During the Comic Con panel for Fringe, someone asked J.J. Abrams if there were any updates on a Cloverfield sequel. Abrams response started off very much in the same way that it did when he was asked about it before, but then he let slip a piece of information that is sure to spark conjecture amongst fans.
“There’s something we’re playing with now that may or may not happen. There’s an idea we have that plays with… it’s not a literal sequel.“
Unfortunately, that’s where the discussion ended. Abrams is known for being pretty tight-lipped when it comes to his projects, so all we can do is wonder what exactly him and director Matt Reeves (who he confirmed would be directly involved if it happened) have in store for us. Considering that they’re still talking about the sequel this late in the game, and that they’ve already established they wouldn’t want to just re-use the handheld gimmick in the same way they did before, it’s nice to know that they’re not just trying to get a sequel out there based purely on the success of the original. If they do it, it will be because they have a good idea to back it up.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
my guess is that it will be set during the same time as the first, but a different camera POV.
Or military perspective.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Wilford Brimley is the creature.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I “Literally” don’t care.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I for one look forward to the next incarnation of Cecil the Sea Monster.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I would like to see the same story presented in a typical popcorn action movie fashion, and maybe only briefly showing us Rob and others as passing “extras”.
Cloverfield was righteous.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I hope its not somethin retarded liek it being form the monsters POV that would surley suck.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
haha, no one cares about this anymore just a few months later. Who’d have guessed?
Well, besides me.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“Considering that they’re still talking about the sequel this late in the game”
Follow-ups in cinematic franchises (this categorization obviously excludes non-creative torture porn nonsense unworthy of such deeming) typically take a few years to reach the big screen.
“and that they’ve already established they wouldn’t want to just re-use the handheld gimmick in the same way they did before”
I know this was written in a rush, but it would be enormously helpful if you mentioned when or where such “establishment” happened to prove that you are not entirely making this up instead of having me do the Google-fetching do the work with your quasi-alluding; it is inartful.
“it’s nice to know that they’re not just trying to get a sequel out there based purely on the success of the original. If they do it, it will be because they have a good idea to back it up.”
Even more inartful is blanket editorializing, these may be your opinions but they sure as hell are not those of everyone. You should explicitly state that your opinions are, I don’t know, yours?
July 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I didn’t hate the film, but it wasn’t something I’d see more than once. The camera idea was cool, glad they’re not going to do it again though.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I thought the film was entertaining enough.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
You mean they’re not going to rip the head off the Statue of Liberty again? But that sold tickets the last time.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I hope its a military perspective, and they bump into the first one’s characters…
July 27th, 2008 at 2:31 am
“I know this was written in a rush, but it would be enormously helpful if you mentioned when or where such “establishment” happened to prove that you are not entirely making this up instead of having me do the Google-fetching do the work with your quasi-alluding; it is inartful.”
I apologize. I meant to put the link in…
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/04/26/jj-abrams-on-a-cloverfield-sequel/
“Even more inartful is blanket editorializing, these may be your opinions but they sure as hell are not those of everyone. You should explicitly state that your opinions are, I don’t know, yours?”
You’re not making any sense, sir. The only part of the statement you quoted that was commentary was my calling it “nice.” The rest was a response to the attitude J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves have established toward doing a Cloverfield sequel.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Alex.
Those listed are topics that have been posted in numerous places on numerous ocassions. It should be expected that in order to fully understand a situation, one must do SOME homework.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I am not sure why anyone liked this movie. i had a headache in like 0 mins of watching it.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:22 am
I meant 10 min.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:39 am
I “Literally” share gahs opinion.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I’d love to see the perspective of the folks who created and or shepherded the creature to the NY harbor. The military/government perspective is so overused.
Many of Cloverfield’s main imagery stayed with me long after I left the theater. I will be sorry if the handheld, ultra-subjective POV method is jettisoned for part 2…but I will see the second film anyway. For sure.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Did hey mention if the sequel would carry on the budget and look of a Sci-Fi original movie?
July 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I would definitely watch a sequel to Cloverfield.
But then again, I loved Cloverfield and have only seen it once (minus goofing around with my friend’s (bootleg from China) DVD.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Buggs, the movie is WAY better on dvd,,,
I loved the first film, one of the best films of the year, and yeah I did get a little quesy watching it in the theatres, but its not as bad on dvd for some reason, and on dvd you can see alot of things you miss, like the end scene where you see Clover fall into the ocean.
