The Cloverfield Monster is a Giant Squirrel

No, it's not. I'm just kidding.

I saw "Cloverfield" yesterday afternoon, more out of curiosity than actual fandom from following the ARG. I wasn't expecting a lot from the movie, since "monster movie" doesn't translate into "great" for me. But fuck it, with all the hype, I'm going to see this thing.

And it exceeded my expectation.

The first 20 minutes or so was some mild background story-telling, setting up the story line. Then,it got violent fast. Fires, buildings falling, screaming, running, it all turned into destruction and panic. The movie was filled with intensity and adrenaline, a total thrill ride. There was a few surprises in the movie also, like the fact that the Cloverfield monster is not alone.

The only thing that I could come up with as complains were that the whole "told from the perspective of the hand-held camera" thing was a bit too much. After a while, I felt a bit dizzy, and my stomach felt a bit weird afterwards, because there was so much scrambling and shaking. But I do think that the perspective was refreshing and made the film looked more realistic. Also, the ending was a bit irresolute to me, it didn't really explain anything about the monster.

But that's not the point, is it? The movie was more about destruction, not explanation. With destruction, the movie did a good job.

Also, after poking around, I found that I missed at least two pretty interesting thing from the movie: the whisper at the end of the credits, which when you listen to it in reverse, it said "it's still alive". And at the end of the movie with the old footage from the camera, there was something falling from the sky into the water near Coney Island. So, maybe that gives some clues to how the monster came to be?

"Cloverfield" was a thrill ride for me, I will definitely get this on DVD.

When You're Really Bored (Make Your Own Calendar) II

Well, might as well post the other pictures of my calendar in the making. Though as of right now, I don't think they will become calendar pages, but it will become part of my drawing portfolio of sorts.


Queens of the Stone Age's Era Vulgaris backcover.

Picture inside of Radiohead's OK Computer booklet.


Cover of Arcade Fire's Funeral


Picture inside of Arcade Fire's Funeral album jacket (whatever it called).



Inside the album jacket of NIN's Year Zero

A Few Words on the Saul Williams Stats

As said before,in October Trent Reznor announced that the Saul Williams album Niggy Tardust will be a digital release, which you can get it for free or "donate" five bucks. Well, unlike Radiohead, who is all secretive about the stats of their In Rainbows "experiment", Trent Reznor announced the stats on the Niggy Tardust album. To quote:

"Saul’s previous record was released in 2004 and has sold 33,897 copies.

As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul’s new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.

Of those paying,

3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC"

These data at first disheartened me a bit, since I paid $5.00 without any considerations and couldn't quite fathom why 81.7 % of people chose to pay nothing. Does people really see no value in music anymore in the age of piracy? I even posted on a messageboard about whether musicians should even consider the "free" option.

BUT, after reading other people's thinking and thinking it a bit myself, I guess my first reaction was wrong. People are going to get it for free if they want to, it's getting easier and being justified more and more and there is no point anymore in trying to make people pay for music anymore. While 18% is a bit low in my opinions, others said that it's still making a good profit. Yes, they make more than $140,000 on this so far, but you have to take into account the expenses involved with making a record. According to Reznor, this record didn't sound like it's made in a cheap studio with some cheap engineers. Then there is the point of "well, this record gain Williams more fanbase than he ever had"(with Reznor acknowledged at the end of his post). While I do agree this may be a long-term investment, but I guess the essence of Reznor's post was about what others can expect from a distribution method like this, and how much cash they can make from it.

And I guess these statistics will not apply to ALL the others that will come after them. The Saul Williams situation is a bit unique: He is an obscure artist, with a major artist backing him. I would expect that most of the people who downloaded this album (like myself) are NIN fans, and didn't want to risk $5.00 for something that they don't know if they will like or not, because hey, they want that $5.00 to buy a cup of Starbucks coffee, goddamnit.

There are some many more factors contributed to the results as it is. Just scroll around messagboards and comment sections and you will see the whole convention of people discussing it. Do these stats say alot? I don't know, I guess we will have to see more stats from different artists. But it's laudable that Reznor posted his stats and shared it with people. It's not clear how much Saul Williams and Reznor had make on this record, but the record is still online, and there will still be people downloading it and (maybe) pay for it.

But whatever distribution method figure out in the future, it seems that you should expect the majority of the people to get it for free, and a minority of them to pay for it.