Secret J.J. Abrams Trailer SUPER 8 is really Cloverfield prequel.

[Forkboy]

Update: Our sources tell us J.J. Abrams is actually directing this time around, although nothing is confirmed. Earlier today news broke about a top secret trailer for a new J.J. Abrams project entitled Super 8, which would premiere in front of Iron Man 2 this coming weekend. No other details were available at the time. An update at Vulture CONFIRMS that Super 8 is in fact a quasi-prequel to the smash-hit viral monster movie Cloverfield!! "Our sources...say that Super 8 is absolutely connected to 2008's Cloverfield (possibly a prequel, but not a sequel)." They continue with the plot details, which sound awesome. "Insiders familiar with the trailer tell us that it shows a bunch of kids who are shooting a movie with a Super 8 camera in the seventies or eighties. When they develop the film, they notice that there's an alien creature in the frame." OMFG. To put the icing on the cake, this sounds exactly like the Abrams/Steven Spielberg collaboration announced back on April 28th.

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/20083

The trailer will be shown before Iron Man 2.

[tridim]

1. Sounds like an M. Night Shyamalan style crap-fest to me.

[YOY]

2. He named it after a Motel???

I guess that's OK.

[Forkboy]

6. Word has it that the original name was Doubletree.

:)

[Myrina]

3. Everyone I know who saw Cloverfield said it sucked.

n/t

[YOY]

4. Best point in suckage (Spoiler):

On one scene this UBER gigantic monster takes notice in one of the characters...the one with the camera. It actually takes time out of it's busy destruction marathon and eats him.

Did I mention that this thing's head is the size of a 3 story apartment building?...and he takes time to eat a gnat.

[Forkboy]

5. It was ok.

Not great, but not terrible either. Interesting idea for a monster movie though. Instead of seeing the government/military/scientist response like you would in any other giant monster flick, we just got everyday people reacting to an attack on their city by some giant ass creature. Cool idea, spotty execution.

[On the Road]

7. It Probably Did Suck for Anyone Who Doesnt Like Monster Movies

for those who do, it was an original and exciting variation on the genre. The handheld cameras give a sense of realism and urgency.

[Forkboy]

8. I want the new one to explain this underwater shot that was never used in the first one....

[On the Road]

9. Supposedly the Back Story Was

that the monster was stirred up underwater by Tagruato, a Japanese conglomerate. I would assume that's the most likely subject of the photo. It was obviously decided, however, to cut this scene and introduce the monster much later in the film.

[Forkboy]

10. There was supposedly an oil rig attack planned as well.

The whole movie was clever (it's marketing especially so). I picked up a ton of shit the second time through.

For me the weakest part of the flick was the creature design itself. Abrams said he wanted to create a monster that would resonate like King Kong and Godzilla did, but that's a big fail. The creature itself has no charisma, and certainly didn't stir any sympathy from the crowd. It's not an iconic creature design in the slightest bit.

Still had fun watching it all four times though. ;)

[On the Road]

11. Yeah, King Kong Was a Sympathetic Character

His development, so to speak, was one of the best parts of Peter Jackson's beautiful remake. Godzilla was likewise sympathetic, and even became a hero in subsequent knock-offs and serializations. Not to mention the original Frankenstein.

The Cloverfield monster was just an ugly force of nature. That's kind of what you would expect for a monster movie, but even monsters can be handled with more subtlety.

[Forkboy]

12. I thought the ending of Jackson's Kong was the best part.

I won't go into all the stuff on Skull Island, which had me literally laughing out loud at the movie. But the ending was actually better than the original, imo. There was definitely more of an emotional punch there.

I hope this prequel turns out. I think there's ample room for back story there, which was never even remotely developed in the first one.

All I know is that between this and the new Godzilla news it's a good time to be into this kind of craziness! :)

[Orrex]

24. Cloverfield was the first "handheld camera" movie that I found effective

And I was frankly amazed. In the Lounge, prior to the release of the film, I even asked if the "1st person POV" technique had ever been used effectively in film.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Sweet. Giant monsters rule. nt

[Forkboy]

14. And as of today they're saying it's NOT related to Cloverfield at all.

:crazy:

[AllenVanAllen]

15. Here's the Super 8 teaser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NECsrx7VC3I

Moster movie? Bring it on.

[Forkboy]

16. The guy knows how to tease the audience, that's for sure.

Clearly the marketing works, Cloverfield raked in the bucks and only cost $22 million.

