I appreciate the points that you are making. I do think that this "home movie" style can influence and inspire in some interesting ways. I do however have to disagree on some points. Cloverfield has the appearance of being low budget with all "in camera" editing but of course that was not the case in reality, that was just the premise of the movie. it wasn't edited in camera it was just made to look that way. even if much of the film was shot on an HVX, that's not a home movie camera. Cloverfield had big money special effects. this is a studio film made by established, rich people, and promoted with a huge budget. This film cost $30 million to make. yeah, that's low budget for Paramount.
yes, go run with the premise, be inspired. but as you say use the device to tell "interesting stories." that's what truly independent filmmakers should be doing. if you don't have 30 million to create Cloverfield you can't get away with repeating the lines "What was that thing?" over and over again and expect nobody to actually care what that thing was. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think Cloverfield does take things beyond the Blair Witch Project > and does a great job of fictional organic "Home Video" story telling. > > The filmmakers have set some ground rules for themselves and they > stick to those ground rules. Everything that happens on that "tape" > from a storytelling point of view happens in real time with nothing > other than "in camera edits." > > I'm envious of what the filmmakers have done with Cloverfield. I've > been exploring fictional organic home video storytelling since I did > For the Love of Julie in 1999 and I Can Still Tell Your Wife Bill in > 2001 and I've been waiting for more stories to be told this way so > that it doesn't seem gimmicky. I think Loney Girl 15 does a good job > of this but every so often their characters get a little bit too > "cinematic" in the production of their videos and it pulls me out of > the story but non the less LG15 is breaking new ground with this type > of storytelling and they are intertwining it with ARG which is way cool. > > I really look forward to seeing what new films are created using this > approach to storytelling and how it matures so that it's not seen as a > gimmick. > > If this type of filmmaking is embraced it lowers the financial bar of > entry for what is acceptable for theatrical film releases and > increases the chances of getting theatrical distribution for > storytellers who can't afford a traditional cinematic production. > > If you are at all interested in telling stories that are shown on the > big screen I urge you to take a closer look at Cloverfield and think > about what emotionally compelling stories you could tell using this > organic home video approach. There are some very creative people on > this list and I think one or several of us could someday have a > theatrical release by using this type of storytelling. > > > > > > Tim Street > Creator/Executive Producer > French Maid TV > Subscribe for FREE @ > http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes > MyBlog > http://1timstreet.com > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Sull wrote: > > > "it never pays to over analyze a movie like this" > > but i'll offer up a counter perspective. > > > > why did the the characters go into > > > an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes > > > and batteries? > > > > > > > the electronics store scene came from one characters sole focus to > > get his > > phone working so he could try to communicate with another character. > > this relationship drove the story/path. the character had zero > > interest in > > getting equipped to document the devastation they were smothered in. > > the character who was filming everything was originally only > > supposed to > > film a going away party. > > as the events unfolded, this character did realize the importance of > > the > > footage but i am sure he also was not interested in getting more > > equipment > > that would allow him to document more than he could with what he had > > (within > > story, some unknown SSD camera) and would happily be rescued over > > further > > gallivanting around a city under attack by a monster. > > > > how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. > > > > > > > not sure when the film is supposedly taking place. was their a year > > mentioned? > > but a 7 hour batter is not too absurd. > > > > personally, i could ask alot of questions and potential > > inaccuracies... but > > screw that. > > i thought it was fantastic. > > > > their will undoubtedly be sequels and this was just an introduction > > to the > > monster. > > more details and plot would be added in future. > > > > On Jan 27, 2008 12:03 PM, David S Kessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > i can't help thinking about these things. I know it's just supposed > > > to be entertaining and it never pays to over analyze a movie like > > this > > > but in this case wasn't the whole movie just a gimmick anyway? > > wasn't > > > the whole thing just about how clever the filmmakers thought they > > were > > > being? so if they were so clever, why did the the characters go into > > > an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes > > > and batteries? that's all they would have had to do to keep me from > > > thinking about how this footage looks edited and how they went 7 > > hours > > > without having to change a battery. > > > > > > but forget all of that. if they were so clever, how did they think > > > they could get away with making a movie that supplants a plot for a > > > gimmick. that's never a good idea! > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
