I heard a couple months ago that a Cloverfield sequel had been put on the backburner. With the recent release of the DVD, talk of a Cloverfield sequel has begun to reappear. Producer JJ Abrams tells G4’s Attack of the Show that they have a good idea:
“There is a couple ideas that Drew Goddard , the writer, and Matt Reeves have that are pretty fantastic. So we’re playing around with some ideas and obviously if it isn’t something that really excited us and inspires us, we won’t do it. But there are some good ideas out there.”
When asked if the second film would be shot using the first person video camera style employed by the first film, Abrams replied:
“It could. I think it’s a valid style,” Abrams continued. “I think as a gimmick, people have already seen it, so if you’re going to do it, you have to do something unique with it.”
Abrams also confirms that there is absolutely no connection between LOST and Cloverfield, as he called the use of the Dharma logo a wink to his friends working on the popular sci-fi television series. You can watch the full interview with JJ Abrams below.
I’ve been told that a Cloverfield Sequel is pretty much dead for now (not to say it can’t eventually happen), but JJ Abrams was recently asked about the possibility and here is what he said.
“There is an idea that has come up that… we’re exploring so we’ll see if it’s worth doing then hopefully we’ll get a chance to do it.”
When asked if there will be another monster, Abrams replied:
“Another monster, yeah, another sort of a interesting way in but we have some cool ideas and Drew Goddard, the writer and Matt Reeves the director have sort of cooked something up so we’re . . . you know hopefully that’ll get a chance to happen.”
Note the use of the words “exploring”, “chance” and “hopefully”. Abrams also insinuated that if a sequel were to happen, that it might not employ the same first person handheld video camera point of view.
“At a certain point it’s the kind of thing probably wears out it’s welcome you know, for some people probably while watching the movie, you know what I’m saying?”
Discuss: If they were to make Cloverfield 2, and it were not filmed in the POV style, what could set it apart from general monster movies?
The nearly 70 percent drop in Cloverfield‘s box office take last weekend has not deterred Paramount Pictures from starting early talks with director Matt Reeves to helm a sequel to the Monster Movie That Ate the Internet. In fact, Variety reports that Cloverfield2 (our title) may very well be Reeves next film, depending on how fast Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and writer Drew Goddard can put their hands in a circle and call out “Go Team.” No others details were revealed, but is that a surprise?
The ink has settled on Reeves’s other project, The Invisible Woman, described as a “Hitchcock-style thriller that probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family.” The deal was made with GreeneStreet Films, complete with a script by Reeves, who will also produce the film alongside J.J. Abrams and a few others. Is the title’s meaning literal? It’s hard to say, unless the word “probe” is a hint. Try scanning the description with a black light.
Of course, several hours ago, Reeves’s name was rumored to be in the running for the newly vacant, day-old directing gig on The Wolf Man. Looks like he officially has other half-fish to fry. As for a Cloverfield 2, success wouldn’t be a sure thing, even with a small budget, as the original film’s reception was far loss positive amongst audiences than a similarly Internet-buzzing and viral marketed movie like Saw. While I thought the original was everything its filmmakers promised and more, I’d much rather revisit Rambo theatrically and I don’t really care to see Cloverfield on DVD. Simply mentioning Reeves’s landmark movie makes some people woozy or behave like they lost a contact in shag carpet. Seconds?
“Look! What is that?!….Why, it’s the Hollywood System!”
Haven’t seen the first Cloverfield yet? Well, get to it kiddo, because Cloverfield 2 has already been discussed, according to the probable smash hit’s director Matt Reeves.
“Only time will tell. While we were on set making the film we talked about the possibilities and directions of how a sequel can go,” Reeves told Bloody Disgusting. “The fun of this movie was that it might not have been the only movie being made that night, there might be another movie! In today’s day and age of people filming their lives on their iphones and handy cams, uploading it to youtube…That was kind of exciting thinking about that.”
For those who waited out Friday to sponge on the wildly polarized reception from geeks and plain clothed civilians alike to J.J. Abrams‘s monster bonanza, be sure to stick around until after the end credits because many people aren’t. Personally, I hope another Cloverfield doesn’t happen, but that opinion’s the equivalent of a scraped and jellied record these days. If it does move forward, I’ll already go ahead and give Reeves and Abrams the benefit of the doubt that it wouldn’t be e a retread, based solely on the quality of their first movie. And I don’t think it would go in the horizontal direction Reeves describes above.
Without spoiling anything, there seems to be a lot of curiosity left out there, and if the filmmakers can build a franchise that utilizes the original film’s innovative presentation and wild ideas while flipping expectations on their head, then I’ll support it. That’s a tall order for speculation fresh out the womb, I know. Maybe Abrams should just churn out a the sequel that features a sketchy 60-year-old white haired scientist in front of a slide projector who explains to the audience just what a monster is. “Ya see kids, a monster is part fish and part horse, but it’s not a sea horse!” That might satiate some of the moviegoers demanding their money back.