Paramount Gearing Up For Cloverfield 2 | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Paramount Gearing Up For Cloverfield 2 January 30, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: 1-18-08/Cloverfield,Abrams , trackback

The JJ Abrams/Bryan Burk-produced monster movie is still in its second week, but Paramount is already hungry for more. Variety is reporting that Abrams (along with director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard) is already in talks for a sequel. The low-budget scarer has already grossed over $80 Million and has yet to open in many overseas markets. So far it is the biggest movie of the year and holds the record for best January opening of all time.

The trade expects the project will be Reeves next project which he will follow up with The Invisible Woman. It is quite possible the film will at least enter pre-production before the release of Star Trek. Regardless, it is clear that Abrams and Burk are riding high at Paramount, which will only be helpful as they continue work on Trek’s big comeback.

No word yet on if any of the cast will return or if the sequel will use the same hand-held ‘eyewitness’ style of camerawork. Although entertaining, the TrekMovie.com review did note that the film is a bit short on answers and so maybe the sequel will explain what the first movie was all about.

More information at Variety.

Comments

1. Michelle - January 30, 2008

I liked it, and it will be interesting to see how the sequel is done. The hand-held eyewitness style was a fun novelty for the first one, but I don’t think it’s something they should do again for the second.

2. T2 - January 30, 2008

Abrams obviously has a gift…it’s probably premature to say now, but after Star Trek’s first two weeks at the box office, we’ll be wondering about our own sequel and the future of Trek XII

3. Charles Trotter - January 30, 2008

It’s still alive!

4. CW - January 30, 2008

I’ll watch it.

5. Irishtrekkie - January 30, 2008

JJ Abrams just call him mister money !. sure wait till trek opens and kicks ass ! . hmm no point in waiting for trek to open lets spam paramount till they sign JJ Abrams up for the sequel !

6. Cheve - January 30, 2008

We can allways have a the second one as a National Geografic special. XD

7. steve adams - January 30, 2008

They should do a military (steady-cam) version of events. They could
even do 2 stories since its a sequel they could both be lost footage tapes.
^
Except this time the high tech military steady-cams could smooth out the viewing experience.
^
^think of the frontline footage!
^
One of the stories could be the crash site a Navy POV then the next could be the National Guard downtown. You could even have prequel footage of them with the original cast.

8. Petey - January 30, 2008

I worry about sequel-itis. I don’t doubt Abrams one bit, but Cloverfield was something that stood well on its own.

9. With Life Like Hair and Beard - January 31, 2008

The parasites!!

10. shuttlepod10 - January 31, 2008

The first one was good and inventive. How could they possibly top it?

11. The Realist - January 31, 2008

I think that Cloverfield is simply a one off movie. A sequal would be very hard to do.

12. J M Enterprise - January 31, 2008

Not oyut here until February but the more i see reviews and comments, i believe the hype would definetly be around a steady-cam version of events that would blow your mind away. Come on JJ, you know you could do this us as your going to make a sequel to Star Trek XI and even put in motion the next Tv series that will blow our minds away!

13. TJ Trek - January 31, 2008

Okey, the “average guy happens to be holding a camara while going through all these events” while effective can only be used once, before it become stale withen a movie concept. Now, I am liking the idea proposed of a military Steady Cam. Still the same type of effect, just more suffisticated. The guy holding the camara is making all the shots, not a Director. Or so it seems. I do not think that this sequal should revert to average holliwood cinimatography… this concept would not work.

14. GARY NEUMANN - January 31, 2008

oh yeah! fun fun!!! ;-)

15. Cervantes - January 31, 2008

#7 steve adams

I like your ideas, but whatever they do, I agree that I’d prefer the sequel to be a more ‘traditionally’ filmed monster movie, rather than a ‘shaky-cam’ rehash.

