Has J.J. Abrams Made Any Progress on Cloverfield 2?
by Alex Billington
March 1, 2009
Ever since Cloverfield came out about a year ago, fans have asked J.J. Abrams at every last opportunity whether or not we'll ever one day see a sequel. He's always had the same answer - if there is a good story that they come up with, they'll do it, but they're not going to be forced to make one just for money. In essence, he'll let us know when he comes up with a good story, and no, there isn't a secret sequel in development. Well, at WonderCon yesterday, another fan brought up the topic of Cloverfield 2 again and Abrams' answer, while pretty much the same, might finally be an indication that he does have an idea.
Abrams actually said a lot of important things, so here's his full response to the question yesterday:
"We're actually working on an idea right now… The key obviously at doing any kind of sequel, certainly this film included, is that it better not be a business decision. If you're going to do something, it should be because you're really inspired to do it. It doesn't really have to mean anything, doesn't mean it will work, but it means we did it because we cared, not because we thought we could get the bucks."
"We have an idea that we thought was pretty cool that we're playing with, which means there will be something that's connected to Cloverfield, but I hope it happens sooner than later because the idea is pretty sweet."
Again, don't read too much into his response, but it sounds like they have an idea and, as he says, they want to do it "sooner than later" because it could be pretty damn good. I'm not one of those Cloverfield fanatics who is foaming at the mouth for a sequel, but I enjoyed the first one, and would love to see a sequel that ups the ante in some way, rather than just re-uses the monster. I have more confidence in J.J. Abrams than I do most filmmakers out there, so if he claims he's got a good idea, then I'm all for it. Let's hope there is some truth to this update and Abrams isn't just stirring the Cloverfield pot yet again, just to appease the fans.
Reader Feedback - 42 Comments
Mmmm a sequel would be pretty fun to see i also enjoyed the first o_0 GET OUTTA MY HEAD! also first 🙂
zach on Mar 1, 2009
The first film was garbage. It didn't even try to hide that fact it was a Godzilla Knock off. JJ admitted that he wanted to make an American Godzilla. He should have just done that. I personally think the reason he is making a "Star Trek" movie is because he wanted to make an actiony space movie and the studio had the rights to Star Trek, so instead of having him make a generic space movie where he rips off a bunch of other ideas, they told him to just use the basic outline of the Star Trek characters and do whatever he wants with the rest. This Star Trek movie isn't a Star Trek movie. It is JJ's Space Sci Fi action flick using Star Trek characters. The same way any "Cloverfield 2" will be JJ's Godzilla-like big city destroyed by unknown survival movie. The only thing that might change is whether or not he decides to use a gimmick again this time. I know I certainly hoping for a stable camera and a lack of vertigo.
Stevo on Mar 1, 2009
Although off-topic, I agree with #3 regarding Star Trek. Star Trek has always been more along the lines of a game of chess when it comes to action... there's action but it is about who outsmarted whom. I haven't seen the new one yet, obviously, but again #3 is right... for all the world it appears that they've pried the characters from their chess game and put them in a Tony Hawk skateboarding video game.
dRailer on Mar 1, 2009
the first cloverfield didn't have a story......so why would abrams be concerned about it for #2? really, cloverfield SUCKED hard. i was sooooooooo let down by it. the birthday party (at the beginning of the movie) that went NOWHERE - took the first 30 minutes of the "movie". how bogus is that?! JJ, if you do decide on another cloverfield movie.........try putting some effort into the movie. i think there was more commitment to the viral marketing campaign for cloverfield than making a great movie.
