ROTTEN TOMATOES: Exclusive: Matt Reeves Clarifies Cloverfield Sequel Status Comments

Exclusive: Matt Reeves Clarifies Cloverfield Sequel Status

by Orlando Parfitt | February 01, 2008

Summary

It won't be another handheld story. RT gets the update from the man himself. Back to Article

(1-37 of 37 posts) | Reply

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:38 AM

I thought CLOVERFEILD was pretty good. I think this could work.

(Reply to this)

yesandno writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:54 AM

to be honest, i thought this was a great movie, and reeeallly awesome 'home' movie. i agree with jokerboy... its doable

(Reply to this)

Warheart1188 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:58 AM

Cloverfield was great but I do hope they DON'T use the POV-style again if they do a sequel. I don't get motion sickness but this movie made me want to puke in the first half-hour. It would be very interesting if they do a traditional cinematic feel for the sequel. We've seen the event through the eyes of the people, how about a sequel continuing the event from the governments point of view in a traditional 3rd person POV? The sequel could open up with the secretary of defense or somebody just finishing watching the tape and now he's gotta decide what to do next because the monster is moving to a new area or something. That'd be awesome.

(Reply to this)

Travis27 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 09:01 AM

Just the mention of "Cloverfield" makes me nauseous. I hope they do away with the videocam.

(Reply to this)

Scarborough Fair writes:
on Feb 01 2008 09:03 AM

Oh hey, I'm a troll.
Here's something Roger Ebert wrote recently.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/ANSWERMAN/801310306/1023

(Reply to this)

hardworkinggaypeoples writes:
on Feb 01 2008 09:25 AM

Can the sequel be from the point-of-view of the monster?

Why is Rashomon invoked every time someone brings up characters simply crossing paths? Rashomon doesn't address parallel universes. Rashomon's about different readings of the same interactions or experiences. And I guarantee the dude on the bridge and the dude off the bridge are having the exact same reading, "Why is a monster eating NY?"

(Reply to this)

krycek77 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 10:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#1545910)
Good point hardworkinggaypeoples. Rashomon was more than just giving the audience several perspectives; it was significant for protraying multiple unreliable narrators. As you said, I don't think the two guys holding cameras looking at a huge ****ing monster are going to have noticeably different perspectives/thoughts on the matter or intentions.

(Reply to this)

The Iron Invader writes:
on Feb 01 2008 10:18 AM

With a healthy sequel attitude like that, I suppose they could make it work. I'll be waiting....

(Reply to this)

Ikeandmike writes:
on Feb 01 2008 10:35 AM

Im not sure about this. Heres why. Cloverfield was unique in so many ways. Especially with the character dialogue. It seems that all "haters" of the movie are only finding things wrong with it because they have to. That being said, I am very skeptical of a sequel just because of all movies like this that went to far (saw, freddy, jason, etc.) This movie is so different than those and I wouldnt want it to join them. However, if the really put time into it, I mean sit down with coffee and think up a good story, I'll be in the theater.

(Reply to this)

Zenrick writes:
on Feb 01 2008 11:35 AM

If they do another POV film, they had better choose a cameraman with not such an annoying voice. Other than that I'm game.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 11:44 AM

I'd rather they do another POV film, its what its known for. When Blair Witch switched from POV to 3rd person in its sequel, it was financially and critically panned. Instead I suggested before, and do again now, that they mix the two together in the sequel. Follow the guy on the bridge and the government, thereby linking up with prior film, giving audiences a little of what they saw in the first film and broadening the scope and giving us resolution in the second film.

Don't be so quick to blow off your initial idea, director guy, and do what the studio wants you to do. Be risky and do what you want to do.

(Reply to this)

Renaisauce writes:
on Feb 01 2008 12:32 PM

I loved Cloverfield, and I can't wait for a re-visit. I think it would be cool to have the camera be a better-quality piece of equipment, used for shooting a bad horror flick in New York. The monster interrupts, and suddenly it's not fake anymore. That way, the camera guy is steadier, is trained in taking better shots, and is, perhaps, interested in getting the best monster shots possible. Actually, maybe having him be a wildlife documentarian would be fun. But it definitely should not be from a 3rd-person camera. The whole point of the film was to try something different. Why go back to standard stuff?

