Cloverfield 2 Virals [Archive]

Whunpo

09-14-2009, 02:33 AM

Lon Lon, I always thought you lived in Australia. Your location was listed as "down under" for a while, was it not? I suppose that could mean Japan, but I guess Japan is kinda down under a little bit...
Am I crazy or did you make a move?

Lon Lon Rabbit

09-14-2009, 02:34 AM

You're not crazy, I'm Australian, moved to Japan a few months ago.

I don't think it ever said down under but it used to say Sydney, Australia back at EvAv.

Sandman

09-14-2009, 07:21 AM

So is the second movie just going to be more footage of the same event? boring

Voodoo

09-14-2009, 07:50 AM

In the second video you can see an object drop from the sky. Hard to catch, look closely.

Shjinta

09-14-2009, 07:54 AM

I thought JJ..whatever wasn't going to do a Second movie? Even though I liked Cloverfield more than that abomination they call Star Trek.

Blue

09-14-2009, 07:56 AM

There's a part of me that still wonders if these are legit or not just given how well-done the other viral videos were for the first one. Either way, I hope it's true that a second is coming as I absolutely loved the original.

Grifter

09-14-2009, 08:12 AM

They are probably either unreleased viral stuff from the first movie or the beginning of an advertising push for a soon to be released extended version of the original, "Cloverfield: The Lost Footage" or some shit like that.

Ink Asylum

09-14-2009, 08:25 AM

I still think they're both fake. They're too heavy-handed, and the cutaway trick isn't used properly. It should only cut away when someone logically stops filming then starts again, not at random. I also would hope a sequel doesn't use the cutaway trick at all. It worked in the first film to give backstory to the main character's love life, but using it again would be too illogical and make the films too similar. Someone else accidentally taped over valuable footage during a monster attack?

Troggles

09-14-2009, 08:30 AM

cp#

09-14-2009, 10:11 AM

We already saw this the first time. Virals only work when they suprise you.

Viral marketing works?

PS Cloverfield sucked

Mike Kelehan

09-14-2009, 10:17 AM

So is the second movie just going to be more footage of the same event? boring

They announced that some time ago. It would be another story with another set of survivors set during the same attack. Because, really, anything that takes place afterwards would be a totally different sort of film.

Exodus

09-14-2009, 10:22 AM

In the second video you can see an object drop from the sky. Hard to catch, look closely.

lol i thought that was just a fly

muddi900

09-14-2009, 11:50 AM

I thought JJ..whatever wasn't going to do a Second movie? Even though I liked Cloverfield more than that abomination they call Star Trek.

uh, JJ Abrams didn't direct Cloverfield.

Also, are characters in the sequels going to be twice as annoying as the first one. I was actually happy when they died.

Viral marketing works?

PS Cloverfield sucked

This man speaketh the sooth.

Adam Blue

09-14-2009, 11:56 AM

JJ did produce it, and no, he didn't want to do a second, but obviously the studio would want to.

cawblen

09-14-2009, 11:57 AM

i couldn't stand cloverfield...thought it was a giant waste of my money and time...still don't get what the hype was/is about.

Krispy

09-14-2009, 01:22 PM

Man, a bunch of haters in here. Cloverfield is a technical experience. It's like a ride. I thought it excelled.

I think I loose my film snob status for this.

Grifter

09-14-2009, 01:35 PM

Man, a bunch of haters in here. Cloverfield is a technical experience. It's like a ride. I thought it excelled.
I agree, I had a lot of fun with it. Although it is one of those movies that needs to be seen in a theater or on a home system with great sound and even better subs.

I think I loose my film snob status for this.

That's probably a good thing. The only difference between a movie buff and a film snob is the film snob is just a movie buff who at some point forgot how to enjoy movies... and they're douche bags. ;)

TrackZero

09-14-2009, 01:36 PM

They announced that some time ago. It would be another story with another set of survivors set during the same attack. Because, really, anything that takes place afterwards would be a totally different sort of film.

I don't recall hearing that at all. It was supposed to be the continuation of the monsters rampage into the country AFAIK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#Sequel

Also, I totally dug Cloverfield. But I also like rollercoasters.

Edit: On topic, those two videos are just BS.

