Abrams' "Cloverfield" keeps everyone in the dark
David
The first monster hit of 2008
The trailer sparked a blogging frenzy - Christopher Goodwin on the
mystery film from the creator of Lost that's got everybody talking
The first sighting came in cinemas in summer: a trailer that ran in
July, before the movie Transformers. Since subjected to more online
analysis than a Baudrillard text in a post-structuralism doctoral
class, it begins with what looks like rough home-movie video footage
of a surprise party in a New York loft for a young man named Rob. The
shaky handheld camera skirts round the party, where various
good-looking people in their mid- twenties chat about Rob, who is
about to leave for Japan.
The party is thrown into sudden chaos when the lights go out and a
loud noise is heard. Someone shouts, “It sounded like an animal.” On a
television set, a newsflash says that there may have been an
earthquake in lower Manhattan. The camera follows as the people from
the party head up to the roof of the building to get a better look.
Suddenly, there’s an animalistic roar, then a huge fireball explosion
across the New York skyline. The partygoers panic, and the camera
follows as they rush down to the street. Someone shouts, “What is it?
Is it coming this way?” “I saw it,” someone else shouts. “It’s a lion!
It’s huge!” he seems to scream.
As more explosions are seen, and tall buildings start collapsing —
eerily reminiscent of footage of street views of the collapse of the
Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 — an enormous object comes hurtling
through the air, crashing in a trail of sparks on the street where
people from the party and others have gathered. The huge thing comes
to rest just beside them. It’s the head of the Statue of Liberty,
lying smashed and on its side, its cheeks shockingly gouged. As the
trailer draws to a close, a couple of lines flash up: “From producer
JJ Abrams. In theatres 1-18-08.” The mystery only deepened when
audiences realised that there seemed to be no title for the movie.
Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
mysterious monsters that lurk in the undergrowth. . . or do they? He
is now directing the new Star Trek movie. But how, many people
wondered,
in a media world in which whole movies are leaked onto the internet
before they have been released in cinemas, could Paramount and Abrams
have kept something this big this secret?
Even the Hollywood trade press had been kept in the dark, although, in
early July, both The Hollywood Reporter and Variety reported that the
film was shooting in New York, that it was being made with a cast of
unknowns, and that, despite the awesome scenes shown in the trailer,
it was apparently being made on the modest budget of $30m.
It was being directed by Matt Reeves, who had made just one film
before, 11 years earlier, a small comedy called The Pallbearer,
starring Gwyneth Paltrow, although he had directed episodes of the
television series Felicity, which Abrams produced. The Hollywood
Reporter also said: “The casting process was just as mysterious. No
scripts or even scene pages were sent out; agents who were contacted
were simply asked if their client wanted to be in the movie or not”.
“We weren’t exactly clear about the characters we were playing when we
signed on,” Lizzie Caplan, who plays a character called Marlena, later
said. “The producers sat us down, and we auditioned with scenes that
aren’t in the movie. Some were from Alias, and some had been written
specifically for the audition. And they were all very misleading.”
Even when the film was shooting, the actors weren’t allowed to keep
any pages from the script. Every day, the producers would swap new
pages for old. The pages were bright red, and all were watermarked, to
stop anyone from copying or leaking them.
Over the next few weeks, as internet excitement ramped up, even the
title of the film remained a mystery. Although Variety had reported
that it was Cloverfield, that seemed weirdly dissonant with the
apparent subject matter of the film: an attack on New York by
something huge and destructive, possibly an enormous lion. And Abrams
fans pointed out that Cloverfield was the name of a street in Santa
Monica where the producer was believed to own an office building. So
it was surely a cover.
The speculation spread far and wide, and grew ever more convoluted, a
tribute to the nerdily precise sleuthing skills of the core internet
community. In early August, a story appeared in an obscure Australian
newspaper suggesting that, although various titles for the film had
been considered, including Monstrous, Rampage and Voltron, “the latest
news is that it’s going to be called Overnight”. Some unbelievably
diligent and obsessed fan had discovered that a trademark for the
title Overnight had been registered by a lawyer named Lori N
Boatright, on July 18, 2007, to a company called Group One and
Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer. Boatright was, apparently, the same
lawyer who had registered the trademarks for Bad Robot, Abrams’s
production company. It turned out that Boatright had also registered
trademarks for Slusho!, which seemed to be some kind of new Japanese
frozen soft drink, and for a Slusho! marketing slogan: “Slusho! You
can’t drink just six!” Was Slusho! somehow related to Cloverfield, or
whatever the film was called? That theory gained currency when reports
surfaced that the film might even be called Slusho!
Digging deeper, the sleuths found that Slusho! appeared to be owned by
a large Japanese conglomerate, the Tagruato Corporation. Tagruato has
a very sophisticated website, under the banner: “Exploring our world.
