Author Topic: Cloverfield  (Read 19643 times)

DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
on: January 19, 2008, 06:00:59 PM
So did anyone else see this?  I got to go last night (pretty much the first time I've been to a movie on opening night since my daughter was born 2 1/2 years ago).  It was nuts.  First, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IN THEATERS IF YOU GET MOTION SICK. 

The plot was pretty simple but there's enough there for you to care about the characters.  And the movie was ruthless with the characters.  Spoilers below.

The movie itself I thought was pretty well done.  A very straightforward story, lots of...I dunno if set pieces is the right word, not in the traditional Spielberg sense, but one crazy scene following another.  I think my favorite scenes were the one in the tunnel and then right after in the emergency military medical/quarantine area.  Awesome.  Overall, I thought it did a lot of things extremely well, playing with fears of claustrophobia, the dark, infection, and "why the hell is this happening to us?"


Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #1 on: January 19, 2008, 06:55:49 PM
I will be seeing this soon, the trailers looked great and the premise sounds cool.    My 16 y/o son went to it last night with a group of rowdies and they all liked it (which is sometimes a red flag for me.)  His description matched yours.  I've heard it described as Blair Witch meets Godzilla.  So far the national reviews in the US have been pretty good. 

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #2 on: January 21, 2008, 01:04:07 AM
Cloverfield aka. "Motion Sickness: The Movie"
Do not sit near the front.

Spoilers Below
-The narrator bugged the ever-loving-crap out of me. I was whining to the crew I saw it with about 'why did they have to give the camera to the obnoxious guy?' when someone pointed out that it's often the annoying guy who gets the crap job of filming stuff. It only makes sense that he gets stuck with it in the end.
-On one hand the motion sickness caused by the ever shaking camera actually adds to the intensity of the film, on the other hand I wouldn't have minded a little less 'realism'. I mean, I did go to the cinema to watch a movie, not a home video.
-The monster rocked. I did notice a rather bat-like resemblance, though the little ones I haven't quite identified yet.
-I really think/hope that there will be sequel.

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


jrderego

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 687
  • Writer of Union Dues stories (among others)
    • J. R. DeRego - Writer
Reply #3 on: January 21, 2008, 03:02:03 AM
Look for Cloverfield soon in the Horrorview Hall of Shame.

Never before have I been so happy to see all of the main characters die.

"Happiness consists of getting enough sleep." Robert A. Heinlein
Also, please buy my book - Escape Clause: A Union Dues Novel
http://www.encpress.com/EC.html


Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #4 on: January 21, 2008, 04:41:36 AM
That was easily one of the best movies I have ever seen, in any genre.  Four stars and two thumbs up.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2008, 04:44:16 AM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


jrderego

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 687
  • Writer of Union Dues stories (among others)
    • J. R. DeRego - Writer
Reply #5 on: January 21, 2008, 07:05:11 AM
Comprehensive, spoiler-laden review of Cloverfield is now available at http://www.horrorview.com/HallofShame/Cloverfieldshame.htm

Here is the opening -

Never before have I been so happy to see all the main characters of a movie die before the end credits.

Cloverfield, the highest grossing film of 2008 (so far), with a record breaking first weekend haul of 41 million smackers, is almost certainly going to be the highest grossing giant monster film ever made.

Cloverfield is what happens when Dogme/cinema verite meets kaiju eigah, it's naturally lit, the dialogue is all improvised (I am guessing) and the whole film depends on the way the characters freak out when a giant monster lands in New York City.

And for all intents and purposes, this mixture of style and genre should work like gangbusters. But it doesn't for one reason – the monster is barely in it.

Cloverfield is also a giant monster film for people who don't like giant monster films. As evidence for this there is about one WHOLE MINUTE of giant monster footage in this movie. The general plot is ingenious, if, like me you always wondered what the hell was going through the minds of the poor bastards trapped in Tokyo when Godzilla came for a visit in 1954. Now I know. They were thinking "AHHHHHH A MONSTAH!!!!! RUN!!!!!!"

People who don't like giant monster films will see this and think "hmmmm… interesting… such tension… such startling visuals… finally an original science fiction/horror film."

