Is Super 8 a character from an anime or comic?
so is this monster movie going to not have plot and spend the whole film with backstory like his last monster movie?
I guess a majority of haters just didn't get Cloverfield.
It's not a movie I particularly desire to watch multiple times, but I kind of reckon it's like Blair Witch Project in that regard.
It's a movie that one or two viewings is "just right", because unlike plot-driven movies, the whole experience is best the first time. After that, the experience is ruined.
The way I see it, it seems obvious the movie pissed a lot of people off because it wasn't about the monster. It was about people living through a monster attack, designed to feel as authentic as possible... as if people, in this current generation, lived through a monster attack.
Personally, the characters and decisions they made seem completely logical. And the movie was completely about what people would do. I actually found it pretty damn intelligent in terms of what the characters would do, they just got punished for their decisions regardless, because what's a movie without shit blowing up, including people, amirite?
Going into the tunnel? Would have been my first idea.
Going back to try and save someone you really care about? I would have. But I recognize many individuals are assholes and put their own lives above others. See that the others argued against them, but the empathetic intelligent male lead them into the fray regardless of their opinions.
But I guess everyone wants their movies to hold their hand, have extremely contrived plot direction, just to have characters make predictable decisions. There are standouts, and I like all of that type too, I'm just saying.
I like to think of Cloverfield as an amateur-shot disaster documentary. Without the commentary because, well... they're in the middle of it and they want to live. Their is plot, but you only get to see plot that the characters, and camera man, get to witness.
I guess a majority of haters just didn't get Cloverfield.
70s/80s... suburban residents making contact...Last night we published one of the first descriptions of the super secret teaser trailer for JJ Abrams‘ Super 8 (you can read that description here, although I urge you to see it on the big screen in front of Iron Man 2 if you have the patience/will power to do so). We now have even more information about the project.
We’ve previously confirmed:
New Information:
- It is not a Cloverfield sequel or prequel.
- It is written and directed by JJ Abrams.
- Yes, produced by Steven Spielberg, along with Bryan Burk and Abrams
- It will be released in 2011 as an Amblin Entertainment (not Dreamworks) release (Paramount Pictures Distributing, Bad Robot Producing)
- This will be an homage/tribute to Spielberg’s 1970’s/1980’s Amblin films, like Close Encounters of a Third Kind and E.T. Imagine combining that with the characters, mystery and supernatural spin of Abrams.
- And it takes place in the late 1979.
- I’ve seen the trailer and it really does feel like a Spielberg film from the Amblin-era, but at the same time you can also see Abrams fingerprints.
- The trailer was shot independently of the film a month ago, and the special effects were done under the cover of Abrams new NBC series Undercovers
- Variety says the film will begin principal photography in Fall 2010.
- The film’s actual budget is in the range of $45 million-$50 million.
- It will be shot traditionally, and not through a handheld Super 8 Camera ala Cloverfield.
- It will be released in Summer 2011. The release date could be May 27, 2011. I say this because Paramount, just today, pushed Mission Impossible 4 out of that date, and back to December, leaving the slot open.
- HeatVision says that actual movie has something to do with “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.” This certainly gels with Vulture’s original theory on the trailer.
Shit............
Blowing...................
Up..................................
HeatVision says that actual movie has something to do with “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.” This certainly gels with Vulture’s original theory on the trailer.
wait...why did whatever is in the container wait till the train derailed for it to start busting open the door?
wait...why did whatever is in the container wait till the train derailed for it to start busting open the door?
I guess a majority of haters just didn't get Cloverfield.
It's not a movie I particularly desire to watch multiple times, but I kind of reckon it's like Blair Witch Project in that regard.
It's a movie that one or two viewings is "just right", because unlike plot-driven movies, the whole experience is best the first time. After that, the experience is ruined.
The way I see it, it seems obvious the movie pissed a lot of people off because it wasn't about the monster. It was about people living through a monster attack, designed to feel as authentic as possible... as if people, in this current generation, lived through a monster attack.
Personally, the characters and decisions they made seem completely logical. And the movie was completely about what people would do. I actually found it pretty damn intelligent in terms of what the characters would do, they just got punished for their decisions regardless, because what's a movie without shit blowing up, including people, amirite?
Going into the tunnel? Would have been my first idea.
Going back to try and save someone you really care about? I would have. But I recognize many individuals are assholes and put their own lives above others. See that the others argued against them, but the empathetic intelligent male lead them into the fray regardless of their opinions.
But I guess everyone wants their movies to hold their hand, have extremely contrived plot direction, just to have characters make predictable decisions. There are standouts, and I like all of that type too, I'm just saying.
I like to think of Cloverfield as an amateur-shot disaster documentary. Without the commentary because, well... they're in the middle of it and they want to live. Their is plot, but you only get to see plot that the characters, and camera man, get to witness.
this is the most plausible and interesting theory
Abrams and Spielberg? I'm in. If for nothing more than top notch effects and style.
Like Micheal Bay...except with skill.
wait...why did whatever is in the container wait till the train derailed for it to start busting open the door?
so is this monster movie going to not have plot and spend the whole film with backstory like his last monster movie?
I guess a majority of haters just didn't get Cloverfield.
It's not a movie I particularly desire to watch multiple times, but I kind of reckon it's like Blair Witch Project in that regard.
It's a movie that one or two viewings is "just right", because unlike plot-driven movies, the whole experience is best the first time. After that, the experience is ruined.
The way I see it, it seems obvious the movie pissed a lot of people off because it wasn't about the monster. It was about people living through a monster attack, designed to feel as authentic as possible... as if people, in this current generation, lived through a monster attack.
Personally, the characters and decisions they made seem completely logical. And the movie was completely about what people would do. I actually found it pretty damn intelligent in terms of what the characters would do, they just got punished for their decisions regardless, because what's a movie without shit blowing up, including people, amirite?
Going into the tunnel? Would have been my first idea.
Going back to try and save someone you really care about? I would have. But I recognize many individuals are assholes and put their own lives above others. See that the others argued against them, but the empathetic intelligent male lead them into the fray regardless of their opinions.
But I guess everyone wants their movies to hold their hand, have extremely contrived plot direction, just to have characters make predictable decisions. There are standouts, and I like all of that type too, I'm just saying.
I like to think of Cloverfield as an amateur-shot disaster documentary. Without the commentary because, well... they're in the middle of it and they want to live. Their is plot, but you only get to see plot that the characters, and camera man, get to witness.