Last movie watched...

[Hawkmumbler]

[spoiler] Yeah, caught the full film. The aliens at the end have nothing to do with the monster from the other film that happened to have Cloverfield in it's title? [/spoiler]

It's a direct sequel set in the same Cloverfield universe.

Yup, it's just got no real ties to the first movie.

[Satanist]

Oh, Dear I just watched The Signal on Netflix. A chaotic mess. Could have been epic instead it was just...oh dear.

I keep seeing this film get panned and think its this one which I really enjoyed years ago...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780607/

...aint seen this new Signal yet.

I saw HIGHRISE last night and thought it was just ok. Some fine acting and nice camerwork. Bit arty-farty in places but thats alright.

[Spikes]

[spoiler] Yeah, caught the full film. The aliens at the end have nothing to do with the monster from the other film that happened to have Cloverfield in it's title? [/spoiler]

It's a direct sequel set in the same Cloverfield universe.

Yup, it's just got no real ties to the first movie.

Sorry, but its neither a direct sequel nor, really, set in the same Universe. But dont take my word for it, the makers themselves have stated that.
Cloverfield had references to the TV series Lost in it. Just a bit of fun added, I think. Nowt more.

[shaolin_monkey]

John Dies At The End - I saw it was on Netflix after I finished the rambling but enjoyable book.

It's rubbish, and it's such a shame it is. Even a good performance from Paul Giamatti couldn't save it.  They basically took the start and end of the book, tried to shoehorn it together somehow, leaving out all the great stuff in the middle.  Read the book, avoid the film.

[Mattofthespurs]

[spoiler] Yeah, caught the full film. The aliens at the end have nothing to do with the monster from the other film that happened to have Cloverfield in it's title? [/spoiler]

It's a direct sequel set in the same Cloverfield universe.

Yup, it's just got no real ties to the first movie.

Sorry, but its neither a direct sequel nor, really, set in the same Universe. But dont take my word for it, the makers themselves have stated that.
Cloverfield had references to the TV series Lost in it. Just a bit of fun added, I think. Nowt more.

It's set in the same universe at the same time as the attacks from the aliens happened. The makers have stated that. It's really that simple. I can't see how this is difficult to understand personally. Not having a dig but it seems obvious to me.

[Mattofthespurs]

John Dies At The End - I saw it was on Netflix after I finished the rambling but enjoyable book.

It's rubbish, and it's such a shame it is. Even a good performance from Paul Giamatti couldn't save it.  They basically took the start and end of the book, tried to shoehorn it together somehow, leaving out all the great stuff in the middle.  Read the book, avoid the film.

Loved the book, thought the film was poo. And it's not a direct sequel to anything...For shame!

[Spikes]

[Eric Plumrose]

It's set in the same universe at the same time as the attacks from the aliens happened. The makers have stated that. It's really that simple. I can't see how this is difficult to understand personally. Not having a dig but it seems obvious to me.

Not seeing it. The first film beasties wee and big don't look anything like John Goodman wee and big.

[Keef Monkey]

Maybe I've been reading different interviews, but everything I've heard the Cloverfield Lane team say about the sequel/not-sequel seemed very clear that it's an [spoiler]unconnected story/universe, and that if they made a third film it would again have nothing to do with the first two. They're essentially going for the kind of anthology series approach that was the original intent with Halloween but got scuppered when Halloween 3 wasn't a success. Also, they're quite open about the fact that the sci-fi connections and Cloverfield branding was added very late on - the original ending had the character escaping the bunker then seeing the nearby city in flames (cause kept ambiguous) and then cut to credits just as she took of the mask and took a breath.

For my money that would have been a better film, as I enjoyed the bunker story so much that the addition of aliens just felt really unnecessary and that's where it lost me a bit. To just reveal that Goodman's character was right and then finish with some ambiguity over whether the air was safe (and the tension of her taking the plunge anyway) or what the cause had been would have been way more effective (in my opinion, other opinions may vary)![/spoiler]

I finally watched The Devil's Backbone. No idea why that took me so long to get around to, it really is brilliant, and very classic Del Toro for want of a better description. Boy knows his way around a ghost story. The subtitles on my DVD copy weren't great mind you, with the timing being way off at times and making some exchanges tricky to follow.

Oh, and Birdman. There are some really fantastic performances in that all round, and it's technically quite an accomplishment, enjoyed it.

[Mattofthespurs]

Maybe I've been reading different interviews, but everything I've heard the Cloverfield Lane team say about the sequel/not-sequel seemed very clear that it's an [spoiler]unconnected story/universe, and that if they made a third film it would again have nothing to do with the first two. They're essentially going for the kind of anthology series approach that was the original intent with Halloween but got scuppered when Halloween 3 wasn't a success. Also, they're quite open about the fact that the sci-fi connections and Cloverfield branding was added very late on - the original ending had the character escaping the bunker then seeing the nearby city in flames (cause kept ambiguous) and then cut to credits just as she took of the mask and took a breath.

For my money that would have been a better film, as I enjoyed the bunker story so much that the addition of aliens just felt really unnecessary and that's where it lost me a bit. To just reveal that Goodman's character was right and then finish with some ambiguity over whether the air was safe (and the tension of her taking the plunge anyway) or what the cause had been would have been way more effective (in my opinion, other opinions may vary)![/spoiler]

[spoiler]I agree, I would have preferred the story to have nothing to do with aliens whatsoever. Yes, the original story did not contain the original final 15 minutes but the film does and that is what ties it to the original Cloverfield film. The sad fact is I would have enjoyed it much more had the Cloverfield name not been on it but because it was I knew what was happening outside, with the aliens, and so it made Goodman's character right as well as so very wrong.[/spoiler]

[Eric Plumrose]

[spoiler]They don't look alike. And I don't recall the monster (or its parasites) from the first film being extra-terrestrial in origin.[/spoiler]

[Keef Monkey]

No, if I remember rightly there was quite an extensive backstory to Cloverfield through viral websites and whatnot, which pointed to the creature from the first film being [spoiler]an underwater creature that mutated because of deep sea mining of some sort of chemical for an energy drink? I add the question mark because I'm struggling to remember the specifics! But yeah, it definitely wasn't aliens. According to the creators its only connection to Cloverfield is that they wanted to make it another similarly mysterious sci-fi/horror type thing, as part of an anthology series of unrelated stories. From that it's no more related to the original Cloverfield than one Twilight Zone episode is related to another. Still, I guess it would be nice to imagine all that crazy shit is happening at once![/spoiler]

[I, Cosh]

Thought it was a satellite falling out of orbit?

[Keef Monkey]

Damn, I forgot about that theory. Maybe [spoiler]a wee creature landed in the sea with the satellite and then mutated?[/spoiler]

In fact yeah, that's probably it.

[shaolin_monkey]

No, if I remember rightly there was quite an extensive backstory to Cloverfield through viral websites and whatnot, which pointed to the creature from the first film being [spoiler]an underwater creature that mutated because of deep sea mining of some sort of chemical for an energy drink? I add the question mark because I'm struggling to remember the specifics! But yeah, it definitely wasn't aliens. According to the creators its only connection to Cloverfield is that they wanted to make it another similarly mysterious sci-fi/horror type thing, as part of an anthology series of unrelated stories. From that it's no more related to the original Cloverfield than one Twilight Zone episode is related to another. Still, I guess it would be nice to imagine all that crazy shit is happening at once![/spoiler]

The answer is in the film itself, [spoiler] in the very last few frames of the happy couple at the beach.  In the background you see the creature drop into the ocean with a splash, presumably from space, and in embryonic form.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5lHnRqF89c&nohtml5=False[/spoiler]