Hey, 'Cloverfield'! Leave New York City alone!

coolblue Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:38 AM EST

ohk honestly, i know somone who died in 9-11 and i saw cloverfield and i thought it was still a great movie. I mean sure i'm upset about the whole thing of course i am i just think you are all overreacting about this. It is just a movie. Hollywood deffiently didnt have any intentions to make peope upset about 9-11 i mean its just a movie. All movies have things crashing into builldings. And the fact that its in new york ..no offence but get over it. I live in longisland and it's w.e like why dont they do movies in longisland? oh wait i know why because it doesnt have landmarks people reallyy know about. i am 15 years old and i have more common sence then most of you people. Honeslty grow up and move on with your life.

jason Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

Eat a dick...

Trey Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 06:53 PM EST

I honestly failed to notice a huge amount of 9/11 references. Yeah, it was a monster, yeah it was NYC, and yeah buildings were being blown up. Reminds me of a couple of movies that were made way before 9/11. I completely missed most of the 9/11 symbolism in the movie, in fact, I didn't even think once about it until after the movie.

Matthew Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:30 AM EST

I note with interest the people that are expressing concern about a film that is apparently drawing on 9/11 ssymbolism. And I think that is understandable. I also note the question about whether 7 years after the event is too soon. Again, understandable.

But what is worth noting is that the film that is the most obvious origin of the film is Godzilla. That was the first thing people would think about when they saw the initial trailer. But the original Japanese Godzilla film was made in 1954, only 9 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the creature, mutated by atomic testing, quite clearly stood for the atomic bombs and created an opportunity to explore issues of the bombing in a fantastic less-confrontational setting.

Now, I haven't seen Cloverfield, I have no idea whether this is what they do in the film. But by focusing on ordinary characters, they certainly have an opportunity to explore 9/11 issues in a non-9/11 setting. And that could be a good thing.

robin Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM EST

I couldn't agree with you more! I'm so sick of seeing NYC destroyed. I saw it for real on 9/11 and don't need to see it on tv or the movies. I loved how on Jericho NYC survived - they showed some respect on that show!

cbc Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12 PM EST

Kevin,

Your post is the best post by far even though I love the pats.

cbc Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:57 PM EST

Ah you New Yorkers all love it. Makes you feel even more like you are the center of the universe than you already do.

Emoney Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:20 PM EST

I'm also a Minneapolitan. I love it, but I would be very amused to see it nuked or destroyed by monsters in a movie. They never make "big" movies here -- the closest we get is Fargo which has about 2 scenes actually in Minneapolis. I envy NYC its status as the preeminent movie/tv background city.

Martin Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:27 AM EST

Well, I saw Cloverfield last night. I'd read this post earlier in the day, and let me you - it doesn't matter. The movie's scary, and it works that it's set in New York. The city's an icon, and it has everything the movie needs for its monster to do its thing. For a mini-spoiler, go to: http://moviemartin.blogspot.com

ben Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:34 AM EST

As I do not live in the USA, I have to say that I am glad that Hollywood always use NYC as the site of their movies/TV shows. Americans may know a lot about the different cities and the different iconic buildings or monuments that can be used. But for us foreigners, New York is it. We know the landmarks there and if the movies start using different cities as the site of some disaster, it wouldn't be as emotionally accessible to us. Studios are getting more and more profits outside of the United States so they are making their films more accessible and relatable to us outside of America. And remember, this is just a movie! This is fiction; entertainment. So just let it be... =)

Henry Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:38 PM EST

JMC, if you watched any of the first season of Jericho, you'd know that nuclear explosions level Atlanta as well as other major cities in the US. The citizens of Jericho wait on information coming out of Atlanta in fact, if I remember correctly, and they consider Atlanta for the new capital of the US after Washington is destroyed because the damage wasn't quite as extensive.

Henry Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM EST

This isn't even limited to disaster movies that have been said ad nauseum here. Remember that in A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, the New York of that future is flooded after the polar ice caps melt then frozen over in the way future when artificial lifeforms are all that's left on Earth (you can see the Chrysler Building embedded in the ice as the robot pod flies past).

