The '10 Cloverfield Lane' Trailer Looks Nothing Like a 'Cloverfield' Sequel

[JaredJones]

The '10 Cloverfield Lane' Trailer Looks Nothing Like a 'Cloverfield' Sequel


The sequel to JJ Abrams' Cloverfield trades in the "found footage" angle and damn-near everything else.

You know, you have to admire the degree to which JJ Abrams was able to keep the sequel to Cloverfield a secret. Fans of the 2008 found footage monster flick he produced have been begging for an update ever since, yet not a one of us had heard so much as a peep about it. Chalk up to the fact that Abrams was busy directing a Star Wars, but in an era where it's next to impossible to keep even a cameo under wraps [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/165518-John-Wick-2-Is-Basically-a-Matrix-Reunion#&gid=gallery_5216&pid=1], it's impressive that he was able to sneak an entire movie past us.

But as it stands, the trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane dropped alongside Michael Bay's surprisingly-decent Benghazi actioner [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/reviews/cinemarter/15280-13-Hours-The-Secret-Soldiers-of-Benghazi-2016-Film-Review], 13 Hours, over the weekend, giving audiences a look at what Abrams has actually been calling less a sequel to Cloverfield and more a "blood relative."

From the looks of it, even that woefully ambiguous label might be a bit of a stretch. Gone is the found footage gimmick (and with it, TJ Miller's labored breathing), the skyscraper-sized aliens, or anything resembling Cloverfield, really, and in return is John Goodman and Mary Elizabeth Winstead starring in what can be best described as "Misery 2: Electric Boogaloo."

After a car accident, a young woman comes to in an underground cellar, where most of the action takes place. She fears she has been abducted by a survivalist, who tells her he saved her life and that a chemical attack has left the outside world uninhabitable. Uncertain what to believe, she decides she must escape, whatever dangers she may face outside.

If the end of the trailer is any indication, I'm guessing that at least one of those dangers comes in the form of a city-destroying mecha-alien.

10 Cloverfield Lane hits theaters on March 11th.

Permalink

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I would suggest that Hollywood, for the large part, are very good at keeping secrets. The acquisition of Lucasarts by Disney is a good example. All of the "leaked" info and trailers are actually sent out by the studios as advertising to help drum up interest.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yes, and it looks nothing like anything interesting, either.

Say what you will about Cloverfield as a movie, but at least the promo material had me interested. The first 1-18-08 trailer actually had me wanting to leave my hermetically sealed bunker and discuss it with real people.

This?

*shrug*

I'll probably Netflix it if there are enough people who think it's worth the watch. Otherwise...yawn.

 

[Jacked Assassin]

Part of the plot sounds like its too similar The Mist....

 

[lacktheknack]

I'll absolutely take it. I'd love to see this "franchise" take a direction like this - bizarre disaster flicks with incredibly different setups and perspectives and situations, all tied with the word "Cloverfield" in the title.

 

[enginieri]

I love Goodman,very much like Winstead, the movie looks a little claustrophobic in the teaser, let's hope for a good story (and good direction, the director is fresh to feature length movies).

 

[josemlopes]

Looks cool, from the trailer it looks like the "disaster" is more of an excuse to tell a more personal story.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

The whole movie we will think his character is an evil abductor, that is until the end when there really is a world destroying situation outside and that why he was acting so crazy and weird. I think the ending she will see the cloverfield monster roaming around outside....either that or something else like aliens or a completely destroyed city scape.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't know if I'll see this in theaters or not...I liked the original but I absolutely hated how so much of what was going on in the movie...wasn't in the movie. I'm not talking about the obvious stuff either like Clover wrecking shit up; I'm talking about the hows, the whys, etc...I don't want to find out months later that John Goodman is actually under the influence of a magical soda when I read about it on a wiki like I did with Cloverfield.

The whole movie we will think his character is an evil abductor, that is until the end when there really is a world destroying situation outside and that why he was acting so crazy and weird. I think the ending she will see the cloverfield monster roaming around outside....either that or something else like aliens or a completely destroyed city scape.

The trailer seemed to be hinting at that really, really heavily. Unless of course the ACTUAL twist is that everything that goes on in the film is an elaborate reality TV show kinda thing and main-character girl is the only one who isn't in on it.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

You know, initially I was cool with the idea that "blood relative" means same universe different story, and I still am as long as these events take place after the first movie. The Wiki says Clover's dead but the scrambled "It's still alive" message at the end of the first movie, not to mention that something rocked that bunker in the trailer, leads me to believe that this is not the case. Maybe it's a new monster or something.

Anyway.