(Reply to this)

zgberg writes:
on Feb 01 2008 12:36 PM

I loved Cloverfield as well. I think it could be cool if they decide to forgo the POV cam and go more traditional. It would satisfy the thirst for knowledge that I left the theater with. Although it destroys the original concept, it would be nice to understand where this creature came from and what ultimately happens.

Then again, if they decide to POV and have some other angle they decide to take, I'm all for it as long as there are big explosions, giant monsters and....CRABOSAURS!!!! WE lOVE YOU CRABOSAURS....maybe they are related to the "crab people" from South Park?

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Feb 01 2008 12:41 PM

I certainly appreciate the director's desire to create "a movie experience that is different," but I hope he understands that he immediately loses audience members when he uses a hand-held camera. Anyone who has any problems with motion sickness is simply excluded from watching. I really wanted to see this movie, but there is simply no way. When I went to see the Blair Witch Project in a theater, after 20 minutes I was so nauseous that I had to race to the bathroom and lie down on the tile floor, lying totally still with my eyes squeezed shut for half an hour, before I could even stand upright to go home. (Never did see the end of that film - I assumed they all die - of persistent vomiting, perhaps?)

So anyway, I certainly hope if they make a sequel to Cloverfield they skip the hand-held cam - it may be more conventional but at least I could watch it.

(Reply to this)

ManofStee1 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:09 PM

How will they go about making a movie anything remotely like Cloverfield without the handheld camera? I can't imagine that moving being even a fraction as good as it was without it, take away the POV and the camera and all you have left is another monster movie.

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#1546137)
"It seems that all "haters" of the movie are only finding things wrong with it because they have to."

This is not true. I wanted to like this movie. I tried hard to like it. The shaky-cam didn't bother me. The whiney, bland characters did. I don't think it's fair to say 'the haters hate it because they have to' any more than it is to say that those who liked the movie felt obligated because it was a monster movie with a high novelty factor.

(Reply to this)

quietus28 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#1546185)
Um, from what I recall of the Blair Witch sequel, it did mix POV and third-person perspectives. The reason it was panned is because, at that point, people finally realized how stupid and boring the first Blair Witch was and the sequel was no better.

(Reply to this)

jpotter writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:40 PM

just like blair witch 2. great.

(Reply to this)

MaxFisher14 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:43 PM

CLOVERFIELD was pretty freaking amazing so I am excited.

(Reply to this)

a_sad_un-sorry_hashbrown writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:46 PM

I loved Cloverfield, and it had one of the most ingenious endings in a movie. But a sequel? Well, I don't know about that, but as Mr. Reeves said, if they do find a compelling enough reason to make a sequel then I'm all up for it.

(Reply to this)

quietus28 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 01:59 PM

Problem with answering questions is it detracts from the mystery and intrigue of the first flick. Right now I'm as fascinated as everyone else as to the details and origins of the monster and have scoured the internet for all the viral sites and teasers that have been put out, but that's what makes it fun. If they come out with the next movie and establish that he's some ancient beast from the ocean, or a scientific experiment or whatever, it will ruin the mystery that surrounds it.

(Reply to this)

Anjohl writes:
on Feb 01 2008 03:20 PM

Cloverfield was an interesting combination of Children of Men-style 911 imagery, Blair Witch, and Godzilla.

HERE is the problem. Blair Witch 2. That film got unfairly bashed, it actually had a cool premise and a decent storyline. The PROBLEM is that these "low budget" experimental movies leave fans with a certain expectation. If they do a sequel thats NOT camcorder-filmed, it will likely come off as a mashup of Blair Witch 2 and Godzilla 2000.

If they want to do a sequel, it should not use the Cloverfield name unless the camcorder is on there. Fans will revolt, and the backlash will hurt it. Let's face it, after the tense opening, once they get on the bridge, the movie goes downhill fast. It's the innovation that made it worth watching. Make it a conventional movie, and our dumbed down ap[preciate of specail effects due to hollywood oversaturation will ruin any attempt to make a meaningful traditional movie.