I say "Original in 1933. Not so original here…"

"Happiness consists of getting enough sleep." Robert A. Heinlein
Also, please buy my book - Escape Clause: A Union Dues Novel
http://www.encpress.com/EC.html


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #6 on: January 21, 2008, 04:45:01 PM
SNIP
And for all intents and purposes, this mixture of style and genre should work like gangbusters. But it doesn't for one reason – the monster is barely in it.

Actually, I thought that was one of the cooler aspects of the movie -- that we saw the monster, but the monster was usually more in the peripherary than out in plain sight.  Because when it is in plain sight, when it's that close, it will kill you.  I also thought that kind of restraint did a good job of ratcheting up the tension.

For me, I also wasn't looking forward to so much of a special effects monster extravaganza as I was to being scared and seeing a horror movie from a different perspective. 


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #7 on: January 21, 2008, 05:01:08 PM
SNIP
And for all intents and purposes, this mixture of style and genre should work like gangbusters. But it doesn't for one reason – the monster is barely in it.

Actually, I thought that was one of the cooler aspects of the movie -- that we saw the monster, but the monster was usually more in the peripherary than out in plain sight.  Because when it is in plain sight, when it's that close, it will kill you.  I also thought that kind of restraint did a good job of ratcheting up the tension.

For me, I also wasn't looking forward to so much of a special effects monster extravaganza as I was to being scared and seeing a horror movie from a different perspective. 

Well, the gist of that review is "Cloverfield is more likely to appeal to people who are not fans of monster movies than to die-hard fans". Your response sort of goes along with that.

(Note that I've actually gotten more interested in the movie thanks to the review, since I don't like monster movies. Still not interested in actually seeing it, though, since my taste in movies is much narrower than my taste in fiction and doesn't really include any non-comedic horror.)



Alasdair5000

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
    • My blog
Reply #8 on: January 21, 2008, 05:20:48 PM
So did anyone else see this?  I got to go last night (pretty much the first time I've been to a movie on opening night since my daughter was born 2 1/2 years ago).  It was nuts.  First, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IN THEATERS IF YOU GET MOTION SICK. 

The plot was pretty simple but there's enough there for you to care about the characters.  And the movie was ruthless with the characters.  Spoilers below.

The movie itself I thought was pretty well done.  A very straightforward story, lots of...I dunno if set pieces is the right word, not in the traditional Spielberg sense, but one crazy scene following another.  I think my favorite scenes were the one in the tunnel and then right after in the emergency military medical/quarantine area.  Awesome.  Overall, I thought it did a lot of things extremely well, playing with fears of claustrophobia, the dark, infection, and "why the hell is this happening to us?"

Whilst I don't buy into the 'JJ Abrams is LEX LUTHOR!' school of thought, I'm really looking forward to this.  It's interesting as well, because I've been a spectator on the ARG connected to the movie for the last six months and there's a real sense of what Michael Mann called 'Fractal Storytelling' on Collateral.  There's a huge, richly realised backstory to the thing that will completely pass you by if you've not seen it and not affect your enjoyment in the slightest.
   But if you have seen it, then tiny little things, from a guest at the opening party to a corporate logo are going to have very, very different meanings.

   Oh and in a very odd, and rather fun move, apparently the advertising campaign for it is going to switch now to different views of the monster.  Basically other cameras in the city which Matt Reeves, the director, has already gone on record as saying is something they've considered for a sequel.



Mr. Tweedy

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
  • I am a sloth.
    • Free Mode
Reply #9 on: January 21, 2008, 06:48:42 PM
And for all intents and purposes, this mixture of style and genre should work like gangbusters. But it doesn't for one reason – the monster is barely in it.

Actually, that is one of my very few complaints about this great movie: We see too much of the monster.  The whole thing hinges on it's seeming authentic, on being what it would really be like to experience such a disaster.  The final shot of the monster making eye contact with the camera for five whole seconds lost that.  Only in a Hollywood movie would a force of nature like this stop and pay personal attention to one of its many, many meals.  It's like a shark and a tuna locking eyes and sizing each other up for a five-count before the shark finally decides to chomp down.

