Comments on: Cloverfield 2 Gets A Green Light

By: J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2 & Gorn in Star Trek 2 - Screen Rant

J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2 & Gorn in Star Trek 2 - Screen Rant — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:48:37 +0000

[...] giant monster, hit theaters back in January 2008. Before that month was out, Cloverfield 2 had been green lit by Paramount studios. Flash forward 2 years later, and the only news we’ve heard from producer J.J. Abrams is “Yup, [...]

By: J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2 - Screen Rant

J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2 - Screen Rant — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:26:39 +0000

[...] was confirmed more than a year ago that a Cloverfield sequel had been greenlit. It’s not surprising since the monster aspect of it is an idea that seems built for a [...]

By: Matt Reeves Discusses ‘Cloverfield 2′ - Screen Rant

Matt Reeves Discusses ‘Cloverfield 2′ - Screen Rant — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:59:09 +0000

[...] the interview, he clarified that the studio really wants a sequel (it was greenlit just weeks after opening) and that since the film came out in January there have been quite a few discussions and [...]

By: Timothyology

Timothyology — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:54:03 +0000

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…

By: Timothyology

Timothyology — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:48:29 +0000

“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.

By: steve adams

steve adams — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:08:55 +0000

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

By: Zergufdl

Zergufdl — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:26:34 +0000

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.

By: steve adams

steve adams — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:20:00 +0000

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

By: steve adams

steve adams — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:17:45 +0000

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?

By: jerseycajun

jerseycajun — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:13:58 +0000

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.

By: Jim Carey

Jim Carey — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:08:11 +0000

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

By: steva adams

steva adams — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:51:16 +0000

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!!!

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:44:56 +0000

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.

By: steva adams

steva adams — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:42:45 +0000

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…..it could be neato.

By: Vic

Vic — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:36:22 +0000

Oh man… Jim, that is HILARIOUS!

Vic

By: Jim Carey

Jim Carey — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:24:16 +0000

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.

By: Panda

Panda — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:57:48 +0000

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.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:24:40 +0000

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

By: jerseycajun

jerseycajun — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:54:36 +0000

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.

By: jerseycajun

jerseycajun — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:39:06 +0000

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.