Comments on: Cloverfield 2 Movie

By: Jinky

Jinky — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:53:14 +0000

I watched the special features of the movie “Cloverfield”, and they said that the monster was a “baby” that was lost. However, in the movie, there wasn’t really any indication of that. But I thought that would make a terrific segue for the 2nd movie, where the monster’s “mom” (or dad) would come looking for it, wreaking havoc along the way.

By: vraymar

vraymar — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:43:26 +0000

“Ohhh and the camera stability, I agree cause i remember the last time I ran from a giant monster I at least took the time to stop and line up for a great shot! WTF are ya’ll stupid or something!”

Actually, if that is your point of view, there would be no camera at all. You must be really, REALLY stupid to film something like that no matter how lously, instead of getting alive with all your mind & body on it.

By: Alejandro Wong

Alejandro Wong — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:07:10 +0000

this may have been said before in the other comments but here’s what i think cloverfield 2 should be like:

The plot should start off with military offcials just finishing the tape and noting the falling object on coney island. Patches of the human resistance are living deep underground and one is lead by some minor characters from the first movie. The entire planet is dominated by the monsters, as well as those smaller arthropods which populate the sewers–the resistance is living under the sewers. Throughout the story, hints of the monsters’ origins are slowly revealed, and rob and beth are found out to be alive, leading a smaller resistance group

instead of a video camera, you can make it so that you are seeing from the protagonist’s point of view during the movie–that way you can get a better view of the action but still retain the filming style

By: Meeep

Meeep — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:45:11 +0000

Jacob–

2 monsters is literally the worst idea ive ever heard. it would RUIN a movie that has a good chance. if they make this anything even resembling a clover vs anything—i most certainly wont go see it, and i can guarantee it flops and fails miserably. no one wants that. except you evidently.

id be perfectly happy and entertained if they had the same idea, and used a different camera. any number of given people would be recording on a typical night in NYC. give me one of their cameras…i dont even need answers. and it should most definite stay in the filming style as is.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:57:23 +0000

Reply to the above comment, it doesn’t have to be those monsters, it could be an entirely new one, I’m really looking forward to a DIRECT sequel, and one that deals with two monsters.

By: Rhuen

Rhuen — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:26:24 +0000

1: shaky camera has to go. nice and artistic once, but not twice.

2: Do not have it “vs” anything. King Kong is too small, Zilla too corny, Godzilla way too big and powerful.

3: To everyone refering to the spider-things as spawns, they’re not spawns, their parasites, as in they were covering the larger monster like fleas on a dog. This is something rarely used in giant monster movie, so rare that its a shame that not many others realized that they were monster parasites. Only other good example is the monster sea lice that came off of Godzilla in Godzilla 1985 and some of the Godzilla comics.

4: a sequal requires some back story, it was nice the first was original, the point of view of the people being stepped on rather than the military and scientists fighting it like you see in all other giant monster movies, but this tradition could use some time in a sequal.

By: Kenneth Coleman

Kenneth Coleman — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:39:43 +0000

The real monsters in the movie are those ugly things that fell from the large monster. One of the characters said that it was trying to drag him away. Something tell me the sequel will deal with that aspect of the movie. Why do the bite victims explode as presented by the dead guy they wheeled in on the gurney and the girl who exploded shadow stile before us? Where were the creators trying to drag that guy, back to the larger creature or were they trying to drag him to some place else to create something new? To me Cloverfield 1 is first full length movie that looks like a preview and serves as a preview and that is good.

By: Jacob Howell

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:17:50 +0000

Someone might;ve already said this..idk but i think in the sequal it just should be filmed the same way but from someone on a different side of the city who wanted to show people what happened just like Hud did. But this time we might learn/see/hear more about the monster..the fun about this movie is that noone really knows WHAT it is and that element should b kept in the sequal..

people are saying all this stuff about Slusho company and some japanese company having something to do with the monster…where are you hearing this..it interests me.

By: kevin kevin

kevin kevin — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:23:06 +0000

So the dark castle series and m night shamlayan movies all intertwine with cloverfield. For example the dark castle series is based on two earths with one in a parallel dimension where a company opens a portal from another dimension which effects both worlds and that the monsters in Lady in the Water, The Mist, and Cloverfield are all from the same dimension and it messes up both worlds. Each movie plays off of each other with the creatures. and i have to read more but it was pretty interesting.

By: Chelsea

Chelsea — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:26:32 +0000

I love the first movie, especially the way you directed it. Its sort of like a “home movie” view. You should keep how you directed it, (the format or what ever its called, i dunno anything about that XD)

Im going to rent it and watch it again! ^o^