dan on Mar 1, 2009
lol well stevo you thought wrong... he did star trek because he wanted to do star trek... and cloverfield wasn't really anything like godzilla besides the fact it was a monster invading a big city
kindbuddy on Mar 1, 2009
#2 has a point. Star Trek was like chess in that the fighting required tactics and first moves. Even at the beginning of First Contact Picard is telling the crew how to attack the Borg Cube and not just fire at will. I have a feeling watching this Star Trek it won't quite be like that. Now, I don't think Abrams went all Deliverance on Star Trek but fans will be slightly disappointed and maybe I'm just nostalgic but I like a pattern. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were the type a films that should have followed Batman Returns and not the cartoonish/outlandish comic type movies that did...I just hate Bale as Batman and I emphasize Batman and not Bruce Wayne. Back to this...I liked Cloverfield. Way too much hype but an enjoyable movie for every now-and-then. I'll definitely see a sequel for some back story or something to explain what happened. It's why I liked Halo so much. I got sucked into the plot more than just shooting stuff. I can shoot stuff in plenty of games.
wassssssuuuuuupppppppp on Mar 1, 2009
Why du peopel bother comenting abotu a movie they hated? It weak u people need to get a a damn life . I only read news about movies I liked or movies based on properities I like . Pathietic people who just wanna bash on things cause they have no lives . Cloverfield is not like Godzilla and this is coming from a die hard Godzilla fan . I Even watched a few Godzilla movies before I saw Cloverfield to get into "monster mode" The opnly simularity is a big monster destroying a city. Which would happen if a monster of that size were to appear anywhere . Godzilla is a monster with a personality , whereas Cloverfield is just destroying things . U dont get any sense of anything with Cloverfield and that is what they wanted to due with that movie . They didnt want u to cheer for Cloverfield like u cheer for Godzilla . In the futur people shoudnt spout off about things they einther dont know anything about or dont give 2 shits about .
Superchyle on Mar 1, 2009
#5. The story goes that He and his son were in Japan at the airport and his son saw a Godzilla doll and asked who it was. JJ realized that his son's generation needed an Americanized Godzilla movie. His words. I am not even going to go into that ridiculous backstory he virally marketed about Japanese Soda Companies awaking the monster with deep sea drilling. If he wanted to make a Star Trek movie, then why didn't he make a Star Trek movie. Aside from basic character outlines, I see nothing in the previews that is reminiscent of any of the Star Trek mythology. He has many many many times said that he is NOT making the Star Trek movie for Star Trek fans. He is making it for the general public. This makes no sense to me. Why, then, did it HAVE to be Star Trek. He took liberties with every thing he could and made HIS OWN version. Even personality-wise I am having difficulty seeing the characters. The only thing that seems to remain is the general 'look' of the character and in doing so, yes, he did find actors that look a lot like younger versions of the original actors. Star Trek isn't lights and flashes and explosions. It isn't space base jumping. Space Base Jumping? Really? I couldn't believe I actually saw that in the trailer. Is he trying to do pod racing?. Star Trek is exploration and discovery with all the danger that accompanies it. In my opinion, JJ should stick with what he is good at; character development. The Greatest thing the guy has done thus far is the amazingly in-depth, unique and realistic characters that are on LOST. I watch the show more for seeing who the characters are and how they cope with their lot than I do for the silly island mystery stuff. Why doesn't he take that ability to the big screen. Leave cheesy monster and scifi films to the people who are good at making explosions.
Stevo on Mar 1, 2009
i rather he works on something new. create a new, original buzz.
Darrin on Mar 1, 2009
stevo "JJ realized that his son's generation needed an Americanized Godzilla movie." No, his exact words were " America need its own monster". I mean I'm w/ you on how his basis was because of Godzilla but like someone said Godzilla had more of an origin where w/ Cloverfield the monster was destroying things.
kindbuddy on Mar 1, 2009
Cloverfield was awesome amounts of fun and I can't wait for a sequel. But what's really interesting is what Abrams says at the end, "here will be something that's connected to Cloverfield". What does "connected" mean? Is he implying that he won't use the same monster? Obviously he can't use the same characters. I just hope he doesn't deviate too much from the story or monster. AND...I hope he keeps the shaky camera technique, it made the film a bit more "realistic"! hahaha. AND...why are there so many Cloverfield haters on this thread? go back to the Transformers 2 threads and bash Michael Bay, we don't want you here.
