Cloverfield - J.J. Abrams Project

[Raiders]

I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.

Why should this area of science fiction be removed from moral consequence?

[Ezee E]

I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.

Up until the boy running into the series of explosions, it was realistic. And incredible. Too bad it changed after that. I don't want to argue over this movie again though.

[Rowland]

I dislike the idea of making a monster movie "realistic". I had the same problem with War of the Worlds. It made me actually feel bad for the victims of an alien invasion, and I don't understand the point of that.

You'd rather watch victims die and feel nothing? You're a big ID4 fan, I take it?

[megladon8]

I can't imagine you liking the films of Jacques Tourneur then meg, because he rarely (if ever) showed the monster or the creature. Sometimes less is more. I mean come on The Blair Witch Project's ending is incredibly scary and disturbing because we don't see any sort of witch, creature or monster. I'll take never seeing the monster and conjoring up what it looks like in my head over seeing a bad CGI creature that looks like the shitty American Godzilla from the 1998 Godzilla flick that was utterly terrible.

There's an enormous difference, though, between a psychological horror like The Blair Witch Project, and a very physical, destruction-based "horror" like a giant monster movie.

There is nothing in any of that footage that leads me to believe this is anything more than a typical "giant monster reaking havoc in a big city" movie. It's just shot on handicams.

It seems like they're trying to revive a 50+ year old genre by making it "realistic". And if by "realistic" that means not showing the monster - which is arguably one of the most entertaining parts of giant monsters movies - I don't see that as a very good idea.

I mean who knows? Maybe they have some brilliant trick up their sleeves and that's why the trailers have not shown much. But from what is shown, I don't think omitting the creature is going to add much to the overall effect of the movie.

Why should this area of science fiction be removed from moral consequence?

I *think* what Antoine is getting at is that generally these giant monster movies are very much a giddy celebration of desctruction and mayhem.

I know I watch Godzilla movies because I love watching guys in giant rubber suits destroying model cities.

Throwing morals in and making you feel bad for all the people kind of takes all the fun and entertainment-value out of it. I suppose it just depends on what you go to these movies for.

I, too, found War of the Worlds quite bothersome. I actually found a lot of it very hard to watch at times, and I consider myself very hard to disturb/gross out.

[Ezee E]

You'd rather watch victims die and feel nothing? You're a big ID4 fan, I take it?

I'm never affected by these things. It has been done, but I can't really think of a movie that has truly affected me lately. The closest may be a scene in Diving Bell in which the main character [

Show Spoiler

asks to be killed, and the Nurse gets depressed

]

[Mysterious Dude]

Why should this area of science fiction be removed from moral consequence?

Because the moral consequences of alien invasions just don't strike me as very important in this world of ours, and I think they detract from the potential entertainment value of the film.

[megladon8]

You'd rather watch victims die and feel nothing? You're a big ID4 fan, I take it?

Let's not get into a huge moral conundrum over this, like what happened in a discussion of Bond movies a long time ago on the old board.

I think anyone here would be lying if they said that every victim in every movie has their sincerest feelings of remorse.

When executed properly, senseless death, mayhem and destruction can be an entertaining and surprisingly cathartic thing to see on the movie screen.

It's stuff like Hostel that I find morally questionable, not stuff like Bond or Godzilla movies.

[Raiders]

I *think* what Antoine is getting at is that generally these giant monster movies are very much a giddy celebration of desctruction and mayhem.

I know I watch Godzilla movies because I love watching guys in giant rubber suits destroying model cities.

Throwing morals in and making you feel bad for all the people kind of takes all the fun and entertainment-value out of it. I suppose it just depends on what you go to these movies for.

I, too, found War of the Worlds quite bothersome. I actually found a lot of it very hard to watch at times, and I consider myself very hard to disturb/gross out.

That's unnecessarily pigeon-holing an entire subgenre. Fiction is fiction, whether it be rooted in common events or the fantastical. These films may be less probable, but like all fictional films, they are inventions of the mind and can be used to incite a variety of emotions. I don't understand relegating all films involving aliens as inherently silly just because you don't believe an alien invasion will ever happen.

[Ivan Drago]

This movie does look great. But, it's coming out in January. That's a bad sign.

[megladon8]

That's unnecessarily pigeon-holing an entire subgenre. Fiction is fiction, whether it be rooted in common events or the fantastical. These films may be less probable, but like all fictional films, they are inventions of the mind and can be used to incite a variety of emotions. I don't understand relegating all films involving aliens as inherently silly just because you don't believe an alien invasion will ever happen.

Um...I didn't say anything about alien invasions never happening. I think you may have meant to quote Antoine?

While I don't think it's probable, I certainly don't see it being an impossibility - maybe not something ala War of the Worlds, but I could definitely see some sort of conflict with other intelligences in the future.

[Rowland]

Would Jaws have been a better movie if it was less realistic? These arguments are silly. "Serious" and less "serious" takes on the same genre can co-exist, and likewise, the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

[Mysterious Dude]

That's unnecessarily pigeon-holing an entire subgenre. Fiction is fiction, whether it be rooted in common events or the fantastical. These films may be less probable, but like all fictional films, they are inventions of the mind and can be used to incite a variety of emotions. I don't understand relegating all films involving aliens as inherently silly just because you don't believe an alien invasion will ever happen.

When I was watching people being vaporized or impaled with mechanical tentacles in War of the Worlds, it made me feel sick. Of course, fiction can be used to incite this emotion in me, but in general, I don't like feeling sick unless there's some good reason for it, and I don't think War of the Worlds gave me a good enough reason.

