# 10 Cloverfield Lane (March 11th, 2016)



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 15, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]yQy-ANhnUpE[/YOUTUBE]





> *‘10 Cloverfield Lane’ Is the Title of J.J. Abrams’ Secret Bad Robot Movie*
> 
> In 2014, news broke that filmmaker Dan Trachtenberg—who helmed the short film Portal: No Escape—would be directing a post-apocalyptic thriller called Valencia (also referred to as The Cellar) for Bad Robot and Paramount Insurge, produced by J.J. Abrams. While it’s true that the film is a post-apocalyptic thriller and was produced by Abrams, it appears that the Star Wars: The Force Awakens director has pulled another fast one on us—the movie’s actual title is 10 Cloverfield Lane.
> 
> ...




What a neat surprise.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 15, 2016)

Does J.J. Abrams ever rest?   His projects are always back-to-back.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 15, 2016)

Probably not that tiring to crank out an endless stream of mostly mediocre and occasionally terrible films.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 15, 2016)

Which films from JJ Abrams have been mediocre?


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 15, 2016)

cloverfield 1 was compelte turd, why does he get to make a new one is beyond me.

My cousints mocked my cousint that took us to see it. That movie's camerawork was like someone jerking off.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 15, 2016)

Every movie that involves space


----------



## Atlas (Jan 15, 2016)

I thought the first one was shit?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 15, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 










> *About Director Dan Trachtenberg*
> 
> Trachtenberg has long been a friend here at /Film as I’ve frequented competed with him in the Totally Rad Show/Slashfilm Summer Box Office Wager and he has had many appearances on the /Filmcast.  In May 2011, he released a horror short film “More Than You Can Chew” for Black Box TV which got him noticed around Hollywood. In August 2011, Trachtenberg released a spec short film called Portal: No Escape, based in the world of the video game Portal. It’s since generated almost 17 million views on YouTube and got him big Hollywood meetings.
> 
> ...


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jan 15, 2016)

i like bottle fliks like this with 1-3 characters in it...lends itself to moments that aren't normally touched upon in bigger movies.


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jan 15, 2016)

90% of the movie is probably going to be in the bunker.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jan 15, 2016)

I liked Cloverfield and am moderately interested in this.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 15, 2016)

FUUUCK you beat me to it bro.
Just saw this and was on my way to create a thread about it.

Best monster franchise makes a return. Teaser looks fucking awesome.

Probably takes place after the first film, as those people seem to be living inside a bunker. Probably the monster fucked the world up and some people survived underground. They are either John Goodman's kids or some random kids he took hin when they were too young to remember. 

I am expecting a twist similar to the village.


----------



## BlazingInferno (Jan 15, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> FUUUCK you beat me to it bro.
> Just saw this and was on my way to create a thread about it.
> 
> Best monster franchise makes a return. Teaser looks fucking awesome.
> ...



Yeah, he has a tendency to do that. (Inb4 he makes one of his silly turnarounds).

Apparently the girl was in a coma and John Goodman's character was taking care of her before the Cloverfield catastrophe. As I said earlier, it looks as though most of the movie is probably going to be in the bunker, which I hope not.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jan 15, 2016)

i bet he's a survivalist nut who saw the news and decided "this is the end" and locked himself away.

the twist is that the world didn't _actually_ end.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 15, 2016)

Mider T said:


> Which films from JJ Abrams have been mediocre?



All of them.

Anywho,

people might want to scale back their expectations on this. 

The test screenings originally had this film titled as 'Valencia', and the vague descriptions of those screenings really seem to indicate that this film has virtually no continuation from the original film. There might be easter eggs and whatnot, but still, I'd manage my expectations for those expecting to see a giant monster demolishing a huge city. 

I have a feeling that this film just wasn't landing with audience members during the test screenings, and the studios probably had  enough time to rework certain scenes and plot points to perhaps connect this film to Cloverfield. 

And if that is the case, then the fact that it connects to Cloverfield at all becomes my least concern. Instead, I begin to wonder if this film is any good at all to begin with.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 15, 2016)

So nothing to do with the first movie and just slapping the label onto a wholly different film with different concept, characters and verse?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 15, 2016)

I think it could be a spin-off since they are calling it a "blood relative".


