.jpg "Cloverfield movie image - slice (2).jpg")
While attending the National Board of Review red carpet event, director J.J. Abrams commented on the status of a potential Cloverfield sequel. For those who may not remember, Cloverfield was a first-person take on giant monster movies. It followed a group of bystanders, armed with a video camera (which was the single point of view for the film) as they desperately tried to escape New York under siege by a monster of unknown origin. While vague, Abrams at least acknowledged that something is being worked on, “We’re working on something right now with that and again, you know its early stages.”
Hit the jump for more on one possible direction Cloverfield 2 could take.
Let me start by saying I’m a huge fan of Cloverfield. Sure, the premise had been done before, pioneered by The Blair Witch Project, but nothing had been done on this scale from a first-person perspective. By scale I don’t simply mean the size of the monster, which was huge, but also the proliferation of user generated content.
You see, any number of people may have been recording the events that occurred in Cloverfield. There could be hundreds, if not thousands, of videos capturing the destruction, monster, and military response to the threat. Therein lays the great sandbox that is Cloverfield.
You can take any character in that film with a video camera and tell their story. I would say this offers limitless potential, but there is the one caveat of having to tell a compelling story as well. Watching random footage of this particular event would get pretty boring. That being said, I do have one dream scenario for a sequel.
Nothing would please me more then to see the military’s perspective of the events in Cloverfield. Let me pitch this idea as simply as possible: it’s Aliens meets Cloverfield. Put a camera (or cameras) behind an elite squad of soldiers tasked with killing the monster and I’ll be there. The premise would certainly work given the massive military response we saw in the first film.
Interestingly enough, Aliens director James Cameron (Avatar) proved he was ahead of his time once again. All the Colonial Marines in Aliens were outfitted with cameras on their helmets. We even got to watch some of that footage, and for anyone who saw the film you know how well it worked at putting you right in the action.
Now, Abrams would probably want to up the ante for the sequel so here are two more suggestions. Add some great 24-esque split-screens with each soldier’s video footage and drop in some Avatar-like 3D to make everything that much more real. Put all these elements together and Cloverfield 2 practically writes itself.
Creator Ryan Murphy Reveals Details on AMERICAN HORROR STORY Season 3; Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson, and Evan Peters to Return
13 Images from CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2 Reveal Food-imals Such as the Hippotatomus, Bananostrich and Fruit Cockatiel
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Comic Prequel STAR TREK COUNTDOWN TO DARKNESS Provides New Look at Klingons
First Trailer and Poster for RED 2 Starring Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich
16 New Images from A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD Featuring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney and Yuliya Snigir
I'd watch the hell out of that sequel too. why not just bring Jack Bauer in, lol
That “idea” sounds like like [REC] 2, and Predators, and just about every single action/horror sequel ever. It's not really an idea so much as it is a “hey, let's rip off Cameron wholesale.”
The mixing of multiple cameras on screen at once would mess up the diegetic space for the audience and horrific in 3D. And, you're proposing a sidequel? Really? You want to see the same events, with the same visual gimmick, without moving the timeline of the narrative forward? So not only is your “idea” just a suggestion of a film to rip off, you have no clue whatsoever of where you would want the actual narrative to go.
I think it's safe to say that no, I don't think it “writes itself” at all.
@hunter_d, You're right, I by no means elaborated on the narrative direction of the film and was thinking at a very high level. Also, given the nature of the Cloverfield “universe” it might be difficult to move the timeline forward. From everything I've read thus far it sounds like they want to preserve the incident itself but change the perspective. This is not to say Abrams won't switch gears and depart from the story we have already seen.
Also keep in mind while the original events may remain, differenct characters change how we preceive that event. Sure, the concept may sound like the same thing but I believe the story would be different than the first as far as a Cloverfield movie goes. As for it being a rip-off, well, as you said “…sounds like…just about every single action/horror sequel ever.” In that sense, it would write itself.
Your note about 3D is valid though. Using 3D in conjunction with the mulitple cameras could prove difficult and more disorienting then in the first film. That may not work as well as I had thought.
