A bunch of websites are posting what they claim to be the first photos from Cloverfield 2. My friend Dennis from CloverfieldClues sent these over to me last week, and I wasn’t really sure they were newsworthy or not. Truth is, these are not photos from a Cloverfield sequel. The following photos are the result of the viral alternate reality game from the first film.
The pictures show the discovery of the Cloverfield monster and parasites by Tagruato subs, deep on the ocean floor, near Tagruato’s Chuai Oil Drilling Station. The depth meter on the second photo reads 10,027.5 Meters, which would be over six miles below the surface. These photos were taken before the events in the first Clvoerfield film. The sub probably disturbed the monster, which caused the destruction of Chuai Station, and the eventual destruction of New York City. So if anything, consider this the end of the prequel.
Here is a round up of stories that just didn’t make the /Film front page, or what we like to call…. Page 2!
Expect the first reviews of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on Sunday May 18th at 6:30am-ish eastern time, as that is when press at Cannes will have seen the film. Domestic press will see the film later that afternoon/night at nationwide press screenings. [jeffwells]
Harland Williams will make the transition from acting to directing with “Wing Man“, a new $10 million dollar comedy. [moviehole]
5.5 million households added a high-definition television set to their furnishings for the first time during the period from last year’s holiday season to this year’s Super Bowl. [imdb]
On April 29th, Apple iTunes will release the long-awaited end credits overture “ROAR!” from Cloverfield by Michael Giacchino. [Bloody-Disgusting]
AICN has another new Wanted movie poster featuring Angelina Jolie’s scrawny arm.
Seven people were injured Saturday in a collision between a bus and several cars during the filming of G.I. Joe in the center of Prague. [shh] Filmdrunk‘s headline GOD TRIES TO STOP GI JOE MOVIE is both hilarious and in bad taste.
Deadbolt wonders what Quentin Tarantino could do with a big screen adaptation of Grand Theft Auto.
The good people at Pixar are growing frustrated of the Walt Disney Imagineers. [jimhill]
io9 ponders Why Do Anti-Heroes rule Science Fiction?
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.
/Film reader Ignatius F informed me that a new photo has appeared on the old Cloverfield website 1-18-08.com. The photo is a Missing Flyer featuring “Teddy Hanssen last seen 12/07/2007″
Teddy Hanssen is the long-distance boyfriend of Jamie Lascano, a character who was featured extensively in the teaser trailer, but only seen in the film laying unconscious on the couch at the party. One of the viral websites, Jamieandteddy.com (password “jllovesth”), shows videoblogs made by Jamie talking about their relationship, which eventually turns sour. She was also revealed to be the roommate of Marlena. The couple met at a New York City club and dated briefly before Teddy left to go on a trip. In the fourth video, Jamie mentions ‘The Cause’ and says that Teddy can talk about it all he wants. In the fifth video, Teddy tells her that he’s been captured by ‘a company called Tagruato’, but she doesn’t believe him. Thinking that he was lying because he was seeing someone else, she dumped him. Included in that package was a small packet of something wrapped in silver foil with the note:
Jamie later eat the contents of the packet mocking Teddy to her video camera in the eighth video posted on January 9th, less than a week before the Cloverfield Monster attacked New York City.
It’s also worth noting that the back of the new photo features a weird logo and number in the corner:
The same logo is featured on a label on the DVD release (photo via Bloody Disgusting):
What does this all mean? I’m not quite sure. No one at Paramount has any clue about the new 1-18-08.com viral. From what I understand, the whole thing has always been kept internally at Bad Robot. You would think this might just something Bad Robt planned to spark interest in the DVD release.
Some people are suggesting that this could have something to do with a possible Cloverfield sequel or the rumored to be JJ Abrams project codenamed ALADYGMA. But no one I know seems to know anything about that project, to the point that I’m not sure it even exists at all. I know that sequel talk was put on the backburner when the Cloverfield monster failed to have legs, but the film has done extremely well overseas. The movie opened in Japan this weekend, and while numbers are not yet available, I’m sure it will be popular in the land of Godzilla. Check out this cool graph from CloverfieldClues.
The Cloverfield Monster might not have legs, but it sure has a long tail (Cloverfield hit the $80,000,000 mark in the US after making $40 million in its first weekend, it has taken another 11 weeks to double that). The film has taken in over $158 million worldwide to date.
Discuss: Do you still want to see a Cloverfield sequel?