----------



## Stunna (Jan 15, 2016)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Best monster franchise makes a return.


**


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 15, 2016)

I think it's cool how they completely kept this a secret. With Cloverfield (1), they actually had released the infamous teaser during pre-production, whereas this was apparently filmed in 2014.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 15, 2016)

I will admit though that I am going to watch this.  Some of you may not know this.  But a lot of regs in this section have been passionately supporting Mary Elizabeth Winstead for almost a decade.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 15, 2016)

How did John Goodman not have a heart attack filming these scenes?



TetraVaal said:


> All of them.



Nobody was asking, nor has anyone ever asked,  for your movie opinion.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 16, 2016)

And yet I still answered.

You basic ass friend.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jan 16, 2016)

Not interested, not because it does relate to cloverfield but I get panic room vibes from this.



Rukia said:


> I will admit though that I am going Like
> watch this.  Some of you may not know this.  But a lot of regs in this section have been passionately supporting Mary Elizabeth Winstead for almost a decade.



Not after the fappening with that flat ass


----------



## ATastyMuffin (Jan 16, 2016)

I feel like the Cloverfield title is a red herring; that it's not about giant monsters at all.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 16, 2016)

Did we see Lizzie Caplan's titties in Cloverfield?  Or am I mis-remembering?


----------



## The World (Jan 17, 2016)

Tranquil Fury said:


> So nothing to do with the first movie and just slapping the label onto a wholly different film with different concept, characters and verse?



the concept of the first movie would be played out

they trying to do something different 

relax


----------



## Shark Skin (Jan 17, 2016)

Mildly intrigued by this even though I wasn't a big fan of the first. Guess if I go see it with not expectations at all I won't be disappointed


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 17, 2016)

Wasn't the premise surrounding "Valencia" or whatever the fake title was about a giant monster? But you could be right about it being a red herring...seems like that would be pissing a lot of people off, but maybe...It can be presumed it takes place in the Cloverfield Universe. For all we know though, it's just about her trying to get away from a psychopath in a bunker while the events of the first movie take place above.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 17, 2016)

The one thing that's throwing me off is the early and prominent promotion of seeing this in IMAX.

Why on earth would you try and court people into seeing this in IMAX format if all you're going to do is have people fighting each other in a bunker?

I wouldn't put it pass JJ Abrams to troll people in that manner though.

He did, after all, troll people into thinking The Force Awakens was a good movie.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> He did, after all, troll people into thinking The Force Awakens was a good movie.


Really?  I am of the opinion that the Force Awakens is not that bad.  But I thought almost everyone agreed that Abrams basically just stole successful elements from the original trilogy and planted them in his film.


----------



## Raiden (Jan 17, 2016)

I honestly think it's a movie that takes place in the new "cloverfield" world. And like all times in crisis, you have people who are absolutely crazy, like the guy that owns the bunker. We'll probably briefly see new realities of the CLoverfield world when they finally get out. I remember that random giant spiders were in the first film.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 17, 2016)

Just read the original spec for this film. 

Click the spoiler tag if you really *want the film spoiled for you*--or the original screenplay at least:


*Spoiler*: __ 



The film takes almost entirely in the bunker. MEW's character eventually escapes in the last act of the film, drives over a hill and sees the Chicago skyline has been completely destroyed. Now, there's no mention or even an allusion to a monster--but if they reworked the screenplay, they could easily add the Cloverfield monster to this sequence and make it a worthwhile set piece. 

-John Goodman's character had a daughter whose name was Lily, whom he hasn't seen in years. That could be end up being a Cloverfield easter egg that I mentioned previously in the thread. Maybe she ended up in the NYC attack? They could easily work that into a screenplay.

-John Goodman's character built the bunker after the events of 9/11. Kind of a cliche in terms of writing but whatever.

-Overall, the screenplay seems to depict a esoteric, hopefully decent thriller. It's a pretty interesting spec.

-The film was at one point also referred to as The Cellar, then it became Valencia.

So unless they did some significant connective tissue surgery to the screenplay, you all better manage your expectations, because this film, just by reading the original script, seems to have more in common with say, Super 8, than it did with Cloverfield.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 17, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> Just read the original spec for this film.
> 
> Click the spoiler tag if you really *want the film spoiled for you*--or the original screenplay at least:
> 
> ...



FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--

I'll still piratewatch it tho.


----------



## Shiba D. Inu (Jan 17, 2016)

Im sure this has nothing to do with Cloverfield


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Jan 17, 2016)

Teaser for this looks kinda interesting, I guess. I really liked Super 8(against my expectations), but I loathed Cloverfield.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 18, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> Just read the original spec for this film.
> 
> Click the spoiler tag if you really *want the film spoiled for you*--or the original screenplay at least:
> 
> ...



Presuming that Tetra did read the actual original script, 
*Spoiler*: __ 



If the Cloverfield monster only appears in the ending, wouldn't it be cooler if they kept the connection between the two movies a secret. With the name Cloverfield in the Title, people are expecting a Cloverfield 2. Even if the movie ends up being good and the monster doesn't appear until the last act, viewers will be pissed. Now if they weren't expecting a Cloverfield sequel and just thought they were getting into some sort of post apocalyptic, psychological thriller, only for the Cloverfield monster to show up in a twist finale...that would actually be pretty cool.


----------



## Shark Skin (Jan 18, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> Presuming that Tetra did read the actual original script,
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



I honestly wouldn't mind if the monster doesn't appear until the end if its a good movie. With the original I just never really felt any reason to want to watch the drama of the human characters unfold. They were all just meh.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 24, 2016)

Roseanne Barr is the monster.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 24, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> I wouldn't put it pass JJ Abrams to troll people in that manner though.
> 
> He did, after all, troll people into thinking The Force Awakens was a good movie.



Its jay jay hackams the most pretentious wannabe spielberg ever, what did you expect?
He is all hype and zero substance, a perfect studio yes man.


----------



## tari101190 (Jan 24, 2016)

I hope it's not a sequel, just an anthology series using the cloverfield name.


----------



## fyhb (Jan 25, 2016)

Rukia said:


> I will admit though that I am going to watch this.



I am going to watch this movie too. Me and my friends are very excited for this movie.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 31, 2016)

Just like, one month and a half away.



> *10 Cloverfield Lane: Actor Talks Project Secrecy, Viral Marketing Begins*
> 
> The original Cloverfield (2008) used found footage and a limited cast to create a compelling small film inside a larger world under attack by mysterious monsters. Almost more significant than the film itself (which used a technique popularized by The Blair Witch Project in 1999), was the marketers use of an Alternate or Augmented Reality Game (ARG) to create effective marketing campaign. After a teaser featuring nothing but a release date-based website (1-18-08.com), the viral marketing campaign caught fire.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Feb 8, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]-giOU45G-20[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Rukia (Feb 8, 2016)

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is killing it with this role!


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Feb 15, 2016)

[YOUTUBE]PoUfNATA7R8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## RAGING BONER (Feb 15, 2016)

this movie is being made to raise funds for the actual Cloverfield sequel

i bet you anything the monster appears in the last scene of this film.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Feb 15, 2016)

This is Goodman roles now either a mob boss or some psycho pervert, you come a long way from Roxanne


----------



## RAGING BONER (Feb 15, 2016)

^ i always liked that fat fuck; recently saw Lebowski again after many years...he does a good cray


----------



## Jake CENA (Feb 15, 2016)

Mary's tits or gtfo


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Feb 15, 2016)

I just..dont find anything interesting about this going by the trailers alone. Everything seems too typical. I may skip seeing this in theaters.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 15, 2016)

This looks fun.


----------



## Mikaveli (Feb 23, 2016)

Loved Cloverfield, hope this lives up


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 24, 2016)

~Gesy~ said:


> I just..dont find anything interesting about this going by the trailers alone. Everything seems too typical. I may skip seeing this in theaters.



Everything except John Fucking Goodman.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 24, 2016)

Still don't understand how he ran up those stairs without having a stroke.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Mar 11, 2016)

Looks like the movie has been well recieved so far.


----------



## Shark Skin (Mar 11, 2016)

So I saw it. Thought it was good. Really didn't go in with any sort of expectations, so take that for what you will.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 11, 2016)

The Mad King said:


> This is Goodman roles now either a mob boss or some psycho pervert, you come a long way from Roxanne



You mean Rosanne?


