Cloverfield 2 Is Something ‘You Are Going To See,’ Says Matt Reeves

  • 26 Comments
 
<i>Cloverfield 2</i> Is Something ‘You Are Going To See,’ Says Matt Reeves  

I recently had the pleasure of randomly watching Cloverfield for a second time, years after seeing it in theaters. The one surprising revelation I walked away with was that it holds up very well. The “found footage” gimmick is what it is, but Cloverfield is an intense, well-plotted survival-action movie without it, one that takes the concept of the monster movie and turns it on its head. You see the “Godzilla attacks” story play out from the perspective of his hapless human victims.

There’s been talk before of a possible sequel, although director Matt Reeves didn’t sound hopeful when he commented on it earlier in the year. Everyone involved in the first movie, including Reeves, J.J. Abrams and Drew Goddard, has been very busy. The question comes up so much though, the trio must be thinking about it. Right?

Yes. Reeves said as much in a new interview with Total Film. “Well, you are going to see it – we just don’t know when [laughs],” he said.

“At the moment we are talking about the story quite a lot. Drew Goddard, who wrote the original, is going to pen the sequel and J.J. Abrams is very much involved. However, the three of us have been so busy that getting the right idea together has been taking a long time.”

Reeves went on to say that there’s a desire to keep the “found footage” aspect of the original movie in the sequel, but figuring out how to crack the story with that in mind is the problem. He asks, “How can you continue that idea successfully for a second time?” Any ideas, gathered readers? Maybe a collection of random vignettes gathering together found footage from the ruins of Manhattan? Or maybe just skip the idea entirely and deliver a more traditional format for the sequel?

  • Scud

    I think they should keep the “found footage” aspect.

  • Lion_okitkat

    Was not impressed by the first one, and glad I saw it on tv then paying to see it in theaters. Won’t bother to see the sequel.

  • Richardcasey

    keep the found footage aspect by making the sequel about a group of soldiers sent into NYC after the end of the first film, this squad sent to investigate the current environment, find any survivors and see if the creature is still alive. To keep the found footage angle, have the soldiers all wearing small cameras on their helmets and guns that stream the footage live to their superiors so they get real world updates on what their bosses want them to do.

    Further more, it gives you the chance to expand on the mythos of the creature, it’s biology and what happens to the little crab like beasties when they “grow up”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    I still haven’t seen the first one… So I’m not going to see this one.

  • Anonymous

    I liked it a lot. I think ther’es been revisionist history by some people who go overboard criticizing movies like this, as if there’s been nothing but classic after classic in the monster movie genre. Gimme a break.

  • http://twitter.com/HeroicTStudios Michael Sacal

    “Or maybe just skip the idea entirely and deliver a more traditional format for the sequel?”

    That didn’t help Blair Witch 2, did it?

  • http://nailsin.mysite.com nailsin

    Perhaps they could do a story told through de-classified top secret military footage. This would show the military’s viewpoint of the original movie. In this the how-what-and who questions of the monster could be explored and hopefully revealed.
    As for a traditional format I second Michael Sacal’s comment on Blair Witch2.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    I think Blair Witch 2′s problems were a lot greater than the lack of the found footage gimmick. The biggest problem with found footage movies — which so far, only the Paranormal Activity series has successfully overcome — is that at a certain point it strains credulity to think that these people would continue filming under these circumstances. Why on earth would someone running for his life down a city street with a monster on his tail do so with a camera over his face, obscuring his vision and increasing the likelihood that he will trip and fall? And how the hell does that camera survive dropping fifty feet out of Clover’s mouth after it eats Hud? I still remember the scene in which Blair Witch lost me: Heather opens the bound handkerchief or whatever it was to reveal the bloody organs within and she runs away screaming … and then, she comes back to get a better shot of what just scared her!

    PA and PA2 overcame this with the conceit of yuppies wiring their houses with webcams, which is something that people can easily do. In PA2 especially, the family’s initial reason for putting up the cameras was imminently sensible, and once they were in place, you have a detached neutral observer watching everything so you don’t have the problem of a complete moron who insists on filming his best friends getting eaten.

    What I think might work is if you staged Cloverfield 2 as a mock-umentary, with found footage from several difference sources being compiled to tell a narrative, broken up by interviews with “survivors.” Or maybe not, I don’t know. I still think you could ditch the found footage angle in Cloverfield’s case and just go with basically a Godzilla movie from the vantage point of the human survivors. Sort of like what the Devlin-Emmerich Godzilla could have been if Devlin-Emmerich weren’t incompetent hacks.

  • kalorama

    No, actually, it’s not.

  • Sillysili2010

    I like the Cloverfield but I do remember that awful, dizzying feeling after leaving the cinema. I felt like throwing up as soon as I opened the door of the theater.

  • kalorama

    Two minutes into the the party scene in the beginning of the first one and I couldn’t wait for the monster to show up and kill every single one of those annoying people.

  • Fury1978

    stick a camera on the helmet of a soldier and have him be the POV character…

  • The Mad Monkey

    I honestly just didn’t care for Cloverfield. I have no real critiques over the story or SFX. It just didn’t grab me. So, a second one is, to me, just a waste.

  • Eightiesologist

    Dear Matt Reeves, I didn’t see the first Cloverfield so you’re already starting off on the wrong foot with your headline-grabbing quote. Sincerely, Cloverfailed.

  • demoncat_4

    hope they find time and figure out how to do a sequel to clover field without hurting the original and also giving some more of the monster .

  • Anonymous

    I like this idea, I think it would work. There’s enough off-camera (no pun intended) material for a whole movie there. Plus it would incite fans to watch the first *again* to see how well they match.

  • Anonymous

    Either an imbedded news reporter or secret military footage would work for me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    Why make a comment if you didn’t see it…..what a looser to critique something you didnt watch…..Lame!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    Why comment at all? Just to put down someones work of art? I don’t like most classic painters works….so I don’t go to museums and look and I don’t slanderize them to others who obviously do…..so LAME!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    That is a good idea, but the POV being directly from military personnel would angel the movie towards an all action flick….not, I believe what they were going for.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    So true for Marlene……

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    That I would love to see….an attack on the US from New Yorks’ remains, launched by beasties that have grown up in the years we humans could not enter due to radiation…oh yeah, terror and mayhem, great things for big monster movies.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    What drives a person to post only to bash something? I don’t understand. Don’t see it and don’t post about the first film, just be content that you saw something and didn’t personally like it……so LAME man!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    Ok……why are you here? Why are you posting? What is your issue? I don’t want to see your negativity…..but you are forcing me to, for no reason. Don’t post just to be obscenely ridiculous, and also make sure not to go to theaters when the movie finally…hopefully comes out. I’d hate for your sensitivities to be hurt whiny.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Nichols/100000549512690 Jason Nichols

    I do to, although as others have said they will need to grab a different angel. Hopefully, Abrams and Reeves can come up with an entirely new way to film the sequel…wouldn’t that be funner to see? I think so, but I did like the “found footage” approach, personally.

  • Strangerinside

    We need to see a more “monster-centric” film. Not enough of the creature in the first one, good as it was. And I feel it should be a cinematic version. Scrap the “found-footage” gimmick. It worked extremely well for the original, but it COULD be the insistance to use that angle again that could be holding back the creativity and desire needed to do a sequel. Show us what happened that we didn’t see when we were following the original group. Have them appear in spots where we originally saw them in the first film as we follow the monster on his rampage through New York.