The Cloverfield Paradox

[Nardz937]

So, is this the worst of the Cloverfield series? I am still giving this a shot tonight, but curious for response.

I liked it more than what the majority have seemed too, but it's definitely the weakest of the three.

 

[Matt]

So, is this the worst of the Cloverfield series? I am still giving this a shot tonight, but curious for response.

I’ll put it this way:

Cloverfield Lane was not a good movie. In fact, the script was much better (and scarier) than the final product. This is largely a result of Abrams/Bad Robot taking a movie, cutting a lot, modifying it, and tacking on an insanely stupid ending for the sake of doing a cash grab by (superficially) tying it to a film with a dedicated cult following.

This is exactly the same. Except it’s not saved by the great acting of Cloverfield Lane as this cast is infinitely inferior. Further, it gets even more muddled down by its mystery box conceit than Cloverfield Lane. It just leaves a jumbled and incoherent mess with a few good moments.

In short, I can see why the studio was desperate to get rid of this and sell it to Netflix and I can see why Netflix resorted to gimmicky marketing/release in an attempt to grab an audience before anyone realized just how bad it was.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I’ll put it this way:

Cloverfield Lane was not a good movie. In fact, the script was much better (and scarier) than the final product. This is largely a result of Abrams/Bad Robot taking a movie, cutting a lot, modifying it, and tacking on an insanely stupid ending for the sake of doing a cash grab by (superficially) tying it to a film with a dedicated cult following.

This is exactly the same. Except it’s not saved by the great acting of Cloverfield Lane as this cast is infinitely inferior. Further, it gets even more muddled down by its mystery box conceit than Cloverfield Lane. It just leaves a jumbled and incoherent mess with a few good moments.

In short, I can see why the studio was desperate to get rid of this and sell it to Netflix and I can see why Netflix resorted to gimmicky marketing/release in an attempt to grab an audience before anyone realized just how bad it was.

I was sort of afraid of this. I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane...until the ending. It took it from a 5 star horror movie for me to like, a 3.5/5 experience. I think the movie would have been better if instead of it taking 10 minutes of running from bad CG monster to being like, she escapes...there is a monster, immediately cut to black. We then see he was right about the monster, we get the Cloverfield inclusion, and the movie doesn't devolve into non-sense (and cheap looking non-sense at that).

 

[Spider-Fan]

I liked it more than what the majority have seemed too, but it's definitely the weakest of the three.

From what I am seeing, it looks like the Cloverfield elements are tacked on, similar to 10 Cloverfield Lane. Is it done better or worse than that?

 

[Broseph44]

So, is this the worst of the Cloverfield series? I am still giving this a shot tonight, but curious for response.

It’s the weakest of the 3 for myself personally, but I still enjoyed it.

 

[Lily Adler]

It looks like Overlord (Cloverfied 4) is taking us in a supernatural direction rather than sci-fi.

 

[marty mcfly]

Cloverfield Lane IS actually a very good movie, it just has a bad, tacked-on ending. Paradox, however, is not a good movie.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike it. SO many things didn't make sense and it just felt like a Sci-Fi original.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

So once again, they've taken a low-budget horror/thriller movie, shot a new ending for it, and then slapped the Cloverfield title on it. Two movies in and I am already tired of this shtick. Either make a proper Cloverfield movie from start to finish, or don't bother.

As happy as the last scene made me, I have to agree. Give me the proper sequel I’ve waited for.

 

[Kane52630]

Well I loved it. Sucks for you guys if you didn't.

 

[The Chris]

I dug the hell out of it. Do i like it as much as the first 2? No i don't. Do i care? No i don't. Had the right amount of JJ weirdness, and lord that final shot. Pretty hyped to see where this all goes.

 

[Broseph44]

Well I loved it. Sucks for you guys if you didn't.

I enjoyed it a lot, didn’t hate it. I’d just rank it as my least favorite of the series so far. But that’s not a bad thing because I love this series.

 

[Broseph44]

I dug the hell out of it. Do i like it as much as the first 2? No i don't. Do i care? No i don't. Had the right amount of JJ weirdness, and lord that final shot. Pretty hyped to see where this all goes.

Pretty much how I feel as well.

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah I'd probably rank it last too.

