Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

The ‘Cloverfield’ Problem: Has Cynicism Become the Series’ Scariest Monster?

Published

on

Be warned, this article contains spoilers for The Cloverfield Paradox, though the biggest one of all was foisted upon everyone who watched the 30-second teaser during the Super Bowl so, whoops, I guess.

Let’s back up to where this all began, 10 years ago, with the release of Cloverfield following an ‘alternate reality game’ marketing campaign that invited the curious to dig through dozens of websites looking for clues into the movie’s dense and mysterious lore. The movie was released to no small amount of acclaim and success. I loved it for doing something I’d never seen before, Godzilla by way of found footage. I’d have liked to have seen a sequel, but I’d also have been fine without it. It was a story with a beginning, middle and end, centered around some moderately interesting characters living through an extremely interesting night, and I wasn’t terribly concerned what happened beyond its nihilistic napalm dawn.

Then 10 Cloverfield Lane was released in 2016, only two months after its initial teaser. It didn’t look related to the first movie and it quickly became apparent it didn’t take place within the exact same universe. Visible technology didn’t match up, with smartphones having replaced the decade-old flip-phone tech seen in the original, and there was no mention of the time a giant sac-faced daddy-long-legs leveled Manhattan, so it was safe to assume we were looking at an anthology series.

Great. I don’t know about you, but I love a good anthology series. Black Mirror but with monsters and we watch it in theaters? Onboard.

As I read more about the project, something bothered me. It didn’t seem to vex anyone else, but I bristled when I learned 10 Cloverfield Lane was originally a script called The Cellar, and was adapted by Bad Robot into a spiritual successor to Cloverfield.

Now, I’m not naïve, I understand that sort of thing happens all the time, and sometimes we get lucky. A script called Simon Says was once repurposed into Die Hard With a Vengeance and I still consider that to be the last good McClane movie. There’s theoretically nothing wrong with this practice when done correctly. But it only takes an ounce of pessimism to see the potential for abuse here. Got a mediocre aliens-blending -on-earth comedy script almost guaranteed to pull mediocre returns? You’re one or two re-writes away from a mediocre Men in Black sequel and box office gold. And maybe it’ll be fine. Maybe you’ll even get another sequel.

Or maybe you’ll kill an otherwise perfectly good franchise.

The most egregious example of this practice is the Hellraiser series, which I periodically present as an example of how not to franchise, but only because it’s a garbage line and Dimension has it coming for perpetuating something I’m told I am not legally allowed to refer to as fraud. Almost every sequel since Hellraiser: Bloodline was a C-rate horror script shoved into a Lemarchand box until it came out covered in at least four minutes’ worth of cenobites. Time after time, for the sole purpose of retaining the intellectual property, the Weinsteins took a DVD you probably wouldn’t dig out of two-dollar bin at Wal-Mart, slapped a Pinhead sticker on it, and released a movie you still probably wouldn’t dig out of the two-dollar bin at Wal-Mart. Why would they do this? Presumably because one day they want to find the time and money to make a real Hellraiser movie, though I’m starting to think that’s the “fetch” of horror franchise dreams; it’s never going to happen. Don’t shoot the messenger, take it up with Bob and Harvey.

And no offense at all if you enjoy the last few Hellraisers, more power to you. There’s an audience for everything, though not always a very big one, and that’s why the series currently enjoys the production budget of your local professional haunted house.

The point is, I love – intensely – the first couple of Hellraiser movies and what they’ve done to that series over the years haunts me. And since before 10 Cloverfield Lane’s release. I’ve low-key wondered where the standard-of-quality line would be drawn. Would the line be drawn at scripts that were already brilliant but, given a slight tweak, could fit into the Cloverfield anthological universe in order to maximize its potential audience and returns? That doesn’t sound too bad. The Cellar probably would have been that movie you hear is good and eventually watch on Amazon Prime. (By the way, check out Brawl in Cell Block 99, streaming now) Instead, 10 Cloverfield Lane got a theatrical release and made $110 million dollars. And make no mistake, it deserved that. I loved 10 Cloverfield Lane. Solid script, killer performances… If this level of quality-control was hallmark of the franchise, it was in good shape.

But then, from a space in the ether somewhere between synergy and cynicism, came The Cloverfield Paradox, another adapted project formerly called God Particle. Announced to an estimated audience of 100 million Super Bowl viewers and released to the uber-popular streaming site Netflix hours later, it was the film equivalent of The Joker dumping fake money onto the unsuspecting citizens of Gotham while dancing to Prince, which – as an aside – would have been a better halftime show. The elation of Netflix’s target audience soon gave way to horror when they booted the thing up and – like the citizens of Gotham – realized with awkward smiles frozen across their faces they’d been thrown something flimsy and of questionable value.

To say Paradox is a franchise killer might sound hyperbolic, and with any other franchise, it might be. Plenty of other film series have survived worse sequels, but there are extenuating circumstances here. So far this series has been pushed along by two things…

  • The movies have been pretty good.
  • The ‘Mystery Box’ method of promotion, which is JJ Abrams’ way of getting instant buy-in by telling the audience as little as possible about his projects and letting the subsequent hype train bring them to the station for him.

