|
Denys' Cloverfield review (Some spoilers!) (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by inconspicuous
It's more likely that a giant monster would spring up out of the Earth's core than it is that a 128GB SD card would. |
But unlike the giant monster, the SD card will most likely appear in the near future. |
|
|
| denys envy |
after catching the "Life Without Humans" last night I finally get where the name of the movie comes from and probably alludes a bit to the plot and the "solution" so to speak.
What I learned - When humans are gone many plants and animals will take over. However in the concrete jungles that are our cities only a few plants will actaully manage to crack through the pavements/etc. Due to the low nitrogen content of the soil there, since sunlight will have a hard time getting in, only plants that create their own nitrogen will manage to actually thrive... Guess what!? Trefoil (Trefolium) otherwise known as? - that's right! CLOVERS! - are the mothering at creating their own nitrogen supply and therefore will be one of the plants to truly manage to cover the whole urban area if it is ever eradicated of humans.
Ahh furthermore. Remember the Chernobyl NUCLEAR accident which caused thousands to evacuate the area and basically leave it unused. Guess what that and the surrounding cities became mostly covered in - hmmm fields and fields of trefoil.
So here's a substantial guess on my part - NYC was in fact nuked to pieces by our military in order to eradicate this animal and its crablike cohorts (which were probably all over the ing place by the end of the movie), the movie's title - "Cloverfield" - is an allusion to that fact. Further proof is the fact that it was also the military title for the incident a.k.a. "We nuked it and it is now covered in fields of clover, hmm what should we call it?". |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| I think the bf and I are gonna go see this tonight. :) |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| Wouldn't they name it within the first six months, before the clover had grown in? |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
got another one:
the 'camera' looks like a Panasonic AG-HSC1U. It doesn't have a fully IR 'nightshot' mode (the subway), and it has a 40GB built-in HDD. Why would you use an SD card if you have that much space already built-in?
Maybe the rest of the footage is on the HDD (explaining all the secretsOMFG!), and the sequel will be 50 years in the future, when they figure out how to reverse the radiation damage!!! OMG!
:o |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
after catching the "Life Without Humans" last night I finally get where the name of the movie comes from and probably alludes a bit to the plot and the "solution" so to speak.
What I learned - When humans are gone many plants and animals will take over. However in the concrete jungles that are our cities only a few plants will actaully manage to crack through the pavements/etc. Due to the low nitrogen content of the soil there, since sunlight will have a hard time getting in, only plants that create their own nitrogen will manage to actually thrive... Guess what!? Trefoil (Trefolium) otherwise known as? - that's right! CLOVERS! - are the mothering at creating their own nitrogen supply and therefore will be one of the plants to truly manage to cover the whole urban area if it is ever eradicated of humans.
Ahh furthermore. Remember the Chernobyl NUCLEAR accident which caused thousands to evacuate the area and basically leave it unused. Guess what that and the surrounding cities became mostly covered in - hmmm fields and fields of trefoil.
So here's a substantial guess on my part - NYC was in fact nuked to pieces by our military in order to eradicate this animal and its crablike cohorts (which were probably all over the ing place by the end of the movie), the movie's title - "Cloverfield" - is an allusion to that fact. Further proof is the fact that it was also the military title for the incident a.k.a. "We nuked it and it is now covered in fields of clover, hmm what should we call it?". |
oooh. Good ing call. I forgot about all those damn crabs. You're probably right, and the name fits perfectly.
 |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Wouldn't they name it within the first six months, before the clover had grown in? |
well with Chernobyl situation already etched in the annals of history, they can fully expect the result of their actions without having to wait to see it. |
|
|
| leph555 |
For those who've seen the unique monster movie Cloverfield, you know that the story is supposed to have been shot by the aptly-named character "Hud" with a cheapo handheld consumer camera. You know, something you could grab at Best Buy next weekend, use once and forget about forever. Convincing the audience of that point was one of the movie's most successful angles, since much of the film (yes, a few other cameras were used, too) was really shot on Sony's flagship, absolute top of the line CineAlta HD camera, the F23.
It's a 1080p camera that shoots anywhere from 1P to 60P a second, so 24P shooting (the exact framerate of film) is no problem. As for what it records to...the movie claims the video was captured on an SD card.
That's not quite the case, since such a puny card could never write an uncompressed 4:4:4 (full color space) image in real time. Instead, filmmakers probably used Sony's SRW-1, which can hook directly to the camera to allow both easy shooting and recording speeds of 110MB/sec (versus an SD card's 20MB/sec).
So how much would it cost to score an F23 of your own? Sony hasn't made that number public, but their next camera down runs $115,000. And while we know Cloverfield's main character was a hotshot VP of some sort, he probably didn't invest that much into his Coney Island video fund.
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_r...ease/26744.html
http://gizmodo.com/347463/the-real-...ind-cloverfield |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
this also fails to take into account that SONYS DON'T TAKE ING SD CARDS.
but yeah, that's the picture I was basing that on. Looks like that Panasonic with the wide-angle lens adapter. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
well with Chernobyl situation already etched in the annals of history, they can fully expect the result of their actions without having to wait to see it. |
It wouldn't end up like that. Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as dirty as the Chernobyl explosion was. A huge portion of the radioactive material spread was a result of the graphite fires. The slowly decaying radioactive elements that were spread in the Chernobyl explosion and fires are not present in nuclear weapons unless they are specifically designed to be dirty weapons. If you hit New York with a low yeild "clean" nuclear weapon people could move back in to the city in 1-5 years as long as hotspots were marked and avoided. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
It wouldn't end up like that. Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as dirty as the Chernobyl explosion was. A huge portion of the radioactive material spread was a result of the graphite fires. The slowly decaying radioactive elements that were spread in the Chernobyl explosion and fires are not present in nuclear weapons unless they are specifically designed to be dirty weapons. If you hit New York with a low yeild "clean" nuclear weapon people could move back in to the city in 1-5 years as long as hotspots were marked and avoided. |
so you're suggesting that there's no way NYC would turn into a field of clovers in 1-5 years as the Life Withouht (or was it 'After') Humans suggests? regardless of the cleanliness of the bomb? |
|
|
|
|