The movie is basically Event Horizon with a little touch of Alien.

 

[writer0327]

Mehhhhhhhhhh! Interesting concept. Poor execution. Leaves you with more questions than answers, which isn't always a bad thing, but it didn't work this time.

 

[Matt]

I dug the hell out of it. Do i like it as much as the first 2? No i don't. Do i care? No i don't. Had the right amount of JJ weirdness, and lord that final shot. Pretty hyped to see where this all goes.

There's the rub. Its not going anywhere. Its like when Ryan Murphy talks about his big plan to do a season that connects all of the American Horror Stories. He's talking out of his ass. There is no logical way to connect those dots. He doesn't have a plan or a story in mind to do so. And if he ever makes one, it will be a convoluted mess because the other seasons were not crafted with a bigger story in mind.

This is no different. Cloverfield wasn't made with a sequel in mind, much less a big shared universe, that includes [blackout]multiple dimensions[/blackout] and an overarching plot.

But after 10 Cloverfield Lane, it became an "anthology" series. The reason being, Bad Robot bought a script/half-produced movie and tacked on a new ending to and title transform it into part of a newly found "anthology" series, based around a 10 year old cult hit, to boost ticket sales.

Now it is no longer an anthology series but rather a loosely connected multiverse where the horrors of the first two movies were unleashed by the events of Paradox. Do you know why its suddenly changed? Because Bad Robot bought a script/half-produced movie, and tacked on a new ending and title to transform it into a "prequel."

There is no grand narrative plan here. Its not building up to anything. Rather, Bad Robot is buying low budget horror movies and then morphing them after the fact to fit them into a pre-existing, but distinct, narrative. In doing so, they are also morphing the "franchise" into whatever it needs to be, at any given movement, to make whatever low budget horror movie Bad Robot bought into something profitable. This plan is the equivalent to doing a puzzle, but realizing several pieces are missing, so you just take pieces out of other puzzle sets and force them in.

I am surprised that so few people see through Abrahms at this point. The guy is a modern PT Barnum. He is talented as a filmmaker, but his real skill is creating hype by essentially conning his audience. He basically admitted that he had no plan with Lost. He just threw some mysteries out there and made it up as it went along. All of his "mystery box" products are essentially the same. He hypes it up as a huge mystery, but he himself does not know the answers. Simply put, when it comes to his original products, there is no there there.

 

[Spider-Fan]

There's the rub. Its not going anywhere. Its like when Ryan Murphy talks about his big plan to do a season that connects all of the American Horror Stories. He's talking out of his ass. There is no logical way to connect those dots. He doesn't have a plan or a story in mind to do so. And if he ever makes one, it will be a convoluted mess because the other seasons were not crafted with a bigger story in mind.

This is no different. Cloverfield wasn't made with a sequel in mind, much less a big shared universe, that includes [blackout]multiple dimensions[/blackout] and an overarching plot.

But after 10 Cloverfield Lane, it became an "anthology" series. The reason being, Bad Robot bought a script/half-produced movie and tacked on a new ending to and title transform it into part of a newly found "anthology" series, based around a 10 year old cult hit, to boost ticket sales.

Now it is no longer an anthology series but rather a loosely connected multiverse where the horrors of the first two movies were unleashed by the events of Paradox. Do you know why its suddenly changed? Because Bad Robot bought a script/half-produced movie, and tacked on a new ending and title to transform it into a "prequel."

There is no grand narrative plan here. Its not building up to anything. Rather, Bad Robot is buying low budget horror movies and then morphing them after the fact to fit them into a pre-existing, but distinct, narrative. This plan is the equivalent to doing a puzzle, but realizing several pieces are missing, so you just take pieces out of other puzzle sets and force them in.

I am surprised that so few people see through Abrahms at this point. The guy is a modern PT Barnum. He is talented as a filmmaker, but his real skill is creating hype by essentially conning his audience. He basically admitted that he had no plan with Lost. He just threw some mysteries out there and made it up as it went along. All of his "mystery box" products are essentially the same. He hypes it up as a huge mystery, but he himself does not know the answers. Simply put, when it comes to his original products, there is no there there.