Ensuring your future.” The corporation, whose CEO is one Ganu Yoshida,
based in Marunouchi, Tokyo, calls itself “a collective of top
scientists, engineers and businessmen committed to leading our
investors and the whole of mankind into the future”. Is that benign or
deeply scary, people debated? Among its other operations, Tagruato
says it has “14 drilling rigs strategically positioned around the
globe, each a billion-dollar marvel of modern engineering” drilling
into the deepest oceans. The site divulges that the origin of the
company “goes back to 1945, when our creator, Kantaro Tagruato,
founded a mining company in Kyushu, the southernmost of Japan’s large
islands. Tagruato, who had emigrated to Japan from Polynesia with his
family as a young boy, started the company with dreams of ‘holding
earth’s energy in my fist’.” And, carrying on the ocean-depths
connection, The Slusho! website describes the soft drink as containing
a unique “deep-sea ingredient”. . .
Was Slusho! the key to the mystery? Some people suggested that Slusho!
and Tagruato, if they were not a real product and a real company,
might be related not to Cloverfield, but to Alias or Lost. Another web
poster was in no doubt as to what was happening. “I think it’s clear
that Abrams, Bad Robot and Paramount are using Jackoway Tyreman
Wertheimer as a cover to basically ‘launder’ all connections to the
movie,” he wrote.
Other websites appeared that seemed to be connected to Cloverfield,
including Ethan Haas Was Right, a reference to an HP Lovecraft
character. But others argued that the only website directly connected
to the film was 1-18-08.com. There, visitors could try to interpret
the meanings of various time-coded photographs.
Whatever the truth of any of this, there was clearly some kind of
inspired genius behind a viral marketing campaign that could generate
such unprecedented levels of subterranean interest in a film that was
months from release, had no recognisable stars, no obvious subject,
not even a clear title. The hype was fuelled by Cloverfield posters
that appeared showing a decapitated Statue of Liberty. The campaign,
if it was a campaign, reminded some of the excitement generated in
earlier internet days by that grainy early footage from The Blair
Witch Project, the first film to exploit the internet as a marketing
tool.
In fact, the only real clue as to what the film might really be about
had been quietly dropped by Abrams himself in July, at Comic Con, the
world’s largest comic-book convention.
“I want a monster movie, I’ve wanted one for so long,” he said.
“I was in Japan with my son, and all he wanted to do was go to toy
stores. We saw all these Godzilla toys, and I thought, we need our own
monster, not King Kong. King Kong’s adorable. I wanted something that
was just insane and intense.”
In recent days, Matt Reeves, the film’s director, has finally been
giving interviews to select sci-fi websites. Although he has not
divulged secrets about the film’s plot, he did confirm that it is a
classic monster movie, and that it has been shot to appear as if it’s
Handycam footage later found by the government; footage shot by
someone as he or she experienced and tried to survive the horrendous
attack.
“We wanted this to be as if someone found a Handycam, took out the
tape and put it in the player to watch it,” Reeves told the web- site
ShockTillYouDrop.com. “What you’re watching is a home movie that then
turns into something else. The other thing I think is very exciting is
that this monster is huge, and you see everything. You see it, in a
way, as if you’re shooting it with a Handycam.”
Reeves also said that the visual references to September 11 were
deliberate. “Godzilla was very much about the A-bomb,” he said.
“Cloverfield very much speaks to the fear and anxieties of our time,
how we live our lives — constantly documenting things and putting them
up on YouTube, sending people videos through e-mail.” He also made
clear the real intention behind the film’s viral marketing campaign.
“In today’s environment, you know everything about every movie before
it comes out,” he told ign.com. “There’s so much information, people
are so media-savvy. And we were just remembering when we were kids,
and movies would come out, and you’d see a trailer, and you were,
like, ‘What was that?!’ There was that sense of discovery.”
So, how much do we really know about Cloverfield? What about the huge
lion? “At the last minute, when we were shooting the trailer,” Reeves
said, “we wanted people to know — because we hadn’t created the
monster yet — that it was a giant monster movie, we wanted a tease of
that.
“So I jumped to the microphone and said the line, ‘I saw it! It’s
alive! It’s huge!” And I came home, and someone on the web had already
taken that section and started to do an analysis of it and thought I’d
said, ‘It’s a lion.’ ”
So, it might, in fact, be a giant creature from the deep. One thing is
certain, though: the intense interest in the film shown by the
net-savvy signals a big, monster hit among those very teens and
twentysomethings the cinema is trying to recapture from the clutches
of the internet. And that, for the film industry, is no disaster.
Pete B
@yahoo.com says...
> Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
> just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
> cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
>
Confusing stories without plot or ending ;)
Steven L.
There's a monster in Lost too, but even after 3 seasons, we still don't
know what it is.
I wonder if Cloverfield will be like that. We'll see the whole movie
but never find out what the monster is. For that reveal, we'll have to
wait for "Cloverfield II: The Reveal" to be released in January 2010.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Captain Infinity
David wrote:
>Suddenly, there’s an animalistic roar, then a huge fireball explosion
>across the New York skyline. The partygoers panic, and the camera
>follows as they rush down to the street. Someone shouts, “What is it?
>Is it coming this way?” “I saw it,” someone else shouts. “It’s a lion!
>It’s huge!” he seems to scream.
It's a Giant Invisible Robot. With tentacles.
