Cloverfield 2 Gets A Green Light

Published 7 years ago by , Updated May 1st, 2012 at 6:30 pm,

cloverfield 2 Cloverfield 2 Gets A Green LightWell now, that didn’t take long, did it?

Despite a close to 70% drop in box office in it’s second weekend (which I’ll talk about in a minute) Paramount has already greenlit Cloverfield 2. Let the viral speculation begin!

Will it pick up where the first one ended? Will it cover the same events through a different point of view? At this point it’s all speculation and I’m sure that’s just the way Paramount likes it. icon smile Cloverfield 2 Gets A Green Light

The only thing for certain is that Matt Reeves will be back to direct and Drew Goddard back to write the film.

Regarding the big box office drop in it’s second weekend, I think my buddy Chris over at Movie Marketing Madness pegged it right: The marketing was done to suck everyone who was interested in seeing the movie into theaters on opening weekend. After that only folks who hadn’t heard about were left and then they were influenced by either the people who loved it or those who hated the movie.

Source: UGO

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. This proves to me that Hollywood doesn’t do any research beyond the raw dollar revenue when considering one of these.

    If they had been paying attention to the audience, they would have realized that the money that they made they made this time around was derived from a very split audience reaction. I’d say only about 60 percent of opening week revenue can be counted upon for the opening week of any sequel. If they’re true to Hollywood form, they’ll at least double the budget of the first.

    Finally, consider that, for reasons I’ve already discussed in previous threads on Screenrant, even those who come back for a sequel will likely be disappointed because there’s very little room, if any (I’d argue none at all) for a sequel to go. It will either be a re-hash of the first (nothing new) or it will take an omniscient third person view and destroy the unique immediacy of the first – thus making it just like every other (boring) monster movie.

    Bottom line is, there is a good chance the studio will take a bath on this. But what else is new? The way they make decisions in Hollywood, it makes you wonder if they have brains at all.

    *sighs* Well, the only upshot here is that I don’t *have* to go see it and spoil the first one, though it will always be disappointing knowing there’s one out there ruining the specialness of the original.

  2. jerseycajun: The studios have paid attention just fine. The international numbers are in and so far Cloverfield has only been released in a handful of international markets and it doing really really well. It is opening #1or #2 almost everywhere where it has been released.

    I think there is a lot of room for the sequel the way they left in the end it could go in any direction, they could have :

    1) From the perspective of the military
    2)From the perspective of the news reporters
    3) In the aftermath of the attack with a survivors in NY trying to stay alive
    4) A traditional monster movie which follows the origin story
    etc etc etc

  3. Nate,

    How are those perspectives significantly different enough from the premise of the original to justify themselves? It’s the first person perspective that makes it special. Changing the occupation/goals of the protagonists is like changing window dressing in the case of Cloverfield. They didn’t matter as much as the experience of being in that first-person perspective. Any sequel along the lines of 1 & 2 is just adding more footage where more doesn’t actually add anything to the experience.

    #3 implies that the monster isn’t going to be present (hence, the aftermath) and robs it of the driving impulse behind the first. It makes the subject boring.

    #4 has been done to death and with much less success because again, a key part of the success of Cloverfield came from not having the answers to origin/motivation of the monster. After all, there can be no explanation of the creature that wouldn’t be so preposterous that it wouldn’t immediately take you out of the reality that it was driving at. It is best that the mysterious force of nature remains mysterious, for that is where the fear and realism derive from in Cloverfield. Of all the possible ideas for a sequel, this is probably the worst tack to take. For those who see it, the mystery of the first will be destroyed because now they will “know” more than the characters on screen, separating you from them instead of joining in their struggle to survive.

  4. I will concede Nate, that a sequel might turn a profit including overseas totals, and that the studios may very well be properly financially motivated to make them.

    Consider though, the effect on a movie fan who only wants to come away from a film satisfied and all I can see are diminishing returns the further they push this franchise beyond what is already in the can.

  5. Everyone will see this because of the crazy amounts of hype that will come with it. The story potential is infinite and they can make it a completely different style and make it amazing

    I got sick watching Cloverfield, but I’ll sure as hell be there to see the sequel

    JJ Abrams is the man

  6. The “from the perspective of” thing needs to be dropped completely. Go a different direction completely, like the two Riddick movies.

