Cloverfield

[supergrass]

I think over time I'd be more receptive to it. Right now I'm still caught up in recently seeing the original and how good it was. Thinking about what you've said, given that the story is about the people and the story the film-maker's involved are telling, as long as it's the same team involved I don't see why another format wouldn't work.

It'd be interesting to see how they would tackle the first steps of the story a second time around if we're looking at a different group of residents in the area. This time you know exactly what is going to happen and (to an extent) what's doing it. Would they spend less time on character backstory and initial reaction to the monster's arrival given that the audience have seen it before and some might impatiently be awaiting more information on what we already know?

[Benji]

I think over time I'd be more receptive to it. Right now I'm still caught up in recently seeing the original and how good it was. Thinking about what you've said, given that the story is about the people and the story the film-maker's involved are telling, as long as it's the same team involved I don't see why another format wouldn't work.

It'd be interesting to see how they would tackle the first steps of the story a second time around if we're looking at a different group of residents in the area. This time you know exactly what is going to happen and (to an extent) what's doing it. Would they spend less time on character backstory and initial reaction to the monster's arrival given that the audience have seen it before and some might impatiently be awaiting more information on what we already know?

Well everyone involved has said they want to do it, in fact they already fleshed out entire backstories, but it's a matter of putting it together how they want. They've said they're not going to rush it for money, it's going to be something they all want to do and agree upon as a good creative outlet.

As for the first steps, I'll be honest, in the cinema after the first ten minutes I'd forgotten it was film with a monster and was enjoying the social aspect, which was a great touch rather than rushing in. I think this time it'd be cool to have the attack already going on and have the person using the camera in order to record the events rather than just happening to have the camera at the time (thus the reporter and military options becoming even more significant).

[FLiam]

I saw it last night. Fucking awesome film, going to see it again next week with some other people.

The whole atmosphere of the film was brilliant, when they were in the subway station you could still hear they mayhem all happening above them with the monster roaring and guns being fired. The bit when they were walking through the street and suddenly the army turned up behind them firing missiles and all sorts of shit was amazing too, really kid of felt like I was there.

[Zaz]

Why is it that everyone on here is like 'Awesome, brilliant, fantastic' (which I agree with) but everyone I know in real life is like 'Stupid, shit, pointless' (not exactly in those terms, but you get my drift)? =/

Are we just an awesome bunch of people or is our perceptive on stuff extremely misguided?

[MalaCloudy Black]

Why is it that everyone on here is like 'Awesome, brilliant, fantastic' (which I agree with) but everyone I know in real life is like 'Stupid, shit, pointless' (not exactly in those terms, but you get my drift)? =/

Are we just an awesome bunch of people or is our perceptive on stuff extremely misguided?

I'm going "awesome bunch". It seems like a lot of people came into the movie expecting something completely different from what they got

[HeartlineTwist]

Spoiler: Click here to view

In all fairness, now that I think about it, since the trailer reveals that the camera that the entire thing was shot with was found in a numbered location that used to be Central Park, I don't really understand why anyone in the audience would expect a majority of characters to get out alive.

[Benji]

Spoiler: Click here to view

In all fairness, now that I think about it, since the trailer reveals that the camera that the entire thing was shot with was found in a numbered location that used to be Central Park, I don't really understand why anyone in the audience would expect a majority of characters to get out alive.

The fact the film starts with "Property of US Government" should probably give that away >_>

[BleedMe]

Alot of people i know have gone to watch this film expecting a Godzilla type film, and so i did i, personally. It's just so much more than that it can't be explained. People walk out disappointed because of how unique it is and the fact that it's not what they expected, but realistically we got something far better than a typical "Godzilla" movie. It can't be stressed enough that although all the carnage is caused by this monster, in terms of the plot ( to a point anyway, of course the monster is involved, )the monster is irrelevant, and that's what makes this film great.

Edited February 7, 2008 by BleedMe

[HeartlineTwist]

Spoiler: Click here to view

In all fairness, now that I think about it, since the trailer reveals that the camera that the entire thing was shot with was found in a numbered location that used to be Central Park, I don't really understand why anyone in the audience would expect a majority of characters to get out alive.