DangerousDaze

09-14-2009, 02:11 PM

Edit: On topic, those two videos are just BS.

That's about the top and bottom of it right there.

Ink Asylum

09-14-2009, 02:46 PM

Just wanted to chime in that I enjoyed Cloverfield a lot when I saw it in the theater. It pales on second viewing, especially on a regular TV, but on the big screen I was on the edge of my seat.

LongStepMantis

09-14-2009, 02:51 PM

I hated Cloverfield so badly. They can knock themselves out if they want to make another one, have at it.

Between the completely boring and unlikable characters in the first movie, the shaky-cam bullshit (will that damn trend die already) and the lack of any exposition/explanation about...anything, I'm shocked so many people liked it. But to each their own. Not hating, seriously. Just shocked that they would make a sequel.

Psykoboy2

09-14-2009, 03:10 PM

The guy who did Cloverfield just started work on his remake of "Let The Right One In" which should be out next December.

Badger

09-14-2009, 03:21 PM

Between the completely boring and unlikable characters in the first movie, the shaky-cam bullshit (will that damn trend die already) and the lack of any exposition/explanation about...anything, I'm shocked so many people liked it.

Why does anything need to be explained? When Godzilla beat up Mothra and destroyed Japan for the 19th time would it have been more entertaining if Godzilla had stopped for ten minutes to summarise the current storyline and its motives? It might make a good Family Guy-esque non sequitur but it's certainly not necessary. Just because you need an exposition to like it doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy a gigantic monster destroying everything in New York.

LongStepMantis

09-14-2009, 03:29 PM

Why does anything need to be explained? When Godzilla beat up Mothra and destroyed Japan for the 19th time would it have been more entertaining if Godzilla had stopped for ten minutes to summarise the current storyline and its motives? It might make a good Family Guy-esque non sequitur but it's certainly not necessary. Just because you need an exposition to like it doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy a gigantic monster destroying everything in New York.

If said Godzilla movie never showed Godzilla for more than a split second, and was complimented by an hour and a half of what appears to be someone having an epileptic fit, holding the camera while saying "Fuck man!" and "Look out bro!", I'd say you're right on. ;)

Besides, I already said that it was my own opinion. It isn't going to change, and I don't expect yours to either. I hated it, you didn't.

Ink Asylum

09-14-2009, 03:30 PM

LongStepMantis

09-14-2009, 03:44 PM

Besides, it wasn't about the monster, it was about being a normal everyday person during a monster attack where you aren't the hero. You don't get things explained to you, you don't get answers, you don't discover the secret that helps the military destroy the monster. You just try to stay alive and save the people you care about.

You're also not going to be a camera expert. Especially if you're some doofus named Hud.

I didn't say it was about the monster. I was just using the Godzilla movie argument, I didn't invoke it. ;)

I'm not going to bash the movie further or defend my position. I will say that when Hud dies was the only part of the movie where I laughed. Best part of the whole thing, imo. :p

DangerousDaze

09-14-2009, 03:48 PM

There's actually quite a bit of Cloverfield background on the web if you look for it. Most of it related to the company that one of the characters was moving to Japan to work for.

Zero

09-14-2009, 05:10 PM

JJ did produce it, and no, he didn't want to do a second, but obviously the studio would want to.

I doubt that. Cloverfield dropped 70% of it's audience after the first weekend. It completely shat the bed. The people who wanted to see it went that first weekend, didn't come back, and, very important for this kind of flick, didn't tell their friends to go see it.

Wasson_

09-14-2009, 07:57 PM

Just because you need an exposition to like it doesn't mean the rest of us can't enjoy a gigantic monster destroying everything in New York.

destroying new york...hurm.

okay, well it destroyed the statue of Liberty....and a bridge and...messes up a few buildings.

Granted, I've tried to block all memory of the movie from my brain, I really don't remember the monster wreaking that much havoc. Which is just another reason why it sucked so badly.

Ink Asylum

09-14-2009, 08:21 PM

It looked like it destroyed more than a "few" buildings. Plenty were probably damaged beyond repair and would need to be torn down. Then there was the damage done by the military in order to fight the monster. I'm definitely curious how much of Manhattan got trashed.

