The trailer that must not be named.

[Flying_Infant]

Just wondering what everyones thoughts are on the unnamed trailer that showed before Transformers, now up on apple.com here;

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/11808/

[Glitch Girl]

I think the movie is called "Cloverland" (at least that's the title I hear batted around, probalby only the production title, kinda like "Blue Harvest" was for "Empire Strikes Back")  Rumors abound. I'm hearing it's a monster movie told from the POV of people with handheld cameras and like recording devices.   

I'm told this site ties into it as well. It's a set of 5 puzzles.  I've gotten through a few of them, figured out how the fourth one works but got myself stuck in a corner and I can't reset the puzzle.  Each time you complete a puzzle, you get a bit of video.
http://www.ethanhaaswasright.com/

Edit: More tidbits - this might be the return of the Elder gods.
http://semidi.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/ethan-haas-was-right/

[Mr. Hamrick]

buzzz . . . wrong!  Ethan Hawk has nothing do with the 01-18-08 (a.k.a. Cloverfield) movie. 
This is from JJ Abrams to Harry Knowles over at Ain't It Cool News.com

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your support of our little movie. I can't wait to talk to you more about it -- of course, knowing you, by the time we talk you'll know more than I will.

Regarding the online stuff you posted: yeah, we're doing some fun stuff on the web. But, obviously, if the movie doesn't kick some massive arse, who gives a rat's about what's online? So as you can imagine, we're focusing mostly on THAT. For what it's worth, the only site of ours that people have even FOUND is the 1-18-08.com site. The others (like the Ethan Haas sites) have nothing to do with us.  Stay cool the rest of the summer -- and thanks per usual for AICN!

JJ

That being the case . . . this creates a bit of a puzzle . . .

What's all this about 01-18-08?
and What's all this about Ethan Hawk being right or wrong? 

Apparently, we may know something very soon.  There is a few things that we apparently do know.
http://www.1-18-08.com/ is legit
and this site may be legit too http://www.parasitemovie.com/ but isn't confirmed.
but the two Ethan sites are related but apparently . . . again according to Abrams . . . not related.

This is quite a quandry. 

[Glitch Girl]

(psst: it's Ethan HAAS, not Ethan Hawk) 

The Ethanhaaswasright page - it's obviously a tie in to something that has money (the production value on this site is very high) and the ruins of NYC plus all the video clips and whatnot tie in quite well with what little we do know.

This means
a)There could be another movie that has to do with Ethan Haas and hasn't been revealed yet
or
b)The director is misdirecting us and it is a tie in.

If there are two movies using stealth marketing, things are gonna get REALLY confusing. 

[Mr. Hamrick]

(psst: it's Ethan HAAS, not Ethan Hawk) 

The Ethanhaaswasright page - it's obviously a tie in to something that has money (the production value on this site is very high) and the ruins of NYC plus all the video clips and whatnot tie in quite well with what little we do know.

This means
a)There could be another movie that has to do with Ethan Haas and hasn't been revealed yet
or
b)The director is misdirecting us and it is a tie in.

If there are two movies using stealth marketing, things are gonna get REALLY confusing. 

oops me no able to type while eating.  LOL! 

and I agree it is one of the two and this is going to get confusing. 

:)

[GogglesPizanno]

This whole thing is JJ Abrams, which means its gonna be a great concept and great setup, but the execution is gonna be boring and uninspired (to me anyway)....

But to keep up with the Viral Marketing theme, the film site Chud.com has several related editorials/stories about this film and the Watchmen:

"Cloverland"
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=10985

Watchmen
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=10984

Viral Mrketing in General
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=10986

[Flying_Infant]

I'm under the impression that they're all related. And from what alot of people are commenting, I'm going with the whole Elder Gods theory.

Also, on the 1-18-08 site, anyone think that on the picture with the two womens faces, that thing in the background looks like a head?

[Ajax]

Here are the theroies I've heard for this movie.

1) It's a new Godzilla movie. The evidence to back this claim up apparently comes from the roar the monster makes. Alot of Godzilla fans claim it's the exact same roar made by Godzilla in the original movie.

