Monster Zero x SciFi Japan - Archive Only

by **Robert Saint John** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:58 pm

What you guys have said, especially Dan, really reinforces to me that this would be the way to go. Seems to me that whether a filmmaker is trying to convey an enormous scale of horror, or an incredible sense of awe, it's what is implied rather than shown that has the greatest effect. Whether or not this is the approach with Cloverfield, we'll see.

But I think back to what (to me) works, and what doesn't:

WORKS:

ALIEN/PITCH BLACK/JAWS - scare factor multiplied because you barely ever see the ____ itself, hardly ever see it in full view, and only very quickly.
Lovecraft stories - as Dan said, it's so often part of the description that it's, erm, indescribable (lest it drive you insane!), that lends so much to the very effective feel of dread in those works.
BLAIR WITCH - things that are ordinary or, at least, unextraordinary, but shown in such a way as to be very creepy (sticks hanging from trees, handprints, a guy standing in corner)
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS - the orginal ending had that incredible sense of awe
SIGNS - seeing the alien on videotape walking by the children's birthday party, and really just watching the family see the whole thing unfold on television.

DOESN'T WORK:

So many B-movies - 50 years ago or 5 years ago, how often does seeing the monster pretty much suck the horror out of a horror film? Especially all those awful haunted house remakes a few years back, like THE HAUNTING. CG borefests.
SIGNS - Mel Gibson takes on the alien with a baseball bat.
THE ABYSS - after all that build up, I can't say I found the giant sapceship under the sea all that awe inspiring in broad daylight
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS - the revised ending... inside the mothership... bleh... disappointing

I'm stumped at the moment for better examples either way. And it gets diluted by different flavors of scares in the horror genre (implied fright vs surprise fright vs gore fright). So maybe there is no hard and fast rule any longer, so many of these things are staples in film now. Even the idea of "don't show it and it's scarier" won't work in the hands of an unskilled filmmaker. It could just as easily feel like a ripoff, or just a bad movie (THE CAVERN is just as bad as THE CAVE, but I thought THE DESCENT was quite scary, and you do see the "monsters").

So, thinking more about it, I'm convinced that if they wanted to, they could make a movie like this, never show the _______, never even explicitly explain what ______ was, and it be a better movie as a result. But it's risky. Especially when your audience may have to put up with 90+ minutes of shakey cam, if in fact that is the style of the whole movie.

by **MouthForWar** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:04 pm

by **mrbluehair** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:13 pm

by **Robert Saint John** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:19 pm

by **Cookie** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:39 pm

by **mrbluehair** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:17 pm

by **Mysterio** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:32 pm

by **Cookie** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:40 pm

^ They probably figure they would get A LOT of money from the theaters anyway since the movie only cost 30 million to make. So making toys isn't a concern for them, I assume.

I kinda like the idea of not seeing the monster. Maybe show it just a little, but where you can't really tell what it is.

BTW, if this movie is called Gorilla-Whale or Whale-Gorilla I'm going to crap in my pants laughing so hard.

by **Temjin** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:50 pm

I believe that the trailer showed that some dude is "The Hero", the guy who's supposed to be going to Japan......Maybe it's through his interactions that the movie's events play out?

Also, sense it's a camera, I KNOW we'll get to see it, either through a shaky cam or a curious peek, but we'll see it, I just know it.

Why? because if Abrams and his director come from the same film-making schooling I acquired, then at least a 2 min. total peek of the creature is a given. It helps the audience understand the severity of the situation at hand.

Now, granted the WHOLE creature will never be shown because that sense of mysticism is gone when you see the entire creature on-screen; it takes away half the wonder of seeing it in action.

What we imagine is what's going to play a bigger role here, and definitely ther director'll have to be aiming for that.

Another thing: if this was a G-Film, Abrams wouldn't say a darn thing about it. If he's a good a producer as he's been so far, he knows that he can'ty let anything out of the bag yet. If anything, he'll be aiming for another "trailer" near Oct-Nov., and a final one come Christmas.

by **Atomlad** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:47 pm

Here's a couple of set photos on slashfilm:

The Ken Tarallo guy in the article was immediately fired by Paramount, supposedly.

I think all US the anti-armor weapons lead credence to the monster angle. The big ones in the back are Javelins, the rest are AT-4s, except the smaller one in the front middle. The rubble picture has that "9-11" look I had heard about.

Sorry if this was already posted.

by **MouthForWar** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:59 am

The more I see the trailer, the more I fall in love with it. I think its gonna be great... it would suck if it turned out to be some lame LOST thing, but it doesn't look that way (thank god).

by **ultramanmax** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:42 am

This is somewhat dated but it does seem to possibly fit the trailer. I just don't get any connection to the slusho thing though.Further searching of the title also would suggest a comedy of sorts but it does describe city wide destruction and mayhem. Maybe Rob's a robotic expert. :cylon: Please be gentle.
http://www.therawfeed.com/2005/07/param ... omedy.html

by **MouthForWar** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:22 am

by **william newell** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:09 am

Here's a thought, has anybody thought that this might be a sequel to Steven Spielberg's War Of The Worlds????.....

by **Gman2887** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:30 pm

by **Robert Saint John** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:09 pm

by **grenderer** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:20 am

Thanks, although actually it was only some playful "wishful thinking" on my part, with no speculations or "interpretations" involved whatsoever;0).

Todd

Hey, congrats on getting featured on AICN with this!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33360[/quote]

by **MouthForWar** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:18 am

Whoever made these is dumb... they have the Voltron sword with the movie date and the "ITS A LION" quite... ugh. THEY SAY "ITS ALIVE" YOU DORKS!!

Oh and there is no way in hell a Voltron movie would cost only 30 million...

by **emeGoji** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:54 am

by **metal_bryan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:02 am

by **planetxleader** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:04 am

by **The Shadow** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:00 pm

by **Temjin** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:29 pm

Darn...just to turn a coin they make up these t-shirts?

Well, if you have the ability, flaunt it I guess...

Based on what I read on AICN, it's set that this is a kaiju flick and that this all takes place from the tape of a camera....hopefully like ity's been said, it's not just one camera.....

by **Danno** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:02 pm

new image sucks. looks like a christmas tree falling on some dude.

by **Legion** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:07 pm

Monster Zero x SciFi Japan - Archive Only

Cloverfield - aka 1-18-08 (here come the SPOILERS)

Who is online