<![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield - io9 Comments]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield - io9 Comments]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> Cheap Effects? I dont want to doubt that you saw the movie but it cant understand how anyone could claim that the effects were anything but great.

Also since when is 25 million dollars cheap? Do You have 25 million lying around?

Oasx

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> valid points about box office indeed, but it was a spectacle that almost made me vomit in my popcorn. to me, that kind of takes away a little from the experience.

the gimmick of the hand-cam made both the cheap effects and the financial success possible. they were able to do effects for less compliments of the lower resolution, and they were able to bring in the crowds with a "something different" selling point. story-wise, the movie was just as weak as 'spider-man 3' or 'transformers'. the 'cloverfield' effects hold up well with no sound, but so does 'phantome menace'. cheap movies can be good. GOOD cheap movies would be better.

dave the wet sprocket

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> Don't feed the trolls. This movie was exactly what it needed to be, and a monstrous success for it's $25 Mil budget.
It's nice to take a step back and realize just how much of a spectacle film it was for $25 Mil. You wouldn't have been able to do that with something like Transformers, not to mention flops like MI3.
Just think, you could've made ten Cloverfields for one Spider-man 3, and made more money for it...

I hope we start seeing more films with reasonable budgets. More work, and more money for everyone.

SomeAudioGuy

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> The movie has a 25 million budget and has earned 155 million so far, i think its fair to say that it was a success

Oasx

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> Yes, we all know how much a money a movie makes is equal to quality.

That's why MEET THE SPARTANS is a masterpiece!

Plague

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> @strangrnstranglnd: Yea it was at the top box office for one week, after that it dropped to number 4, then 9, and two weeks ago it was at 12.

The-Simpsons-Rule!!

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> It was #1 at the box office forever.
If "forever" means one week, then yes, forever.
[www.boxofficemojo.com]

Dr. Spaceman, Esq.

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> How is it a mis-fire. It was #1 at the box office forever. It might not have been your cup of tea (nor mine), but it's certainly not a mis-fire. Ishtar was a mis-fire. Norbit was a mis-fire. This was no mis-fire.

strangrnstranglnd

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> Misfire my ass.

Anyway, it is indeed fascinating to see how much just isn't "there" when they are making a film these days.

Plague

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> That was cool. It makes me sad a little for all the talent and technical expertise that went into making such a mis-fire.

DCI Gene Hunt

]]> <![CDATA[Secrets Of The CGI In Cloverfield]]> I love stuff like that. that was cool. Thanks.

Grrsn Dn

]]>