----------



## dream (Mar 11, 2016)

Loved the movie except for the end.  It wasn't exactly bad but I felt that it was too much of a departure from the rest of the movie.


----------



## Shark Skin (Mar 11, 2016)

perpetual fail said:


> Loved the movie except for the end.  It wasn't exactly bad but I felt that it was too much of a departure from the rest of the movie.



IDK. I mean I guess you could say that in a way.


*Spoiler*: __ 



But, I also think it was funny how Howard had pretty much been right about everything in the end.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 12, 2016)

Copied from the ratings page-

10 Cloverfield Lane: B

For those expecting any sort of connection to "Cloverfield", expect to be pissed. I don't even see how this could take place in the same universe. At best, the Cloverfield umbrella is intended to be for a franchise that deals with apocalyptic themes, sort of like what "Halloween" was supposed to become...until fans rejected that concept...

On its own, I thought it was good. Good characters, performances and lots of intense scenarios. Some good twists too, although I imagine that the ending will divide everyone. Hokey or brilliant? I like the idea behind the ending more than the execution. But my biggest problem is that for a film with three strangers stuck in a confined, underground location, I never felt very claustrophobic...and I easily get claustrophobic. It seemed like that would've been a better way to build tension. Solid movie though, as long as you aren't expecting the Cloverfield monster to pop up. That was a very cheap marketing ploy. 

As for the ending 
*Spoiler*: __ 



I like the idea of aliens, but think it was a mistake to end with an action scene. It wasn't badly executed, the alien designs were cool and the CGI was shockingly good for the budget. But it felt out-of-place and a little hokey. I would've preferred it if she exited the bunker only to see spaceships hovering everywhere.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 12, 2016)

Everything about this was great. Making the movie in stealth mode was great. Releasing the trailer with, what, a month before premiering was great. Keeping the production under wraps was great. The performances were great.

I thought the first two thirds of the movie were so good and so arresting that the ending disappointed me a little bit, just because the genre turn wasn't quite as sophisticated as what went before it. Not that the movie suddenly became a zany cheeseballer. It's well done through and through, but what came before was so good that the whole point of the film, being a spinoff of the Cloverfield original, ended up becoming less engaging than the lead up, and when eventually we went there, I wasn't looking forward to it as much anymore.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Mainly because I'm not a big spaceship guy. I would have preferred there being just alien Cloverfield-esque monsters instead. But that's personal preference.




Those performances were really something. It's one of those movies where you can go in knowing the film wants to keep you guessing, but even knowing that, you keep on guessing. Sometimes just knowing a movie pivots and reframes itself spoils things. Not with this one. Go in suspecting whatever you care to. It's still engaging and surprising.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 12, 2016)

I have a ton of respect for the Emmett character.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Ultimately, it didn't work out for him.  He's dead.  He died trying to protect Michelle.  But pretend for a moment that he wasn't dead.  Michelle would have been grateful.  And she would have wanted to stay in touch.  Maybe Emmett would have even had a shot at romance someday?  He took a calculated risk and failed.  But he was playing the long game.  All I can do is tip my cap to him.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 12, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 



I'm pretty sure we would all get shot in the head to impress mary elizabeth winstead. I know that doesn't make a lot of sense, because we'd be too dead to enjoy the fruits of our labors, but our penises wouldn't care what happens to our brains. We'd get shot in the head, not the crotch. Think about it. But not with your brain.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 12, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> Everything about this was great. Making the movie in stealth mode was great. Releasing the trailer with, what, a month before premiering was great. Keeping the production under wraps was great. The performances were great.
> 
> I thought the first two thirds of the movie were so good and so arresting that the ending disappointed me a little bit, just because the genre turn wasn't quite as sophisticated as what went before it. Not that the movie suddenly became a zany cheeseballer. It's well done through and through, but what came before was so good that the whole point of the film, being a spinoff of the Cloverfield original, ended up becoming less engaging than the lead up, and when eventually we went there, I wasn't looking forward to it as much anymore.
> 
> ...


Great post reiatsuflow.

I basically agree with all of your points.

The movie only really had 3 performances.  (I don't consider the woman screaming outside the shelter to be a legitimate performance.)  But the 3 performances we got were fantastic.

