• Hot Stuff:

Cloverfield 2 – Cloverfield Sequel

Cloverfield 2 MonsterEven before the first movie was out there were rumors of a sequel to Cloverfield. And since the firs film has been released fans of the shaky-cam monster movie are really hopping to see Cloverfield 2 one day.

Cloverfield 2 Movie

Still dreaming of the previous viral campaigns launched to promote Cloverfield, fans are trying to catch signs of the new sequel online. But that would be in vain for now. Indeed both Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Matt Reeves aren’t yet decided about what direction Cloverfield 2 should take….

They gave some hints though:

Matt Reeves - Cloverfield 2

“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 camera phones and Handycams, uploading it to YouTube… That was kind of exciting thinking about that.”
Matt Reeves

J.J. Abrams - Cloverfield Sequel Movie

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.
J.J. Abrams



If it’s not a literal sequel then it’ probably a retelling of the central story or some yet-unexplored backstory that would shed a new light on the events.

CLOVERFIELD IIBut I still think that a “traditional” sequel is still likely. And some doors are definitely opened for this:

– at the end scene on Coney Island shows something falls into the ocean in the background (in the far right from the view out of the ferris wheel, a bit left of a boat sitting in the water seen falling just as the camera beeps).

– at the very end of the credits, someone can be heard whispering “Help us”. And if you reverse it, you could hear: “It’s still alive.”

If you were able J.J. Abrams and Matt Reeves about what direction to follow for Cloverfield II, what would you recommend?
:)

Join Teaser Trailer on Facebook or Google+ to get the latest movie news on your wall:


Or follow us on Twitter:









51 Responses sur “Cloverfield 2 – Cloverfield Sequel”

  1. Shaun

    I loved this movie, but the shaky cam was too much. I wanted the camera to look at what was happening, not spend most of its time with blurred motion shots that make it impossible to see what is happening.

    The teasers that barely showed the creature were great. But when half the movie was that same type of tease, it made me loose interest.

    If a sequel is made with standard (no hand held cams) I will be the first in line!

  2. Jean Yves

    I agree with Shaun, the idea of the movie was great but the shaky handcam gets annoying after a while, but the pressure is intense and overall impression quite good as it seems more real.
    I’ll still watch part II of Cloverfield.
    Cheers

  3. Curtis

    The first Cloverfield I didn’t like how the evil monster was winning all the way toward the end of the movie. Godzilla needs to come in and kick it’s butt! :)

  4. Laurence

    The first film was awesome, but like most people say the shaky camera work got a bit much (added to the realism which was probably the intention).

    The film really hit the spot with the fact that you got to see massive street fights between the US Army and the Monster, you never got that in the film ‘War of the Worlds’, most of it happened off camera. In a similar context, the film ‘Signs’ (Mel Gibson), another brilliant film, you never got to see any fighting. Although fighting (Aliens Vs Army) would have taken away the underlying theme of Faith/God Vs chance/science/aliens, a little ‘distant gun fire’ heard from the farm house would have really added to the atmosphere that we’re fighting for our lives!

    Anyway, Cloverfield 2 should pick up midway through the first film. Should cover the efforts of the US Army battling the monster. The camera person should be a ‘film student’ i.e. they know how to keep the camera still, compose shots, but yet still have a little camera shake to maintain realism (sound fair?). Could possibly show the eventual defeat of monster and recovery of first tape from the former central park. From the Viral advertising, wasn’t there an oil rig that got destroyed and a sea battle? somewhere in the Atlantic? As the Monster was supposed to drop in off the coast of Coney Island, it took a large detour before heading back to New York. Perhaps there are two monsters and Cloverfield 2 could also feature news reports of it attacking London. Who knows!?!.

    My gut instinct tells me that Cloverfield 2 will be the events leading to the main rampage in New York. Again from the viral advertising you see underwater shots etc. This leaves a nice door for Cloverfield 3 where you finally see the Monster killed.

    I hope Cloverfield 2 rocks!

    Cheers!

