ShockTillYouDrop.com

Posted by: JonDAbomb on April 17, 2008 at 12:51:02

i think that each movie should be diffrent and have a new cast. the next one is gonna rock!!!

Posted by: Melvin on April 17, 2008 at 13:08:40

Cloverfield sucked ass. Big time. I hope they don't go through with a sequel.

Posted by: Mike V. on April 17, 2008 at 13:27:26

would be awesome to have him back..but maybe a new point of what happen with new actors would be cool to~

Posted by: ray daniels on April 17, 2008 at 13:31:21

yeah really. cloverfield was such a disappointment. George Romero made a better film and his has no giant cg monster or special effects (with the exception of cg blood)

Posted by: shep on April 17, 2008 at 13:33:29

cloverfield was very good, I didnt find one thing wrong with it

Posted by: This Is My Username on April 17, 2008 at 13:37:22

Okay movie, at best. Not deserving of a sequel.

Posted by: Garrett on April 17, 2008 at 13:37:48

You're right. There was nothing wrong with the movie Cloverfield. Other then the fact that over half the people that saw it in the theatre blew chunks. I mean everyone in that movie got motion sickness. It was awful.

Posted by: D on April 17, 2008 at 13:38:44

A bitter guy named Melvin....Awesome...just like Cloverfield.

Posted by: Scarehuman on April 17, 2008 at 13:56:14

I dunno, Cloverfield hit the spot with me in a way that most movies don't anymore. I loved it, but I think it needs to be a stand-alone. Yeah, it was a big, high action monster movie, but more importantly it was a social commentary on how we respond to tragedy and whether we rise or not to overwhelming odds, while referencing the YouTube generation compulsion for documenting everything. It did its job, and I think the people who bash it are unable to see it for what it was, and that the monster was a prop to tell the meaningful story, not the real centerpiece. In that regard, I think a sequel would be superfluous because the theme was neatly addressed and message delivered by the end credits. Unless they have something particularly new and interesting to say, they should refrain.

Posted by: Blue on April 17, 2008 at 13:58:30

Different Cast.
Same Monster.

The same monster? for every sequel.
"look, the monster. again." = waste of moviegoer money.

Posted by: TPJR on April 17, 2008 at 14:11:38

If you didn't like Cloverfield, you probably didn't get it, or weren't smart enough to understand why it was filmed the way it was...

If they do another, it should be POV again, but through some other eyewitness' camera. Maybe a news crew to cut down on the shakiness for all those weak-stomach crybabies that got motion sickness. Cloverfield was awesome, don't listen to anyone who says otherwise.

Posted by: andrew on April 17, 2008 at 14:14:13

how can you say this movie wasnt good, and doesnt deserve a sequel. "look, the monster. again." yeah we dont know anything about the monster which would be a great sequel. they could ditch the whole behind the camera and focus on a real movie with it traveling to another city and the military trying to destroy it. or have another perspective the the new york event, with another persons camera. this movie was amazing

Posted by: andrew on April 17, 2008 at 14:17:46

i got an idea, do a trilogy. with part one done, have the sequel another point of view, then the last movie just the whole world working together and trying to kill the thing LOL and the surprise is that there is another one of those things only bigger lol. i say this in reference to the theory that the monster in the first movie was a baby and it was going on a rampage looking for its mother. lol. sounds crazy but this movie has alot of possibilities when it comes to a sequel

Posted by: Michael on April 17, 2008 at 14:21:08

Scarehuman, that was probably the most intelligent thing I've read on these message boards in a long time.