Wasson_

09-14-2009, 08:31 PM

yeah...low level bombing with a B-1. ugh that part made me cringe so hard.

how in the fuck do you get tanks and shit in down town new york in an hours notice? seriously?

Laughing Penguin

09-14-2009, 08:45 PM

yeah...low level bombing with a B-1. ugh that part made me cringe so hard.

how in the fuck do you get tanks and shit in down town new york in an hours notice? seriously?

Having been in lower Manhattan on 9/11... it's not exactly instant, but it was a lot quicker than you would have thought. I'm pretty sure I saw some APCs that day.

Lon Lon Rabbit

09-14-2009, 08:46 PM

Ink Asylum

09-14-2009, 09:03 PM

One main character made it out on a helicopter, the others are presumed or confirmed dead. It's left vague whether the monster was killed.

Primus

09-14-2009, 09:38 PM

The guy who did Cloverfield just started work on his remake of "Let The Right One In" which should be out next December.

Wow, so a person who wrote a shitty movie is adapting another shitty movie. Awesome.

Krispy

09-14-2009, 10:18 PM

Wow, so a person who wrote a shitty movie is adapting another shitty movie. Awesome.

I had no real opinion of you before but right now I'm thinking you are a dick. :o

KSmitty

09-14-2009, 10:39 PM

Man I don't even remember how the first movie ended.

I think the main people died? Did they imply that the monster was stopped or was humanity basically screwed?

What happened again?

I remember thinking it had a few real cool scenes (the collapsing building) but it can't have impressed me that much overall if I can't even remember the ending.

The three friends make it to central park only to have the monster eat the camera guy. The main guy and his girl are left, hiding in a tunnel from the monster when they hear air raid sirens. Which serve as a reminder that the military guys said that they were planning to drop a nuke on the monster. You hear an explosion then camera goes dead. Later if you listen closely through the static and comm chatter you can hear them say that the nuke didn't kill the monster

Lon Lon Rabbit

09-15-2009, 12:29 AM

One main character made it out on a helicopter, the others are presumed or confirmed dead. It's left vague whether the monster was killed.

The three friends make it to central park only to have the monster eat the camera guy. The main guy and his girl are left, hiding in a tunnel from the monster when they hear air raid sirens. Which serve as a reminder that the military guys said that they were planning to drop a nuke on the monster. You hear an explosion then camera goes dead. Later if you listen closely through the static and comm chatter you can hear them say that the nuke didn't kill the monster

Thanks!

I vaguely remember that now...

Whunpo

09-15-2009, 01:19 AM

The three friends make it to central park only to have the monster eat the camera guy. The main guy and his girl are left, hiding in a tunnel from the monster when they hear air raid sirens. Which serve as a reminder that the military guys said that they were planning to drop a nuke on the monster. You hear an explosion then camera goes dead. Later if you listen closely through the static and comm chatter you can hear them say that the nuke didn't kill the monster

Well duh! The nuke never kills the monster! It's like the biggest movie clichéd of all time!:D

muddi900

09-15-2009, 03:17 AM

Besides, it wasn't about the monster, it was about being a normal everyday person during a monster attack where you aren't the hero. You don't get things explained to you, you don't get answers, you don't discover the secret that helps the military destroy the monster. You just try to stay alive and save the people you care about.

You're also not going to be a camera expert. Especially if you're some doofus named Hud.

A normal everyday person would run away in the opposite direction, always.

"Look dude, I get that you boned this chick once and you like her, but I don't! so you go fucking looking for her, and I'll be in my nice rescue chopper."

These are characters that defy all rational thought for the purpose of "Dude handheld + monster = AWESOME!"

Wow, so a person who wrote a shitty movie is adapting another shitty movie. Awesome.

:eek:

roboninja

09-15-2009, 05:42 AM

A normal everyday person would run away in the opposite direction, always.

"Look dude, I get that you boned this chick once and you like her, but I don't! so you go fucking looking for her, and I'll be in my nice rescue chopper."

These are characters that defy all rational thought for the purpose of "Dude handheld + monster = AWESOME!"

We all know rationality rules the day when a giant space monster attacks.