Thanks for the comment!
@MovieTechJunkie, I'm good with that
Hey, thanks for responding,
If they just repeat the same event from a different perspective I can't imagine that the movie will be very popular. Especially if we have to sit through another 25 minutes of boring people talking about uninteresting stuff before the action starts.
I didn't follow the Cloverfield viral stuff, but I DID see the final image — a bunch of cloverfield monsters on the ocean floor taken by satellite. It actually piqued my interest, which is odd because I sorta hated Cloverfield.
As for the rip off writing itself…well, I guess it is easier to write a term paper based on someone else's outline…
No, problem for responding hunter_d.
Personally, I think if they advanced the timeline AND used the same first-person angle I'd have a hard time buying into it. The thing that made Cloverfield great (for me) was the event itself, and not necessarily the monster. Using the same story but changing the viewpoint seems far more compelling to me. I think it would be great to see how other people got through that particular event. However, given that the first film would kind of become an “origin” film, hopefully they could jump into the action a lot faster the second time around.
If they decide to remove the first-person element completely I think that would take away from what made Cloverfield really interesting to begin with.
The term paper analogy is fitting. In response though, I shouldn't encourage negative references like “rip off” (this is an industry I look up to afterall). The more accurate thing to say would be the Cloverfield sequel would most likely follow proven formulas and conventions that attract audiences. In that, it is easier to come up with a script, even if it does reflect movies that have come before. It's the nature of the beast, may as well work with it rather than against it.
All that said, I'm an action genre guy so that's probably why I'm leaning toward a sequel that pays homage to Aliens. Cameron set a standard with that film, in fact crafting one of the formulas noted above. That's probably why you see so many people in the industry aspiring to be just like it. Sometimes it works, other times not so much.
From what I know about reading on Cloverfield is that the monster we saw is only a baby, I'm not sure if Abrams mentioned that the mother/father/parents are still alive but I did get the idea that maybe one of the fully grown monsters comes out.
I like your idea as well but it would just be the same movie kind of like a movie in a movie since it is just Cloverfield but from a military point of view. I was thinking maybe military point of view but the baby dies and celebration is short lived when the big one comes out. I meant he baby is huge just imagine how big a fully grown one could be and the possibilities with that as well.
I am not a HUGE fan of Cloverfield but I did enjoy it and the viral campaign, the riddles, the mystery, I would like to think Nolan took some pointers from the viral campaign for Dark Knight as well but could be wrong.
Either way Cloverfield 2 sounds great, bring it I'll watch it.
Your idea reminds me a bit of [REC]2.. they did that: they put cameras in the SWAT teams, and also had some kids recording silly stuff, that way you have an original view.
heh, I thought the same.
I heard he talks about a satellite falling in the ocean and something about the Slusho company. Does anyone have a linnk to this interview?
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/pro…
I heard he talks about a satellite falling in the ocean and something about the Slusho company. Does anyone have a linnk to this interview?
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/pro…
In the beginning of the original Cloverfield, there is the script over the static that the camera was found at whatever time in what remains of Central Park. Possibly a soldier, in the sequel could pick up the camera and pick up where Rob left off, thus revealing the title, “Cloverfield 2″ I don’t understand the premise of the Cloverfield 2 marquette in Paris. The process of a monster attack and military defenses is just too chaotic for people to be reading subtitles. I honestly have no I deas of what the synopsis would be like. Im saying shit, but just pulling it out of my ass. Not knowing where it would go from there. Perhaps Jason miraculously survived the brooklin bridge collapse. I highly doubt it. I have heard that once before. It would be a pleasant suprise. Some guy on You Tube suggested that there could be two monsters, because the scene where Hud gets his, the creature doesn’t look very big. Not as big as the first one you see, as well as some cosmetic differences. For instance the scene at the end, the monster appeared to have gills that puffed out. The footage of the monster ravaging the big apple, didn’t show much detail in cosmetics. Just a theory that caused me to think about any overlooked details. It amazed me that so much ocurred between the charachters in the first one, that you don’t really realize how short the movie really was. Only 84 minutes folks.