Cloverfield Movie • Page 11

Film Twitter is tearing this a new one, so it’s looks to be pretty polarizing, which is understandable.

 

How can you say the movies aren't connected at all when they literally show the monster from the first movie at the end of this. that is an EXPLICIT connection. You can argue Cloverfield and 10CL aren't connected, but they went out of their way to connect this to the first movie.

 

I think it's at least ambiguous whether or not that's the same monster from the first one, even though it looks identical. Also, there was only one monster in the first one, whereas this time they were all over. And that monster looked, like, way bigger than the one in the first movie anyway. Also I don't think they were landing in New York. Also it was daytime in the last shot and they bombed the monster during the night in the first one; unless the bombing didn't work, which I don't remember if it was confirmed that it did or not, that also means it probably wasn't the same monster.

I think the monster looking the same was just supposed to tie it into the Cloverfield brand.

 

I also think this is connected with the piece of space station junk falling in the water at the end of the first Cloverfield.

 

It's been awhile since I've seen it but the clip of the satellite falling in the water from the first movie was supposed to have been recorded before the attack, right?

 

But no space station pieces fell off of the station on the Earth they return to at the end of the movie. Remember when the station broke apart they were in the alternate universe. The movie heavily implies that these monsters came from a tear in reality caused by the accelerator, not from the ocean.

 

Yeah, I think you’re right.

 

even if it's not the same exact individual creature from the first movie, it's still clearly one of the species. We don't know if there was only one of the monsters, and at the end of the credits of the first movie, a radio broadcast (or individual?) says "it's still alive".

You can't argue this movie isn't connected.

 

Oh right, they did say that it's still alive, forgot that.

But I just did ;)

 

No no no, the word you want is unique; unique and creative are not synonymous. Anyone can be unique. Being unique is neither in itself impressive nor an accomplishment. Natalie Portman's character in The Garden State was unique.

But she was a piss poor dancer.

This type of shit is why Lost is terrible. Mashing a bunch of random garbage together is not how you write an actual mystery, and that same principle goes for universe building as well. It's cheap and lazy and hacky and not to mention extremely misleading.

 

No I meant creative. It's a creative business idea. Novel. Original. Never-been-done-before. A solution to wanting to make original stories on the one hand, but still have them tie into a franchise with name recognition to help put people in seats on the other.

 

And this is all leaving aside the part where the movie itself is kinda bad.

 

Yeah again, unique is still the correct word. There's nothing creative about taking someone else's screenplay, scratching out its title, and then writing a different one over it. It's ballsy to the sell this to the public as part of a overarching franchise, but it certainly isn't creative.

 

i really thought the arm was going to come into play there at the end, huh

i wouldn't have seen this in a theater anyway

 

I wish they would have gone in a more weird direction from there. That seemed to be teeing up for something that just got fogotten.

 

Once again, it's a creative business strategy. Standing by that. What I'm saying has nothing to do with the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of what that strategy entails.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and I really like the idea that the monster(s) were created by a tear in reality.

But I do hope if they continue down this road they tie these in with the universe a bit more then having a stinger at the end with the monster like both of these last 2.

 

Also how in the fuck would Chris O'Dowd's arm know the gyroscope was in the worm guy? How would it even end up there? That part makes no fucking sense. If anything, the lost gyroscope would've ended up in OTHER DIMENSION WORM GUY, and that also makes no sense. Why would this dimension's gyrsocope go inside this dimension's worm guy, how does worm guy walk around with an entire colony of worms and a GYROSCOPE inside of his body
I'm going to bed angry GOODNIGHT

 

By the way, the original script feels like it was much worse.

Untitled document

 

yeah like they decided to cut a scene with it or something

 

If they had wanted this to tie the other two together, whoever wrote that document's idea for how it could've happened isn't terrible. Crazy how that script became this though.

 

So then we're arguing semantics it seems like. It's "creative" in as much as it's original, which is about the lowest possible standard one can hold to.

It's still utter dogshit as a film, attempt at universe building, and a business strategy. At least I hope so. I look forward to torrenting the next one.

 

well I loved the shit out of this and already know this thread is gonna turn into another toxic wasteland of hyperbole like every hype movie around here by this first page of reactions

 

This feels like someone remembered the 10 year anniversary was coming up soon and hammered out a movie as quick as they could. I really wish they would have scrapped it when they had the chance and done some major rewrites because honestly it kinda spoils my impression of the first two knowing this exists in the canon.

 

I wish JJ Abrams was in a cannon.


I couldn't help myself. I tried, but I really couldn't.