2) It's a Voltron movie. This is the least likely of the scenarios for many reasons. First the shaky cam thing wouldn't be that effective unless it was from the POV of the four pilots. Second Voltron would be done more like Transformers, high production value, very shiny, and very much a blockbuster movie. Evidence toward the Voltron movie, people claim they here some of the background characters comment on giant lions.

3) Cthulu-esque monster movie. This of course comes from the viral marketing and the 1/18/08 site which has a very Lovecraftian vibe to it.

Either way the movie sound interesting.  Glitch how did you beat the second puzzle.

[ow_tiobe_sb]

Good grief! :rolleyes: 'Twould be much more edifying to spend one's time reading The Crying of Lot 49 rather than attempting to unravel some infectious, ubiquitous sales pitch. *thumbs his Neo-Marxist nose at the newfangled experience industry*

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyiist and The Prat in the Hat

[Ares_God_of_War]

here is what wikipedia has to say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield

[GhostMachine]

I've heard there's supposed to be a Russian-made giant monster movie coming out. Maybe that is it?

No way in heck its another Godzilla movie. Tri-Star's rights expired a long time ago, and after the disappointment of Godzilla not being in it at all but us being given a giant mutated iguana in a movie that should have been named The Beast From 20000 Fathoms `98, I'm pretty sure a sequel would be a major bomb. And TOHO couldn't keep it a secret if they decided to do another Godzilla movie yet, considering they said Godzilla was retired until 2013 or so.

[Podmark]

I saw this trailer when I saw Transformers and was very intrigued. I looked it up and found out JJ Abrams was involved, I love Lost and I'm very interested in where this is going, especially considering all the mystery around it.

[Glitch Girl]

Ajax:
[spoiler] If you mouse over the stars, you'll eventually find a cypher key.  It'll list all the symbols and corresponding letters to the alphabet.  Now, look up "HASS" and spell it out on the dials.

There's an email with some cluse you can get.  If you don't want to give out your emai laddres, go to http://www.jayisgames.com and look the game up - Jay posted the email he got[/spoiler]

[detourne_me]

Good grief! :rolleyes: 'Twould be much more edifying to spend one's time reading The Crying of Lot 49 rather than attempting to unravel some infectious, ubiquitous sales pitch. *thumbs his Neo-Marxist nose at the newfangled experience industry*

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyiist and The Prat in the Hat

Neo-Marxism may play more into this then you expect,  assuming that this movie will be shot entirely in POV "Blair Witch"-style it brings to mind text's like Baudrillards The Gulf War Never Happened where an event is so mediated that its impossible to know the hermetic truth.   Heck it could be a busted underground gas line that erupts into some natural methane gas deposits, but given the fact that the only perceivable eye is so far away from the action, we just project a giant monster destroying the city.  The same way how people would see the devil's face in the smoke of the WTC.

[Flying_Infant]

Oh yeah, I also read a couple of places that the symbols on that one website are the same type of symbols that were featured in the TF movie. Anyone think thats true?

[the_ultimate_evil]

buzzz . . . wrong!  Ethan Hawk has nothing do with the 01-18-08 (a.k.a. Cloverfield) movie. 
This is from JJ Abrams to Harry Knowles over at Ain't It Cool News.com

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33261

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your support of our little movie. I can't wait to talk to you more about it -- of course, knowing you, by the time we talk you'll know more than I will.

Regarding the online stuff you posted: yeah, we're doing some fun stuff on the web. But, obviously, if the movie doesn't kick some massive [expletive deleted], who gives a rat's about what's online? So as you can imagine, we're focusing mostly on THAT. For what it's worth, the only site of ours that people have even FOUND is the 1-18-08.com site. The others (like the Ethan Haas sites) have nothing to do with us.  Stay cool the rest of the summer -- and thanks per usual for AICN!

JJ

That being the case . . . this creates a bit of a puzzle . . .

What's all this about 01-18-08?
and What's all this about Ethan Hawk being right or wrong? 

Apparently, we may know something very soon.  There is a few things that we apparently do know.
http://www.1-18-08.com/ is legit
and this site may be legit too http://www.parasitemovie.com/ but isn't confirmed.
but the two Ethan sites are related but apparently . . . again according to Abrams . . . not related.

