Untitled J.J. Abrams Production (1-18-08) (aka Cloverfield)

The trailer's a bootleg according to this article.

To see the pictures, visit the link to this article.

 

AICN has a better quality version of the trailer but it's still from youtube.

 

Ah the one I posted was the first one that turned up the 2nd is much better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qLjW1vQBLo

 

HD version.

Screencap of the 'monster'.

 

Looks really good.

 

I wonder why the soldier's face is pixelated?

 

I was wondering that too....I was thinking state secrets or somesuch (maybe he shoots one of the civies, and the gov't doesn't want it to get out), but it seems like we are watching a top secret file, not some publicly released documentary, so I can't think why he's blurred out.

 

Even top secret stuff has blackout in it.

In fact, often times the secret is that stuff is hidden...and not "what" that stuff that's hidden really is.

 

I'm actually still waiting to be impressed. I hate being teased and teased without really being told anything.

 

Thank you for finally saying it.

I started off as intrigued, then I moved to slightly irritated, and now I am getting pissed off.

I expected something more from this second trailer because the movie is only two months away now.

What, exactly, is this movie about???

And if there is anyone in this forum who has specific details about this project, then shame on you!!!

 

It's about a monster attack in New York. Really, what more are we expecting?

 

In other words:

It's emo personality conflicts with a bizarre environment for backdrop...which we've seen before...oh yes...EVERYTHING POPULAR ON TV....Lost, Heroes...the overall story is relatively pointless compared to the characters personal stakes and growth. (I just got indigestion)

Truth is, they want to tease us to theaters with glimpses of a monster...only to spend 70 or 90 minutes watching bouncy images of a crying 23 year old girl talk about how she misses mom and some some tough guy talk about how he wishes he wasn't so tough now that the world is over...

It's getting to this point where this is coming...Lost and Heroes watchers...you've brought this upon us.

And if it does turn out that way...all faith I had in Abrams for Star Trek will blow away like dandelion seeds.

 

This is what I was getting at with my questions about this film.

Thanks for saying it for me.

I'm not the best at finding a way to put my concerns into words, but, yes, my concern is whether or not this is going to be typical or ACTUALLY different.

I can deal with typical as long as a movie is exciting (i.e. - Transformers, Godzilla 1998, Jurassic Park 3, etc). Those, to me, had some typical crap in them, but they had some REALLY fun moments. I mean, I know that Godzilla and JP 3 have bad reputations, but when else I am going to see a 300 foot iguana running from 4 Apache choppers only to eventually outsmart them or a Spinosaurus duke it out with a T-Rex and then snap the T-Rex's neck. COOL STUFF.

It is rare in the history of movies that we get something that is both DIFFERENT and EXCITING (i.e. - Star Wars: ANH, The Matrix, etc). My concern is that this film is being hyped up as one of these rare cases; when it may, in fact, just be some of this typical stuff we have already been saturated with on TV.

 

A Heroes/Cloverfield crossover?

link

I don't believe so, but it is kind of cool to think about. NYC has had a rough time in the Heroes universe. Plus, there is a cute picture of Kristen Bell...

 

This just irritates even more.

WHAT THE HECK IS THE DIRECTION OF THIS FILM???

SHOOT! I've lost two hours of work reading about this crap.

Somewhere there has got to be somebody who is not working on this film who has some big spoilers for us.

REVEAL THEM NOW!!!

THIS MOVIE HAD BETTER BE GOOD!!!

 

The thing is, yes, this probably isn't going to be "great big monster pulverizes city for two hours with lots of special effects." But the thing is, if I wanted to see that movie, it's been made before! If I'm not dead set on its being New York, it's been made an enormous number of times before! And honestly, there's not that much reason to make that movie again without something new.

On the other hand, a movie that sticks close with the people actually living through such an experience, that really gets a feel for what it would be like, that avoids great helicopter shots of a monster smashing buildings that no one person would ever see in that situation, could be very interesting. I think the shakycam is an annoying way to do it, and I have no idea whether Cloverfield can execute it well, but I think that approach has incredible dramatic potential and, if executed properly, could be a better, more compelling movie than the "monster smashes everything" version.

As an example that I realize is highly controversial, because opinions on this film are rather mixed, I would point to Signs, which I consider a very successful movie. Signs gives us an alien invasion not in great pyrotechnic displays, but through the eyes of a single family, and it lets us try to experience what it's like for them, how actual people could cope with this. It doesn't show us the aliens until the very end, and I can think of even stronger paths for the movie that never showed them at all, never let us actually see anything, though that wouldn't have been quite as ueful for the movie's main theme. But it's a movie that I think shows the potential and power of that approach quite well.

The recent War of the Worlds tried to do something similar, though I think it was less successful than Signs. And that survivors-eye view gave plenty of pyrotechnics, while still sticking with people, regular people that one might find in reality.

Now, don't let me misrepresent myself. I'm not terribly excited about Cloverfield, and I don't expect to go see it. But I will defend it from your charge, which seems to me to be that it's not mindless enough. I think there are plenty of movies out there that do what you want, but what this one is doing is probably an underrepresented niche.