I thought that moment sacrificed a bit of the film's artistic integrity for the sake of a dramatic monster shot.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2008, 06:55:59 PM by Mr. Tweedy »

Hear my very very short story on The Drabblecast!


Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #10 on: January 27, 2008, 03:32:52 AM
And for all intents and purposes, this mixture of style and genre should work like gangbusters. But it doesn't for one reason – the monster is barely in it.

Actually, that is one of my very few complaints about this great movie: We see too much of the monster.  The whole thing hinges on it's seeming authentic, on being what it would really be like to experience such a disaster.  The final shot of the monster making eye contact with the camera for five whole seconds lost that.  Only in a Hollywood movie would a force of nature like this stop and pay personal attention to one of its many, many meals.  It's like a shark and a tuna locking eyes and sizing each other up for a five-count before the shark finally decides to chomp down.

I thought that moment sacrificed a bit of the film's artistic integrity for the sake of a dramatic monster shot.

Saw the movie tonight.  Wow, I thought it was good.  The hand held camera and constant chaos worked great together.     

I have to agree with Mr. Tweedy.  The scene he describes above (spoiler) didn't work for me at all.  I thought the movie worked because you never really saw it straight on for any length of time  It was always there and then not there, moving through shots.   

I'm glad I brought my wife with me.  I wasn't paying close attention to the final Coney Island scene and didn't realized the importance of what was shown as they panned to the ocean.     

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #11 on: January 27, 2008, 08:09:07 PM
I'm glad I brought my wife with me.  I wasn't paying close attention to the final Coney Island scene and didn't realized the importance of what was shown as they panned to the ocean.     

I totally missed that part, but thanks to the interwebs I found this:
http://www.cloverfieldendingcredits.com/
Caution: May spoil Cloverfield 2

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


timprov

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • Personal Home Page
Reply #12 on: January 28, 2008, 08:42:08 PM
I am actually very annoyed with some of the things I've been reading from people on this movie.  I was just over at IMDB.com reading the people's reviews there and most of them are ripping the movie into shreads!  Most complain about the camera work, other complain about the acting and the 'stupid people' actions they do yet, some actually proclaim they're Monster Movie fans.   Now, I read the review complaining you don't see the monster enough?  I mean, geez people, lighten up! 

I really don't understand the masses.  You hear people complaining all the time about how Hollywood doesn't do anything new or creative, how it's the same things over and over again then and when something comes along that is different, that tries something new all people complain about is the stuff that makes it different!  "Oh, the camera was shaking too much, it got me sick. Oh, you didn't see the monster all that much.  Oh, the people were so stupid for doing that."  I want to just grab them, shake them really hard and say, "Shut up! It's a monster movie, what do you really want from it?"

Another one of my friends had a good point about the 'not seeing the monster all the much' complaint.  He said, "well, it worked for Jaws."  Do you think that if Jaws were made today people would complain about not seeing the Shark, how the crew was dumb for not returning to the shore after they saw large the shark was, and how the shark looked 'too fake' for them? 

I haven't been this upset about a reaction to a movie since I saw Grindhouse last year, another movie that failed because it was different and didn't go by the paint by numbers formula Hollywood has shoved down our throats for the past god knows how many years. 

So, to those who don't want anything different, who can't embrace when a filmmaker tries something new, I really hope you enjoy your bland, run of the mill movies cause you deserve them.

Whoa, I need a drink!


Even in failure there can be Nobility! But failing to try brings only shame!
-Silver Surfer

www.timothypcallahan.com


Czhorat

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #13 on: January 28, 2008, 11:31:17 PM
I am actually very annoyed with some of the things I've been reading from people on this movie.  I was just over at IMDB.com reading the people's reviews there and most of them are ripping the movie into shreads!  Most complain about the camera work, other complain about the acting and the 'stupid people' actions they do yet, some actually proclaim they're Monster Movie fans.   Now, I read the review complaining you don't see the monster enough?  I mean, geez people, lighten up! 

......

