30 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

CLOVERFIELD would've been better if they hadn't concentrated on the single camera storyline so much. It was early in the found footage era, but I think it would've been more interesting - and encouraged rentals and rewatching - if they had put together footage from several different people in different parts of the city with different reasons for staying there. And then had their paths crossover.

[Steve Sensible]

CLOVERFIELD would've been better if they hadn't concentrated on the single camera storyline so much.

Same could be said of Chronicle. You could have done away with the found footage aspect in either movie, and it would have worked just as well. For every shot that makes use of the idea, there are several more where they have to make lame excuses for why someone would be filming at that moment.

[Johnny Henning]

Same could be said of Chronicle. You could have done away with the found footage aspect in either movie, and it would have worked just as well. For every shot that makes use of the idea, there are several more where they have to make lame excuses for why someone would be filming at that moment.

Personally, I'd like to see something like a Pulp Fiction storyline set during a monster or alien invasion or superhero battle. Instead of racing to get out of the city, you have hardened criminals who are using the chaos to rob banks, break into Federal Buildings to find witness protection files and settle old scores. Meanwhile, the apocalyptic action in the city is an ever present threat but in the background - not the main story.

[Dave Wallace]

CLOVERFIELD would've been better if they hadn't concentrated on the single camera storyline so much. It was early in the found footage era, but I think it would've been more interesting - and encouraged rentals and rewatching - if they had put together footage from several different people in different parts of the city with different reasons for staying there. And then had their paths crossover.

I don't know how true it is, but I remember hearing when the film came out that they were planning on holding back that idea for a sequel or sequels - that you'd see the same events depicted in the first film, but from a completely different point of view. A little like Rec 2, I guess, but more simultaneous with the original.

[garjones]

I first saw them in quick succession, after they were all out on video - so they definitely felt like three chapters of one big story, to me. I can't imagine what viewers in 1985 must have expected when they saw the ending of the first one, or how much they much have been anticipating the second one when it came out.

I was one of those viewers in 1985 and I think the ending at that point, without the context of the sequels, is just seen as a parting joke - these time travel shenanigans never end. I don't know to what extent they imagined a series at that point, the fact that it took four years to do the second, rather than the usual 2-3 for a massive hit (it was the highest grossing film that year) may say they didn't.

[Dave Wallace]

I was one of those viewers in 1985 and I think the ending at that point, without the context of the sequels, is just seen as a parting joke - these time travel shenanigans never end. I don't know to what extent they imagined a series at that point, the fact that it took four years to do the second, rather than the usual 2-3 for a massive hit (it was the highest grossing film that year) may say they didn't.

Yeah, having listened to the commentary on the DVDs, I'm fairly sure that the ending was intended as a joke rather than a setup for a sequel (they even mention that, if they had really been setting up a sequel, they would never have had Jennifer get in the car with Doc and Marty, as it caused them all sorts of problems when they effectively had to write her out of as much of the sequels' story as they could).

[steveuk]

Personally, I'd like to see something like a Pulp Fiction storyline set during a monster or alien invasion or superhero battle. Instead of racing to get out of the city, you have hardened criminals who are using the chaos to rob banks, break into Federal Buildings to find witness protection files and settle old scores. Meanwhile, the apocalyptic action in the city is an ever present threat but in the background - not the main story.

Well it's a fact that crime soars during war, and the idea of "diversionary tactics" is common to war films and crime movies so I could see that working.

[John Davidson]

Hello:

Return of the Jedi: Take out the Ewoks and put in
the Wookies at least.


Al...

That was the plan....

[Dave Wallace]

Stop giving George ideas for changes to make to the next version.

[David Meadows]

I first saw them in quick succession, after they were all out on video - so they definitely felt like three chapters of one big story, to me. I can't imagine what viewers in 1985 must have expected when they saw the ending of the first one, or how much they much have been anticipating the second one when it came out.

In 1985 I didn't expect anything when I saw the ending to the first one. With hindsight it was pointing to an obvious sequel, but at the time it just seemed like a very funny and clever way of "riding off into the sunset" to end the movie.

I still think the first is the best, and can stand alone if you want it to. The second one was very clever, the third one less so, and they both had some very nice gags, but really the first one is all you need. It's close to a perfect movie.

[Christian U]

The first movie has a lot of chat, exposition and sight seeing. It has great action/suspense sequences as well, the intro with the crate, the T-Rex in the rain and the bit in the kitchen, but there's a lot of walking and talking.

If anything the second film has even more of it! I'm not a huge fan of the film.

The third is more like a slimmed down version of the premise. It really is all about the action and suspense and never mind trying to say anything about technology or science or big business. It's just a rescue movie with dinosaurs.

I like the third one a lot.

I liked that about the first one, really. But then, I'd read the novel before seeing the movie. It's one of the better Crichton books.

CLOVERFIELD would've been better if they hadn't concentrated on the single camera storyline so much.

It would also have been better if any of the characters had been relatable or interesting.

[steveuk]

I liked that about the first one, really. But then, I'd read the novel before seeing the movie. It's one of the better Crichton books.