Henry Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM EST

I've been advocating this since like, Independence Day in 1996. NYC is the whipping boy when it comes to the city that screenwriters and TV writers love to destroy. In fact, I was begging for Heroes to leave New York once Volume Two ended. It just seemed too similar to the disaster that never came to be in the first volume. Even the 24 example brings up another fault: the writers picked Los Angeles to destroy, which is just the west coast version of New York in the entertainment world. LA was a casualty in ID4 as well as other movies and TV shows like Alias and Angel, for example.

t3hdow Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 06:42 PM EST

Fair enough, Eric. Personally, I highly doubt Hollywood intentionally decided to take a dump to the families of 9-11 victims with that shot of the decapitated Statue of Liberty. They probably acted as nonchalant about it like Michael Bay did towards Megatron morphing into a jet and running through a skyscraper in Transformers (a 9-11 reference that didn't cross my mind until EW reported it to Bay months later). Is the attitude inconsiderate? Perhaps. Insensitive? That's kind of a stretch.

Queen of Disrepair Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 06:24 PM EST

I like seeing New York get messed up in the movies. It's iconic. I can't get all 9/11end about it. Seperate reality from the fantasy people. I would enjoy seeing other places get messed up but, frankly, no other venue is as instantly recognized as New York. You get more bang for your story buck, so to speak, by blowing up the Big Apple.

Eric Friedmann Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 05:01 PM EST

t3hdow, my only response to your defensive insecurities is this - if we're going to compare 9-11 vs. Pearl Harbor, then I believe TIME is also a factor here. As far as I know (and I could very well be wrong), the first film to vividly depict the PH attacks was TORA!TORA!TORA! That film and the accompanying graphic movie poster came out in 1970, twenty-nine years after the event. CLOVERFIELD and its tasteless movie poster comes out a mere seven years after the event. So, although no one has ever accused me of being overly sensitive, after only seven years, the 9-11 wounds are still very fresh for many. The poster could have easily depicted a shot of the Empire State Building instead of downtown Manhattan. That image would have been much less "in-your-face" regarding the 9-11 events. That's all I have to say on this subject. I'm moving on now.

JMC Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:31 PM EST

I don't know Cetta. Maybe I'm just a geek, but I get a kick out of seeing any place I've been on film, even if it's not being destroyed. I got into Early Edition just for the Chicago background. The most agregious case of this was watching Dumb and Dumberer for the less than thirty seconds of Marietta's town square in the chase sequence (Sup Carl!).

Fatima Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:27 PM EST

I don't know why I said senator. must have been the lure of the alliteration

Fatima Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:26 PM EST

oh yes, one sex starved senator sums up my entire city.

Cetta Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:26 PM EST

I used to live in NJ and i love watching shows where the world ends. i really enjoy it when it's somewhere i've been to or am close to. My mother feels the same way you do and she says it to me all the time but i truely enjoy watching NYC fall.it's just cool to watch the things i've seen with my own eyes before get destroyed. Anyway what other city has a huge statue of a woman? NYC is the largerest city in America, so if the movie took place in Indianapolis (it's a small city)they wouldn't have a lot of buildings to knock down or blow up. i really think they always pick NYC b/c it's something that everyone can recognize and know first hand what that is exactly. If I Am Legend took place in LA i wouldn't know what the hell is going on. NYC has it all, that's why everyone put it in the movies

Barbara Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:12 PM EST

Yeah, Fatima, Minneapolis is great - you don't run into anyone there in the winter, except in the airport bathroom stalls

t3hdow Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:58 PM EST

Well congrats to you too, Eric F.; for completely misunderstanding me.