So, to those who don't want anything different, who can't embrace when a filmmaker tries something new, I really hope you enjoy your bland, run of the mill movies cause you deserve them.

(middle part snipped)

I didn't see the movie so can't really comment about it, but I do think there's a flaw in your reasoning. If one doesn't like the standard by the numbers Hollywood treatment of most subjects, it does not follow that anything that breaks that mold is necessarily good. It's possible to write a film that's different, unique, but still an artistic as well as a commercial failure.

From what I hear about the movie admittedly secondhand, it doesn't even sound that groundbreakingly original. The trick of filming with what appears to be a shaky hand-held consumer camera has been done before. It gave people nausea last time too.

The Word of Nash is the word of Nash and it is Nash's word.


Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #14 on: January 29, 2008, 02:44:09 PM

From what I hear about the movie admittedly secondhand, it doesn't even sound that groundbreakingly original. The trick of filming with what appears to be a shaky hand-held consumer camera has been done before. It gave people nausea last time too.

Are you referring to Blair Witch?  I don't know if the hand held camera idea has been done this way before:  filming the destruction of a major city by some 20-somethings running from a monster.  I thought seeing the chaos through the limited scope of their camera lens worked better than if it was filmed from different angles, like in Transformers.   When things started going bump in the night during Cloverfield I got a similar feeling I had when our town was hit by a tornado - you knew something bad was happening but your knowledge and vision of the situation was limited to what you was in front of you and what you could hear. (Not to say that a movie compares equally with a real life horror situation).   

I'm 100% with timprov on this one.  Yeah, some of the charachters were annoying yuppies but overall the movie worked for me.   Everyone has different tastes but I guess I'm surprised so many people are ripping this movie.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #15 on: January 30, 2008, 04:08:00 AM
Re: Timprov
I think it's also fair to say that a little less camera shaking wouldn't have been bad. I don't think it would have been compromising of the artistic vision had the movie been a little easier to watch. I did say that the mild nausea did add to the tension of the film, but it was hard to watch too which is kind of contrary to the point of making a motion picture.

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #16 on: January 30, 2008, 06:58:44 PM
Re: Timprov
I think it's also fair to say that a little less camera shaking wouldn't have been bad. I don't think it would have been compromising of the artistic vision had the movie been a little easier to watch. I did say that the mild nausea did add to the tension of the film, but it was hard to watch too which is kind of contrary to the point of making a motion picture.

FWIW, my wife cannot help but get motion sick in movies like this.  She could not physically watch this movie.  (She had a lot of trouble with the latter 2 Bourne movies, too.)  I do think the handheld camera work is a very useful tool in a filmmakers arsenal.  It just sucks that it literally does make some people vomit.  (This didn't happen to Emma, but the movie theater I saw it in was passing out barf bags because people in earlier screenings did throw up in the movie.  Why they stayed in the movie knowing they were going to throw-up instead of going to the bathroom is up for debate.)

Like I said, I absolutely loved this movie.  However, I don't think it was completely original idea.  It just had a hell of an execution.  It took the best parts of the Blair Witch Project, Godzilla, and Stephen Spielberg's War of the Worlds, and mashed them up to make an excellent movie.  (Tom Cruise's mental issues aside, I think of WotW would have been great, except for that crappy ending.)  If I had to choose between watching any of those movies again and Cloverfield, I'd watch Cloverfield.


bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...
Reply #17 on: February 04, 2008, 12:32:26 AM
This is mostly a repost of what I said at the drabblecast forums, so if you read it there you can skip it without worry...

I thought it was fantastic. America finally has its own daikaiju. Oh, I know Hollywood jumped on the giant monster bandwagon at the time, but they were all "Look, a giant [gorilla|ant|mantis|supermodel]!" Japan's monsters, even if they were often partly based on real-world creatures, had some imagination to them. (I mean, have you ever seen a real turtle look or act like Gamera? Clarification: Have you ever, WHILE SOBER, seen a turtle look or act like Gamera?)

And yet, this wasn't by any stretch a copy of the Japanese form. Where the Japanese films were at their base about crowds and cities and nations and armies and, occasionally, heroic scientists (and while some of this is certainly a question of era, you see it even in the more recent Toho films), this was about the importance of the individual's story -- something which both makes it different from the Toho films and at the same time makes it truly American.

