Its cool. But its no viral campaign. I think the sign says 'Overfield Rd'. Ive paused it a few times and im sure thats it. When the monster appears its dreadful...but very funny. That said..i could be completly wrong and this is the begining. Trek 2 has been put back for a while and we all know what Abrhams is like for his naughty misleading stuff. Hmmmmm, watch this space indeed!
@CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard): It doesnt say overfield Rd. This is filmed at 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA. And about 1/2 a mile from 3rd street there is a Cloverfield Rd.
@Tofuonophd: Firstly to everyone.....cheers for the insight into the Cloverfield sign. Secondly, im in the UK and have never heard of Overfiled, cloverfiled or anyother field related street, road or Blvd so my appolgise. Thirdly, my eyesights piss poor anyway so it was purely a mistake on my part...hence why I dont drive at 32, could you imagine the carnage. Im like a fatter version of Mr Magoo!! But hey...kudos to everyone who spotted it better than me. I still come back to the question though....is it abrams or a hoax?? Seems strange that we get this and the second Treks been put back. Nice...
Edited by CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard) at 08/28/09 5:54 AM
CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard) was starred
CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard) was unstarred
Okay, this is the third time I'm having to type this as apparently if you click anywhere outside of the comment box EVERYTHING YOU JUST TYPED COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS!!!
*Ahem* But I digress. As i have said TWICE before now, if you could take Ariels hair, Chloe's attitude and Mary's voice and put that together then you might have something that could almost approach Lina Leanderssons haunting portrayal.
My problem with these actresses is that they look more like they belong in a "Baby Gap" commercial and not a story about a centuries old vampire who doesn't want to be lonely but knows what will happen to anyone who gets close.
@alphanumeric1971: "if you click anywhere outside of the comment box EVERYTHING YOU JUST TYPED COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS!!!" This does not happen to me on Firefox 3.0 ... what browser are you using?
Alright I gotta toss my voice in here. Now I haven't read the book where I guess it's clearer, but I didn't really find Eli in the movie to be androgynous at all (except for the scorched earth Barbie doll bits which I just chalked up to general weirdness).
In fact, I found it to be the story of a weak, feminine boy who finds a badass girlfriend who makes him stronger (turns him into a man) and watches over him. It was kind of a dream romance for young boys who get picked on. "We can't screw? But you'll still kick those guys asses and we can cuddle and make out? mkay, fair deal"
I'm just jazzed still that they aren't making these two characters tweens.
And YARM Anti-YARM aside, and love it or hate it Cloverfield aside, do you really think the guy who directed one of the bleakest big budget genre films in recent history (name another where all major cast members die) is going to give us a cutsey vamp kids movie?
@Garrison Dean: R.O.A.C.H.: to quote Graeme every time I get optimistic or upset about anything really he says, "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." Cute vampires are the reality in which we live. No I'm not optimistic, also I'm still on the fence if I liked Cloverfield or not. I did like the fat friend and his witty banter only because that's who I become in uncomfortable or life threatening situations...but not funny. In hindsight I'm not actually sure that quote applies...eh.
I'm just worried it will get edited and cut to death...and it already seems like it may have.
@Garrison Dean: R.O.A.C.H.: It's more of a case of why? If they *do* turn it into a tween movie, then it didn't need to be Let the Right One In at all - they could have just come up with an original story. And if it's super faithful, what's the point? It's not a crash bang, big budget movie that will draw in the big crowds, it's definitely about as far away from Twilight as you can get and most horror aficionados will have seen the original, loved it and have no real desire to see a photocopy. The whole point of this remake escapes me. It's not like the original even has that much dialogue, so it's hardly a trail to watch with subs.
@Meredith Woerner: Cute vampires are only a reality for people who have seen or read Twilight, which I haven't. If anything them skewing younger here will hopefully make it more disturbing than cute. And if I'm wrong, then who cares.
@Mister_Bump:The point is that it is a good story and idea that should be spread. The original was based on a novel, why did they do it? Why couldn't people just read the book? Why did it have to get spelled out for stupid viewers who don't read? The fact of the matter is if you love an idea you want to spread it just like the person who read the novel for LTROI wanted to do by turning it into a film. I love "My Way" whether it is performed by Sinatra or Sid Vicious because it is a great song. I love "Romeo & Juliet" whether on stage or by Baz Lurhman.
I don't know why film doesn't get a pass on remakes or retries. If you love the story of LTROI and talk about the Horror aficionados seeing it, then great, they've seen it. Now others may get a chance to see a great story that may get them off Twilight, who knows. Could it be bad? Sure, but there are plenty of bad original films too.
Originality and quality are far from mutually exclusive.
I'll ask you this. Why not remake it? The people who weren't going to see the original probably never will, so good or bad this may get some to see it, if not, who cares, nothing lost.
@Garrison Dean: R.O.A.C.H.: "Originality and quality are far from mutually exclusive." - The most reasonable statement I've ever heard on the subject of this upcoming English version of the film. If the statement were not true, you would have to repudiate almost all music up until the Beatles. Hendrix, The Stones, Led Zepplin, Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, etc... All of these made careers and broke gound with either a strong catalogue of cover songs, or even exclusively doing covers. Originality is great and important and so is quality... if original material is crap, the performance (or in this case the resulting movie) will likely be crap as well (although sometimes a great performance can even change that). And the opposite is also true. If something is good, it may not be original to redo, and a bad performance may ruin it to those witnessing it for the first time, but that is in the hands of the performer. Here's an idea, instead of speculating ad-nauseum about a movie people haven't seen, they could go into it with an open mind and take it for what it is. It's why so many people are so easily disappointed with art - they go into it with so many unrealistic expectations.