  5. Bo

    I think the second film should be filmed as a National Public Warning: That this creature has attacked and destroyed New York and no one knows where it will go to next. They should compile all the news footage, a source of steady camera-work, and also any other clips that might have been “recoverd” other than Rob’s. The attack on the Chuai Oil Station was not a second monster. The thing falling into the ocean was a Tagruato satellite. Plus, the new photos from the submarine show the parasites and Clover himself in one(if you look close), but it also shows steel girders and beams like that of an oil rig. It sounds to me as if this thing was kept captive somehow and the attack by TiDOWave(The anti-Tagruato group, stands for Tagruato is Destroying our Oceans, and they once sabotaged the Tagruato website. On the cell phone shots from the Station, you can see men in masks with guns. That was TiDOWave, and they are just as shady as Tagruato. They seemed to have caused the event that either released or really pissed off the monster. Perhaps they fed it Slusho, enraging it? Ever see those videos shick sent to her boyfriend. In those she gets all edgy and hyper, like she just did crank or something. A 30-story monster in an environment it doesn’t understand, being attacked for it knows not what reason, and essentially on crank makes for pretty much what happened in the first movie. The second should center on the news reports and speculations of the origins of the monster, as well as speculation as to what brought it out of dormancy. That’s just my two cents, and it would be great way to get not only a steadier cam, but some epic shots, such as the ones they show in the news report within the movie.

  6. Adrien

    Yes the movie was very unique and interesting. It’s a frightening way to show how regular people deal with these situations. Now that you made a point…lets get down to the actual story and get to know the monster, like Godzilla… have the story from beginning to death of the creature. We all want to see that and that would be a great seller for you. Even better, maybe just maybe, have the cloverfield monster and the 1998 American Zilla meet in the movie, LET THE ULTIMATE BATTLE BEGIN….now thats a cool idea!! They are both relatively the same size and are both the ultimate monster, just consider the idea.

    As my last idea I mentioned previously, have the cloverfield 2 movie where they have the battle between the Army and the monster, which would be a loss for the army… (ideas from other messangers on this thread) and have the third one where maybe the monsters fight it out, they both die in the end…

    and the 1998 American Zilla is the basic example. that zilla died but there were eggs left, one hatched and caused a cartoon mini series for godzilla for a bit, but he still lives and maybe he had a baby zilla again, like i said, just consider these ideas, it would be really cool….

  7. Michael

    I loved the movie, i thought the “Shaky cam” effect was Genius, it was a great way to convey an indepth realty of a first person view thus giving the whole movie experience more life.
    The idea of a Cloverfield movie sequel would be a great idea, not only because of good story line it could carry on, but because it could give the first movie more closure…

    I liked the idea of leaving the target audience wanting more by finishing the first movie like you did, but i did get annoyed.

    Well done!

  8. Cooter Pidge

    I have no opinion

  9. Rob

    NO… no Godzilla film… no, no…. I love the formula the Cloverfield movie had, I love that we don’t get to see the monster that much, I love that the characters and that us the audience dont know what the hell the monster is… lol… The same way we saw Scoobidoo episodes or movies where we don’t see a villains face till the end… part two, would be unique in continuing part of the first film and what we didn’t see…. maybe from another persons camera from the bridge scene or other groups that were trying to escape Manhattan… they should leave the death or disappearance of the creature till the third film…they should leave us still guessing what the hell it is, how it got here, or how it survived all these years living here…it should scare and frighten the living shit out of us… I don’t want to know about the creature, I want them to hardly show it that much… they should continue this unique tradition and style of the film into the sequel…sorta like 28 days later, then 28 weeks later, then 28 months later… lmao… Save the real origins and mystery of the creature till Cloverfield 3… IMO… Peace.

  10. Kurtman1

    Please don’t recreate the God awful Godzilla series.
    Who says that mankind has to win?

  11. UnTamed

    Okay, so I personally loved Cloverfield. I mean that is my favorite movie. Some people say that the shaky cam was a bit too much but I really feel that it added to the real-ness of the movie. I also have a theory about the movie.

    There are two scenes when you get a good look at the monsters face. When they’re running into the subway and when Hudd gets chewed. If you study the creatures faces and neck area it is clear they are two different animals or whatever they are. I believe that there are 2 monsters. Perhaps a baby and a mom or baby and dad… Or mom and dad. I don’t know.

    Also in the first movie when they are walking on the bridge and hudd is filming the headless statue of liberty. When he pans out and swings the view back around to the people on the bridge he films another person looking back at him with a small hand held camera.

