Cloverfield 2 Is A Bad Idea

Published 7 years ago by , Updated February 9th, 2012 at 9:54 pm,

cloverfield 2 Cloverfield 2 Is A Bad IdeaSo, considering my review of Cloverfield are you surprised that I don’t like the idea of a Cloverfield sequel?

Here’s the deal: I’m not opposed to a sequel – as a matter of fact I think this has the makings of a great franchise for at least another couple of movies. Kind of our very own Godzilla.

What I do believe is a bad idea is what the film’s director, Matt Reeves, may be kicking around as the concept for Cloverfield 2:

“While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go. The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today’s day and age of people filming their lives on their iphones and handy cams, uploading it to YouTube… That was kind of exciting thinking about that.”

Matt, if you get to be the guy who makes the sequel I would highly recommend that you go in a completely different direction.

The hand-held digicam point of view concept is cool the first time you use it, but I’m telling you: If the sequel is based on the exact same events but from yet another point of view it will tank.


The only thing that gives me hope in the statement above is that Reeves states that it is only one of many possible directions they discussed for a sequel.

Remember how awesome the original Alien by director Ridley Scott was? It was groundbreaking, fantastic and did amazingly well at the box office. And then James Cameron came on board for the sequel and instead of continuing down the same road he took the story in a completely different direction, and that turned out to be a brilliant decision.

I suggest that Reeves, Abrams and Paramount take a lesson from that page in movie history while they consider a Cloverfield sequel.

Source: Bloody Disgusting via First Showing

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. Don’t even put it in the same breath as Aliens. No, Cloverfield wasn’t terrible. But we’re still not talking about Aliens quality here.

  2. Luke, sorry, you misunderstood my intent. As a matter of fact, “Aliens” is my all-time favorite movie, and I certainly wasn’t comparing that or the original to Cloverfield.

    I was just making the analogy to show how completely different the first was from the second yet how they were both excellent each in their own way.


  3. A Sequel? HELL YEAH!!! There’s enough room in the storyline for that to happen. Who said that the (quaint spoiler here) creature coulda, shoulda, woulda been killed in the end? Not that that happened (for those of you who hasn’t seen it yet)? A sequel would be an appropriate way of explaining a few more things not answered in the movie.


  4. MBL,

    Exactly! This movie left people dying for answers and more of the monster. I think that’s what the next film should deliver.


  5. Gotta think outside that box a little, I think, Vic.

    If another bunch of people are filming an experience of their own that night, it hardly means the events and story beats are going to be the same. I mean, New York isn’t a small, one-horse town… and that monster’s there for many hours.

    A) The character arcs could be any number of things.

    B) The proximity to events could be totally different.


    C) Different perspectives could add new clues as to what exactly was going on and – for that matter – whether the closing event of the first film even worked.

    I, for one, didn’t think ‘Cloverfield’ was really that amazing and likely won’t see it again… so I don’t really care that much… but I do think it was very cleverly made and wouldn’t be so quick to discount the filmmakers’ intelligence.

  6. PS: I did like the film a lot and truly enjoyed it… I just don’t think it’s the best thing since sliced bread, as most of the world’s population appear to at the moment.

  7. Going in a completely different direction IS thinking outside the box IMO. Say what you like, but the bottom line is that if they just repeat the night’s events from a different on the street POV it will tank.

    Now that they’ve whetted people’s appetites, those same people are going to want answers.

    It wouldn’t have the same impact a second time.S


  8. One thing that popped into mind when Vic and MBL mentioned explaining what it is/was in a sequel, is how they did that in both the Matrix sequels, and they really stunk up the joint.


  9. Ah, in the Matrix sequels I think the Wachowskis fell in love a little too much with the universe they had created. The result was a pretentious, convoluted mess.

    I think this is a much more basic concept.


  10. LOL! Now there’s a comparison I thought I’d never see. :-)


  11. Hey Vic, speaking of gospel truth–what’s with this headline? It doesn’t describe what you say below. Are you trying to attract the attention of even MORE hapless Googlers? 😛

  12. Hey Vic I had no idea that the director had the same idea as me as I posted on the reviews about the poss. sequel, this truly is a YouTube type experience. I expect more films shot this way soon.
    (This is the first time I’m reading this post tonight).
    Oh and by the way MBL , I laughed hard when I saw your title: “Cloverfield 2 What the Hell was That” very funny !!! :)
    IMO, they could go several different ways on a sequel. I’m sure there going to now…

  13. I’m going to go against popular opinion on the board and cast my vote for “no sequel whatsoever”.

    Guys, this film worked really well precisely because we knew so little about the creature. And if we’re talking about just doing the same thing with different New Yorkers, what’s the point? The characters are window dressing here. This movie was all about the experiencing the attack, and quite frankly I don’t think they could do any better than what we’ve already seen. Anything more will only rehash and repackage, thus destroying the uniqueness of this film.

    Can’t we all just treasure this film for its uniqueness and not press for more of the same? Vic is right in saying that the handycam technique won’t pass muster a second time. It would have been too much if this movie went on for even a few minutes more.

    The other alternative is expanding the focus of the film onto the military, reporters, and scientists but then we’re back to Godzilla circa 1998 and we really don’t want to go back there.

    This movie is lightning, and it ain’t gonna strike twice.