I have not seen the movie, but yes it is very apparent that Cloverfield is doing this. That being said, loosely connected Sci-Fi anthology series is a cool idea. John Carpenter wanted Halloween to be that type of thing for horror until Halloween 3 flopped.

I think the idea has potential, they just need better execution when adding in the Sci-Fi elements. I think 10 Cloverfield Lane could have worked with mostly the same series of events, but I would have cut to black as soon as the monster came into it and ended it there. They went too far out of left field with how they inserted the monster, and ultimately I think that is what they need to figure out. Look at the story you have, figure out how to integrate the Sci-Fi without it feeling tacked on, and then release.

Now, whether they take more care in doing that or not in the future is another story entirely. But, my point is the idea has potential.

 

[Nardz937]

From what I am seeing, it looks like the Cloverfield elements are tacked on, similar to 10 Cloverfield Lane. Is it done better or worse than that?

Cloverfield Lane is better and more effective. Although this film is more connected to the original.

Mehhhhhhhhhh! Interesting concept. Poor execution. Leaves you with more questions than answers, which isn't always a bad thing, but it didn't work this time.

Welcome to the Cloverfield franchise!

 

[Matt]

I have not seen the movie, but yes it is very apparent that Cloverfield is doing this. That being said, loosely connected Sci-Fi anthology series is a cool idea. John Carpenter wanted Halloween to be that type of thing for horror until Halloween 3 flopped.

I think the idea has potential, they just need better execution when adding in the Sci-Fi elements. I think 10 Cloverfield Lane could have worked with mostly the same series of events, but I would have cut to black as soon as the monster came into it and ended it there. They went too far out of left field with how they inserted the monster, and ultimately I think that is what they need to figure out. Look at the story you have, figure out how to integrate the Sci-Fi without it feeling tacked on, and then release.

Now, whether they take more care in doing that or not in the future is another story entirely. But, my point is the idea has potential.

At this point, I'm not really sure there is anyway to salvage it into a coherent anthology. Partially because this one does make it into a series, rather than an anthology. With that comes the implication that there is a larger narrative and an implied promise of payoff.

But I digress, even assuming the plan is not narrative but rather to move back into anthology, the anthology should at least be somewhat coordinated. It should not be as clumsy as buying movies and forcing them into your anthology. An anthology should have clearly defined overarching themes, styles, structures, etc. Look at Black Mirror. None of the stories are connected. But each story still sticks to core themes and structures. That is what a well made anthology should do.

Instead, Abrahms and Bad Robot are buying low budget horror movies and saying "this is part of our anthology now!" But they forgot one very important question that must be answered in this process: WHAT IS THE ANTHOLOGY!? I don't think Abrahms, or anyone involved with the Cloverfield franchise, can answer that question.

 

[Matt]

Cloverfield Lane is better and more effective. Although this film is more connected to the original.



Welcome to the Cloverfield franchise!

That justification only really works if they have some sort of answers in mind and are building to something (anything, really). Creating questions on top of questions is what got Lost into trouble. The writers did it to hide the fact that they had no answers.

Conversely, look at a show like Westworld. Season one answers just about every question that the viewer has. But in doing so, it creates new questions, STEMMING ORGANICALLY FROM THE ANSWERS TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS (that part is important).

This is why despite making the whole "mystery box" conceit mainstream, Abrahms isn't very good at it. He just creates mysteries with no answers. The best mystery writers will tell you, you start from the answers and build backwards. Not the other way around.

 

[Spider-Fan]

At this point, I'm not really sure there is anyway to salvage it into a coherent anthology. Partially because this one does make it into a series, rather than an anthology. With that comes the implication that there is a larger narrative and an implied promise of payoff.

But I digress, even assuming the plan is not narrative but rather to move back into anthology, the anthology should at least be somewhat coordinated. It should not be as clumsy as buying movies and forcing them into your anthology. An anthology should have clearly defined overarching themes, styles, structures, etc. Look at Black Mirror. None of the stories are connected. But each story still sticks to core themes and structures. That is what a well made anthology should do.

Instead, Abrahms and Bad Robot are buying low budget horror movies and saying "this is part of our anthology now!" But they forgot one very important question that must be answered in this process: WHAT IS THE ANTHOLOGY!? I don't think Abrahms, or anyone involved with the Cloverfield franchise, can answer that question.

