10 Cloverfield Lane

Hey dummies, if we’re going to wring our hands about how soon is too soon to discuss spoilers for this movie, let’s at least do it in a thread dedicated to the right movie.

I liked 10 Cloverfield Lane. Not as much as Cloverfield, but it’s not a comparison we’d likely be making if they shared no meta-connection. I don’t think you could safely determine if someone will or won’t like this based on their opinion of Cloverfield, for example.

So go see it and then spoil it or not in this thread.

I’m not going to spoil anything, except to say that I’m going to lie down and have a heart attack now. It was really intense, but definitely worth seeing.

Can someone explain to me what the meta-connection to the first Cloverfield actually is?

Extremely happy nobody spoiled it for me going in. Yes, intense and with a creepy quality too. I was quite satisfied.

Do you suppose there will be a sequel to this particular movie - where they left things? or will future installments in the Cloverfield meta-verse only be tenuously connected the way this was?

When I referred to the meta-connection I meant their connections wholly outside of the narrative, i.e. that they’re J.J. Abrams produced movies sprung on us with little advance marketing, with structural similarities of being “small” movies set in the middle of larger than life catastrophes, and obviously, that they both have Cloverfield in their name. In those ways—the things you could glean from the trailers and marketing alone, they are connected and feel like a sort of anthology.

And what I meant about comparing them is that while some of those aspects would remain, we probably wouldn’t be as quick to specifically compare Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane if they didn’t share a title and the J.J. Abrams connection. There would still be comparisons to make—Cloverfield would make a good over/under on the podcast—but since they do share a name, all the water cooler conversations about 10 Cloverfield Lane will almost necessarily be a comparison of these two films specifically.

But I think they’re different enough films that I’m a little disappointed they’re going to be linked in that context. I guess the upside is that connection might get more publicity and viewers than 10 Cloverfield Lane would get otherwise. I like the movie and hope people see it, so yay I guess.

As to any in-narrative connections:


I don’t know if there are any. It’s possible I missed some easter-egg level connections, but otherwise I don’t see anything at all to link the Cloverfield monster to the alien invasion in this movie. Maybe the Cloverfield monster came from these aliens originally or something, but nothing we see in this movie takes on any different meaning if they both happen to be from the distant planet J’Jaybrahms, or whatever.

The two movies

My impression was that the flying thing was entirely biological–a zeppelin kaiju, if you will. And the things running around on the ground were its mites, like the mites in the subway tunnels that came off the monster in the first Cloverfield. Both of the Cloverfield movies could take place during the opening exposition from Pacific Rim, with giant monsters appearing out of nowhere and attacking population centers.

That was almost a Twilight Zone episode. No wonder they kept it secret; it’s essentially a 3-man play on 1 set for 90% of the movie. I kept wondering if modern audiences (teenagers) would be bored by the sheer lack of action, but I saw it at a grown-up theater that has a 21-and-up-policy.

Not sure where this supposed franchise is going. It came off as a hobby-like side project.

Loved the movie, did not expect it to go in the direction it did and it was a tense ride throughout save for a fairly predictable finale. As for ties, Cloverfield is more about a genre and flavor of film going forward, so much so I was able to grab a screenshot of the third film:

The nit-pickiest detail I thought of:


If you think about how prepared Howard was, it’s weird that he didn’t already have a hazmat suit of some kind Michelle could’ve just stolen.

And a comparison to You’re Next, which is spoilery for both movies:


Starting with Michelle sharpening the crutch into a weapon, I kept thinking of Erin (I think that was her name, the main survivor) from You’re Next. Michelle had that same kind of surprising resourcefulness, where the antagonist accidentally bit off more than they could chew when they chose their victim. It goes beyond women not being as helpless as the antagonists expected, to like wow, they could not have picked a worse target to try to hold captive/kill off. You’re Next actually explained that Erin was raised by parents with some survivalist background or whatever, Michelle is just the most resourceful fashion designer in all of New York. I wouldn’t call this a criticism of 10 Cloverfield Lane, it did keep reminding me of a better movie.


