J.J. Abrams: 'Cloverfield' Was Made For TV
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Paramount, Exhibition, Home Entertainment, Movie Marketing, Remakes and Sequels
Those of us who saw Cloverfield in theaters this past January watched the monster movie in the wrong way. According to a new Reuters article, the movie's producer, J.J. Abrams, says it's really meant for home viewing: "The thing about this movie -- probably more than any I think -- is that it is better on DVD than in the theater," Abrams told Reuters. "Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor."Interesting. Wait, so does that mean I was correct when I wrote in my column, "The Exhibitionist", about Cloverfield being "theatrically inappropriate"? I went so far as to say that it had no business being shown in theaters at all, which I'm sure Abrams doesn't agree with, and I also said that it was most appropriately viewed in a YouTube window. I received some of my harshest criticism ever for that column, yet I don't mean to now jump around bragging that I was right and the commenters were wrong. Anytime a post on Cinematical can get 42 responses (or more), in which movie fans get into a heated discussion about films, formats and fun (as in the adjective used to describe the experience of seeing Cloverfield in a theater), is 100% a good thing. Yes, even when I'm said to be "misguided" or "having an off day".
Anyway, Abrams obviously can't be unhappy with the movie performing well at the box office (he likely would have liked it to perform better, actually), and certainly he's now partially just trying to get the DVDs sold. As Erik mentions in his review of the DVD, the movie is really great for home viewing, partly "because it's much easier to deal with camera shakiness from your own, comfortable living room," and partly "because the special features truly add to the experience in a very positive way."
But now the following question is raised: would it make more sense, at least to Abrams, to have Cloverfield 2 (which more than half our readers seem excited about) go straight to DVD?
Stuff and Things: October 15, 2008
Attend Hamptons Fest From the Comfort of Your Living Room_thumbnail.jpg)
Fan Made: Hilarious Obama/McCain Movie Posters
Discuss: The Pre-Stardom Horrors!
Stuff and Things: October 14th, 2008
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-22-2008 @ 11:10AM
colby said...
I'd definitely agree with him. Without getting into the whole "motion-sickness talk" and whatnot, I think watching it on the small screen will extend repeat viewings of it ... at least it will for me anyway.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:08PM
dt3 said...
it will extend repeat viewings of it because you just have to pop it in the dvd player and plop down on the couch vs driving to the theater and paying $7/8 a seat
4-22-2008 @ 11:28AM
techstar25 said...
Cloverfield 2, straight to DVD? When pigs fly.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 11:36AM
Gina said...
Oh, go ahead, jump around a little. You earned it. :-)
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 11:48AM
Gomez said...
Has anyone noticed the UFO crashlanding right at the end? When it cuts to the holiday footage right at the end...and the camera looks out over the bay there is a boat to the right of the screen. Watch as something falls out of the sky and crashes into the water. Could this be the moment this thing arrived on Earth?
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 11:59AM
GL said...
It should go straight to DVD.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:01PM
Erik Davis said...
Gomez, actually that's a satellite falling from the sky -- and, yes, it awakes the monster. Or at least that's what we've been told. But it's not a UFO.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:05PM
dt3 said...
you may be a good writer but you really need to get back to school... try signing up for some business or marketing classes this time around.
Who else remembers anyone and everyone associated with this movie talking about how YOU HAVE TO see this in the theaters. When that was the only option the size and the magnitude of the theater screen was the only way to see it.
Now that the movie is on dvd (and no longer in theaters) the best way to see it is at home, blah, blah, blah...
10 years from now when the movie is re-released in theaters they will switch their stance again that you need to come back and see it on the big screen
As far as releasing CF2 straight to dvd.... ummm, yeah.... did you see the special effects in universal soldier 3? Thats the type of work you get with straight to dvd money
now that i have gotten all that out i need to head out and buy cloverfield. it really was a great movie whether it was on a 100 ft movie theater screen or my 42 incher at home
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:22PM
Gomez said...
Cheers Erik...not your traditional UFO. But seeing as I didn't know what it was then technically it was an Unidentified object...all be it a falling one instead of a flying one. Cool movie though - and a great exhillerating experience.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:22PM
owl said...
He is trying to sell DVDs, nothing more.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 12:53PM
icandigthat said...
I'm in the "excited for a sequel camp" and actually think the movie should be a trilogy with the first one introducing the monster, the second explaining it's origins and the third actually killing it.
Abrams is a guy who can get major funding for his smaller pet projects. With the movie industry in upheaval over distribution and piracy, maybe a guy like Abrams with a franchise like Cloverfield could push that envelope. Straight to dvd? i think not. But deviating from the norm and innovating in the space with a movie like CF could be exciting. You pay your 12 bucks and instead of sitting through a 90 minute movie in a theater you get 15 minute clips spaced out over a week of your life that you have to find through a scavenger hunt process. The movie could become more of an experience that way.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 1:21PM
margaret said...
i guess i will forever be in the minority that preferred the sickness-inducing shakiness of the full screen experience. it just made the film less of a cliched monster movie and more like a ride.
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 2:25PM
RP said...
It's just PR spiel to make the DVD release sound more attractive. If Abrams really believed that they wouldn't have put so much effort into the sound design (which was awesome).
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 2:30PM
Riley Freeman said...
i completely agreed with christopher the first time and i stand by what i said the second time
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/01/27/the-exhibitionist-theatrical-inappropriateness-of-cloverfield/2#c10093991
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 3:49PM
dt3 said...
- how exactly do you make money off a "youtube movie".
- how do you make a monster movie like this with the budget of a youtube movie (aka = no budget).
the ideas of sending this movie straight to dvd, releasing it on youtube, releasing it in a viral marketing type strategy piece by piece all suck equally. Well maybe not equally... releasing it on youtube (or a similar site) actually sucks alot more.
4-22-2008 @ 3:53PM
Christopher Campbell said...
Funny thing you should ask, dt3:
http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2008/04/cult-of-sincerity-first-full-length.html
Reply
4-22-2008 @ 5:59PM
dt3 said...
my next question is what exactly the movie producers did with the $37 they made off their youtube movie premeire
4-22-2008 @ 7:07PM
akaison said...
It's PR, but, it's PR based on the fact you were right. If there were no truth to it, he would be a fool to say it. No one would argue that Blade Runner- to name one example- is better on DVD except for the fact we get a director's cut. There are 'smarter' ways to market one's stuff. He choose this one because he understands the audience. Now, the question is does his audience understand how they are so easily used? From the response- probably not so much. Hence how they are able to make money. Not smart on your part however to point out the obvious to them. They prefer to immagine they are too hip and smart to be caught up in this sort of marketing.
Reply