The upcoming Cloverfield DVD release (out on April 22nd) includes two “alternative endings”, which have found their ways onto the internets. The first new ending features a clip of Rob chasing Beth around on a subway platform before 1-18-08. The second ending features a few brief mili-seconds of a man removing the camera from the rubble followed by a clip of Rob and Beth in Coney Island. Both endings are more like minor edits than full alternative conclusions. You can watch both endings after the jump.
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?
Is it the code name for a yet-to-be-announced JJ Abrams-produced film project?
Is it the code name for the expected Cloverfield sequel? Chances are it is none of the above. Everyone in Hollywood has no idea what I’m talking about when I bring up “Aladygma”.
And chances are it has absolutely nothing to do with a Cloverfield sequel, as I’m told that the project is currently dead at the moment (this could always change). If anything, “Aladygma” is either an internal codename used within Bad Robot or chances are, it’s a fan created code name that somehow slipped into the news reports of the online film media.
If anyone knows anything about “Aladygma” or any other JJ Abrams project, please mat.
Discuss: What would you like to see in a Cloverfield sequel?
Yesterday, we posted the first photos of the Cloverfield Monster Toy, which is being produced by Hasbro. We received a few angry comments, yelling at us for “Spoiling” Cloverfield for them.
The whole concept of Spoilers has been something that has been on my mind for a few months now. Originally a Spoiler meant something from a film that gave away a twist or turning point in the story. Basically, anything that would ruin your experience watching the story on the big screen. I don’t know exactly when, but sometime in the last year the tide began to change online, and studio released production photos began to be considered “spoilers” even when they didn’t reveal something major about the story. A reader once complained to me that posting a photo of Indiana Jones standing in front of a jungle background was a spoiler which should be kept after the jump. I try not to “Spoil” stuff, but it has gotten ridiculous.
The Cloverfield Monster is NOT a Spoiler!
It’s a real testament to the marketing department at Paramount, that they somehow tricked the world into believing that the Cloverfield Monster is somehow a spoiler. It all started when director Matt Reeves threw in the now infamous last minute line “I saw it! It’s Alive! It’s Huge” while he was directing the film’s teaser trailer (the trailer was filmed before the movie). And sometime after the trailer hit attached to Transformers, the studio and Bad Robot decided to focus the marketing around the mystery and the fan’s craving to know – “What is it?”
But truth is – The Cloverfield Monster is not a spoiler. Seeing the monster does not ruin the movie for you. It doesn’t ruin the story what-so-ever. In fact, the marketing campaigns for most monster movies heavily involve the appearance of the monster(s). The only way the Cloverfield Monster would/could be a spoiler is if it was the result of a plot twist. Say for example, Rob’s father ate some brownies with some nuclear gamma acid and turned into the monster. So by seeing the creature, you would be able to see that the monster use to be Rob’s father. That would be a spoiler. Seeing Godzilla before a Godzilla movie is not a spoiler.
Besides, Paramount gave Hasbro the go-ahead to release the photos of the toy version of the monster. The photos were released on the official website, in plain view, without a spoiler warning. The film hit theaters almost a whole month ago. Paramount even began running television advertisements featuring a very good look at the Cloverfield Monster, just days after the film’s opening weekend. But then again, some people would claim that trailers and television spots are also “spoilers”.
I believe the studios are to blame for this recent change in reader reaction. Hollywood is so scared that spoilers will ruin their big Summer tentpole film, that they hide those productions in secrecy. But in result, they create this culture of fear among film fanatics. All of a sudden, a set photo of Zachary Quinto in costume as Spock somehow becomes a major spoiler. Even though all the marketing leading up to the film’s release will likely show Quinto in character. The audience somehow assigns these crazy associations to the word Spoiler, even though it is usually never the case.
I think we all need to calm down. A spoiler is me telling you what happens in the last ten minutes of a movie. A spoiler is not the picture of a toy version of the Cloverfield monster, released a month after the film’s release.
My position on this has remained the same throughout the years: A spoiler is something that will spoil your enjoyment of the story to a major degree (a plot twist, a character turn…etc). Anything officially released by the studio (production photos, a trailer, tv spots) is all fair game. We will continue hide spoilers after the jump, so that readers won’t accidentally run into them while scrolling through the page.
What do you guys think?
What constitutes a spoiler?
How long after the release of a movie does a spoiler become fair game as the topic of mainstream conversation? (ie How long after The Sixth Sense should you wait before publicly discussing the twist ending? Movies ad television shows spoof the ending all the time).