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

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, 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, 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

RJ Dalton:
Wait a minute, wait a minute, woah, woah, woah . . .
Cloverfield had fans?

Absolutely. Like 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RJ Dalton:
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.

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:

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.

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?"

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.

SonOfVoorhees:
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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since the trailer shows her looking out the window, at least a third of the movie will take place outside the bunker. Revealing that Goodman is telling the truth in the trailer rather spoils Abram's mystery box unless it's actually not the story at all.

Further betting would be that it's either the aftermath of the Kaiju event and outside is full of rubble and fire or the attack's ongoing and there's those horrible parasites with the people exploding venom outside. They were really, really nasty.

Or the original creature's parents are laying waste to the whole Eastern Seaboard.

Zen Bard:

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?"

I know I am. From what I can tell, in my personal experience, it's almost always a massive disappointment. It's a shit concept that feels like it's trying to make up for the fact that trailers show every single thing in them these days. I actually think it has ruined more of his work than it has helped. I mean, it really just ruined Star Trek 2 in the worst way for me (and probably most Star Trek fans). Here is the thing: the concept is good but he will never make anything that matches the imagination of most people, at least me. Know they can do anything, what he does is always... unextraordinary in my opinion.

Zen Bard:

RJ Dalton:
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.

People seemed to hate it because it did things differently. I was working in a cinema when the original came out and the biggest complaint was that it wasn't a 'normal' monster film. The majority of cinema goers don't like new or different or having to think. They want all the questions answered, all the loose ends tied up and for it to be a happy ending.
I liked Cloverfield because it didn't do any of those things.

So we took the plot from James Marsters's episode of Heavy Metal and made a full length movie out of it with John Goodman, replacing nuclear war with poison gas. Gotcha.

Li Mu:

Zen Bard:

RJ Dalton:
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.

People seemed to hate it because it did things differently. I was working in a cinema when the original came out and the biggest complaint was that it wasn't a 'normal' monster film. The majority of cinema goers don't like new or different or having to think. They want all the questions answered, all the loose ends tied up and for it to be a happy ending.
I liked Cloverfield because it didn't do any of those things.

When we said we hated it because it wasn't a normal Monster film, it wasn't because we hated to think or hated new things, it was because shaky cam sucks.
When you go see a monster movie, you want to see the monster destroy stuff, that's the whole point and fun of it. But if the entire movie concerns itself with delivering the shakiest and most scrambled footage ever to the point that your eyes and head hurt, to then deliver a disappointing monster you never see properly, well then it kinda failed.
It's like going to see a baseball movie, just to have the movie be centered on two guys walking to the baseball stadium while tossing a football around and then ending with one of them getting hit in the head by a baseball.

the only redeeming thing about Cloverfield was the hype surrounding it, it was fun searching through all that stuff to find clues to what might be going on, just sadly the movie didn't deliver on anything.

Dead Metal:

When we said we hated it because it wasn't a normal Monster film, it wasn't because we hated to think or hated new things, it was because shaky cam sucks.
When you go see a monster movie, you want to see the monster destroy stuff, that's the whole point and fun of it. But if the entire movie concerns itself with delivering the shakiest and most scrambled footage ever to the point that your eyes and head hurt, to then deliver a disappointing monster you never see properly, well then it kinda failed.
It's like going to see a baseball movie, just to have the movie be centered on two guys walking to the baseball stadium while tossing a football around and then ending with one of them getting hit in the head by a baseball.

the only redeeming thing about Cloverfield was the hype surrounding it, it was fun searching through all that stuff to find clues to what might be going on, just sadly the movie didn't deliver on anything.

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Also, you say 'we'. I didn't know that you spoke for everyone.

In the first Hellraiser film you had to wait 90 minutes before you saw the cenobites. They were shown sparingly and were more impressive as a result. As the sequels came along you saw them more and more until they became the main characters and lost any ounce of scariness they once had.

The first Jaws film barely showed the shark at all. As the sequels came, again, we were shown more and more of the shark. It could be seen it was a giant rubber dildo and all pretence of fear was lost. Of course, it didn't help that those sequels were also badly directed.

I could go on and on with examples, but you get the idea. The more you see a monster or alien, the less scary it becomes. You could be shown the monster smashing things and you would have instant gratification without having to think about it. Or, you could use your imagination a little and have much more. What the hell were those little monsters that came with Cloverfield? What kind of venom did they have in them to make people explode? Where did it come from? These questions, for me, add to the excitement of the film.
But, for many people, they don't like this. They want a Morgan Freeman narration to explain everything to them and hold their hand.

Neither approach is wrong, but I prefer to not have everything spelled out to me as though I'm retarded.
The film tried to be different and it succeeded. But in its success, it clearly failed in the eyes of many people who wanted a standard Godzillaesque movie.
Personally, I congratulate it for trying to be different. We've seen a million Godzilla / King Kong movies already. Why add to the pile?

Li Mu:

Dead Metal:

When we said we hated it because it wasn't a normal Monster film, it wasn't because we hated to think or hated new things, it was because shaky cam sucks.
When you go see a monster movie, you want to see the monster destroy stuff, that's the whole point and fun of it. But if the entire movie concerns itself with delivering the shakiest and most scrambled footage ever to the point that your eyes and head hurt, to then deliver a disappointing monster you never see properly, well then it kinda failed.
It's like going to see a baseball movie, just to have the movie be centered on two guys walking to the baseball stadium while tossing a football around and then ending with one of them getting hit in the head by a baseball.

the only redeeming thing about Cloverfield was the hype surrounding it, it was fun searching through all that stuff to find clues to what might be going on, just sadly the movie didn't deliver on anything.

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. Also, you say 'we'. I didn't know that you spoke for everyone.