What I’d REALLY like though, would be ‘Cloverfield 2′ to be a DIFFERENT creature tearing up a DIFFERENT city (perhaps a different country too) suggesting there is more than one mysterious creature out there which is out to get us…

16. Cervantes - January 31, 2008

Oh, and could Michael Giacchino do a fab score THROUGHOUT the sequel please?

17. jonboc - January 31, 2008

I liked it. I didn’t really buy into tthe “realism” they were trying to depict, but it was a fun monster movie. Word of mouth isn’t doing it any favors though, it had like a 70$ drop in box office from week one to week two. I knew that would happen from the audience reacton at the end of the movie. It was very much like “That’s it??”

But I enjoyed it and look forward to the monster trashing some more of the city. I would really like a sequel in the more traditional style of movie telling, giving us the story or even the same story but from other perspectives including the military.

18. threehundredwords - January 31, 2008

Previously I’d have agreed with most of you… Cloverfield was a one hit wonder that was unique and intriguing for its filming style, mostly. A sequel would be more of the same bumpy ride, and the novelty might’ve worn off.

However, check out this quote from Matt Reeves from an interview with comingsoon.net, where he talks about possible sequel and this moment in the movie… “There’s a moment on the Brooklyn Bridge, and there was a guy filming something on the side of the bridge, and Hud sees him filming… In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment.”

That’s the only way I could see a cloverfield sequel or be excited about it. A standard issue steady-cam monster flick, especially if it was from the military POV (never seen THAT before) would seem forced and cliché.

19. Captain Dunsel - January 31, 2008

Even a new trek trailer won’t get me into another Cloverfield. I’m too old for the YouTube generation style of filming. I lasted only about 25 minutes before switching multiplexes for the second half of a better movie. I can take that shakycam stuff in small doses but in a massive shot on the big screen sent me out the door.

20. Stanky McFibberich - January 31, 2008

That shaky camera “technique” should be permabanned. And I wonder if ST XI will have a scene that lasts more than 3 seconds.

21. garen - January 31, 2008

i liked that we didnt get answers to any questions. I didnt have this need to know exactly whats going on with the creature. Thats not the idea. We’re supposed to be in the dark on this one. Who are the idiots that are clamoring for answers? Just take it for what it is and enjoy the ride. it was a novel idea.

I think if they reveal answers to “questions” that people have in a sequel that it will ruin the mystique all together.

22. CanuckLou - January 31, 2008

Hmm having seen it I agree with the one trick pony assessment. The next one should be done in the traditional manner taken from the monster’s point of view. Of course, the budget for such an approach would be 10 times higher than what was spent on the original.

I don’t see another hand held home movie approach working again.

23. diabolik - January 31, 2008

Let’s hope we are hearing the same thing about ST next year after the release! Breaking box office records and getting immediate sequel greenlighting.

24. Vulcan927 - January 31, 2008

Cool… Looking frwd to the Cloverfield sequel as well as Star Trek XI :-)
Maybe well be treated to another unique way of story telling in them both, that is JJ Abrams signature!

25. kalabro - January 31, 2008

I said to a friend of mine that I gave Cloverfield four stars…but if they make a sequel, I’m taking two away. Much like the Matrix, Cloverfield is a far better stand-alone movie (unless JJ is doing a whole Cthulu thing, in which maybe–maybe a sequel could work).

26. last o' the timelords - January 31, 2008

I had hoped that more of the inside stuff I knew from the viral website campaign had been more in the actual movie. This stuff will be hopefully be used in the sequel. But every scenario I can think of comes out like a traditional monster film.

I want more Cloverfield but I am worried that it will not succeed. Blair Witch had so much promise and it was shattered by Blair Witch 2.

27. FREAKAZOID - January 31, 2008

I like the idea of the sequal following the military point of view. Just as long as we don’t have something as crappy as Blair Witch 2. I know JJ is infinitely smater then whoever thought of Blair Witch 2.

28. FlyingTigress - January 31, 2008

I could see two POVs (grammatically, should be PsOV, but…):

POV: Film crews for local TV stations
POV: As has been suggested, the POV from military operators

One intriguing thought that I had during the opening credits was that there might be multiple creatures (and, not the parasites), and this was just the story of the one in the NYC area.