The movie was really well directed and acted.

And I'm with you.  A movie I didn't even know was coming out is my favorite movie of the first quarter 2016.  I love that this movie snuck up on us.  I want more of this from the studios.  We don't need every detail of every production in advance!


----------



## Rukia (Mar 12, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 



So I thought it was odd initially when John Goodman freaked out after Michelle sort of flirted with Emmett at dinner.

But putting all of these pieces together.  This is what I have come up with.

Goodman didn't build his shelter to stay safe or to protect people.  He built it to house his captives.  He was abducting women.  Maybe he even started with his own daughter?  Obviously the shelter came in handy when the aliens started to invade.  But he didn't turn over a new leaf.  Once again he kidnapped another woman.  And he resented Emmett for being there the entire movie.  The last thing he was willing to tolerate would have been to watch his chosen girl share her affections with another man.

That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 12, 2016)

It was dope


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 12, 2016)

Rukia said:


> I have a ton of respect for the Emmett character.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



what the fuck Rukia


----------



## Rukia (Mar 12, 2016)

Thanks man.  I know that was a brilliant post.


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 12, 2016)

I'm taking notes


----------



## Shark Skin (Mar 13, 2016)

Rukia said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



Honestly I thought just about the same thing. Well not that he might have actually tried that with his daughter (if he ever really had one). But that shit was creepy either way.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 13, 2016)

I thought Emmett was an idiot. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



That was the worst possible thing he could have said, unless his plan was to take a bullet. The "I want her to look at me like she looks at you" line can be interpreted in a very bad way and also implies that he's going to kill Howard. It seemed like a better thing to say was... "You scare me. You've lost your temper too much and you clearly don't want me to be here. I was afraid for my life and wanted some sort of defense." because that would've been more disarming and even if Howard wanted to kill him, he might be reluctant to do so in front of her because he's not making any implied threats. 

Granted, Howard was crazy and might've just been looking for an excuse to take him out (notice the ear plugs?; although this has an alternate interpretation too.), but that doesn't mean you should set yourself up as a traitor.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 13, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 



It was a lose-lose situation. I didn't know where that confrontation was going until Goodman threatened to put one of them in the container, because I wasn't sure how dangerous his character was yet. But it was lose-lose. Emmett tried to flatter him. I thought it was smart enough, as far as instant decisions go in that kind of standoff.

I wasn't sure about Goodman either up to that point. I thought some of his earlier outbursts and tensions might be explained away by something smaller, like him being claustrophobic. That's what I actually thought they were leading up to when Winstead noticed his hands shaking before his meal time outburst. I thought they woulld just reveal him to be claustrophobic, which almost (but not quite) explained some of his more alarming behavior. I was more suspicious of Emmett than Goodman for a little while. Just because Emmett insisted the picture wasn't Goodman's daughter, but a school mate, didn't mean he was right. I actually wondered if Emmett might not be the real danger, since he knew about the hideaway and could have been responsible for hurting or capturing whoever scrawled the help sign. He seemed a little bit too nice, and it was just his word against Goodman's. He could have been misleading Winstead by making her suspicious of Goodman, and maybe help him turn the tables against Goodman.

They did a good job with the physical size of the casting too. Goodman might not be in shape, but he is enormous next to Winstead and the other guy. Every now and then you wonder why characters don't just try to overpower someone, but they could have both easily been beaten down if they tried. He probably outweighed the both of them. The guy was downright imposing in such a small space, where you can't just outrun him.


----------



## Rukia (Mar 13, 2016)

Good point.  It was an instant decision.  Hard to come up with some terrific lie in those circumstances.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 13, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 



There is a theory that Emmett killed the real daughter and lied, since it does seem odd that Howard wouldnt have pictures of his real daughter. Plus, it might be her body that was blocking the hatch, requiring the lead to crawl through those vents (although you'd think she'd notice that, but maybe that hatch wasn't directly connected to the room she had to get to, as apparently the hatch wasn't fixed at that time


----------



## Rukia (Mar 13, 2016)

Interesting theory.  I might need to watch the film again.  I did find Emmett's Louisiana Tech story to be pretty suspicious if I am being honest.   And Emmett helping build the shelter makes it seem like he could have been an accomplice.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Mar 13, 2016)

Definitely gonna watch it this week, even if there is no Winstead nudity.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 13, 2016)

MartialHorror said:


> I like the idea behind the ending more than the execution. But my biggest problem is that for a film with three strangers stuck in a confined, underground location, I never felt very claustrophobic...and I easily get claustrophobic.