    I think that Cloverfield 2 should be set in those peoples ‘adventure’. So, in the second movie you get a glimpse of Hudd and his crew. I think that would be really neat. But that’s just me. ;)

  12. Benny

    First get rid of the shaky cam with more clear views. Many want it be against Godzilla, who is awaken by man again in last ditch effort to kill Cloverfield. With intense battle scenes like those in Transformers.

  13. dan

    the cam was good for the first movie, it was the first encounter it had to be like that. but for the sequel it can’t be one or two large monsters, those monsters are probably the first wave clearing a zone for smaller more intelligent beings. i have to say though that this first movie would be a perfect beginning for a gears of war movie.coming up from the core i believe hud from the movie said something like that. But please this just can’t just be a monster or two there has to be more to it,we don’t know much about whats under the earth we know more about space then we do about under ground. if there is any Godzilla talk it will be the worst movie in history.

  14. steve

    what i didnt get is why were they so focused on beating it up on the out side when you have to kill it on the inside. If that’s the only way to kill it its going to be like gears of war 2 (in the worm) or there going to shove so much TNT up its ass that’s it will look like the fourth of July…. i thought cloverfield was good because of how much money he only had and it was something new

  15. Mamanator

    Cloverfield was brilliant. It had just enough suspense and just enough gore to sustain a viewer and hook them from start to finish. The way the scenes kept jumping each time Hud put the camera down was incredible as that happens / happened with real world video cameras.

    I can sit through the hand held camera scenes, no problem. About the only unrealistic angle there was how the battery never died. Amazing. A direction I’d love to see the movie venture would be the absolute certainty of what happened to our two remaining survivors under the bridge. And let’s not forget about the girl who made it out; she has a story to tell, too. Perhaps the sequel, if one ever comes, could be how she fought to have the army return for her friends? She could gather a select group of individuals and they could be dropped into ground zero and wander around until they find them: hopefully alive somewhere.

    As for who the monster is and where it came / fell from – you can save that for #3. I really need to believe the last 2 people there survived. I need Cloverfield 2 to confirm this for me.

  16. Benny

    An embedded reporter with a cameraman, to get rid of the shaky camera. Its death should be one that has not done before in any other movie and intense. Infer a statement about all living things, since the movie title is about a unknown lifeform.

  17. D-Machine

    Well i’m sorry, despite what every person is saying here about the “shaky camera”, i thought it was freaking awesome. The idea of doing Cloverfield like that is worth a million awards. I hope number 2 uses the same camera idea other wise they might as well name it something else.

  18. Devon

    I loved Cloverfield 1, everything about it and can’t wait to go see the movie Cloverfield 2. I went to see it twice in the theater and twice on DVD but can watch it over and over… so again can’t wait till the new one comes out. Awesome Movie!

  19. You'll like this

    I think that everyone’s idea is good, but I have something to add. Well, in the second Cloverfield they should have another group of people, of course, but instead of stopping the movie right at the “Hammer down”, they should survive the bombing. At the end of the credits you could hear “it’s still alive”, so if it is still alive then make the rest of the movie. Now when the movie starts it should start when things already started to happen, like right when the movie starts the group would be running and they would say that they didn’t know this was going to happen, but when it did the decided to film it.

    So as they are trying to get off the island, in the background you see Rob and his group running too. I think that would be an awesome extra to add.

  20. Greg R.

    I think my favorite idea for a sequel is to have it filmed from actual soldiers in the army in the same night that the first one happened. you know when soldiers bring nice camcorders with them to war to do a documentary?
    it would be great if the movie started off at a military base and they get called in not knowing what their in for. plus having it supposed to be somebody that has experience with camcorders would make it a lot less shaky…

  21. Danny

    to individuals like Shaun, give it a break, understand that the movie was produced in that manner. Overall you STILL are a fan of the movie. Am I not correct? Okay, so maybe they should be able to go back to that handy cam standard. I does bring more suspense, as we are left in semi-curiosity about what is going on in the film. Although, maybe to satisfy the bitter audience who whine and complain about the camera. Maybe the camera should be a bit more steady. I really wouldn’t mind. I thought it was a new a great idea. Standard would make it very obvious and boring. It’d be like ripping off Godzilla. I love Godzilla but no thanks, originality works so much better. Besides, everyone knew how the movie was being filmed and they STILL ran to watch it… yes.. including YOU Shaun. So stop complaining and enjoy the sequel in whatever manner its made. Toodles. :D

