We’ve all been there before – a new movie we’ve been dying to see for years is on its way. The trailers tease what could very well be some amazing stuff, the posters and TV spots hint at something better than we could have imagined. But yet when the film finally does arrive, it doesn’t deliver in any of the ways that we had thought, hoped or needed it to.
For movie lovers, heightened expectations are par for the course. The quality of every new release is anyone’s guess until it actually arrives in theaters. Up until that time, imaginations can get lead in different directions – spurned on by misleading promotional campaigns. Hollywood studios are highly skilled at enticing their audiences into theaters. Sometimes this pays off and sometimes it doesn’t.
Yesterday’s surprise trailer for the J.J. Abrams-produced sequel to 2008’s Cloverfield seemed to come out of nowhere and create a lot of excitement. Aside from including the name of the original in the new title and being produced by Abrams, 10 Cloverfield Lane’s credibility as an actual sequel is now being questioned by some. According to a post via Reddit, not only is 10 Cloverfield Lane NOT a sequel to Cloverfield, but it has also existed under two previous titles:
“This film was originally made under the names Valencia and The Cellar for Paramounts Insurge division (a subsidiary for films made for under 5 million dollars like The Devil Inside), and when Paramount closed it down, this movie (shot and completed) was thrown out to the wind and orphaned. Paramount bought it back up and had Dan Casey and Damien Chazelle do some re-writes so that it would connect to the Cloverfield universe and they went back and did reshoots and add-ons in March 2015 in New Orleans and L.A.”
The post goes on to accuse Paramount of attempting a cash grab by pawning off something that was never intended to be a Cloverfield sequel in the first place. It claims that Abrams’ involvement with Cloverfield only went as far as pitching the idea at Paramount, and that it was Drew Goddard and Matt Reeves who were responsible for the original film. Neither Goddard nor Reeves are involved with 10 Cloverfield Lane.
In addition to all this, the post also provides links to such things as early audience reactions, test screenings and to information on the purported original script, which was called The Cellar. The poster points out that this film was shot in only 36 days, which comes off rather quick for an epic monster movie and mentions that the script is available to anyone who PM’s him/her. Furthermore, initial reactions to the test screening seem to support the claim that the movie originally had nothing to do with Cloverfield.
There does seem to be a pretty convincing argument against this being an actual Cloverfield sequel, but there are some things to keep in mind here. The poster claims that this couldn’t be a sequel as it was made for a small budget of $5 million. Yes, this is a small budget, but the original’s $25 mil budget wasn’t huge either. If this film is merely taking the ‘monsters attack’ concept of the original, it doesn’t mean it can’t be part of the Cloverfield universe. Perhaps this franchise could be about making low budgeted, vaguely connected monster movies? And if that’s the case, what’s wrong with that?
It’s also worth remembering that big budgets don’t necessarily equal good films. The original Cloverfield was not a massively budgeted affair and people loved it. All in all, perhaps it’s best to simply wait and give this project the benefit of the doubt – or at the very least, wait until more information is available before making any solid judgements.
Screen Rant will keep providing info on 10 Cloverfield Lane as we get it, so be sure to keep checking back for updates.