Funny, it's the opposite for me: I had mixed feelings about the idea behind the ending, while the execution was intense enough that I enjoyed it in spite of my disappoint.

Also, the film not making use of claustrophobia would have bothered me if tension wasn't created so well in other ways. That being said, the vent scene filled that quota for me anyway.

I also had mixed feelings about Emmett. I mean, I liked the character, but in retrospect, I just don't understand why Howard would have allowed him to stay in the bunker. Emmett said he fought his way in, but what was stopping Howard from shooting him? Howard was very selective about his generosity; didn't seem like Emmett was the type who would receive it if it wasn't plot necessitated.

Anywho, I really, really enjoyed this movie. Gripping through and through, and the performances were great.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 13, 2016)

My guess as to why Howard let Emmett in is 
*Spoiler*: __ 



He's unstable, but not necessarily evil...at least not in the conventional way. Even though he's clearly annoyed by Emmett's presence, he does at least try to tolerate him for the most part. This is kind of why I believe his story about accidentally running her off the road. If he abducted her, he'd probably have no problem with killing him. 

It is possible that they were also friends on some level before this, as Emmett didn't seem to have any hard feelings even though Howard was so aggressive, but this would've deteriorated with Howards' mental instability. Of course, Howard had apparently killed before, but you don't really know the circumstances surrounding that. As he seems to have confused his previous victim with his real daughter, he might simply be insane and doesn't quite remember her 'murder', therefore doesn't see the need to comprise his morals. 

That's why Emmett's death seemed so stupid for me, as he's pretty much begging Howard to shoot him in the head. I know you guys are saying it was quick thinking, but it would've been better to just play innocent than to imply he was going to overthrow you. Seriously, there would be no way that Howard could've killed them with the acid like he was threatening, as that shit would splash around during a struggle. Although Howard did have ear plugs in apparently, so probably had planned on shooting them if need be instead.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 13, 2016)

Remember that Emmett might have been sort of a simpleton. He got accepted to college on a track scholarship, but he was worried other kids might be smarter than him, and there's enough there. He might not be that bright.



*Spoiler*: __ 



As far as Goodman letting Emmett stay, remember that the movie started only a few days after the invasion happened. It was a new living situation. Goodman could have been planning to kill Emmett.

Chronologically, it's also important to remember that Goodman kidnapped Winstead and took her into his bunker 'before' the invasion happened. It was an abduction that just so happened to coincide with cloverfield. Goodman's truck idles at the gas station when Winstead is getting gas, and this is before any kind of weird stuff happens. That's not a coincidence. He then drives off, to later ram her off the road. He had already picked her as a victim. He had already likely brought her into his bunker when the invasion began. Emmett didn't get there first. Winstead was just passed out for the initial few days. 

So in all likelihood he didn't want Emmett there, but Emmett did fight his way in, and then he just had to sort of make up this explanation for Winstead, and then Winstead woke up, and so many things were happening so quickly that Goodman didn't really have a chance to ice anybody in private. There was tension with Emmett being there, like when Goodman got angry during the meal because Winstead flirted with Emmett, and Goodman is definitely a dangerous man, but I honestly don't think he even knew what he was going to do after the invasion scare happened. He was sort of treading water as far as his sanity was concerned. Playing dad.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 13, 2016)

Emmett was presented as kind of a simpleton. He never seemed to be able to read the mood, even though Howards' anger was obvious (even when trying to contain it). He also didn't remember that flattery didn't work on Howard (who thought he was making fun of him when praising the sauce). 


