OOoooo, a BA exclusive! Sorta.
BABloggee Dan McKinley sent news that he was walking along NYC’s Lower East Side and was alarmed to see vast damage to the street… until he saw union guys tossing around the obviously fake "boulders":
Could these be location shoots for the much-blogged "Cloverfield" movie? I’m not sure. It seems possible, though it also seems to be pretty late to still be filming principal photography. However, that does happen sometimes when a scene shot earlier doesn’t work out once editing begins. A friend of mine who works on TV shows told me that sometimes they will reshoot a scene on Monday for a show that airs Thursday! I had no clue they could turn around something that quickly.
So who knows? Either way, this is pretty cool — and if it’s not Cloverfield, then we get yet another disaster movie I might be able to gripe about. Hooray!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 am
I too was looking forward to a decent disaster movie, until we had a real one right in my neighborhood (the Mpls bridge collapse). Suddenly the idea doesn’t seem so entertaining any more.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
The entire style of the movie breaks the mould though. From what I’ve read they’re using total unknowns and hand held cams, not to mention the fact that nobody knew anything about it until recently, which doesn’t leave much time between the first trailer and release. Of course, this is all assuming that it’s even a movie, and that the date in the trailer is the release date.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
Heck, nowadays with the digital film making, many films have scenes re-shot and edited up to a few days before the film gets released.
With over 5 months until “Cloverfield” (or whatever J.J. Abrams is going to really call it) it’s quite conceivable that there could be some “pick-ups,” second unit stuff, or even principle photography.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Are the fake boulders marked with letters just like the fake rocks from when they faked the moon landings?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
These are fake? They look so real. A great advertising job, I’m really impressed. Must stun people when they see it!
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I live in NYC, and I think I recognize that street. Anyway, I must agree with Michelle that they are doing a fantastic job advertising this movie, as I’m really looking forward to it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I forgot to mention, in case no one (especially Phil) knows, that there is a show coming to ABC network this Saturday called “Masters of Science Fiction.” It’s on each Saturday evening (check your local listings) in August.
Could be fodder for The Bad Astronomer to review.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
“…principle photography…”
What principles will they be filming?
…and the misspelling was made twice.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Ah, fixed that. Thanks.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
TV production does sometimes plug away right down to the wire. As I recall, Star Trek was occasionally being finished just hours before airtime, and that was all the way back in the ’60s on cumbersome film prints.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Please, please… Stop contributing to the hype surrounding this piece of @#$@#$).
It’s blairwitch project meets Godzilla. What’s the fuss all about?
It really annoys me how this JJ fella uses cheap gimmicks, charades, travesties and viral marketing to sell this thing just like he did with LOST, that clusterfark of a TV show.
There are no answers to the riddles there. There is no revolutionary movie here.
Stop being so gullible. If this #@$@#) succeeds there will be no more trailers in the future: every company will try and hide the content of their movies just to appeal to the moran’s curiosity. This is really annoying.
Holly crap, I need more coffee.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Actually, I suggest less coffee.
I think the way it’s being marketed is fun. The trailer was great! I don’t watch Lost, though I did watch the first pilot episode. I thought it was quite cool, but I know a rehash of “Gilligan’s Island” when I see one. I knew instantly it would suffer from what X-Files and Star Trek: Voyager did — no clue of where to go with the series. So I dropped it, and that’s the same reason I’ll wait to watch any of Heroes, too.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Actually, BA, I’m waiting for you to review “Sunshine”. I saw it last weekend and can’t wait for you to give it the “treatment” it deserves. With films like this around, you will NEVER run out of valid targets… Spoilers, pleeze!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Re: Greg, it’s Orchard Street at Stanton on the LES.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I empathize Jack; I stopped watching Lost when it provided 3x as many questions per episode as it did answers. If 1-18-08 adheres to the same formula I will be very disappointed. Still, that trailer… there’s something about it that’s just so eerie.
BA: You can go ahead and watch the first season of Heroes, it’s good stuff. The season finale was a bit anti-climactic but overall I really enjoyed watching it. Things that happen actually find resolution, unlike Lost.
For science fiction, I personally don’t think it gets any better than Stargate: Atlantis.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Jack, a quick glance at your comment had me thinking it said “cheap gimmicks, charades, transvestites and viral marketing.”
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Is this the film with the trailer that just says “1-18-08″ or something like that? The trailer I’m thinking of looks like a random wedding party setup filmed by camcorder. It’s set in a New York skyscraper.
Loud noises, scary camera shaking, and a suspiciously “Godzilla-like” bellowing outside, followed by the head of Lady Liberty?
Am I thinking of the same thing?
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Voyager was good. Heroes kicks arse. I don’t understand.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I’m probably not going to get to see this movie, but the advertising campaign intrigues me. It’s a far cry from the usual entire-movie-condensed-into-two-minute-trailer format (film equivalent of Cliff Notes?) so that actually going to the movie is a let-down.
Qd, I am one person who is definitely going to disagree about Voyager (assuming you mean Star Trek: Voyager). I sat through the entire series and want that time back. However, it did provide one line so stupid and full of bad anatomy that it still makes me chuckle. I can’t remember the exact dialogue but B’Elanna had just punched a crewman in the face. In order to describe the severity of the punch. someone said she’d punched the crewman (a human) so hard it almost sent bone fragments into his cerebellum! Yet, said crewman still had a recognizable face and was able to walk upright. Wow!
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Actually, Qd, I agree with most of the points you bring up. Sorry if I came across as someone looking for a fight. You like Voyager…good for you, I’m glad someone did. I gave it a fair shot, liked several of the characters and some of the episodes but not the series as a whole. For the record, the cerebellum line was NOT the reason why I disliked the series. One bad line, scientific or otherwise, isn’t enough to sour a movie or TV series for me. Otherwise, George Lucas wouldn’t have earned much money from me after the Kessel Run line or whooshing ships in space or…
Have I watched Dr. Who? One reason I didn’t respond sooner was because I was watching tonight’s episode. I have been a Dr. Who fan from the 4th Doctor to present. My “willing suspension of disbelief” gland works quite well. And let’s put this really into perspective — one of my all-time favorite movies is Flash Gordon. (Flash! A-ah!)
One minor quibble, though
“…it seems pretty stupid to watch it and point out all the ‘reality’ errors.” Um, have you read any of BA’s movie reviews?
Cheers!
August 4th, 2007 at 5:31 am
Yes I have. But it doesn’t matter.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:36 am
I heard that this ‘Cloverfield’ may be a western rehash of the recent asian movie ‘The Host’.. anyone confirm that ?
If its ‘Godzilla 2′ I’m going to laugh my arse off.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Speaking of Cloverfield–more (mostly) unfounded speculation:
A friend and I were speaking earlier today, and he pointed out that “Cloverfield” is a compounds of two words. Well, obviously. But look at the initials of those two words: C F. Anyone see where this is going? No?
Well, anyone familiar with the phrase CTHULHU FHTAGN? Of course you are. And there’s your C F for you. Of course it’s completely speculative, like all the other theories about Cloverfield out there, but just the thought of a Cthulhu movie is enough to send me into a dizzying spin of awesome overdose.
Thoughts?
August 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/25573/2004072052059481319_rs.jpg
January 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
What they could have been filming was the sequel………
January 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
a sequel would be nice, i still have a lot of questions from the first one