Oh, and it was also tense and scary as shit, even the somewhat far-fetched parts, like climbing around on the tilting building.



Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #18 on: February 04, 2008, 06:54:25 PM
I'm glad I brought my wife with me.  I wasn't paying close attention to the final Coney Island scene and didn't realized the importance of what was shown as they panned to the ocean.     

I totally missed that part, but thanks to the interwebs I found this:
http://www.cloverfieldendingcredits.com/
Caution: May spoil Cloverfield 2

I read somewhere that talks have begun about a Cloverfield 2.  It would again be a hand-held camera perspective of the same event but filmed by a different person on the other side of the bridge.   

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


Alasdair5000

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
    • My blog
Reply #19 on: February 07, 2008, 02:54:26 PM
Saw it yesterday.  Wow, yeah that works very very well.  Be interesting to see how a sequel works, especially after the interview you mentioned with Reeves regarding the other camera.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #20 on: February 08, 2008, 06:16:00 AM
I'd love to see a sequel from the military's perspective -- kind of like what Aliens was to Alien.  That could still be pretty cool and could fit in well with the whole tone of the first one.  It's nice to hear Matt Reeves, Drew Goddard, and JJ Abrams will all be onboard if there's another.


wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #21 on: April 14, 2008, 01:13:38 AM
Sorry I'm late to the Cloverfield party, but I only just saw it.  I live in Japan, so it came here late and I saw it knowing nothing about it except that there was a giant monster who takes it's frustrations out on The Statue of Liberty.  It was very cool seeing it right in the heart of Tokyo, and then afterward walking around the city looking up at the buildings waiting for a big, green claw to knock one down. 

I thought the the main characters were kind of annoying, but their actions were believable. 

I had a serious problem with motion sickness, and since I went into Cloverfield knowing nothing, it took me a while to realize that the movie was making me sick.  I first thought that coke and popcorn on an empty stomach wasn't such a good idea, then I thought I was actually coming down with something and would have to leave the theater to throw up.  But aside from cold sweats and nausea, I was actually enjoying the movie, so I toughed it out.  The lack of effects that people have complained about worked in my favor.  It meant that I could spend a substantial part of the movie looking at the ground with my hand up so I couldn't see the screen.  I would look up when it sounded like something cool was about to happen, and in this way I made it through, but just barely.  Every moment was a struggle, and it was very distracting. 

I'm not sure that I would go see a sequel if it is shot in the same way.  Has anyone tried Dramamine?   



Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #22 on: May 04, 2008, 02:56:36 AM
Very, very late to the party, but I just rented this tonight and watched it with Mrs. Chodon.  Overall, I thought it was just okay.  The monster was scary, the little monsters that fell off it, while odd, were also scary.  I think MANY of the actions taken by the characters were completely idiotic.  A few that come to mind:
-Running across the middle of a street while tanks, rocket launchers, and all kinds of small arms are shooting at a gigantic monster (get caught in the crossfire much?).
-Not carrying a flashlight with them at all times.
-Not running like hell when they saw the rats heading the same direction down the subway tunnel, then taking the time to figure out how to turn on the night vision on the camera.
-The military letting them go like they did.  There must have been thousands of people trapped like Beth.  I don't think the army would have just let some perfectly healthy people go find their friend.
-Climbing the building next to Beth's to get into her half collapsed building.  That whole setup was just waiting for a breeze to knock it over.
-Pulling Beth off a piece of concrete re-bar that went through her chest.  Talk about doing more damage!  She seemed to just walk it off in a few minutes though.  Again, odd.
-I don't think the government would use nuclear weapons on their own soil, even if a giant monster were attacking the city.  He/she was staying on Manhattan and there are a lot of other weapons at their disposal in the "continuum of force".  I think there was a thread on that at some point.

