Cloverfield Sequel?
The movie just came out and sequel rumblings have been loosed upon us! We are made aware of this possibility from the mouth of director Matt Reeves thanks to our friends at Boody Disgusting:
Bloody Disgusting was on the Cloverfield red carpet tonight for the premier of the film. While chatting with director Matt Reeves, the subject of a sequel came up. This is what he had to say: “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. 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.”
If they are going to do another film on handy cams - I am not on board at all. I saw Cloverfield last night and was sea sick by the end of the movie. It was a cool idea, but once was enough. I would have loved to have seen different cameras in this film rather than just following the adventures of one group. I certainly don’t want to see the same story again from another camera as a sequel - this would not interest me in the slightest.
If they are going to do a sequel, use standard film equipment and make a motion picture that follows the Cloverfield monster. Show the origin, how it comes to earth and then follow his wake of destruction - tell the story of the monster. That is a bitchin’ sequel and a fresh take on the events of the day.
Cloverfield was a cool idea, and I am all for another monster movie; but have no interest in another 90 minutes of a camcorder on the run.
124 Comments, Comment or Ping
Fredo
I’m going to see your “no shaky cam sequel” and up it with “please, no sequel at all.” “Cloverfield” is a great movie, but a sequel isn’t needed. Period.
Jan 18th, 2008
Brian Bircham
I think showing the same events from a different perspective is a very inventive idea if done correctly.
Jan 18th, 2008
Richard Warangel
I think the sequel should have us blaming some country for the monster and bombing it.
Hopefully it will be a country will can beat really quick - I’m a Reagan conservative one it comes to that.
Jan 18th, 2008
Napee
Nah way man, a no shaky cam sequel would go against everything this film was about.
it take the easy way out.
Just to sit back n give it all out to you.
Id prefer another shacky cam but from the perspective of somebody else
i.e. Scientists or something that find out later mroe bout waht it is, n go to search the place it may have come from.
(i.e. if they created it by accident, or if it was under water or under ground, and how it came about then)
(or even a similar incident from the past that was cleaned up alot quicker n efficiently)
But to keep from going to deep.
i dont want to see 100 cloverfield monsters runnin around.
Jan 18th, 2008
Vonda
http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com/
SPOILER
the message after the credits when reversed indicates that there could be a sequel.
Jan 18th, 2008
Erik
I saw this movie in a special showing all and all I loved it. The cam was a perfect idea to initiate the storyline. The question now is, in the beginning the government has the film, why not make the sequel a pre and post??? How the creature came about, origins? Post as in how they continue to battle. Alot can be said in this film as to what direction it can take. Cam or no cam I will be waiting for it.
Jan 18th, 2008
Alec
If you take a look at http://www.cloverfieldclues.com, it seems as though the monster’s origins are pretty clear trough the numerous viral marketing websites that the film used. I suggest checking this out and seeing what all adds up. You end up getting a more defined idea as to what caused this thing to emerge.
Jan 18th, 2008
Me
Shaky cam, yeah it sucks big time. (Please don’t make any more of these.) Scary as hell, yeah!
It makes King Kong and Godzilla look like cuddly teddy bears. It’s scary on par with “Aliens”.
The monster looks like a pissed off version of ET. “War of the Worlds”, the Tom Cruise version comes to mind.
Did anyone notice the monster got smaller as the movie progressed? It’s a spryly mofu, it can leap taller than super man, and pick up loose change at the same time.
The sequel should have “steady cam” please, and nice aerial news footage and secret government meetings on how to deal with them.
Jan 18th, 2008
IV
Spoiler!
This movie simply must have a sequel. There are so many unanswered question remaining, it has to have a sequel. Aftering watching the movie I dont know what that monster was, where it came from(aside from the water), or what happened to it. At the end of the movie, It was not killed, but implied the island was destroyed in an effort to kill the monster. Evenstill they shot that thing up with tanks, fighter jets, bombs, etc… It was a full assault for 7 hours and it didnt die. Blow up the island why couldnt it just retreat back into the water. A sequel is definately in order, but dont get to excited for a sequel thats less of a cliffhanger than the first.
Jan 18th, 2008
Brexton
i thought this movie was awesome. the “Shaky Cam” was very creative and original. I think for a sequel they could use like a soldier’s cam or somethin like that. A second idea is use a cam from a differnt region after cloverfield and give it a different code name
Jan 18th, 2008
Mike
I saw the movie this afternoon and I loved it pure and simple. The camcorder point of view was inventive and much better done then say the blair witch. The style did give me a bit of a upset stomach from all the random and rapid spins.
The sequel really should be kept in the same style but maybe from a soldiers point of veiw or maybe even Teenagers, the ones in this film where adults, young adults but adults it might be interesting to see how teens would deal with all that.
The origins of the monster would be a nice side note.. but to many monster movies do the whole origin and take away half the mystery of the monster. I kind of like not knowing anything about the monster, to put it under a microscope would ruin it for me.
According to Wiki, you can see something hit the water at the end of the movie before beth says “I’ve had a good day” when they are filming the park itself, it is suppose to be in the water at the top of the screen I guess.
Jan 18th, 2008
Drew
I liked the movie but it seemed more like an episode than a movie.I think this is just the beginning for cloverfield. What I see is more teasers and “clues” popping up online leading to shorts and eventually another feature length. The film had almost no backstory and no conclusion. All it gave me were questions which I think will eventually be answered. There’s just too much going on with this movie too leave us with just a quick glimpse.
Jan 18th, 2008
Brian
hmm. . .i think id rather see a sequel that sticks to the original idea of the first movie such as a uuuuh shaky cam kinda thing?not one that gives in to people complaining about how they were sick cuz of the movement. and besides that we still don’t have any idea whether or not its dead.thus i would like to find out how it plays out from the viewpoint of lily, who (if anyone remembers), SURVIVED cuz she went in the first chopper.the way this movie started is the monster pops out from no where.we weren’t even given a title at first.so deal with not knowing the origins.this was an “action now, questions later” kinda movie and im hoping for it to continue that way
Jan 18th, 2008
kitten
i think the shaky camera gave the movie that much more of a realist touch to it, yes it made me feel like i was too about to throw up. but i would love to see more maybe not more films from victims but from the army men or more of an idea of where it came from and how it came to be.