Ink Asylum

09-15-2009, 06:11 AM

Yep. Everyone flees from disasters. No one ever makes stupid decisions and ends up in trouble/dead.

muddi900

09-15-2009, 03:31 PM

We all know rationality rules the day when a giant space monster attacks.

Again:
"AAAH! Gojiraaa"
"Maybe I should look for the girl I screwed, ONCE, instead of getting rescued"

Yep. Everyone flees from disasters. No one ever makes stupid decisions and ends up in trouble/dead.

Apparently, people do not immediately exit the there's a bomb threat.

I think I should have elaborated myself a little. The whole motivation behind the "search" was so retarded, so... Dawson's Creek, that the main character just becomes unbearable. And even that doesn't explain the motivation of the guy holding the camera. Why is he going looking for the girl? What about the other chick, why was she with them? Were they so stupid that they forgot look out for themselves? Lets say they weren't thinking rationally, but did evolution "skipped" them or something? They certainly lacked survival instincts.

And that's I was cheering at the end of the movie. I am not kidding.

Blue

09-15-2009, 03:43 PM

Wow, so a person who wrote a shitty movie is adapting another shitty movie. Awesome.

Wait, did you just speak ill of Let the Right One In? I would come through the internets and cut you were I not going out to dinner later.

Ink Asylum

09-15-2009, 03:47 PM

Maybe because they were the idiot's friends and, since they couldn't convince him to evacuate they went along to help him?

As others have said, people don't think and act rationally during disasters, especially after someone they know and love just died and someone else they know is in danger, and they don't always do exactly what survival instincts might dictate either. People go into disaster areas all the time trying to help loved ones.

Besides that, they actually only ran into the monster once between when they started looking for the girl and when they found her. They ran into it once more while escaping, then one final time after it knocked down their helicopter. Considering the size of Manhattan, even with a monster that size, it's not that hard to avoid/hide from it. They did a good job getting into the subways. If it hadn't been for the lice monsters it would've been a great idea.

Clark

09-15-2009, 03:48 PM

Yep. Everyone flees from disasters. No one ever makes stupid decisions and ends up in trouble/dead.

While your text is not in plum, I still picked up on the sarcasm.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj170/clark_da6/New-Orleans-Katrina-01.jpg

muddi900

09-15-2009, 03:56 PM

While your text is not in plum, I still picked up on the sarcasm.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj170/clark_da6/New-Orleans-Katrina-01.jpg

I think we were talking about regular people, not the US Army National Guard :)

Ink Asylum

09-15-2009, 03:59 PM

I'm sure there were regular people who went into Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, or tried to, in order to search for loved ones.

Primus

09-15-2009, 04:01 PM

Wait, did you just speak ill of Let the Right One In? I would come through the internets and cut you were I not going out to dinner later.

Remember when the book explains the pedo-old man relationship with the vampire and the movie never touches it? Personally I like charcater development in my stories, not vague, unexplained occurances. That was just one example. The movie was a poor adaptaion of the book, which is funny because the author penned the screenplay.

It is also a independent foreign vampire film; so there will be an army of people telling me otherwise.

Blue

09-15-2009, 04:24 PM

Remember when the book explains the pedo-old man relationship with the vampire and the movie never touches it? Personally I like charcater development in my stories, not vague, unexplained occurances. That was just one example. The movie was a poor adaptaion of the book, which is funny because the author penned the screenplay.

It is also a independent foreign vampire film; so there will be an army of people telling me otherwise.

Ohhh, I didn't realize it was a book, though I suppose I probably should have. Maybe I'll pick that up. And for what it's worth, this is one of the few independent flicks I've actually managed to sit all of the way through. Possible because vampires were involved.

muddi900

09-16-2009, 01:31 AM

I'm sure there were regular people who went into Katrina-ravaged New Orleans, or tried to, in order to search for loved ones.

Yes, their loved ones, not some-dude-I-know's loved ones. And nobody went into New Orleans during Katrina, they went after it. Because going in their during a hurricane, wouldn't have rescued anyone and they would've probably ended up dead. I don't know why you're trying to explain this, as it is quite clear the only motivation of the characters was to just so the story demands it or "we need a dude to hold the camera"

Ink Asylum

09-16-2009, 06:25 AM

The "dude-I-know" was HUD's best friend, and the black girl's good friend/brother-in-law. Perhaps Marla wouldn't have gone, but she was kind of shell-shocked and probably didn't want to be wandering alone. Also, a hurricane is chaos everywhere all the time. You can barely walk the streets during one. The monster, while dangerous when it's nearby, was a very localized danger. Aside from those three quick encounters they were free to walk the streets and subways without a problem (the lice were a different issue, but they didn't know about them until it was too late).