I don’t envy them the challenge of doing a sequel, although the length (and the complaints expressed by others in the theater, in particular, of the lack thereof) and the closing line, made it a natural for a sequel.

#27

I was going to say the same thing about BW2

29. Dr. Image - January 31, 2008

I think the movie was genius. NO happy ending for once! Don’t like it? Tough. That’s life. Shit happens– and it can happen AT ANY TIME.
People clapped at the end in the theater I was in.

Military-cam thing is a really good idea, after all, we already got a duh-cam version. That way they can MAYBE provide answers, though I for one don’t think they’re really that necessary, as it would make the whole thing into a standard-issue monster movie.
Though #18 Interesting! If Matt mentioned the other guy filming (recording, that is), that’s probably the angle they’ll approach it from.

I am so sick of the Blair Witch comparison. The two are NOTHING alike, primarily in that BW sucked.

30. Driver - January 31, 2008

The sequel will be from the Monsters’ point of view.

31. non-belligerency confirmed - January 31, 2008

note on cloverfield and abrams;
cloverfield was a success for more than novel filmmaking. the cultural statement was what made it hit hard with audiences. aside from the obvious 9-11 analogy (i was in downtown new york that day and it’s pretty hard to take). i think that the real issue was the characterization of yuppie decadence being brought down by it’s own boredom. the characters were perfectly useless and we quite enjoy the punishment they suffer. the bitch gets bitten. the hero isn’t one (he fails), the strangely believable “hud” is a slacker who has no ideas of his own and won’t put down the camera to even help, and “beth” is being rescued over a one night stand (she must have gone down on his ass or something to make the trip worthwhile). these folks are america during a crisis (think iraq, think katrina) and they are pathetic. (note that the soldiers have more compassion then they do.) it would make a fine double feature with sophia coppala’s “marie antionette”.

i could go on, but the point is that this is clever, intelligent film making. the monsters here are the people, not the cgi critters. abrams and reeves hit something bigger than expected, and i doubt many in the audience know why they love it so much. it’s because someone is taking their pulse. other abrams projects do something very similar. i believe that those of you who want the trek film to be about the human condition have hit paydirt with abrams. he knows what humanity is, the good and the bad. underneath the script and behind the FX, look for something big.

oh and before anyone loses it, i don’t mean this politically. i speak of an aspect of america, not the individuals or beliefs.

32. non-belligerency confirmed - January 31, 2008

uh, that’s sofia coppala, sorry.

33. non-belligerency confirmed - January 31, 2008

uh, that’s “sofia coppola”. sorry.

34. Jason L - January 31, 2008

I love the Cthulhu angle. Think about it. That creature withstood hours of sustained attack from guns, tanks, RPGs, carpet bombing and who knows what else, and it seemed relatively unscathed by any of it. Unless its hide was made out of carbon nanofiber, I find it hard to believe it could have survived all that. Now, throw in the possibility that it was some kind of supernatural, Cthulhu-esque entity and things get REALLY interesting. You want a true HORROR movie? That could get you there.

As for how to film it, my original thought was that they should try something different from the shaky-cam next time, but it does have a “you are there” quality that gave the first film a lot of its uniqueness. Maybe they can find some kind of happy medium.

35. JBS - January 31, 2008

Thank you “non-belligerency confirmed” @ #31. Very interesting assessment of Cloverfield, it does bode well for Star Trek.

I have not ,and will not see Cloverfield 1 because I am extremely susceptible to motion sickness. I am bummed because I love monster / action / mystery movies.

I will have to wait for Cloverfield 2. Hopefully it will be done ala steady cam. Military POV , Newscaster POV or Monster POV are all great ideas.

36. OneBuckFilms - January 31, 2008

For me, I think a Sequel could be done in a “Documentary” style; almost like the radio broadcasts of War of the Worlds.