This is quite a quandry. 

yeah and he also denied any avrg to do with lost and alias at first

[Mr. Hamrick]

Ajax:
[spoiler] If you mouse over the stars, you'll eventually find a cypher key.  It'll list all the symbols and corresponding letters to the alphabet.  Now, look up "HASS" and spell it out on the dials.

There's an email with some cluse you can get.  If you don't want to give out your emai laddres, go to http://www.jayisgames.com and look the game up - Jay posted the email he got[/spoiler]

[spoiler]part of the problem I found on that puzzle is A) where to put the symbols (there are three dials) and B ) if you are suppose hit something afterwards.  Nothing happpened for me when I placed the symbols in there.  And yes, I did place the correct ones in there as far as I can tell.  And its HAAS not HASS, right?[/spoiler]

[ow_tiobe_sb]

Neo-Marxism may play more into this then you expect,  assuming that this movie will be shot entirely in POV "Blair Witch"-style it brings to mind text's like Baudrillards The Gulf War Never Happened where an event is so mediated that its impossible to know the hermetic truth.   Heck it could be a busted underground gas line that erupts into some natural methane gas deposits, but given the fact that the only perceivable eye is so far away from the action, we just project a giant monster destroying the city.  The same way how people would see the devil's face in the smoke of the WTC.

Good point (and one can never say too much about Baudrillard, one of the greatest critics of our time).  My previous post was predominently a roguish mini-protest against the Hollywood movie machine that, if you will, has clearly morphed into a cyborg in the wake of the viral marketing revolution.  My frustration is that I would like to respect a film (especially one whose cinematography proves challenging) on its own merits, but the manner in which the experience industry has so overtly cocooned and utterly mediated its movie product makes it impossible for one to separate the entertainment from its marketing.  In sum, if I ever have the opportunity to see "Cloverfield"--and the prospect seems doubtful--'twill be for me an admixture of 1-18-08.com + ethanhaaswasright.com + ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com + slusho.com + aintitcool.com + ARG + marketing infections + the experience of the film, etc. (regardless of the true or intended interconnectedness of these sources).  This fact will not, of course, be a source of concern for most moviegoers, who lead unproblematic lives as capitalist pawns.

Pynchon may help point out some of the hermeneutic problems you raise as well, detourne_me. :)

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and The Prat in the Hat

[thanoson]

 :blink:
Jesus there were a lot of words there. This movie looks smashy. Woot. That is all.

[Mr. Hamrick]

Neo-Marxism may play more into this then you expect,  assuming that this movie will be shot entirely in POV "Blair Witch"-style it brings to mind text's like Baudrillards The Gulf War Never Happened where an event is so mediated that its impossible to know the hermetic truth.   Heck it could be a busted underground gas line that erupts into some natural methane gas deposits, but given the fact that the only perceivable eye is so far away from the action, we just project a giant monster destroying the city.  The same way how people would see the devil's face in the smoke of the WTC.

Good point (and one can never say too much about Baudrillard, one of the greatest critics of our time).  My previous post was predominently a roguish mini-protest against the Hollywood movie machine that, if you will, has clearly morphed into a cyborg in the wake of the viral marketing revolution.  My frustration is that I would like to respect a film (especially one whose cinematography proves challenging) on its own merits, but the manner in which the experience industry has so overtly cocooned and utterly mediated its movie product makes it impossible for one to separate the entertainment from its marketing.  In sum, if I ever have the opportunity to see "Cloverfield"--and the prospect seems doubtful--'twill be for me an admixture of 1-18-08.com + ethanhaaswasright.com + ethanhaaswaswrong.blogspot.com + slusho.com + aintitcool.com + ARG + marketing infections + the experience of the film, etc. (regardless of the true or intended interconnectedness of these sources).  This fact will not, of course, be a source of concern for most moviegoers, who lead unproblematic lives as capitalist pawns.

Pynchon may help point out some of the hermeneutic problems you raise as well, detourne_me. :)

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and The Prat in the Hat

I have a headache after digesting all of that.  With all due respect, ow_tiobe_sb, as I think some of the points you are trying to raise seem very valid, I disagree with the idea that the whole motivation behind the effort is 100% capitalistic.