I'm far from unsentimental and don't treat any New Yorker with ill will that lived in the city during 9-11. Hoerver, I for one, am tired of the media shoving down everyone's throat about 9-11, like it should be turned into a national holiday or something. That's the opposite of what we should be doing. If that's the case, then what's not stopping us from ridiculing any reference towards Pearl Harbor (the last attack on the US before 9-11), since it could be deemed offensive towards the families of the victims? Over protecting the event in such a way isn't retaining its importance like you suggest, but oversaturating it to the point of irritation. Yes, we should never forget the attacks, but not everyone wants to recall Sept. 11th with tragedy.

I really hope you're not trivializing my stance on 9-11 because you think I'm a studio plant. If you honestly think I'm that shallow, I'm truly worried about you.

JMC Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:57 PM EST

What adds insult to injury Ep is when they film in Chicago and say it's New York(as in the extended El Train sequence in Spider-Man 2).

Ep Sato Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:47 PM EST

I've always felt like the city who gets ignored for big name movies is Chicago. The city has a downtown with an elevated train, several tall skyscrapers and plenty of bystanders walking around at night even in below zero weather. That screams for Godzilla to blow it up!

Carl (from ATL, btw) Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:40 PM EST

Exactly what I was going to say, JMC. See also season 2 of 24 (it was Marietta, a suburb of Atlanta, but the same thing applies). Atlanta seems to always be used as some kind of appetizer for the terrorists/aliens/asteroid, to show that, oooh, they're starting to get serious. "Oh my gosh! They got Atlanta! It won't be long before a city that we really care about gets attacked."

Kevin Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:16 PM EST

I for one would like to see a movie in which the entire middle of the country sank into the deepest depths of the earth, leaving just the Northeast and the West Coast. New Orleans, Chicago, Savannah, and Disney World miraculous survive. As does the Green Bay area so that the Packers can survive to beat those evil Patriots.

JMC Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 03:04 PM EST

Atlanta is one of those cities that gets destroyed in passing. They mention that it's destroyed, generally with Denver and Houston, but they never show it. Top examples are Independence Day and Deep Impact.

Zachary Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 02:50 PM EST

I, for one, would like to see a big monster stomp all over Atlanta.

Wait, are we talking about movies?

Fatima Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 02:22 PM EST

I'll quit going to see NYC disaster movies the moment that the majority of New Yorkers quit yapping about how they live in the greatest city in the world that no one else could possibly touch.

I'll take my Minneapolis any day, where I still get to have a great arts and culture scene with a cost of living that people can actually afford. I don't have to worry about running into Donald Trump either.

Eric Friedmann Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 02:21 PM EST

t3hdow, congratulations! That was EXACTLY the typical response I expected from someone in the industry who likely stands to cash in on movies like CLOVERFIELD and TRANSFORMERS! Thank you for keeping predictability alive and well.

t3hdow Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:59 PM EST

To Eric Friedmann:
It's a tough sell to label Hollywood insensitive, just because of a few movie posters. I'm sure a few overseers of 9-11 might cringe at that, but at the same time, I think the US is ready to move on from the disaster. Simply censoring themselves from depicting similar events of a disaster after an extended period seems ridiculous to me. After all, if that were the case, we shouldn't show any kind of presidential assassinations after Kennedy or nuclear holocausts after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, or planes running into buildings after 9-11 (like Transformers did), even if it's fictional. Besides, like some others here said, it's only a movie.

Victor Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:58 PM EST

On second thought, i did enjoy seeing LA destroyed in ID4 and Day After Tomorrow.. To be honest, LA is the giant boil on the west coast's butt..

Victor Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:47 PM EST

Uh, "people DON'T care about the west coast"??!!
What kind of BS is that?!!
Here's a concept: People who live on the west coast CARE about the west coast..k?
Personally, i'd rather see the Brooklyn Bridge blasted to bits than the Golden Gate melted down ANY DAY!

J Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:33 PM EST

This is obvious. The only reason why NYC is picked is because people would care if something happened to NYC. NYC is, in effect, a sympathetic protagonist in such stories. Notice how, in your example, in Season 6 of 24, people really did NOT care about the West Coast? Good or bad, I am just stating the facts.

