J.J. Abrams has become infamous for his “Mystery Box” method of promoting films, which typically involves keeping the premises and themes of films close to the chest. However, he usually tells us that a film is coming out long before it's released to drum up enthusiasm. But the release of "10 Cloverfield Lane," which Abrams produced, was announced only a few weeks ago, without any prior indication of its existence. In an age of constant media coverage, the idea a high-profile studio could cast, produce and release a film without any fanfare is nothing sort of insane.

Now that it has been released, it is becoming apparent that the film has almost nothing to do with the original "Cloverfield," the found-footage monster movie from 2008. That’s because it wasn’t originally based on "Cloverfield." Beginning it’s existence as “The Cellar,” the film had its name changed during post-production, as the “Cloverfield” name now seems to be a branding tool for any low-budget genre film that Bad Robot Productions wants to release. Beyond the broad conceptual similarity, the plots have no intersection. And if the Cinemascore of C has any indication, audiences have felt cheated (for reference, most high profile releases have at least an A-). This raises a pretty fascinating question: was it right to change the title?

One of the big examples of how this change has hurt the film is that it has completely erased the director of the film. This was theoretically -------‘s big break, building of his excellent Portal fan-film to make something unique and financially successful. But, by marketing it under the "Cloverfield" brand and announcing it at the last minute, the conversation goes from the excitement of a new director to Abrams’ marketing wizardry. This is his film now, regardless of how much input he even had as a producer. New pieces about the film almost exclusively talk about him now. And this isn’t the first time this has happened. Remember the director of the first "Cloverfield:? Of course not, because everyone remembers it as a “JJ. Abrams film.” As it turns out, the biggest brand involved isn’t “Cloverfield,” but “Abrams.”

Additionally, the “Cloverfield” brand inadvertently undercuts much of the film’s mystery. The only thing people remember from the first film is the big monster. And when a film about an unstable person who is keeping people hostage in a bunker to allegedly protect them from some kind of alien invasion has the word “Cloverfield” in it, you know how that he might be onto something. So yes, you find out about an alien invasion in the end, which would have felt shocking if you weren’t counting down the minutes until the big dumb monster shows up. It distracts you from what is the real heart of the film: this tense thriller about a woman puzzle-solving her way out of this prison (not to mention it results in John Goodman being totally right in holding people against their will). It gets to the point where you wonder if the big boss fight at the end was originally a part of the film, or if “The Cellar” left a little more ambiguity.

But as damning as these two flaws are, I wonder if it was a necessary sacrifice. Make no mistake, "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a wonder film and a very original sci-fi thriller with two awesome performances that deserves to be seen. But would anyone bother to see it if it were "The Cellar?" I’m not one of those critics who riles against original ideas not making money. When ticket prices continue to be $15, it’s difficult to sell the Average Jane to see a movie they know little about. While viewers are no doubt upset that this is most certainly not a "Cloverfield" film, I think eventually they will appreciate how great a film it is by its own merits. So as cynical as the business side of this may be, it also ensured a great film isn’t ignored.