Jan 19th, 2008
Tom Whitaker
Doug, your post has almost depressed me. It’s like I’ve read people saying elsewhere - ‘people always want something different until they get it’.
The film you’re describing turns everything unique and interesting about Cloverfield into the same old monster movie. I’m sad for you that the camera-work gave you motion sickness, in the same way that I’m sad for someone epileptic who couldn’t handle the strobe-lighting, but that doesn’t make it a bad film.
I think the same-day, different-viewpoint is a genuinely interesting route to go - it could work the same was BTTF2 does in places, which I always liked - but really, the reason this movie was effective, and the reason I’m still a tiny bit jumpy about it days afterwards, is because of what I didn’t see and what I don’t know.
Jan 19th, 2008
kyle
Hmm I’d being wanting to see Cloverfield since October 2007, and now I have finally seen it!
I do and then at the same time, dont want them to do a sequel. There were things that aren’t answered but thats mainly because it was from a DV camera and set on a bunch of
people.
If they make a number 2 I hope its NOT one of those movies (sorta like Hills Have Eyes 2) were its just focusing on the army killing the monster. I like it when there is actual normal people or they have main characters if you get what I mean.
Oh and another thing people, there HAS to be 2 monsters in that movie for sure!
P.S http://www.youtube.com/roundlikeabong check it out..
Jan 19th, 2008
Pim
I would like to see a sequel more like a history channel documentary,where scientists and the milatary go back to Manhattan to investigate the damage, search for suvivors snd while searching for the originsof the monster ,when suddenly the monster or a bigger monster surfaces and wreaks more havok on New York,or even another major city on the east coast ,possibly WashingtondD.C..That way the camera would still be in first person without being so shakey.
Jan 19th, 2008
frankwolftown
I think a documentary would be the best route to go. The sequel to the Blair Witch Project was considered so horrible since it was becuase it followed a gimmick movie. Doing a real movie would only break from the spirit of the first movie.
Jan 19th, 2008
dougnagy
Tom I do appreciate that they were trying something new. I would not say that Cloverfield was a bad movie, but for the reasons I mentioned - I couldn’t get into it.
That being said, would you want them to do the same style of film for the second outing? I would prefer no sequel; then the film can stand on its own as unique.
Jan 19th, 2008
leonard
I just saw cloverfield, I must say the first time in a theater in ten years but I had to see it. I wanted to talk to the screen to tell the 4 idiots what not to do, so I guess I liked it, but thier was a lot that I would like to know about the creature, were it came from, why its destroying NY, basically whats its story. Like I said the movie was interesting but it left me wanting to know more
Jan 19th, 2008
mike
Okay people my idea to make absolute perfect sense of this movie and to make the transession to a sequel!!! How to explain the lack of explanation, the identity of the monster, the first person perspective, etc…. Wow this sounds great. What we know, the film itself is the property of the Department of Defense and has been collected (Opening credits). (At the end) Something falls from the sky at the end and its still alive is heard. Those 3 things alone can merit a sequel. How to go with it and make it a normal viewing movie is (also make the 2nd movie larger/better then the first),open the second movie with this tape being shut off by military personel reviewing what they have found at the scene of groundzero. Trying to find an explanation how the thing survived, what it is, where it came from, and the larger threat. But what we realize in the second movie is that this Cloverfield monster is just the first wave of an attack from otherworldly beings. The egg shaped object dropped in the ocean was the creature being teleported/transported (to hatch/grow) from more advanced aliens. Also explains the 1 month delay from landing to the attack & the intial earthquake (aliens control the creature/they cause a disturbance(earthquake) to release the thing) The advanced alien race intends to invade our planet but this monster/genetically altered creature was there first wave (Also explains the parasites with the blood-bursting bite). The second movie can bring new sick creatures, the aliens themselves, worldwide attacks/war, $200 million budget. Just relate this idea to other past movies, stories, etc.. Mars Attacks (horrible creatures used in attack) Godzilla (Destroy All Monsters, Mysterians) hopefully but far fetched Starcraft (CLOVERFIELD MONSTER=THE ZERG)
Jan 19th, 2008
max
There definently has to be a sequal and im about 95% sure there will be, i’ll even go on to say they’re already working on it. Come on there has to be. Think about it, jj abrams also does lost and that show has a million and one unanswered questions, and every time a question is answered a new question pops up. Which means a sequal wouldn’t ruin it, there would still be some mystery. But I do have to say the sequel shouldn’t be in shaky camera mode, I liked it because it gave us the feeling that we were there and how real ppl felt, the sequel should be like the army trying to fight the monster while at the same time trying to find out what it is.
Jan 20th, 2008
Mitche
i don no
i want a sequel but at the same time it might ruin it
Jan 20th, 2008
tucker
the cloverfield monster didn’t come to earth. its been dormant in the ocean until it was woken by the falling satellite
Jan 20th, 2008
tucker
i like Pim’s idea for the sequel, however i don’t think there should be a second monster. theres not going to be anymore monsters, no other dormant beings awakening, no evil alien plan of sending eggs down, that retarded. the documentary idea sounds good as long as its them following the same monster
Jan 20th, 2008
chris
There has to be a sequel. It was a government tape, so why can’t they show the government finding the tape and what happens after. Also, we never were told if the camera stopped filming. And what about Lily? She survived. I’d like to see the sequel (we all know there’s gonna be one…when is the question) involving Lily and what happened. And why was it just New York. They should continue with what happens after Manhattan was destroyed, ending with the government finding the tape of Beth and Hawkins.
Jan 20th, 2008
xG3noCYd3x
they should make like a documentary sorta thing about it with the history of it and everything. the movie didnt give background as to how we woke up the monster or anything, its connection to slusho or the targurato corp. so, im sure a sequel will be made
Jan 20th, 2008
MilkChan
I think if they do a sequel (which I hope they do, I hate unanswered questions), it’ll probably go in the direction of “the aftermath”. They are discovered under the remains of the bridge after the bombing and are rescued and taken to some government facility. The goverment watches the tape and explains to them what the monster was and all that and it’s still out there.
So disappointingly a sequel would end up being more of the same just not shot as FP, but it would answered a bunch of desired questions, like did rob and lily survive? Did elizabeth make it out of manhatten in the helicopter? What the hell is that monster, where did it come from, and what does it want with us?
