Tabula Rasa
Last night I saw Cloverfield at the Chinese. And loved it. Since the first trailer, I’ve been plugging my ears and shouting “la la la la” whenever someone tried to tell me something about the movie, and I’m glad I did. A blank slate is a movie-goer’s best friend.
I have the opposite situation for two of the trailers that played before Cloverfield: Iron Man and The Eye. I did two week’s work on each — not nearly enough to merit credit, but enough that I know every single plot point. If there’d only been a Hancock trailer, it would have been a trifecta.
Because you’ll ask: I haven’t seen any of the three. The Eye changed studios, directors and stars soon after I worked on it. (Not my fault, I swear.) I took the job because I really wanted to write something scary. Even with all the genres I’ve worked in, I had never done a horror movie.
I feel much more kinship towards Hancock and Iron Man, along with their writers, directors and producers. Both had strong scripts before I got involved, and I enjoyed helping out where I could.
Articles
January 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I saw the trailer for Hancock recently. Hysterical. Can Will Smith pick projects or what? I was looking forward to seeing the movie–but now that I know you were involved with it, even more so. Oh, and I’m going to see Cloverfield at Grauman’s this Wednesday. Good to hear that it’s worth it.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
John, please stop. You’re doing a disservice to all of us by encouraging this sort of frustrating overhyped viral marketing crap that the whole campaign for Cloverfield was.
Seriously. Imagine how things will be if every movie producer starts betting on these tricks to bring people to the movies… There will be no Tom Cruise ion the trailer for Mission Impossible 4, for instace. Instead we’ll have an enigmatic 4 blinking on the screen, a date and a link to a stupid webgame…
Cinema should be about Cinema, not luring people into a movie theater by using cheap ploys.
My humble opinion.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Rafael -
You can’t be serious. Is John’s endorsement of a movie he saw and enjoyed really so damaging? John says he ignored the marketing - I see no endorsement of a marketing strategy.
I see nothing wrong with removing Tom Cruise from a Mission Impossible 4 trailer. The franchise is the star, after all, Trying to lure people in with the star be called a cheap ploy. Who remembers the Batman Returns campaign?
January 20th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I kind of agree with Rafael… and John.
Cloverfield made me sick. As in want to vomit. I am not one that normally gets motion sickness. I spent most of my childhood on the sea.
After forty minutes of Cloverfield I had to leave for no other reason than I was getting physically ill. In fact, I stuck it out that long because I was interested in the movie, in wanting to see the end, in wanting to find out what was happening…
But just couldn’t.
Movies, particularly genre movies like Cloverfield, are supposed to be for as wide a mainstream audience as possible. The way it was shot was alienaating its audience by making them sick.
I wasn’t the only one in the refund line asking for my money back because of physical illness caused by watching it.
I did, however, approach watching Cloverfield much like John. I didn’t want to know anything about it. Start with a clean slate. That’s probably why I lasted 40 minutes.
January 20th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I saw Cloverfield with a couple of friends.. From the marketing and the trailers, it looked like a great gimmick that could work, and I did like MI:3 so maybe JJ would bring something to it but the movie was so god-awful, it was very easy to hate it. A LOT of people booed the film at the screening I was at. What a let-down. Difference-of-opinion aside, how can anyone get past those awful scenes where the actor would demonstrate their internal state by saying : “Oh, I am so scared” or “Oh, I am so surprised”, etc. Poor directing, great effects, lack of act III… the list goes on.
I would like to hear why others liked it however. Also, JESSE JAMES is a brilliant movie. Saw it at the Warners lot the other night and completely fell in love with it. Why is there no buzz around this movie?
January 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Erm…
Hard to see what’s not about cinema there.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Am I the only one to agree with John’s assessment of Cloverfield? I too ignored everything, save for the two theatrical trailers, and I had a wonderful experience, which is actually a good way to describe the film: an experience. I’ve seen it twice now, and both times had me pretty captivated, but not because of its story, or even it’s characters; I was held captive by it’s use of the film medium, which you have to admit, was pretty spectacular. My screening too had “boos”, but I couldn’t care less… Why? Cause I dug it, and that’s all that matters… To me, anyway…
January 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
John, did the idea of including a green string bracelet with the dvd ever surface when it came time for distribution? Just wondering, because it seems like an important part of the film (assumption, haven’t seen it yet) & would be a cool memento. Also, “Even with all the genres I’ve worked in, I had never done a horror movie.” does this mean we should keep an eye out for a John August horror film in the future?
January 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
ARGs (Alternate Reality Games) are becoming more and more commonplace for marketing. The actual numbers of money spent-to-money earned I couldn’t tell you, but I do know there are a lot of people out there who simply enjoy to play the games and never watch the movie/play the video game they’re based on.