[Raiders]

Um...I didn't say anything about alien invasions never happening. I think you may have meant to quote Antoine?

While I don't think it's probable, I certainly don't see it being an impossibility - maybe not something ala War of the Worlds, but I could definitely see some sort of conflict with other intelligences in the future.

No, I was simply extrapolating. You said they were celebrations of destruction and mayhem, and I insinuate that this is because people separate themselves from reality and thus moral consequence. You couldn't make a war film in this mould because people would be completely revolted since war actually happens and to treat those deaths as entertainment would be a morally reprehensible act (though as I say this, plenty of John Wayne-esque war films reveled in destroying the enemy soldiers).

[megladon8]

When I was watching people being vaporized or impaled with mechanical tentacles in War of the Worlds, it made me feel sick. Of course, fiction can be used to incite this emotion in me, but in general, I don't like feeling sick unless there's some good reason for it, and I don't think War of the Worlds gave me a good enough reason.

I think the reason for this is that with films, there needs to be a specific reason for us to see these people get killed.

When you look at slasher films, the victims are pretty much always the ones who are doing drugs, being assholes, having sex in their parents' bedrooms, whatever.

Then you look at gaint monster movies - you very rarely see an actual person get killed by the monster. It's almost always implied through the destruction of buildings, bridges, etc.

In War of the Worlds, truly innocent people are brutally slaughtered in front of your eyes, and it's very disturbing. There's no rhyme or reason behind them getting killed - it's just done.

This changes the film from being entertainment to something that seems to have a message. But with a film like War of the Worlds, there didn't seem to be a sufficient enough message to justify the killing of innocents that the audience was subjected to.

[Rowland]

This changes the film from being entertainment to something that seems to have a message. But with a film like War of the Worlds, there didn't seem to be a sufficient enough message to justify the killing of innocents that the audience was subjected to.

What would be a sufficient enough message to justify it? Ignoring the various interpretations one can reasonably apply to WotW, is a story about the resiliency of the human spirit against impossible odds not enough?

[megladon8]

No, I was simply extrapolating. You said they were celebrations of destruction and mayhem, and I insinuate that this is because people separate themselves from reality and thus moral consequence. You couldn't make a war film in this mould because people would be completely revolted since war actually happens and to treat those deaths as entertainment would be a morally reprehensible act (though as I say this, plenty of John Wayne-esque war films reveled in destroying the enemy soldiers).

As I just said in my post to Antoine, I think it comes down to presenting the audience with a reason.

I don't mind seeing sensless violence on the screen.

But I also don't like being subjected to scenes of innocent people being slaughtered for no reason at all.

There's a shot in War of the Worlds where a man is lifted up by a tentacle and thrown on the grown, then a huge tube is inserted in him and removes his blood, which is then sprinkled onto the surrounding fields like fertilizer. There was absolutely no reason why this man had to be subjected to such a horrible fate. It would have been different even if they just edited it differently, so we got the idea that he was killed without having to watch it so graphically. But having it shown so explicitly was quite disturbing.

I gather that was the point of the scene, but having left that out would have totally changed the film. Scenes like that changed the film from an entertaining alien invasion/mass destruction film, to something more along the lines of an alien Holocaust - which, again, I think was the point.

[Rowland]

It would have been different even if they just edited it differently, so we got the idea that he was killed without having to watch it so graphically. But having it shown so explicitly was quite disturbing.

Heh. This just illustrates how effectively insinuative and impacting Spielberg's visual storytelling is, because that scene isn't graphic at all. You don't see anything besides the blood being sprayed.

[megladon8]

What would be a sufficient enough message to justify it? Ignoring the various interpretations one can reasonably apply to WotW, is a story about the resiliency of the human spirit against impossible odds not enough?

It's not enough to justify watching people brutally murdered in front of you.

For the kind of violence against innocents in War of the Worlds, I think there needs to be a strong message related to that violence.

"Resiliency of the uman spirit against impossible odds" just doesn't cut it for me. That same message could easily come across without those scenes.

[megladon8]

Heh. This just illustrates how effectively insinuative and impacting Spielberg's visual storytelling is, because that scene isn't graphic at all. You don't see anything besides the blood being sprayed.

I just watched it again...it shows the man lifted up, thrown down on the ground, the thing raising up into the air and then jabbing down, blood being sucked up through clear tubing and then sprayed out the top.

The only thing that isn't shown is the tube actually penetrating his body.

[Spinal]

Spielberg's War of the Worlds is political allegory. The aliens are not just aliens, but an exaggerated representation of a dominant human military force.

[Spinal]

It's not enough to justify watching people brutally murdered in front of you.

For the kind of violence against innocents in War of the Worlds, I think there needs to be a strong message related to that violence.

There is.

[Rowland]

For the kind of violence against innocents in War of the Worlds, I think there needs to be a strong message related to that violence.

The movie clearly sympathizes with the people, filtering the carnage through a humanistic lens that doesn't trivialize. How is this less socially responsible than a movie that presents glib violence for yuks?

"Resiliency of the uman spirit against impossible odds" just doesn't cut it for me. That same message could easily come across without those scenes.

But then the severity of the situation wouldn't be as incisively expressed and deeply felt.

[MadMan]

This discussion reminds me that I still haven't gotten around to War of the Worlds. I'll view it eventually but I'm in no rush.

[megladon8]

There is.

It's a great review and it makes me want to watch the film in its entirety again.

I just remember being thoroughly disturbed by the film, and leaving the theatre thinking "was all that really necessary?"

[Rowland]

Spielberg's War of the Worlds is political allegory. The aliens are not just aliens, but an exaggerated representation of a dominant human military force.

I figured that this went without saying by now.