Unfortunately The Cloverfield Paradox violently – probably irreparably – derails both of these. Unless I’ve grossly misread what the audience response to this thing will be, the series will no longer enjoy a near-spotless track record in the public eye. And again, many franchises don’t. The Elm Street series survived Freddy’s Revenge. The Aliens survived Alien 3 and Resurrection. But Cloverfield’s problems are compounded by the Mystery Box aspect. Everyone loves a Mystery Box so long as something good, or at least interesting, comes out of it. That’s why loot crate services are so popular. But the first time you open a loot crate and it contains an active beehive with a plastic lightsaber sticking out of it, you’re going to think twice before getting excited about the next one. You might even skip it altogether.

To put it very simply, the Cloverfield franchise in its current anthology form worked because of an established trust and instant Mystery Box buy-in. If those things have been burned away for a short-term spike in Netflix viewership the series may have been irreparably harmed in the process. Trust is easy to break, and harder to win back.

What really bothers me about this is it’s exactly what I feared from the outset, but it’s happened so much faster than I’d have predicted. Unlike 10 Cloverfield Lane, which felt like it was probably an excellent paranoid thriller even before being assimilated into the franchise, Paradox is slow, sloppy, B-rate, generic sci-fi with a couple of mildly interesting elements barely suitable for a subpar episode of Black Mirror. It really feels like a mediocre movie clearer heads knew had no shot at notoriety unless the Cloverfield brand was attached to it, the kind of too-easy marketing decision made by a studio when they’re desperate to keep milking a good thing with no regard for the cash-cow’s well-being.

This next part is wildly irresponsible speculation, but consider the circumstances around Paradox’s release: Paramount had a Cloverfield movie it may have suspected did not live up to the brand’s reputation thus far, and wasn’t worth the millions in marketing they’ll spend getting it to theaters. They end up passing it in whole or in part to Netflix, which is certainly a ‘get’ for the service, although they may also wonder what the general response will be, having just walked away from the critical drubbing of Bright. So they decide to both announce and launch Paradox with the Super Bowl, gambling that a large number of the Big Game’s 100 million viewers will take them up on their offer to watch a big surprise movie immediately. In effect, they get millions – maybe tens of millions – of instant views before so much as a snarky tweet goes out, let alone a high-profile negative review.

Again, that’s pure speculation, and belies the obvious mistrust I feel for anyone involved with the distribution of this product, but what takes far less imagination is understanding the mindset involved in that aforementioned spoiler in the 30-second announcement teaser – the promise of a direct connection to the original Cloverfield. This reveal, which gives away essentially the last three seconds of the movie, is absolutely, one-hundred percent unnecessary except as a means to get more instant buy-in from fans of the original.  It feels like more circumstantial evidence the point of this exercise was to get as many views as possible before the inevitable swift and severe backlash began, and this time at the expense of what may have been one of the most interesting surprises for some viewers, similar to what was experienced at the end of Split. Sure, Paradox’s callback feels shoddy and tacked-on, whereas Split’s callback felt like M. Night Shyamalan had awoken from a deep slumber and pierced the veil with some heretofore unknown meta-twist, but still… Have some modicum of respect for your audience’s viewing experience.

Be certain, I’m not a fan of The Cloverfield Paradox, but it’s harmless B-rate blandness with a few interesting moments peppered in. My real ire is aimed squarely at some of the mechanisms behind its production and release, which feels like the shadiest and most cynical bait-and-switching I’ve seen in film since the Joker printed his face on the one-dollar bill. Only this time it’s not a deadly prank on the audience, just a gruesome self-inflicted blow to the fledgling Cloverfield franchise. Time – and at least one more sequel – will tell if it’s a mortal one.

7 Comments

Editorials

‘Bloodstone: Subspecies II’ Revisited: A Bigger, Bolder Follow-Up to Full Moon’s Vampire Cult Classic

Published

on

Bloodstone: Subspecies II

Horror sequels are a peculiar thing. In most cases, follow-ups to scary movies tend to retread the same formula with different victims and more over-the-top scares. This is because audiences tend to be more interested in the antagonists of these pictures than anything else, with even main characters becoming disposable when the time comes to produce a sequel.

That’s why some of the most memorable horror sequels are the ones that actually manage to hold onto interesting survivors from previous films while also pushing the story forward instead of having the same thing happen again to a different group of people. From Scream 2 to Dream Warriors (and arguably even The Exorcist III: Legion), there are quite a few of these innovative sequels to go around.

However, if there’s one franchise that deserves more attention when discussing bigger and better continuations that make the most of episodic filmmaking, it has to be Ted Nicolaou’s Subspecies.

The Full Moon classic spawned an indie horror icon, but bizarre sequel Bloodstone: Subspecies II is even more beloved than its predecessor.