Take a TV News Crew doing a documentary in another city when the attack happens.

Then have the footage of the monster attacking say Los Angeles or San Francisco, and have “interviews” with the scientists etc. to provide a little explanation for the origins of the monster.

This way, it would still have the “this is real” factor, and provide more depth to the creature and where it came from.

A little bit of “recently declassified footage” could provide a link to the first movie.

37. acb - January 31, 2008

#31

An interesting take, but I think much of that is just circumstancial interpretation within already pre-set stereotypes within the genre itself. I would not wager that all of your stated choices were intentional based on social commentary, but more in following the standard checklist of this type of film.

38. sean - January 31, 2008

I liked the lack of answers. That works for a horror/scifi movie. You never knew why the birds went crazy in The Birds, they just did. It was left up to the audience to decide why it happened.

When I think sequel (which I’m not in favor of) I get images of Blair Witch 2, and that was a real steaming pile. I’d rather they leave it as a stand alone movie.

Oh, and #31, your interpretation is interesting, though I think pessimistic.. The ‘hero’ doesn’t fail. He succeeds. The entire point of going after Beth is to let her know how he feels about her before the world ends, and to not allow her to die alone. In the face of an apocalypse, he’s finally able to shed fear – both in terms of physical danger as well as emotional. ‘The Bitch’, as you call her, dies as a direct result of saving someone she can’t stand. The brother’s girlfriend is more complicated, but it seems clear that she feels it’s within their power to save Beth, so she can’t just abandon her to the same fate as her boyfriend. Then, interestingly enough, she’s the one that survives (as far as we know). I think there was a lot of admire about these ‘useless’ characters in their final hours.

39. sean - January 31, 2008

#35

I’m EXTREMELY motion-sickness prone, and was the only one in my group that did not get sick. Maybe it’s some kind of divine justice for all those years of puking. Haha.

40. Robofuzz - January 31, 2008

Personally, I’d like to see the sequel movie filmed from the view point of an embedded reporter with the military units fighting the creature. Same time frame, same attack, just A different point of view and we learn more about the creature – what it is, etc. from the military people that are dealing with the disaster. My biggest frustration about the movie was that we never learned what the heck the creature was, or if the military strike that ended the movie was successful in killing it, etc. etc.

41. non-belligerency confirmed - January 31, 2008

#37 acb
you make a good point. certainly the characters are default to the genre. still, the basic motivations seem more complex than the usually contrived versions.

#38. sean
i hear you, but a “leader” who drags his people into the shit to die for personal reasons sounds rather familiar to me. i think he went to rescue her because he felt really bad about his shallow last comment to her, which about what i’d expect from young corporate yups. that wasn’t herioc, it was guilt-driven. as far as the sister goes, i agree with you. funny how the only person with any integrity get airlifted to survival. she also wasn’t very white, come to think of it.

anyway, the film had some depth that one rarely sees these days, at least not in a low budget monster movie.

42. JBS - January 31, 2008

sean @ #39. You didn’t get sick? So there is hope for me; thanks for sharing. I will have to see if there is an alternate movie playing at the same time so I can ditch Cloverfield if I get nauseous. (I even get sick on airplanes. Dramamine makes me drowsy, the ear patch gives me dry mouth from hell plus head ache, and the wrist bracelets don’t work on me.)

43. sean - January 31, 2008

#42

Dramamine makes me puke, which would seem to negate the reason for taking it. Haha. So I feel your pain. The other stuff has never worked for me either.

#41

You forget though, Rob didn’t drag anyone anywhere. He was more than prepared to leave alone and actually asked everyone NOT to follow him. Everyone made a choice to accompany him.

44. Anthony Pascale - January 31, 2008

I see some interesting ideas here. Although I dont think they should just say ‘hey look we found another tape’ I also dont think they should go with total traditional storytelling with lots of exposition.

The documentary style sounds interesting, or maybe military training movie. Non-traditional worked for them the first time, but doing it exactly the same again would be ‘traditional’…so they need to come up with a new way.