The fact the film starts with "Property of US Government" should probably give that away >_>

[Benji]

Spoiler: Click here to view

In all fairness, now that I think about it, since the trailer reveals that the camera that the entire thing was shot with was found in a numbered location that used to be Central Park, I don't really understand why anyone in the audience would expect a majority of characters to get out alive.

The fact the film starts with "Property of US Government" should probably give that away >_>

I know, but that isn't shown in the TRAILER. <_>

I know that, I was stating it for the part about the people in the audience not realising it (Y)

[Skummy]

Here's a question, how do you see a sequel? Do you see it as a regular movie or another handheld?

To me I don't think you could go regular camera after that, personally I'd go one of three routes, one would be another story involved the other guy on the bridge with a camera, then we can have brief seconds of crossover, two would be the journalistic route, having a reporter with their film crew trying to find out what the fuck is going on, and three, if you really wanted to reveal more I'd say would be the military route with those cameras that go on top of the helmets to record missions and the such.

Personally, I think it'll be somewhere in-between...possibly a documentary as to where the thing came from, spurred on by a tell-all book by a survivor (Lizzy), showing footage from "the other guy with the film camera" (on the bridge), film crew footage, and new footage of what happened after the first film ended. That way you get to see it from as many different angles as possible, and realistically flesh out the backstory, and explain exactly what the monster is.

While I like the idea of the sequel being from the perspective of someone else who happened to be filming in New York that day, their experience surely wouldn't be that much different? They wouldn't be in the know, they'd be panicked and confused, and they'd be risking their lives. The only way it could work is if something interesting happened to those civilians that were evacuated, or attempted evacuation, as that would be the only point where things could drastically alter from the path of the original film, and potentially shed new light.

Anyway, I absolutely adored it. While some of the acting wasn't phenomenal in places, pretty much my only REAL criticisms are Beth's incredible resilience (although, let's face it, you need more of a suspension of disbelief to conceive a monster attacking New York City than that she could survive that long and function that well once they'd "rescued" her) and that there was TOO MUCH MONSTER - and that's a rare criticism. I actually thought we would see much less of the monster, and it kind of lessened it seeing so much of it, as I wasn't a fan of the design. For the most part, though, it was incredible and I can't wait for a sequel.

[Lord Nibbler]

Just got back.

I agree about "too much monster". Should have left it to the imagination, that way nobody could really be disappointed. I also think they spent too much time setting up the characters at the beginning, with the leaving party. I know it was supposed to make use care about them, but they were just a bunch of really annoying pricks.

Still, enjoyable film. And it was free, so how can I complain?

[MyKILLv2.0]

As I stated when the movie first came out, I agree with the poster above, that they spent way to long on the character introductions at the beginning. It’s not that I didn’t like the idea over all, I personally just think they dragged it out a bit too far for my taste.

However to answer the question about a possible sequel for Cloverfield, I would say that I would bet almost everything I have that there is a sequel. There is just too much money, and hype put into a movie like this, for there to be only one movie. After the Lords of the Ring Triology, Hollywood has been cashing in like crazy on sequels like never before, and considering the buzz this movie generated, I wouldn’t see why there wouldn’t be a solid push for another movie.

I personally see at least two more sequels, possibly more depending on how they choose to develop this story out. As for your routes of a sequel, I could see a realistic chance of both your first and third route. As someone who watches Lost, I can tell you that JJ Abrams very seldom very does anything “just cause”. If there was a guy on the bridge with a camera (which there is, right?), then chances are that Abrams put him there for a reason. This could be a clue in for the next sequel, though to echo the sediments of Skummy, they are going to have to totally alter his path since if he doesn’t make it across the bridge, we will know the coarse of events will unfold for the most part. However it isn’t something that can’t be over done, and seeing how this fact (which I didn’t notice in the movie to begin with) of a man with a camera on the bridge was brought to my attention, my guess is that this will probably be the way they go with the sequel.

However I could very easily see them going with the third option, only if they choose to “Hollywood” up the movie. Obviously, they would have to lose the camera angles, and go to a more tradionalist camera view, because this focus of this movie would be military vs Cloverfield, however if the purpose of the first movie was only to introduce you to Cloverfield, they could spend the next movie explaining its origin, and then of course in all other sequels, just have the damn thing wage war on city after city, much like a modern day Godzilla.