From what I am seeing on the proverbial ground is that there is a conflict going on in the industry between how to use the relatively new medium of to it's marketing potential vs. people not connected with the film trying to capitalize on their newfound ability to be a part of it all.  

The film companies were at first very reluctant or very ignorant on how to use to the internet to market their movies.  If you look back at the early 90s, you wouldn't see the trailer up on a site.  You'd see a cast list, a film synopsis, the movie poster and if you were lucky some downloads for your desktop.  That is presuming the film got a site at all as many didn't.  By time the millenium rolled around, as many know, the film industry had for the most part recognized the potential of advertising online.  

However, regular users began to move beyond the traditional "fan site" approach to sites that were trying to be "a part of the film".  

Film industry people did what they could to either accept or tolerate this though in some cases they opted to ask the site be removed.  (This didn't happen often but it's happened.)

Now we're entering a new phase of what the internet is capable of as far as marketing.  Led by The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Heroes, and other shows and movies, the user is being now being invited to be a part of the experience to one degree or another.  

However, some users are finding an ability to do this in ways that the industry didn't initially forsee.

Is that capitalism?  To an extent, yeah, but only if the person or persons doing it is in it to gain profit from the company producing the product in some way.  

Look at the webisode project called "Lonelygirl15" (well, you don't have to literally look at it but . . . nevermind).  A lot of people were invited to participate in an ARG type thing and a few of them were brought on as actual participants in the series.  None of the ARG stuff as been done for profit (to my knowledge) and none of the people producing the ARG stuff have sought profit.  

Therefore, the question becomes is this "viral marketing" campaign an effort to push the limits of what is possible or has the effort at a campaign been hi-jacked as it's gotten out of the box either by eager persons of interest, people looking to profit from their own efforts, or from the poor timing of another viral marketing campaign being released at the same time.

[detourne_me]

i seriously think that this film is in itself an experiment in viral marketing.  didn't JJ Abrams build his career on hype (apparently he followed through with good stories, but i've chosen not to watch em)

we may start to see a backlash because of this (inability to separate a cyber-experience with that of just plain watching the movie) but i wouldn't see it coming for at least a year or two. at least until after this movie comes out. the ambiguity of the virals is going to be nullified by explosions when people see the flick. 
I'm just waiting to see lonelygirl15 or foureyedmonsters come to theaters...uggh, time for whiny POV virals made by ugly people....(although i gotta admit, i saw the first couple lonelygirl15's and thought it was cool, until... <_<)

to deny capitalist intent from this movie is an oversight, just in the trailer, there are HUGE explosions.   that means they needed money to make em, and making em makes more money.
oh and thanks for the correction ow_tiobe, on hermeneutic vs. hermetic,  and i swear one day i will buy gravity's rainbow,   ive tried on 3 occasions but i just couldn't make it past the 4th or 5th page.  ive read lot 49 and mason-dixon (or was that eco?)

[cmdrkoenig67]

Here are the theroies I've heard for this movie.

1) It's a new Godzilla movie. The evidence to back this claim up apparently comes from the roar the monster makes. Alot of Godzilla fans claim it's the exact same roar made by Godzilla in the original movie.

I doubt it's Godzilla...Sounds nothing like any version of Big G (not even the American one).

2) It's a Voltron movie. This is the least likely of the scenarios for many reasons. First the shaky cam thing wouldn't be that effective unless it was from the POV of the four pilots. Second Voltron would be done more like Transformers, high production value, very shiny, and very much a blockbuster movie. Evidence toward the Voltron movie, people claim they here some of the background characters comment on giant lions.

I don't know where folks are getting the lion thing from...But in the trailer:  A terrified man on the street says as he runs by..."I saw it, it's alive...It's huge!"...  I think people are just mishearing the line.

3) Cthulu-esque monster movie. This of course comes from the viral marketing and the 1/18/08 site which has a very Lovecraftian vibe to it.

Either way the movie sound interesting.  Glitch how did you beat the second puzzle.

It could be Cthulhu/Cthulu/who-ever...It's certainly a freaky trailer.

Dana

[ow_tiobe_sb]

I have a headache after digesting all of that.