  22. Britt

    i loved the first cloverfield. I wish we could have see something (at the end) that shows a news station covering the story. that would have been cool. the only thing I noticed was a couple of people with cameras, so i could see J J Abrams continuing the movie from those other people’s perspectives. HOWEVER! there is that question of was it just one monster or were there several others? was it just me or did that look like a tentacle that broke down the bridge? that’s why I thought there might have been another monster because the monster we saw didn’t look like it even had a tail ;)

  23. PDValentine

    The handheld camera technique was great. Quit whining.

  24. Falcon161

    well I loved the first movie I though it rocked! The FP POV really set the mood of the film and let you delve deeper into the personal lives of the characters and get to like the characters and sympathise with their situatuion. One thing that got me though as I am a Major military buff and Former United States Marine, is that the monster was too strong…….BIG NO NO we use some heavy artillery and that M1A1 Abrams Tank, and MRLS carry anti armor munitions that can go through inches of steel and make short work of that shell the creature had. That thing should have been obliterated by those 20+ 2000 pound bombs! I am sorry but there is nothing that can survive a 2000 pound bomb hitting center mass! Plus not to mention the F/A-18s dropping GBU-24S which can bust through mountains and steel and concrete reinforced bunkers! Anyway for the sequal I would love to see the story from a Military member and show them using the Tactical Nuclear Cruise Missile on NYC. Any how did anybody else find it odd that the Military was there so gosh damn fast!

  25. Mamanator

    I actually did not see it in the theater because I had heard of how it was filmed. For the price of a theater ticket I am a miser with my greenbacks. I do, however, own the film and have watched it more than once. Though, the last time through, I had to stop it at the tunnel scene because, though I saw it before, it was for some reason too much to bear. *blush*

    If C2 does come out and is filmed in the same manner, I will not go to the theater and see it. I will, however and more likely, purchase it when the option becomes affordable.

    The military standpoint is a good lead for the film makers to consider. Naturally they arrived fast: they’re Hollywood paid. *wink* But remember! Our weapons are tested on Earth bound creatures and structures. Who knows how easy of a target a “true” ET would be. I myself would love blasting them with Reece’s candies for one reason or another though.

  26. someone

    you know i’ve seen in these comments a few people talking about the monsters defeat which brings me to what iem about to explain. in the American version of Godzilla at the end where he’s tangled up in the bridge wires. the jets that are firing the missiles on him are like F-18’s or something i don’t know my jets i’m probably really far off with that but that’s besides the point. the missiles were blowing holes into him making him bleed and stuff. now notice threw out the movie cloverfield the monster is getting shot by not just missiles but tanks, rocket launchers, guns, etc. etc. at the end we see him hit with a carpet bomb/bomber. and still no sigh of injury or blood. anyone else notice this but me? also them lungs on the outside of his head. what if there not lungs but something like a set of gills. i know with frogs they have no scales but a solid peace of skin which helps them hold water in there body for long amounts of time so they can leave the water. the cloverfield monster had the same type not scales but a solid piece of skin his tail at the tip had some kinda fin like deal maybe this monster was a water creature. i know at the end the thing that fell into the water was a satellite not the monster itself a slusho satellite i believe is what people are calling it which had woke the monster up from its sleep i believe. that’s just my theory on the whole thing.

  27. ocpackers8

    I love the first movie but i do feel like the first movie was kind of a tease and i would like to see the second movie to show whats happening. even if it’s not in the usual standard view i would still pay to see the movie. But i hope to see a trailer soon, i actually expected to see a teaser trailer during the star trek previews or transformer 2 previews like they did to the first movie.

  28. TheDigitalAlchemist

    I really enjoyed the first film, (especially being a NYer) maybe at some point they can hit a “steadicam” (or “video stabilization”) button on their camera like they hit the “night mode” button in the first one)

  29. Jamie Paterson

    I think Cloverfield 2 should either be set in London, Paris, Rome, Chicago or Washington DC because it would be interesting to see the Houses of Parliament getting crushed, and the London Eye thrown at Buckingham Palace, or the Eiffel Tower falling into the Seine, the Colosseum exploding or the White House flattened by the Washington Monument, the Capitol Building be destroyed (for once!) and the monster should step on the Lincoln Memorial

  30. Aztec23

    I want to see Godzilla. I went to see the movie because I was expecting to see Godzilla. If Godzilla comes out in cloverfield 2. I will see it.

