Cloverfield monster VS Godzilla

[shawmutt]

Too close--my usual spot between the first two side speakers. It probably would have made me less sick if I saw it in the back rows or on a smaller screen--but I still wouldn't have enjoyed the movie for the other reasons I listed above.

[Chaossaber314]

I was just asking because I don't really get dizzy easily and even I was finding myself disoriented in the theater where as when I watched the Blair Witch the first time on a big screen with my family, I didn't have any problems. I'm starting to think that there's more to this than that.

Cloverfield seems excessively shaky to hide the monster where as the Blair Witch didn't actually have a monster to hide in the first place.



SIDENOTE: George A. Romero has a new Dead movie coming out called "Diary of the Dead" filmed in handy cam...

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I was just asking because I don't really get dizzy easily and even I was finding myself disoriented in the theater where as when I watched the Blair Witch the first time on a big screen with my family, I didn't have any problems. I'm starting to think that there's more to this than that. Cloverfield seems excessively shaky to hide the monster where as the Blair Witch didn't actually have a monster to hide in the first place. SIDENOTE: George A. Romero has a new Dead movie coming out called "Diary of the Dead" filmed in handy cam...

The worst case of shaky cam came from the movie " 28 Days Later". It was fine until the zombies came into play. Every time the zombies attacked, the camera got so shaky that I just turned the crap off. Total headache is all that does for me.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak The worst case of shaky cam came from the movie " 28 Days Later". It was fine until the zombies came into play. Every time the zombies attacked, the camera got so shaky that I just turned the crap off. Total headache is all that does for me.

But that was actually done to showcase the intensity of the moment, not make up for mediocre CGI monsters. When they did show off the individual infected in full make up they looked pretty excellent. I will grant you that it was disorienting, but in my opinion it didn't seem excessive.

28 Days Later also tended to slow down the frame rate rather than make things explicitly shaky. For a good example, watch the sequence where Jim jumps over the fence and it's raining at the old military checkpoint. Particularly when the infected begin showing up.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 But that was actually done to showcase the intensity of the moment, not make up for mediocre CGI monsters. When they did show off the individual infected in full make up they looked pretty excellent. I will grant you that it was disorienting, but in my opinion it didn't seem excessive. 28 Days Later also tended to slow down the frame rate rather than make things explicitly shaky. For a good example, watch the sequence where Jim jumps over the fence and it's raining at the old military checkpoint. Particularly when the infected begin showing up.

I want a good story. Not innovative camera work. I don't see this style of flash-pan camera work as "putting me right there in the story". Rather, it distracts and subtracts from the perspective that better highlights what I wish to view.

For whatever reason, The Blair Witch was the only movie that I feel successfully pulled this off. Actually, Saving Private Ryan used quite a bit of the first person perspective, if I remember right, and it was done quite well.

[shawmutt]

Saving Private Ryan used it perfectly, IMHO.

[ZNFYRH]

Chaossaber

I had to watch the end scene a couple times. The perspective initially makes it look smaller... and I know why.

Because the camera auto-focuses.

CF has stepped [i]over[i] Hud at that point, and when you would normally have this huge panning shot moving up the body to the torso and head, instead it was blurry... no sense of perspective.

You have to really notice when Hud first looks up... 30 stories... approx. 300 feet... is about right.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak I want a good story. Not innovative camera work. I don't see this style of flash-pan camera work as "putting me right there in the story". Rather, it distracts and subtracts from the perspective that better highlights what I wish to view. For whatever reason, The Blair Witch was the only movie that I feel successfully pulled this off. Actually, Saving Private Ryan used quite a bit of the first person perspective, if I remember right, and it was done quite well.

So you don't think 28 Days Later was a good story? I thought it was fantastic up until they met the soldiers. And even then, the whole film was simply miles ahead of the barrage of horror garbage we've had in recent years.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Chaossaber I had to watch the end scene a couple times. The perspective initially makes it look smaller... and I know why. Because the camera auto-focuses. CF has stepped [i]over[i] Hud at that point, and when you would normally have this huge panning shot moving up the body to the torso and head, instead it was blurry... no sense of perspective. You have to really notice when Hud first looks up... 30 stories... approx. 300 feet... is about right.

You see, I'm not so sure about that. I think they made him intentionally smaller in that scene in order to warrant him realistically singling out HeadsUpDisplay and devouring him. In fact, I've heard it theorized on other boards that this was a different monster from the main one altogether. Given our limited perspective it's completely plausible that there was more than one monster, particularly given its evident ability to be in many different places at once.

[ZNFYRH]

Nope. Only one.

Same one.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Nope. Only one. Same one.

Given the perspective we have, it's impossible to say definitively.

[Chaossaber314]

Thought this was humorous. Though I grant that it's not prove of the victor or anything.

YouTube - Godzilla vs American Godzilla

Japanese Godzilla vs. American Godzilla

It's an impressive display of his atomic breath but bearing in mind that American Godzilla got beat by 2 F-18's last time so not really comparable to Clovie.

[ZNFYRH]

See, Godzilla is not very mobile... and he comes from mutation.

CF is natural... and is a baby.

The incredible pressures of the deep ocean give CF amazing strength, near-impenetrable skin, and the ability to resist high temperatures.

Wait until CF 2 when you see the adults...

[Chaossaber314]

Yeah but Godzilla is already incredibly strong (even more so in his tail) and he doesn't have to get up close to hit him with a beam of energy powerful enough to destroy a black hole. He's got a ranged attack whereas Clovie has none. At it's weakest, his atomic breath hits with enough force to lift a creature the size of Godzilla and send it airborne.

In terms of pressure resistance, Godzilla actually has the resistance to the deep ocean since his mode of travel is quite literally walking along the ocean floor. Where as, Clovie existed in an underground cavern below the ocean floor that was drilled into. What was his first reaction when suddenly exposed to those harsh deep sea pressures? He surfaced.

I'd say this gives the resilience advantage to Godzilla.

Clovie might be faster and more agile than Godzilla, but if hit with his ranged atomic breath beam, it's over. He wouldn't be the first monster Godzilla has killed that was able to withstand deep sea pressures.

[ZNFYRH]

I don't put much faith in the atomic breath.

And where are you getting this "beam of energy powerful enough to destroy a black hole"?

[Chaossaber314]

Supposedly in one of the more recent Godzilla movies they tried to create a minature black hole for some reason and Godzilla did what he did best...

Shot crap at it, and he somehow managed to destroy it. Something about focused radioactive energy or something... I dunno. Haven't seen that one for myself.

[ZNFYRH]

Uhhh...

At least the cake is still a lie.

[Chaossaber314]

I think the Cloverfield Monster could definitely take GLADos