Well I watched the Cloverfield paradox right away. I thought the original was ok and I thought the sort of sequel was good.
It wasn’t necessarily awful but I’m gonna say it’s awful because of all the wasted potential. They had a fascinating premise and they didn’t deliver it all. They didn’t really explain anything and the twist was cheap.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Well I watched the Cloverfield paradox right away. I thought the original was ok and I thought the sort of sequel was good.
It wasn’t necessarily awful but I’m gonna say it’s awful because of all the wasted potential. They had a fascinating premise and they didn’t deliver it all. They didn’t really explain anything and the twist was cheap.
I liked some parts of it, and you're right, the premise was a really good idea
Spoiler!
The premise being that the Shepard collider moved them to another reality/dimension was a good one.
Some of the characters going insane didn't make much sense, and that's the problem.
So I'm guessing that they ripped open another dimension that allowed fully grown Cloverfield monsters to pop into the world, since the Monster in the original was a baby.
Yeah, I would agree, it had a lot of potential, but it was too much like that movie from a few months ago where they discover life on a space station and it grows into a suspenseful closed space monster mash.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 02-04-2018 at 11:47 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
except the villain wasn't a life form, it was science and physics, there was no bad guy
Which is a great idea in principle, but this movie was really Ernest and tried really hard, but came up a little short.
So I'm guessing that the Cloverfield monsters are actually demons from a hell dimension according to science guy at the start.
I'm betting the writers read all of the articles on the Cern Particle Accelerator creating miniature black holes that would destroy the world and it became the premise of the movie.
Like I said, not a bad idea, but the execution was really lacking.
I had the question and it was this.
They turn it on, it rips a hole in the walls of reality and sends the station to another dimension/verse.
They turn it on again and it sends them back
So if they turn it on again, wouldn't it rip open the walls of the universe again?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I'm really confused about this movie, they promoted it as something to explain the origins of the Monster.
But if you look at the movies
Cloverfield - Giant 25 story unstoppable monster clomps through New York and in the end is still alive. Its described as an infant but is huge. No explanation about where it came from except the Sea. The last shot in the movie is of two of the characters at the park a few day prior to the vents and we see a object crashing into the ocean.
10 Cloverfield lane - a thriller in a underground bombshelter. The owner lost a daughter and is basically trying to reconstitute a family, but he's insane, only the girl survives and escapes the bunker and finds out that the earth has been invaded by aliens and there's a successful human resistance.
Cloverfield Paradox - Mankind faces a dire energy shortage so they decide to build a huge particle accelerator that will provide limitless energy, but its considered to be too dangerous to fire up on the ground so they orbit it. A scientist warns that it will rip open dimensions and allow demons and monsters to walk the earth. They fire it up and get transported to an alternate dimension. But they fire it up again to come back, the survivors return to earth but it has been overtaken by "these things" that are apparently cloud busting sized several thousand feet tall relatives of the original monster.
So how does the Cloverfield universe fit together. Clearly it doesn't at all, and it really doesn't discuss the origins of the original monster because either this movie takes place before of after the original.
In the original there was no energy crisis, like there was in paradox, we see that because New York is brightly lit and there's no discussion around an energy crisis, so we have to assume that Paradox takes place in the future right? Well that can't be assumed because frankly then seeing a thousands of foot tall monster tromping through the city or even multiple ones wouldn't have been as big of a surprise as it was in this movie.
So is there a link with 10 Cloverfield lane? Well we had a bomb shelter that looked like the one in that movie, and we had a little girl in there and the hero. In 10 Cloverfield Lane Howard talks about having a daughter that he lost, and that's basically why he wanted to reconstitute a family. So is it possible that at some point, Howard takes over that shelter kills the doctor and adopts the little girl as his own. So does 10 Cloverfield lane take place in the distant future after an alien invasion wipes out the Cloverfield monsters tromping the earth and want to terriform the planet as their own.
Or is it possible that none of these stories are in the same dimension and that's the paradox.
that we have seen at least 4 earths. The original earth, the second war torn earth in Paradox, a third earth in 10 Cloverfield lane and they all have distinct stories, but are taking place at the same time?
Or could it be that my cynical stance takes place and that the term cloverfield is a marketing concept and these movies and plots are unrelated but named the way they are to make them more appealing and the final scene in Paradox with the monster roaring at the screen was meant to be nothing more them a shock omg this is cool moment?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I watched the first 10 minutes last night, but listening to the scientist talk about what would happen if they fired up that particle accelerator made me think that firing it up was what caused the events in the first two movies to happen.
Like I said, just started watching it but that was my immediate take on it.
Yeah, I didn't think the new Cloverfield was bad but I didn't think it was great either. It almost felt like it was suppose to be a entirely different movie and then at the last minute they decided to make it a Cloverfield movie so they added and changed a few things to connect it to the franchise.
The Following User Says Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
My favourite part of Cloverfield was when they were trying to fix things and Chris O'Dowd's character was tasked with turning things off and then turning them back on again.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