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that in a city of millions of people that one person would try to rescue someone he cared about that called and sounded hurt. Or that the person's friends wouldn't just ditch him and save their own skins.

muddi900

09-16-2009, 06:56 AM

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that in a city of millions of people that one person would try to rescue someone he cared about that called and sounded hurt. Or that the person's friends wouldn't just ditch him and save their own skins.

Because it is totally filled with Hollywood sentimentality and has nothing to do with how real people react. Yes, I know its a movie involving a 50-foot monster, but the focus was on normal people, but the writers definition of "normal" was One Tree Hill.

Ink Asylum

09-16-2009, 07:58 AM

And there are real people who would act the way the characters in the movie acted. They're not in the majority, but generally movies don't try to mimic what the majority of people do, because that's boring. Even movies that try to be more realistic in their characterizations are still filled with people who are somehow different than the masses.

muddi900

09-16-2009, 11:55 AM

And there are real people who would act the way the characters in the movie acted.

No there aren't. These type of people only exist in movies and bad CW shows.

Ink Asylum

09-16-2009, 12:06 PM

Sure, they're a bit more dramatic than everyday people, like everyone in fiction, but even if only one in a million people would try to save a loved one during a monster attack that's still more people in Manhattan than did so in the movie.

muddi900

09-16-2009, 12:36 PM

I think its become a optimist vs a cynic debate now. So lets just disagree.

ShivaX

09-16-2009, 12:41 PM

Well duh! The nuke never kills the monster! It's like the biggest movie clichéd of all time!:D

Which is horseshit no matter how you slice it. Yeah monsters are cool and all, but they can't survive inside the fucking sun. If missles or tanks or whatever have ANY effect on them then a nuke would kill em. Then again movie makers love to understate the effect of nukes for some reason. I guess people bursting into flame at a range of several miles doesn't make for good movie making unless its Terminator.

Psykoboy2

09-16-2009, 12:41 PM

That or hiding in a refrigerator.

diablopath

09-16-2009, 12:42 PM

I would just like to say, that I'm pretty sure it wasn't a nuke that they dropped on MGP. It was, I think, a MOAB.

Ink Asylum

09-16-2009, 12:43 PM

Must've been a really big fridge, then.

Hawkzombie

09-16-2009, 01:23 PM

Must've been a really big fridge, then.

I love you.

Laughing Penguin

09-16-2009, 06:42 PM

No there aren't. These type of people only exist in movies and bad CW shows.

Yes, there are... they existed in Manhattan on 9/11. Even as the buildings were coming down, police were stopping people from going in to find loved ones. Hours afterwards I was running into people who were out on the streets trying to help out strangers, despite fighter jets roaring overhead and no idea if more was coming.

When big, bad, unexplainable things happen, there are in fact people who run towards it, not away from it, with the hope of helping someone. Most people don't, but some certainly do.

Felonous

09-16-2009, 09:09 PM

Cloverfield sucked. I can't wait till the fad of shaky cam dies in cinema. It does not convey the emotions the directors think it does. I don't get scared, I don't get frightened, I don't get anxious... The only emotion I get is disappointment that I wasted bandwidth to pirate their garbage.

muddi900

09-17-2009, 12:12 AM

Well when Shaky cam is done right, I have no problem with it., like District 9 or the TV show "The Shield", which is the greatest TV show of all time BTW. Yes, its a fact.

Narradisall

09-17-2009, 06:35 AM

Cloverfield had annoying charatcers.

I enjoyed it though and it was redeemed by one scene....

"we got a Biiiiiiite!"

Priceless. I didn't sympathis with the charatcers at all, I enjoyed thier deaths. Enjoyable flick though. Sequel would suck.

And fuck remaking foriegn films Hollywood, you dry scabby vagina devoid of ideas.