|
|
Post by ogsean on Nov 16, 2007 0:24:39 GMT -5
Cool trailer, I have a feeling this movie's gonna scare the **** out of people. *poops in chair* Oh, you mean after we've seen it? |
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Nov 16, 2007 0:42:30 GMT -5
I cant  ing wait for this movie. Second most anticipated film, next to Dark Knight. The new trailer is SICK. Cant wait for a perfect quality one. |
|
|
|
Post by rkolegendkilla on Nov 16, 2007 0:43:25 GMT -5
I wouldn't be too pissed if they only show the monsters at the end.
And if they leave the door open for a sequel and manage to boost the budget for the next movie, it'll be really cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Nov 16, 2007 0:45:15 GMT -5
The monster shadows look like giant Teddy Bears  |
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Nov 16, 2007 0:56:07 GMT -5
|
|
HoganBai
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2004 15:06:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,682
|
Post by HoganBai on Nov 16, 2007 13:58:59 GMT -5
If you look quick, at the bit where the tank comes out, it shows 2 buildings and something about 50 foot tall go in between.
That's the point I came EVERYWHERE
|
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Nov 16, 2007 14:34:17 GMT -5
If you look quick, at the bit where the tank comes out, it shows 2 buildings and something about 50 foot tall go in between.That's the point I came EVERYWHERE Yeah, I saw that too. I cant wait for an HD trailer. This movie is gonna be so bad ass. That ones a little brighter. At 1:22, you can clearly see the giant thing go between the buildings. And the shadows on the wall, arent little monsters, its 2 guys in Hazmat suits. |
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 16, 2007 16:25:30 GMT -5
yeah, the "little monsters" theory is being debunked by a lot of people, now that we've seen the trailer. the whole theory of smaller creatures came from the select few people who saw that trailer footage a month or so ago, and honestly, it does look like it could be two smaller creatures attacking that girl.
but its not. its too guys in HazMat suits. there was a production photo released in an interview with Lizzy Caplan(who stars in the movie) that shows them filming that exact scene, from behind the tarp... and its two guys in big blue anti-hazard material suits.
im glad, personally... little monsters was a dumb idea. i wants one big monster throughout
|
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Nov 16, 2007 16:27:37 GMT -5
yeah, the "little monsters" theory is being debunked by a lot of people, now that we've seen the trailer. the whole theory of smaller creatures came from the select few people who saw that trailer footage a month or so ago, and honestly, it does look like it could be two smaller creatures attacking that girl. but its not. its too guys in HazMat suits. there was a production photo released in an interview with Lizzy Caplan(who stars in the movie) that shows them filming that exact scene, from behind the tarp... and its two guys in big blue anti-hazard material suits. im glad, personally... little monsters was a dumb idea. i wants one big monster throughout Especially since the shadows looked like Bears |
|
purpleisaaw
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 8, 2006 14:56:35 GMT -5
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by purpleisaaw on Nov 16, 2007 16:58:23 GMT -5
i really thought it looked like a classic greek cyclops with a big circualr head pointy triangular ears its pretty cool
|
|
|
|
Post by BigDaddyChacon on Nov 17, 2007 0:27:28 GMT -5
Freaking awesome. I'm super pumped for this flick!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Creative Has Nothing for Me on Nov 17, 2007 15:09:47 GMT -5
heh...sounds like... - "Orbulus! Look! It's Unicron!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Nov 17, 2007 15:55:27 GMT -5
I totally agree with not showing the monster until the very end, or even at all, to be honest.
The scariest things are what we can't see.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumped on Nov 17, 2007 16:13:40 GMT -5
I totally agree with not showing the monster until the very end, or even at all, to be honest. The scariest things are what we can't see. Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by Barrett on Nov 17, 2007 19:50:46 GMT -5
I totally agree with not showing the monster until the very end, or even at all, to be honest. The scariest things are what we can't see. I agree. I'm looking forward to this movie. Although I've always gotten the impression that this was probably Abrams' thought process: "Hmmm, people went crazy wondering what the monster on Lost was, maybe I should take that one aspect and turn it into a feature film..." |
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 17, 2007 21:24:39 GMT -5
i don't mind getting bits and pieces of the monster throughout the film, before a full reveal at the end. in fact, i fully expect it. but i want a little bit more than "the shape" of the monster passing between two buildings. my idea of "bits and pieces" would involve some craplike seeing its head pass by through a skyscraper window, or having one of its arms/tentacles/whatever wipe out a city block.