**
Captain Infinity
James Gassaway
Exactly why I'm not planning on seeing it. (Or the new Trek movie, but
that's reinforced by the news of the changes he's intending there.)
--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.
Steven L.
That was your theory about the "Lost" monster too, as I recall.
Nice to see you reusing a failed theory. With logic like that, you
should run for political office.
Captain Infinity
Steven L. wrote:
>Captain Infinity wrote:
>> Once Upon A Time,
>> David wrote:
>>
>>> Suddenly, there’s an animalistic roar, then a huge fireball explosion
>>> across the New York skyline. The partygoers panic, and the camera
>>> follows as they rush down to the street. Someone shouts, “What is it?
>>> Is it coming this way?” “I saw it,” someone else shouts. “It’s a lion!
>>> It’s huge!” he seems to scream.
>>
>> It's a Giant Invisible Robot. With tentacles.
>
>That was your theory about the "Lost" monster too, as I recall.
>Nice to see you reusing a failed theory.
Hey, the jury's still out on the Lost monster. Do you really expect to SEE
a Giant Invisible Robot? All we've seen so far are the Giant Invisible
Robot's Giant Visible Farts.
**
Captain Infinity
Anim8rFSK
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Captain Infinity wrote:
> > Once Upon A Time,
> > David wrote:
> >
> >> Suddenly, there¹s an animalistic roar, then a huge fireball explosion
> >> across the New York skyline. The partygoers panic, and the camera
> >> follows as they rush down to the street. Someone shouts, ³What is it?
> >> Is it coming this way?² ³I saw it,² someone else shouts. ³It¹s a lion!
> >> It¹s huge!² he seems to scream.
> >
> > It's a Giant Invisible Robot. With tentacles.
>
> That was your theory about the "Lost" monster too, as I recall.
> Nice to see you reusing a failed theory. With logic like that, you
> should run for political office.
Hey, we don't know for sure yet that the LOST monster isn't invisible.
It seems to have tentacles. And still sounds robotic.
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is one the way. We'll see what happens. :\
Pete B
says...
> Pete B wrote:
> > In article <ojhan315udlm1rfg7...@4ax.com>, dimlan17
> > @yahoo.com says...
> >> Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
> >> just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
> >> cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
> >>
> >
> > Confusing stories without plot or ending ;)
>
> There's a monster in Lost too, but even after 3 seasons, we still don't
> know what it is.
>
> I wonder if Cloverfield will be like that. We'll see the whole movie
> but never find out what the monster is. For that reveal, we'll have to
> wait for "Cloverfield II: The Reveal" to be released in January 2010.
And he'll blame it on the writers strike ;)
Steven L.
The writers have already said that the Black Smoke Monster is not
nanotech. For my own theory, I paraphrased an old supernatural theory
of comets from the Middle Ages:
My Theory: The Black Smoke Monster is "the thick smoke of human sins,
rising every day, every hour, every moment, full of stench and horror
before the face of God, and becoming gradually so thick as to form a"
monster
If you think about it, that is really how it behaves.
mar...@earthlink.net
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <13nb96lrdupr...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
That sounds a lot like the "Monster of the ID" from "Forbidden Planet".
PV
>Hey, the jury's still out on the Lost monster. Do you really expect to SEE
>a Giant Invisible Robot? All we've seen so far are the Giant Invisible
>Robot's Giant Visible Farts.
We're getting into invisible pink unicorn territory there...
Since we know the 'monster' on lost is a runaway defense system (called
Cerberus), I don't see anything all that wrong with saying "invisible
tentacled robot". Something with MEMS based active camoflage for example. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>The writers have already said that the Black Smoke Monster is not
>nanotech.
To avoid comparisons to the blecherousness that is "Prey".
>My Theory: The Black Smoke Monster is "the thick smoke of human sins,
>rising every day, every hour, every moment, full of stench and horror
>before the face of God, and becoming gradually so thick as to form a"
>monster
I think I threw up a bit in my mouth when I read that. Thank you for
making the whole world just a little bit stupider by writing it.
>If you think about it, that is really how it behaves.
Not really, no. It mostly goes RAR and grabs people. *
Anim8rFSK
pv+u...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >The writers have already said that the Black Smoke Monster is not
> >nanotech.
>
> To avoid comparisons to the blecherousness that is "Prey".
>
> >My Theory: The Black Smoke Monster is "the thick smoke of human sins,
> >rising every day, every hour, every moment, full of stench and horror
> >before the face of God, and becoming gradually so thick as to form a"
> >monster
>
> I think I threw up a bit in my mouth when I read that. Thank you for
> making the whole world just a little bit stupider by writing it.
>
> >If you think about it, that is really how it behaves.
>
> Not really, no. It mostly goes RAR and grabs people. *
With it's tentacles.
We know it has tentacles; we've seen it be invisible (you know what I
mean) and it's pretty certainly robotic.
It may not be nanotech, and it may not be a T-Rex, but a giant invisible
robot, with tentacles? I think so.
