Those of us who saw Cloverfield in theaters this past January watched the monster movie in the wrong way. According to a new Reuters article, the movie's producer, J.J. Abrams, says it's really meant for home viewing: "The thing about this movie -- probably more than any I think -- is that it is better on DVD than in the theater," Abrams told Reuters. "Because the movie is like a videotape. It lives on your TV. In many ways, it is supposed to be viewed on a (TV) monitor."

Interesting. Wait, so does that mean I was correct when I wrote in my column, "The Exhibitionist", about Cloverfield being "theatrically inappropriate"? I went so far as to say that it had no business being shown in theaters at all, which I'm sure Abrams doesn't agree with, and I also said that it was most appropriately viewed in a YouTube window. I received some of my harshest criticism ever for that column, yet I don't mean to now jump around bragging that I was right and the commenters were wrong. Anytime a post on Cinematical can get 42 responses (or more), in which movie fans get into a heated discussion about films, formats and fun (as in the adjective used to describe the experience of seeing Cloverfield in a theater), is 100% a good thing. Yes, even when I'm said to be "misguided" or "having an off day".

Anyway, Abrams obviously can't be unhappy with the movie performing well at the box office (he likely would have liked it to perform better, actually), and certainly he's now partially just trying to get the DVDs sold. As Erik mentions in his review of the DVD, the movie is really great for home viewing, partly "because it's much easier to deal with camera shakiness from your own, comfortable living room," and partly "because the special features truly add to the experience in a very positive way."

But now the following question is raised: would it make more sense, at least to Abrams, to have Cloverfield 2 (which more than half our readers seem excited about) go straight to DVD?