Cloverfield Sequel Rubber stamped!!!

me-skywalker

Graet news!! Cant wait ild say thsi would be out in Oct maybe time for halloween get in on the whole sci-fi vibes around taht time. Or maybe wont be out till 2011 haha....

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/18726

Super, super, super short news over at MTV this afternoon as they caught up with Star Trek director and Cloverfield producer J.J. Abrams on the National Board of Review red carpet. Even after the ginormous success of his giant monster movie, Paramount Pictures has been slow to get a sequel off the ground. In fact, there was a time where it wasn't even going to happen. Abrams offered this short update for fans crossing their fingers for more creature feature action. "We're working on something right now with that and again, you know, it's early stages." At least they're doing something.

Also speaking at WonderCon 2009

"We're actually working on an idea right now… 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."

Dont be at yourself

Meh. A film noteworthy only for its marketing campaign.

That_Guy

NOOOO. I loved the first one but I think a sequel could be disastrous.

krudler

FFs, i liked how nothing was explained in the first one about what the monster was or where it came from, a sequel is gonna ruin it

Galvasean

I can't see the same tricks working again (clever mystery marketing campaign, shot to look like it was done on someone's mobile etc.).

lizardfudge

There was talk of a 'side=queal' at one point.

Where on the sequence on the bridge the camera pans around and you see someone else with a camera, the second film would be following the other camera man around during the same events.

That_Guy

lizardfudge wrote: »

There was talk of a 'side=queal' at one point.

Where on the sequence on the bridge the camera pans around and you see someone else with a camera, the second film would be following the other camera man around during the same events.

It'd pretty much be the same film just with a different angle really. I really hope they don't do another one.

unreggd

They've already made [Rec] 2, so I'm sure this is the same frame-for-frame english adaption

Algernon

Hopefully a concurrent South Park sequel will follow.

Morlar

You can imagine the tagline. . . . .

'Cloverfield 2. You haven't seen anything yet . . . '

Dreadful movie full of gimmicky shaky out of focus camera work. I think there was a good idea somewhere behind it but very badly acted and executed imo. I wouldn't expect the sequel to be an improvement.

senordingdong

I also think this will be a disaster.

Duggy747

Like NekkidBibleMan said, it was seen as a perfect example of how market a film.

Watched it again and found it to be fairly crappy. Awful acting, brutal delivery of dialogue ("We haaaave to leave the EEEEelectronic stooore!") and the idea that someone would be still holding a camera throughout a disaster of this magnitude quickly lost it's appeal.

I still dunno how the monster snuck up on them at the end after the helicopter crash................ninja technique or something.

A sequel is pointless in my eyes but in marketing terms it's an obvious solution. J.J Abrams isn't ignorant to what people expect either, he might just come up with something watchable. For all we know, he might ditch the POV angle and make it a serious blockbuster. They'll have no trouble giving him a good budget after the success he's had lately.

me-skywalker

I thought this would stir up some vitriol.

Also I love how some people are already sayin that this would be awful and rubbish and they weould use the same technique. As far as Ive read JJ has given Reeves and Goddard the project and JJ will only be a producer in name only.

When Goddard and Reeves were writing the material they wrote several background stories and differnt versions so there intention was always going to be to make another film with it. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea is just being naive and elitist.

abouttobebanned

Hope Empire follow through on their threat and take back 2 stars...

Algernon

me-skywalker wrote: »

I thought this would stir up some vitriol.

Also I love how some people are already sayin that this would be awful and rubbish and they weould use the same technique. As far as Ive read JJ has given Reeves and Goddard the project and JJ will only be a producer in name only.

When Goddard and Reeves were writing the material they wrote several background stories and differnt versions so there intention was always going to be to make another film with it. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea is just being naive and elitist.

No. It is just a terrible film.

Usually the simplest explanation is the most correct.

lizardfudge

Oh it's a terrible film... but holy **** did I enjoy it.

I thought of it as more of an amusement park ride than an actually movie really.

abouttobebanned

empire wrote:

Verdict
A dazzling experiment that paid off immensely, this is cinematic pleasure at its purest. One caveat: If they ever make a sequel, we’re taking two stars back.

Rightly so

BaelNaMblath

I liked that movie, but it was more great marketing than anything else. Still, I'd be excited to see if they flesh out the story or what approach theyd take.

Galvasean

abouttobebanned wrote: »

Hope Empire follow through on their threat and take back 2 stars...

I remember that actually. i'm sure they will after we bombard their mailbox.

pixelburp

I'm so startled!

me-skywalker

Algernon wrote: »

No. It is just a terrible film.

Usually the simplest explanation is the most correct.

it hasnt been made yet GTFO!! hahaha epic fail!

Richard Dower

For me i like the idea. i'd relise the same story but from a different POV...perhaps from the militarys angle?....see big battles, like a soldier hired to video events. Or a straight blockbuster of the same events, with no shaky cam.

The basic premise is solid, realism i think sold the movie....i'd love o see a 9/11 type movie but with a big robot!, ultra realistic destruction, 18 rated....pure rampage stuff, frantic fight to keep the robot pinned down while millions leave Manhattan. I've got this big story in my head for such a movie :-)

Cloverfield was the closest i got to realising that "movie".

Handsome Bob

I like this, I'm not one who likes to be left hanging. I want to get info on the monster. However, if they make a sequel of the same events I for one will not waste my money on it.

IvySlayer

I loved the film even thought the plot was a bit meh.

When your woman was bitten and exploded, that left an impact. I can't explain it.

Also, when they are walking down the street, then you see the army rushing to attack it with the rocket launches, brillant!

I'd love to see how the monster gets here, why it came.

Richard Dower

Cloverfield was only like 50 minutes when you take out the credits!....and the first 20 had stupid birthday party crap!

Necronomicon

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I like this, I'm not one who likes to be left hanging. I want to get info on the monster.

I'm the opposite, I don't want the monster demystified (any further, I felt at the time that they even showed too much of it towards the end).

Touches like the falling debris in the background in the last shot are great - debate as to whether it was the monster itself, or if it was a satellite dish falling and waking it up. These things should be left to the imagination imo.

Dancor

They should do it in 3D.

faceman

I cant wait to not see this, ever.