    Like (off the top of my head) the government searches for the creature’s origin with an expedition under the ocean – no ties whatsoever to the characters in the first movie.

    Or set it 4 years later and the mayor of the destroyed NYC tries to capitalize on the tragedy and runs for President, and fails miserably.

  7. Cloverfield 2 Opening scene.

    The “requel” opens with Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Locke finally returning to New York. The monster rises out of the water in front of the approaching jet. It tries to fend off the flying object, clipping its wing and hacking off the statue of Liberty’s head in the process. The head flies in between the buldings and the plane spirals and crashes…
    onto Manhattan ISLAND.

  8. Oh man… Jim, that is HILARIOUS! :-D


  9. I want to see the miltiarys POV, with their steadycam shots.
    It could even be recovered tapes like the first film. But instead give us 2 stories, one the retrieval disaster the next the National Guards final assault on the beast. Intermix our characters from the first film (I’m there).
    Hell I’m there anyway. Just to see what they do!
    Jerseycajon, come on they could pull this off… could be neato.

  10. I for one will not see a sequel if they use the same first-person point-of-view for the filming. I didn’t get sick, but it was really, really annoying. I will wait and see what other people see before I go and part with my cash. I DID think the monster was great and I’d love to see a regularly filmed movie about this monster. Where did it come from? Was it really destroyed? Where those “spider” things dropping from it the monster’s offspring? My 3 biggest gripes about Cloverfield are the filming, the party scene took WAY too long and I thought the ending was lame. There is a lot of potential with this monster if they do it RIGHT.

  11. Well Andy I can guarantee you it will be a first person sequel.

    What would you think if they did a FPV with a steadycam ?
    Andy if the writers strike is over by the time this sequel comes out (2011) I’ll pay your way!
    Now will you go???
    You too Jerseycajun!!!

  12. Andy, the directors (Abrams & Reeve) have called the spider creatures “parasites.” See the Cloverfield Review (my comments) for the URL.

  13. Steve,

    I doubt it. It doesn’t really matter what they do with the idea from here on out. If I thought there was genuinely something else that could be added to it, I’d be right there with you, but I see no avenue that doesn’t just sound like re-arranging deck chairs and repackaging the same thing in a different box.

    If the traditional monster movie were a 8-track, Cloverfield was an ipod. It was a fresh take on an old idea. But all these different pitches for sequels on that idea only seem to me to be different colored ipods. Once you’ve got one, you’re not really getting anything substantially different or better if you buy another one in blue. For what this movie tried to do, it’s not going to get better if they do it again with different accouterments.

    And filming a sequel in a more traditional method is like reaching for that old 8-track again.

  14. Oh come on Jerseycajun the Ipod will be obsolite in a few weeks…..its going to take a year and a half at least for clovey 2.
    Ok how bout I arrange for a taxi to pick you up take you lunch and then to the movie theatre for a screening on me?
    Then will you go?

  15. Oh come on Jerseycajun the Ipod will be obsolite in a few weeks.
    I believe the new Ipod is called the NanoPod…

  16. possible SPOIlERS
    I think the only good sequal that would keep the uniqueness of it all would be if Rob and Beth pick up a military helmet cam or somthing like that in post hammer down. obviously with the creature still bieng alive. have them try to get out and instead of cutting back into the coney island scene like in the first one have it go back into a briefing of the monster attack before the soldiers were going in or somthing. this would keep the cam ( i thought this made the movie unique and shouldnt toss it) fill in the backstory and keep the same characters. in my opinion problem solved.

  17. Zergufdl sounds cool.
    I just hope they crank it out fast.
    I’m hoping for sometime 2009.
    and hey everyone, that hated Cloverfield don’t see the sequel. I’m sure the camera will be a little shakey. Sheeessh

  18. “even those who come back for a sequel will likely be disappointed because there’s very little room, if any (I’d argue none at all) for a sequel to go.”

    I don’t think that’s true…the “i love you, too” ending did leave a bunch to the imagination. Did they die? What about Hudd? Poor Hudd… In the commercials it says that this tape was found at the site : Cloverfield, aka Central Park. This means that there are people viewing this tape in the future…it could be from their prospective amd tell what happened after the initial monster attack.

  19. Also, Andy, the party scene was to establish character. It was pretty much to make sure that they didn’t just have a giant monster suddenly running around without giving you a little bit of who these people are…