If it's original, then Abrams had (and still has) the opportunity to avoid all cliches typically associated with monster and disaster films. Destroying a landmark that is also a symbol for America (Statue of Liberty) is so overused that it doesn't bode well for the supposedly "underground" or "in-the-moment" aesthetic that the home video approach necessitates. Think of Independence Day, or The Day After Tomorrow, or Godzilla (all Roland Emmerich): destroying landmarks isn't interesting to us because it is a symbolic destruction, not a personal one. Consider War of the Worlds: the film takes place in New Jersey, and the biggest thing we get to a recognizable landmark is a 747. Other than that, we see regular stuff, like boats, cars, suburban houses, hilly countrysides, etc get destroyed, and the people within them matter more than their symbolic importance. Another great part about War of the Worlds was that the lead character was not "the" hero, just "a" hero, and his efforts to take down the machines and aliens were successful, but not effective against the invasion. Though WotW has plenty of cliches later on that mire the film, most of the film avoids banal heroism and the idea that humans will somehow outsmart whatever alien force invades them.
Other cliches to avoid: stupid mission to destroy the monster set out by someone with "firsthand knowledge" as if something like that could exist, military ineffectiveness, romance, comic relief, and Peter Jackson-esque cinematography that showcases just how fake the CG is. That last one is hopefully going to be avoided since the whole thing is a home video, but the rest are entirely possible. Hopefully this isn't an alien and isn't some weird eco-creature. Some people are hoping that it's religiously linked (like the Apocalypse, or the rise of Cthulu), and I'm all for it. I just don't know how anyone's going to survive that.
Topic: 1-18-08 (Read 10043 times)
