|
Denys' Cloverfield review (Some spoilers!) (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SuspicionVandit |
Nuke would've physically destroyed the camera, or the radiation would've messed up contents.
The military man did say "one last shot", I don't know what comes directly below the list of a nuke.
Maybe Hammerdown was a good old fashioned Nam '69 "Throw 200 million pounds of fire on it" strategy. |
|
|
| denys envy |
i guarantee they don't nuke it. that's just causing too much danger for other zones. i believe hammerdown means they just destroy the ing city in a massive "blitzkreig" style bombing. probably the area with tons of missles but nothing on the atomic scale. think of the ing radiation and then zoning off the area afterwards waiting for the fallout to expire. it's easier to level the city with conventional bombs and then rebuild.
if there is a sequel i hope it's more about the origins of this thing and what the happened to it rather than another mucking about with a group of survivors and their handheld camera.
although abrams is known for his "all our lives tie in somehow" themes (especially in LOST) so i could definitely see him take that direction. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
I'm almost guaranteeing a sequel, especially with all the hoopla about how at the end credits, a certain sound clip played backwards says the words "its still alive."
|
Sequel
During the film's red carpet premiere on January 16, 2008, Matt Reeves was asked about the possibility of a sequel during the film's premiere. He replied:
“While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today’s day and age of people filming their lives on their iPhones and Handycams, uploading it to YouTube... That was kind of exciting thinking about that."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by denys envy
i guarantee they don't nuke it. that's just causing too much danger for other zones. i believe hammerdown means they just destroy the ing city in a massive "blitzkreig" style bombing. probably the area with tons of missles but nothing on the atomic scale. think of the ing radiation and then zoning off the area afterwards waiting for the fallout to expire. it's easier to level the city with conventional bombs and then rebuild.
if there is a sequel i hope it's more about the origins of this thing and what the happened to it rather than another mucking about with a group of survivors and their handheld camera.
although abrams is known for his "all our lives tie in somehow" themes (especially in LOST) so i could definitely see him take that direction. |
The entire movie, they tried conventional stuff. Didn't you see the B2 bomber dropping the heavy payloads? Or the tanks in the street firing kinetic armor piercing shells? I'm telling you, a nuke is the only thing that was going to bring the monster down. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Sequel
During the film's red carpet premiere on January 16, 2008, Matt Reeves was asked about the possibility of a sequel during the film's premiere. He replied:
“While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today’s day and age of people filming their lives on their iPhones and Handycams, uploading it to YouTube... That was kind of exciting thinking about that."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield |
There ya go. I really liked this movie, so I hope the sequel isnt a -up.
I find the nuke theory a little hard to believe too, but then again, what other options did they have? Like you mentioned, practically every conventional method was already used, so nuclear weapons would have to be unleashed. But at the same time, its almost ridiculous considering the amount of damage a nuke would do to the Earth. Then again, when theres nothing left to do, even the worst decision may be the only. |
|
|
| leph555 |
you can always unleash the
 |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by leph555
you can always unleash the
|
The movie would be over in 2 minutes, so thank god they didnt. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
The movie would be over in 2 minutes, so thank god they didnt. |
The essence of Chuck can not be captured on film......
exept in Texas Walker. |
|
|
| cmay119 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
There ya go. I really liked this movie, so I hope the sequel isnt a -up.
I find the nuke theory a little hard to believe too, but then again, what other options did they have? Like you mentioned, practically every conventional method was already used, so nuclear weapons would have to be unleashed. But at the same time, its almost ridiculous considering the amount of damage a nuke would do to the Earth. Then again, when theres nothing left to do, even the worst decision may be the only. |
Does the US still have an arsenal of Nuclear Weapons equal to that of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki Bombs?
If they did, they would be able to use one of them instead of a modern day Hydrogen bomb that has far more destructive capabilities.
That way they'd be able to keep the explosion within Manhatten instead of taking out a huge junk of the East Coast. Should still be effective enough to kill any living thing within the blast radius, right?
I'm just suprised in the first place that normal artillery wasn't enough to injure/kill a flesh & bone monster, whether it be gigantic or not. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cmay119
Does the US still have an arsenal of Nuclear Weapons equal to that of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki Bombs?
If they did, they would be able to use one of them instead of a modern day Hydrogen bomb that has far more destructive capabilities.
That way they'd be able to keep the explosion within Manhatten instead of taking out a huge junk of the East Coast. Should still be effective enough to kill any living thing within the blast radius, right?
I'm just suprised in the first place that normal artillery wasn't enough to injure/kill a flesh & bone monster, whether it be gigantic or not. |
I think you have a point. I'm sure theres plenty of different types of nuclear weapons, one meant for, say, the destruction of a city, while another meant for the destruction of an entire country. I hardly have any knowledge of this sorta thing, so your guess is as good, if not better, than mine.
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
The essence of Chuck can not be captured on film......
exept in Texas Walker. |
I dont have the physical strength to watch that show, I've heard from many that most viewers dont survive past the first 5 minutes. I dont wanna try, too risky. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| well whatever they used at the end, logically, it must have been weak enough that the film/tape/handycam survived.... |
|
|
| Krypton |
I believe nuclear warfare today is generally about launching a high number of small capacity missiles, striking many targets at once, or few targets with multiple strikes. I think they launched a nuclear missile at the monster.
But really, only the moviemakers would know this, because they created the monster, and the plot, so we're just speculating on something that realistically doesn't even happen, so no one can be right until they make a sequel! |
|
|
|
|
