids, I've literally known them since childhood, we made 8mm films together and so it's kind of an amazing thing to make a movie with your best friends. When we were kids we'd go to movies, and there was one particular teaser trailer we all remembered for "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." It was all this weird documentary footage and this eerie narrator who sounds like the scary guy from "Frontline". He said "Close Encounters of the First Kind" and you're seeing these weird images of something in the sky, and he said "Sightings". Then "Close Encounters of the Second Kind" and then you saw this weird footage of a footprint and they said "Evidence". Then "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and then you wouldn't see anything and the music was just building and it said "Contact" and it cut to black. We were like, " what was that! I gotta see that, what the hell was that?" You didn't know who was in it, and before that trailer you didn't even know what "Close Encounters" meant. That was an exciting thing, you had a sense of discovery.
So when we were making this movie we knew what our release date was and if we finished our trailer by a certain point we could get it on "Transformers." We had a unique opportunity to make a trailer in that spirit. We thought this could be a throwback and allow people to discover what the movie is for the first time. We thought we'd have the short little teaser and have people say, "oh, what was that?" What we didn't expect was that by doing what we did people would go CRAZY and that there'd be all this internet speculation. That was a total surprise, and in fact we turned to each other and said, "oh my God, this is too much too soon... this is only July and the movie comes out in January! We better shut up or people are going to be deadly sick of us by the time it comes out." It was very exciting, we were only a week-and-a-half into shooting and already people were coming up with theories. I would come home from shooting and read these theories and that was actually a great way to unwind after shooting at night every day.
When we were mixing the teaser trailer we wanted to indicate that it was a creature. We put in animal sounds and decided it still wasn't enough. So at the end of the mix, the last 10-minutes, I jumped up in front of the mic and yelled "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" I came home one day and there was this whole thing with audio spectral analysis, playing back my voice and everybody was convinced that I said "It's a lion!" instead of "It's alive!". I thought, "How can anyone think it's a lion?" That kind of stuff was going on every day, and it was exhilarating and terrifying, 'cause we hadn't even finished making the movie yet, and we were excited about the movie, but we didn't know if our movie could compete with all these crazy movies that people were coming up with that were so fun!
CS: There were definitely a lot of weird things being put forward as "fact". One widely circulated drawing depicted the monster as a giant mutated whale.
Reeves: I know! That is fantastic, and I wonder if people see that and think "my God that's gonna be the lamest movie of all time" or do they think "that's cool"? I have no idea. The other thing I loved is I would go online and see FULL REVIEWS of the movie, in detail, all of it completely fabricated, and I think "what do people get out of this? They make up a whole story..." That's the thing with the internet, you can print something and nobody can tell you if it's true or not. There was crazy stuff that went up... the whales, there was Stay-Puft Marshmallow stuff, some rumor about it being a bunny. It was fantastic to read.
CS: What were the specific visual inspirations for YOUR monster?
Reeves: We hired this guy Neville Page to design the monster, and he is a genius. We would go into his office and he would have what I affectionately referred to as his "Wall of Terror". On the wall were all sorts of bits of color, and as you got closer suddenly your interest turned to revulsion because those pictures were like pictures of intestines and eyeballs and pieces of animals. What he was doing was having a biological, evolutionary basis for every aspect of the creature. That was really cool because there are parts of the monster that can do things that we actually didn't have a place for in the movie, that's how thoroughly designed he was.
The key to it is that the monster was a baby. The monster was suffering from separation anxiety and was absolutely disoriented and pissed, "where's mommy?", and terrified. That was the most important aspect of the creature. Not only was he furious and in a rage but he was scared, because to me there's nothing scarier than something huge that's spooked. If you're at the circus and the elephants are going nuts you don't want to be near them. We talked with Neville about the idea of how when a horse gets spooked you see the whites under the bottom of its eye. He fleshed out those sort of details. We talked about wanting the monster to be different in that it was white. All these different aspects which were important to us. It developed in many different ways and it came down to what Neville was doing which was amazing.