Eric Friedmann Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:33 PM EST

I lived in New York City from 1994 to 2003. I remember thinking that the summer of 1998 was already overtaken with the disasterous effects of DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON and GODZILLA. Then the events of September 11, 2001 happened and I watched much of it from the street. Hollywood managed to maintain a level of sensitivity toward the city of New York for only a very short time. It wasn't long before they were destroying the city again with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. As for CLOVERFIELD, I have no intention of seeing it. I should also add that I think the movie poster depicted a headless Statue of Liberty and a shot of downtown NY in smoldering ruins is absolutely tastleless and insensitive to those who must live with the horror of 9-11 the rest of their lives. I've come to expect those in Hollywood to be greedy, insensitive pigs, but in the case of that poster, they could not have done more harm if they'd walked up to the headstone of a 9-11 victim and SPIT on it!

Beetle Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:31 PM EST

Vegas, baby. That way you can wreck landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and Eiffel Tower without actually destroying those cities. Plus, y'know, neon.

Mike Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:26 PM EST

No one is going to destroy Dallas until Jerry Jones builds the ginourmous new stadium in nearby Arlington. But, since Cloverfield is released in January, it will be a huge bomb in whatever city it's set in.

H-town un-fan Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:11 PM EST

If you'll recall Jamie, Houston was once used in a movie and it was literally plunged into nuclear winter. In Independence Day when they decided to try a nuclear bomb against one of the alien ships it was in Houston. How did we know it was Houston? Not the skyline my friend, but sign on the interstate. I'm guessing 4 out of 5 Houstonians couldn't pick the skyline out of a lineup. If however your movie is in need of disposal of a nuclear device, by all means, choose Houston.

Max Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10 PM EST

Barbara - in Chicago you could knock down the Sears Tower, throw that "Bean" sculpture around, and rough up Wrigley Field. I know a few White Sox fans that's be happy to that.

Nat X Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:09 PM EST

Yes, there are many recognizable buildings and structures in NYC, which makes it a good pick for disaster movies. However, (real-life disasters like 9/11 aside, of course) I think most non-New Yorkers like the idea of New York getting knocked around a bit. I never really hated New York until I moved to Chicago and realized that it has all the positive aspects of New York without the frakkin attitude. So, bring it on, Cloverfield monster. Smack that smirk off the Statue of Liberty's face.

AndieChicago Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:07 PM EST

I'm with ChrisChicago. Pick Chicago and knock down the new Spire before it even gets built.

Barbara Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM EST

What would be a good landmark to destroy in Chicago, anyway?

Tim Lade Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM EST

Hey Kate,

Remember that time you forgot that California had been the center of all seasons of 24 and all terrorists attacks?

Season 1, assination on the day of the California Presential Primary.
Season 2, Nuclear Weapon detonated in Mojave desert.
Season 3, Virus released in Los Angelas.
Season 4, Nuclear Reactors melt down of the San Gabriel Island reactor.
Season 5, Nerve Gas attack all over LA and the greater California region.
Season 6, Nuclear Bombs in Cali.

So 24 has never been anywhere near New York!

jaime Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM EST

I wish more films or tv shows would take place in HOUSTON, TX. I love it here and it also has an awesome skyline and tons of freeways and we are near the coast too. . .but you know what i hate most when they pick Dallas over Houston. . .that i just dont get I hate Dallas.

G-Dog Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST

Contrary to belief, New York is NOT America. There are 300 million people here and New York is not even 10% of that. There are lots of great landmarks around if you want to destroy a city on film. Writers are just lazy. How about seeing a monster rip up L.A.? Step on the hollywood sign?

ChrisChicago Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM EST

Oooh Oooh Oooh, pick us! Chicago has a fantastic skyline and a wonderful body of water...I'd pay big bucks to see a movie in which that awful new Trump Tower going up downtown gets destroyed!