Jan 20th, 2008
PandaBot
Money will determine if there is a sequel,..but no, there does NOT have to be one. Did it really matter if the Coors Light models lived? Weren’t you really jonesing, as I was, for a nostalgic glimpse of a cool city-stomping monster without a ‘z’ in its name? And what a let down of a monster - with a football field-sized step but so dumb as to run around the same 3 blocks while being relentlessly pestered by our bang-bangs. ‘Cloverfield’ seems ultimately destined for the $9.99 supermarket DVD rack or the $5.50 Wal-Mart basket. High regard for this movie appears born out of nostalgia or fondness for the genre. A big opening does not always predict longevity.
Jan 20th, 2008
n6hr76ye5jt6jt7k
I like the idea of a sequel from someone else’s perspective but it will have to be different enough from the original. How bout from a soldier or pilot in the military. Maybe a recovered chip from a helmet came. This would allow for a steadier picture but still seem a bit like a home movie. It would also give us a little more info about the monster and what happened to Manhattan.
Jan 21st, 2008
ethan
So the monster came to earth to have its parasites removed. Neato!
Jan 21st, 2008
CJ
MY GIRLFRIEND IS GAY SHE THINKS THE MOVIE SUCKED BUT I LOVED IT, THERE WILL DEF BE A SEQUEL
Jan 21st, 2008
shane
http://www.1-18-08.com/
the newest picture shows the monster washed up on shore. doesn’t it look as if something took a bite out of it? some of the pictures make you wonder if there is another monster, or if the military killed the same one.
also look at the poster for the movie in the right corner it shows the monster in the clouds but you also can see something else.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ddm6keRgmRw&feature=related
Jan 21st, 2008
Adil
EFF THAT, this movie was a great idea, just STEADY THE DAMN CAMERA. i had TONS of friends who wanted to enjoy this movie, but couldnt get past the camera, we want to be able to FOCUS on shit, and feel like we’re there. jesus… not feel like we’re flung everywhere. the movie hit a few really good points, but seriously… a sequel would work, if it was steadier, still done first person, but STEADY THE HANDS… god. the running is fine… but come on. it took me an hour to get used to the camera.
Jan 21st, 2008
Faredawg
Its not a monster movie, just like Signs was not an alien movie! Its a movie about certain people in a certain situation, and how they react. The hand held cam makes that point even more clear. I actually heard alot of people did not like this movie. But ALL of them, including the writer of this article, wants to see ALL about the Monster, as stated, origin, clear shots, etc. That is not, nor was it ever the point of the movie. It could just as easly have been a 9/11 situation that caused the destruction to the city and the danger to the characters. But no, everyone only wants to know about the Monster. Apparently, we need more Godzilla Marathons. lol
Jan 21st, 2008
PandaBot
All the thoughts of a sequel about the same event as seen through other cameras in the area or through the perspective of other characters that night strike me as desires for a movie that was better in the first place. An interesting story should be in the sequel’s recipe - not just a threadbare concept that’s already been done.
Jan 21st, 2008
Jason
J.J abrams has done it again! Once again he has left his fans searching for answers. The reality is, the film was filmed to give emphasis on the situation. As always, some will like it and some won’t. Knowing Abrams a sequel is inevitable and in my opinion not a bad idea. I enjoyed the plot and the mystery even more. Lost fans know how Abrams is, meaning he leaves clues and unanswered questions so that we can theorize about the movie almost putting us inside it. I truly enjoyed the movie.
Just curious how the creature survived all that firepower…for 7 hours.
Jan 21st, 2008
Rich
Ok why do ANOTHER movie with professional cameras out there tell the “ORIGIN” of a monster that comes to earth and reek havoc. That film has been done Hollywood style sooo many times, “Predator 2″,”Godzilla”, “King Kong.” We need to find new ways to tell stories and move the industry to the standards that we are in today. We are in the Youtube generation so vlogging and doing video diaries hits home especially with Cloverfield. We are left to fill in the blanks of the event and for once EXPERIENCE a film rather than be lazy and let the movie tell us EVERYTHING we need to know. For once a director has the balls to give the benefit of the doubt to let the audience figure it out. I do agree that I could do less with the “shaky cam”. I got the point that it was guerrilla style but I would love to see Hud’s camera skill get better as the film moved forward.
Jan 21st, 2008
derryckshizzle
It would be sweet if, in the sequel, the guy with the camera was around rob and hud and all them at some point, perhaps catching them for a brief moment from a different point of view.
Jan 21st, 2008
Andy
I think with the sequel it would be cool to have semi another camcorder deal but start toward the end of this one and have these new ppl survive and show what happened afterwards, and also at some point in the new movie have them passing by the group from this first film, camcorder in hand haha…that would be funny. maybe even have a flaming homeless guy run by!!! hahaha
Jan 21st, 2008
Liz
I thought i would get sick from the shaky camera, i get dizzy just from sitting in a car for too long, but i didnt get sick from the shaky camera at all. a sequel would be cool, but i also really liked the ending of Cloverfield
Jan 21st, 2008
Ali
I must have a sequel id be pissed if i did not have one. look al support the movie and go see it once more. just to add the money for part 2.
Tell me more about clover. I need to know.
Jan 21st, 2008
Johnnymoha
I loved the movie. The camera was not that hard to get used to if you just quit complaining about it. It was really what made the movie work. I really hope that there is a sequel but there doesn’t have to be. The movie felt a lot like an episode, so I think there will be another. I hope its from a hand held FP view as well. The viral content all over the internet make for really interesting research, if you go into it like I did after seeing the movie. Overall, one of the better movies I have ever seen.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Dude
This movie was so damn amazing. I love this movie because the SHAKY CAM. Its really gets you in it and its not like the camera man was bad. You did get to see all the monsters and what was taking place. Its a cool first person view. Oh yeah does anyone think or know that the cloverfield monster could exist in the ocean that humans have not even explored half of?