CS: Can you tell us a little bit about your next project, "The Invisible Woman", and what audiences can expect from it?
Reeves: Sure! She's not invisible, it's not a genre film in that sense. It is a kind of Hitchcockian thriller of sorts. It's basically about a woman who's incredibly desperate and she feels like she is invisible. It takes place on Long Island in New York. She's a housewife and a mother and she's got herself in a terribly desperate situation. I've read a lot of cases like this that are real, it's a strange phenomenon of people getting so desperate that they turn to robbing banks. This woman watches the neighborhood kids and goes out and nobody knows that she's robbing banks. I read about one family that robbed banks together, like the two daughters went in and the mother was driving the getaway car. They're people just like you and me, they've just mismanaged their personal situation so badly that they get terribly desperate. So this woman feels very alone and if she tells her husband the situation she's gotten them into financially she's going to lose her family, so it turns into this Hitchcockian thing where someone finds out what they're doing.
CS: Any possibilities for a "Cloverfield" sequel?
Reeves: This was so fun 'cause we'd never done anything like it, and I think we'd want to find a similar challenge, to find a way to have its roots in this but be fresh and new, otherwise you're just repeating yourself. There's a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming and he turns over and he sees the ship that's been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy's briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another. That idea sort of tickled me. We'll have to see if anyone would want a sequel. If the movie does well and we find a compelling reason to do so then it would be fun to do a sequel.
Did you see the thing in the last shot? In the final shot there's a little something, and I don't wanna say what it is. The final shot before the titles. The stuff at Coney Island, there's a little something there and I don't want to give it away 'cause the fun is sort of to find it, but I will say this: there's a funny thing, you look at the shot and until you see it you don't see it and you really don't see it and obviously you don't 'cause none of you have seen it, but once you see it you'll never stop seeing it.
CS: It's the thing dropping in the water, right?
Reeves: Ahh, you saw it.
I have to say, I bought into the hype, and then, as I started reading the somewhat mixed reviews, my expectations were lowered – and I'm glad, because I was pleasantly surprised. The shaky camera wasn't bothersome, after getting used to it, and I found the movie overall very well executed; thrilling, filled with dread and panic, and very authentic and convincing. It definitely played the 9/11 angle, but tastefully – more as an undercurrent than anything gratuitous. Sure, the characters are a little cardboard and perhaps too Los Angeles to be convincing New Yorkers (New Yorkers are good looking, but in a little more of a ragged, downtrodden way than LA types), but I bought into the premise and was taken for a very fun ride. Thumbs up.
I enjoyed myself enough... it was good for what it was, but I would have enjoyed it so much more if it didn't have the blairwitch gimmick.
Directors like Greengrass have proven that you don't have to hand the characters the camera to use a handheld effect that pulls you into the action. The fact that they had to make excuses for the camera being there pulled me out of it a little more than I wanted to be pulled out.
Also, the relationship aspect was forced and the ending was obvious from frame one.
Still, it could have been so much worse.
Overall, pretty unexceptional.... no real scares, and I hated every character. Except the monster, the monster was pretty swell and easy to root for.
From the very beginning, in the elegant high-rise flat of the lead character's girlfriend's parents, overlooking Central Park... my only reaction was "fuck these guys."
I saw this sunday and was really happy I did. Really fun and I agree that the handheld was MUCH better than the work in bourne ultimatum. Will see it probably a second time. The hype didn't kill my experience but i heard such mixed reviews that it didn't matter.
went with a couple of friends and throughout the movie everyone seemed to be having a great time, then when it ended, one of them goes "i feel used".
it really did feel short, but i feel like anything added to it would have just dragged it down. it's over too quickly for you to really digest and get pissed about anything. however, i wouldn't want to see this any place but a theater because the sound design is impeccable.
spoilers
it was annoying how they had to keep explaining why they had the camera, i'm already suspending my disbelief by buying anything in this movie, rationalization isn't necessary. when rob picks up the camera at the end and takes it under the bridge, i groaned. it should've just ended after the helicopter crash.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on January 22, 2008, 04:02:08 AM
and I agree that the handheld was MUCH better than the work in bourne ultimatum.