  31. someone

    aztec23, i’m gonna say this and i think i speak for everyone when i do. you’re a moron. why the hell would they put godzilla in this film. it has nothing to do with godzilla and never will. it’s a own separate film they’re not gonna bring any monster from an original monster film into this movie. if they were to bring back ANY monster it would be a monster of the same kind maybe the mother because from what i’ve heard the monster in cloverfield was just a baby. if they brought godzilla into this film or any other kinda creature other than one that would truly fit the story line this movie would be stupid

  32. cloverFan

    Gang! A couple of thoughts.
    First of…all we all like monster movies, right? So we’re all on the same team. Let’s stop the B.S. about why Godzilla cant be in it. Frankly, did any of us ever think Alien would mix it up with the Predator until Danny Glover saw the memento in the P-ship? Do I want to see “Godzilla Eats…I mean….MEETS Cloverfield? It wouldn’t bother me.
    The camera thing. That topic really brings forth an interesting issue. I think we should accept art as it is presented. I dont recall Davinci asking for input on his work. And if he did, he still did what he felt anyway. Folks sitting around a chat-site and saying stuff like “I hate the shaky camera, I like the shaky camera”, is about as valuable as calling up Taco Bell and suggesting new slogans for their taco sauce packets. They are not interested. And you should get a life. Bob Dylan didn’t care if you liked his nasal-sounding voice or not. He had a tale to tell and he did. In his own fashion.
    My own thoughts? I’ve been trying to sort them out. Being a big monster freak since I came out of the tomb, I didn’t know what to expect. The whole first half-hour “Party-Time, Excellent” at first seemed like such a waste, until I figured it out. That sequence totally enhanced the movie. It even got you kind of relaxed. Before the onslaught! What freekin’ Manipulation! Brilliant! And then while everything whooshed past all us viewers during the course of the movie, you really felt like you were in it! Not just observing! When it was all done I realized the genius of the production. This movie was not the pat critter flick. There was no explanation about the beast’s origin. There was no obligatory scientists trying to figure out what to do about the critter. No one was screaming about some biblical just-come-up-pants. And it was still there at the end!
    It wasn’t simply a movie. A audio/visual entertainment experience. It was far more like a roller coaster ride! The pacing, the content, the “you are there” of it, all added to make this movie stand out from any other movie of “it’s genre”…because nothing else was ever in it’s genre! So, do we call this a “monster flick”, to make us feel comfortable? Do we somehow feel better putting C.F. on a chart with Goji, Gorgo, Rodan? (what’s this RaDon business?), and other large monsters, so we can call Cloverfield a “Monster” flick? True it featured a monster, but the flick itself, the process under which it was created, the super-cycle washing machine the producers ran us through, was the true genre! The protagonist could have been a volcano in place of the critter! Would that have genrefied the flick as a “nature movie”? In the same creative hands, the same “strap your fish-bowl over your head, this is gonna be one wild roller-coaster ride” process would have determined the genre to be other than a simple “nature movie”. The process in this mind-blowing movie was the genre! A new genre created by these brilliant folks who brought us two things in Cloverfield. First, a new movie with a previously unimagined critter. And second, a new genre in entertainment, combining the concept of movie with a far larger sensory experience.
    Thanks guys! If you never make another one, I will have been thankful to have experienced what you have given us.

  33. Lou (Ducky) DeFino

    Cloverfield was one of the most realistic films I’ve seen in quite sometime.
    Granted this is old news now, but when I first saw it I was truly blown away. Being a huge fan of film I didn’t really know what to expect. I’m old school. Not a fan of computer graphics in many films (I feel it ruins the quality of “believing” in the film at times) so I was quite impressed with the visuals as well as the acting. As far as comments about the camera being too shaky I disagree completely. If this film didn’t have that “point of view” look and was filmed as a normal movie I don’t think it would have made the impact it did. The one thing that many movies lack today is imagination. “Everything” has to be shown in complete detail making it “easier” for the brain dead movie viewers “to get it”. Sad but true.
    I think “Cloverfield” is a classic. And I’ll tell you this. I’m sure it pissed the Japanese off big time… LoL! We made the BEST “godzilla” film ever!
    Really looking forward to the Cloverfield movie sequel.

