Comments on: J.J. Abrams Talks Cloverfield 2

By: Good Links – 03/02/09 | Liveagl.com

Good Links – 03/02/09 | Liveagl.com — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:33:31 +0000

[...] News About Cloverfield 2 – Screenrant [...]

By: Massie Boi

Massie Boi — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:12:41 +0000

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.

By: SIN187UM

SIN187UM — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:31:05 +0000

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

By: Jayden

Jayden — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:33:59 +0000

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.

By: Jayden

Jayden — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:31:25 +0000

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

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:23:16 +0000

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.

By: craig

craig — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:24:04 +0000

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.

By: Andy S

Andy S — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:03:37 +0000

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.

By: SK47

SK47 — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:01:52 +0000

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.

By: 14k

14k — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:57:03 +0000

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.

By: Daniel F

Daniel F — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:07:45 +0000

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.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 04:02:08 +0000

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 )

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:45:04 +0000

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

By: entertainmenttodayandbeyond

entertainmenttodayandbeyond — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:54:26 +0000

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

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:33:16 +0000

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.

By: steven the git

steven the git — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:11:35 +0000

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.

By: Daniel F

Daniel F — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:11:33 +0000

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.

By: wes

wes — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:14:16 +0000

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.

By: DarkGrittyMovieLoverX

DarkGrittyMovieLoverX — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:12:35 +0000

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.