Dude, Silias, who the fuck are you agreeing with? Who would actually say something that ridiculous but you?
'Cloverfield' hits some viewers in the gut
Horror film with herky-jerky scenes nauseates some. One theater chain posts warning signs.
By Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times
Thousands of Southern Californians were no doubt clutching their seats while watching "Cloverfield," last weekend's No. 1 movie at the box office. At least a few of them were clutching their stomachs as well.
Since the movie opened last Friday, some patrons said they experienced nausea and dizziness while watching the horror flick, much of which was filmed with a herky-jerky, hand-held cameras.
Erika Hasegawa, 32, was watching "Cloverfield" at a theater in Alhambra on Tuesday night but had to leave in the middle of the film.
"I'm really nauseous right now -- just hold on for a second," she said, before walking down the hall and retching into a trash can.
"I wish I could get my money back," she said.
It is unclear how many people felt ill while watching the movie, which follows a group of young hipsters filming themselves with a camcorder as they flee a reptilian monster that is destroying New York City. The movie set box office records on its holiday weekend opening, earning about $46 million.
Reports of illness while watching "Cloverfield" popped up on Internet bulletin boards over the weekend, with some posters writing that they had to leave a few minutes into the movie. Others said they tried to stare at a wall as the movie continued. One Internet poster reported vomiting several times.
A call to Paramount Pictures, which released the movie, was not returned.
Executives at some movie chains stressed that the vast majority of viewers felt fine.
Nonetheless, AMC Theatres, which is based in Kansas City, Mo., placed caution signs in hundreds of its theaters nationwide warning about possible motion sickness.
Mann Theatres Chief Executive Peter Dobson said there were three reports of illness at Mann theaters in Los Angeles over the weekend and one in Glendale.
"I must confess I was a little surprised, but sometimes from time to time this happens," Dobson said. "It's not normal to get four in a weekend."
Some experts were not surprised, given the film's use of hand-held cameras that were shaken to boost suspense.
It is a technique that has been used in other movies -- notably the "Blair Witch Project," a 1999 film that also prompted viewer complaints about nausea and vomiting. It also involved young adults filming themselves with camcorders while trying to escape a mysterious, terrifying force.
The problem may be more pronounced at theaters with bigger screens. The larger the screen, the harder for the viewer to keep a visual frame of reference, said John Risey, an audiologist at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans.
"To your brain, it does appear that the entire world is moving," Risey said.
That's not an issue when viewing the same film on a small TV screen, he said.
"What makes you dizzy is that the visual environment is moving beside you and yet you are still," Risey said.
The brain becomes confused, he said, and can trigger reactions in other parts of the brain that cause nausea and vomiting.
What the eyes process visually has enormous effect on how the body reacts, said Dr. Dennis Maceri, an associate professor at the USC School of Medicine who specializes in ear, nose and throat care. The body reacts to what is seen, he said, even if it's not real.
In the 1968 Steve McQueen movie "Bullitt," viewers watch a car chase on the steep hills of San Francisco.
"He goes down the big hill, and you can feel your stomach move . . . even though your body is stationary," Maceri said.
"The eyes can fool you," he said.
Some people experience a similar feeling as they read in a moving car, he said. To the eyes, the words appear to jump around and "you can't stabilize your gaze."
Experts suggest that those who feel motion sickness should stare at a fixed point that appears not to move, such as the head of someone in the theater, Risey said.
Dramamine, an anti-motion-sickness medication, also might help, he said.
Peter Bohlen, an 18-year-old high school student from Glendale, said he was nauseated after watching the movie Saturday with four friends, and still wasn't feeling well a day later.
"They're trying to go for the home video feel, so it's constantly shaking around," Bohlen said. "My brain tried to make it work, but it couldn't. I got a pretty heinous headache afterward."