(Reply to this)

Product_of_You writes:
on Feb 01 2008 07:06 PM

I wanted to like Cloverfield, but I couldn't help but stongly dislike it. Between the bad acting, unrealistic responses to what was happening, lame love story, and so bad it made me look away from the screen sometimes dialogue there wasn't too much to be excited about. I was rooting for the monster more than the humans, thats how bad the character development was.

(Reply to this)

EJones216 writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:26 PM

I'm easily nauseated but didn't feel sick for a second of "Cloverfield", even though by its violent camerawork I *should* have (and I did see the film twice; didn't happen either time).

The first thing I thought walking out of the theater was that I didn't want to see another camcorder flick done like "Cloverfield", so a sequel would be even worse if it was done in the same style. But if it's done differently, I'm all for it.

(Reply to this)

sbcadam writes:
on Feb 01 2008 08:46 PM

I sooooo wanted to like Cloverfield. Don't get me wrong it was a good premise, but I wanted to see alot more of the military fighting the monster. I needed to see more of the shooting, rocket launchers, bombings, tanks, jets, etc.
To this day, there are truly no good "realistic" government-versus- monster type movies. Yeah, there's Godzilla but it's not the same. Cloverfield is no different than Signs, King Kong, The Host, War of the Worlds, so on and so on because you never really see true fighting of the military. It's more of a tease. The movie is mostly about what the people were going through and them being scared.
A good idea for a sequel in my opinion would be to have another POV film, but in a way that it is shown through different military views and not just through one camera. For instance, you can have some parts of the movie shot from the marines maybe with a camera mounted on a helmet, through the camera from a reporter from Stars and Stripes, from a camera on a navy ship (if fighting in water), and/or from planes, with cameras, shooting missles or dropping bombs on it. Doing that would be different because I've never seen it done before, but yet it would keep the films capitalization along with its familiarity.

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Feb 02 2008 12:31 AM

Cloverfield 2 HAS to be a handheld movie. If not, it will be like Blair Witch 2. Or Clerks in color. The handheld perspective is the movie's charm. It makes it feel realistic and not a relative of the crappy 1998 version of Gozilla.

The great thing about the future of Cloverfield is that we don't know what this thing is, where it came from -- and most importantly -- if it was alone. All we know is what one video tape showed us. Another person's account of their day could happen and it could be entirely different.

Still, I'm torn about it there even should be a sequel. We certainly don't NEED one. I think if they weren't considering a sequel, they could really do a wonderful job in filling in some of the blanks for us on the DVD. Much like Blair Witch, they could have accompanying footage and news reports that add depth to the story. But if a sequel is in the works, too much information would probably cause problems for the second film.

(Reply to this)

TheInnkeeper writes:
on Feb 02 2008 02:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1546322)
This is pretty much the premise of the upcoming film George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead.

(Reply to this)

kobe8byrant writes:
on Feb 02 2008 07:06 PM

Most here are saying that it has to be in camcorder style is simply because you guys don't think that there is another way to have the novelty/creativity there, right? Well, I think that it's enough with the camcorder style. Let's make the sequel from a collection of news broadcast as it happens or let's follow a helicopter tracking NYC as the carnage happens. I thought one of the coolest scenes was Hud filming the television seeing stuff. It'd be nice to see 90 minutes of news broadcast as it happens :)

(Reply to this)

kfarschman writes:
on Feb 02 2008 08:28 PM

I'm with you hardworkinggaypeoples about the Rashomon comment.

He just throws Rashomon out there kind of ignorantly like he doesn't really get why he's even referencing it other than he heard someone else reference it when talking about multiple POVs some other time. What he's talking about has no real connection with Rashomon at all. It seems like he's never even seen Rashomon and comes across kind of dumb just name dropping a classic of cinema like that when talking about a sequel to a gimmicky giant monster movie. I'm not saying Cloverfield sucked but it is what it is.

(Reply to this)

Spiderbash writes:
on Feb 03 2008 06:14 AM

Count me in on this one. I think I would like to see a sequel where the people are news reporters and they try to get to the bottom of what is happening.

(Reply to this)

Jacen Dark writes:
on Feb 03 2008 11:22 AM

I think the better perspective would be of the soldiers helmet cams..I think someone already made a point on that awhile ago..It wouldn't give us a rehash of another civilian group, and would def give us more information, as the soldiers would have had to learn how to take the creatures down...

