Of course it will.
But it will get great reviews initially, and in a couple months everyone will realize it was not very good.
This is the trend for everything that has JJ abrams is involved in any way.

>>66792034
Mission Impossible 3 is still good.

>>66792034
>But it will get great reviews initially, and in a couple months everyone will realize it was not very good.

i feel like the word everyone is being used very loosely here.

>>66791157

Almost definitely.

>>66791157
Mediocre, just like its big brother.

>>66791157
its got sullivan/that crazy fucker from barton fink so it'll be a modest success at the minimum

>tfw bought pre-sale IMAX tickets when they first dropped
>periodically check news about the movie
>"Cloverfield Monster not in movie"
>"10 Cloverfield Lane takes place in a 'Different Timeline' than Cloverfield"
>"Much of the movie is spent in the bunker"

just kill me now senpai

Yes it will.
But RT will give it a >90% score because shills.

I imagine it'll be very whatever-y.
But the ARG was cool. I'm probably gonna see it anyway, I liked cloverfield.

>>66792284
When did they say it was a different timeline? I know about that other stuff, but the different timeline thing kinda makes me happy considering there are rumours that aliens are in it

>>66792325
>>66792284
I've found one article of it saying it was in a different timeline and it really just looks like someone shoved all the vague information we know together in a half-assed way and added in some fake quotes

>>66792325
>When did they say it was a different timeline?
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/06/10-cloverfield-lane-joins-j-j-abrams-cloververse

>“They’re not in the same timeline,” director Dan Trachtenberg confirmed during interviews for the film Sunday. The secrecy surrounding the movie “was very much J. J.’s thing, and it was something I hoped would come to fruition in terms of the marketing and the trailer and all that stuff. It’s so exciting to hearken back to a time when we only found out about a movie from its trailer.”

Mixed reviews

>>66792588
I want to believe, because a series of movies based on different apocalyptic monster events sounds comfy, but the more I look it up, the more I think it may have just been bad wording on his part.

Plus, some reviews have made it seem like that first thing with the aliens may have been false entirely. I wouldn't put it behind them to try to make the movie seem like something entirely different riiiight up until its released. We'll see I guess.

So is John Goodman's character just a mentally ill guy that kidnaps people to 'keep them safe' from some impending doom he has visions about?

>>66792815
Kinda, but the implication seems to be that he's a rapist