Re: Official Trek XI Website Has Teaser Trailer

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
> Nobody ever expects a monster movie to be appreciated by folks over 45. 
>    I'm surprised that it gets rated even as high as 7.0 by them.  I 
> doubt that other monster movies ever got rated that high by middle-aged 
> and senior folks.
> 
> Give the producers and the financiers some credit.  They knew all along 
> that "Cloverfield" is not going to appeal to the same niche audience as 
> "On Golden Pond."

I think I was somewhere between 12 and 15 when I realized
that all monster movies have the exact same plot:

Monster appears.
Monster attacks.
People run screaming in panic.
Military and other heroes try to battle monster and rescue people.
Heroes win, monster is destroyed...or is it?  See the sequel.
or
Heroes lose, monster continues to attack.  See the sequel.

The *only* thing that distinguishes one monster movie from
any other is how good the design and FX are for the monster
and the scenes in which it destroys Tokyo (or whatever city
is being attacked).  

Any attempt to introduce any other plot or character emphasis 
that distracts from the cool monster-destroys-Tokyo-or-wherever 
FX, whether it's secret agent intrigue, romance or telepathic 
women with big ears, only serves to distract from the reason 
one is watching the movie (to see the monster) and therefore 
from one's enjoyment of the movie.  

You can pretty much rate any monster movie by how soon 
you get to see the monster and how much screen time the 
monster has after it first appears.  

The more secretive the movie's creators are about what the
monster looks like and the greater the lengths they go to
to avoid showing it to you, the less likely the monster is to 
be something you enjoy watching after the cat has been let
out of the bag.

"Cloverfield" has now been out for an entire week, and there
still have yet to be any images of the monster released.  This
is not encouraging.

GeneK