Matt Suhu on Mar 1, 2009
i loved cloverfield,a great fucking film don't know if cloverfied sequel is a good idea,there's shit loads of godzilla films it hasn't done the greatest monster movie star ever any harm.where he said that fucking shit about not doing it for the money it's going to make , it just because we cared what a load of fresh,steaming bullshit.make it for free then,i don't fucking think so jj.
zetsu on Mar 1, 2009
Cloverfield was like watching 'As The World Turns' crossed with Godzilla. And that ain't a good combo. The acting was terrible and the characters were stupid. One cool scene (the tunnel with the crawlers on the ceiling) does not make a good movie. Pile o crap that doesn't warrent a sequel.
Smiffy1 on Mar 1, 2009
Man number 7 really can't spell can he?
Smiffy1 on Mar 1, 2009
The viral marketing behind the film was incredible at best all the speculation of what the monster was, gave the audience something to think about until the film was released, and there is so much story inside and out that Cloverfield was something to keep watching and wondering about, so go for a sequel and fuck the people who talk shit, make it for you're self, and the fan base that really care for Cloverfield and the mystery behind it!
xerxex on Mar 1, 2009
And smiffy proves my point . Bu tthanks for pointing out my bad typing skills i could careless but ur just another whiny lil baby talking ona baord about a movie they dont like . Get a life.
Superchyle on Mar 1, 2009
i hope that if they make a sequel, it ends when the monster's dead. i'm not much for the good guy wins scenarion, but the first one really had no point to it. i would be very interested to see how the people in Bklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island react to what they've seen on tv at the time of the attack, what they would do, and what happens if Clover invades their turf. that's something i would pay to watch.
LeeMan on Mar 1, 2009
the first one wasnt really the best cinematic film that it couldve bin but let me just say that seeing the first one opening night without even knowing wtf was going on was one of the best movie experiences i've ever had. the excitment and fear in the theater was very evident taht night. if JJ can reproduce that im in.
Pj H on Mar 1, 2009
The first movie sucked hard! I doubt the second will improve.
discojellyfish on Mar 1, 2009
Tthank yuo Superchyle, Yuor right. Spellnig doent mean a thign. On yuor advize i'll go get a liife. You must have an IQ of about 10 to be able to spell thanks with 2 t's. I'll get a life if you get an education. Dumbass.
Smiffy1 on Mar 1, 2009
I liked cloverfield. It would be cool to see a good sequel. I mean come on with all the viral campaign story stuff and the questionable ending you can't tell me that they didn't think some sequel would be in the works. There are even rumors going around that Lost may tie into cloverfield in some way. Wouldn't surprise me with the schizo endless tangent plot of Lost.
JimD on Mar 2, 2009
first #4 has a good point. Cloverfeild really had no story now that i think back on it. Was kind of a waste of film in my opinion. I mean B rate acting, B rate action, Noticeably bad CGI, No story and stomach churning hand cam directing = a pretty shitty movie when it comes down to it. I mean now a days aren't all of those things super key when it comes to the fundamentals of film making? honestly i hope there is no sequel only because i don't see any point behind it. Second people comment on movies they dislike not because there here to bitch but here to place there own opinion's. If you enjoy looking up news about upcoming entertainment (Movies for example) then you're destined to see something that you agree with and something you disagree with. Seeing as how you (SUPERCHYLE) waste your time bashing on people for placing there own thoughts i agree with Smiffy you're a dumb ass and honestly you need to get a life. From your comment you obviously aren't here to talk about the movie your here to talk shit about the people talking about the movie. so maybe IN the FUTURE people SHOULDN'T spout off about people they EITHER DON'T know anything about or DON'T give TWO shits about. and for fucks sakes man its 2009 use spell check already. hail Satan!