Captain Infinity
Steven L. wrote:
>My Theory: The Black Smoke Monster is "the thick smoke of human sins,
>rising every day, every hour, every moment, full of stench and horror
>before the face of God, and becoming gradually so thick as to form a"
>monster
What have you been smoking?
**
Captain Infinity
Ken from Chicago
"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.21df8d5c6...@news.usenetserver.com...
Both had endings. You meant "conclusions". Not your fault. Common mistake.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13nb0pj...@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete B wrote:
>> In article <ojhan315udlm1rfg7...@4ax.com>, dimlan17
>> @yahoo.com says...
>>> Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
>>> just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
>>> cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
>>>
>>
>> Confusing stories without plot or ending ;)
>
> There's a monster in Lost too, but even after 3 seasons, we still don't
> know what it is.
That's already been brilliantly deduced:
Spores.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/7d1af898312012cf
> I wonder if Cloverfield will be like that. We'll see the whole movie but
> never find out what the monster is. For that reveal, we'll have to wait
> for "Cloverfield II: The Reveal" to be released in January 2010.
>
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
-- Ken from Chicago
Zombie Elvis
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Pete B wrote:
>> In article <ojhan315udlm1rfg7...@4ax.com>, dimlan17
>> @yahoo.com says...
>>> Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
>>> just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
>>> cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
>>>
>>
>> Confusing stories without plot or ending ;)
>
>There's a monster in Lost too, but even after 3 seasons, we still don't
>know what it is.
We know it's column of smoke.
>
>I wonder if Cloverfield will be like that. We'll see the whole movie
>but never find out what the monster is. For that reveal, we'll have to
>wait for "Cloverfield II: The Reveal" to be released in January 2010.
Usually, when the monster is finally revealed, it's pretty
disappointing. So not showing the monster at all is actually a good
idea.
--
"I am saying that if you're out there murdering people, on some level
you must want to be Christian. Would you let me take you to church?"
-- Catherine, Boston Legal
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
Dan Dassow
> http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
>
> The first monster hit of 2008
> The trailer sparked a blogging frenzy - Christopher Goodwin on the
> mystery film from the creator of Lost that's got everybody talking
>
I just saw a 10-15 second commercial for "Cloverfield" on NBC during
the New England Patriots - New York Giant game. The commercial looks
like a trimmed-down version of the trailer that was reported in the
press to have shown after "Transformers". I suspect that "Cloverfield"
will probably be advertised during the Super Bowl.
Dan Dassow
Ken from Chicago
"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
news:tu4bn3pttcoivni78...@4ax.com...
No it's cute bug-eyed alien kids--with mental powers!
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Spores.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/7d1af898312012cf
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Spores.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/7d1af898312012cf
Sheesh, we settled this years ago.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Spores.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/7d1af898312012cf
Spores explain pert near every bit of phenomena on the island.
-- Ken from Chicago
Pete B
Pete B
lurking horror
Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
As if anything is ever settled on the internet!
--
In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times like
these.
-- Paul Harvey
peachy ashie passion
You keep saying that. Who is this "we" ? Cuz it clearly doesn't
include these guys!!
Ken from Chicago
They both had "conclusions"?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"lurking horror" <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote in message
news:301220070946057515%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov...
I was right. Everyone agreed.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"peachy ashie passion" <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yAQdj.627$Ug5.326@trnddc06...
Me and those who agreed.
IOW the common definition of "we".
-- Ken from Chicago
peachy ashie passion
Well, no.
When you are talking to someone, and you use the word we without
further description, the common definition would suggest you meant you
and the people you are talking to.
lurking horror
Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Absense of disagreement is not necessarily agreement. Plus, people come
and go. And then there is short memory retention.
Ken from Chicago
No applause was neccessary. I didn't want to clog the bandwidth.
-- Modest Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Unless talking about a debate and agreement. When I say "we" agree about a
point of contention then by definition it's referring to those agreeing with
peachy ashie passion
Yes. But when you say we agreed, in the past tense, you suggest
that the person you are addressing had previously agreed and is now
going back on that.
Beowulf Bolt
>
> "Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
> news:6vabn3dme6jcmh8re...@4ax.com...
> >
> > Robot's Giant Visible Farts.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/7d1af898312012cf
Someone's been hitting the magic mushrooms a bit too hard. ;)
On a more serious note as per your list in the referenced post; there
is no "dead zone" in the human brain, Johnnie Smith notwithstanding.
This is an old urban legend.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Default User
>
> "lurking horror" <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote in message
> news:301220071514288969%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov...
> > Absense of disagreement is not necessarily agreement. Plus, people
> > come and go. And then there is short memory retention.
>
> No applause was neccessary. I didn't want to clog the bandwidth.
Please trim quoted material.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Monkey boy
<defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> >
> > "lurking horror" <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote in message
> > news:301220071514288969%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov...
>
> > > Absense of disagreement is not necessarily agreement. Plus, people
> > > come and go. And then there is short memory retention.
> >
> > No applause was neccessary. I didn't want to clog the bandwidth.
>
> Please trim quoted material.