  34. CrypticSparks

    I did think that the shakiness was a bit much, but I loved the movie. I’ve watched it several times, and I’d gladly watch the sequel. I haven’t read through all the comments, but if you watched the Special Features on the DVD with the making of the film or something, it says that Clover(that’s what they refer to the monster as) is only a baby and was frightened when the oil rig exploded or whatever happened and attacked Manhattan. I think there could possibly be a parent, seeing as it said in the Special Features that Clover was just a hatchling. That would amount to one bigass, angry mom or dad. I think it would be amusing to see just how much damage that one could cause.

    I liked the ending of Cloverfield because it made it so you could have been open to different ideas. Rob and Beth could have survived, the monster could be dead, or Rob and Beth could be dead, the monster dead too, or the monster alive and the two dead or alive. Monster might’ve moved on from Manhattan and destroyed some other major city, or it could’ve overwhelmed the military and went back to the ocean after it was too tired. It could have been pursued by the military back into the ocean. Etc. I’m rambling now.

    But the whole point is that a Cloverfield 2 would be kickass awesome and I hope they do come out with a sequel.

  35. Tyler

    I think a 2nd movie is a great idea. but the one thing i don’t like is that most people complain about the director using a handy camera instead of a film camera. well what i mean is, he uses a film camera but he shakes it in the movie to either make u feel like your the person holding the non expensive camera (Wal-Mart camera) or he uses that idea to make feel like your watching a film on a disaster, that happened in New york city, and someone just happened to be holding a camera. i love this idea of the shaky cam. i what to go to film school and become a director and if i ever do a movie like this, i would use the shaky camera idea. oh and everyone can stop complain about the shaky camera. you all sound like a bunch of 2 year olds just deal with it.

  36. Joe

    Well, i really loved the movie with the fact that, you have no idea what is happening and why. And for once, you get to see the fighting against the National guard and Clover. But i think that the shaky camera thing is okay. But this time, the main character should be a soldier who is following clover. Not a god damn love story, but in a way a war movie. What the government is doing against clover and what happens after Hammer Down. And maybe a part where they are evacuating and have the parasites attacking people. But i say there should be more fighting, like Apaches and cobras. And maybe an Osprey evacuating people.

  37. Frank

    Just to set things straight on the shaky cam. In film school one of the first things I learned back in the 90’s was shaky cam is an industry “no-no”. So when I see this, even though I think it can be used brilliantly like in Cloverfield, it gets me mad knowing I was told by professors this is poorly constructed cinema. I truly wonder what is being taught this days now this form is being used more often in films. Enough on that. CF2 needs to have more of a military presence in the film than the first one. People in the theater were basically jumping up and down when our jets and armor were attacking the creature rooting for them to kill it. I can’t recall another recent film where I’ve experienced the audience get into it as much as they did with CF. All that tells me is that J.J. accomplished what he was trying to do.

  38. Chelsea

    Show the monsters face this time in the movie!! XD you must! Pleeeeaaaaase! hahahahaha I sort of disagree whit what most of the people are saying about how the camera moved….I really liked it, it was kind of a unique feel to it and it kept me watching the move (as well as what was happening, the camera just added to the drama and action). Can’t wait for a sequel!! ^o^

  39. Chelsea

    Oh and, when I saw the pic of the monster…O_O wow, that is pretty scary XD freaked me out enough

  40. Josh Warner

    monster versus monster…..nuff said

  41. Brimstone

    I believe that Cloverfield is a project named by the government and so not giving a direct name to the monster they just simply call it Cloverfield.
    However i believe that not giving the type of species the monster is is absolute genius i also would like to say that this is something for movie history. And for those that say Godzilla should return are not very bright to even think that he’s been retired for a good long time. Why recreate a past just to please a group of audience for their money worths even though that J.J. did pointed out this monster we see in our generation is the newest of the family. Bringing Godzilla into Cloverfield’s project will not be a big crowd pleaser in my opinion. Rates of the movie would go down and because of you people wanting Godzilla J.J. would say fuck you for brainwashing me into making a bastardized idea i fell into for fans sakes of keeping a dead legacy alive. J.J. wants to create a new monster and which he did not only just the monster but a scenerio, a partial view of who this creature is and now slowly understanding where he came from.
    For Cloverfield 2 i’m only saying to a sugguestion. Maybe a military view and few more views from other citizens in NYC. Link them together later on in life and have a reminder that the military has now seen the face of the project coming alive. You know how the government would go to a UFO crash without hesitation well maybe theres an idea except the monster was still alive and the military couldnt contain the beast much longer.

