These NYC winters are brutal... https://t.co/wIE8I2r8IW
Well, this is just unfortunate news.
Variety confirmed today that Paramount has greenlighted Cloverfield 2, with plans to reunite the creative team behind the first film: Drew Goddard will write, Matt Reeves is negotiating to direct again, and J.J. Abrams will be back to produce.
As I said in my review, the film had a lot of problems, and I honestly can’t imagine how a sequel won’t be even more troubled. When you hear the Mr. Reeves talked with ComingSoon.net about one of his ideas for the follow-up, it’s even more worrisome.
CS: Any possibilities for a “Cloverfield” sequel?
Reeves: This was so fun ’cause we’d never done anything like it, and I think we’d want to find a similar challenge, to find a way to have its roots in this but be fresh and new, otherwise you’re just repeating yourself. 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 and he turns over and he sees the ship that’s been capsized and sees the headless Statue of Liberty, and then he turns back and this guy’s briefly filming him. In my mind that was two movies intersecting for a brief moment, and I thought there was something interesting in the idea that this incident happened and there are so many different points of view, and there are several different movies at least happening that evening and we just saw one piece of another. That idea sort of tickled me. We’ll have to see if anyone would want a sequel. If the movie does well and we find a compelling reason to do so then it would be fun to do a sequel.
Please… no. A whole movie again… from a different angle? If you have to do this, give us a new part of the story. Did Rob & Beth survive whatever that bomb was? (some people speculate it wasn’t a nuke) Where did the monster come from? Or, here’s a WACKY idea… EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS CALLED “CLOVERFIELD”! There are dozens of better ideas than showing us the same story from a different angle, sure, it might be fun, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. (I personally lean towards the idea of a news crew… or a soldier on the ground… and how they viewed it, but 20 somethings with a camera again… no thanks)
It doesn’t have to be a “typical” movie, but let’s hope they at least exercise some sensibilities in whatever they choose to do.