Michelle is also a lot like the protagonist of director Dan Trachtenberg’s Internet short, Portal: No Escape. Apparently the guy likes resourceful females.

[QUOTE=Wholly Schmidt;3946946]The nit-pickiest detail I thought of:


If you think about how prepared Howard was, it’s weird that he didn’t already have a hazmat suit of some kind Michelle could’ve just stolen.

My take on the nit:


That occurred to me as well but if he did have one then as you say it might actually get used. In as much as Howard was correct about needing to bunker down and wait out an alien invasion I felt his real play all along is to kidnap some pretty young thing and brainwash her and make her his own. Fortunately for Michelle at the outset this is foiled by the surprise guest appearance of Elliot. If there were a hazmat suit around it might give her some sort of hope and what Harold wants for her to believe is that they just need to settle down and make the best of it for a year or two, Princess.

Tell me more about this. I would like it very much.

It’s been my observation that most trouble makers in the theater are well past 21.

It’s a Cinebarre. Regal has got about 8 of them around the country. They serve alcohol so no one under 21 allowed. What’s more, theres a counter in front of each seat, and a menu, so you can order food and drink throughout the movie. Just fill out an order form, hit the attendant light, and they’ll come and get your order. Your food shows up about 10 minutes later.

Sorta. I think the worst offenders are usually grown-ups. For example, when someone brings a baby into a theater, I blame the parent, not the baby when it starts crying. A “21 and over only” policy takes care of that.

Nice. I’d like that very much. If I’m going to be paying close to $20 a ticket, with another $20 on popcorn and a drink to see a blockbuster on premiere week, I may as well go for the full wallet bust and get a beer too.

Not sure where specifically you’re located in the state, but there’s one in Mountlake Terrace and in Issaquah.

Issaquah is doable. I may have to check it out.


My wife and I went to the iPic theater in Redmond. Same kind of thing. Lounge chairs, waiter service. We went early on a Sunday and were the only ones in the “VIP” area. It was expensive but cool.

These types of theatres seem to be popping up a lot. With the advent of great home theatre equipment at a reasonable price, the best way to pull adults back to the theatre experience is to provide more amenities. A local theatre by me just did a rebuild and now has an over 21 theatre with recliners, food and alcohol. I disagree that its the over 21 crowd that ruins the movie experience, its the teen and child crowd. Yeah you can blame the parents for kids if you want but the over 21 setting solves that issue as well as the phone wielding yack fest that a lot of teens are at the theatre. I saw Deadpool at that theatre and it was great, no disruptions, people were laughing of course but no one was talking over the movie or yelling out spoilers during the showing (something I experienced a teenage kid do at a showing of The Force Awakens). Im glad to see these types of theatres becoming popular.

I don’t think he believed he needed one. His plan was to stay there until he knew, one way or another, what happened. A suit like that is only useful if you plan to go up there at some point while the disaster was still ongoing, which I don’t think he intended to do. They had windows to look out, if one day you see some dogs running by, you know you can go out there, no suit required. If you look out there one day and see everything is dead, even all the plant life, well a suit isn’t going to make a difference since you know the world is dead.

I liked this movie a lot. It was tense all the way through, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead was impressive. I actually cared about what was going to happen to her character, which is not something I felt about any of the original Cloverfield characters. Goodman was creepy but also somehow reasonable, which just made everything more intense. I was surprised at how much mileage the director was able to get out of a very limited setting. I’ve seen lots of these types of ‘people stuck in a bunker’ movies before and I think this is one of the very best ones.


Regarding Howard not having a hazmat suit… how do you know he didnt have one tucked away? He wouldn’t be advertising it since it would motivate the other two to explore outside. He kept the vat of acid secret… god knows what else he has hidden in there. A hazmat suit would be easy to hide