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?