Quoted from AnotherWriter I wonder why people keep saying that this a JJ Abrams film and keep referring to his previous work like MI3, considering he's not even writing or directing this one -- he's just sitting back as a producer.  It's almost like saying that Tranfsormers is a Steven Spielberg film even though he was just an executive producer in that movie.

If a movie's got Joel Silver's or Jerry Bruckheimer's name attached to it, you've basically got a good idea of what it's going to be like. Believe it or not, producers do have some power in regards to what a movie looks like. Also, producers and executive producers aren't the same. Executive producers usually contribute nothing to the project and just slapped their names on the project because they want to seem important or they did someone a favor and the credit and said someone returning the favor. Either that or they contributed something small or borderline insignificant to the project.

Quoted from Heretic I disagree.  If it's a creature feature I want to eventually see an absolutely massive creature wreaking havoc in all its glory.  Still, nothing wrong with a nice long buildup.  I think it'd be cool if they took an Aliens approach with it...quick flashes, stuff in the shadows, but when we get to the finale, it's just out and out, creature in the open, asskicking. My only reservation about this film is that the major creative forces behind it are all directly from TV, and I don't like TV.  I thought Lost was Garbage, Alias was worse, and I haven't seen Felicity but it doesn't look very good.  Still I think the teaser and trailer are awesome, and I really like the concept, so I'll go ahead and look forward to this.

The Aliens approach could work...if they came up with a creature as unbelievably mindblowingly awesome as the xenomorph. But if this is just another tentacled, four-eyed Godzilla with firebreath, showing the monster would ruin the movie.

I mean this is obviously not a traditional creature feature, so I don't think they have to conform to the norms and trappings of the genre.

I think they could only get away with showing the monster in snipets or from a distance because if you are close enough to see the scales then you're going to get eaten or mushed.  

I'm not sure what to think of this.  The fact that they are being so secret about it leads me to believe that the reveal will be a one time thing, after you know then it's no big deal. It will probably be godzilla in disguise.

It will probably be fun to watch once and I will watch it once but I'll probably wait until it's on DVD.

I think the teaser and trailer have Abrams' look all over them.  The actors, the lighting, the approach to CGI -- everything.

If Star Trek suffers from the same affliction I will be extremely upset.

Quoted from AnotherWriter The producer will choose the script and the director that they feel will make the picture work.  The producer will offer some creative input, but not to the extent you're thinking of -- not for shot-to-shot decisions as that's pretty much up to the creative talent of the director.  The producer (and executive producers) just ensured that it can be done and within justifiable limits of the production budget. There's a massive difference between a Wachowskis' movie (The Matrix) as there is to a John McTiernan movie (Die Hard), both produced by Joel Silver -- just as there is a massive difference between a Ridley Scott movie (Black Hawk Down) to a Michael Bay movie (Bad Boys) and a Gore Verbinski movie (Pirates of the Carribean), all produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

This is true. No argument there. The producer doesn't actively control the look of the film per se but they've got their tastes and some producers (like Silver and Bruckheimer) tend to choose the same kinds of scripts, directors, etc. That does effect the look of their films in the end. You can always trust that a film produced by Joel Silver will be mindless, balls-out, in-your-face entertainment, which both Die Hard and The Matrix are when you boil it down (The Matrix is a little brainier than most of his films but it's got one flaw that tears the entire concept to pieces... just thought I'd throw that in there, hehe). It's definitely the director who's 95% responsible for the look of the film but when you throw certain producers in the mix, that can sometimes change. I think Abrams is one such producer.

Quoted from James McClung ....The producer doesn't actively control the look of the film per se but they've got their tastes and some producers (like Silver and Bruckheimer) tend to choose the same kinds of scripts, directors, etc....

He's very right about that. In this instance, the writer of Cloverfield (Drew Goddard) wrote for both Alias and Lost while the director (Matt Reeves) co-created and directed many episodes of Felicity.


Matt.

Cloverfield director Matt Reeves has given ShockTillYouDrop.com an exclusive interview about the mysterious monster flick. Hit the link above to read the full interview.

Also, the guys over at AintItCoolNews.com have posted a 5 minute clip from the film. I haven't seen it, but apparently it's similar to the two trailers. Check it out at the above link.


Matt.

If the movie is as exciting as it looks, I might be able to suspend belief beyond the ridiculous conceit that people choose to film while they are running for their lives from a huge monster that's destroying the city.

It's actually become a catchphrase to me and my friends. Like if I'm filming with my cellphone at a party and someone asks me if I'm recording, I have to say the line "Yeah. People are gonna wanna know how it all went down..."

Quoted from AnotherWriter I know what you mean.  But at the same time: I think that, when the Statue of Liberty's head crashed down onto the street and people were immeditaely upon it with their camera phones, clearly demonstrated the mentality of people wanting to "document" what they saw so they can show it to other people. I remember when the London Underground terrorist bombings happened.  Several hours later, there was amateur footage from people's camera phones.  There was one footage of a cart trapped underground mid-stations, people trapped inside, in complete darkness, only a tinge of visble light, and people going hysterical as they tried to bash their way out of the cart.

Sure, but aren't we supposed to be following a group with the same camera? Or at least a couple of groups. I find it hard to believe that after near-death experience upon near-death experience they continue to prioritize filming.

Hence the absurdity of the "are you still filming?" line.

I thought, as a big LOSTR fanatic, I would say a few things.

First, if you havent seen the episodes in order, starting with the first, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to call lost a bad show.

As for the monster, Lost had a monster mentioned and hyped for quite a while.  They showed it to us all out, I think in the first season.  It was dissapointing, but still had a mystery to it that made it cool.  I'm sure they'll take a similair path.

As for the clip above....did i see someone impailed on one of the thorns of lady liberty's crown??

I don't think anyone has posted this link.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35100

Quoted from Higgonaitor I thought, as a big LOST fanatic, I would say a few things. First, if you havent seen the episodes in order, starting with the first, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to call lost a bad show.

Of course people have the right.  Unless you mean to tell me that you have embraced the absolute entirety of every TV show and/or movie you have ever called "bad".  Including Dharma and Greg (I don't know if you have ever called that bad...I just hate it).
  
How good can a show be if it's only enjoyable when it's complete and in order?

Quoted from Heretic Of course people have the right.  Unless you mean to tell me that you have embraced the absolute entirety of every TV show and/or movie you have ever called "bad".  Including Dharma and Greg (I don't know if you have ever called that bad...I just hate it).    How good can a show be if it's only enjoyable when it's complete and in order?

First off, I never said complete.  I believe I said: "First, if you havent seen the episodes in order, starting with the first, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to call lost a bad show."

You don't need to watch them all.

If you haven't seen them in order, as I said above, you have no right to say it's a bad show.  It would be like opening the sound and the fury and reading two pages in the middle, not understanding it, and calling it a piece of crap.

Yes, i just compared Lost to Faulkner.

Sorry for the miscommunication, all I meant to say was that if you've only seen one episode, and that episode wasn't the first, you don't have the right to call it a bad show.

I disagree. Every single episode of a TV show needs to hook someone into watching, not just the first episode. Otherwise, it must not be very good. That being said, I do like Lost. Well, half of Season 1 anyway. I stopped watching afterwards (in Mexico it used to conflict with Supernatural, so I just ditched Lost because I like Supernatural better)

--Julio