Finally, my wife summed it up by saying "I was more worried about the horse and buggy that passed them than anything else".  I couldn't wait for Hud to get eaten.  If it weren't for all the other people in Manhattan I would have been cheering for Cloverfield.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #23 on: May 29, 2008, 09:40:05 PM
-Not running like hell when they saw the rats heading the same direction down the subway tunnel, then taking the time to figure out how to turn on the night vision on the camera.
-

I've never heard of night vision on a regular video camera. 

Has anyone seen the alternate endings?  Whoopie.  Nothing much there IMO. 

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


jrderego

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 687
  • Writer of Union Dues stories (among others)
    • J. R. DeRego - Writer
Reply #24 on: May 30, 2008, 03:37:22 AM
-Not running like hell when they saw the rats heading the same direction down the subway tunnel, then taking the time to figure out how to turn on the night vision on the camera.
-

I've never heard of night vision on a regular video camera. 

Has anyone seen the alternate endings?  Whoopie.  Nothing much there IMO. 

I think all of the Sony camcorders have "Night Shot" which is an infra red night vision system. They've had them going back at least 10 years, so I'm pretty sure there are others with similar features.

"Happiness consists of getting enough sleep." Robert A. Heinlein
Also, please buy my book - Escape Clause: A Union Dues Novel
http://www.encpress.com/EC.html


birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #25 on: May 30, 2008, 05:13:15 AM
-Not running like hell when they saw the rats heading the same direction down the subway tunnel, then taking the time to figure out how to turn on the night vision on the camera.
-

I've never heard of night vision on a regular video camera. 

Has anyone seen the alternate endings?  Whoopie.  Nothing much there IMO. 

I think all of the Sony camcorders have "Night Shot" which is an infra red night vision system. They've had them going back at least 10 years, so I'm pretty sure there are others with similar features.
Off-topic and pointless, but maybe as a point of interest for someone: They've actually had them longer than that. I remember working with a guy back around '94 who had one, and I remember seeing on the news the controversy about the night-vision: they had some sort of X-ray ability, as in they were able to see through clothes. I never saw it, but I remember it being on the news and the guy I worked with witnessed it with his camera. I don't know, though, if the original night vision was infrared or something else. Whatever it was, they had to change it.



Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #26 on: May 30, 2008, 01:18:07 PM
-Not running like hell when they saw the rats heading the same direction down the subway tunnel, then taking the time to figure out how to turn on the night vision on the camera.
-

I've never heard of night vision on a regular video camera. 

Has anyone seen the alternate endings?  Whoopie.  Nothing much there IMO. 

I think all of the Sony camcorders have "Night Shot" which is an infra red night vision system. They've had them going back at least 10 years, so I'm pretty sure there are others with similar features.

Wow, I'm an idiot.  I own a Sony DVD camcorder and spent a lot of time researching them prior to its purchase.  I obviously didn't pay much attention to the available options.  Will have to check out my camera tonight to see if it has night vision.  I'll be filming zombies at midnight if it does.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...
Reply #27 on: June 02, 2008, 06:22:33 AM
I think MANY of the actions taken by the characters were completely idiotic.

Well, that is a standby of the horror genre, and not one that I think is all that un-called-for.  Think of a time you've been in a crisis situation.  I know that I haven't always made all the decisions that, in hindsight, I probably should have.  I think we're all so used to the uber-competent hero that is such a literary standard that we forget that people aren't really like that.  We don't always do the right thing, and we still have to try to survive, even with a few bad decisions.



Planish

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
  • Fun will now commence.
    • northernelectric.ca
Reply #28 on: June 02, 2008, 06:46:12 AM
I thought it was fantastic. America finally has its own daikaiju.

1953 - The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, with creature animation by Ray Harryhausen. That's a year ahead of Godzilla.

Quote
...and I remember seeing on the news the controversy about the night-vision: they had some sort of X-ray ability, as in they were able to see through clothes. I never saw it, but I remember it being on the news and the guy I worked with witnessed it with his camera. I don't know, though, if the original night vision was infrared or something else. Whatever it was, they had to change it.
It was some kind of infrared. The "X-ray image" thing was more of an illusion, that works in two ways. Any part of clothing that was insulated from body heat (either by undergarments, or thick seams, or by virtue of not being in direct contact with the skin) would be cooler than thin fabric stretched tight across body ... features. The cooler areas appear darker.