-Paul

 

I am NOT...repeat...NOT a fan of the pyrotechnic sfx circus movies...I despise them...to the point that it's one of my hesitations concerning the PT, as they could've been a little less "special".

But...If the movie is about a phenomenon...I want to know about it...I don't want to listen to the sniffling of a party girl who's private catastrophes are compounded by this thing...if anything, a movie like this should show just how petty most of the stuff we worry about in this world is. But instead, we'll get lost in love triangles brought to light be expressions on love on death's doorstep. We'll get Smart guys confessing to cutting corners to reach success. We'll get the mother desperate to find out if her ex has got the kids safely out of the city...blah blah blah...it's the human condition...great...whatever...they've spent 6 months hiding a giant whatever from our vision...and to then turn the film into a cell phone confessional from the "Real World" insults the sci-fi fan...who is the target audience, and confuses and frustrates the general audience...who are people drawn in by this viral propaganda.

Signs was successful in how it played on societal constructs on aliens and possible alien invasions, crop circles...so called "experts", and the world's reaction. Signs shortcoming was in the character story...where people continued to wonder throughout...what is this...don't care...don't care...his wife died, terrible...why does it matter...and then you get the "it was destiny" twist at the end, and suddenly the movie was about faith? That was the insult...that a movie based around the premise of surviving an unknown danger would in the end be twisted into a tale of haphazard "proof" for faith. If that movie ends with them coming up out of the basement and all the aliens are gone...they give the kid his medicine...no problem...didn't even need to see the alien AT ALL.

over the last couple years, tv and movies have gotten very whiny...every character has to have a hang up that somehow gets stitched in...it's led to this giant ensemble cast stuff that people love...and I think that is a direct descendant of reality TV, where everyone had a story.

It's creeping realism...and I don't think it needs to be in a sci-fi movie shrouded in mystery about just what the world is facing. The first surprise...what it is...would be good (hopefully)...a second surprise...that's it has little to do with the films plot...would be very very VERY bad.

 

AMEN!!!

 

I'm seriously hoping for a epic Cthulhu movie. The sleep of the Old One is disturbed. Rising up from the ancient sunken city of Ry'Leh to dominate the new city built by insignificant hominds is what Cloverfield should be. I'm sure others have listed the mounting bits of evidence for a Lovecraftian inspired saga. Here is mine-

1. Remember that according to some accounts the name Cthulhu should never be spoken or written. It is believed that to do so might awaken the monstrous hulk from His hibernation. Well in the early days of the first reports about 1-18-08 and the first teaser no title was attached to the film - thus keeping to the idea of not writing or speaking the term Cthulhu.

2. Rather than use the name Cthulhu as a title for 1-18-08 a deceptively simple locality name was given to the film. However note there might be a hidden meaning in C-L-O-V-E-R-F-E-I-L-D. That name also seems to resonate with an obscure reference. I just can not put my finger on where I've heard that name before. It was back in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

3. In the first teaser in one of the shots a vehicle's license plate had a shortening or maybe an acronym for the Mad Arab and Necromian associated with Lovecraftian lore. I think it was AZHK-NCR or something.

4. We've been told this movie has one large monster and several (six to 666) smaller ones. This fits the idea of Cthulhu and his minions letting loose.

5. Another slightly different angle ties in a bit with Forbidden Planet and Lost. Maybe J.J. Abrams is taking the advice of Ridley Scott, Dan O'Bannon, and Ronald Schussett (producers/writers of ALIEN). With a horror film the question is not what you see, but rather what you THINK you see. Maybe the monsters in this movie are of the Id. Maybe they are invisible because they are of our collective minds.

6. The whole SLUSHO connection also seems to be a cute and disturbing way to inject tidbits of Lovecraftian lore into 1-18-08.

I'm sure there are other clues. For example that banner referencing the teaser character named Rob disturbs my subconscience. Something perhaps in the spacing of the letters combined with a REDRUM/MURDER twist? Maybe I'm reading too much into every frame/every pixel. BUT one thing is very clear. WE need a serious movie about Cthulhu and His kind. Not the typical popcorn fluff of grade Z crap, but a movie that does what ALIEN did in 1979. The human factor must be made to realize just how small it is in the face of ancient cosmic terror. HEH-HEH-HEH

 

Leads me to believe it's something new, and not Cthulhu or something else that's been around for a while.

 

For people who are supposedly sick of all this secrecy and hinting you guys are clearly spending a lot of time and energy looking into this and complaining. If it annoys you so much, and the possibilities of it being an emo-fest annoy you, I'd say just ignore it. If you don't then you are just letting the marketing win, and there is a good possibility that you will end up seeing this.

For me, I think it is interesting how they are approaching the marketing, and the trailers are quite good. I'm sure the movie will be hurt by the fact that it probably won't be worth all the hinting and hiding etc, but it still could be good. I may or may not see it. It really depends on how others respond to it.

 

Wohooo!!!

It's just getting more and more interesting and cool.

 

here is a link to a gif of the monster moving

Its 17.5 meg download but it shows what little we see of the monster its pretty good

 

What I've seen of JJ Abrams work makes Bruckheimer's horrible record (1 good for 43 horrid) look good. Why is everyone fussing over this guy?