In the first Hellraiser film you had to wait 90 minutes before you saw the cenobites. They were shown sparingly and were more impressive as a result. As the sequels came along you saw them more and more until they became the main characters and lost any ounce of scariness they once had.

The first Jaws film barely showed the shark at all. As the sequels came, again, we were shown more and more of the shark. It could be seen it was a giant rubber dildo and all pretence of fear was lost. Of course, it didn't help that those sequels were also badly directed.

I could go on and on with examples, but you get the idea. The more you see a monster or alien, the less scary it becomes. You could be shown the monster smashing things and you would have instant gratification without having to think about it. Or, you could use your imagination a little and have much more. What the hell were those little monsters that came with Cloverfield? What kind of venom did they have in them to make people explode? Where did it come from? These questions, for me, add to the excitement of the film.
But, for many people, they don't like this. They want a Morgan Freeman narration to explain everything to them and hold their hand.

Neither approach is wrong, but I prefer to not have everything spelled out to me as though I'm retarded.
The film tried to be different and it succeeded. But in its success, it clearly failed in the eyes of many people who wanted a standard Godzillaesque movie.
Personally, I congratulate it for trying to be different. We've seen a million Godzilla / King Kong movies already. Why add to the pile?

Well, since you seemed to be able to judge everyone, I thought I may have the right to bring perspective and explain it.

Your examples may seemed like good ones, but they're not. Let me explain that to you.

Hellraiser, was not a monster film, it was a horror film and focused on the psychological and sexual aspect of fear and pain, the Cenobites were not the monsters in the film, nore were they the villains. If you want a monster in that film, then you have it in the form of Frank, who was shown in all his gory and creepy detail for a big chunk of the movie. The Cenobites are just a tool and an excuse to get the story going. That was done deliberately. The reason we saw more of the Cenobites in later films was because the public thought Pinhead was cool, so they retooled the first two sequels into slasher movies, and utter crap with the following ones.

Jaws, the only reason we don't see much of the shark was because the prop was awful and difficult to work with. It was supposed to be the center piece and main attraction of the movie. It was also not a monster movie, but a nature strikes back movie. The shark being scarier as a result was just a lucky accident.

The best examples you could have used was the original Alien and John Carpenter's the Thing, which spent their running time teasing the monster and showing glimpses (the Thing showing more but you get the picture). Those movies deliberately and skillfully built up tension. And in the case of Alien, did things no-one had done before.

The original Godzilla would also have been a better example than the ones you gave, since it's actually in the same genre as Cloverfield, and the movie that started the genre Cloverfield was supposed to homage.
The original Godzilla, from 1954 (not the US recut, but the original), spent the early run time focusing on the human characters and their social struggles (a young couple who love each other, but her very strict traditional father wants her to marry the man she was arranged with at birth), it teases the monster, shows us the fallout of its first two attacks, teases it some more until then finally revealing the monster completely, showing us firsthand what it does.

Cloverfield was sold to us as being an American Giant Monster movie in the vain of Godzilla (hilarious seeing how the original Godzilla was inspired by American movies like King Kong and the Beast from 20,000 fathoms), but from the people's perspective. It sounded great, but it wasn't.
The shaky cam ruined it completely. The full reveal the movie was banking on and building up to fell flat because the monster wasn't particulary scary or even cool looking, it seemed even more scared and confused than the original Godzilla did (which was supposed to be a wounded pain-filled and scared creature looking for a new place to hide), plus the shaky cam and distortion kinda ruined the moment too.
As for the "hat were those creatures that came with the monsters?", they were parasites, I knew they were parasites because as I said, I was deep in the hype and looked for all the clues, so I was around when the super limited (I think it was limited to 1000 pieces world wide?) collector's action figure leaked and it came with "parasites", plus the parasites thing was also something that was mentioned in the hype marketing.
So yes, I went into the movie already knowing what the monster looked like, I simply hoped that it would look better on screen, and that the movie would offer more than it did, but in the end all it was was unfulfilled promises. And the tie-in material and everything contradicts itself so there's nothing there.

Had it been a real movie, not a shaky cam mess, I would have at least gotten something visual out of it. Take for example the American Godzilla 2014 movie, it too concentrates mainly on the people and their theories of what is what, and like Cloverfield it offers us glimpses of the big guy himself and then ends with revealing him in full complete with a city wreaking scene.

As a side effect Godzilla and the other things come across as super gigantic, since again we mostly see everything at street level from the perspective of the humans, and the only time Godzilla or the other things are in full view of the camera, the camera is far away from them, evoking the feeling that they are just too large to really show in full on the screen. But it wasn't shaky cam with BS filters to make it "look like" camcorder footage and offered an actual story, while Cloverfield only had marketing and interviews.

Using your imagination isn't really a good defense for a movie, like say the Star Wars prequels aren't bad, if you use your imagination to fill out all the important plot points that just show up out of nowhere, like General Grivous. Or hey, Birdemic is a damn good film because it tries something new and if you use your imagination to come up with your own plot and explanations plus imagine realistic looking birds.

I liked the trailer.

It seems it will not have much in giant monster action but still looks interesting.

BTW I liked Cloverfield. It's not Godzilla but it's good.

Dead Metal:

*SNIP*

Hah, some good points. What you said about Godzilla makes sense. I concede to your well made points.

It looks like an interesting movie, although I suspect I'd be more interested if it wasn't a Cloverfield movie. I liked Cloverfield more for the monster stuff, not the human drama (same problem I've had with more modern scifi like walking dead and battlestar galactica). If I want to watch a relationship or emotional thriller, I will put that on. I'm tired of scifi being used as the backdrop for these low budget soap operas.

Also, I am really really really really really really really sick of the mystery box.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here