J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2

Published 5 years ago by

cloverfield2 J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2It 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 franchise, it made a big profit at the box office ($170 million worldwide compared to a $25 million budget isn’t exactly a failure) and I’m pretty sure that they’re sure that a sequel would do even better.

And there’s been plenty of speculation on the fan’s part about what Cloverfield 2 would be like: Will it take place straight after the first one? Or before? Will it show the same events from the first film only from a different perspective? Would any of the characters from the first one make an appearance again? I’m sure all of this pleases Paramount very much – after all they relied on buzz for a lot of the success of the first one, did they not?

There have also been times where director Matt Reeves (who’s coming back for the sequel, along with writer Drew Goddard) has hinted at just where the sequel is in the development stage. Well at the Star Trek panel at WonderCon this year, producer J.J. Abrams gave us a bit more of a glimpse about what the Cloverfield 2 may be about:

“We’re actually working on an idea right now,” Abrams told the packed crowd. “The key obviously at doing any kind of sequel, certainly this film included, is that it better not be a business decision. If you’re going to do something, it should be because you’re really inspired to do it. It doesn’t really have to mean anything, doesn’t mean it will work, but it means we did it because we cared, not because we thought we could get the bucks. We have an idea that we thought was pretty cool that we’re playing with, which means there will be something that’s connected to ‘Cloverfield,’ but I hope it happens sooner than later because the idea is pretty sweet.”

Yeah right, J.J. - I’m sure that bit about making a sequel because “we cared” instead of money is entirely true…

Although I thought Cloverfield was one hell of a creative film for what it was, and a fun ride to say the least, I don’t think a sequel is entirely necessary. I mean as I said the monster aspect seems pre-built for a franchise but for Cloverfield particularly I think it worked as a one-shot thing and a sequel seems rather pointless at the moment.

However, who knows – maybe once we get more news about the nature of the sequel it may shape up to be something worthwhile. Although I will say that having the shaky/in-camera style again will just annoy people. It was a style that barely managed to hold the 80-plus minutes of runtime without getting irritating for most people (I’m one of the few who liked it and stuck with it until the very end), and so having it again would be a mistake.

What’s interesting is that Abrams said that this would be something, “connected to Cloverfield” – what exactly does that mean? That doesn’t exactly sound like part of a plan for a straight sequel, perhaps it’ll be only slightly connected but will go in a completely different direction. In that case it could be really cool – just take the basic idea and play around with it until you come up with something just as unique as the first film was.

What do you make of a Cloverfield sequel? Do you think the first film warrants anymore or should it be left as a one-shot flick?

Source: ComingSoon.net

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: cloverfield 2

19 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. Well it’s nice to see them take a different approach as opposed to the usual fare of making a follow-up; especially in the case of one-shot films that potentially can turn into franchises. And even though I liked the first film, the story pretty much ended at the end and I’m not really sure if a sequel is necessary at this point. But sometimes ambiguity is more effective as a storytelling device and it worked really well with the first film. Hey, if there’s any indication, in the hands of Abrams and co, then this could be a really cool surefire thing. I’ll never know. It may change my mind.

  2. Since there wasn’t much revealed in the first movie, they have many angles that would be usable for sequels. I really hope the video camera thing doesn’t return. I would’ve loved the first one done in a ‘normal’ fashion.

  3. Financially it very much warrants a sequel. However, creatively no it does not. Cloverfield was one of the worst movies of the year and Most of the films money was all pre release hype. I mean in it’s second week it had a massive drop. Had the film been even remotely good the numbers would of been even higher because second and third week turn outs would of been much better.

  4. I only just watched it last night and wasn’t impressed. There’s something about the ‘POV from someone’s camera’ that just grates with me. I’d ditch it and run like mad.

  5. i cant wait for this, and i agree get rid of the shaky cam and have alot more of the monster, the first was great in all but i could have been better w/ more than just 2 minutes of the monster.

  6. Im a big fan of Cloverfield but the response was so mixed on the film, that a sequel seems tricky from a financial point of view for the studio.

    chuck

  7. Sequels usually get bigger budgets than the original when the first was done so cheaply. I think they’d better come up with another low budget solution if they want the second one to be profitable.

    Vic

  8. I totally think a sequel is necessary, but it won’t be handicam, it’ll be more like the traditional godzilla formula.

    btw, sweet picture ( I made it :) )

  9. I can understand wanting a sequal … Well kind of I guess if you like that kind of thing. However, I really don’t get saying that a sequal is necessary. Yea everyone pretty much just died no one left to give a crap about. Nothing interesting left to explore for a sequel. If you want a sequel to plague theaters that’s fine, but saying it is NECESSARY is ridiculous.

  10. I agreed with Rob. The second movie not advises to shoot in handicam format. Similar to Alien, and Aliens, both made the same storyline but with two different approaches.

  11. they can go the 28 Weeks Later route and put in an entirely different cast of people going against the Monster. Or, they should go the Godzilla route and have some Monster-on-Monster mayhem! HA, that would be nice!

    BUT, this must be said, IMHO, Cloverfield was the biggest piece-of-trash movie! OMG, I cannot believe I spent my hard earned $ on Abrams’ garbage, and I cannot believe how my buddies were duped into their marketing! If #2 gets a greenlight, then it is the double-click for me. If there is nothing better to double-click.

  12. I totally agree with everyone here about the handicam. Lose it for the sequel because I can guarantee I won’t be going to see it if they use it. I think alot of other people feel the same way. The movie had a great premise and cool special effect, but the camera ruined the whole movie for me.

  13. Been wondering the same thing. Really enjoyed the first unique movie and was hoping they would come out with another first person story for the same events.

  14. I think Cloverfield holds up a great ending for a sequel. Now, you want to keep sequels close to the first one. Taking the “shaky camera stuff” out of the film would just make it completely separate from the first one. We still need to learn the basic aspects of the monster, how it managed to reach Earth without us knowing, were it ends up after the concluding scene to the first one, and why multiple artillery attacks didn’t manage to kill it. You want to make a sequel new and appealing to an audience without taking to much away that was left before in the last film. Jumping from one place to another without knowing what happened in-between is what makes sequels less-watchable than its predecessors. To make a sequel watchable not only do you need to add more additional information to the previous film but you also need to make it your own. Without compiling new information onto the first film which left us questioning what really happened, you also need to take into account that an audience also whats to expect something new out of it as well.

  15. OF COURSE its necessary for a sequel, if theres any fans of the series LOST in here you can understand what im saying if this week, they decided to just ‘kill everyone in the one episode and not give anymore answers’

    people would be angry cause of all the mysteries left unsolved.

    this movie leaves lots of questions, what is the monster, what happened, why did it come. and there is 1 of the original 6 that lived, so of course theres going to be a sequel, it would be a cloverfield fans worst nightmare if they didnt. its a mystery, and no matter how mystifying it is, they have to give answers at the end, just like LOST

  16. and ryan, i understand what your saying, but from the start of cloverfield, its obvious that the army or military or important people or something are WATCHING the tape from the video camera. it says ‘tape taken from area formally known as central park’

    i wouldnt be suprised if they took handicam off the second one, so they can say what the people do after they see the tape. unless of course they retrieved more cameras, in which case this could be like SAW in which it never ends.

  17. Hope its better than the first one, because it wasn’t that great.

  18. i think a Sequal would be nice to see. maybe from another point of View but then again that could be the Exact same as the first so might be abit boring but i dunno about a Straight Sequal like a different monster maybe so theres 2 monsters i dunno but i would like to see a sequal at some point.

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com 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.

Be Social, Follow Us!!