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Feb 03 2008 09:38 PM

I like the ideas being tossed around about seing the action from the armed forces helmet-cam perspective if it were done at a human level like in Aliens. That's the only way to get the big scares, when you're drawn into the character. Just don't have a big boring scene in the mess tent with Private Hudd interviewing drunk partygoers about Sgt. Bilko's new posting to East Overshoe.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Feb 04 2008 01:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#1546693)
Blair Witch 2 was bashed not unfairly...but because it SUCKED. It was a hideous attempt to cash in on a phenomenal first-run trend, and audiences quickly realized it as such. Abominable plot, bad acting, crapalicious effects, and a story that did NOTHING to improve on or continue the thru-line of the original.

As for Cloverfield 2...how could it be construed as a mash-up of Blair Witch 2 and Godzilla 2000, when everyone already knows the first one is a mash-up of the first Blair Witch and the original Godzilla? Even J.J. Abrams admits that he got his inspiration for the Cloverfield creature from Godzilla.

Since they're going to do a sequel(notice I didn't say "if"...J.J. and company are entitled to be greedy as sin and cash in on their phenomenon like everyone else), why not just get it out of the way and have the monster resurface in Japan? This time, the real King of the Monsters--Godzilla--can protect his homeland and vaporize it with his atomic breath. Yaaay, Godzilla!

A sequel to Cloverfield. Sheesh.

(Reply to this)

Anjohl writes:
on Feb 04 2008 01:34 AM

Thereign, have you WATCHED Balir Witch 2? Just because RT gives it a low percentage doens't make it a bad movie. I actually quite liked it, for what it was.

I thought it was clever to acknowledge that BW1 was a movie, in the sequel. I thought, like ZOmbie's Halloween, that it was unfairly bashed because people went in assuming, and thus wanting, to hate it.

(Reply to this)

thereign writes:
on Feb 04 2008 08:58 AM

Anjohl;

I don't comment on a movie unless I've seen it. While you are completely entitled to your opinion on liking Blair Witch 2, I thought it sucked Chewbacca's left testicle.

In my OPINION, BW2's move of stating the first Witch film was a movie was a misstep, casting aside whatever good graces that overrated, overhyped film had. And for the record, I also feel Zombie's Halloween was a piece of "****e", as the English say, because he deconstructed the myth of Michael Myers by trying to garner sympathy for him. Rather than simply letting him BE evil, he chose to explain WHY he's evil...and one thing an audience shouldn't have, is sympathy for evil. Zombie's inept direction did nothing more than turn Halloween into standard torture porn, and reduce the mythic quality of Michael Myers.

Again though, that's MY worldview. Yours is different, and at least you're able to find some good in these films. In every society, it's good to have iconoclasts.

(Reply to this)

lovernotfighter9 writes:
on Feb 04 2008 07:13 PM

i didn't see it yet, but i just wanna know if you get to see the whole monster? (this will not ruin the movie for me)

(Reply to this)

sharp_07 writes:
on Sep 13 2008 07:54 PM

I finally convinced my partner to see Cloverfield on DVD (she hates "scary" movies) and we both thought it was brilliant. Having a more realistic take on alien movies is a breath of fresh air - don't anyone dare compare this to Godzilla. "Realistic" takes on "unrealistic" events are what's lacking in many of today's sci-fi films... I think the fact that this movie was created using a normal person's perspective, not your "traditional" cinematic one, made it all the more terrifying to watch, and tends to scare audiences just because they don't find out what's going on until the guy holding the camera does. It basically appears to be a home movie - shot without a script - which is incredibly effective in Cloverfield, and I believe would do just as well in a sequel.

As for doing "something unique" with this shooting style, well, he could give the camera to a journalist, but most people hate listening to journalists for too long. A military perspective would do well, but you'd have to completely hold back on the "Independence Day" bravado if you want it to be taken seriously. Just think about any major disaster, think about what got your heart pounding - the images that scared you the most - and who captured those images. The people who are in the thick of it are the ones we want to hear from, and lets face it, the journalists are just the middle-men who hand us the stories.

Good luck with making this decision, Abrams!

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Cloverfield

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links