45. Non-belligerancy Confirmed - January 31, 2008

#41
you’re right that he didn’t ask them along. but the script infers a “stay with me if you want to live” situation. his concern for his companions safety was minimal compared to his obsession with “doing the right thing”: the brother dies, the bitch explodes; well those are acceptable losses. 8 million others are at risk, not my problem. this sounds like post 9/11 fake heroic america to me: focus on your petty rich girlfriend in trouble (oil) and ignore the death and carnage (iraq).

still, it’s just a personal view. i have been known to over read.
i still think the thoughtfulness of the script bodes very well for the new trek, though….

46. John Pemble - January 31, 2008

And that’s why Cloverfield is great because it doesn’t answer the questions. This is why a sequel is likely to suck, but maybe not.

47. sean - January 31, 2008

#45

While I’m still not on board with your interpretation (what made Rob any more qualified to guarantee life than anyone else?), I think it speaks positively about both the film and the filmakers that many people can walk away with different impressions as to what it was they saw.

That’s partly why I liked the fact that they didn’t explain anything. Explanations and exposition are just ways to make the audience more comfortable – “Oh, it’s from Alpha Centauri, okay.” It’s far more terrifying to NOT know what’s going on. Plus, it allows us to reach our own individual conclusions.

48. non-belligerency confirmed - January 31, 2008

#46, #47
yes indeed, it does not answer the questions. but i really liked the marginal questions that it asked: who are we in a crisis? what defines our humanity when we lose our social identities? and laughably, would we steal batteries for our cell phones when the shit hits the fan?

it reminds me that cinema has a different role in the 21st century, and more potential for cultural introspection. cloverfield is a long way from the old cold war/alien invasion (or more recent aids/zombie) analogy themes.

no, i still don’t see the protagonists of cloverfield as heroic at all. they are youtube’s spoiled and callously indifferent brats, behaving like the bad actors they’ve seen in endless bad movies. they are us. this is (for me) the genius of the film.

49. Ed - January 31, 2008

First one was good, however I figured the big dropoff from the opening week to the second week would have nixed a sequal. I’d go see it as long as the shaky camera is gone.

50. Gene L. Coon (was the better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 31, 2008

Still haven’t seen Cloverfield. But from what I have heard, and gather form the comments, there is zero exposition in the current movie. That makes a sequel easy. You go into Sam the Explainer mode. I like the military angle. Combine it with the scientific research stuff, add in a little coverage from the rest of the country/world. That’s a solid 45 minutes right there. You go the route of Pirates of the Caribbean and the Back to the Future sequels, and film two sequels simultaneously. Keep their running time short, like the current film, and release one at Christmas, and the next at Memorial Day, and JJ is printing money all year when they come out for Christmas that year. The short running time, and quick release sequence creates an almost mini-series feel. Keep ‘em wanting more, but turn a profit! That gives him more leverage with Paramount to do more ambitious (i. e. expensive) things with Star Trek.

51. Gene L. Coon (was the better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine - January 31, 2008

I meant when they release the DVDs at Christmastime.

52. Xai, (Pills! Get ya PILLS here!!) - January 31, 2008

I’ve already approached Paramount. I want the theater lobby motion-sickness pill concession.

;-)

53. elmachocombo - January 31, 2008

It’s hard to second guess what they will do. Although I like the military POV idea I really don’t need two hours of it. I never revisited Private Ryan ‘cuz I just can’t take the suffering and high anxiety. What about an adventure movie? “Indiana Jones” type of reluctant hero who is the only guy who actually knows what the creature is. Sorta like Spock and V’GER. He knows it has to be destroyed, but sees the beauty in it. He tries to get the military to listen, but they just wanna nuke the bastards. I don’t know… Personally I’d like to see a movie that takes place during the same time as the first. Not so much a sequel as a companion. Has that been done before? The mini-series idea is good too, but will the general public be there to buy tickets? After all, this isn’t Hobbits, or Superman, or Marty McFly. Needs to be a really likable hero/heroine to draw ‘em in. Or is it just the kid in me?