    We don’t need more answers. I don’t even want a clearer image of the monster. The backstory and all the other particulars can’t measure up to what the mind will fill in the blanks with.

    Can’t everyone see how much fun people are having just speculating on what it is, where it came from and why its on a rampage? All that mystery disappears when we have it all spelled out for us.

    This isn’t the kind of movie where answering questions brings satisfaction, it’s the kind where asking them brings entertainment.

    I never thought I’d be saying these things a few weeks ago, when somebody spilled the beans that the movie wouldn’t have a proper resolution or explanation. I thought, quite frankly, that it would suck. I lowered my expectations. But after seeing it, I understand completely how not revealing information made it better.

    I really hope they don’t make a sequel. If they do, I probably wouldn’t want to see it for fear of spoiling the original – which could easily happen under these circumstances. Remember “Blair Witch – book of secrets”? I believe the foulness of that one stained any positive memory of the first.

    Sometimes guys, less is more.

  14. Yea Jersycajun, I think I’m beginning to agree with you that this was a unique event.
    Very good points, very good indeed.

  15. Jerseycajun, you’ve just about sold me. I know lots of us felt the same about Journeyman, after some reflection. We would have liked more, but it concluded with class and dignity. Then again, Journeyman also delivered a FEW answers toward the end. :-)

    Would you say some juicy DVD extras like supplemental footage (oil rig video) on the DVD would wrap this in a bow?

    To get back off topic :-), I must say the ambiguity works for a self-contained movie, but Abrams better not leave us cold when LOST runs its course. (Then again, Abram’s price tag just went up exponentially…can ABC sustain the show?)

  16. Jim,

    I think supplemental footage is fine as long as it maintains the element of the unknown (and ditches the handycam – maybe an oil rig security camera? Do they have those on oil rigs?) You could even include some of the initial news reports of the attack (because they didn’t know anything either while it was going on) and some less extensive (a couple minutes a clip) handheld footage taken by other New Yorkers (maybe even make them Japanese tourists for a neat twist).

    The same goes for including cut footage under bonus features as long as it’s not too expository.

  17. (Dvd Cloverfield)

    I would love to see these as Bonus Features on the dvd.
    ALL the Breaking News clips should deffinitly be in the special features…
    Spycam from the supertanker would be amazing as a short bonus feature.(Reminds me of a Dawn of the Dead, bonus dvd film) that was awesome.
    Bonus handheld footage from Japanese tourists would be ironically cool.
    All cut footage would be a must.
    Commentaries of course. I would love to hear a Hud commentary. And the Director. Maybe even Abrhams.
    Another docu-drama short feature.
    The Armed forces point of view of the attack..
    The Creature. How it was disigned. Etc.
    its going to have to be a 2 disc version. Haha.


    Had enough? I did.

  19. Jersey,

    I agree that it would be great if this was a one-shot, but it’s inevitable that there will be a sequel IMHO.

    Let’s just hope it’s not “Blair Witch 2.”


  20. You’re probably right, Vic. Low cost + high revenue = guaranteed sequel.

    If one comes out I’ll have to pretend it doesn’t exist.

    The fun mystique of this film is like a fragile balloon and Hollywood is holding a very large needle and grinning malevolently.

  21. Would it be considered too odd if fans of Cloverfield started a petition to NOT to make a sequel?

  22. Believability is the problem.
    How many people are going to be recording this thing while they are running for their lives ?

  23. I was really, really disappointed by Cloverfield. Other than the monster being totally killer (no pun intended!), the camera work and the horrific ending (not to mention the dragged out opening sequence), really ruined this movie for me. I loved the idea of the first person, but this being Hollywood, they COULD have just used regular filming techniques!! I wouldn’t be averse to a sequel, but DO NOT use the digicam view again. If it does, I will NOT be going to see it.


    Did anyone else roll their eyes after these traumatized kids ran all around and under the city, THEN scurried up and down forty flights? All th while in the tunnels, streets, and stairways they didn’t encounter a single wounded, trapped, or abandoned person asking for help. One surprise–I would have bet that when they busted down the door to the apartment, it was going to be a ragged edge of floor and open air.

  25. Gary,I think this film is going to spark alot of people to go out and get a handheld camera.

    As a matter of fact there going to start asking “what model was used by Hud in Cloverfield”.
    Life imatates Art these days and IMO alot of fans of this film are going to be seeking out disasters, ufo invasions , etc. So they can make there own Cloverfield or at least try.
    This movie has created a Monster!
    (Pun intended)
    I bet handheld camera sales are allready up.
    And on the industry side, STEADY handheld techonology IS being developed for consumers…
    Its a new day!

  26. A Cloverfield 2? Maybe. Helmet cam for a soldiers point of view? Maybe in part, certainly not the whole movie. My thought is that the monster came from space–that brief glimpse of a distant splash on the last little Coney Island bit–it is actually an organic spaceship/warmachine. The “alien invaders” are the “lice” or “babies” that drop off all the time. Something so completely alien that we can not even recognize what they want of “if” they “think” as we understand it. Anything along that line would need a completely different technique from the first Cloverfield, but it could be done and done well enough to make the first film seem like a 84 minute commercial.

  27. “Falling off like lice.” I’ve seen a few references to this. Is this yet another thing I missed, or is this based on the web illustration of the big and little monsters that I saw somewhere?

  28. Mmmmmmm good points Thorrsman! I like that sequel concept!