I agree that this is the core problem. They need to figure this out and find scripts that fit what they want for the Anthology. This is what I mean by they need to take more care with adding the Sci-Fi. They need to figure out exactly what Cloverfield is and figure out how to build on that. Right now I agree, it is too chaotic and not enough care is going into it.

 

[Matt]

I agree that this is the core problem. They need to figure this out and find scripts that fit what they want for the Anthology. This is what I mean by they need to take more care with adding the Sci-Fi. They need to figure out exactly what Cloverfield is and figure out how to build on that. Right now I agree, it is too chaotic and not enough care is going into it.

I think it is too late for that now. As I alluded to, and I don't think this is a spoiler as the marketing for the movie makes it clear that this is tied directly to Cloverfield, this movie makes the entire series (including 10) into a narrative, rather than an anthology. There is no way around that now. So now Abrahms has a bunch of narrative questions for which there is no answer as they only exist because he clumsily glued three distinct movies together into a franchise.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think it is too late for that now. As I alluded to, and I don't think this is a spoiler as the marketing for the movie makes it clear that this is tied directly to Cloverfield, this movie makes the entire series (including 10) into a narrative, rather than an anthology. There is no way around that now. So now Abrahms has a bunch of narrative questions for which there is no answer as they only exist because he clumsily glued three distinct movies together into a franchise.

I don't think it is too late to refocus the series. I have the same mentality as I would with a reboot, just go ahead and do it. This one may fit with the other one, but that doesn't mean it HAS to be the norm. Just make a good movie with the Cloverfield name, and people will come.

 

[Matt]

I don't think it is too late to refocus the series. I have the same mentality as I would with a reboot, just go ahead and do it. This one may fit with the other one, but that doesn't mean it HAS to be the norm. Just make a good movie with the Cloverfield name, and people will come.

I disagree. I look at this one as Halloween 4. Halloween 3 sucked. But they could've moved forward with the anthology if they really wanted to. Instead, the producers brought Michael back. However, once Michael was reintroduced, the producers basically entered into a social contract of sorts with the audience. "From now on, when you buy tickets to Halloween, you are paying to see Michael Myers." At that point, it was Michael's franchise.

This is different, as the Cloverfield monster isn't nearly as culturally significant as Michael Myers. But through this movie, the producers have shown that the franchise is connected and with that comes the implicit promise of answers to the questions raised and some form of connective tissue, the likes of which you simply cannot get through anthology.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I disagree. I look at this one as Halloween 4. Halloween 3 sucked. But they could've moved forward with the anthology if they really wanted to. Instead, the producers brought Michael back. However, once Michael was reintroduced, the producers basically entered into a social contract of sorts with the audience. "From now on, when you buy tickets to Halloween, you are paying to see Michael Myers." At that point, it was Michael's franchise.

This is different, as the Cloverfield monster isn't nearly as culturally significant as Michael Myers. But through this movie, the producers have shown that the franchise is connected and with that comes the implicit promise of answers to the questions raised and some form of connective tissue, the likes of which you simply cannot get through anthology.

I think the fact the Cloverfield monster is not iconic like Michael was is exactly why just running with the anthology can work. I think good buzz from a good movie in an anthology will bring them more attention than a cult film that tries to tie loosely tied together movies will. I don't think the fan base for these is so big that refocusing the series will destroy that social contract to a point the brand cannot recover.

 

[Matt]

I think the fact the Cloverfield monster is not iconic like Michael was is exactly why just running with the anthology can work. I think good buzz from a good movie in an anthology will bring them more attention than a cult film that tries to tie loosely tied together movies will. I don't think the fan base for these is so big that refocusing the series will destroy that social contract to a point the brand cannot recover.

Perhaps not. But I just don't see the value in it. I don't think the brand is so valuable that it needs to be salvaged. I mean, there is a reason that Paramount sold this to Netflix. It was the only way to make this profitable. That indicates that the Cloverfield name really isn't enough of a draw to make a bad horror movie profitable. If that's the case, if there is such little value in this franchise, why even bother with the Cloverfield branding? If you're not going to tell a connective story at this point (which I think is a stupid idea for a whole array of reasons), just let it die.