The sequel should deffinitly be a military perspective, maybe with a news crew riding along like “CNN reporters” in Iraq. They would be usng steady cams, and there would be less movement to deal with.
The first film made more that it cost x2 so I know the Studiios gonna want another.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Maybe in the sequel they can include some real actors, lighting, camera work, script and special effects. If they just rehash the cynical exercise that is Cloverfield #1 it could lead to the public rising as a mob and tearing Manhattan apart by hand with or without the ludicrous monster’s assistance
July 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Maybe to monster will have a camcorder this time.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Maybe they took some tips from LOTR director PJ and have already got the sequel when they filmed the first one. Think about it. The whole “Teddy Hanssen is missing” thing. The Pics from the top secret file. Both found on the Tagrato blog with all the official links. All they need to do is edit, maybe a few extra scenes and bam it’s done. I think they’re just waiting for some of the hype to die down before starting the new viral……Jus’ sayin’.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I’d love a traditional plot/conspiracy/eco terrorist/monster smash film. Cloverfield was a lot of fun and even if you didn’t appreciate what they did, you have to applaud the creativity involved with putting it together.
With all of the creepy options available from the premise, they could make a first rate monster movie. I’d be there.
Also, for anyone that missed it, you have to hear Michael Giacchino’s end credit music - Roar!(Cloverfield Overture). Awesome piece of work.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Well when they are crossing the bridge in the first movie Hud breifly makes conntect with a man who is also filming and he films Hud mabey they make another movie from his veiw of the case.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
being that no weapons seemed to have harmed it and it is pretty over the top sci-fi already, cloverfield would have been a good lead into a voltron movie. since voltron was created to fight giant monsters .
August 5th, 2008 at 12:16 am
one military cam,one civil cam…2 monster…just like that.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
i think the sequel would be great. Cloverfield reminds me of games like Half Life. Example: Antlions - Parasites and the first person. and im not sure but in one part a guy hits a parasite with a Crowbar!
Sorry for my English
August 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
ok i saw the movie with my friend and by the time the movie ended, we could not walk straight. thats how dizzy it made us. i really hope they dont do another handheld camera thing in the sequel like they did in the first one.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I’ve been a Cloverfield nut since I first saw the trailer. Since then, I’ve browsed the Wed quite a bit and have heard various rumors about new plotlines. Still, I think the sequel should be done in the same style as the previous one but perhaps in a new local. Europe would be cool, (Britain or France) or maybe Asia (Shanghai or Tokyo).
August 31st, 2008 at 11:11 pm
In my view, Abrams set this up to be a trilogy:
1st movie–POV collateral damage (the random and innocent victims) w/ little info on what’s actually causing this
2nd Movie–POV US Military and a lot more info on what’s actually causing this
3rd Movie–POV Government (full cinematic style) and the ultimate reveal behind all of this.
All movies cover the same general time period with each successor going a few hours in time past it’s predecessor.
Just my thoughts, and if it were done that’s how I’d like to see it.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:31 am
GUH - if you dont care why bother going to the effort of reading the article then commenting you idiot haters like you drive me nuts get a life.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
i loved cloverfield
September 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Loved the first one. Bought the DVD. The theater gave me a headache but on our 32 inch tv I had no problem and seemed to give the illusion of less movement and we could tell more of what was actually going on. Can’t wait for a sequel. Like the idea of the brother not really being dead, just fell in the river. Also military finding the 2 in Central Park severely hurt but alive. And if Clover is just a baby then let’s see mama. Kind of reminds me of the old film I loved as a kid ‘Gorgo”.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
For those that said this movie gave you a headache or dizzy, you have issues. I saw the movie with my wife, who is extremely sensitive to motion sickness, and she had no issue with it at all. In fact, most of the people I spoke to say dizziness or becoming sick wasn’t an issue at all.
That said, I really hope they make a sequel. The first one was one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I might have issues Mike, but there not from Cloverfield. Lol.
October 4th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
i really liked this movie i think they should do the same way of shooting from like a news reporter or army guy but i would watch it during the same setting but i would like to see it after new york been destroyed and it moves to somewhere else or whatever but i want to see a sequel