54. Alternate Factor Chris - February 1, 2008

The biggest difference between the two is the budget. Mission Impossible III made a pretty respectible amount of money over-seas, but didn’t even “break even” in America – it only made 130 or so out of 150 million. Not a bomb, but a disapontment at the BO.

Maybe if the film only costs 60-70 million it could turn a profit. Remember, the most successful Star Trek film, Star Trek: The Voyage Home, only made 109 million dollars domestically. With inflation thats just over 200 million dollars today. Also, remember this was at the absolute height of Trekdom, which slowly petered out by the end of TNG.

Factoring in the drop in interest in Trek (even with renewed interest made by this film) I just don’t see the return to the “Golden Age” of Trek. Unless the film is made as a brain dead action film (Transformers, etc.) I don’t see it pulling in the “youth” crowd who “know” Trek is for “geeks or nerds.” Its an unfortunate reality.

I’m expecting Mission Impossible numbers domestically. Not bad, but probably only enough that Paramount will sit on a sequel decision until the release of the DVD.

55. Ben - February 1, 2008

Nooooo!

What is it with sequels these days? Don’t get me wrong; a follow up to Cloverfield would be great, but almost everyone’s suggestions for a sequel so far have essentially boiled down to “exactly the same film, but with a steadier camera!”

People are suggesting a military point of view? What kind of story would that be? We got the military point of view already in the first one. Guys with guns desperately shooting the thing to no avail. Shelter scene where the evacuation is being arranged. Evacuation. What more could you possibly add to that?

The reporter point of view would be a little more interesting but again, we’ve already seen it when Hud stopped to watch the news at the electrics store. Reporters try to give a story. Parrasites attack. Reporters GTFO or die. What more can be said without it boiling down to the same film with a different intro and characters?

A bunch of people want more answers, but why? Some of the greatest horror films leave you with no answers. Alien for example. Was there ever an explanation as to where they came from? No. Does the film suffer for it? No! Did the sequel suffer for not expanding on their origin? Hell no!

And even if we did go down the more answers route, who the hell would have them? Where would we find a scientist on Earth that would have any other explanation than “well we saw on that tape there that it fell out of the sky… Er… That’s pretty much all we have right now.” Sure, they could discet the dead parrasite samples, but do you want a two hour scientific essay on its internal organs for a sequel? It’s not like the monsters gonna have a “Made on Rigel V” or an “If found…” tag on it.

Yes, the first film is great and it’s so refreshing to see a film about the characters for once, instead of just watching victim after victim pop from an Alien attack (the plot to AvP R if you haven’t seen it yet,) but we’ve done that now. Instead of seeing the same thing, how about we focus on the “what’s next?”

I won’t ruin the end for anyone, though it’s probably widely known by now, but for those of you who have seen it think about what happened at the end of the film. What kind of an impact would that event have on the world? What was the fate of the monster? Was it the only one? What will the human race do now that we know that not only are there aliens, but they’re this hostile?

Rather than re-hashing everything we’ve just seen, we should take a look at what’s next, keeping it focused on the characters again. There would have to be another, or the same monster, or maybe the little ones grow so there’s more than one, or maybe it’s set years later and humanity is fighting for survival in a world overun! For the love of god though, PLEASE don’t just do the same thing again. It’s the best way to ruin a story or make it into a crappy rinse-and-repeat franchise (go Freddie K!)

Lastly, non-belligerency confirmed; Dude, go watch the film again.

Rob wasn’t risking life and limb to save Beth because he felt bad about what he said to her last. That was just a moment of guilt. He was doing it because he’s loved her since they went to college together. Hud and Jason discuss this after Beth has left the party.

As someone pointed out to you already, he repeatedly insisted that the others not follow him and on more than one occasion. The other’s followed him willingly themselves because of their close bonds to each other.