>
>
>
>
> Brian
What are you, a NetKop?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Captain Infinity
Monkey boy wrote:
>In article <5tss31F...@mid.individual.net>, Default User
><defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "lurking horror" <lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov> wrote in message
>> > news:301220071514288969%lurkin...@cyberbeyond.gov...
>>
>> > > Absense of disagreement is not necessarily agreement. Plus, people
>> > > come and go. And then there is short memory retention.
>> >
>> > No applause was neccessary. I didn't want to clog the bandwidth.
>>
>> Please trim quoted material.
>
>What are you, a NetKop?
I see that irony is lost on you.
**
Captain Infinity
Pete B
yeey...@monkeyhouse.com says...
> > Please trim quoted material.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
>
> What are you, a NetKop?
No, he is an adult pointing out the conventions of the majority.
PV
> You keep saying that. Who is this "we" ? Cuz it clearly doesn't
>include these guys!!
Ken is, as they say, a legend in his own mind. And he never gives up on his
dumb ideas. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Ken from Chicago
"PV" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:13nkvdh...@news.supernews.com...
Wrong.
I'm more than willing to admit when I was wrong and someone else was right:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.firefly/msg/9902f83ae294fdc3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer/msg/55179efcfdf6a05c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.smallville/msg/13cca2b5a49e7fb6
-- Ken from Chicago
Rob Jensen
The release date of Godzilla 2008 -- err, Cloverfield -- is January
18, 2008, two weeks before the Super Bowl.
BTW, about that Not Joke about Godzilla -- is there any doubt now from
the monster's screechs that Cloverfield is a Godzilla remake?
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "PV" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:13nkvdh...@news.supernews.com...
> > peachy ashie passion <exquisi...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> You keep saying that. Who is this "we" ? Cuz it clearly doesn't
> >>include these guys!!
> >
> > Ken is, as they say, a legend in his own mind. And he never gives up on
> > his
> > dumb ideas. *
> > --
> > * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> > like corkscrews.
>
> Wrong.
>
> I'm more than willing to admit when I was wrong and someone else was right:
Links to Ken's entire posting history snipped.
8-D
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
Ken from Chicago
Who are you?
-- Ken from Chicago (right?)
Monkey boy
<xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
Oink, oink.
BTW, coming from you, that comment is quite funny.
lurking horror
<Shut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:37:13 -0800 (PST), Dan Dassow
> <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 12:58 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
> >>
> >> The first monster hit of 2008
> >> The trailer sparked a blogging frenzy - Christopher Goodwin on the
> >> mystery film from the creator of Lost that's got everybody talking
> >>
> >
> >I just saw a 10-15 second commercial for "Cloverfield" on NBC during
> >the New England Patriots - New York Giant game. The commercial looks
> >like a trimmed-down version of the trailer that was reported in the
> >press to have shown after "Transformers". I suspect that "Cloverfield"
> >will probably be advertised during the Super Bowl.
>
> The release date of Godzilla 2008 -- err, Cloverfield -- is January
> 18, 2008, two weeks before the Super Bowl.
>
> BTW, about that Not Joke about Godzilla -- is there any doubt now from
> the monster's screechs that Cloverfield is a Godzilla remake?
>
Maybe Cthulhu has woken up? He could snap the head off of Liberty, no
problem.
Pete B
Shut...@aol.com says...
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:37:13 -0800 (PST), Dan Dassow
> <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 28, 12:58 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
> >>
> >> The first monster hit of 2008
> >> The trailer sparked a blogging frenzy - Christopher Goodwin on the
> >> mystery film from the creator of Lost that's got everybody talking
> >>
> >
> >I just saw a 10-15 second commercial for "Cloverfield" on NBC during
> >the New England Patriots - New York Giant game. The commercial looks
> >like a trimmed-down version of the trailer that was reported in the
> >press to have shown after "Transformers". I suspect that "Cloverfield"
> >will probably be advertised during the Super Bowl.
>
> The release date of Godzilla 2008 -- err, Cloverfield -- is January
> 18, 2008, two weeks before the Super Bowl.
>
> BTW, about that Not Joke about Godzilla -- is there any doubt now from
> the monster's screechs that Cloverfield is a Godzilla remake?
Wouldn't they say that?
Hm... on the other hand, Godzilla=crap movie - so i guess not *g*
Pete B
yeey...@monkeyhouse.com says...
> In article <MPG.21e449a11...@news.usenetserver.com>, Pete B
> <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <311220071459151958%yeey...@monkeyhouse.com>,
> > yeey...@monkeyhouse.com says...
> >
> > > > Please trim quoted material.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > >
> > > What are you, a NetKop?
> >
> > No, he is an adult pointing out the conventions of the majority.
>
>
> Oink, oink.
Bye.
> BTW, coming from you, that comment is quite funny.
Facts are facts.
miket...@live.com
> Pete B wrote:
> > In article <ojhan315udlm1rfg735nplhq3k2b9rr...@4ax.com>, dimlan17
> > @yahoo.com says...
> >> Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
> >> just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
> >> cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
>
> > Confusing stories without plot or ending ;)
>
> know what it is.