So, for tight garments you have the contrast between the fabric that is in contact with skin and the fabric that bridges across, say, two butt cheeks, which gives a 3D shading effect for normally invisible features.

Add to that the outlining of multiple layers of fabric, such as seams, pockets, undergarments, etc. and it reinforces the illusion of X-ray vision.

My understanding was that Sony stopped production of consumer night-vision-capable cameras because of the fuss about supposed X-ray pix.


This type of X-ray specs, OTOH, can be approximated by looking through a white feather as a filter, which merely forms a diffused image.

I feed The Pod.
("planish" rhymes with "vanish")


Darwinist

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Reply #29 on: June 03, 2008, 06:23:49 PM

My understanding was that Sony stopped production of consumer night-vision-capable cameras because of the fuss about supposed X-ray pix.


Ugh.  Mine doesn't have it.  It is a 2007 model DVD recorder.  For the X-ray stuff I'll have to invest in some of those glasses advertised in the back of comic books.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.    -  Carl Sagan


birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #30 on: June 04, 2008, 05:13:54 AM
Ha! I was just wondering if those comic-book-advertised specs used the same "white feather technique" Planish mentioned.



Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #31 on: June 11, 2008, 05:46:20 AM
umm, in reference to night vision, i believe they shot the movie with the actual camera, so i think that camera actually has night vision.
but you know, as idiotic as fiddling around with the night vision at that time was, it was freaky when he turned it on and revealed that thing crawling on the ceiling.  :)

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #32 on: June 11, 2008, 11:29:21 AM
I think MANY of the actions taken by the characters were completely idiotic.

Well, that is a standby of the horror genre, and not one that I think is all that un-called-for.  Think of a time you've been in a crisis situation.  I know that I haven't always made all the decisions that, in hindsight, I probably should have.  I think we're all so used to the uber-competent hero that is such a literary standard that we forget that people aren't really like that.  We don't always do the right thing, and we still have to try to survive, even with a few bad decisions.
That is an excellent point.  Upon further consideration it doesn't make a lot of sense to find the actors' reactions under stress to a life threatening situation implausible, but find a giant monster attacking New York within the realm of possibilities.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


DarkKnightJRK

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Reply #33 on: June 12, 2008, 01:49:45 AM
I got it a few weeks back on DVD--amazing movie, probably one of my favorite horror movies in a long time.



cuddlebug

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Reply #34 on: July 31, 2008, 03:41:05 PM
I just watched this on DVD, and man, am I annoyed that I didn't see it in the cinema. What an AMAZING movie. (Reminded me a bit of EP167: 'Love and Death in the Time of Monsters', but that is just my bad timing). Probably one of the best monster movies I have seen ... ever. ... and it managed to make the audience care about the characters, which is hard for a monster movie, but then again, this one was a love story as well, wasn't it?

I loved and hated the fact that it looked so REAL. For one, it made everything feel as if it was happening to me, which is great exercise for the adrenaline glands, but on the other hand it drove me mad, as I kept trying to see more, look closer, pay attention to more details ...

Obviously, there are things that could have been done better, but hey it is a movie, it is supposed to entertain me and that it certainly did. I searched for info on whether there will be a sequel/version B, but could not find anything useful. Wow, I would love to see a sequel and I would definitely see it in the cinema this time.

Now, gotta find myself a huge TV screen somewhere and see it again.



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #35 on: July 31, 2008, 04:13:19 PM
Probably one of the best monster movies I have seen ... ever. ... and it managed to make the audience care about the characters, which is hard for a monster movie, but then again, this one was a love story as well, wasn't it?

I might have mentioned before that the host of Radio Playhouse has said, in response to friends who criticized Cloverfield for not showing enough of the creature, that "it's not about the monster!  It's about the people!"

This has led to me conceiving "the Cloverfield Defense" which I've recently used to respond to my wife's criticism of the Series 4 Doctor Who episode "Midnight".  ;D

(BTW I still haven't watched Cloverfield.)

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising