Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

'Cloverfield' movie thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A sequel will ruin "Cloverfield". This movie works far better with so much left to the imagination. Why are so many stupid people demanding for a "sequel" just to explain what's going on? Doesn't anybody have an imagination? I get really annoyed when movie producers and writers spoon feed the audience. I also get really, REALLY annoyed when people won't use their imagination to come up with an explanation of their own.

 

I.E. The end of the "Back to the Future" was great just the way it was with the allusion to "trouble with the kids" and a big "To Be Continued . . ." It was quite obivous that it was meant to left to the imagination where it would certainly be worse. But people demanded to know WHAT HAPPENED NEXT as if they couldn't conjure anything up on their own. And what did we get? Two piss poor movies that did more harm to the original than good.

 

Another example: Hitchcock's "The Birds". The first movie does not at all explain why the birds are attacking. This created a lot of tension and suspence throughout the entire movie. Yet, years later, somebody had to make a sequel just to explain why the birds were attacking people. Not only was the movie horrible, but it so lacked the feel and tension that Hitchcock's original had.

 

And there's no need to bring up the fiasco of "The Blair Witch Project" and it's sequel. (And wasn't there suppose to be a third movie? Whatever became of that?)

 

Pardon the venting here, but I've been frustrated with the lack of originality in a lot of the movies from Hollywood over the past few years. Too many sequels to movies that don't deserve it (like "Saw"), too many sequels that the studios are trying to make a fast buck, and too many sequels that just don't make any sense. Honestly, a lot of those writers should just stay on strike.

 

"Cloverfield" is fine just by itself. Don't f@#$ it up by making a sequel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^Can't you just not watch the sequal and keep your imagined ending that you liked so well for yourself. BTF was so always going to have a sequal made, no way does a film make that much money and not spawn a sequal. As far as Blair witch the story I had was the second awful sequal was ordered by the studio, before the creators got to really tell the second half of their story the way they wanted too, then when the second movie bombed, the one the studio wanted they cancelled the third movie. I don't know if it is true, but it sounds dumb enough to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I'm more willing to go with that idea as that it clearly alludes to other pieces of evidence during the "Cloverfield" incident at the beginning of the movie. Still, I like how so much is left to the imagination that I really don't want someone to ruin it by trying to "explain" it. Half the fun of this movie is all the speculation about what's going on.

 

 

no way does a film make that much money and not spawn a sequal.

 

Look at the top highest grossing films. Only Jurassic Park, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones had sequels. THE REST OF THEM DIDN'T!!! Movies don't need sequels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the top highest grossing films. Only Jurassic Park, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones had sequels. THE REST OF THEM DIDN'T!!! Movies don't need sequels.

 

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

 

Titanic, Finding Nemo, and Independence Day are the only films in the Top 20 that aren't films that have sequels or ARE sequels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the top highest grossing films. Most of them are sequels.

 

Fixed.

 

Opps, I haven't seen that list in a while. Wow, that was a shocker.

 

Thanks Wes for correcting me.

 

Thanks for also assuming I was an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I.E. The end of the "Back to the Future" was great just the way it was with the allusion to "trouble with the kids" and a big "To Be Continued . . ." It was quite obivous that it was meant to left to the imagination where it would certainly be worse. But people demanded to know WHAT HAPPENED NEXT as if they couldn't conjure anything up on their own. And what did we get? Two piss poor movies that did more harm to the original than good
As a big all-time BTTF fan, I would have to disagree. Yeah, it would have been cool to leave to the imagination what the trouble with Marty's kids were and have things left on a cliffhanger.

 

But to say the other two movies suck ...

 

BTTF2 was ingenious in how it connected with the first movie plus was always engaging. I agree that BTTF3 is the weakest of them with less focus on time travel and a slightly corny romantic subplot but it was enjoyable in terms of sheer fun and to see Doc hook up. That end bit with the train as the time machine was a great gag as was Doc not specifying when/where they were off to. I'm sure the common interpretation is they were going to the moon since both Doc & Clara loved Jules Verne.

 

I think BTTF would still have been hugely popular as a standalone but think the sequels made the franchise bigger than it would have been & certainly didn't harm the first film in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/