*Spoiler*: __ 



How do you know she was abducted before then? If he had just kidnapped a girl, he's already committed a crime and would likely just shoot Emmett if he tried to fight his way in. Emmett was already in the bunker for a few days before she even woke up, so someone unstable like thsat could probably kill him and dissolve him before she even realized he was there




On another note, was this a continuity error? 
*Spoiler*: __ 



Howard kills Emmett, apparently has time to put him in the acid (possibly after dismembering him), makes dinner, shaves and Michelle has time to finish her suit. Yet when she starts her escape, his remains can be seen in the barrel of acid. You can still see flesh and clothing, but presumably the acid just doesn't work that quickly. Yet when she knocks it over onto Howard, you don't see any remains. If his clothing hadn't dissolved during that time period, it wouldn't during the few seconds which occur between her noticing them and her pushing the barrel. 

Yet this really isn't a complaint, as the film is PG-13 and maybe seeing remains spill onto Howard would've been a major distraction.


----------



## Shark Skin (Mar 13, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> It was a lose-lose situation. I didn't know where that confrontation was going until Goodman threatened to put one of them in the container, because I wasn't sure how dangerous his character was yet. But it was lose-lose. Emmett tried to flatter him. I thought it was smart enough, as far as instant decisions go in that kind of standoff.



*Spoiler*: __ 



I got that impression as well. I think Emmett attempted to play the "respect card" in a way to demonstrate to Howard that he may have looked up to him in a way. Of course it could have been read as a power grab too, so obviously that was the biggest mistake Emmett made.





reiatsuflow said:


> Remember that Emmett might have been sort of a simpleton. He got accepted to college on a track scholarship, but he was worried other kids might be smarter than him, and there's enough there. He might not be that bright.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 



I figured he may have let Emmett stay because he may have seen him as something as a friend. Or at least someone he could have there to listen to what he had to say, since Emmett seemed to know a lot about what Howard had been talking about it. And maybe even believed him for a while.





MartialHorror said:


> Emmett was presented as kind of a simpleton. He never seemed to be able to read the mood, even though Howards' anger was obvious (even when trying to contain it). He also didn't remember that flattery didn't work on Howard (who thought he was making fun of him when praising the sauce).
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 



So that seems a bit tough. On the one hand I think you could see Emmett as not being able to read moods, as you said. On the other I felt like Emmett had some doubt creeping in when Michelle tells him that the outside was fine. The way I saw it was that he was testing Howard's patience to see how far he could be pushed. Then again he didn't seem to be able to read him when they were playing that word guessing game, so I suppose the latter is correct.

The second part is interesting though. Assuming that Emmett had been in the bunker two days before Michelle, did he even realize that Howard had left the bunker? Or am I getting the timeline mixed up?






MartialHorror said:


> On another note, was this a continuity error?
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 



I thought he may have put Emmets remains in a smaller container seperate from the barrel. When they panned over to the remains it seemed like the camera's angle also lowered a bit or at the very least it seemed to be closer to the floor. Anyway I figured he may have done something like that in order to save some more incase he needed it again. I guess lol.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 13, 2016)

> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> The second part is interesting though. Assuming that Emmett had been in the bunker two days before Michelle, did he even realize that Howard had left the bunker? Or am I getting the timeline mixed up?




*Spoiler*: __ 



 So-

The opening scene took place before cloverfield, or before anything 'visible' was happening in the area, even if it was already going down elsewhere. When michelle wakes up, cloverfield's underway in the area. Emmett has only been in the bunker for a few days, and came as soon as the cloverfield event began. Emmett ran to the bunker the day it happened and fought his way in.

Goodman never left the bunker after the event happened. His paranoia is real. He didn't drive anywhere. Emmet would have known he left, obviously. The bunker is very small.

Sometime during the first day of the incident, goodman locked himself up. 

So if goodman never left the bunker after the event happened, that means michelle was in the bunker before emmett, because emmett came shortly after the event started. 

That means michelle was in the bunker before the event started.

Goodman's story about racing home after seeing those doomsday lights and hitting michelle was a lie. His truck is idling at the gas station in the opening scenes. He was marking her, just like any other scary guy abduction storyline. Then he hit her, which he did deliberately, coming out of nowhere. He took her back to his bunker, where she was unconscious for several days. Sometime during, the event happened and emmett arrived. 

Goodman must have told emmett some kind of story about why michelle was down there, probably similar to the story he told michelle. But that was why she was in the only scary ass room in the bunker, with her leg _chained up_, and emmett was just hanging out in the open, with no room for himself and no restraints.