DoomCanoe on Mar 2, 2009
hmm.. another shaky cam experience, would be to much of an coincidence. But then again without it it isnt realy cloverfield 2 or is it?
malax on Mar 2, 2009
Im a big fan of Cloverfield but at this point with so many naysayers I don't see the need of a followup. chuck
entertainmenttodayandbeyond.com on Mar 2, 2009
It needs to be placed in a different setting with another monster. Perhaps some kind of water dwelling beast set in Hawaii or some other American island or coastline. That would keep it fresh and allow for a change in characters and tone. No need to keep it in NYC because I don't see what else could be done seeing as the first covered every angle and possible suspenseful scenario.
peloquin on Mar 2, 2009
Everything about Cloverfield was freaking brilliant. So new and different. Not everyone could appreciate it for what it was, and you HAD to understand it was not a "movie". The viral was incredible and as we all know if we followed along, this was the baby. The back story (stories) were well crafted and the fact Slusho still has to be tied in with it's loose ends are a plus. The orginal attack WAS NOT the baby Clover. I hope this new idea will come to pass. Thank you Alex for the info!
Tim 'Cloverfield" on Mar 2, 2009
I for one am excited about this!
The Real Doc Brown on Mar 2, 2009
Cloverfield was good, but hugely disappointing. The film traded in it's monster for a cast of bland actors who couldn't act (especially the cameraman). What's worse is that the film totally failed at it's goals. It wanted to create a new memorable movie monster. If they have any hope of making their monster an icon they've got to work a hell of a lot harder!
SlashBeast on Mar 2, 2009
Your missing the point slash, read what 26 posted. It was simply not a movie. It was a filmed "event" So acting was not an issue. It was the "event" which was well done. Adding the viral to create the rest of the story was genius. 26 is correct. The first attack ( you-tube) was months before this "event" in NY. And the monster was much bigger. I am really looking foward to this. And as a lesson plan, it is beautiful.
D-9 on Mar 2, 2009
I really enjoyed the unique concept of Cloverfield and would like to see them do a another movie of this. Maybe a different first person story with the same events?
Craigc on Mar 2, 2009
The hope tap just dropped some info.
Fisherr on Mar 2, 2009
well i loved Cloverfield and being a monster movie fan myself i found it to be one of the better flicks of it's genre we've EVER seen come out of the USA. honestly. Gojira knock-off or not the idea of a giant monster attack modern day man is pretty much universal and NOT restricted to one franchise. bottom line: Cloverfield=kick-ass Cloverfield 2=crossed fingers
Nick S. on Mar 2, 2009
I finally got over my obsession. I would spend 4-6 hours a day on this.......and now its back. I almost jumped out my skin. I'm going to go watch the special edition on repeat now. ::Squeal::
Jaybear on Mar 2, 2009
I can sum up my opinion about the concept of a Cloverfield sequel fairly quickly.. Blair Witch crossed with the hollywood version of Godzilla doesn't make for much chance of a followup. If you want the idea to succeed, build up a huge viral campaign and never release the movie. Now THAT would be interesting.
tinman on Mar 2, 2009
@ 30 Acting doesn't matter? If the actors can't convince me that they truly are in peril then why should I care for them? I'll agree that the event was well filmed. However, the movie achieved nowhere near the iconic status it sought after and the monster could have been used far better.
SlashBeast on Mar 4, 2009
SlashBeast, did you just 'agree that the event was well filmed?' there was soooo much motion that i felt i was trapped in a room w/ people who were about to throw up on me, and i swear i think the guy 5 rows in front of me could feel some of my puke hit his shoulder. IT WAS THE WORST FILMING IN THIS WHOLE DAMN UNIVERSE. now don't get me wrong it was a badass movie, but i could have enjoyed the whole 'cloverzilla experience' better w/o covering everyone in bellyshit. i look forward to C2, but pray to GOD they don't strap a camera on the back of a pony that just smoked 60 pounds of crack and running for it's dear life.
danoSNAKE on Mar 16, 2009
@ 37 Unlike most people, I didn't mind the shaky camera and it didn't make me feel the least bit nauseous. Although I do understand why some people did not like it. However, I felt that the filming was not the film's undoing, just the execution of the story. Maybe Cloverfield 2 can do better.
