Sondheim Forum

If you haven't caught the "surprise release" of The Cloverfield Paradox which hit Netflix streaming on Super Bowl evening, DON'T.  What a big old hot jumbled garbage mess of a movie ... a totally ridiculous waste of time. 

Did I mention I didn't like it much?

Quote from: nulipp on Feb 09, 2018, 08:34 AMIf you haven't caught the "surprise release" of The Cloverfield Paradox which hit Netflix streaming on Super Bowl evening, DON'T.  What a big old hot jumbled garbage mess of a movie ... a totally ridiculous waste of time.  

Did I mention I didn't like it much?

Absolutely agree. I saw it a couple of nights ago and it was a confused mess. I think if they'd made it as a six-part miniseries, it might have worked -- or at least been coherent. But they tangle so many ideas together, some of them good, some of them ridiculous, that's it's like watching garbage going down an Insinkerator(tm).

By the way, Mr. Physics Teacher, did you have the foggiest idea what they were attempting to do on the Shepard? From what I could make out based on the rapid gunfire of exposition, they seemed to be trying to use a particle accelerator to solve earth's energy crisis. Last I checked, particle accelerators didn't make energy, they use it -- to create new particles. That's like solving a money deficit by buying a car. Or did I completely misunderstand?

And I won't even ask about the collision with the Higg's Boson, except to mention that they were originally planning to call the movie The God Particle. I'm guessing they changed it because Abrams couldn't figure out how to squeeze the term "Cloverfield" into that.

Quote from: Chris L on Feb 09, 2018, 11:31 AMBy the way, Mr. Physics Teacher, did you have the foggiest idea what they were attempting to do on the Shepard? From what I could make out based on the rapid gunfire of exposition, they seemed to be trying to use a particle accelerator to solve earth's energy crisis. Last I checked, particle accelerators didn't make energy, they used it -- to create new particles. That's like solving a money deficit by buying a car. Or did I completely misunderstand?

And I won't even ask about the collision with the Higg's Boson, except to mention that they were originally planning to call the movie The God Particle. I'm guessing they changed it because Abrams couldn't figure out how to squeeze the term "Cloverfield" into that.

:P Honestly, I started rolling my eyes (HARD) from the very beginning and I just tuned out trying to make any sense of what was going on for the rest of the flick.  

No, you didn't misunderstand ... I'm not sure how you generate inexhaustible energy with a particle accelerator - started with nonsense and it never stopped.

I watched it tonight.  confusing, disappointing, convoluted are some of the words I can use to describe it.  I was also wondering how they were creating energy.  And how were they getting the energy from the station to the earth? 

I agree with Chris, it would have made a better miniseries. 

Quote from: DiveMilw on Feb 15, 2018, 07:56 PMI was also wondering how they were creating energy.  And how were they getting the energy from the station to the earth?

That one I can actually answer. They could convert it to electromagnetic radiation -- say, microwaves -- and beam it back to an antenna on earth. This has actually been proposed as a method for gathering solar energy by satellite. Of course, anything that lingers in that microwave beam for too long would fry like the frozen dinner in your microwave oven -- you'd probably get lots of Kentucky Fried Pigeons -- but that would probably be an acceptable risk in that desperate a situation.

Of course, this would require that the satellite be in geostationary orbit, which is about 26,000 miles up, and I don't recall them being that far above the surface, but that's a pretty minor detail compared to everything else in the film.

I thought of something good about the movie.  Chris O'Dowd.