welcome to the life of Newrecruit :-)

We talked about Cloverfield; 9/11; the window/cloud scene; the exaggeration made by the media; what if the same thing happened in “Penelope”; I asked if it was because of the guy who jumps through the window; Kingpin was confused; I told him that I was trying to understand your reference; now you are confuse.

i thought you were initially saying that a certain angle on the dust cloud was a disrespectful parody of the 9/11 dust cloud?

I said that the store scene was a copy/paste of one of the 9/11 archives. That it was a bad idea. That filmed in a different angle…. Naa, it was a bad idea.

So, yes, it was disrecpectful. I thought you were saying that “Penelope” could receive the same comments because of the guy who jumps through the window. So I said

I didn't compared that to 9/11, probably because I didn't saw any scenes from that view angle

Yes, it's dumb.

——————————-

Ok, I think I understand now

Y'know, it must be doing something right to be sparking debate of this sort - Do you imagine this happening with Penelope?!

Yeah, that would have sound strange. I guess people are trying to get more products less based on violence. It's true that we have a lot. It's sad to see some cool story fall in the element of violence. Like “Sunshine”, the ending just ruined everything.

(I know that the guy jumped through the window by his own will, that this cannot be realy considered as violence. Some people may have a different “intellectual” point of view… But the fact is: I just wanted to say it :p)

Yeah, we're really not on the same page here at all.

I only mentioned penelope because I saw it as a type of film that won't spark any debate at all, wheras cloverfield clearly is doing so on this very board. Now, from this we can extrapolate that - whether anyone thinks they are appropriate or not - the means cloverfield uses to convey its message are clearly resonant and interesting from a theoretical point of view.

I personally think you are wrong in thinking the dust cloud scene is tasteless, as I don't think you could do a ‘destruction of a major city movie’ without such a scene in this day and age, given that the audience now knows that that is what happens when a building is violently destroyed. to ignore that and make a cartoon of it (see Independence Day, Armageddon) is surely more offensive philosophically post 2001? That said I mean you no personal disrespect - as you yourself said, you will keep your point of view, and you are entitled to it.

ok… where's the anadin…?

The cloud scene is not tasteless. A destruction is a destruction. We need everything that comes with it.

If we never had this view from the store on tv, the cloud scene would never have occurred in the movie under that angle. We have so many archives of buildings being destroyed (under an attack or simply dynamited), it's enough to inspire those behind the movie. They chosed the easy way for that scene, instead of working on creativity.

(I wonder if we're talking about the same scene… The one I'm talking about shows the inside of a store with a view on its large window where the dust cloud abruptly appear in the street.)

yes we are talking about the same scene, although i now have no idea what you are talking about with regards to it, sorry.

you think they shouldn't have filmed from inside the shop? or from on the street? what? I don't really see what you would have considered to be ‘more creative’… i'm really confused!!

but - ‘big monser coming, run for cover through the nearest open door’ seems like a pretty logical narrative flow to me - it's entirely reasonable within the realms of the story that the camera would be in that place at that time.

I don't believe that had a similar shot not have been recorded during September 11th that that very scene wouldn't have happened in the film.

However, whilst I distinctly recall a scene out on the street when one of the towers collapsed and the dust cloud engulfed the cameraman, I do not recall a scene where a cameraman hides in a store and we see the dust cloud shroud the windows.

If you can find a picture of this scene, then fair enough… but I think you might actually be misremembering elements of the footage of the time.

Ok, took me some time to do that and I hope it'll be easier to understand than my english :p

I had to search a couple archives for this, yep I'm disgusted; 9/11 and the movie. I even read a youtube user saying “Gosh, cloverfield” under one of the 9/11 archives, people are nut! It's supposed to be the OpPoSiTe!

And, come on, now the monster in cloverfield (why do I always think “cloverleaf”) shoots monsters?! “Godzilla” giving birth to some new sort of giant facehugger :p :-)

That movie is realy not for me.



Too many reflection with 9/11

NewRecruit
And, come on, now the monster in cloverfield (why do I always think “cloverleaf”) shoots monsters?! “Godzilla” giving birth to some new sort of giant facehugger

Did you even watch the movie? The smaller creatures were crawling all over the monster, and fell off periodically during it's attack. They probably lived in symbiosis with the monster, much like a tick, or a flea.

I was joking on the word “birth” but I have thought about something like “symbiosis”. Or maybe a natural cavity, like Seahorses have; the “flea”, like you call them, the monster in its first stage of life.

A giant monster giving birth to small monsters while walking on the city… now this would have been scary! :p :-)

Did you even watch the movie?

Are you kidding! :-)