• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

I watched cloverfield...

npsf3000

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
And found it to be emotionally poor, story poor and pointless.

Its not a bad b grade movie.

Luckily Star trek is made 6 times the budget.
 
For its purpose its not bad, but there is no way its going to replace godzilla.

EDIT:

As someone who is studying multimedia (not saying i like it), more money means more drafts, more brainstorming etc. 9 times outa 10 more money means better quality.
 
For its purpose its not bad, but there is no way its going to replace godzilla.

I don't think it was ever meant to replace Godzilla. For one thing, the big difference is that one's hidden for most of the movie, and the other is Godzilla, a monster that makes sure you know what he looks like.
 
Wrath of Kahn was so much cheaper than The Motion Picture, and I know which was the better film.
 
And found it to be emotionally poor, story poor and pointless.

Its not a bad b grade movie.

Luckily Star trek is made 6 times the budget.

Just to be clear; you are aware Abrams did not direct this, correct? And you are aware the writers for Trek were not involved, correct?
 
Wrath of Kahn was so much cheaper than The Motion Picture, and I know which was the better film.

I actually disagree with that. TMP was a much better Sci-fi film, but WOK was better Space Opera.

Possibly, in a cerebral, Space 2001 way. But the idea of space and the contemplatory exploration of ideas, is a very old concept, which seems to have died out, the more scientific we become as opposed to religious, and with the more we learn about space. Its no longer looking out to discover new things, its about looking within, and learning about our-selves, through the setting of space exploration.

Star Trek the TV Show was not high concept sci-fi for the most part, it was exploring the problems in (american) society with an optimistic trend, and The Motion Picture, tried too hard at it, which made for a very dull and disinteresting feature film. For example it could have been covered in a 3-4 episode arc on TV, instead of the big screen.
 
Just to be clear; you are aware Abrams did not direct this, correct? And you are aware the writers for Trek were not involved, correct?
I do know that, but I know nothing about Abrams and he talks alot about this (a lot of the star trek Q and A's were in link with cloverfield.) and i needed another dvd to watch...

Its not quite living up to the hype on it - 'tis all.
 
I thought Cloverfield was awesome for what it was, but I doubt it would have the same effect on DVD as it did in the theater.
 
Cloverfield was boring. The acting was horrible. The plot was weak. The special effects were great.

Other then the above, a key ellement missing was, why should I care what happens to these people? If the story doesn't set itself up to make me like the people, then I just don't care. Unfortunately the acting didn't help one bit here. And the camera perspective of the movie (while not original), did not contribute one bit to the story.

When this movie was over, it fell under the "time I will never get back in my life" category.
 
^Does your use of the preterit imply you no longer like it?

;)

Well, no, not necessarily. I liked it when I saw it, but I only saw it once and there are many movies that I likedthe first time that I didn't like the second time and I wish I hadn't ruined it (still heartbroken over Roadhouse). :)
 
I found the Monster two strong (there is no explanation as to why it could withstand the kind of ordinance that would be used against it, HEAT, DU, Napalm and bunker busters).

The Spider-things were too weak (looked deadly but didn't even have the bite of a real crab).

Oh, anyone know anything about the mysterious exploding bite victim?
 
There was no need of an explanation as to why the monster was too strong, it's a movie about an alien coming to earth and wreaking havoc, and we're suck with some twenty-somethings trying to save their own skin. The point is, they've got to get the fuck away and don't give a rats ass as to why nothing is working.

IMO I think the exploding victim was because that's what the smaller monsters do, they may not have a lot of attack, but give it 20 minutes and you're sure going to be fucking feeling it :D.
 
There was no need of an explanation as to why the monster was too strong, it's a movie about an alien coming to earth and wreaking havoc, and we're suck with some twenty-somethings trying to save their own skin. The point is, they've got to get the fuck away and don't give a rats ass as to why nothing is working.

IMO I think the exploding victim was because that's what the smaller monsters do, they may not have a lot of attack, but give it 20 minutes and you're sure going to be fucking feeling it :D.

Now, waitaminute, I haven't seen this movie in a year but I'm pretty sure that that hey weren't aliens and that they were actually native to Earth.
 
Nah, theres a scene at the very end of the film where they are on Coney Island (which I think is an amusement park of some kind) in some recorded footage they took some three weeks prior to the events, and they look out of the window on a ferris wheel, and in the distance you see what looks like a meteor hitting the ocean.

That's the common theory of where the Cloverfield monster actually comes from.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top