Jan 22nd, 2008
Jordan
I loved Cloverfield. I like the idea of a sequel. I disagree with the steady cam. The person holding the camera is an awesome idea. I loved it. They should make a sequel.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Jordan
I loved Cloverfield. I like the idea of a sequel. I disagree with the steady cam. The person holding the camera is an awesome idea. I loved it. They should make a sequel. By the way. The monster is an alien. At the end of the movie when they are on the ferris wheel he is pointing out in the ocean and you can see something green fall out of the sky and land in the ocean.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Ian Pantagis
Cloverfield was amazing. And your crazy if you want to see a second movie with a regular camera view. It was unlike any monster movie I have personally ever seen and even better you felt like you where there. It was a masterpiece and the only thing I would fear from a sequel would the second movie not living up the first and brining it down. As long as the same people put it together I don’t see how you could go wrong. It took really every element of this movie to make it what was and changing any concept even the way you perceive it. If I want to watch some shitty clean cut movie same old monster movie I’ll pop in my kid brothers copy of Godzilla.
I think the concept of a Cloverfield 2 would awesome if nothing was changed. Possibly a different story to follow with a different setting.
Overall this movie was phenomenal if you haven’t seen it I highly recommended it. The best movie I’ve seen in a long long time.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Mike
J.J Abrams wants the Cloverfield Monster to be America’s Godzilla. It’s a noble idea, especially after America’s attempt to “steal” the franchise failed miserably. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/ It wasn’t a bad movie, it just didn’t catch on.) Cloverfeild introduced the monster with a delicous mystique; you could easily make a sequel without losing that. At least, J.J. could. I have complete faith in him. In fact, I think that, if done right, giving more information on the monster could add to the experience of the original Cloverfield.
A sequel could take on a less thriller, more action feel. Mankind battling valiantly against an indestructable monster (perhaps more that one?) You know, that kind of thing. Cliche? Not if J.J. did it.
Jan 22nd, 2008
D'Jay
What the hell happend to the people at the end? a nuke didnt go off cuz the camra would have been fried. I dont see a second one coming they just made their money and are moving on. good movie, worst ending i have ever seen.
Jan 23rd, 2008
Alex
I do not agree with you at all. The point of this movie was that it was taken from the perspective of the vidoe camera of the group of people who were trying to survive. Thats pretty much the point of the movie. What you are suggesting is a remake of Godzilla. With the amount of people saying that Cloverfield is just another Godzilla movie, that won’t help at all. A sequel of Cloverfield shot with Video Camera’s is going to be great. With the amount of Viral Marketing they did, they should turn it into a Trilogy.
God help me, if Cloverfield is not my favorite movie, I don’t know what is.
Jan 24th, 2008
max
well cloverfield in the begining was a tape recovered by the goverment. so haveing another shacking camera would be dumb. how many vidoes did they find? come on. they should have the sequal regular , no shaky stuff. i meen if they were smart they woulda ditched the camera. running for ur life in that situation a camera should be the last thing on ur mind
Jan 24th, 2008
max mac
well cloverfield in the begining was a tape recovered by the goverment. so haveing another shacking camera would be dumb. how many vidoes did they find? come on. they should have the sequal regular , no shaky stuff. i meen if they were smart they woulda ditched the camera. running for ur life in that situation a camera should be the last thing on ur mind,,,
Jan 24th, 2008
RHKWON
My wife and I almost spilled our dinner out all over the movie as we really got motion sickness. The damn creature was shown only little bit….the end was really stupid! I really don’t recommend this movie and if there was to be a sequel, only from a different angle and not by cam corder should the movie be made!!
Jan 25th, 2008
Alex
You see the monster plenty of times. And if thats the only reason you went to see the movie than oh well. Its like what Mat Reeves said. “Its like a movie at about these people documenting their lives at a party and then a monster is thrown in”. Its about the people more than the monster.
And since you know its done from a video camera, you cant say you didn’t expect it to be shaky once in a while. If a sequel does come out (which it probably will) it is going to be done, same video camera style, thats the point of the movie.
Jan 25th, 2008
Katy
dude, i loved how the camera was used. it made it more real more like there really was a monster and you just found the tape. I have heard that while they were on the bridge there was another man with a camera, and they were gonna start a sequl they were gonna take it from his point of view. But then again, what ever happend to Lilly, they could take it from what happend to her (which would involve not haveing a camcorder type film)
i would really love seeing another one of these movies
i love it
i saw it for the 2nd time last night
Jan 26th, 2008
Nate
I disagree with this review. A cinematic version would ruin it. That’s what made Cloverfield so good in the first place, its new take and its secrets. If you put a cinematic following of the Monster, then you will reveal some of the secrets that should be left up to the imagination. I agree with Matt Reeves about another camocrder sequel, but a little less shaky, please.
Jan 27th, 2008
Erik M.
Hi! I saw the movie yesterday and just loved it. And by no means am I usually a big fan of monster movies or similar genres. I think there HAS to be a sequel, and we need to find out what happens to the 2 remaining characters as well as the creature. No more handy cams. The idea of watching a sequel that involves another person’s eyewitness video sounded interesting at first, but overall it would be just like watching the same movie again (in terms of seeing the destruction take place and being “introduced” to the monster, etc…). I think the sequel should be a straightforwardly filmed movie (conventional cameras) that picks up right where Cloverfield left off (the scene with under the bridge in Central Park).
Jan 27th, 2008
Spoon_Murderer
I am seriously hoping for a sequel, but i agree that the handheld idea was good for one time only. An idea that i have for a sequel is (filmed with regular movie equipment):
(Remeber how at the beginning of Cloverfield, it stated that the tape was Military Property?) Well the movie follows A squad from the US Military. At the very beginning, it shows the last five seconds or so of the Cloverfield tape, but the Soldiers are watching it. As it turns out, the hole tape, after it was recovered, was used as intelligence. The soldiers are recapping the last week’s events and then discuss a final launch against the monster. Throughout the rest of the movie, we learn what it is, why its here, and how we can kill it. I think the movie would be alot mroe exiting if it were filmed following solders, rather then a random person, who sees the monster every once and a while. Something else we would need, though, Is to see a new ability that the monster has, opposed to its massive size, and spider-like minions, or else there will be no suprise left in the movie.
Jan 27th, 2008
dan fosco
hello my name is dan fosco and my number is 1773 829 1548 and iknow everything about cloverfield and all you have to do is call and ill tell you everything about cloverfield 2 because im close to the director
Jan 28th, 2008
Connor
i agree, that they will probobaly make the movie with conventional cameras, although id much prefer it filmed int he style of digital handycams. it adds to the whole chaos of the film — you FEEL the terror of those people knowing that theyre going to die — and you dont even know from what.