@Garrison Dean: R.O.A.C.H.: I always took it as a dual meaning. Else why show the mutilated genitals? I assumed that at first the viewer (knowing this was a vampire) would guess "vampire" but then you realize that on some level there was a good chance this creature had been manipulating men into protecting it for years...something much easier to accomplish if it comes off as a girl at first. The whole movie left a decent amount for you to think about. Then again I never read the book so I could just be making all kinds of BS assumptions based on on only seeing the movie.
@JerryA: I agree. And I'm not saying it doesn't make sense that Eli is a male vamp living life as a girl from the evidence (though friends of mine in the LGBT community would say that living as something is all one needs to be labeled as such). I'm just saying that I didn't watch LTROI and say, oh, that's an androgynous character. To me the boy was more androgynous and Eli looked like a little Asia Argento.
The mutilated genitals I just really took as a bizarre side effect of being a vampire, a sort of forced genetic celibacy, and was no more strange than, oh, exploding when sunlight hits you.
@Garrison Dean: R.O.A.C.H.: Odd, I never got the impression in any vampire movie that when you become vampire you become sexless, but whatever. I walked away from the movie feeling that Eli's sex was kinda left up in the air but had strong hints that she could be a he, and once I read the book it became very clear.
Kind of apples and oranges with the book to movie vs remakes bit. Different mediums provide new opportunities in story telling. Books are (typically) more of a collaboration between the reader's and the author's respective imaginations. Whereas films tend to be much more of a one direction presentation. It's remaking films would be more analogous to another author re-writing the book.
And you're right, if it's good who cares? But I think the general idea is that American remakes of foreign films are usually worse than the originals regardless of the quality of the source material. So far there's no particular reason to think that this movie will be the exception to that.
@Forsakenchild: I was just saying the genitals things was in LTROI, not all vamp movies. I dunno. Like I said, I can see the androgyny thing now that it's brought up, but didn't when I watched it. Kind of like how after it was brought to my attention that Deckard is a replicant it's kind of all I can think of when I watch it, but not the first couple of times.
Speaking of which. THIS ISN'T SCI-FI ANYWAYS!!!! WHuts it doin here!!?!?!
@asyouwere: And yes, as a rule American remakes are almost always worse, but one can always hope. I, for one, still prefer the American "The Ring", so you never know.
The concept poster sends shivers down my spine. One, because the art is so freaking cool. Two, because it's coming from the Cloverfield guy and that's not a good sign.
09/24/09
08/28/09
08/27/09
08/27/09
08/27/09
08/27/09
08/28/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
*Ahem* But I digress. As i have said TWICE before now, if you could take Ariels hair, Chloe's attitude and Mary's voice and put that together then you might have something that could almost approach Lina Leanderssons haunting portrayal.
My problem with these actresses is that they look more like they belong in a "Baby Gap" commercial and not a story about a centuries old vampire who doesn't want to be lonely but knows what will happen to anyone who gets close.
07/16/09
07/16/09
Nope. Same problem.
07/15/09
07/15/09
In fact, I found it to be the story of a weak, feminine boy who finds a badass girlfriend who makes him stronger (turns him into a man) and watches over him. It was kind of a dream romance for young boys who get picked on. "We can't screw? But you'll still kick those guys asses and we can cuddle and make out? mkay, fair deal"
I'm just jazzed still that they aren't making these two characters tweens.
And YARM Anti-YARM aside, and love it or hate it Cloverfield aside, do you really think the guy who directed one of the bleakest big budget genre films in recent history (name another where all major cast members die) is going to give us a cutsey vamp kids movie?
07/15/09
I'm just worried it will get edited and cut to death...and it already seems like it may have.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
yarm. There, I'm done.
07/15/09
I don't know why film doesn't get a pass on remakes or retries. If you love the story of LTROI and talk about the Horror aficionados seeing it, then great, they've seen it. Now others may get a chance to see a great story that may get them off Twilight, who knows. Could it be bad? Sure, but there are plenty of bad original films too.
Originality and quality are far from mutually exclusive.
I'll ask you this. Why not remake it? The people who weren't going to see the original probably never will, so good or bad this may get some to see it, if not, who cares, nothing lost.
07/15/09
Even when she asked "what if I wasn't a girl?" That kinda raised the question and should have shot up a few red flags.
07/15/09
07/15/09
I took that to mean she isn't a girl. She's a hundred year plus vampire.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
The mutilated genitals I just really took as a bizarre side effect of being a vampire, a sort of forced genetic celibacy, and was no more strange than, oh, exploding when sunlight hits you.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
Kind of apples and oranges with the book to movie vs remakes bit. Different mediums provide new opportunities in story telling. Books are (typically) more of a collaboration between the reader's and the author's respective imaginations. Whereas films tend to be much more of a one direction presentation. It's remaking films would be more analogous to another author re-writing the book.
And you're right, if it's good who cares? But I think the general idea is that American remakes of foreign films are usually worse than the originals regardless of the quality of the source material. So far there's no particular reason to think that this movie will be the exception to that.
07/15/09
07/15/09
Speaking of which. THIS ISN'T SCI-FI ANYWAYS!!!! WHuts it doin here!!?!?!
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
I feel like I'm going to start channeling SteampoweredBoy in a second.
I voted for the one in the middle because she looks like she has a lazy eye in the photo.
07/15/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
they only hinted at it in the Swedish movie but apparently, Eli was an eunuch.
07/14/09
I'm rooting for this film to succeed. Worst case scenario, I'll always have the original to watch, regardless.