comment #1

George Prager says ...

It would be interesting if the monster was never seen, but how much more interesting? An empty experience, probably.

comment #2

giantman says ...

The story of JJ being in Japan and thinking the idea up is an old one, and already confirmed many times. However, you didn't mention the important part of that story. He saw how iconic Godzilla remains in Japan, how much a part of their culture their giant monsters continue to be, and wondered if he could create something like that for America. Our own iconic monster. We'll soon get to see how successful he was, but he's certainly gotten our attention.

comment #3

George Prager says ...

I really don't want an "iconic monster."

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

So JJ doesn't think King Kong is an iconic big American monster? Or what about all those damned giant monster flicks that run on SciFi channel?

comment #5

chicbn872 says ...

The more I think about it, I agree with Jeff and the not showing the monster angle. It's the "Jaws" theory. The build-up until you really see the shark at the end of the flick is fantastic. I won't be bummed when they show the monster but it would be cooler if they didn't.

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

Wells to chicbn872: Thank you. Exactly. Much cooler. The scariest and creepiest things are the things we hear, feel, sense and smell coming around the corner.

comment #7

p.Vice says ...

Just be glad it wasn't directed by Barry Sonnenfeld.

comment #8

AJW says ...

Are you sure the 25 minute mark spotting isn't just the building-obscured walking shot we can already see in the 5 minute teaser?

comment #9

JeffGP says ...

to p.Vice: Yeah, it being from the director of The Pallbearer and plenty of episodes of Feliticy is much more reassuring.

comment #10

giantman says ...

I'm on record here in many talkbacks supporting the idea of not seeing the monster at all, if only in glimpses and small details. Obviously that would be a more exciting approach, perhaps even ground-breaking. Although we'd probably need some pay-off, it wouldn't necessarily have to be monster related.

All I was passing along was comments that JJ himself has made, that doesn't mean I agree with them.

Less is more in my opinion. Especially given the POV of the filming in this movie, it sorta begs for a different approach.

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

They didn't show the monster in Earthquake and that film rockz.

While I don't mind if they don't show us the monster (remember what a let down the new Godzilla was), the kids in the film really don't impress me. These are the type of kids who get cameo slaughters in Hostel.

comment #12

christian says ...

The beautiful WB teens are my only fears about the film.

comment #13

renorambler says ...

"The beautiful WB teens are my only fears about the film."

Probably a justified fear although I must confess a strong liking for Lizzy Caplan from Mean Girls. Don't know how big her part is though.

comment #14

Jay T. says ...

A better example of the "Jaws" theory in a monster sense would be Jurassic Park -- I know we've had to sit through the sequels, and eventually you get to see plenty of it, but the initial build-up to actually seeing that T-Rex was pretty amazing/suspenseful at the time.

comment #15

storymark says ...

Amazing that the closer we come to this movie being released, the more it becomes "JJ Abram's" Cloverfield. As if the nearing release is inhibiting folks from remembering that he neither wrote nor directed this thing.

comment #16

arch451 says ...

How can you make a movie about a giant monster causing hovoc in New York City and not show the monster? Yes, Jaws and Jurassic Park offer better suspense because they don't show the shark or the t-rex until later, but they both eventually show the monsters clearly. Cloverfield looks lame from the trailers, and the only thing that will make it worthwhile is to see some scary-ass creature eating people. This is not the Blair Witch Project, for christ's sake.

comment #17

nemo says ...

Who the hell cares about the origin of the film? What's the origin of the friggin' stupid name Cloverfield? Why is this goddamn thing called Cloverfield?

Inquiring minds want to know. But they sure as hell don't want to see the film to find out.

comment #18

Rich S. says ...

Sorry, I don't buy the Jaws analogy. As I've posted in other threads, the "don't show the monster" thing works better with smaller, more intimate threats. Jaws worked because the shark could pop out any time from underneath the water. As long as you were on or in the ocean, it was always a threat.

The Jurassic Park analogy also doesn't work, at least for the T-Rex. The reveal of the T-Rex was awesome, but the suspense leading up to it only lasted five minutes or so. The T-Rex kept popping up, of course, but only in really big areas. And it wasn't being chased by dozens of tanks and planes.

The analogy works better with the Raptors, which were only fleetingly glimpsed in the opening. Again, they were small, so they could pop out at just about any time as a threat.

The Cloverfield monster, on the other hand, is big enough to rip the head off the Statue of Liberty. I imagine they'll do some stuff similar to Emmerich's Godzilla, where the monster's first couple of raids on livestock or whatever are not seen. But once it starts moving on the streets of New York, the internal logic of the film dictates that you'd have to show it. If the characters are not going to run away from the monster, but towards it, it makes no sense not to show it.

I'm probably thinking about this way too much. The last trailer was pretty lame, monster or no.

comment #19

Sean says ...

Well, hold on... there's a world of difference between building to reveal the monster, as in 'Jaws', and not showing the monster, as in 'Blair Witch', which is what Jeff and a lot of other people have been claiming is what they want.

Not showing the monster immediately? Obviously better than showing it immediately. Not showing the monster at all? Wouldn't work.

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

This is my daily "it's going to suck" post. It would be better if we hardly see the monster. It would also be better if it didn't star actors that the filmmakers also want us to consider f___able. Make this movie United 93-style with a bunch of anonymous character actors and you'd have something.

comment #21

Edward says ...

We've been viewing the monster for seven years now and Bush still terrifies the crap out of me.

comment #22

Spicer says ...

The monster looks like a cross between a whale and a crab. Seriously, it looks like something Brando would have created.

comment #23

spoonbill says ...

Verified: CLOVERFIELD is a (pretty awful) mash-up of BLAIR WITCH, GODZILLA 1998, JAWS 3, HALLOWEEN 3, THE STUFF, ALIENS, LEVIATHAN, THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, THE THING 1982, 2Girls1Cup, the fate of Violet Beauregard and an Abercrombie&Fitch store. No Spoilers - Now, can you figure it out?