Roxanne Garrett, 18, of Alhambra said she was feeling dizzy at first.
"But I got used to it," she said.
Scott Correll, 38, of South Pasadena said the jerky motion of the camera is a filming style that has become popular in recent years.
"It's stimulus overload, and you get used to it," Correll said. "It's the way everything is these days."
Dobson, the chief executive of Mann Theatres, said he believed that the vast majority of viewers felt fine.
"We've shown it to thousands of people this weekend, so the actual percentage of people [who felt ill] is really low," Dobson said. "We're delighted with the business 'Cloverfield' is doing."
MINOR SPOILERS
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 24, 2008, 02:35:35 PM
Erika Hasegawa, 32, was watching "Cloverfield" at a theater in Alhambra on Tuesday night but had to leave in the middle of the film.
"I'm really nauseous right now -- just hold on for a second," she said, before walking down the hall and retching into a trash can.
"I wish I could get my money back," she said.
Screw these people. I left the movie with a headache, feeling like I was gonna puke and you know what? I wouldn't change it because if a monster really did come out of the ocean and lay waste to half the city as I tried to rescue my would-be girlfriend from the top of the toppled-over Time Warner Center, I'd probably have a headache and feel like I was gonna puke. I couldn't have asked for a more immersive filmgoing experience.
Paramount sows 'Cloverfield' sequel
Matt Reeves to direct 'Invisible Woman'
Source: Variety
Matt Reeves is in early talks with Paramount to direct a "Cloverfield" sequel, and he has also made a deal with GreeneStreet Films to direct "The Invisible Woman."
Timing of the projects will depend on how quickly Paramount can complete discussions with Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and scribe Drew Goddard to scare up another monster tale for the "Cloverfield" sequel. There's a good chance the sequel will be Reeves' next film, in which case he will direct "The Invisible Woman" afterward.
"Woman" is a Hitchcock-style thriller that probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family.
Reeves wrote the script and will produce with Abrams and GreeneStreet's John Penotti, Fisher Stevens and Tim Williams.
"Matt has created a truly original and compelling character and story," said GreeneStreet's Penotti.
GreeneStreet will finance "The Invisible Woman," and GreeneStreet Intl. will sell overseas territories.
With a $25 million budget, a strong concept and cast of unknowns, "Cloverfield" scored a $46 million opening frame, which was a record for a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. Paramount gave away almost no first-dollar gross, making the film a bargain for the studio.
GreeneStreet recently completed two films: the John Polson-directed "Tenderness," starring Russell Crowe, which was just set for distribution at Lionsgate, and "Bill," directed by Melisa Wallack and Bernie Goldmann, whichwill be distributed by First Look Studios.
Last friday I received some terrible, terrible news. The sadness I've been having since that day is overwhelming. I was resolved to go to the movies that night since I haven't done that in months. I was about to check The Orphanate, but I get a vibe from that movie that it's gonna be really good and classe but also terribly sad, and I just wasn't in the mood. So I went to see Cloverfield cause I figured it wold be the kind of movie that makes you forget about the outside world completely. And it did.
I will never forget how this film inmersed me into it's own reality and allowed me to forget the sad things going on in my life outside of it. It was truly a nightmarish experience, but one that I have to say it was fun to have. My feling is we can compare this all we want with The Blairwitch Project, but Cloverfield, because of it's scale, gets the prize for me. The way the handheld videocamera is used never gets tired. It's inventive all the way. When the film started I was also expecting more perspectives, but this one is compelling enough. I liked the way the scrypt brings every single thread together in a perfect little Hollywood way.
People were scared and eating everything up. First time in ages I can watch a movie in the theatre with everyone in silence. Then the film ended and peopl groaned. These fucking people annoy the hell out of me. In this fucking day and age you still can't have an open ending, an inconclusive ending, without all these assholes complaining about not getting their food spoon fed to them. As with the idiots complaining about getting dizzy: fuck them. There are worst things in this world than getting dizzy from a film.