There’s no telling as to whether or not the purpose is more to create the game, get some AdSense cash and the film marketing is really just for the premise and peripheral these days. I haven’t seen enough success in the games themselves and routine use of them to judge their success correlating to the box office, but they keep popping up, so the creators sure are getting something out of it.
And these games - if done right - are fun and intellectually engaging. What’s wrong with that?
January 20th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I saw Cloverfield last night and I also loved it (man those LOST guys do “trapped on an island being chased around by an obscured monster” better than anyone). The on-the-nose dialog bits didn’t bother me at all, despite what Mckee would have you believe, sometimes people who are scared actually say stuff like “I’m scared”. Besides, character development isn’t really the point of this film. It’s a thrill-ride. The atmosphere is the star, and I thought it worked.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Hey john,
In the summer you said you worked on a few blockbusters but wouldnt divulge what ones out of respect to the credited writers… why the change of heart? (the strike?)
I mostly ask because i wanted to know what you worked on… i thought you might have worked on transformers… it was surprisingly funny… but i would love to know…
January 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it. It stayed with me, which movies don’t always do, and I tend to take that as a sign of a job well done. I did find the camera work a little TOO shaky, however. I’m not one of those who complained about the Bourne movies, and liked the idea behind the shaky camera work in the movie, I just think it would have helped if the guy turned on the stabilizer for some of it. Of course the filmmakers could do nothing about the 15 year old girls sitting a row behind me who didn’t shut up for the ENTIRE MOVIE. I gave them a little leeway on this at first because of the type of movie (I wouldn’t have lasted a minute without saying something in Michael Clayton- being rereleased, by the way), but finally I’d have enough and pleaded with them to shut the fuck up for just five minutes. Thankfully, they did. For about five minutes. They weren’t nearly as loud after that, though.
By the way, Hancock looks hilarious. I love the line in the trailer where, after watching the Youtube of the whale incident, Hancock says “I don’t even remember that.”. Priceless.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:58 am
How much work could one do in two weeks? And what would a studio be looking for in such a short period? They must have very detailed notes. “Change this and this and this.” I ask because I can’t fathom this as a way to work.
Those scripts must be a complete mishmash of styles and personalities. I know it’s common practice and the conventional wisdom right now but it just doesn’t sit right with me. Call me naive but it just sounds like a messy way to work.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:49 am
Mr. August:
Love the blog. And also loved Cloverfield. If you are curious to read a fellow screenwriter’s notes, you can find them here.
Thanks again for the good writing.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:09 am
I don’t know about anyone else, but I was absolutely overwhelmed by “Cloverfield.” It’s a fantastic film — one that shouldn’t be brought down because of the viral marketing, which I agree, was a little annoying at times.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:30 am
I love the original The Eye. Hope to god the “I’m cold” lady in the hospital is in the remake somewhere. Also dented-head-guy in elevator. Disturbing shit. It’ll be hard to replicate that degree of sheer suspense. Here’s hoping.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:40 am
I liked Cloverfield a great deal. It seems like people are either offended by the conceit of the film or shocked at its ‘meaning’. Dude! It’s a rediculous, entertaining monster movie.
The theme doesn’t need to be the reason for the movie’s existence. I mean, in this case no one is talking about (what I believe is) the theme. Everyone’s all ‘this movie is about 9/11′ or ‘this movie is about how stupid today’s youth is’. It’s about a guy in the middle of a breakup and he doesn’t want to let go of the past. Simple simple simple.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
I have to strongly disagree with the complaining about how Cloverfield was marketed.
Personally, I think 95% of movies have terrible marketing, the trailer gives away the plot to the entire movie often including the ending (Zemeckis, I’m looking at you). Half the time I don’t even bother going to see a movie just because I know it has been spoiled for me, and I’ve already seen the best parts in the trailer.
I found it very refreshing to see a trailer that made it perfectly clear what the movie was about (”monster attacks city”) and gave the feel of the movie, but didn’t show the monster at all. I haven’t seen it yet, and I haven’t the foggiest idea what the monster is (and please don’t spoil it for me).
I really wish more movies would do that, leave way more to the imagination. It’s ironic that people are complaining that it was overhyped when it was one of the most secretive movie productions in years.
And really, if you’re not interested in a webgame, don’t play the webgame. It’s definitely way easier to ignore than the usual nonstop commercials that make you tired of a movie before it’s even out.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Oh yeah, like mike says, kudos to the marketing. It didn’t drive me insane like it did some people, but then, I’ve had some training on how to deal with ‘intentional mysteries’ thanks to X-files, Lost, ilovebees, etc. I just filed it away under ‘I’m absolutely going to see this.’
JJ Abrams’ TED speech explains why he loves mystery so.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/view/id/182
I also loved the trailer for There Will Be Blood. It also sets up the conflict of the movie without clearly giving away anything except that, well, there’s gonna be some blood.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I hated Cloverfield. I tried ignoring most of the marketing. The whole thing just seemed like a big gimmick that fell really short for me.