Going from conversations at the party it would seem Lily is part of the core group of friends and was planning to, or was already engaged to marry Jason. On losing Jason both she and Rob shared a bond through that loss. Knowing Rob loves Beth, she maybe didn’t want him to go through the same loss she suffered and wanted to help for that… Of course it’s more likely she wanted to save Beth because they were clearly close friends (Lilys knowledge of what had happened between Beth and Rob indicate that their relationship is personal.)

Hud would stick with the group because as stated, Rob was his “main dude.” Also, he wasn’t the smartest guy in the group and was probably (and understandably) too scared to part ways. Personally I think it’s more likely that he stayed through friendship, however that’s just conjecture.

Marlena (the bitch, as you call her) was probably the only exception as she was so shell shocked after the dust cloud and witnessing people being eaten that she didn’t know what else to do… However, based on her friendship with Lily and the fact that she was obviously fairly intelligent and caring she may have chosen to do so herself. Again, conjecture based on things said and actions taken.

Lastly, your accusations that Marlena is a bitch are unfair. The only reason she was being so sarcastic with Hud (the only noticable bitchiness) is because:

A. She’s an attractive women, ergo she probably gets a ton of guys constantly hitting on her which isn’t fun.
B. She’s been invited to a party for someone she hardly knows, and because her only friend there is occupied she’s left by herself in an uncomfortable situation.
C. A guy who clearly isn’t the sharpest tool in the box starts hitting on her. She politely declines but the guy – who’s obviously only into her for her looks as she’s only met him breiefly in the past – doesn’t take the hint and keeps hassling her.

In film form it comes across in such a way that you feel sorry for Hud (I guess) but in real life it would probably be incredibly annoying being in at a party you don’t want to be at with a guy hassling you (from your p.o.v.) with the sole intention of seeing your underwear on his floor. As a result, and after repeated attempts to dissuade him, she starts being sarcastic to him. Despite all this, however, she still risks her life (ultimately fatally) in order to save him. It seems to me that you’re jumping an unholstered gun by calling her a bitch since she’s clearly just an attractive, intelligent girl in the wrong place at the wrong time being hassled by an idiot with a camera. Consider how you’d react in the same situation.

Anyway. Regarding a sequel, I’d love to see a story that focuses on the people and their reactions, to the aftermarth of the situation and any new dangers that arise. If they’re just going to go through the same motions with a steady-cam then I don’t see the point in spending the millions of $.

56. Ron - February 1, 2008

#31: “the monsters here are the people, not the cgi critters.”

So the human characters are more monstrous than the giant monster who is murdering people by the thousands, simply because…they’re yuppies?

Paging Dr. Marx!!

57. Ben - February 1, 2008

Oops… Didn’t think I’d written that much o_O

58. non-belligerency confirmed - February 2, 2008

#55
i appreciate your take on the depth of the characters, but still i see them as useless and self serving, and feel that was the point. it’s a pretty dismal postmodern reading, i know, but one i stand behind.

i think they were written brilliantly. i think the subtext was dead on. if i follow your take on them, it’s just another mediocre, petty bunch of vapid 2D displaced sitcom characters playing high school during a monster attack. they were WAY more interesting than you describe.

the actor playing marlena was in fact playing a bitch, but a fantastic bitch, and gave the best performance in the film. totally amazing. her disconnect from the others grounded the rest of the characters.

just my op, though. glad you liked the film. as i said before, this kind of subtext (albeit more cheerful i hope) could make for a remarkable trek film.

#56
yes indeed! the critters had justified critter motivation; they hate decadent upper west side yuppie parties because they weren’t invited! i’ve BEEN to those parties, and let me tell you, those people are monsters!

…are you suggesting the creatures were marxists? cool.

59. K. M. Kirby - February 4, 2008

Unless they somehow come up with a good script, there’s little hope for another sequel to a one-shot veritĂ© like this one. Of course, who can say? These aren’t the Blair Witch people, after all.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.