>
> I wonder ifCloverfieldwill be like that. We'll see the whole movie
> but never find out what the monster is. For that reveal, we'll have to
> wait for "CloverfieldII: The Reveal" to be released in January 2010.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
You can bet that you will only catch jiggled cam shots, blurry as
hell, of the monster. That's the whole idea. People will swarm to
the theaters to see it, and won't see anything really. Just like
Blair Witch. And, like Blair Witch, there will be a sequel that will
bomb badly. So much for Abrams as a major movie maven.
The movie only cost $30M. You can't make a credible monster movie
spectacle in 2008 for that kind of money. But that budget will
certainly enable you to use the Internet to generate massive hype,
plant a drawing or two, and then collect a big opening payday after
people sit through two hours of bad acting by unknowns shot through
web cams and cell phones.
If you are anticipating anything cutting edge here, forget it. In
fact, save your money and pick up the CD at Target in 6 months for $7.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>BTW, about that Not Joke about Godzilla -- is there any doubt now from
>the monster's screechs that Cloverfield is a Godzilla remake?
I most assuredly hope not... Because if not, it's pretty
apparent they didn't learn from the Sony debacle and I feel that
Hollywood is in sore need of someone on a rooftop with an AK-47
reminding them to duck and cover through the tripe their producing.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
>On Dec 28 2007, 3:14 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Pete B wrote:
>>
>> > In article <ojhan315udlm1rfg735nplhq3k2b9rr...@4ax.com>, dimlan17
>> > @yahoo.com says...
>> >> Perhaps the biggest clue is the name of the producer. Abrams is not
>> >> just the director of Mission: Impossible III, but the creator of the
>> >> cult television series Alias and Lost, the latter specialising in
>>
>> > Confusing stories without plot or ending ;)
>>
>> There's a monster in Lost too, but even after 3 seasons, we still don't
>> know what it is.
>>
>> I wonder ifCloverfieldwill be like that. We'll see the whole movie
>> but never find out what the monster is. For that reveal, we'll have to
>> wait for "CloverfieldII: The Reveal" to be released in January 2010.
>
>You can bet that you will only catch jiggled cam shots, blurry as
>hell, of the monster. That's the whole idea. People will swarm to
>the theaters to see it, and won't see anything really. Just like
>Blair Witch. And, like Blair Witch, there will be a sequel that will
>bomb badly. So much for Abrams as a major movie maven.
>
>The movie only cost $30M. You can't make a credible monster movie
>spectacle in 2008 for that kind of money. But that budget will
>certainly enable you to use the Internet to generate massive hype,
>plant a drawing or two, and then collect a big opening payday after
>people sit through two hours of bad acting by unknowns shot through
>web cams and cell phones.
>
>If you are anticipating anything cutting edge here, forget it. In
>fact, save your money and pick up the CD at Target in 6 months for $7.
Christ, it'll be lucky at $7.00 at Target... I'm seeing in
the bin at Wal*Mart for 2/$10. Am I seeing this correctly? [JJ]
Abrams and [Bryan] Burke in Alias, [Sherryl] Clark has practically
nothing under her belt as Executive Producer, and [Guy] Reidel had his
hand as a Co-Producer of Rocky Balboa, and Hot Chick?
If anything I get the distinct impression this is a pity fuck
for the poor saps that used to work on Alias, Angel and Lost, as
there's also [Michael] Bonvillain for Cinematographer... And the
rest of the production folk being sweeped up from one of the projects
the Abrams and/or Burke worked on?!
I think I'm going to wait to see if I can't see it as rental
from Blockbuster or Hollywood.
David
<mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:12:39 -0600, Rob Jensen <Shut...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>BTW, about that Not Joke about Godzilla -- is there any doubt now from
>>the monster's screechs that Cloverfield is a Godzilla remake?
>
> I most assuredly hope not... Because if not, it's pretty
>apparent they didn't learn from the Sony debacle and I feel that
>Hollywood is in sore need of someone on a rooftop with an AK-47
>reminding them to duck and cover through the tripe their producing.
"Godzilla" did make a lot of money...
Pete B
f9af74...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, miket...@live.com says...
> The movie only cost $30M. You can't make a credible monster movie
> spectacle in 2008 for that kind of money. But that budget will
> certainly enable you to use the Internet to generate massive hype,
>
who will then download it and see it isn't really worth it ;)
Merrick Baldelli
From: http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/costs-movies.html
TITLE $ COST NON-US GROSS U.S. GROSS
1. Titanic (1997) 200,000,000 1,234,000,000 600,779,000
2. Waterworld (1995) 175,000,000 167,000,000 88,246,000
3. Armageddon (1998) 140,000,000 251,200,000 201,573,000
4. Lethal Weapon 4 (98) 140,000,000 138,400,000 129,734,000
5. Godzilla (1998) 125,000,000 221,600,000 136,000,000
6. Dante's Peak (1997) 116,000,000 93,900,000 67,115,000
7. Star Wars I (1999) 110,000,000 352,100,100 431,000,000
8. Batman & Robin (1997)110,000,000 130,000,000 107,000,000
9. Speed 2 (1997) 110,000,000 102,400,000 48,068,000
10.Tomorrow Never Dies 110,000,000 210,000,000 125,332,000
Compared to... what?
