USC Wuz Robbed! Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 If thats true they wouldn't be making a sequel on the basis of the other dude filming the event that was shown in the movie.
Nighthawk Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 I thought that was just something mentioned as a possible idea for a sequel.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Yeah I'm just making an assumption here, but I am just saying that this is not going to end with Rob and Beth, so obviously they aren't as big roles as people think.
DangerousDamon Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 Just saw this today, and that camera kicked my ass. I knew it would be jumpy, but DAMN. A real fun movie, Hud is the man. The movie also had more blood than I'm used to seeing in a PG-13 Movie. Especially The half eaten soldier and Marlena exploding EVERYWHERE
Turbo Lion Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 If thats true they wouldn't be making a sequel on the basis of the other dude filming the event that was shown in the movie. I have to ask why you draw that conclusion. It's possible that more than Rob and co. did heroic things that night. If anything, a sequel from another perspective of the same attack that portrays other people doing heroic things just adds to that interpretation. How many stories came out of 9/11? Way more than three or four. The device used to set up a sequel (some other guy also filming) doesn't say anything about the intent of the original or the intent of the sequel.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 I guess, but the way the entire movie was structured, it was like the people existed solely for the purpose for giving reasons for the audience to catch the bits here and there of the monster, all the while maintaining the format that the monster's appearance isn't given away from the start. I should have prefaced my original statement as being my own personal thought/theory. Clearly there stands a chance I'm wrong here, you know.
luke-o Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 This is a film that really doesn't need a sequel or to be franchised.
dubq Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 It doesn't need a sequel - but I wouldn't turn away from it if it one came out.
DangerousDamon Posted February 6, 2008 Report Posted February 6, 2008 But has Jack Bauer ever had to deal with a fucking 65-foot high monster? No, I don't think so. Just your garden variety terrorists. Those are easy to stop: BANG, FUCKING DEAD. Giant fucking monster? Eh...tougher. Adrenaline does amazing things. Then again, maybe the crew had FIGHTING SPIRIT~! If Hud would have no sold the monster's 200 foot chokeslam and lariat'd him, this would be my new favorite movie.
Turbo Lion Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 I guess, but the way the entire movie was structured, it was like the people existed solely for the purpose for giving reasons for the audience to catch the bits here and there of the monster, all the while maintaining the format that the monster's appearance isn't given away from the start. I should have prefaced my original statement as being my own personal thought/theory. Clearly there stands a chance I'm wrong here, you know. Now that's true. We've seen the monster. A sequel would need to either need to pick up with the damn thing still alive or feature something new or different about everything we already know.
The Niggardly King Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 Hey, in the latest tv spot it ends with the monster yelling at the camera... awesome!
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 I guess, but the way the entire movie was structured, it was like the people existed solely for the purpose for giving reasons for the audience to catch the bits here and there of the monster, all the while maintaining the format that the monster's appearance isn't given away from the start. I should have prefaced my original statement as being my own personal thought/theory. Clearly there stands a chance I'm wrong here, you know. Now that's true. We've seen the monster. A sequel would need to either need to pick up with the damn thing still alive or feature something new or different about everything we already know. Yeah I always figured they would either go with an alternative perspective of the same attack, or they would pick up after the first movie, in which the monster manages to survive the city-wide bombing.
AntiLeaf33 Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 Hey, in the latest tv spot it ends with the monster yelling at the camera... awesome! Well there really isn't any reason to hide the monster now anyway
ulfistgut Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 The problem with the 'same thing different perspective' is that whilst yeah the story is about the people much of their story is being scared about whats going on, dealing with it blahblahblah. No idea how you could have an engaging second story that would be different. It would mostly be the same but maybe with some slightly different motivations and actions. Now a story about what happens if the monster survives and moves onto a different city would be awesome - how people react to something like that, what would they do and all that.
USC Wuz Robbed! Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 What if Cloverfield is turned into a franchise in which the idea is we follow the monster as it goes on a worldwide rampage and leaves rubbles of civilization behind? Would that be viable?
Cowboy Battlenuts Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 I can see that getting tiresome, maybe if it leads to some sort of epic world wide battle with it that'd be cool.
Turbo Lion Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 Yeah, CLOVERFIELD 4 would be tiresome for sure. But you might be able to stretch it to 3 if it's building up to some sort of balls out concerted battle. But that's a tricky tightrope to walk.
Thoth Posted February 7, 2008 Report Posted February 7, 2008 They already fucked up Cloverfield with the prequel manga, as far as I'm concerned. Just localize that and release it stateside.
Nighthawk Posted February 8, 2008 Report Posted February 8, 2008 Make a couple different monsters, then in the last movie they all destroy everything and fight. Rampage: The Movie.