[MalaCloudy Black]

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/01/31/its-...ld-2-is-coming/

According to Variety, Matt Reeves is "in early talks with Paramount" to direct a sequel to this month's smash Cloverfield. This should come as a surprise to exactly no one, as Cloverfield was made on the super cheap ($25 million) and scored a whopping $46 million in its opening weekend alone. From the way the announcement is worded, it looks like they want Cloverfield II underway ASAP, as soon as Paramount can complete discussions with Reeves, producer J.J. Abrams and writer Drew Goddard, who penned Cloverfield as well as episodes of Lost, Alias, and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Reeves has also signed to direct The Invisible Woman, "a Hitchcock-style thriller" he wrote that "probes the mind of a former beauty queen who turns to a life of crime to protect her family."

It remains unclear which project will start production first, though the Variety article says there's a "good chance" it'll be Cloverfield. No word yet on the plot, but Goddard recently mentioned the possibility of showing you the fateful night of the attack from another cameraman's perspective.

[Protoman Version 2.5]

Well, pretty much every body and their brother called it, the second one will more than likely be via the other guy on the bridge's P.O.V. Hopefully they give us some thing new with this one, I'm guessing one of the characters manages to survive with the camera (possibly via the army's help) & runs into whatsherface (the one that survived from the first) to further tie it all in. Since as Mikel said, rarely JJ do any thing without a purpose in mind when he charts it out. With that in mind there is probably more than just a "she was the lucky survivor role" mentalty working behind it when it was written.

Like many others I loved the movie, it really was some thing special and that's why I feel so conflicted with more installments. On the one hand, like most good pieces of work it has left me wanting more and on the other, I don't want my enjoyment of it to be tainted by shitty sequels. Guess I'll just have to have faith in their ability to not screw it up for the time being.

Though that other movie sounds absolutely blah.

[Hutch2004]

If there's a sequel, I think it'll ruin the first one a little bit. The first one was innovative, scary, funny and downright thrilling. I think it should be left as a one-off. I hate the "that was good, can't wait for the sequel" frame of mind everyone seems to have about every film nowadays.

I loved the film, and the guy who didn't know what was going on.......... Were you even WATCHING the film? Did you just see the last half hour or something? I was very, very obvious who Rob was going to save. Doesn't he even say a few times "I need to get to Beth" or something along those lines?

I completely missed something falling in the sea at the end though. Totally passed me by.

[Benji]

The death of Roy Schneider made me realise what Cloverfield reminds me of, Jaws! You have the presence of the 'monster/shark', you get the characters well developed but there's always that thing in the background that could come into play any minute.

[Johnny Latino Heat]

Just came back from watching it, and I have to say, it was better than I hoped. I didn't see any kind of marketing whatsoever, didn't even see the trailer, the only thing I knew was that is was filmed with a hand held camera, it was a monster movie that focused more on the people, and that was it. But damn, it was good. It was realistic, and I felt the characters were interesting and realistic as well. All in all, great fun, and I may go and watch the movie again.

Also, the room was almost empty, yet there was a woman there in front of me breathing impatiently and saying she wanted her money back when the movie ended. I found her again near the "complaints/suggestions" bin. Dumbass.

[Herr Matzat]

finaly seen it, it was a fun time but i think it should have ended with them being eaten out of the sky.

the dvd extras, to alternate endings, i hope non of em will be happy happy joy joy all together. I might get this... but 29.99 seems to be a redicules list price.

• commentary Director Matt Reeves

• Featurette: The Making of Cloverfield

• Featurette: Cloverfield Visual Effects

• Featurette: I Saw It! It's Alive! It's Huge

• Featurette: Clover Fun

• extra Szene: Congrats Rob

• extra Szene: When You're in Japan

• extra Szene: I Call That a Date

• extra Szene: It's Going to Hurt

• extra Szene: Alt Ending #1

• extra Szene: Alt Ending #2

• Easter Egg: Slusho!

• Easter Egg: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 2

• Easter Egg: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 5

• Easter Egg: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 9

• Easter Egg: Person of Interest - JLVD Video 11

• Easter Egg: Rack 'Em & Pack 'Em

• Easter Egg: Fighting the X

[abundant]

If you're anticipating the two alternate endings, then you'll be highly disappointed. Both endings are exactly the same as the original, except for the flashback at the end.

Edited April 6, 2008 by abundant