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
David
<mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So on a $125 million budget it earned #357 million, or $130 million
and $379 million if you go by
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=godzilla.htm
Subtract theater splits and marketing costs, add commercials tie-ins,
dvd and tv sales, bla bla bla lots of math, and in the end it all
equals "Godzilla" making a hefty profit.
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
wait.
Speed 2 is the #9 movie?
Speed *2*????
David
wrote:
This list is clearly outdated. There've been a hundred movies the last
few years that cost $150 million and up. That budget figure isn't even
considered a big deal anymore.
Jack Bohn
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:47:50 -0500, Merrick Baldelli
><mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:51:18 -0500, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Godzilla" did make a lot of money...
>>
>>From: http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/costs-movies.html
>>
>>5. Godzilla (1998) 125,000,000 221,600,000 136,000,000
>>
>> Compared to... what?
>
>So on a $125 million budget it earned #357 million, or $130 million
>and $379 million if you go by
>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=godzilla.htm
>Subtract theater splits and marketing costs, add commercials tie-ins,
>dvd and tv sales, bla bla bla lots of math, and in the end it all
>equals "Godzilla" making a hefty profit.
I forget... is the rule of thumb that the theater split is half
the box office, or that the distribution and marketing doubles
the cost of the film? Applying either to these figures, it made
back... not quite enough to finance another film of the same
budget.
--
-Jack
Ken from Chicago
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:umf0o3ptcu8su14p9...@4ax.com...
The studios get the lion's share of opening night receipts but over time
that shifts increasingly shifts to the theater the longer a movie is shown.
-- Ken from Chcago
David
I thought it was the other way around. Either way, a $249 million
differential is more than most movies make. If Hollywood can't make a
big profit on that they should just stop making movies.
Rob Jensen
wrote:
The longtime Rule of Thumb is that a movie has to make back double its
budget at the US Box Office to pull a profit. That Rule of Thumb has
always been a rough guesstimate, but it factored in the expenses of
marketing *and* the revenue generated by overseas box office -- IOW,
the double the US box office = US box office + overseas box office,
but it's never had to be a one-to-one ratio of dollars, just this
formula, more or less:
If US BO + Foreign BO = Budget x 2, then Movie = Profitable.
But this Rule of Thumb guesstimate predates the rise of DVD sales,
barely recognizes VHS sales (that's how old the formula is), factors
in a broadcast TV resale market that doesn't really exist anymore and
also doesn't take into account the massive increase in overseas box
office.
OTOH, it also doesn't take into consideration the fact that many of
these blockbuster high-budget movies are co-productions between two or
more of the major studios -- Fox greenlit Titanic, then realized how
huge the budget was going to be (first movie with a $200 million
budget) and early in the filming brought in Paramount as a white
knight to shoulder part of the cost. In return, Paramount got the
domestic market (and DVDs) while Fox got the foreign market (and
DVDs).
Even then, some accountants at Paramount and Fox are probably *still*
trying to say that Titanic never made a profit for either studio, but
if they're making it (and I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying
*if*), then nobody's taking them seriously.
Here's the Rule of Thumb I'd use now:
If the movie makes back at the very least its budget at both the US
and Overseas Box Offices, then it's turned a profit. Expenses for
marketing are more than offset by revenue from DVDs, cable, VOD and
from the growing revenue from Interweb downloads and streaming.
This Rule of Thumb may not apply to Superman Returns, though. ;)
Rob Jensen
Ken's right. The studios get the largest percentage of the receipts
on opening weekend and the percentages decline gradually every week
thereafter. The multiplexes actually cut their own throats by opening
up too many theaters as that allows the majority of viewers to come in
during the first week or three, thus saturating the market and
allowing the studios to then bring in the next wide-release where they
get the majority of the box office and so on. Now that the theaters
have overbuilt, the ratios won't shift to balance in favor of the
theaters because the movies just don't stay in the theaters long
enough most of the time. And the studios certainly won't give up any
box office money by rolling back to any previous theatrical release
model, so the theaters have to deal with it.
Meanwhile, the studios *are* making a lot of money on these big
movies, they're just amortizing the costs and reporting the revenues
dishonestly in that practice known as "Hollywood Accounting" in order
to 1) pay out as little as possible to those who have gross points
and/or residuals (biggest names like Spielberg and Cruise tend to have
both) and 2) hide the costs of the flops by charging those losses to
the profitable movies. Which is illegal but hard to enforce. Except
when your name is Art Buchwald and your idea for a movie was stolen
and became the Eddie Murphy movie Coming To America and *then* the
courts made the loser, Paramount, report the actual revenues generated
by the movie in order to calculate the damages Buchwald was entitled
to.
James Gassaway
The theatres make their money off the concessions in any case.
--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.
Ken from Chicago
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8um0o3h1f3b0q4rdp...@4ax.com...
