So, 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.
Badly.
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
Loading ...
77 Comments
I hope Lily didn’t die, here beauty should live on!!
Vic,
It’s just a flesh wound!
Shields up……
Mr Sulu ready Phasars……….
Open a channel…..
Hey Saad, interesting opinion.
However if you don’t like Vics reviews why do you still post here?
i dont ask for alot from the second part just integration of the on line ARG or it can pick up the other caracters that we know but were not in the movie, such as jamie and teddy (wich would be use of the ARG) also no all hand held but could used some to recap or have that special coneciton to the original
Vic, I quoted back Monty Python because there was a Movie Quote up in the corner from another scene in (Holy Grail), about some beast…I thought you attached it to this page as a gag. Apparently the quote changes when the screen is refreshed.
Jim,
I have over a hundred favorite movie quotes that cycle through randomly.
Vic
You’re dead on man,
Another handicam thing would be foolish and a failure
What they should do is a traditional movie style of a sequel more in a godzilla style. Or better yet, during the same events as the first cloverfield but from the army’s perspective evacuating, combatting and seeing what happens to the monster after it finishes of the 6 characters of the first film. In that movie you could see a little bit of crossover and have the original characters make a cameo, like when the helicopter takes one of them away or at the hospital where we see a little bloody explosion
Precious little tiny baby monster?
Seed for a requel (?) already planted?
Coming Soon quotes Matt Reeves:
>>The key to it is that the monster was a baby. The monster was suffering from separation anxiety and was absolutely disoriented and pissed, “where’s mommy?”, and terrified.>There’s a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming . . . and then he turns back and this guy’s briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment<
Jim do you mean that the big monster was the baby or the little bugs that fell off?
^
Can’t believe you noticed another guy with a camera on the bridge. Very cool!
I think they should do the same thing just with other different people. Someone else recording during that same time with their camera in another place and how they handled the situation.
Steve, those are not my observations! I quoted from one of the directors, interviewed on another website. I didn’t put the URL but you can look it up if you refer to my post.
What Reeves called a baby is “the monster.” (Although, could it be a scam interview?)
PLEASE ANSWER. Where are people getting this “fell off” business? I didn’t see anything “fall off” nor do I know where in the movie this happened. But then again, I missed a lot.
Holly four leaf clovers Jim, that’s a baby……let’s hope an only child.
Man if that thing gets any bigger it can just start hopping to other planets. I’m mean jessh. That thing has a sister and it shows up here in LA it would start all kinds of earthquakes.
^
^
Spoilers ahead.
^
^
^
^
[
^
The falling off comments are I believe when we go into the electronics store and Hud points to the tv’s showing the news reports. There’s one live report that shows the little creatures falling off the legs of Clover. and attacking the military.
¤.
Jim Carey, the “falling off” thing refers to the very last scene when Rob and Beth are on Coney Island (sp?) and in the background, on the horizon something falls into the ocean.
Thanks Steve–I sure didn’t see that.
Nate, I’ve seen that description. Matt Reeves underscores it. Could it be Mama? A predator or hunter? Klaatu barada nikto?
Action figure now on sale:
http://screenrant.com/archives/screen-rant-movie-news-grab-ba-1304.html
I just bought it–I won’t be charged until late September or so.
heath
In the electronics store, Hud sees a news broadcast of “lice” falling off the monster and attacking soldiers. Those were the same things that attacked the group in the subway and you can see them dropping off as the monster reaches down to chomp Hud.
Spoliers ahead lookout !!!
^
^
Lola. Lola…
^
^
^
^
^
^
Jim, the “lice” as some are reffering to that fall off,,, look alot like baby Clovers…. dant dant dahh….!!!
me.,
^
One thing also, at the end I didn’t see any more of them falling off Clover when he was in front of Hud.
I was even looking for them… I’m thinking this is the way it reproduces. (I’m sure sombody somewhere is saying, duh?).
^
If these are babies I can see a long film franchise ahead…good or bad you decide.
^
^
One concept I’m going to throw out for your review:
^
«Cloverfield 2»
Would be 2 stories
filmed with supposed hightech military handhelds.
(This would get rid of alot of the motion sickness problems and also provide some great shots. I mean were talking footage from the front lines of the battle. The miltiary has camera
Corps that does just this in real life…
Why not give us 2 really great troop stories tyed into each other with footage of the cast from the first film blended in…
Maybe one story could be the Navy retriving the sphere or trying…
The other one could be who knows, there’s 20 minimum different roads to go down…
I leave it to you out there to fill in the 2 stories…
^
I forgot I’m driving….
Jim one thing that makes sense about that quote from the director is that possibly the main monster was having seperation woes with all the little Clovers it was dropping.
I think a sequel would be very interesting to see. I would love to see the millitary’s take on Cloverfield, and learn where it came from.
Wow did I just see Stan-Lee and Bearacid on this post!!! Awesome.
^
Movieguys.org is a great site!!
Spoilers…
If the lice are babies, then this movie’s a bit more like Roland E and Dean D.’s Godzilla!
heath
JJ Abrams said:
“He’s a baby. He’s brand-new. He’s confused, disoriented and irritable. And he’s been down there in the water for thousands and thousands of years.”
http://goneelsewhere.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-cloverfield-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
The directors aren’t talking about lice.
The hint is that an ancient egg recently hatched.
Yeah I gotch Jim but that contradicts the falling sphere ending.
^
Hmmmm
Steve, how are you interpreting the falling sphere?
Sorry for the delay in answering Jim, I will admit that I didn’t see the sphere fall into the sea while watching the film Cloverfield. (Too stunned at the ending).
But from what I can tell from other Screenranters is that this creature came from outerspace. Therefore it can’t be a creature that has been sleeping for thousands of years.
^
What am I missing?
Btw, what’s this Lake Placid 2 dvd, with Cloris Leachman I’m there.
!!!!!!! Since I can’t see it in theatres I’m totally buying this dvd. !!!!!
When the **directors of Cloverfield** explain the monster, it takes precedence over fan theories.
Did anyone check the URLs I provided earlier? I’m not an uber-fan. Are those hoax interviews?
Abrams & Reeve have explained some things about the monster (baby, deep sea, thousands of years old) while creating mystery about the falling object.
This is SO like Lost.
Well Jim I hear ya, but what do you think that sphere was that hit the water in just the perfect last 4 seconds of the film. ?
I think they should do it from the aspect of a soldier this time around.
This would allow us to see more the monster and perhaps there could be a scene where he/she overhears some of the brass talking about what it is.
Going back to the article poster’s idea though:where would they take it?Researchers examining the site? The discovery of more cloverfield monsters?Or perhaps the little spider things moved beyond Manhattan and the story could have something to do with that?
I like the idea of multiple perspectives though but not from another civilian.We already see how it affected a bunch of unwary citizens so how about we see it from the perspective of those who had to run to the monster instead of away from it?
I think it would be awesome if they made a second Cloverfield movie…but instead they should just bypass putting it into theaters and post it on youtube. Kinda like there was someone else filming that night, and they survived and were able to tell their story on the internet.
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!