Posted by: *SIGH*.... Kal :P on April 17, 2008 at 15:16:22

What people (sadly still) aren't getting is that Cloverfield is trying to break into a new "universe" Much like the marvel and DC comics universes. What a lot of people don't realize... Sequels have already been made. In the form of speculation, imagination, and even 3 Manga's, released in japanese, which i can't read but are still awesome none the less. There are many, many possibilities for this to become much more than one monster. Sure a different group of people, in the same NYC "attack" looks like the sequel at this point. But why not? This movie was about a group of people and there story from that night, shot with there home-video camera. If you didn't know that before you saw this movie, then you really shouldn't have gone to see it. Other sequels are still possible... This could be the baby, seperated from it's mother, and is just scared and looking for her, my hope at least. The manga's have (a) Clovie in Japan, but looks much bigger, and a little different shaped too. If you don't like 1st person-shot movies, don't go. Don't go into see this movie not knowing anything about the universe itself and judge it because "it made everyone sick" or "it doesn't explain anything" It was just another part of the universe. Imagine seeing Spiderman 2 1/2 way into it, and NEVER hearing about anything to deal with Marvel (let alone spiderman) beforehand. You'd probably hate it as well. Don't judge and criticize an amazing movie if you're too lazy or ignorant to comprehendthat something else might be going on.

Posted by: Davey on April 17, 2008 at 15:40:30

Im tired of people complaining about motion sickness. The theatre warned people before seeing Cloverfield. That's probably the only reason people are saying it sucked. This movie was sick and its better than the other bull**** hollywood is putting out there.

Props to Scarehuman, great post

Posted by: doublej on April 17, 2008 at 15:41:04

im still dizzy from that movie...........................
to much going oon, for that type of movie

Posted by: jknabe on April 17, 2008 at 15:50:57

Man I loved the movie,that was the first movie in awile that actually had me on the edge of my seat thru most of it.I never got sick during that movie,the motion sickness did not even get to me at all.The movie was intense in my opinion and I loved it.I don't care how they do the second one,I just want to see it.Hell,I wanted more when I left the movie.I figured that there would be a sequel,cause the first was a tape that apparently the government had picked up.Bring on Cloverfeild 2.

Posted by: TR on April 17, 2008 at 16:17:20

Hey Blue

On the comment

Same Monster = waste of movie goer money

This is how hollywood thinks

Example

People stuck in torture traps Every Halloween (Saw) = Crap

Crap = Movie goers

Movie goers = Money

So the moral of the story if you continue to make crap movie goers will continue to watch

Posted by: Shane on April 17, 2008 at 16:42:57

TR, everyone knows Hollywood only cares about money stop beating an already dead horse. Also, I personally enjoy the SAW franchise and the only one I found to be less than spectacular was part 2.

Posted by: Ed on April 17, 2008 at 18:12:45

Are they seriously going ahead with that lamebrain idea of another camera taping on the same night?

Posted by: Chris on April 17, 2008 at 18:33:35

If you cynical *******s have all the answers to "crap" films, why are you not making better movies?

Posted by: Fox Mulder on April 17, 2008 at 18:37:52

I seriously don't want another video camera movie. I want something that is new and original, because that was how Cloverfield was (Even if it wasn't the first to use such a technique).

Posted by: larry sellers on April 17, 2008 at 18:47:42

The "Why don't YOU make a better movie, then?" argument is a tired one. Telling someone to do a better job than whatever is being criticized is an easy way out of any real discussion. It's pretty much on the same level as name-calling.

Regarding, the topic, though. I'd be pretty disappointed if they went the standard monster movie route with the next one. I thought one of the more attractive aspects of the first was that it WASN'T an average monster flick. In interviews with Reeves he's said he's interested in doing it from another group's perspective. It'd be cool if the next characters are the exact opposite of Rob. Cowardly, unwilling to sacrifice. There'd have to be at least one morally upright character I guess. That or they could do something entirely different from the first yet also different from anything else in the genre.

Posted by: The Ghostly Creeper on April 17, 2008 at 19:14:33

I wanna see the same night, but from the view point of a Special Operations Team member's helmet-cam. The team (or what's left of it after a bunch of run-ins with the monster and it's spider buddies) comes across Rob (alive or dead) and retrieves his camera. This would boost action, which I know SOME people didn't think there was enough of, and would give the audience a little more insight into what the monster actually is (Someone in the military has to know SOMETHING).