Cloverfield sequel?

[ChaoZ]

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/873/873864p1.html

Hope it's real.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

They're talking about the DVD, not a sequel.
And I can't see how they could make a sequel of Cloverfield which would transcend the level of a C-movie. A big monster which doesn't die whatever they fire at it, until they use nukes (if that can kill it anyway). And then offspring which survived, and takes more effort to kill. And offspring of the offspring, and the bride of the son of the offspring of the offspring, and finally "the Bride of the Son of The monster strikes back again part II+"? The 'scary unknown' part has passed, so all it would be is just another monster movie.

 

[rockyct]

Ughh. Not this stupid viral marketing again.

 

[Banzai042]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
They're talking about the DVD, not a sequel.
And I can't see how they could make a sequel of Cloverfield which would transcend the level of a C-movie. A big monster which doesn't die whatever they fire at it, until they use nukes (if that can kill it anyway). And then offspring which survived, and takes more effort to kill. And offspring of the offspring, and the bride of the son of the offspring of the offspring, and finally "the Bride of the Son of The monster strikes back again part II+"? The 'scary unknown' part has passed, so all it would be is just another monster movie.

The suggestion I've heard for a "sequel" would be something more along the lines of telling the story of the original cloverfield attack more from the perspective of a traditional monster movie.

That or the single line of dialogue that played after the credits.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
They're talking about the DVD, not a sequel.
And I can't see how they could make a sequel of Cloverfield which would transcend the level of a C-movie. A big monster which doesn't die whatever they fire at it, until they use nukes (if that can kill it anyway). And then offspring which survived, and takes more effort to kill. And offspring of the offspring, and the bride of the son of the offspring of the offspring, and finally "the Bride of the Son of The monster strikes back again part II+"? The 'scary unknown' part has passed, so all it would be is just another monster movie.

The suggestion I've heard for a "sequel" would be something more along the lines of telling the story of the original cloverfield attack more from the perspective of a traditional monster movie.

That or the single line of dialogue that played after the credits.

If they make a sequel I'll wait for reviews from colleagues before deciding whether or not to check it out. I wasn't all that impressed with the first movie, so a sequel has to be a whole lot better to catch my interest.

 

[Kirby]

Blegh. The original was horrid.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup, sequel would just suck harder.

 

[dudeman007]

Cloverfield was awesome (except for the ending). It's advertising was awesome too. Who care if it's viral? Everyone sounds so butthurt because the advertising actually worked. I wasn't expecting an Oscar worthy movie, but I was hoping to be entertained...and entertained I was.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: dudeman007
Cloverfield was awesome (except for the ending). It's advertising was awesome too. Who care if it's viral? Everyone sounds so butthurt because the advertising actually worked. I wasn't expecting an Oscar worthy movie, but I was hoping to be entertained...and entertained I was.

:thumbsup:

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
They're talking about the DVD, not a sequel.
And I can't see how they could make a sequel of Cloverfield which would transcend the level of a C-movie. A big monster which doesn't die whatever they fire at it, until they use nukes (if that can kill it anyway). And then offspring which survived, and takes more effort to kill. And offspring of the offspring, and the bride of the son of the offspring of the offspring, and finally "the Bride of the Son of The monster strikes back again part II+"? The 'scary unknown' part has passed, so all it would be is just another monster movie.

The suggestion I've heard for a "sequel" would be something more along the lines of telling the story of the original cloverfield attack more from the perspective of a traditional monster movie.

That or the single line of dialogue that played after the credits.

I wouldn't mind seeing another Cloverfield movie using the same style as the first, but from a totally different perspective (maybe a military cam or something)?

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Blegh. The original was horrid.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yup, sequel would just suck harder.

Agreed. I was sorely disappointed with this movie. I think it had a chance to be really good, but failed miserably. I can only imagine how terrible a sequel would be.

KT

 

[mesthead21]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
They're talking about the DVD, not a sequel.
And I can't see how they could make a sequel of Cloverfield which would transcend the level of a C-movie. A big monster which doesn't die whatever they fire at it, until they use nukes (if that can kill it anyway). And then offspring which survived, and takes more effort to kill. And offspring of the offspring, and the bride of the son of the offspring of the offspring, and finally "the Bride of the Son of The monster strikes back again part II+"? The 'scary unknown' part has passed, so all it would be is just another monster movie.

The suggestion I've heard for a "sequel" would be something more along the lines of telling the story of the original cloverfield attack more from the perspective of a traditional monster movie.

That or the single line of dialogue that played after the credits.