Spielberg's War of the Worlds is the "other" disaster film of this decade that I can compare Cloverfield too. I think this one is better. It doesn't have the cheesy, corny Spielberg ending with the son living, and it doesn't have an "explanation" that sucks.
this is the worst movie ive seen in a LONG time. its painfully predictable, stupid, unoriginal and for the most part boring as fuck. jj abrams should stick to tv where the futility of his ideas arent bared so noticeably by the constraints of film. the concept goes nowhere and the ending is banal. i cant believe how receptive people are towards this piece of shit.
I actually liked it. Didn't think I would, but I did. Great idea and alot of fun.
JJ Abrams is still a hack and he was the worst thing about this flick since he obviously made sure it was about pretty people who had absolutely NO personalities at all and threw in a love story because he's a fucking hack, but everything else made up for it.
you're right, the writers went out of their way to make the characters as ordinary as possible, in an attempt to make them "relatable" - unrequited love, a bro, a best friend, a soul mate...etc., but the characters' lack of humanity underwhelmed the audience, especially through the last shots of the beautiful coney island ride. emptiness doesn't mean universal, bro. and I will go out of my way to link this to Elephant, how both films featured "archetypal" characters without much personality in the face of an unexpected tragedy, and how in both cases the writers substitute their lack of insight for realism, all the while unbeknownst to them, their preference and bias still shone through, enough to make their final products tacky. in cloverfield's instance, it's bros-tacky, and in Elephant, it's indie darling-tacky.
J.J. Abrams breaks ranks with Hollywood thinking
J.J. Abrams doesn't sound like a big-time Hollywood director and producer when he says the best place to watch his effects-filled disaster film "Cloverfield" is not in movie theaters but at home.
Most filmmakers want fans to see movies the way they were meant to be seen, on big screens in dark theaters where fantasy can become real. Then again, the DVD for box office hit "Cloverfield" lands on retail shelves on Tuesday, so it may be advantageous for Abrams to promote watching the film at home.
Still, Abrams seems sincere. "The thing about this movie -- probably more than any I think -- is that it is better on DVD than in the theater," Abrams told Reuters. "Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor."
"Cloverfield" tells of young people in Manhattan escaping monsters that are on a rampage of skyscraper destruction. Abrams said because it is told from the point-of-view of one young man taping the events with a video camera, it has the look and feel of a home movie -- albeit one with huge monsters.
As it plays out, the story tells of one man searching Manhattan for his lover as the city is rapidly destroyed by the alien-looking beings. When the two finally reunite, they must escape the city limits, and their adventure is captured on the shaky, hand-held video camera.
"Cloverfield," which cost a reported $25 million to make, became a surprise hit this past January when it debuted in theaters to a $40 million opening weekend and went on to rake in $166 million at worldwide box offices.
Abrams produced "Cloverfield" and shepherded it through Paramount Pictures, where he directed the Tom Cruise movie "Mission: Impossible III." He also created smash hit TV show "Lost," and is directing the new "Star Trek," due in theaters next year.
"The challenge of ("Star Trek") is to take something that -- despite the baggage of what came before -- was imaginative and unreal and make it feel as real as possible," Abrams said.
The producer, director and writer has become almost a brand name himself, with films and TV shows featuring supernatural and science fiction elements, as well as splashy special effects.
His fans should expect those same qualities from the new "Star Trek" movie, as well as plot twists and characters that give the movie a real-life quality.
"If there is a through-line in the stuff I've been able to work on, it is taking stories that are out there and combining them with people who are us," Abrams said.
HACK.
i saw it on sunday and right after it ended there was a minor earthquake WITH FUCKING RAIN and i did panic a little , but i'm not a lover of the movie. i think that 28 weeks later set the new standard for urban terror. and it's a shame cos i thought it started brilliantly, doing some shitty setup and then blowing in your face all 9/11, but then the characters became less than caricatures of the genre and i just wanted it to be over. and i agree with the one who said that a self aware camera wasn't a neccesity. keep on conquering pop, jj.