I kept thinking about how great that consumer camera that they were using most have been. It had an extremely long battery life, long recording time, was indestructible, had night vision, and a huge spotlight.
From the beginning I just didn’t get interested in the characters and the cameraman’s character really begin to get tiresome.
After the movie there was a very loud collect, “Hmmpph.” I’m interested in seeing how Cloverfield does over the next couple of weeks, because a lot of people walking out were saying stuff like “That sucked”, but I did hear a few people say “It wasn’t that bad.” Was it similar at the theaters that anyone else went to?
January 21st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Yeah, and the camera records in near film quality HD, 7.1 surround sound and keeps perfect exposure and focus in nearly any lighting condition…I tried suspending my disbelief on this one. But I too got physically ill, both by the camera work, and the truly terrible vocal performance from the actor holding the camera. Didn’t find him convincing at all. He didn’t seem like he was actually there, because he probably wasn’t, just recorded in post.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I loved the marketing for the film. I hadn’t been so excited about seeing a film for quite a long time, while, at the same time, knowing so little about it.
Alas, I couldn’t stand it. I felt the movie was a inch deep and a foot wide. I couldn’t believe in the characters, from their personalities and motivations to the huge apartment and party they set up. I was frustrated how the “real time” of the camera kept shortening and expanding without explanation at some points, and at other points the camera turned off and yet the tape kept running.
All of that I could have forgiven if the monster story had captivated me. But it didn’t. The monster, as I’m sure was intended, wasn’t a character at all, but a wandering disaster that arbitrarily affected the characters. And I can’t care about a disaster. All that was left was the 20-somethings, and they fell flat.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 am
Regardless of whether people love or hate this movie, my question to John is how in the hell do you write a movie like that without having your reader beat you over the head with your script before using it as kindling? Before the onslaught of motion sickness, I was admitedly engaged with the whole party scene, but I found myself wondering what those scenes looked like on a page. I’m referring to the strings of disjointed, seemingly meaningless “party dialogue”, ad libs and the sporatic jumps around the room. How do you get that to make sense on a piece of paper? Can a newbie really get away with writing that way, or do you need to have a J.J. Abrams on your team before anyone will turn even the first page?
Also, if there is anyone who wanted to love this movie, but didn’t, do yourself a favor and rent THE HOST. It is essentially the same water monster movie, but with a steadicam operator and a (kick ass) plot.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I saw this yesterday with a couple of friends. Enjoyed it for what it was, a popcorn movie. All three of us had headaches by the end of it. One friend closed his eyes for parts during the middle in parts because he was getting overwhelmed with motion sickness.
I didn’t mind the marketing. And agree with poster above that most trailers spoil the film.
As to complaints, sure camera functioning at high quality for over 7 hours is miraculous. SPOILER: I thought he’d at least put it down when crossing buildings. But EVERY movie has those moments of disbelief. You buy the conceit or not. I did. Or if I didn’t, I didn’t let it get in the way of my enjoyment.
It had some genuine thrills and scares. It didn’t make promises it didn’t keep. It’s stupid fun. And sometimes, stupid fun is all that’s needed.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Why is it that people think the camera recorded for 7 hours?
Did I miss something?
The IMDB lists the runtime of Cloverfield as 85 minutes. There would be approximately 5 minutes of old footage on the “tape” (it’s unclear if they are shooting tape or memory cards. The camera rumored to be used by the characters in the film is the Panasonic AG-HSC1U, which uses SDHC cards), leaving 80 minutes of recorded footage throughout their ~7 hour adventure.
Apart from those 80 minutes, can we not assume the rest of the time the camera is in standby mode/off? Seems logical to me.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
John, I agree. Saw it Saturday night and I think it’s one of the greatest monster movies I’ve ever seen. I firmly believe that it’s up there with JAWS and ALIEN. I wonder why no one ever came up with this angle before. Framing it around the broken love of Beth and Rob was F-ing brilliant, and the use of the “tape that should not have been recorded over” is so good that I want to see the film again. I found it deeply disturbing and very frustrating because I was trying to see where the damned monster was but you only have the viewfinder to go by. We were so upset afterwards that we had to go somewhere quiet and sit and have a drink.
I found the film’s flaws forgivable. Even JAWS has flaws (why does Hooper say the shark is a night feeder when Alex Kintner and Pippet were killed during the day??) but if you care about the people, then you’ve got the audience by the you-know-whats and can take them almost anywhere.
Anyway, great film.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
John,
Just saw Iron Man over the weekend and loved it. I’d be curious if you could be more specific about what you added to the project. If not, we’ll understand…but know that each time a character (usually Tony) said something sharply hilarious, I immediately thought “John August must’ve contributed that.” Also, the brilliant, final line of dialogue (pre-credits) - that was all you. Right?
Pete