[terryg11]

17. saw the trailer

when the trailer starts out you would think it was a remake of close encounters coming at you. no sign of kids with cameras but was wondering what the name super 8 meant.
the scene they show is a pickup that looks eerily like the one Dreyfuss drives in close encounters tearing down a road at night and then jumping on the train tracks. preview looked good

[Orrex]

23. Didn't it say something about 1979 in the trailer, too?

[Onceuponalife]

18. Oh please no

No need to make a prequel of a sucky movie. That was one of the worst movies of the year. I absolutely hated it. The characters were so annoying I couldn't wait for them to get killed. I actually stood up and cheered when the cameraman bought it. Also, they did not show hardly any of the monster. And the shaky-cam was nausea inducing. I like monster movies but this one sucked. J.J. Abrams is capable of so much more.

[Orrex]

22. Did you see it in the theater or at home?

When I saw it at home, the shaky-cam wasn't as much of a problem as it probably was on the big screen. :puke:


Actually, I liked the film a great deal more than I expected to like it. :shrug:

[Onceuponalife]

30. Theater

I just hated the characters. I would have liked the film to concentrate on the creature instead of those idiots. All those monster movies told from the creature's viewpoint can't be wrong.

I saw the Super 8 teaser trailer before Iron Man and you really can't tell what the hell it's about by that!

[Orrex]

19. In the history of cinema, there has never been a good prequel

I would like to be surprised, but if this turns out to be a Cloverfield prequel, I'm betting that it will suck.


I'm holding out hope that those rumors are false.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine. nt

[Orrex]

21. I accept that, but...

I've always hated the "bone claws" premise in the comics, as well as the notion that Wolvie is part of some kind species that evolved parallel to humanity. Plus, the old "my enemy is my brother" thing leaves me cold.

Some fun stuff in the film, but ultimately it disappointed me.

[charlie]

25. I just learned The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is regarded as a prequel

But only because Eastwood acquires the poncho he wears in the other 2 movies.

If "reboots" can be considered prequels, Star Trek and Batman Begins are decent.

Apart from those, the only other that comes to mind is the magnificent Godfather II, but it's a sequel/prequel.

So yeah, I'll agree, non-sucky prequels are pretty much nonexistent, which makes any proposed prequel worrisome. Especially since George Lucas unleashed his Canon of Suck.

The Alien prequels (2 of them!) make me a bit nervous. Fortunately though, they'll be helmed again by Ridley Scott. Unlike Lucas, he's at least kept his hand in the craft and knows how to make decent pictures.

[Orrex]

26. I wouldn't consider reboots to be prequels

By definition, they're seeking to start over from the beginning, rather than retroactively explaining the established "universe" of the story.

I didn't know that about The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Interesting!


I think I'd also exlude Godfather II because IIRC the "prequel" part is only a brief scene in the longer movie? I admit that the whole Godfather mystique is lost on me, though, so I'm not the best one to comment on it.

I'm also not thrilled about Scott jumping into the prequel pool. As far as I can tell, his best work is 30 years ago, and I'm not convinced that he can return to it credibly, least of all with a prequel...

[charlie]

27. No, I wouldn't include any of those, either

I was straining for something close. "Never been a good prequel" is like one of those Amazing Fun Facts that sound wholly implausible, until you try to disprove it. Maybe someone who thinks Temple of Doom is the shizzle will weigh in :)

I was reading a while ago that one of the angles Scott is thinking of exploring is the backstory of the space jockey at the beginning of Alien. Which would be, um.... interesting, since it precedes human involvement in the story. A megabudget 3D (zoom! whoosh!) thriller with no people. Oh boy. I dunno...

[Orrex]

28. He'd almost have to work in a "forgotten" human expedition of some kind

Otherwise, as you note, it's a risky no-humans venture.

And let's not forget the two less-than-stellar Aliens vs. Predator films, both of which are prequels in their own right. Or wrong.

[charlie]

29. I have a couple of making-of-Alien books from long ago

in my garage. Scott already had a bit of backstory worked out 30 years ago. The initial encounter was not on a derelict ship, but in a pyramid on an alien homeplanet. Egyptian-looking frescoes on the pyramid walls detail the weird symbiosis the spacefaring aliens had with the Aliens. You've seen the Egyptian painting with Osiris arched over the world? Giger recreated it with Mother Alien in her place. Underneath, the Alien life cycle plays out, with facehuggers, chest bursters, and Aliens doing their thing on space jockeys. If Scott has anything like that in mind today, it'll be like Apocalypto on another planet.

AVP! You're right! Case closed. There's an archived thread in the lounge bringing the exciting news, and posters are unhappy with me because I was unhappy with the idea.