  42. Norton Mansfield

    I think it would be cool if there was a second Cloverfield monster with a Handycam, filming the first Cloverfield monster, the first extraterrestrial home video.

  43. Newt

    I think Mummy should come looking for baby, although the city would need to change, need new things to break ;)

  44. Dieter

    WTF, comparing Godzilla with this movie… shame to you all…
    Finaly a movie I like. The shaking and not seeing the whole picture is awsome. I realy don’t like movies that you are forced to eat. This movie really rocked and I’m glad I spent my money on it. I have seen MUCH worse!!!

  45. john d

    how about a view from someone else? ( more steady hands perhaps?) and now and then you see the four people from the first off to the side. but in this movie its a more detailed and different experience. maybe more then one camera shot. one from the oil tanker’s view… like the rise of monster dude. then one from the ferry boat passing the statue of liberty ( u know how tourist love making videos) maybe a soldiers head cam as well.

  46. JJ

    All of you who whined about all the whiners who whined about the handicams. Stop your whining. You’re as annoying, if not more so, than everyone complaining about the shaky cam work.

  47. Patrick

    I liked the first movie as a way of introducing the creature. lite on story but interesting and good. (You can only get away with that once).
    For the next movie to be successful you will need to have a good story, a plausible creature not an indestructible one and knock-out special effects. With those elements accomplished…there could even be a 3rd movie. Without them I think there will just be another splash in the water.
    Sooo…guys, a real chance to be great…good luck.

    PS…remember, reasonable plausibility…there is no flesh that is impervious to missiles and depleted Uranium so come up with another way of extending or growing the threat.

  48. CJ

    If they decide to make a new Cloverfield, PLEASE, Hire REAL actors. Mature ones at that. NO MORE YUPPIES PLEASE!!!
    My gf and I spend the better half of the movie hoping the monster would just eat them all up.
    We joked that the film would have done much better if it were Josh Holloway and the girl who played Juliet from LOST, in the film instead. I would have loved it. I hate seeing young people trying to deal with these situations. At no point in the movie did I agree with any of the decisions they made because I truly believe no one would have done what they did. Need to expand creativeness without losing the cool visuals. Try harder next time. :)

  49. gabe m.

    Ok make the monster you see on land a baby of the one you see land in the water…boom new age godzilla then make them fight transformers and huge bears and don’t change a thing about the cameras shakeyness who need to eat popcorn during a movie?

  50. Anna Lee

    Continue the sequel with Beth and Rob being pulled from the rubble, hurt but alive. Remove the shaky camera, that is so out of date. You will lose viewers as I had read that many got nauseous. After they pull Beth and Rob out of the rubble, the movie should start with them at some hospital, visited by family and some of the survivor friends, like Lily. Bring them up to date, somehow, another monster comes out of the ocean, attacks New York again, this time, show more of the army fighting it, more action, bring out the little monsters, kill them all, finally get the second Monster by killing it with a Nuclear bomb. People must die to protect the monster from coming back. No more sequels, end it here. Bring the original cast members, including Marlene, she somehow recuperates, she loses a lot of blood but somehow survives. BUT NO MORE HAND HELD CAMERAS. Make it profesional.

  51. Rob Sim

    I love Cloverfield. I have it on good authority that the monster from the first film was actually a baby monster that got separated from its mother. It did look like a baby with very uncoordinated movements and it seemed to cry a lot.

    Now in the sequel, the mother will reunited with the baby and predictably she is pissed off and much large and meaner than her baby. Now I want to see that.

Leave a Reply

Enter your information to the left to post a comment.

Want a personal pic? Create an avatar:
-->here

Tweet