Claim: The two films have no tangible connection that a casual observer would make had their titles been obfuscated.
-
jaquesburton — 9 years ago(July 26, 2016 11:39 AM)
I don't have my nose up his arse, but you've clearly got your head up yours. Changing the claim midway through an argument doesn't make you right. You made a major modification to the OP's original statement in your defense of it. Imagine I say the corneto trilogy movies have nothing in common, someone else refutes that with several parallels, then you defend my original statement by pointing out the plots and characters are all different, and follow that up by demanding somebody disprove your new argument. That's stupid, because the original statement was a superlative, and your new argument is not. You do understand nada means nothing, and is an absolute?
That IS a tasty burger! -
ricemuscle — 9 years ago(August 26, 2016 02:20 AM)
The goal of Cloverfield wasn't to make a direct sequel. It's not the same story from a different perspective. It's a close relative to the original movie. They want Cloverfield to like American horror story, twilight zone, broken lizard. Different story, same genre type deal. However they do LOOSELY connect them with small Easter eggs, in the event that in the future they want to officially tie them together with a third movie.
-
couponingcolorado — 9 years ago(July 30, 2016 06:48 AM)
I would just like to point out that the original script the movie is based on had nothing to do with the original Cloverfield
Movie.
What I think happened here is the script was decent but not quite good enough to get picked up. But JJ liked the potential of the script and thought "How can I sell this to Hollywood?"
I was disappointed in the end because Cloverfeild is one of my all time favorites. I was expecting more in that relationship.
This movie on its own is quite good. I found it intense and exciting. I would honestly change the bed and leave out the whole alien nonsense if it were me. And I love alien movies.
If I look back on it and remind myself that it really does have nothing to do with Cloverfield, I feel much better about the movie and can enjoy it that way. I might even just give it my own new title so it doesn't piss me off. -
urenatu — 9 years ago(August 19, 2016 08:39 AM)
Ha! This mugojoe guy what a funny dude. He keeps asking "why are those films related?", but he cannot explain why they are not! Seriously.
What's so hard about it? Its an anthology. Same name, same producers, same theme. And the producers have already stated the filmes ARE related.
Come on, dude, just say: "the two movies are not related because i dont want them to be". -
usafa93 — 9 years ago(August 17, 2016 12:56 AM)
Someone needs a lesson on the definition of logic.
I'll try. Let's start with circular logic.
Is there there a link between the two because of the same proper noun in the title?
Yes, because they both have the same proper noun in the title.
Ha Ha! Love IMDB. -
Zalophus — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 01:44 AM)
3 pages of people arguing how these movies are "obviously" connected, but I don't see it. Cloverfield was a massive deep sea Godzilla like creature (or seemed like it) attacking Manhattan, while 10 Cloverfield Lane was a War of the Worlds style alien invasion. There was no mention of either event in either movie, the creatures were in no way related, etc. Other than the fact the creators said they were connected, there is not connection.
They were both good movies though. I agree most with the people saying they are using the "Cloverfield" title to connect these two movies and future movies for an anthology series. But otherwise no in-universe connectionyet. -
C-Younkin — 9 years ago(August 31, 2016 11:26 AM)
I figured it might have something to do with marketing, and the ending, but mostly for marketing. The ending actually just feels tacked on. I liked the stuff beforehand, especially because of the acting. I just think people wanted a monster movie but instead felt duped into an old-fashioned thriller.
Trying to create a funny, engaging YouTube channel. If you guys check it out, hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance.
Review of the film here- -
GETthePOWERback — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 09:09 AM)
Haha yah I remember seeing people on here saying "it's your fault for thinking this movie had the Cloverfield monster in it, the trailer made it obvious that it didn't" and I'm like no it didn't, it really didn't. The trailers seem like they purposely tried fooling you into thinking the original monster was the villain and not new aliens.
-
!!!deleted!!! (52800787) — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 07:05 PM)
I think it will be clear later, in the third, fourth films, that these aliens come from the same planet/solar system.
It's the beginning of an organized invasion.
The makers have said they are planning a Cloverfield universe.
So, the gigantic deep sea monster waking up and attacking Manhattan might be a precursor to other phases of the invasion. For all we know, maybe these gigantic deep see monsters are important parts of the alien ecosystem and were planted into the ocean(s) for future use. For all we know they might be the alien's milk cows.
If the aliens are planning to exterminate the humans and occupy Earth, they'll need parts of their own ecosystem, not to forget, the Cloverfield monster attacking Manhattan proves that it does have some military value as a weapon, similar to how the ancient Asians used elephants in attacks.
Also, maybe the very awakening of the Manhattan monster was triggered by the approach of the alien spaceships that carried on the chemical attack in Louisiana.
Think of it. The attack killed Earth's cows as well. Being the aliens carnivores, they might think "we'll kill too much of the Earth's ecosystem and our planet is too distant and bringing food is a logistic nightmare, so first we will populate the oceans with our large animals which we can use as food after we decimate Earths intelligent and non-intelligent animals" - humans, cows, pigs, and if the chemicals will run into the oceans maybe they'll poison fish and whales; maybe their own deep sea monsters are immune to the poison.