Building a Bigger Vampire Saga

While the film itself takes place almost immediately after the events of the first movie, Bloodstone only entered production a couple of years after the release of the original as both Charles Band and Nicolaou weighed the pros and cons of returning to Romania to continue the series. In an effort to maximize efficiency, the team decided to invest in a trilogy where parts II and III, now fully written by Nicolaou, would be filmed simultaneously over the course of a single grueling shoot.

Much like the first Subspecies, Bloodstone’s low budget meant that the filmmakers once again had to cut corners and re-use as many of their resources as possible. Thankfully, the process was much easier this time around as Nicolaou, with the help of Romanian cinematographer Vlad Paunescu and his wife Oana, became more acquainted with local customs and made new friends. Shooting abroad still came with its own unique set of challenges due to a lack of translators and the occasional safety concerns, but the crew managed to make things work by filming things guerrilla-style and setting up shop in abandoned caves and real medieval ruins.

The director’s newfound contacts, coupled with the relative success of the first movie, meant that he was basically given free rein over an assortment of shooting locations usually considered off-limits for indie horror. That’s why Bloodstone features insanely ambitious lighting and effects work even during scenes shot in the middle of a bustling Bucharest. The filmmakers went so far as to project Radu’s Nosferatu-like shadows over local monuments as if he were a Romanian boogeyman, an idea that was actually encouraged by local cinephiles.

In fact, many of the more elaborate scenes here had originally been planned for the first movie before being discarded due to the lack of available resources. It was only with the support of Romanian fans and filmmakers that Bloodstone was able to give Radu a chance to be even more menacing the second time around.

Michelle’s Transformation Takes Center Stage

However, when it came to the American part of the crew, not everyone was able or willing to return for another round of Romanian adventuring. That’s why Radu’s human-loving half-brother Stefan (Michael Watson) is unceremoniously killed off at the beginning of the film while the role of Michelle had to be recast. Denice Duff took over for Laura Mae Tate, with the character now being joined by her sister, Rebecca, played by Melanie Shatner (yes, that Shatner).

In the finished film, we follow Michelle as she awakens to her new life as a vampire and discovers that Radu has murdered her lover. Struggling with grief and her newfound bloodlust, Michelle contacts her sister overseas, with Rebecca soon travelling to Romania on an ill-advised rescue mission. Meanwhile, Radu (Anders Hove) reaches out to his undead Mummy (Pamela Gordon, underneath heavy layers of impressive makeup effects) and promises to deliver her the coveted Bloodstone artifact while also making Michelle his eternal consort.

Revisiting the movie, I was impressed with how introspective this story is when compared to the original. The sequel assumes that you’re already familiar with the previously established characters, so the story wastes no time in exploring the immediate aftermath of the previous film’s events. From Michelle’s reluctant transformation into a creature of the night to Radu’s obvious mommy issues, Nicolaou is way more interested in pushing these characters into new and uncharted territory rather than recycling existing plot points.

Practical Effects and Gothic Atmosphere Still Impress

Yet, much like the first film, it’s Romania itself that makes the movie worth watching. The ruins of Castle Vladislav are even more majestic now, and visiting the moody streets of Bucharest with its surprisingly punk-rock nightlife made for a nice change of pace when compared to the original film’s quiet village setting. Once again, the abundance of interesting locations makes the movie feel much more expensive than it really is, with the filmmakers surrounding our characters with a living, breathing environment that would be impossible to recreate in a studio.

The increased freedom also allowed Nicolaou to flex his filmmaking muscles and tackle more ambitious blocking/composition in the sequel. The low budget and tropey script mean that the visuals don’t always work, but it’s consistently clear that this neo-expressionist style could only come from a passionate team attempting to pay homage to the shadowy horror classics of yesteryear. If the retro atmosphere isn’t enough for you, there’s enough practical gore here to satisfy even the most demanding of horror hounds!

Radu himself is also far more interesting now that Hove is more comfortable working alongside an international crew, with the actor having gone on record explaining that, while he spent more time drinking vodka than working while shooting the first movie, the sequel was a much more creatively satisfying experience for everyone involved. The character’s relationship with his abusive Mummy is also a highlight of the expanded mythology, especially since the practical effects that bring her to life are just as freaky now as they were back in ’93.

My only real gripe with the horror elements of the picture comes from the glaring absence of the diminutive stop-motion minions from the first film, though I guess the surprisingly entertaining addition of Professor Popescu (Michael Denish) and his archeological antics mostly make up for that.

Bloodstone: Subspecies II is obviously the middle chapter of a trilogy, with the ending feeling a lot less definitive than its predecessor as several plot threads are left to dangle in the wind, but I appreciate how the flick explores new ground while remaining faithful to nearly all the ideas that made the original such a good time. While I don’t think it’s as big of an improvement over the first movie as some fans make it out to be, Bloodstone is definitely worth revisiting if you’re a fan of old-fashioned vampire yarns.

Tune in next time for the thrilling conclusion to this initial trilogy, Bloodlust: Subspecies III!

Continue Reading