I wouldn't mind seeing another Cloverfield movie using the same style as the first, but from a totally different perspective (maybe a military cam or something)?

Yeah, i would like a different view as well. Maybe something along the lines of "Lets not make the audience get motion sickness" view.

 

[Bateluer]

Ugh, more shaky cam crap? Honestly, if any director is planning to use that, they should be shot.

 

[rh71]

A lot of the hate seems to be because they got sick from it. Too bad for them, but it doesn't make the movie suck because you could only stand 5 minutes of it before upchucking.

Cloverfield's delivery was special - if you didn't feel like you were in their shoes, then you had other things on your mind to begin with. That's what made it most entertaining... which in my book, is all a movie needs to be.

 

[AmpedSilence]

J.J. Abrams is a marketing genius. Might not be the best at making things, but he can totally market it.

 

[bignateyk]

Cloverfield sucks.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: rh71
A lot of the hate seems to be because they got sick from it. Too bad for them, but it doesn't make the movie suck because you could only stand 5 minutes of it before upchucking.

Cloverfield's delivery was special - if you didn't feel like you were in their shoes, then you had other things on your mind to begin with. That's what made it most entertaining... which in my book, is all a movie needs to be.

yep. I felt there, it felt completely natural to me, and a lot of their decisions, with what they knew at the time, I likely would have made too.
Frankly, I don't know what the hell people were expecting. It was a monster movie for chrissake.
It was better than the Godzilla movies of yesteryear, better than the American Godzilla movie, and better than most general monster movies where the monster is a tall as skyscrapers. Did people expect Oscar potential? It was made with the idea of a B-movie, but produced excellently and had a great idea to it. So the idea didn't connect with everyone. It was really a movie that you either knew you were going to like, or knew you would hate it.

+

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: rh71
A lot of the hate seems to be because they got sick from it. Too bad for them, but it doesn't make the movie suck because you could only stand 5 minutes of it before upchucking.

Cloverfield's delivery was special - if you didn't feel like you were in their shoes, then you had other things on your mind to begin with. That's what made it most entertaining... which in my book, is all a movie needs to be.

No, actually, I spent most of the movie bored. Slept through a few parts. I rarely walk out of movies, but if I'd remained awake, I probably would have walked out of Cloverfield.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: rh71
A lot of the hate seems to be because they got sick from it. Too bad for them, but it doesn't make the movie suck because you could only stand 5 minutes of it before upchucking.

Cloverfield's delivery was special - if you didn't feel like you were in their shoes, then you had other things on your mind to begin with. That's what made it most entertaining... which in my book, is all a movie needs to be.

I did not get sick from the camera work, that's for sure.

I didn't feel like I was in their shoes because the character development was abysmal. I didn't give a crap about anyone in the movie. Putting the movie in first-person does not automatically equate to being engaged by the characters or feeling sympathy for their plight, it takes more than that, for me anyway.

For any horror/monster movie, if you are not going to make me sympathize with the chracters, then you need an engaging monster, but this movie didn't even do that because of the way that it was filmed. It was just a failure all around for me unfortunately.

KT

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Blegh. The original was horrid.

Agreed; one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Ugh, more shaky cam crap? Honestly, if any director is planning to use that, they should be shot.

I'll agree but go a step further; those who encourage the shaky cam crap should be shot too.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Blegh. The original was horrid.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yup, sequel would just suck harder.

Agreed. I was sorely disappointed with this movie. I think it had a chance to be really good, but failed miserably. I can only imagine how terrible a sequel would be.

KT

QFT

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Blegh. The original was horrid.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yup, sequel would just suck harder.

Agreed. I was sorely disappointed with this movie. I think it had a chance to be really good, but failed miserably. I can only imagine how terrible a sequel would be.

KT

Cloverfield 2: Motion Sickness
(return of the shakey cam)

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: dudeman007
Cloverfield was awesome (except for the ending). It's advertising was awesome too. Who care if it's viral? Everyone sounds so butthurt because the advertising actually worked. I wasn't expecting an Oscar worthy movie, but I was hoping to be entertained...and entertained I was.

:thumbsup:

it's ATOT what do you expect, everyone here hates everything that the majority likes.

 

[paulxcook]

I enjoyed the movie, except for the ending, and would probably enjoy watching a sequel if it was either

a: made as a more traditional monster movie AND DONE WELL, or
b: made from the viewpoint of someone with more direct monster contact, like from a military perspective as mentioned above.

I'm also interested in knowing how the heck a baby 30-story monster just dropped onto earth.