Jan 28th, 2008
Will
Hey guys on the sequel note I noticed in the movie a guy in a crowd with another handheld camera so its probably gonna be from another point of view. I dont remember exactly where but it was somewhere near the bridge collapse part I think.
Jan 31st, 2008
dougnagy
good eye will!
Jan 31st, 2008
Jamie
What I likes about Cloverfield was that it put you there. If you had convential equipment, it would just be another Godzilla ripoff.
Jan 31st, 2008
Adam
Feb 1st, 2008
Adam
(in response to Shane, comment #32…)
Feb 1st, 2008
Adam
(in response to Shane, comment #33…)
Feb 1st, 2008
cool man himself
i do films too but you dont see me shaking the camera all the way to the ending,i like the beggining but its sholud have been done on film format like a motion picture..dont get me wrong good work, hope to see the sequel….
Feb 1st, 2008
Kenny
Ok so I’d just like to say “iPhones” don’t have a camera on them =]
But WAY excited on the news about a sequel to Cloverfield, just hope it’s more of a Military, up against the creature, maybe a Doom 3? kinda thing, less so of a first person, view.
Watching this movie was amazing, leaving it was a disappointment.
Let’s hope if a sequel comes it’ll make up for the cliffhanger.
Feb 3rd, 2008
Jenny
I would love to see a sequel told on another camera in the same way but maybe from a Military view or someone else that some how fills in the gaps of where it came from and what happens when you get bitten etc. I would hate to see a continuation of the same characters. I dont really even want to see who wins I think they should finish it open but fill in some gaps.
Feb 4th, 2008
David Maciag
WHATS THE SEQUAL THE MOVIE MAKES NO SENCE
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
Feb 5th, 2008
Taylor
For me, the perfect sequel would be just to have the monster attack again, but at the beginning of the film, show random clips from the original.
Feb 5th, 2008
manman
i think it would be a brilliant idea to have a sequel recorded on a military helmet cams, one of the soldiersa that got on the helicopter with lily near the end of cloverfield, and find out what happens to them
Feb 6th, 2008
manman
“It’s still alive” would mean that they have the room for a sequel, if they had any sence they, would do that, retaining the mystery about the monster, we can also see what the military do to fight it, this way, they could drip feed us info on the beast without ruining possibilities in the future, if you ask my opinion, i think that cloverfield could go on for a long time,the name “cloverfield” suggests that the area of manhattan is now a giant.. cloverfield, as that is the first plant to grow on any area that has been bombed, meaing, that the tape could have been found weeks after the event, and that they could still be engaging thew monster even then
Feb 6th, 2008
manman
it cant have just been in the sea all this time though, assuming realism is what they’re going for, if you look at all the clues and theories of deep sea drilling and sattilites falling out of orbit, that happens all the fucking time, ither this thing was buried underground for a very long time somewhere way out at sea and woke up for some reason, or it came from outer space, one scene of the film you see the monster close up and it does not look like anything at all that has ever lived on earth
Feb 6th, 2008
vinny puleo
I have the perfect seal gor the sequel.

Feb 7th, 2008
Legomaster
Since the hype I saw was all comercials, I didn’t expect the first person hand held camera, the whole time. I think it was a good idea, and the movie certainly focused on the characters. Some folks hone in on the superficial aspects. Keeping an open mind will allow you to enjoy this movie more. If the sequal is done as the first one, just a little less shaky please, it will make sense and provide a collection of movies that are unlike others we may already know. That is unique. Perhaps the third movie, if made, could be a combination of clips and traditional cinema. Whereas, the second movie gives more perspective and clues, and the third movie contains just some FP clips and the focus is more on going after the creature and or what it is like for humanity in the aftermath. I still like that the movie kept me wondering. I know everyone in the theater where I saw it, were affected and there were tons of Ooohs and Ahhhs. Like the whole audience was drawn in to the film. Warning, go on an empty stomach, and look away to the sides of the screen if you start to feel dizzy!
Feb 12th, 2008
Tim
I loved the movie I would also like a sequel w/ shaky cam and more answers what the hell happened to lizy
Feb 19th, 2008
Tim
i meen lily sorry
i really did like it though
another person with a camera would be a great idea
I meen with all the people in NY at least one other person could have picked up their camera and started filming the destruction then got chased out of their house
Feb 19th, 2008
nathan
I loved cloverfield
manman wuz right clovers do grow first after bombings
the sequel must be in shaky cam but and should be on the day cloverfield left offit should cover how the military kills the monster but should still have a cliffhanger at the end
Feb 19th, 2008
ryannatin
it made me ddddddddiiiiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyyyy
really>>>>
i wanted to vomit but…. the movie is good so i just drink my vomits.. or just throw my vomit to people around me who didnt like the movie…….. justice.
but its their own comments….. comments from stupid people who doesnt know about the uniqueness and art and beauty whatever of shky films
Feb 20th, 2008
Courtney
I liked the movie at
First I didn’t because I didn’t understand it but I soon realized that I didn’t need to. I don’t want to kno why or where it came from I love the mystery I love th fp view but I do want to see the camera part less shaky as well I would like it to go into what happened to everyone what happened to the monster what happened to lily what is going to happen next?
Feb 20th, 2008
Courtney
I liked the movie at
First I didn’t because I didn’t understand it but I soon realized that I didn’t need to. I don’t want to kno why or where it came from I love the mystery I love th fp view but I do want to see the camera part less shaky as well I would like it to go into what happened to everyone what happened to the monster what happened to lily what is going to rhappen next?
Feb 20th, 2008
Courtney
I loved the movie
First I didn’t because I didn’t understand it but I soon realized that I didn’t need to. I don’t want to know why or where it came from I love the mystery I love the fp view but I do want to see the camera part less shaky as well I would like it to go into what happened to everyone what happened to the monster what happened to lily what is going to happen next I can’t help but to wonder I crave a sequel!!!
Feb 20th, 2008
Jagminder
I hav to admit, I had never seen anythin like it before. The direction is awesome n the movie just keeps you involved all the time, as if you are present there. I’d like the sequel from the army man’s point of view who meets Rob and gang in the camp when they come out of the train station after being attacked by a parasite. the movie definitely rocks!