Lise Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM EST

I agree - I'm just tired of seeing NYC on the screen, whether it's being destroyed or not. NYC is not THAT interesting, people! I actually hate it a little more every time I see it in a movie or TV show. It's a big country - set your movies somewhere, anywhere else!

taleweaver Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:20 AM EST

I wonder if this is a chicken and the egg issue. Is NYC iconic of America because of all the movies in its setting or is it setted because its an American icon? I think using NYC is a bit on the lazy side of writting. Ask a guy from Boston if they have a skyline or Philadelphia or San Francisco (TV's west coast NYC) There are other cities around with just as much charm and grime as the Big Apple let them face an asteriod or a giant lizard stomp down now and again. I am Legend needed to be in New York because Manhattan is an island, it enhances the solitude and isolation, but if its just 'destroy a major metro area' any city can work if you have the talent.

Anonymous Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM EST

I think Cloverfield has it's reasons for NYC- particularly that it's a coastal city, and it's the first thing that comes to mind when foreigners think of America. I Am Legend made sense too- it's one of the biggest cities with one of the biggest airports in the world; of course a top scientist is going to live there, and of course it's going to be quarantined!

TheBookPolice Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM EST

A) It's on a coast, therefore is more accessible to external forces. B) It's the most iconic American city, by far. C) Get over it, they're movies. Be more worried about what your former mayor's gonna do to the rest of the country if he gets elected.

NineDaves Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM EST

i am both excited and terrified to see cloverfield for this very reason. every time i see the trailer, i think about it actually happening. i'm going to be trapped on the f train trying to get back to brooklyn! actually, that tends to happen without monsters even attacking. sign. still, i'll be there opening day. because apparently, september 11th wasn't tramatic enough for me.

Alicia Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM EST

I just said the same thing last week after watching the Cloverfield trailer, what's wrong with attacking Chicago or Seattle once and a while? I think NYC needs a break.

Martha Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM EST

Yeah, but Silv, except for the big Hollywood sign, no one knows what LA looks like. The emotional impact of an asteroid taking out the Staples Center doesn't compare to seeing the Statue of Liberty in pieces. Of course, though, Jennifer's right in that we've all seen a real-life NYC attack, so it's not so much fun to see it on the big screen.

Antoinette Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:18 AM EST

I get your point and it does seem like New York is the setting for most disaster movies. But seriously, what other cities in the US are they going to use? Dallas, Sedona? I think they could make more use out of cities like Seattle or even San Francisco, we have not had enough screen time when it comes to disaster movies if you ask me.

Silv Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:01 AM EST

NYC = USA. That's really it. That being said, sure, let's waste LA next time. Isn't it seen as the center of CA, land of freaks, by most red states? Movies don't consider the heartland because it's where they deem Mom & Pop America comes from, yet we all know disasters can strike anywhere (Oklahoma City, Columbine, Texas church shootings, etc.).

By the way, I like all the cities and mean no ill will towards NY, LA, etc., so don't get started on me.

Maru Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:53 AM EST

Anyway, why the movies reach only for Tokio, London Bridge, Eiffel Tower, NYC or Russia? I mean, when I saw the totally horrible 11-9 event, I actually thought at first it was a freaking MOVIE!!! :(

Ben Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:46 AM EST

Everybody outside the east coast loves watching NYC, Boston and DC get wasted. It is the best part of movies like Deep Impact, Armageddon, etc etc.
Keep it up, Hollywood! More disaster movies!

Jennifer Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:44 AM EST

I think the reason NYC was always destroyed in movies was because it's a city with SUCH recognizable landmarks, and when you blow up something like the Empire State Building, it made the scene that much more shocking: "Oh my God! The [asteroid / terrorist / Godzilla] just took out [The Statue of Liberty / Central Park / the Brooklyn Bridge]! That's just unimaginable!" Except now we've actually seen one of those NYC landmarks taken down in real life, so scenes like that are A) Not hard at all to imagine and B) Not as much fun anymore, either.

GeeMoney Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:40 AM EST

Perhaps, but somehow or another I don't think that a monster running around and destroying the fields of Bumf---, Oklahoma would be as exciting.

Judy Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:13 AM EST

I completely agree! I live just outside NY and Sept. 11 was enough real life horror for me. You would think NYC would be spared more destruction (even fictional)!