im a sucker for popcorn disaster movies. which is why the trailer had me hook, line, and sinker despite no visual evidence of a monster. i think i'll be happy either way; be it 90 minutes of full-on monster devastation, or 90 minutes of disaster elements(ie: statue of liberty scene) with only a fleeting glimpse of the beast
|
|
|
|
Post by rkolegendkilla on Nov 18, 2007 2:49:24 GMT -5
my idea of "bits and pieces" would involve some **** like seeing its head pass by through a skyscraper window, or having one of its arms/tentacles/whatever wipe out a city block. i echo that |
|
Jacob
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Joined on: May 15, 2006 14:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 16,577
|
Post by Jacob on Nov 18, 2007 12:18:23 GMT -5
I can't wait for Cloverfield. I've seen on a load of other sites anf forums, the amount of people watching the trailer over and over, taking screen shots and breaking down every little detail, now most of them are starting to think the movie is going to suck. My answer to these people is yes, it will suck, but only for them, because they're ruined it for themselves by not waiting and enjoying the movie without picking at every little thing they see.
I love monster movies and Cloverfield is going to be off the chart, yes I am interested in seeing what the monster looks like and why it's attacking the city, but I'm waiting until the film is released, because if I start looking for details and information, there'll be no suprise element whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by ogsean on Nov 18, 2007 17:31:47 GMT -5
I can't wait for Cloverfield. I've seen on a load of other sites anf forums, the amount of people watching the trailer over and over, taking screen shots and breaking down every little detail, now most of them are starting to think the movie is going to suck. My answer to these people is yes, it will suck, but only for them, because they're ruined it for themselves by not waiting and enjoying the movie without picking at every little thing they see. I love monster movies and Cloverfield is going to be off the chart, yes I am interested in seeing what the monster looks like and why it's attacking the city, but I'm waiting until the film is released, because if I start looking for details and information, there'll be no suprise element whatsoever. I feel the same way. I'm a fan of monster movies done right, I liked a lot of The Host, and I'm a fan of a few of the Godzilla movies, but overall I don't nut all over the genre. I've watched both trailers now, and that's it. I haven't been watching them over and over, and I refuse to buy into the viral campaign, making some morons a bunch of money by spending hours on their websites. If the movie gets the response I expect when it comes out, I'll see it. If not, I won't. I'm just as big a sucker for wanting to see a movie as anyone else, the only problem is I typically refuse to buy into the hype. Because it can ruin a movie you would normally love by exposing you to far too many elements of it. Like Watchmen, I've watched Snyder's videos talking about the production, but I refuse to try and search out the viral campaign and try to see all the stills on the internet. See, I made the mistake of thinking Batman Begins was going to be this big great movie, so when I watched it and it sucked, I was disappointed. I've been largely ignoring The Dark Knight, but if it looks good when it comes out, I'll probably go see it with the lowest of expectations, and I might end up liking this one. But I'm not making the mistake of looking at the pictures and hoping it's going to be the movie of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 18, 2007 22:08:20 GMT -5
i dont want to turn this thread into some Batman tirade, but jesus christ its good to see someone else who thinks Begins was lame. comic fans nut all over it like its the greatest comic film ever, the greatest action film ever, the greatest noir film ever, and the epitome of the Batman character. really, it was just a movie that sustained any enjoyability thanks in large part to its tremendous cast. i fell in love with Bale as Batman ever since 98 when Ratner/McG were trying to get "Batman vs Superman" off the ground. Caine brings life to the character of Alfred like i've never seen before. Morgan Freeman is can't-miss as the Grandfatherly-type. Cillian Murphy rocked in limited screen time, and Liam Neeson turned in his typically solid performance. but take away the cast, and what was there? they take 60 minutes diving head first into Bruce Wayne going on some kind of quest to find his inner being, throwing in a muddled and confusing attempt at Ra's Al Ghul... Murphy was awesome but served no point other than to release Arkham... i know they wanted the movie to focus more on Wayne than his villains(like the previous entries did), but i think they went too far in the opposite direction. and the forced hand of realism is something that really annoys me. all of Batman's equipment has to be real military prototypes, and he can't drive a badass Bat Mobile because it wouldn't be realistic enough. Scarecrow has to be a guy with a potato sack on his head. Al Ghul has to be some weird monk. and now, in DK, the Joker is a guy who has his mouth cut open so he goes crazy and puts face paint on. jesus christ, its a comic book movie! its about a guy dressing up in a ing bat suit and jumping from building to building fighting crime. so why the need to meticulously give everything about the character some kind of real life foundation? and how are they going to justify Eckhart's Two-Face, a guy symmetrically burnt down the middle with acid, yet they can't let us have an chemical-bath Joker. ugh end rant |
|