Mar 1st, 2008
Roy J Lores
I totaly disagree with the notion of no sequel for Cloverfield. There is a whole lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed and that can only be done via a sequel…
Mar 2nd, 2008
Sequel
The movie was nice mostly because of the shaky camera… and they just have to make a sequel.
Mar 3rd, 2008
Donna Barrie
I’m on my third trip to see Cloverfield. As to other’s comments - sorry - the shaky cam action puts you THERE. The action scenes and sound in this movie blow you away. A sequel - YOU BET !
Mar 6th, 2008
Chuckie
Ok, so I’ve read about 20 different comment on this page. And let me be totally honest on this post and maybe try to explain how others may felt along with me. I believe the whole ideal of the shaky cam thing was brilliant. It made it seem realistic. Like it could happen to just anyone; how they were just randomly caught off guard. However for the sequel, and I can’t stress this enough….Cloverfield was amazing, but the sequel would be so much better as a modern movie with normal equipment use rather than a camera. It was a very good idea at first but a second would be over doing it. Well theres my two cents. If anyone happen to know any details on second movie or anything related about the monster. Feel free to email me at [email protected] I would love to know more!
Mar 7th, 2008
Mike
I saw the movie and though the shaking camera was good, I agree with others on the post,it makes it seem more realistic. A sequel in the point of view of another group of people that possibly saw more about the creature and learned of its origins…government cover-up…where it came from..if it had attacked before.. if it had a weakness…why it attacked. or maybe a movie done with regular video equipment that showed pre-post attack..if it was created or came from somewhere else..engineered by scientist. thats the great thing about this storyline, it has so many great possibilities..according to info from wikipedia on cloverfield..if you look under the sequel section, it claims that the cloverfield writers have a whole background-story already made.According to Bryan Burk, “The creative team has fleshed out an entire backstory which, if we’re lucky, we might get to explore in future films.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#Sequel
Mar 8th, 2008
Andrew
Personally I loved the way Cloverfield was shot. Shooting different angles and different stories just makes it another monster movie. I think it would be exciting to see another point-of-view. What would interest me more is the origins of the monster though.
Mar 15th, 2008
Will Valentin
This was the greatest monster film of this year without a doubt…except for the ending. It needs a sequal no questions asked!!!!!!!! The guy on the top has no idea what he’s talking about and should never speak of this movie again idiot. ANd if profanity was allowed on this blog he would be getting alot more words from me what an f’n idiot.
Mar 17th, 2008
nite
Valentin why do you think Andrew post was an idiotic post? I also want to know the movie origins. I do admit I liked Cloverfield…it was a different type of film. They did it exactly what it was meant to be…doesn’t explain nothing which was their ideal. But I believe a sequel for this movie would be awesome if they didn’t do the effect they did on the first. Perhaps using normal movie equipments. I can’t stress enough that I DO LIKE the camera affect, it was DIFFERENT for once. But lets not do that again :|
Mar 17th, 2008
Alfredo
I loved the first-person camerawork for the film. I believe it gave the audience a sense of presence, intimidation, and rawness that is absolutely necessary for films in horror genres. Every snippet of the creature is a treat, until, I’ll have to admit, we finally see it at the very end. Now, Matt Reeves (director) has teased audiences and the media with the possibility that “perhaps we weren’t only shooting one film during Cloverfield.” I would find it very entertaining and extremely clever if the film/story of “Cloverfield” continued from another person’s perspective, albeit a camcorder, or something handheld, right after Rob and Elizabeth are blown away in the end. I’m sure the group we followed weren’t the only ones documenting the attack. And as for the title, “Cloverfield” can be a code name for a military-created virus (ie, the creature [for some reason]) or it can be a code name for the area in which the video was found (Cloverfield = Central Park). In any case, it’s fun to speculate.
Mar 18th, 2008
Tramel
I thought Cloverfield was the best “monster” movie I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t a bunch of government officials and scientist discussing using the bomb to kill it, or some elite military group trying to kill it. It was just everyday people and their points of view. A sequel would be great, but perhaps to solve the “camera jitters” it would be shot in a documentary style. Perhaps a government film documenting the investigation into the monster and where it came from. But I really don’t know if answering too many questions is a good thing. Mystery makes your own imagination run wild. It’s more scarey not to know.
I liked the Blair Witch Project, but the sequel was awful. Just don’t ruin the first one by making a “Hollywood” version.
Mar 22nd, 2008
Kellin Rumsey
I thought the movie was sweet as. I’d love it if a sequel came out. But they’d have to be careful. It would be to easy to screw it up.
Mar 30th, 2008
JamesDax
I like the idea of making a documentry investigating the orgins of the monster and how it was delt with. You could mix in some shaky cam clips from verious sources through out the film. That would make it the perfect sequel.
Apr 5th, 2008
Roy
I just saw Cloverfield, and first thing I did was check if there is going to be a sequel, this is a movie with a Must have sequel title all over it, I learned there is talk about a sequel regarding someone elses perspective, AND DOING THAT MEANS YOU LACK IMAGINATION!!!, OR JUST TOO LAZY AND TIRED TO INVEST IN MAKING A PROPER SEQUEL.
WOW, another perspective, this movie is great as it is and deserves a sequel, FAST, but another persons perspective just takes the first part, a magnificant creation, and shoves it down the toilet (and a toilet that has been just used for a heavy number 2). another persons perspective would be a waste of time, but HOPEFULLY, a sequel will be done in the next manner:
Firstly, the movie will be about 2 hours long, maybe a little longer.
now.. the audience will get to see several not just one but several different other peoples perspective, but not for long.. only for a period of 30-50 minutes, building up the main cast, (and hopefully a miracle was going on and those 2 at the end of cloverfield 1 survived the explosion).
now during the first 50 minutes the camera work is done in the same manner that cloverfield 1 was made.
after that, after building the main characters and showing different perspectives, we take off the shaking camera style and commence in normal steady camera style, and the plot begins, on or more of the main characters found out those little monsters weaknes, another two where making a film at coney island that same day that something fell in (i didnt even notice something falling but so i read), and they caught that on tape and no one would listen to them since nothing was reported or found out by the goverment.. and maybe we should have the brother who died actually survive since you could only see the tail moving bye.. and knocking everything.. but its possible, he moved in the last moment, and survived the fall into the water.. and most importantly both or one of those in the end the guy and the girl (i dont remember the names) one or both survived..
and build this movie into what it was intended to be.