No, that's why the marketing of opening weekend has skyrocketed in budget
for studios. Opening weekend revenues is increasingly becoming a larger
share of total revenue for a movie. That's why even awful movies get huge
marketing campaigns, get the crowds in before word of mouth can get out.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"James Gassaway" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:47809403$0$36381$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Too bad popcorn makes me burp and feel nauseous otherwise I might be tempted
to pay $10 for a 50 cent bag of popcorn and dollar cup of pop.
-- Ken from Chicago (who spends it on an actual meal before or after, say a
nice personal size pizza and water)
Padmar Mushkin
season premier? At first I thought maybe there was a real Cloverfield
street in NYC and it was just a coincidence, but according to Google
Maps there's no such street.
Pete B
Shut...@aol.com says...
> hide the costs of the flops by charging those losses to
> the profitable movies. Which is illegal but hard to enforce.
>
It wouldn't be hard to enforce if the politicians wanted to prevent the
crime. One can only assume they must not want to. Why they don't want
to, well....
Captain Infinity
Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> The theatres make their money off the concessions in any case.
>
>Too bad popcorn makes me burp and feel nauseous otherwise I might be tempted
>to pay $10 for a 50 cent bag of popcorn and dollar cup of pop.
Why do you hate America?
**
Captain Infinity
Ken from Chicago
"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
news:2352o3h1nv2cfvmo3...@4ax.com...
It started it!
-- Oh so mature Ken from Chicago
William George Ferguson
>The longtime Rule of Thumb is that a movie has to make back double its
>budget at the US Box Office to pull a profit. That Rule of Thumb has
>always been a rough guesstimate, but it factored in the expenses of
>marketing *and* the revenue generated by overseas box office -- IOW,
>the double the US box office = US box office + overseas box office,
>but it's never had to be a one-to-one ratio of dollars, just this
>formula, more or less:
>
>If US BO + Foreign BO = Budget x 2, then Movie = Profitable.
That ancient rule of thumb doesn't even need to factor in after-market
revenue streams. It's still true, last time I heard, that theatrical
rental receipts (what the theatres pay the distributers) are slightly above
50% of the box office receipts (how slightly varies from film to film
depending on various factors). Thus your formula above is a good ballpark
figure.
[snip some additional discussion on different changes in the market in the
last 20 or so years that impact the calculation]
>Even then, some accountants at Paramount and Fox are probably *still*
>trying to say that Titanic never made a profit for either studio, but
>if they're making it (and I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying
>*if*),
OK, I'll say they are (and New Line's accountants say that none of the Lord
of the Rings movies have turned a profit yet).
>then nobody's taking them seriously.
>
>Here's the Rule of Thumb I'd use now:
>
>If the movie makes back at the very least its budget at both the US
>and Overseas Box Offices, then it's turned a profit. Expenses for
>marketing are more than offset by revenue from DVDs, cable, VOD and
>from the growing revenue from Interweb downloads and streaming.
>
>This Rule of Thumb may not apply to Superman Returns, though. ;)
The one part of the equation that isn't jimmied by the studio accountants
is the theatrica rental receipts. They can't really fiddle with them
without violating laws that involve moderately lengthy jail terms as
penalties. Everything else should be taken with an entire salt-lick of
salt. New Line listed the production budget for Lord of the Rings: Return
of the King at about $150M, which came down during the Jackson suit, is now
listed at about $94M. The actual money they spent, other than just
shifting numbers around on paper, was about a third of that (a lot of the
costs the accountants list were offset by the various tax breaks New
Zealand gave the production). A chunk of the rest was money moving around
through wholly owned subsidiaries like WETA.
A current example of a film that is perceived in the press as a failure at
the box office, a big money-loser, is The Golden Compass. It's budget is
listed as $180M (but is probably closer to half that) and its gross in the
US (and Canada) is around $67M. However, through 12/30, it had already
taken in almost $300M worldwide and will likely end up close to $400M, in
other words meeting your formula for turning a profit. Of course, it won't
show a profit, becaue no movie by a major studio ever does.
--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg
Merrick Baldelli
Do you just like to hear yourself speak, or are you just plain
retarded? My posting was a counter to Godzilla making a "lot of
money"... Lot of money compared to what for movies of the same basic
time frame.
Keep flapping your lips the way you do. I'm sure people will
point and giggle in your direction with comments like this.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Rob Jensen
Well, yeah. The Rules of Thumb are useful, however, because they more
or less ignore Hollywood Accounting regarding profit/loss outside of
taking the studios' inflated budget declarations at face value.
francois cap
> On Dec 28, 12:58 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/fil...
>
> > The first monster hit of 2008
> > The trailer sparked a blogging frenzy - Christopher Goodwin on the
> > mystery film from the creator of Lost that's got everybody talking
>
> I just saw a 10-15 second commercial for "Cloverfield" on NBC during
> the New England Patriots - New York Giant game. The commercial looks
> like a trimmed-down version of the trailer that was reported in the
> press to have shown after "Transformers". I suspect that "Cloverfield"
> will probably be advertised during the Super Bowl.
>
> Dan Dassow
yeah, a remake of the world of the wars with spiders
it was good and worth the price of the ticket. the next
chapter is......
francois c viletta