I'm beginning to become amused by this almost uniform reply to posts I attempt to put some thought into. *shrug*

With all due respect, ow_tiobe_sb, as I think some of the points you are trying to raise seem very valid, I disagree with the idea that the whole motivation behind the effort is 100% capitalistic.

I actually agree with you there, and I apologise if I inadvertently made the current state of affairs seem black and white.  Aye, there will always be networks of control and resistance deploying the power available to them.  The question remains: who seems to be winning at this time?  The piracy industry (again, notice that I call it an "industry," for 'tis especially strong and well organised outside the U.S.), which attempts to buck the mainstream system by setting up its own shadowy capitalist enterprise; Hollywood and the legitimate film industry; video rentals; or the Luddites/disenfranchised, who boycott part or all of the entertainment industry?

From what I am seeing on the proverbial ground is that there is a conflict going on in the industry between how to use the relatively new medium of to it's marketing potential vs. people not connected with the film trying to capitalize on their newfound ability to be a part of it all.

I believe you've just illustrated my "cyborg" point.  Individuals graft the Hollywood product onto their moneymaking capacity, and the rest is a wild ride to the bank. ;)

However, regular users began to move beyond the traditional "fan site" approach to sites that were trying to be "a part of the film".

Define "be[ing] 'part of the film'."  I'm not saying its impossible; I simply don't know what you're getting at.

Now we're entering a new phase of what the internet is capable of as far as marketing.  Led by The Blair Witch Project, Donnie Darko, Heroes, and other shows and movies, the user is being now being invited to be a part of the experience to one degree or another.

Aye, an experience: the experience industry.

However, some users are finding an ability to do this in ways that the industry didn't initially forsee.

And the industry has clearly considered itself lucky (or opportunistic) by quieting its uneasy legal team and welcoming those industrious users--read "free advertising"--into the fold.  If capitalism is one (or two) thing(/s), it is adaptable and absorbent.

Is that capitalism?  To an extent, yeah, but only if the person or persons doing it is in it to gain profit from the company producing the product in some way.

But you must also consider the idea of complicity.  The rules of exchange--as far as marketing, branding, sloganising, iconography, etc., are concerned--are slippery and tend to leave the individual, even the individual with nothing to gain, in the role of intentional or accidental promoter for those who DO have something to gain by direct or indirect lip service.  If capitalists did not know this, why would they bother sending a sample of their product to, e.g., television talk show hosts who mention their product, even in the act of criticising it?  What is the best way out of this mess, you ask?  Parody.

None of the ARG stuff as been done for profit (to my knowledge) and none of the people producing the ARG stuff have sought profit.

Aye, but in the current case in question (namely, "Cloverfield"), the Ethan Haas ARG could be profiting from either its covert connection to "Cloverfield" or no connection at all (the potentially misdirected hype might be more lip service than the ARG ever hoped to receive).  What assurances do we have that those e-mail addresses collected at the completion of the puzzles will not be sold to third parties?

Therefore, the question becomes is this "viral marketing" campaign an effort to push the limits of what is possible or has the effort at a campaign been hi-jacked as it's gotten out of the box either by eager persons of interest, people looking to profit from their own efforts, or from the poor timing of another viral marketing campaign being released at the same time.

The limits of what?  If you mean the assumed limits of capitalist strategies, yes, I'd buy that seven days a week and twice on Tuesday.  The problem is seeing the forest for the trees, for the web (pun intended) of exchanges and profits, guises and manipulations is thick and difficult to navigate.  There are strategies of resistance, but many western economies, not to mention the laws that buttress and are built upon those economies, are so hostile to resistance that it is virtually impossible for individuals to survive without participating in the capitalist system.  Consequently, I, the neo-Marxist, pay my bills, buy my groceries (I don't steal them), etc., so that I and my family can continue to live.  This is why revolutions--large bodies of politically mobilised peoples--are necessary to overturn systems.

*steps off soap box*

To return to the topic, I am afraid that this film may impress me the way that The Blair Witch Project did: the story of the production of the film proved more interesting than the film itself. *shrug*

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and The Prat in the Hat

[Mr. Hamrick]

To return to the topic, I am afraid that this film may impress me the way that The Blair Witch Project did: the story of the production of the film proved more interesting than the film itself. *shrug*

I agree with you 100% there.  To me the only part interesting to the Blair Witch project was the method by which the film was made and the amount it was made for.  There was not very adequate writing, the acting was not all that great and the payoff was not all that clear (an error I blame as much on lighting and editing as anything).