I got more ideas, but I guess my words might not reach far. so I hope someone important does lay his oe her eyes on this since a sequel from another perspective is plain retarded and unimaginative.
Apr 7th, 2008
Andy
If you guys had motion sickness then you have weak minds. People, especially teens and young adults play video games that have this “shaky” effect. Especially FPS games. I watched it and I did not feel sick at all. I loved the idea of it being filmed by a “camcorder” and it being shaky because that is what makes it seem real. As for the sequel, I agree that it should be from another person’s perspective. They should keep the shaky effect but maybe make it a little less shaky for the audience because it seems that the majority of people get motion sickness, also they should add some stable shots, but not many. As for Roy’s post, let’s not make the brother come back, there is no way he can survive that hit if he was hit or that fall. Killing off characters makes it more interesting and gives us better thrills.
Apr 8th, 2008
Slusho
really there should be a sequel, cloverfield was awesome, and yes, the camera style didn’t quite agree with the stomaches of many people, but its no different than the blair witch movie, ( not saying blair witch was a great movie however ) some people can watch it some people can’t. But the movie does need a sequel, but i do agree, it does not need a sequel 90 minutes full of shakey home video. It was unique and worked well for the current first one, but the movie does need a follow up in a standard movie camera format. A sequel thats done right would definetly have potential.
Apr 11th, 2008
Slusho
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)
Apr 11th, 2008
stu
if you think they should follow the monster around, tell its story, all on big nice smooth cameras, then you didn’t understand the movie.
Apr 13th, 2008
Jim
I disagree… this movie was a piece of art. The viral marketing they have done for it is brilliant. I agree that a sequel showing the same night would be no fun. Maybe not even closure, just more carnage. This is the greatest monster flick of my time and I think atleast one sequel for an 84 minute film is required. The handy cam was a great idea and I want to see it again. Maybe from a journalist following a group of soldiers would be fun… ya know kinda after it all went down. I’m not going to insult anyone’s mind or lack of liking the film. Steel Magnolias is a film I refuse to see more than once. Never again. I PERSONALLY wasn’t bothered by the cinematography of Cloverfield and hope they stay true to the original. That aspect of telling the story gives it a feel that adds to the panic. Amazing movie… just too short.
Apr 22nd, 2008
flyerdog
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)
The writer said that he wanted to create an American icon of a monster like Japan/Godzilla..as such if they do make a sequel..it might have to be a situation where the monster lurks the earth , whereabouts unknown..and the world is on constant alert..or condition Orange, if you will..then one day ti appears, wreaks havoc etc…just like Godzilla..you could alos draw comparisons to today’s contemporary issues, eg the threat of terrorism..and bring in political perspectives..ie one side wants to hunt it down and kill it, while the other side, perhaps the scientific community wants to capture it study it, perhaps establish communication..there is actually some potential in a sequel as long as they don’t just stick to gratuitious destruction.
Apr 23rd, 2008
Datbrown
Watch the original ending at the ocian and u will see that the monster or a meteor falls from the sky into the ocean so maybe thats what they were aiming for in origin.
I like the Idea of a shaky cam from someone elses perspective cause that could be bad ass
Apr 24th, 2008
Mike
The vid cam gives it a realism that a regular motion picture lacks. In real life we don’t see things from any angle, nor do we get to see stuff that people didn’t see. So while a full blown motion picture has those things, it all has the objective viewpoint that reminds you it’s just a story. Not something somebody shot for you-tube. The vid cam works so great because it’s very much like what you would expect - choppy, limited visibility (because the people would run), and an incomplete story about the monster (as they can’t know what it is doing except where it crosses their path).
I have to say - I thought I was going to hate this movie. I loved it. Best monster flick yet. There needs to be a sequel, but it needs to be just as original. That might not be possible.
Apr 25th, 2008
Sara
I loved the movie. Thought I wouldn’t because of the hand held cam but it is right at the top of my list. There needs to be a sequal!!! I will be waiting for there are so many questions unanswered and so many directions it can go. I do agree it has to be done the same. No other way would work and it would be a loss. I want to know what happens to Lilly now, more about our creature, and where it goes now! I wished I had gone to see it in the theater but I wasn’t sure…now I know I would for the sequal!
Apr 25th, 2008
Sara
Oh….and for the record I do suffer from “real” motion sickness and this movie didn’t make me sick! This movie kept me on the edge of my seat tilting my head trying to see….waiting for the next thing to happen! The sequal has to stay in the same format as the origional just from a different perspective.
Apr 25th, 2008
some guy
HEY! i know were it came from! notice if u got the dvd and watched the second alternae ending, a meteor falls into the water behind the cruise ship! :] YA!
Apr 25th, 2008
Guodzilla
I got the Cloverfield DVD last week and the monster STILL kicks @$$ and takes names. I’m 500% in favor of a sequel, but as far as the handycam thing, I just hope JJ is REALLY careful. I mean once was incredible, but many more times and the technique may very likely turn into one long yawn. I don’t see another handheld-style movie having the same impact as the original. Also, the SAME story told from a different person’s perspective is what? The SAME story told from a different person’s perspective. I’d like to see the monster trash another city, do something different, or even go back to NYC for seconds, this time bringing Mom along; which gives me an idea. JJ mentioned that the creature was a hatchling. What about those extra limbs in the middle of the torso? What would happen if the creature would metamorphose into an adult, and those extras turn out to be something like wings? THAT would be an idea. A Cloverfield monster which could FLY? H’mm.
Anyway, going back to topic, I’m really enthusiastic for a sequel, but I have reservations about doing it the same old way as before.
Apr 26th, 2008
Guodzilla
I just finished reading “BloodyDisgusting.com” and I have another idea; one in which the handycam idea may still work. What would happen if NYC were NOT THE ONLY CITY ATTACKED THAT NIGHT? Other monsters out there? H’mmm.