Definitely a positive blip in his mid-late career. Can't beat 'Andromeda Strain' though.

It would also have been better if any of the characters had been relatable or interesting.

Young bloke has to choose between career and love, chooses career and regrets it but doesn't realise how much until something really bad (and big) goes wrong, then tries to do the right thing?

I agree the first 20 minutes aren't exactly scintillating but I can relate and be interested in what happens next by the time the monster turns up.

[Christian U]

Young bloke has to choose between career and love, chooses career and regrets it but doesn't realise how much until something really bad (and big) goes wrong, then tries to do the right thing?

There was nothing wrong with the characters in principle, they just weren't developed well.

I agree the first 20 minutes aren't exactly scintillating but I can relate and be interested in what happens next by the time the monster turns up.

The thing for me was that once the monster did turn up and began killing people, I didn't really mind either way because I didn't care about any of the characters. That's the one thing you need to get right about disaster movies, you have to relate to the characters so you'll be all "Oh no! Not him!" when someone gets offed. It's one of the things Emmerich gets right in his unsubtle, annoying, clichéd Hollywood style and why his disaster movies make such a good buck.

[steveuk]

There was nothing wrong with the characters in principle, they just weren't developed well.

They didn't have a lot of depth, but I knew who everyone was. They came out of a selection of cookie cutters but they were very clearly set up.

I just thought that section outstayed its welcome. Be funny, be deep or move on.

The thing for me was that once the monster did turn up and began killing people, I didn't really mind either way because I didn't care about any of the characters. That's the one thing you need to get right about disaster movies, you have to relate to the characters so you'll be all "Oh no! Not him!" when someone gets offed. It's one of the things Emmerich gets right in his unsubtle, annoying, clichéd Hollywood style and why his disaster movies make such a good buck.

I'm not sure that's his secret.

The buttons he pushes are much more to do with how he presents things that what he's presenting. He's a gifted visualist and has a great imagination for showing property damage.

Much like Michael Bay, I'm sure he could do much better films if the writing was given more priority, but what he does is more than enough to give a lot of people a satisfying Friday night at the cinema.

[Christian U]

They didn't have a lot of depth, but I knew who everyone was. They came out of a selection of cookie cutters but they were very clearly set up.

Yeah, they just didn't work for me.

I just thought that section outstayed its welcome. Be funny, be deep or move on.

Which one? The party at the start? Sure. But it's not just about the setup, it's also about the character development in the rest of the movie.

I'm not sure that's his secret.

There's certainly nothing secret about it, but it's one of the things he does very well (on a very, very low level, mind you). Unlike Michael Bay (and his ilk), he understands that disaster movies are as much about the characters as they're about the visual spectacle. Spielberg and War of the Worlds would be another good example for this.

[Johnny Henning]

Personally, I think Emmerich is a visual stylist only in a bad photoshop sort of way. His images are conceptually impressive, but they always look fake. Other than the fakey-ness, they don't have any sort of visual style.

Honestly, I was a bit disappointed in Ridley's visual laziness in the ship The Prometheus. Essentially, it looked way too much like Avatar.

On another thread, I was thinking about VAN HELSING. It could've been a lot better if the studio had cut the budget by 2/3's and forced Sommers to really tighten the script before making the movie. It wanted to be a mashup of the Universal Movie monsters mixed with some horror Anime like Vampire Hunter D and a Victorian Era James Bond ala LOEG. He really needed to just make a decision what the F it was and stick to it.

[steveuk]

Personally, I think Emmerich is a visual stylist only in a bad photoshop sort of way. His images are conceptually impressive, but they always look fake. Other than the fakey-ness, they don't have any sort of visual style.

Well some do.

In '2012' the destruction of LA has some amazingly good work, as does the collapse of Vegas but the mega eruption at Yellowstone has some really ropey shots. The floods towards the end are split pretty evenly.

Emmerich throws so much at the screen that the law of averages means some of it doesn't work and in his films "some" can add up to tens of minutes of screentime.

On another thread, I was thinking about VAN HELSING. It could've been a lot better if the studio had cut the budget by 2/3's and forced Sommers to really tighten the script before making the movie. It wanted to be a mashup of the Universal Movie monsters mixed with some horror Anime like Vampire Hunter D and a Victorian Era James Bond ala LOEG. He really needed to just make a decision what the F it was and stick to it.

On the DVD commentary of the first Mummy film Sommers alludes to whole sections and subplots being changed or removed. I think he's used to making radical changes in post but that's an expensive way to work.

And it doesn't always.

Work, I mean.

[al-x]

Hello:

This thread lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.
It was just an offshoot form another thread.

I understand that we have gone past the 200 limit and
it might be closed soon by a mod.

I wouldn't mind at all starting another one.


Al...

[craggy]

Michael Bay's Transformers films were certainly disaster films for me.

[Dave Wallace]

Hello:

This thread lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.
It was just an offshoot form another thread.

I understand that we have gone past the 200 limit and
it might be closed soon by a mod.

I wouldn't mind at all starting another one.


Al...

Don't wait for our say-so, Al. Do it if you want to.