[BatWing]

I'm under the impression that they're all related. And from what alot of people are commenting, I'm going with the whole Elder Gods theory.

Also, on the 1-18-08 site, anyone think that on the picture with the two womens faces, that thing in the background looks like a head?

it looks like a rat but its really her hair

[Mr. Hamrick]

01-18-08 maybe the release date but . . .

08-01-07 looks like it may be another important date.  If what I've heard is true then ol' J.J. was on the level when he said that the Ethan Haas stuff had nothing to do with it.

And folks maybe be a lot closer with the Godzilla guesses than they realize.

oh and for what it's worth, there is a third pic up at the 01-18-08 site

[Mr. Hamrick]

not meaning to double post here but check this out:
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q176/StealthHacker/?action=view&current=message.jpg

and the Ethan Haas mystery has apparently been solved.  It is related to an upcoming video game called "Alpha Omega".

   
The following is some information from a friend of mine:
[spoiler]

Sony not Paramount own the rights to Godzilla and they can not make another one since it has been said they will not make another one till 2012...

WRONG!!!

Doing some research of my own I found Sony Tri-Star only has the rights to distribute a Godzilla movie until August 1st 2007. Sony never had the rights to the character they stayed in the hands of ToHo in Japan and were on loan only to Centropolis the production company of that Ferris Buler meets The Lizard film... So that means Sony is a distributor and financer. But the rights were on a lease/loan which in this case would be Bad Robot... And what makes this different than any other giant monster movie? Well, as I understand it, most of the film is going to be shot using home video cameras, as if from the point of view of real people who are experiencing an attack on New York. It's designed as a fairly small picture, all things considered, and right now, they're working to make sure the script is going to deliver some wild thrills (like an earthquake that levels Manhattan or an oil tanker flipping over by the Statue of Liberty), but that it's not suddenly going to turn into a giant $150 million movie. It's a tricky balance, and if they pull off everything they're trying to do, CLOVERFIELD could be something really groovy. Not a man in suit in sight. we must all remmber that a 3D Godzilla is currently also in production by toho! SO they have already broke their 2012 promise...
*2 hours later...*
"Godzilla meets Blair Witch... which is an interesting concept. A Godzilla movie shot and shown through a personal camera, through a persons view... interesting. I did my research, and apparently that last license holder for Godzilla, let their license expire in 2003, and did not pick it up, meaning the rights for the U.S. were up for grabs,ToHo (the main holder of creative rights to Godzilla in Japan) refuses to let any production company buy the rights to more American Godzilla movies. Now that is odd because a 2003 article in variet that I found states that Paramount did indeed buy the rights in 2003. Looks like someone has since kept a secret...

[/spoiler]

There is also some credible evidence in another direction here:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/mattdentler/archives/014031.html

[BatWing]

it might not be another godzilla film

so its completley original

[TheMarvell]

I personally like a Cthulu-influenced monster flick idea. It's something original. I feel like if it truly is another Godzilla movie, a lot of consumers will not go see it.

but the nostalgic nerd in me wants to believe it's a new take on Godzilla. I'm still doubting it is, simply because of the legal disputes with ToHo and what not (Im not sure what's actually legit about it all, but I do know that ToHo doesn't want any American producers to touch Godzilla again after the 98 disaster), but if it actually is a new Godzilla movie told in an entirely different way, well, then, I'll definitely be in line.

But really, I feel like Godzilla has to be told with a big budget, and this movie looks like it will run on a very small one. Still, whatever it is, the marketing behind it is incredible and I'll probably see it anyways. The trailer definitely has done it's job - it's got people talking.

[GhostMachine]

Not going to post a link or anything, but they've unveiled a teaster poster for the movie (4 different versions, but the only difference in them is the text at the top of the poster) that looks pretty cool. The title still hasn't been revealed, but its been confirmed that its not a remake of anything. (ie, its not Cthulhu or a Godzilla sequel)