The whole thing was a scary abduction movie that happened to coincide with cloverfield going down. I'm almost positive he took michelle before the event happened, or before the event reached that area.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 13, 2016)

Shark Skin said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



No, my presumption is that Howard got Michelle and Emmett happened upon them as Howard was loading her into the bunker. That actually might be why Emmett wasn't shot, as Howard would've been too busy carrying her. Then again, when Emmett is describing what happened

-He was apparently going to the city from the bunker, saw flashes and turned around. When he got there, Howard was apparently not inside the bunker yet and he had to fight him to get in. He doesn't describe her being there, so it's also possible she was already there and Howard was closing up the bunker when he arrived. 

That still doesn't explain anything though, as it could support the idea that Howard had abducted her days before. It could also mean he had literally just placed her in her room. 

As for Emmett testing him, I actually saw it as Michelle testing him, as Emmett spent the first half of the conversation trying to ease the tension (which backfired), shut up and it was her who pushed the conversation. As another testament to Emmett not being the brightest bulb, didn't he break something during his off-screen introduction scene? 






*Spoiler*: __ 



Maybe. It is strange that he would even have that. Unless he's actually a serial killer and Brittany (?) wasn't his only victim. I do like how the film gives alternate interpretations of these characters.


----------



## Darc (Mar 14, 2016)

Great movie, little over the top ending considering the rest of the film. Also, is this confirmed an actual sequel?


----------



## Raiden (Mar 14, 2016)

*Spoiler*: __ 



One hell of a movie. It was pretty good up until the end. I think they should have cut out the scene where the ship gets destroyed, and probably revisit the concept. I liked that they included the ship though. It just was too much to squeeze in at the finish


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 14, 2016)

This movie really fucking sucked.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 15, 2016)

Oh Tetra, you're always such a bright ray of Sunshine. I just pinch your cheeks...
*Spoiler*: __ 



but not the face kind...


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 15, 2016)

No, seriously, fuck this movie.

The problem is, you can tell that when this film was doing its test screenings, the film likely wasn't landing with any demographics, so the studios didn't know how to market it. 

And JJ Abrams, being a better marketer than he is a filmmaker, knew he couldn't let his generic, paint by numbers film studio put out a product that couldn't make money. So he throws the Cloverfield moniker in there, gets Dan Trachtenberg to buy in, and then sell this "Cloverfield multiverse" bullshit during a Reddit AMA, and voila, you have yourself a scrappy little film with a franchise tag and all of a sudden you make pretty decent coin off a very small budget. 

It's dishonest filmmaking. It's the type of shit that's currently stripping away filmmaker's with singular, unique ideas. It's a product. Assembly line filmmaking. 

And I get that some people are OK with that. But as a creator myself, there's nothing I find worse than 'braintrusts' in artistic mediums.

John Goodman was admittedly awesome. But the film overall suffers from too many tonal shifts, especially in the third act, where once again, a Bad Robot production has to feature some lame ass looking spaceship/alien design.

Is there anyone else besides James Cameron, Neill Blomkamp and Guillermo del Toro that actually understands sci-fi design in filmmaking anymore?


----------



## Raiden (Mar 16, 2016)

To your point, I checked reviews on other websites, and everyone says the ending felt massively forced.

.

*Spoiler*: __ 




In follow up films, I think there's a very serious risk that it turns out like one of those horrible films on sci fi. I really wasn't a fan of alien ships that eat people lol.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Mar 16, 2016)

Was pretty great up until the ending, which came out of fucking nowhere. Really conflicted if I disliked it though, since i enjoyed the high energy of it.

Eh, I'll just say it's a damn good movie. No Winstead nudity though .


----------



## Byrd (Mar 26, 2016)

Honestly they should have kept the original ending 


*Spoiler*: __ 




She goes up from the bunker, everything is normal... then she drives to Chicago...only to see that the city is completely destroyed


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 27, 2016)

One thing I still haven't figured out is why exactly Howard shaved?


*Spoiler*: __ 



Some on the IMDB boards speculate he was planning on raping Michelle but there is nothing else implying that after all he looked at her more as a daughter and a "little princess" I doubt that was his angle.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 27, 2016)

Byrd said:


> Honestly they should have kept the original ending
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



NOt gonna lie....that would be pretty amazing in comparison.


----------