I want this to take place after because I can't think of any movies where we lost the giant monster war. Not saying those movies don't exist, just that I can't think of them.Godzilla: Cataclysm comes close but that's a comic book and it's multiple monsters. Anyway, we lost, it doesn't retreat into the sea or some uninhabited island for a while and give us a chance to try again, no rival monster to defeat it for us, we lost, we can't kill it, all we can do is survive at this point.
That sounds pretty cool to me.

I don't know if I'll see this in theaters or not...I liked the original but I absolutely hated how so much of what was going on in the movie...wasn't in the movie. I'm not talking about the obvious stuff either like Clover wrecking shit up; I'm talking about the hows, the whys, etc...I don't want to find out months later that John Goodman is actually under the influence of a magical soda when I read about it on a wiki like I did with Cloverfield.

While I think that's kinda cool, doing my own research, I completely understand. You should be doing extra legwork to learn extra, not baseline. I was just at the Wiki and read that the idea behind it was that to make you feel more like the characters, you're going in blind. A giant monster attacks your city, you'd have no idea what's going on. I like that concept but I can level with you, it's a movie, not an ARG.
And with all the information you could possibly want about the monster easily available in the Wiki and the fact that this is a sequel, it probably won't kill them to throw in a line like

"Hey, remember that monster?"
"You mean the giant sea-creature that one Japanese soft-drink company woke up?"

Obviously more nuanced than that but you get the picture. At this point in time, we should know what it is, catch the audience up that didn't do the homework for your movie.

Sheesh, I wrote a lot.
You could say I'm a fan.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, woah, woah, woah . . .
Cloverfield had fans?

 

[lacktheknack]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, woah, woah, woah . . .
Cloverfield had fans?

Absolutely. Like <link=http://www.thefilmfile.com/reviews/c/08_cloverfield.htm>this guy, for instance. Probably my favorite movie of 2008. Damn good movie, really nailed the atmosphere and feel of a city-suddenly-going-down.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I have been told that this was basically an entirely different film that had nothing to do with Cloverfield, made on a piddling budget (even less than the first film), but with a few re-shot scenes to Frankenstein it into a Cloverfield movie.

I hope that's misdirection, but it's what I heard.

 

[frizzlebyte]

I have been told that this was basically an entirely different film that had nothing to do with Cloverfield, made on a piddling budget (even less than the first film), but with a few re-shot scenes to Frankenstein it into a Cloverfield movie.

I hope that's misdirection, but it's what I heard.

If it works, I can't see any real issue with retconning a movie into another universe. Honestly, I suspect that kind of thing happens more than rarely, and we outsiders just never find out because it happens *before* shooting begins, or shortly after.

 

[SecondPrize]

This is a good thing. I only liked the found footage in Blair Witch and am generally ambivalent to it but Cloverfield's actually made me nauseous.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I read that the film budget is 5 millions which is the same amount to Hem and the Hologram (which to those who haven't read, it was a very low budget film). So yeah I have a feeling most of the film will take place in the bunker.

 

[EdwardOrchard]

Im excited for this. I like JJ Abrams and everything Bad Robot, and the trailer looks good. Then again, Im also the type that enjoys M Night Shamyalan movies.

 

[Zen Bard]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, woah, woah, woah . . .
Cloverfield had fans?

I wouldn't say I'm a fan, but I liked it for three reasons:

1) It was an interesting take on the Monster Movie. Instead of being told from the scientist or military point of view, it's told from the average citizen's. And they're not concerned with trying to understand or destroy the creature. They're just trying to survive it.

2) Growing up, I always cheered for the monster. And the characters in this movie are just so annoying and self-absorbed, watching the monster (or mini-monsters) systematically dispatch them was a blast!

I'm not sure they were intentionally written that way to be satirical, or if Drew Goddard actually expected us to care for them. But any time one of them died, all of us in the theatre applauded!

3) It gave us the greatness that is T.J. Miller.

 

[Zen Bard]

IMDb flat out refers to it as a "Cloverfield Sequel" (however, take that with a grain of spice).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179933/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Someone on one of the forums on the page says he saw a "test" screening and there's no monster in it. However, someone else says basically Loop Stricken says here:

I have been told that this was basically an entirely different film that had nothing to do with Cloverfield, made on a piddling budget (even less than the first film), but with a few re-shot scenes to Frankenstein it into a Cloverfield movie.

I hope that's misdirection, but it's what I heard.

So here's a topic for another thread (which maybe I'll start): "Is anyone getting tired of J.J. Abrams misdirection/mystery box shit?"

 

[Baresark]

Hmm, mystery box....

So, I think the entire movie is going to take place in that bunker. All of it. And we are only going to see the outside at the very end... which will probably make it one of the most disappointing sequels of all time.