I mean, this is just a guess by me regarding how future movies can tie-up the Cloverfield universe. There are of course infinite other possibilities and I don't know which one the filmmakers will pick.
But what is a FACT is that these movies ARE connected since they talk about alien creatures coming to Earth in the same overall time period, and as pointed out by others here, there are hints and clues already pointing to connections, plus there is THE FREAKING STATEMENT BY THE FILMMAKERS THAT THE MOVIES ARE CONNECTED AND THEY ARE PLANNING AN ANTHOLOGY OF CLOVERFIELD-UNIVERSE MOVIES.
This arrogant user's argument that the aliens are very different in the two movies is BS. Just think of how different we are from a whale or a firefly. Think of Spaceship Troopers where there were aliens of all sizes and shapes, some smaller, some gigantic.
The two satellites being knocked out in both movies aliens are coming. They come in different sizes and shapes. They are invading the Earth and trying to exterminate humans, in the same time period of the 21st century.
Interstellar distances being huge and the universe vast, it would have to be a statistically prohibitive coincidence if suddenly aliens showed up in Manhattan and Louisiana at the same time, and they were NOT coming from the same planet and the same invasion force, regardless of their size and appearance. -
Gojira1963 — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 04:10 PM)
Both are movies shrouded in mystery. In Cloverfield we didn't know where the monster was from and what was going on. In 10 Cloverfield Lane we don't know if John Goodman is honest or not, it is all shrouded in mystery.
-
edfor — 9 years ago(September 07, 2016 11:34 AM)
The trailer couldn't have been clearer.
I watched this BECAUSE I knew it wouldn't be like the first Cloverfield movie, which wasn't my cup of tea based on the premise and the shaky camera thing.
However, when I saw this trailer, I immediately understood the plot and took it to be a subversion of "The Room" (another great movie) where you simply expect that this sick guy has kidnapped this girl for the kicks, when in reality it's both. He ~is a sick freak, but there actually is an alien invasion outside.
I thought it was a clever spin.
I 100% didn't expect to see "aliens everywhere". It was obvious from the trailer what kind of a movie this was, which is why I tend to avoid trailers in general because 9/10 times they tell you EXACTLY what you're getting.
If you were a fan of the original movie, and expected it to be the same, even AFTER you watched the trailer, then it was wishful thinking on your part and NOT false marketing.
And now whining like children because, "Why isn't this movie an exact follow-up to the first? Whaaa! Whaa!" lol
I do applaud this thread for catching the world's most annoying troll. MarwoodWalks, you do wonders with "stupid". Congrats.
mugojoe, face it, MarwoodWalks tripped you up and then pushed over a barrel of acid as you fell. There's no cure for the third degree burns she gave you as you danced around this thread thinking you were the smartest person here.
I mean, OUCH. -
— 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 04:44 PM)I watched this BECAUSE I knew it wouldn't be like the first Cloverfield movie, which wasn't my cup of tea based on the premise and the shaky camera thing.
Same.Loved the ideas within Cloverfield but I hate any found footage stuff mostly because I get motion sickness but also dislike the genre.
However, when I saw this trailer, I immediately understood the plot and took it to be a subversion of "The Room" (another great movie) where you simply expect that this sick guy has kidnapped this girl for the kicks, when in reality it's both. He ~is a sick freak, but there actually is an alien invasion outside.
Again I felt the same and I was intrigued as to how and if there was a link to Cloverfield.I saw the trailer but apart from that I read and saw nothing else about the film.
I loved the ending because,as you say,you realise Howard was right,he wasn't lying.He was trying to keep them safe but for whatever reason he was quite insane!
.I thought it was a clever spin.
Me too.
.If you were a fan of the original movie, and expected it to be the same, even AFTER you watched the trailer, then it was wishful thinking on your part and NOT false marketing.
Very clever marketing too.It didn't give too much away but also showed it was a very different film.I didn't know what to expect and that was a constant throughout the film.
.I do applaud this thread for catching the world's most annoying troll.
I think when people dismiss the intentions of the film makers because it doesn't fit their agenda they've lost.
Mostly,I think,it's just a bizarre thing to obsess about! The films are linked and its cool that this one goes in a very different direction to the first one.
What's the problem!
Although there's been rain and it's coming again
Change has to be here obviously -
activista — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 06:43 AM)
To the OP:
There was absolutely nothing boring about this film-obviously you expected another full-on monsterfest like the originalno spoilers, but I will say it's more like a mystery than anything else, and yeah, the acting and suspense was top notch. I did like the unique approach of this from said original (which I saw years ago) even though it sort of reminded me of other films similar to it. That didn't take away from my enjoyment of the film,though. It's more dramatic at first, but it starts kicking some real a** towards the end,though. I do wonder why the hell it took so long to come out,thoughit's been 8 years since the original. I kind of recall folks speculating about a sequel, but nothing more. Liked Mary Elizabeth Winstead here doing most of the action (also like a recent show she starred in called BRAINDEAD, which also had a more comedic take on aliens of a different form in it) and John Goodman is usually worth watching in nearly everything he's inhis presence alone sometimes can guarantee that a film he's in is going to be good. The other actor was creepy as hell in a good indie horror film called HUSH, in which he played the villain.