SlashBeast on Mar 19, 2009
There's got to be the sequel, i really want to know what happen to new york city and the last survivor (Rob and Beth) happening.
DeViLnoAnGeL InFo on Mar 23, 2009
I really wonder if it's all the chemicals in everything we eat and drink or is it evidence that the majority of people aren't as intelligent as they think they are. The amount of people who talk about the shaky cam, or storyline, and never finding out what the monster was or where it came from are missing the entire point of the movie. This wasn't a flick about the monster. (Do you not remember how the movie started??) This was supposedly a video recording from some people who originally were recording a going away party but turned into a video documenting them trying to get thru the night when this massive creature appears ( for all they know) out of nowhere and starts tearing up the city. This was a video excavated out of the rubble and seized by the D.O.D. I mean in the age of utube it's hard to understand how people talk the trash they do about when if this were a real life video leaked to the internet after the event or just posted by a survivor after the event it would hold the worlds record for the most views and downloads. I think the scene that really emphasises that fact is when all the people are out in the middle of the street taking pictures with their cell phones. I've seen a dozen phones and camcorders pop out to catch some shot of a hottie in a short skirt and You couldn't understand how many people would be doing the same if a 200 foot creature showed up and started destroying the city.
Genaugmen on May 1, 2009
I agree with #40 and most of #27. It might be difficult to watch because of the shaky filming, but the whole point of it wasn't that it was a 'monster movie' but an accidental documentary of the events which had to 'go with the flow' as the characters ran for their lives. As for the 'bad acting and CGI', well. The CGI was pretty good; you KNEW what was going on, and the quality of what you saw was never going to be great because it was supposedly filmed on a standard camera. And the sequel? Well JJ Abrams said that it would be something connected to the original piece of film, and the only popular theory which he has not publicly discarded is the idea that it would be shot in the same time frame as the original. When the characters are on the bridge, shortly before Jason Hawkins dies, Hud is filming the other people walking with them. In this shot, you briefly catch a glance of another person also filming the scene; you briefly lock lenses with the other camera before the story catches up with you. It's probably a coincidence, but that's the 'connection' between the two film's that Abrams mentioned? Maybe we have alredy had a brief glance at the characters that could be in the sequel? I think that maybe this new one should start sort of half way through the last one, and describe what happens after the original tape cuts off... Just a though. 🙂
SigPen on Aug 6, 2009
I thought I would mention why Cloverfield was such an awesome movie. First, it had no story or plot. A monster running around new york destroying the city. yeah, that's original. Second, there is a 150 foot monster hanging off of a building and this idiot has the camera on his friends standing next to him. yep, good work JJ.
M-Cat on Oct 15, 2009
Wow you guys do nothing but bash he is right you need lives to even spend the time reading all the commets like that and if you dont like the movie say what is wrong with iut and move on half your posters have been here since the first post pathetic (and i read it cuz i have no life haha atleast i admit it) aside that fact i loved the movie and most people who didnt dont like the camera angle well that is your op-ions there is no need to bash same with the ppl bashing the people bashing the film just give your opinion in a good criticized minor and leave. This film was awsome and it has a plot and story behind it the whole thing was for the watcher to actually pay attention look for the details and you see... ther eis two monsters one is a baby another a mother/father reason the monsters awken is supposibly because of some oil drilling in an underwater type envoriment that awkens there slumber which pisses the monsters off must be... all in all there is a plot and makes you think it was a great thriller and cant wait for a sequel
jjj on Nov 12, 2010
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.