KingPK Posted February 8, 2008 Report Posted February 8, 2008 So basically we're talking about making this the new Godzilla franchise. I think it could work for modest success, but I doubt it would be a series of $100M+ earners.
luke-o Posted February 8, 2008 Report Posted February 8, 2008 Why can't it just be a stand alone movie? I don't understand the need to sequalise and franchise everything these days. For the record, I know it's all about money. But that's no excuse.
The Niggardly King Posted February 8, 2008 Report Posted February 8, 2008 I just really think a sequel from a perspective of a few months later could work. I'd like to see it from the perspective of military, and have it go on a rampage in a few more states, failed military plans, havoc across the country and the whole world... I think it could work. Actually, with my idea the monster would have to go back to sea, or lay dormant some place... have it be a week, maybe a week and a half... yeah.
Nighthawk Posted February 9, 2008 Report Posted February 9, 2008 Why can't it just be a stand alone movie? I don't understand the need to sequalise and franchise everything these days. For the record, I know it's all about money. But that's no excuse. Before we knew much of anything about this movie, JJ was saying this was going to be America's answer to Godzilla. What's more franchised than Godzilla? Japan seems to be back on track with Godzilla too. I believe they're planning to keep him on the DL until his 60th anniversary, after Final Wars. Which gives enough time for Cloverfield to build itself into an iconic franchise for... Godzilla vs. Cloverfield. It'll put that shitty King Kong vs Godzilla to shame. (Why the hell did King Kong win anyway? It was a Japanese movie, and Godzilla is their monster. Plus it was just a stupid shitty movie... that I love nonetheless).
Turbo Lion Posted February 9, 2008 Report Posted February 9, 2008 I could be mistaken, but I believe the Kong win was just an alternate for the US version. In Japan, Kong jobbed to big G, I think.
King Kamala Posted February 9, 2008 Report Posted February 9, 2008 IIRC, the two different versions story is an urban legend.Then again, I read that on Snopes and they aren't always 100% accurate.
Nighthawk Posted February 9, 2008 Report Posted February 9, 2008 Yes, while the dual ending story is very popular, I've heard it debunked from numerous sources. I think if such a version existed, it would be readily available by now. Basically, the Japanese version is slightly more ambiguous, as it's speculated that Godzilla might still be alive (shades of Cloverfield again).
DrVenkman PhD Posted February 9, 2008 Report Posted February 9, 2008 From the never wrong wikipedia: Dual ending myth For many years a popular myth has persisted that in the Japanese version of this film, Godzilla emerges as the winner. It isn't known where this myth of the dual endings actually originated, but its been reported as far back as Famous Monsters of Filmland in the early 1960s. Decades later in the 1980s, the myth was still going strong. The Genus III edition of the popular board game Trivial Pursuit had a question that asked Who wins in the Japanese version of King Kong vs Godzilla, and states that the correct answer is Godzilla. As well, through the years, this myth has been misreported by various members of the media[11], and has been misreported by reputable news organizations.[5] But as more Westerners were able to view the original version of the film especially after its availability on home video during the late 1980s, the myth became dispelled. Both versions of the film end the same way. Kong and Godzilla crash into the ocean, and Kong is the only monster to emerge and swims home. The only differences between the two endings of the film are extremely minor and trivial ones. * In the Japanese version as Kong and Godzilla are fighting underwater, a very small Earthquake occurs. In the American version, producer John Beck tacked on stock footage of a violent Earthquake from the film The Mysterians to make the climatic Earthquake seem far more violent and over the top destructive. * The dialogue is slightly different. In the Japanese version onlookers are speculating that Godzilla might be dead as they watch Kong swim home, and speculate that it's possible he survived. In the American version, onlookers simply say "Godzilla has disappeared without a trace", and newly shot scenes of reporter Eric Carter has him watching Kong swim home on a viewscreen and wishing him luck on his long journey home. * As the screen fades to black and Owari (The End) appears on screen, you hear the roars of Godzilla followed by Kong. This was akin to the monsters "taking a bow" or saying "Goodbye" to the audience, as at this point the film is over. In the American version you only hear Kong's roar on the soundtrack.
Turbo Lion Posted February 9, 2008 Report Posted February 9, 2008 Interesting. Well, something new learned!
Turbo Lion Posted February 10, 2008 Report Posted February 10, 2008 Cloverfield should learn from this mistake. Cloverfield Monster (Fieldy?) vs Kong vs Godzilla Cloverfield and Kong tag up on Zilla in America. Godzilla fucks up 2 American monsters in Japan.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now