Apr 26th, 2008
doug
Ok, the recipe for a sequel to this movie is: (And the following is assuming this has not been already suggested as I have not read all of the comments above) The “Duh” thing to do is to work off of the premise of the original with a Military Think Tank going through all of the collected video to analyze this new threat. So movie number one was actually just one of these videos shown to this group and movie number two begins in a conference room full of uniformed and non uniformed people (world’s best scientists, military experts,etc etc) maybe this is in a deep bunker somewhere because the threat was never isolated to just NYC?) So the lights come on and the chairperson makes some knife edged comment like “Now does THAT video give you enough “information” to know how damn serious this is??” Or whatever. See so the 2nd movie becomes a combination of these collected videos AND the discussion in this meeting during and following each video … that way the viewers are not only getting information from the seasick amateur wild ride of hand held video but also are enjoying the much more comfortable perspective of conventional film makings spoon fed organization of facts so by the end of the second movie we know a heck of lot more about the origin of these creatures together with some kind of estimate of the level and extent of the threat … questions answered like “what is the relationship between the small creatures and the huge ones? Are the little ones, babies of the biguns? Or are they like attack dogs? Or are the little ones the masters of the giants? Or what?? See there is the potential of continuing to see things through the new “eyes” of modern man’s personal electronics, while at the same time not at such risk of becoming just way too much sea sick home video with way too little information about what the heck is going on! While just about getting too much on everyone’s nerves, the excitement and mystery allowed it to work well ONCE in the first movie but I think it will be a failed gamble and sadly missed opportunity if it is decided that the sequel is done in the same way as the original! Please man don’t mess this up! There is so much entertainment potential here! It could EASILY carry 3 or 4 sequels!
Apr 26th, 2008
poseidon
I got it the sequel could be shot from the monster’s point of veiw. And it could have flashbacks before something happens (like it realease parasites.)
Apr 26th, 2008
rossfunk
The original was horrible and if anyone goes to see a sequel to this it will just prove that dumb people spend money on almost anything.
Apr 28th, 2008
Bob
i just saw the movie today and loved it but i almost threw up because of the shaky camera work. sure it was something new but i would like it more if it had a still camera. i really hope they make a sequel because there are so many questions that haven’t been answered. if they dont have a still camera for the sequel i guess i’ll just have to bring a barf bag to the theatre….
Apr 28th, 2008
Sleezy
They’ll make a sequel based on how it brought in 166 million dollars and it shot under budget. I’m willing to bet it’ll be based around Lilli seeing how she got away in a hellicopter by herself.
Apr 29th, 2008
Kyler
Ok, first off: Cloverfield was awesome. It took people on a whole new perspective on the idea of a giant monster. I think I speak for everybody when I say that not everyone’s crazy about following a giant monster around, or else Godzilla would have done better here in America. Second: yes the camera made people sick, but thats why the movie was so much better in the first place. Third: a sequel would be awesome. How they do wouldn’t matter, there’s no way Matt Reeves will screw it up. And lastly: the mystery behind the monster makes the movie interesting. I makes you pay attention to the little details instead of the explosions and jokes. I bet the origing of the monster is right in front of our eyes and were to busy to see it.
Apr 29th, 2008
vince
i love the whole running with the camera thing… its diffrent and makes it seem more real..
May 1st, 2008
Les
Loved the movie, absolutely loved it. And if they do a sequel, I want to see it done in the same fashion, true to the first one. Yes, the backwards audio at the end leads us to believe that there will be. Believe me, I will be at the theater watching the dark shaky movie that will more than likely make me sea sick.
And about the origin of the Cloverfield monster, (someone may have already mentioned this, I haven’t read all the responses yet) you can see how it came to the area at the very end of the movie. After the disappearance of Beth and Rob beneath the rubble, when the cam flips back to the old movie of their day together, you can see a small speck from the sky fall into the ocean. It’s very hard to see, and it’s only visible for a second or two, pay close attention to just left of the boat when Beth says, “Ohh,… I had a good day”. Took me about ten rewinds to see the thing, so don’t get upset if you don’t see it right away.
But yeah, some kind of scientific recording from maybe one of those safe-suit guys who was carting away the tiny-also-terrible-thing in the medical facility used by those military guys would be a nice perspective to see. ^_^
I’m just very excited at the possibility! And no offense to all those who want a traditional shooting for the sequel, I think it would ruin the movie. The whole self-recording of the movie makes it seem much more realistic. And I loved getting to see the monster glimpse by glimpse. Kudos to Matt Reeves and all who worked on Cloverfield!
(And I’m pretty sure that the characters of the next one would be far from included in the first one, so I don’t think a perspecitve from the possibly survived Lily would be what to expect =/ seems like a whole new group would be the best way to show the same events in another light.)
May 1st, 2008
poseidon
again. Shot from the monsters point of veiw. It would be so awesome to see its memorys and stuff
May 2nd, 2008
Butchcox
(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so) It’s obvious that the monster is the love child from Godzilla and Rhodan and that the sequel should backflash to their romance and consumation at the Bellagio in Las Vegas after their nuptials by Elvis at the Graceland Wedding Chapel
May 3rd, 2008
jake
you have to make a sequel, Im so confused. If you do make a sequel then you have to keep the shaky because if they didn’t then it kills the first one.
you guys need to answer the questions like were did it come from,did it survive the bombing,and why the heck did that one girls head explode?
May 3rd, 2008
Pete
Yes, a move away from the brain-dead characters and handycam would get my vote…
May 4th, 2008
Connor Sousa
So, the shaky cam idea was great it helps give it the right spookyness and view of what we would see if we were them. so sequel, gotta be one theres no way there cant be a sequel. this movie costed something like 26 mil to make and made 46 mil in its openening weekend!! its got the popularity and for this sequel i’m thinkin a different camera on someone who is around people who know what this thing is where it came from etc. keep the shaky cam idea it was original and perfect for this movie.
May 4th, 2008
Daniel Bresien
Watched Cloverfield. Found the movie to be lackluster overall. Definitely needs a steady cam and the first 10 to 15 minutes could have been cut without missing out on much. I was very disappointed in a Bad Robot production, still this concept could be salvaged.
Re: Sequel - a possibility. Follow the story of the monster from the end of Cloverfied and how the country copes with this incident and the possibility of having to deal with the monster’s offspring or yet more monsters. Lose the camcorder.
May 5th, 2008
Reply to “Cloverfield Sequel?”