From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx40.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: The Cloverfield Paradox
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <qSWdC.4239$YR7.3667@fx34.iad>
<e0061754-3f9e-4ecc-8272-c3e836b5df02@googlegroups.com>
<2gjeC.5841$YR7.3959@fx34.iad> <p5cglr$97f$1@dont-email.me>
<acneC.19974$s_2.7608@fx42.iad> <p5d0co$dko$1@dont-email.me>
<2QneC.35147$m03.6559@fx38.iad> <p5d8ah$1f4$1@dont-email.me>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <p5d8ah$1f4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4OpeC.18995$NZ2.12726@fx40.iad>
X-Complaints-To: http://abuse.usenetxs.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:15:28 UTC
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:15:28 -0500
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3749082132
X-Received-Bytes: 4033
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2/6/2018 4:56 PM, reilloc wrote:
> On 2/6/2018 2:01 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 2/6/2018 2:41 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/6/2018 2:18 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2018 10:12 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/6/2018 9:49 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/2018 8:48 PM, bermuda999 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:03:53 AM UTC-5, Greg Singh wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doesn't sound too good:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/feb/05/the-cloverfield-paradox... 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As mentioned in your link, it was originally a cheap sci-fi movie 
>>>>>>> called "God Particle" unrelated to Cloverfield. It was 
>>>>>>> retro-fitted with references to Cloverfield.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Cloverfield Paradox Lands With a Thud"
>>>>>>>
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/02/the-clover... 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Cloverfield Paradox should have been a comedy — and almost 
>>>>>>> is one"
>>>>>>> (Netflix’s abrupt release of the third Cloverfield film was 
>>>>>>> apparently meant to beat the bad press)
>>>>>>>
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16976184/cloverfield-paradox-revie... 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This kind of info is what we pay you for.  Many thanks for the two 
>>>>>> hours I'd never get back...
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that it has only been out for a day and a half, it isn't 
>>>>> doing too bad.  Checking IMDB...
>>>>>
>>>>> THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX:  6.1rating with 14,391 votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> as a comparison to theater offerings:
>>>>>
>>>>> INSIDIOUS THE LAST KEY:  5.8rating with 11,653 votes.
>>>>> This film has been out for 5 weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> SLUMBER:  4.7rating with 1,178 votes.
>>>>> This film has been out for 8 weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> AMITYVILLE THE AWAKENING:  4.9rating with 7,181 votes.
>>>>> This film has been out for 15 weeks.
>>>>
>>>> tCP now has 6.0 from  15,208.  Fwiw, I do think Netflix confers a 
>>>> small pro-bias -- e.g., an anti-establishment sticking it to The 
>>>> Man. What's most damning here, though, is the "retro-fitting" angle...
>>>
>>> Damning because it is an original story idea then got a retro-fitted 
>>> name/gimmick tacked on to sell it to the masses?
>>
>> Yes.  Add that to the assertion that it was shelved forever before 
>> escaping online and it does sound like a perpetual second-choice.
>>
>> (Also, I liked the Cloverfield movies, and hate the blatant branding.)
> 
> Are you guys thinking we're talking about art here?

Well, if *we're* talking about it, it must be.  Right?

Actually, all I meant about 'branding' is that I thought the first two 
movies enjoyed a nice, if tenous, connection -- which is abused by 
asking the audience to extend it to random flotsam.

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com