Paramount Gearing Up For Cloverfield 2

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.

Sort by:   newest | oldest

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.

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

It’s still alive!

I’ll watch it.

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 !

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

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.

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

With Life Like Hair and Beard

The parasites!!

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

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

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!

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.

oh yeah! fun fun!!! ;-)

#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…

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

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.

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 clichÚ.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).

last o' the timelords

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.

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.

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

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.

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

non-belligerency confirmed
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… Read more ┬╗
non-belligerency confirmed

uh, that’s sofia coppala, sorry.

non-belligerency confirmed

uh, that’s “sofia coppola”. sorry.

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.

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.

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.

#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.

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.

#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.

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.

non-belligerency confirmed

#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.

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.)

#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.

Non-belligerancy Confirmed

#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….

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.

#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.

non-belligerency confirmed

#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.

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.

Gene L. Coon (was the better Gene because he) was a U. S. Marine

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.

wpDiscuz