January 22, 2008
Cloverfield would have been better set in Los Angeles

As Cloverfield set a box office record for a January opening this holiday weekend, we Angelenos should be glad at the local economic boost, but we should also question if it could have been even more successful had the film been set in Los Angeles. Yes, the New York setting drew memories of 9/11 and classic monster movies, but Los Angeles is the city in which this monster would have done so much better – both as a character and as a film. (Note: spoiler alert in generalities.)
Though the two apartments we are shown before the monster's arrival are the thrust of the movement for the main characters, their Midtown and Lower Manhattan locales could have easily been a Los Feliz home (or unit in the Los Feliz Towers) and loft above Pete's at 4th and Main, respectively. This would have set apart the same issues of affluence and distance that separated the film's characters. Those trying to cross the city could still try to use the subways (as was done in the film) to get up to Vermont and Sunset and then walk from there. Imagine emerging where all the two major hospitals once were – and they are completely wiped out?
Also, this monster would more likely come from the Pacific than that Atlantic- making landfall at San Pedro or Westchester and then moving across the City. Either way, there would be major destruction in the lower socio-economic areas of South LA before reaching Downtown or Hollywood. This would illuminate a people that have long struggled to raise their situation in areas like Watts, Morningside Circle, Vermont Knolls, and other South LA neighborhoods. People in these neighborhoods have been fighting each other, to get ahead, and to survive their daily life, and now, they'd have to fight to survive.
Their fight for survival is essential and makes LA a better setting. Unlike Manhattan where a few bridges, tunnels, and ferries can by used as an escape route, there is no way out of LA. This monster in LA has to be fought and brought down - there is no way to evacuate large portions of the City. Freeways will be packed, and people on foot, horseback, and bicycle will have the best (only?) way out. And honestly, nothing stops this beast from traversing the City and the passes into the Valley or along the Arroyo to the San Gabriel Valley. (What a show-down it would be when the military fights it at the Rosebowl!)
Packed freeways, high rises, and urban sprawl make LA a better setting for this film. Maybe in the sequel we'll find L.A. under attack? Who needs plate-tectonics to explain earthquakes; this massive monster has been shaking the earth for years, and now, it's back to take Hollywood by storm (pun intended!).
photo of from where the Cloverfield monster should have arisen by dannyman via Flickr



[ report this ]
the irony of this is that most of the city scenes were filmed in downtown los angeles. i could spot my apartment and some of the historic hotels in some of the shots.
[ report this ]
I don't know if its that simple. I had the same thought processes when I watched Cloverfield. The whole 9/11 comparison issue would have been solved if the movie was simply set somewhere else. But NYC is an island. When worse comes to worse, millions of people would have to swim to get away from the monster. LA isn't isolated enough, there are too many escape routes that can't be destroyed (take out a few bridges and you're fucked in NYC). When you're in a city like Chicago or NYC, chances are you don't have a car, so you're really screwed. Plus there aren't enough landmarks and tall buildings to destroy. My vote for a better location? Disneyworld.
[ report this ]
not to mention that when Los Angeles is destroyed in movies, it's comedy.
[ report this ]
In ID4, when the aliens destroyed Los Angeles, the people who took the Red Line subway survived. Just sayin'
[ report this ]
This is true. But by that same token dogs can outrun the firey death of alien weaponry and simple palm trees can stand defiant in the face of what essentially is a pseudo-nuclear explosion.
I think the problem really with destroying LA is that Mother Nature is simply better at it than your average director. Not the most uplifting and hopeful of thoughts but this very subject occurred last night while commuting home.
[ report this ]
but the whole movie they would be stuck in traffic.
and i think since los angeles is a little more spread out both the monster and the citizens would have had enough room to share, instead of fighting over some real estate!
[ report this ]
Well JJ Abrams is from LA so maybe he wanted to spare the hometown.
And I can't help but think that the traffic of the freeways would have driven the monster right back into the sea. Dealing with this many cars would make even a monster cry.