Want to know how long it takes to make some movies happen? Cloverfield, the “shaky cam” movie about an attack on New York City by a 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, we’re working on it [sic].”

You know, for a film that brought in $170 million worldwide on a budget of just $25 million, I would think Paramount and Abrams would be chomping at the bit to get Cloverfield 2 out in theaters, ASAP. Of course, the fact that Abrams is also working on a sequel to last summer’s sci-fi hit Star Trek, producing the hit show Fringe, is putting together material for Mission Impossible 4 and has a secret 500 Rads project all in the works, could possibly mean the guy just doesn’t have the time to properly focus on Cloverfield 2.

Does the world NEED a Cloverfield 2? Probably not, but that hasn’t stopped Hollywood from giving audiences a sequel before. I’m just wondering why they are dragging their feet so much on this one. Could it be that they haven’t really done anything about it yet and are just dropping the “Check is in the mail” routine on interviewers? Perhaps Abrams and company really want to make a decent sequel and therefore haven’t rushed the creative process.  Here’s what Abrams said about Cloverfield 2 during a recent red carpet interview with MTV:

“We’re working on something right now with that and again, you know, it’s [in the] early stages.”

Oh that clears things up; thanks J.J. Here’s what I think he means by “working on something right now”:

[scene ]

[Abrams talking to director Matt Reeves at Starbucks]

Abrams: “Hey we should talk about some ideas for Cloverfield two.”

Reeves: “Yeah you’re right. We should totally talk about some ideas for Cloverfield  two.”

[end scene]

That’s pretty much the extent of the thought that has been given to this movie so far, but like always, Screen Rant will keep you up-to-date with any new information.

Now for some interesting Star Trek 2 news; there has been plenty of speculation for who or what should be the main source of villainy in Star Trek 2. Klingons, Romulans, and Kahn have all been kicked around as possible antagonists to our beloved Captain Kirk and Enterprise crew. Now Abrams is throwing out one more possibility – The Gorn (see pic below). Here’s what he said to MTV:

“I have to admit the ['Star Trek' sequel] is really all about the Gorn. We just thought it would be fun… to go Gorn.”

OK, so Abrams was obviously talking in a tongue-in-cheek way about making the Gorn the Star Trek 2 villains but I’m actually thinking, “Why not?” If you aren’t familiar with the Gorn, let me give you some quick background: The Gorn are a race of reptilian humanoids. They are slow moving, hiss a lot but are quite lethal and are known to be very cunning. Kirk battled a Gorn captain in the Star Trek episode “Arena” and barely escaped with his life.

With the writing talent of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman combined with the directing prowess of J.J. Abrams, I think the Gorn as an enemy could hold up pretty well. If anything, they could be made into secondary villains that become main villains in Star Trek 3.

BONUS: Check out a classic Kirk vs. Gorn clip!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SK0cUNMnMM

What do you guys think about the Cloverfield 2 news and using The Gorn as bad guys in Star Trek 2?

Clovefield 2 has no release date and Star Trek 2 sets its phaser to stun on June 29^th, 2012.

Source: MTV Movies Blog

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

In 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 brainstorming sessions about the sequel. Reeves emphasized the point that wanting a sequel and having a good idea for one are two separate things.

“There are a couple ideas that have potential but we haven’t quite cracked it yet”

Although signed to direct the sequel (with Drew Goddard again writing), Reeves is currently busy with his project, The Invisible Woman and his Let the Right One In remake so his focus isn’t currently on Cloverfield. Sorting through the ideas and possibilities for the follow-up has proved challenging and one of their ideas was basing it in Japan – where the original story was inspired from.

We can expect the second film to be of a different style and entirely separate from the first. This means that it’s likely we’ll not see any of the characters from the first film and it probably won’t be based directly after in terms of timing.

I’m a huge fan of J.J. Abrams and his work and although I really dug the uniqueness and the experience that Cloverfield was, I was pretty ill throughout the second half of the movie – and I never get sick from films or roller coasters. Luckily, the makers realize that audiences are over the viral-styled gimmick and in a lot of cases were sick of the idea before the movie even ended.

I’m all for a Cloverfield sequel and I believe that it can become the modern Godzilla franchise. There are infinite possibilities but I’m hopeful of a follow-up that’s an entirely different type of film.

What do you think?

Source: MTV